User talk:Blackworm

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

RS
Deep apologies if I sounded perhaps just a little teacherly--I was explaining for benefit of others. DGG 05:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all! I just felt I needed to respond since you asked "...if you like." Blackworm 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricumcision
You may help make the Topic neutral, but at great cost of time. You may then go on to other topics and interests, but return to find agreed improvements have been deleted. I won most of the same arguments you recently presented, fixed the text, went on to other works, and came back to find all the work here reverted or worse.

Jakew and Avi have strong personal reasons to devote extreme efforts to bias the Topic. [the preceding comment was unsigned -BW]
 * I know Avi has strong personal feelings about this topic but he does work hard at being balanced and assumes good faith WP:AGF in all his edits. Jtpaladin 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the "Policies of various natl. med. assoc." section was originally introduced by Jakew who wanted to highlight one sentence: Canada
 * The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted Circumcision: Information for Parents in November of 2004,[154] and Neonatal circumcision revisited statements in 1996, undergoing revision as of 2004 in which, due to the evenly balanced reasons pro and con, they do not recommend routine circumcision.[155]

Totally lost is the fact that the 1996 statement has not been revised, and the 2004 statement to parents says:
 * Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor. After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

May I suggest that you replace the Sandbox version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision%5Csandbox with the current dishonest (in several specific respects) version. Call on other editors to review the current POV version and also potentially install the Sandbox version.TipPt 18:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The actual phrase the CPS uses in the source is "benefits and harms," not "reasons pro and con." The former introduces into the article the idea, absent at the moment, that circumcision has "harms" and so I leave it to you to determine why it was rephrased.  Regardless, your attitude on the talk page is not helpful to your position.  If there's one thing I learned in my short time here, it's that being "right" doesn't matter on Wikipedia.  Having good sources and paraphrasing them correctly and accurately doesn't matter on Wikipedia.  Having three editors and two admins who share your point of view and who boldly revert any edits contrary to your point of view is what's necessary and important.  Then your point of view becomes THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, in the most fundamental meaning of the phrase our society has.  If you Google "circumcision," the first link is to the Wikipedia article.  Who controls this article controls the truth about circumcision, period.  I am sure this is a fact not lost on those who currently own the article.  If you really care, start talking sense and being civil on the talk page -- as it is your presence only serves to disrupt discussion and give your opponents an excuse to deride, harass, and abuse all who may agree with you.  I realize you've been doing this for a long time; maybe it's time for a break.  (And by the way, it's spelled "cabal," not "cabel."  If you're going to make that accusation at least spell it right.)  Blackworm 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, please check out the latest proposed change for the AAP's position on circumcision in the Talk page. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Best Regards. Jtpaladin 22:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on cervical cancer section
Thank you for your comments on my proposed addition to the Male Circumcision article. As you will see from the discussion page, I disagree with your remarks about the worth of my addition. However, I'm too much of a Noob to reinstate my addition. Please consider my reply and think about producing a version that is better written and sourced. I do think that the cervical cancer issue should be included (especially since it Male Circumcision is included in the article on Cervical Cancer), even if it is only to rebutt the claim.SimonHolzman 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Simon. I have commented on the Talk page. There are several other open issues on that article which I would like to see closed before tackling this subject, but as I said on the Talk page, I suspect this issue will take precedence over those because of its nature. Blackworm 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

 * You are quite right - letters to the editor in a peer-reviewed journal are not themselves peer-reviewed and should not be presented as such. I'm not sure what has been breached in this case, but the result is certainly unencyclopaedic. PalestineRemembered 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no one claimed the letters were peer-reviewed per se, but several editors (including two administrators active on the page) claimed that the mere fact of publication in a peer-reviewed journal (in this case, Pediatrics) gave weight to the comments contained in the letters. One of the administrators said that it was "not a credible line of argument" and urged me to abandon it. I disagreed, and posted regarding the debate on the Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. Everyone or almost everyone there agreed with me. Regardless, because of the nature of the circumcision article, the disputed claims are still in the article.

One of the editors of the article, Jakew, writes letters to online journals criticizing any negative view of circumcision. Then, when the online journal publishes his letter, it is cited in the circumcision article as a reliable source. This kind of manipulation of the truth is disconcerting to me, but supported by the people controlling the circumcision article, which include at least two Wikipedia administrators. Blackworm 01:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? Does he really do that? How do you know that to be true? Also, are you open to chatting by email on various Wiki articles? I can post my email if so. Please let me know. Jtpaladin 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. Check this reference in the article: ''Waskett, Jake H. (June 20, 2005). Apocrine glands in inner prepuce doubtful. Electronic letters. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Retrieved on 2006-07-09.'' I am open to chatting by email, but I have to say I don't really see the advantage over the talk pages. The talk pages have the extra advantage of allowing third parties to contribute. Are there advantages to email that I am overlooking? Blackworm 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a bit of strategizing that couldn't be done on the Talk pages. I'll post my email if you are OK with doing some strategizing and seeing where we can work together on various articles. Jtpaladin 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am wary of what seems like backroom strategizing, mainly because the tag-teaming circumcision advocates who own the circumcision article engage in it. I also wish to remain semi-anonymous, because public, voiced opposition to circumcision can have dire consequences in one's real life. It invites ridicule, derision, accusations of bigotry, and even threats. I'd rather keep contributing in the manner I've been doing for the time being. Should this change, I'll contact you directly. Thanks though, and sorry. Blackworm 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as long as you keep contributing, Blackworm. Censorship must not be allowed to triumph.

Edwardsville 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox page --flag edit
Hi, I posted this on the MJF talk page a earlier today, but thought you might not get back there so I thought I would C&P my reply here as well. . .(feel free to delete at anytime)
 * "Not really a problem, and thanks for leaving a note. Sometimes the flag icon can cause problems, but as I stated before, one flag, the current flag, of Canada is fine (with me at least). Sometimes other flags have been added (province flag, older Canadian flag (in use at time of birth)) resulting in "flag bloat". At least one time a flag has been added on this page, resulting in the (I'm assuming here) inadvertent removal of actual information. This problem is not restricted to just this page either as this archived discussion indicates." R. Baley 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message at Talk:Circumcision
You said "Jayjg: Please refrain from violating Wikipedia policy and making personal attacks. Please review the policy and understand that you need to address the content, not the editor.   Your position as an administrator makes this call all the more relevant.  Your repeated, constant personal attacks and pro-circumcision zealotry are now reaching dangerous proportions.  Please cease and desist.  Blackworm 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)"

Re the first, second, third and last sentence: Well done. This sort of reminder of the policies is needed more often. Re the fourth sentence: I'd suggest striking it out. --Coppertwig 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny, because I was considering doing just that. Your message convinced me that it's the right choice.  Thanks.  Blackworm 07:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for considering my suggestion with an open mind! Actually, I've been thinking I should have suggested deleting rather than striking out.  I think Wikipedia policies are not clear on which is better, and that if the other person has not yet replied, then deleting may be better, while if they reply and their reply would not be in context if the earlier comment were modified, then striking out may be better.  Deleting might be criticized.  I'm not sure if it makes much difference, anyway.  You're showing an ability to take back some of your words, which is the sort of detachment and fairness which Wikipedia needs more of.  --Coppertwig 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments. I don't like the idea of deleting volatile comments.  I prefer to avoid claims of dishonesty, and show others that mistakes are made and can be corrected.  Ultimately, though, I've pretty much lost faith that pointing out policy to certain people accomplishes anything.  Jayjg is a Wikipedia administrator, has been for several years, and knows Wikipedia policy verbatim -- freely and frequently giving stern warnings to others.  He just does not believe Wikipedia policy applies to himself, and has essentially said as much.  One more warning from me not to make personal attacks is not going to change his modus operandi. Blackworm 21:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re this edit at Talk:Circumcision:  Please talk about article content, not about editors, and remember the "keep a cool head" message at the top of the page.  Please also help other editors keep a cool head by avoiding saying things about other editors.  Please avoid saying things like "the pro-circumcision authors" or "authors controlling this article".  Instead, talk in positive terms about what the article should say and what fair processes should be used to decide what it says.  Please avoid saying the opposite of what you mean, as in "Fork away all that nasty "medical" stuff -- except how great circumcision is for AIDS, of course;";  it is confusing, requiring more time to read and understand your message, and tends to generate negative emotions in the reader.  Please write another message, making the same good points about article content, but not framing them within comments about editors. --Coppertwig 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Re your comment above: If someone continues to break rules after receiving repeated warnings, there are ways to influence them such as asking to have them blocked from editing.  Even if giving them the warnings does not influence them, a record that they have been warned can influence those deciding whether to block them.  For that and other reasons (not least of which is that a person might at any moment start actually listening to the warnings) I believe it's useful to give people warnings.  I believe your comment above violates WP:NPA.  Please do not put comments like that on your talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia (except as part of accepted procedures, e.g. asking to have someone blocked, etc.)  --Coppertwig 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig, I respect you and what you are trying to accomplish. Out of respect for you, I will tone down the cynical talk.  I'm sorry if I made your task more difficult.  I hope you do better in trying to restore a little balance in that article. I'd go further in suggesting approaches, but taking a good-faith approach seems futile to me at the moment.  Another reason I should simply say what I had to say and leave for a while. Blackworm 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please don't leave Blackworm. What you are doing is so very important. The truth needs to get out there. Don't get discouraged!

Edwardsville 12:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, you might not have noticed this part of a message from me at Talk:Circumcision where I asked you to clarify a comment you had made about a POV-fork. Your clarification would be appreciated.  "...Blackworm, it's not clear to me what proposed action exactly you would consider to be a POV-fork. How do you (and others) feel about this particular proposal? If you consider it a POV-fork, please explain exactly why." (In the section "Article too long?".)


 * Thanks for your kind words. Here, have a nice cup of tea. --Coppertwig 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently I received the cup of tea too late. I did miss your message at Talk:Circ; thank you for posting again.  I will try to respond by tomorrow.  Blackworm 03:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help! Urgent before it's too late
Please help me contribute to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_Americans Add what you know, help formatting, make as many as possible please. This user Mad Jack (User:Jack O'Lantern)is deleting most of our adds, thinking he knows better, he's still 20. Acadian-Cajun-Louisiana love, let's help each other. Thank a lot, your help is much appreciated. -Gus Abdelkweli 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Edits such as this one do not help anyone in attempting to advance the project. Please review wiki's policies on civility, personal attacks, and etiquette in order that you may continue to gainfully contribute to the encyclopædia. Thank you. -- Avi 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clear to anyone following the discussion on Talk:Circumcision and its associated article that attempts to discuss the content of the article in a civil manner are pointless. A group of four or five vehemently pro-circumcision editors, including administrators, of which I include you, Avi, just endlessly confirm or deny the legitimacy of any content added or removed from the article based on whether it enhances or detracts from a pro-circumcision point of view, making no valid arguments.  You routinely take turns reverting in order to avoid 3RR.  When you have no valid reason to revert, you claim a lack of "consensus," which really simply means that the four or five pro-circumcision editors are opposed to the change.  No attempt is made to objectively look at sources, to summarize in a balanced manner, or to present an opposing point of view (other than to detract it by making it appear limited, or a minority opinion).  Thus, anyone outside your group attempting to edit the page becomes irate, exposes the fraud, and thus becomes subject to administrative threats like yours above.  I've seen this cycle at least once before with another editor.  I will possibly be reprimanded just like the others, and your power and control over the article (and thus the truth) will continue.  As a group, you use the rules when you see fit and ignore them when you see fit.  It has to stop.  Blackworm 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one interpretation, Blackworm. But browsing through a few of your contributions, I found the following... Jakew 13:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In first comment at Talk:, you propose describing circumcision in the article as an "invasive mutilation procedure."
 * "The massive campaign to find a reason to cut up men's penises in still running in full force since the time in the late 1800's when circumcision was billed as the answer to masturbation. We were fooled then, and are being fooled now."
 * "...the entire article, presenting circumcision as a normal, legitimate procedure violates WP:SOAP."
 * "The definition of "forced circumcision" is not given, and since it could be argued that neonatal circumcision is "forced circumcision," the fact that forced circumcision is relegated to its tiny corner omitting mentioning mention of neonatal circumcision seems to be POV-pushing. In essence, by omitting neonatal circumcision from "forced circumcision," Wikipedia is claiming that neonatal circumcisions are not forced upon the infant."
 * "Anti-circumcision is not a fringe, nor is it anti-Semitic. It is simply a disagreement with the idea that one should cut a healthy baby boy's penis up into a bloody mess, causing him immediate and future pain, and diminished sexual pleasure later in life. Show the average person a video of circumcision and they will be appalled and disgusted enough to oppose it (which is why a video of circumcision will never be allowed in this article)."
 * "Statements about circumcision which are freed from the stigma of offending those who circumcise for religious reasons, are the most fair, balanced, and in a medical context, accurate statements."
 * As Jake took the time to point out, your comments have been, in the main, more vehement, more divisive, and more inflammatory than those of who you have a philosophical disagreement. Please, if you would like to continue contributing gainfully to the project, endeavor to do so ina spirit of coridality and respect. The project cannot function otherwise, and that is the reason we have enforceable rules to help maintain a smoothly running system. Thank you. -- Avi 15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, Jakew is another member of your group, and here he is tag-teaming with Avi, probably due to a request by Avi. I will not pull out quotes showing where I am accused by an administrator of anti-Semitism because I oppose elective circumcision.  I will not pull out quotes of the multiple personal attacks of which I have been a victim.  I will not pull out quotes of the illogical, rambling arguments which inevitably boil down to "you have no consensus" (read: "we simply don't like it") after all attempts to logically argue your points fail.  There is no atmosphere of respect, Avi, it's an atmosphere of arrogant abuse of power, and contempt for anyone with a different point of view (with administrators calling editors "anti-circumcision zealots" and implying anti-Semitism).  How can I not be in complete contempt of that environment, especially when comments like that are met with deafening silence from the likes of you?  You say you hate incivility and personal attacks, but when a member of your group does it, you look the other way.  Everything you do, everything you say to an editor, your reactions to the editor, your attitude toward an editor, revolve around that editor's will to preserve all pro-circumcision information and remove all anti-circumcision information.  You do not encourage cordiality and respect when you simply ignore any point anyone else makes and insist on your way (and get it) in every single discussion, right or wrong.  If those are the best quotes you can muster up to point out incivility, I suggest you try again.  The last three points especially, I stand behind 100%.  If you can't detach yourself from the subject enough to look at it objectively, that's your problem.  In the past, I've backed off, I've apologized when discussed grew too heated, I've marked discussions as "resolved" where I could not make my point in a valid way, I've conceded arguments.  I have never seen any single one of you do any of that.  You have no reason to be apologetic for personal attacks, to recognize any of your policy violations much less admit them or apologize for them, or to allow any material you do not like into the article, because you have 100% control over it, with Wikipedia administrator support.  Any oligarchy is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and your attacking me on my talk page after my accurate description of the fraud you have been carrying out for months and years on the circumcision page is simply an attempt to obfuscate the fact that YOU,, NOT ME are in violation of Wikipedia policy.  Notify the other members of the group (do you guys have an e-mail list?  that would make it easy), have them comment here too, that would make the circle complete.


 * It's much easier to get rid of me by attacking me on my talk page, than to deal with the fact that I understand what you're doing and am intelligent enough to describe the exact mechanism you employ to maintain full editorial control over a Wikipedia article. If you disagree with my assessment, then prove it to me.  Show me where any of you have removed any pro-circumcision information because the source was invalid.  You simply do not do it.  You do not seem interested in the quality of the article.   If I had to guess, your group seems most interested in hanging around calling people "anti-circumcision zealots" and anti-Semitic and removing any potential threats to your control of the article before they can grow in numbers enough to form a viable threat to your monopoly on information. Blackworm 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've struck out "NOT ME" above because clearly I am in violation of it by not continuing the charade. I didn't want to say anything further on this since I thought my point had been made, and also out of respect for Coppertwig who has taken an interest in attempting what I attempted months ago -- a civil and productive discussion and compromise.  I've said what needed to be said and what has been said by others.  Change your ways.  Be fair.  Apply policy despite editorial content or personal views.  You have taught me these rules.  When I see you ignore them, I can only be dumbfounded and I can only hold you in contempt.  Blackworm 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, your diatribe exposes you. Improper accusations, lack of good faith, and paranoic ramblings, in my perhaps limited experience, are usually the responses of people whose arguments lack the strength of validity or consensus. It is rather shameful on your part, sorry to say, to accuse people of "tag-teaming". Nowhere do you find myself accusing you, TipPt, Nokilli, Edwardville, and other like-minded people of "tag-teaming." Perhaps my assumption of good faith on your part was misfounded; your above editorial seems to make that so. Consensus and or NPOV, unlike a common miscopnception, does not require brainless lobotomiozed responses to every suggestion; rather, it requires discourse. Unfortunately, it seems that your response to civil discussion is to pull out the same cabal-based arguments that is the fodder of many groups of editors who find themselves in the minority. "Of course there is a concerted effort to defy me," the logic goes, "I'M RIGHT, THEY must be involved in a conspiracy." Then, and this I find bizzare, you are bringing in the spectre of anti-Semitism. Is this Godwin's law revised? Were you accused of anti-semitism? Please point it out to me. However, in light of a lack of evidence, it appears your attempt to poison the well and derail the matter of personal attacks and ad hominem statements was somewhat distasteful, to say the least. I think, and perhaps I am biased, that the Circumcision page has bent over backwards to ensure that every statement is sourced, and that it can be read in such a way as to not demonstrate a skew towards either direction. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a vehicle for influence, and when people attempt to use it as such, it needs to be defended vehemently, or the project will lose all credibility. Yes, I know that is what you are claiming happens now, but I am relatively comfortable in the knowledge that people without a specific "axe to grind" or a specific aim to push disagree with you. Further, your very own words above now demonstrate, at least to me, the difficulty you seem to have with the concept of the true definition of neutral point of view, combined with a distinct lack of respect for your fellow editors. I am unfortunately forced to remind you, together with myself and every other editor in the project, that personal attacks, incivility, and lack of the assumption of good faith in the absence of contravening evidence are impediments to the project, and such impediments can be prevented to protect the project as a whole. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but the method you choose to express it and the crusade that I am afraid you are choosing to embark upon (and I hope that I am mistaken) will only end badly for all involved, and will not help the project or any one of its articles. Thank you, and I hope that we can continue to engage in communication and dialogue that is both mutually beneficial, and beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. -- Avi 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but no. You are repeating the same accusations about me that I have made toward you.  At least I have the nerve to talk openly about the situation.  Your sad refusal to recognize that your "civil discussion" is nothing more than intimidation, illogic, and disrespect disguised as civility does not surprise me.  As for evidence of the accusation of anti-Semitism, I will reproduce it here:


 * As a disinterested reader, it seems to me that there is FAR too much misinformation from the anti-circumcision fringe. It comes off as anti-Semitism and as immature ranting. --Charlene 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [ My longish response deleted. ]


 * You make Charlene's point perfectly. Jayjg (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may read the full text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision/Archive_29 -- if you can find anything anti-Semitic about my response, please point it out to me. Otherwise, accept that when someone is falsely accused of anti-Semitism by a Wikipedia administrator (in this case Jayjg), it is a violation of Wikipedia policy, creating an environment where civil discourse has stopped.  Once that line has been crossed, and with your (and Jakew's) repeated, tacit support for the position of the administrator who has come to your side in countless "discussions," indicate to me that all pretense of assumptions of good faith are out the window.  The above is only one example; there are others.  Your supposedly rescinding your assumption of good faith toward me is no different from me rescinding mine toward you, and for the same reasons.  It only requires us to dig a little deeper, in the archives, the diffs, the histories, and the user pages (in the case of Jakew), to see why the assumption isn't merited.  I chose to explicitly rescind my assumption of good faith, as a sign of my disdain for the two-faced, passive aggressive, one-sided, and Wikipedia policy-violating style with which you and your like-minded friends administer the circumcision article.  Others have done the same.  I repeat to you my final advice: Change your ways.  Be fair.  Apply policy despite editorial content or personal views.  You have taught me these rules.  When I see you ignore them, I can only be dumbfounded and I can only hold you in contempt. Blackworm 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are doing great Blackworm. Don't let yourself be bullied into silence by would-be censors. The truth needs to get out there. Please keep up your work on the article.

Edwardsville 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you review WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. In particular, note that WP:NPA states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jakew 10:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "I notice Jakew has not argued my point about this directly -- he has done exactly what I said he would. Obfuscate, deny, stall, "discuss.""
 * Yes Jake. Now tell me, why don't you scold Avi for saying, "Sadly, your diatribe exposes you"?  Is it because you agree with him?  Why don't you scold Jayjg for implying I'm anti-Semitic?  Is it because you agree with him?  Is it because you see his administrative power as protecting your admitted quest to rid the circumcision article of any anti-circumcision POV?  You are a hypocrite.  Blackworm 01:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sadly, your diatribe exposes you…" was a response to statements including:
 * "…arrogant abuses of power…"
 * "Everything you do, everything you say to an editor, your reactions to the editor, your attitude toward an editor, revolve around that editor's will to preserve all pro-circumcision information and remove all anti-circumcision information."
 * "If I had to guess, your group seems most interested in hanging around calling people "anti-circumcision zealots" and anti-Semitic and removing any potential threats to your control of the article before they can grow in numbers enough to form a viable threat to your monopoly on information."
 * "When I see you ignore them, I can only be dumbfounded and I can only hold you in contempt."
 * Alas. -- Avi 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, as an aside, I believe it was I who found the Van Howe, Svoboda et al citation. I've stopped recently, but there was a time I went through every citation in the article, bot pro and con, checked it, ffound original sources when I could, and updated the templates. Your presence in this article is somewhat recent, so I understand how you could mistakenly believe that my edits are purely one way or the other. -- Avi 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only seen you add pro-circumcision material and remove anti-circumcision material. Why don't you want to discuss your friend Jayjg's statements about me, Avi? Why do you ask for evidence that I was accused of anti-Semitism, ruminate at length about how awful it is that I would bring something like that up without evidence, then, when I present the evidence, change the subject? Why do you remain silent when Jayjg makes personal attacks? Have you posted to Jayjg's talk page encouraging him not to make libelous personal attacks? Do you support Jakew's writing letters to journals criticizing medical studies that he sees as casting circumcision in a negative light, and then having the letters referenced in our encyclopedia? Try answering some of the hard questions for a change. Blackworm 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses: These, and similar, questions HAVE been discussed over the past 18 months or so, thats why we have talk archives. -- Avi 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Read the article history.
 * 2) "my friend" Jayjg? I'm curious, why do you feel that we are "friends"? Of course, you would not be stereotyping, so I'm somewhat at a loss for your decision as to the relative level of gregariousness that we share.
 * 3) I will look into the claim you have posted re: Anti-semitism.
 * 4) I could post on Jay's page. There are plenty others who do already [[image:smile.png]]. Where is the libelous accusation, by-the-by?
 * 5) Support or not is a moot point. Information that is published in peer reviewed journals is usually considered a valid source for wikipedia. Jake is not engaging in original research but is quoting a reliable source. If Van Howe turns out to be a wikipedian who has edited on this page, are we going to remove all of his papers? That is rediculous. If you get yourself published in a peer-reviewed journal such as "The Lancet" etc. then that letter will be a valid addition to wikipedia. Good Luck, and send me the link/article when you're published.

Anti-semitism claim
In my initial understanding of Charlene's comments, she was not referring to any one editor in particular, but that she felt that the virulence and misrepresentation that she percieves coming from the "anti-circumcision" group may have its basis in anti-Semitism She was not referring directly to you, especially if you notice that her comments were aimed at Tip (and his ubiquitous mention of the "religious cabal").

I understand Jay's comments to be referring to "immature ranting." You YOURSELF understood Charlene's point as such, and I quote (emphasis added is my own):

So, I do not believe Jay had in mind to call you an anti-semite. -- Avi 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If he was only referring to "immature ranting," he would have been sensible and sensitive enough to specifically say so. Charlene's "point" was about immature ranting and anti-Semitism.  You have no reason to assume what Jayjg "had in mind" unless you are not impartial.  Which you aren't.  As I said.  And by the way, there's nothing in that paragraph which is immature, or "whining."  "Whining" is an abusive term  people use when they cannot argue points on their merits.  It is an accusation which the bruised and vocal cannot defend against without seemingly making the accuser's point -- since the accused is already in suspicion of "whining," any defense is seen as confirmation of a frivolous and pathetic complaint by the weak minded.  To have an administrator support, rather than condemn, an unfounded accusation of anti-Semitism against another editor (whoever it may be) is a vile breach of decorum, not to mention a direct violation of Wikipedia policy.  A violation that not one of the three administrators on the page condemned, because it was directed at editors you believe have a POV with which you disagree.  I strongly suspect that the passion that motivated all of you to "fix" the circumcision article in times long ago, when it may have been unbalanced toward the other POV, has now turned into an infantile game of power in which you defend your unbridled control of the article, and deny information contrary to what spurned your passion; even when you violate both the spirit and policy of Wikipedia.  Let's let the facts speak for themselves.  Blackworm 05:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that they do speak for themselves. Remember, one of our core policies is, in the absence of contravening evidence, to assume good faith. Being that we both agree that an accusation of anti-semitism, where it is not called for, is an egregious breach of decorum, what makes you assume that that is what Jay meant? -- Avi 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Person 1: "You are stupid and an anti-Semite, person 2."
 * Person 2: "...."
 * Person 3: "You make Person 1's point perfectly, person 2."
 * Person 3 is implying that Person 2 is an anti-Semite. Clear as day.  And please answer my other questions.  Blackworm 01:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered this, more likely, explanation:


 * Person 1: "You are exhibiting immature ranting"
 * Person 2: [Insert immature rant about creating "bloody messes" out of healthy penises here.]
 * Person 3: "You make Person 1's point perfectly, person 2."
 * Person 3 is implying that Person 2 is exhibiting immature behavior with his purposely crafted to disgust rant. Clear as day. And please answer my other questions, too.

-- Avi 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that's a misrepresentation of what Person 1 said. A better one would be "You are exhibiting immature ranting and anti-Semitism."  Put that in your example, and it easily fails, even despite your emphasis on one part of what I said, and de-emphasis on the fact that nothing I said was anti-Semitic.  Nothing I said illustrated that part of her supposed "point."  In order to make her point "perfectly," as Jayjg said, I would also have to have expressed anti-Semitism, wouldn't I?  Jayjg did not even respond to my indignant challenge to present any evidence that I am anti-Semitic.  For shame.  Blackworm 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Polarization
I would appreciate it if you would help reduce polarization at Talk:Circumcision. One way you can help is to avoid mentioning whether someone is (or you believe someone is) pro- or anti-circumcision. It's fine to talk about parts of the article being too pro- or too anti-, though. (Being careful not to imply that the editors who wrote them are.) I'd like to see you making more suggested edits. The list of "pain" references you provided is quite useful: I've just posted a proposed edit based on them collectively. If you could post more suggested wordings or references that would be helpful. Let's talk about the article on its talk page, not about editors. And please assume good faith. Someone who is trying to move the article in a certain direction may be trying to make it what appears to them to be neutral, even if to others it appears heavily biassed. That's because of course different people have different points of view. --Coppertwig 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your calmness, focus on article content, and productive contribution of useful information in this and other edits.  Note that Jakew responded in a collaborative manner to that edit.  --Coppertwig 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouting on my talk page.
I don't like the idea of gathering quotes from Jayjg and Avi and posting snippets in bold on their talk page. I could link to some here, but the evidence is all in the recent Archives of Talk:Circumcision -- where the real, potentially productive discussion supposedly is. Why read the meta-discussion when you can read the discussion and judge for yourself. There may be some trolls, as expressed on Jakew's talk page, but I don't think I'm one of them, at least I've tried not to be. But frustration and disdain are often expressed as cynicism. To be fair to you Avi, I am on board with the majority of your edits and reversions -- to a greater extent than those from Jakew and Jayjg. I have also been impressed by your ability to remain cool in the face of opposition. Blackworm 06:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As requested
As you requested, Blackworm, I'm replying here to your questions about Circumcision in the Bible.

Firstly, no, I do not take anything about the article - or indeed the Bible - personally. My concerns are with having the best encyclopaedia articles, whether you choose to believe that or not.

Although the word 'Bible' tends to refer (at least in Christian countries) to the Christian Bible, the meaning of the word can include other works important to other religions. As I have stated, however, I believe that a better title for the article would be circumcision in religion. Such a title would avoid ambiguity over whether the subject was Christian-specific. I see no particular reason why such an article should be specific to Christianity in preference to a wider context. Jakew 10:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply Jake. I don't see anything wrong with creating an article entitled "Circumcision in Religion," though I would personally prefer "Circumcision and Religion" in order to establish relevance for points of view which may come from outside organized religion.  Personally, I'd rather see it addressed concisely in the Circumcision article, but if there are enough people, like you, willing to put the relevant and reliable information out there, I am not going to oppose it.  I respect you, Jake, and if you're ever in Montreal I will gladly meet with you and have a drink.  Cheers. Blackworm 08:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Circumcision and religion" is perhaps a better title, now that you mention it. My main area of interest is of course medical aspects. I am less interested in religion, and I don't have volumes of source material about it. I would therefore expect my role to be more of editing and helping enforce policy rather than being a primary contributor, but I am confident in the ability of other editors, and the overall process, to create a good article.
 * If ever I am in Montreal, I will doubtless be in touch. :-) Jakew 10:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On pigs and good faith
You might want to rethink your comment at Talk:Circumcision. Bearing in mind the reference to the choice between cleaning ('hose it off') and removal, it should be fairly clear that in the analogy the pig was the edit, not the editor. Even if any doubt remains in your mind, it is important to assume good faith. Jakew 10:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Preposterous. Nandesuka's edit goes against every precept written at the top of the talk page.  You defend Nandesuka instead of attacking because of his or her POV on circumcision, nothing else. (And I was kinda wondering when the fourth member of the group would show up.) Blackworm 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed, Blackworm. I thought we were beginning to develop some respect for each other. Now you accuse me of acting in bad faith. Jakew 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've come to believe you're not consciously doing it. Blackworm 02:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your edit summary, " I agree with the policy violator", was uncalled-for. If someone violates a policy, it may be appropriate to point that out, but I think it is not appropriate to label the person a "policy violator".  Also, it seems to me that at least two people have violated policies in actions directly related to that discussion.  (Who among us has never violated a policy?)  Also, it may be both more diplomatic and more saving of space on article talk pages to point out such violations on the user's talk page rather than the article talk page.
 * Regarding reducing polarization, I would also appreciate it if you would avoid saying things like "the same editors who ...", at least on the article talk page. Also, I'm still waiting for further clarification from you re the page shortening proposal -- I'm sorry that I still didn't understand your position when you came back to clarify. --Coppertwig 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not explained the logical difference between pointing out that someone violated a policy, and pointing out that they are a policy violator. I do not believe there is any.  Everyone on the talk pages uses phrases like "the same editors who" and I am not going to stop.  Nandesuka was the missing third administrator of the group, who I had not seen in a while, and is now back calling editors "pig[s] covered in mud and feces."  Sadly, that is how many people who are opposed to circumcision are viewed by circumcision advocates, and the pig covered in feces analogy has been applied directly to me in the past.  It has religious symbolism, and it is part of an ideology of dehumanization.  People opposed to circumcision are unclean, disgusting, barbaric -- exactly like the dictionary definition of "uncircumcised."  If you want to reduce polarization, be vocal in opposition to such hateful characterizations, instead of defending them. Blackworm 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no logical difference between pointing out that someone violated a policy and calling them a "policy violator". The difference is entirely emotional.  Therefore, please always stick to the format that gets the required information across with the minumum negative emotional impact.  Often applying a label or adjective to a person tends to have a negative emotional impact and is to be avoided.
 * It's not true that everyone on the talk pages uses phrases like "the same editors who". I don't, for one.  In the last week or two I've noticed a number of messages from you doing things like mentioning categories of editors like that -- which tends to be polarizing.  I haven't noticed anyone else doing anything like that meanwhile.  Even if they do, that's no excuse.
 * I don't see how letting accusations stand that are, in my opinion, too strong, would reduce polarization. On the contrary, I think it's the other way around.  Note my comments to Nandesuka. --Coppertwig 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Something you said
Re "...The validity of my arguments against your illogical and hypocritical objections to any material presenting any criticism of circumcision is not dependent on my opinion of you" at Talk:Circumcision: I'd suggest striking this part of your comment out. --Coppertwig 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your suggestion. I will not be striking it out.  Jakew's objection to the one-line of material casting circumcision in a negative light was, "it is only relevant to one specific form of circumcision, not circumcision in general."  He strongly supports the contested six-line paragraph referring to ritual circumcision in the "pain" section.  He has proven over and over that he will pull out any random argument against any material casting circumcision negatively, yet the same arguments do not seem to hold any sway with him when they are used against material casting circumcision positively.  He is a known and admitted circumcision advocate, and in light of that fact his behaviour is the definition of hypocrisy.  I stand by my words.  More important that his hypocrisy, however, is his illogic; and his inability to present any logical explanation for his continued heavy handed reversion of any and all material he sees as critical of circumcision, while strongly supporting even the most tenuous and fringe material which is supportive of circumcision.  Blackworm 04:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Salut Blackworm,

Thanks for the welcome note.

(Gainstrue 16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

re: Your recent edits
It read like a little POV battle within the 3 sentences...   A report found that circumcision might negatively impact upon woman > the report was insignificant and didn't call into question the utility of circumcision > Thus, calls for male circumcision for disease prevention have been heavily criticised - Didn't seem to make sense the way it was put together.

I overlooked the leftover references... I'll try to fix that.

I agree, it wouldn't hurt to mention somewhere that calls for circumcision in the name of disease prevention have been criticized - After all, pathologizing a natural part of the human body, as opposed to addressing the actual causes of the disease and focusing on prevention strategies that are more effective, less invasive and less riddled with ethical/human rights problems (at least when it comes to circumcision performed on a minor, or coercion issues when stigmas about anatomically complete sex organs are promoted) is far from universally accepted as being an entirely sane idea. - Gainstrue 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more; however, to some, removing the foreskin is akin to "clipping your fingernails" or "cutting your hair." These people's comparisons betray a warped perspective in my humble opinion. Blackworm 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't argue there, and to some people it is seen as being no different than vaccination. I personally don't think the two can be equated for several reasons but it's also good to keep in mind that the WHO recognizing circumcision as HIV preventive (and their subsequent recommendation that male circumcision services should be scaled up in Africa) is primarily intended for countries where the disease has reached truly crisis proportions. In my own opinion I think money could be spent in more effective ways... but if a grown male wants to go ahead and do it, it's his choice, and it wouldn't hurt to have it done in a proper medical setting as opposed to him heading off to see the local bush doctor.  Given the sense of emergency in some of these countries I can see how anything that can be used to slow down HIV would be considered welcome.... but I think it becomes problematic when a minor gets marched down to the clinic or, as I mentioned, when the coercion factor comes into play if public awareness campaigns are more of an exercise in persuasion and stigmatization - if circumcision is going to be painted as a vaccine or a backup condom then the message can be that a man who simply has decided not to get part of his penis cut off is in a sense choosing not to vaccinate himself or wear condoms.  I personally think public health officials go too far, not to mention lose credibility,  when they put natural human anatomy into their line of sights - when most males get along just fine with what they've got and are perfectly capable of protecting themselves via their brain.  But obviously there are differing views on that.  Anyhow, the mention of the WHO in the intro does mention the context which I think is appropriate. As for criticism of the entire idea of utilizing circumcision as a prevention tool - maybe this could be briefly mentioned in the HIV section, and it is addressed on the bioethics page. - Gainstrue 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On that... I had another look at the bioethics page and this is mentioned in there. I'm not sure, I can see the argument why it might deserve at least some mention on the main article. - Gainstrue 22:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd like to have your opinion on my proposed "criticism section." In my opinion, it is short and concise, but almost fully summarizes the arguments of those opposing the practice. Obviously, the attempt to present anything which could be viewed as criticism in the circumcision article is a daunting task, given the tendencies of certain editors. Blackworm 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, the article is already kind of long. The criticisms I assume your talking about would be related to the medical and ethical issues.  Such as penile cancer being a disease of the elderly and is a very rare form of cancer, which has other more significant contributing factors, hence removing healthy anatomy from a child on account of this is hardly an accepted idea in the medical world...  or how most uncomplicated UTIs can be treated with oral antibiotics and they are less likely in boys than girls anyway.  And the bodily rights issues etc...  All of these I see in the article already, so I don't know whether a criticism section is needed. Further, I think that might only serve to polarize this page, would there then need to be a "criticism of the criticism section"? I think any relevant criticism deserves some mention in the section that it applies to, and for the most part the article seems to do a good job of that and from my experience so far the editors seem to be receptive to any ideas and input as long as the article stays within NPOV territory. - Gainstrue 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. The article does not conform to WP:NPOV in my opinion -- it represents the limited views of its principal authors, who engage in heavy handed placement of contested content, but similarly and without discussion heavy handedly revert perfectly valid edits with vague excuses such as "it's too long," "it only applies to ritual circumcision," "it's WP:SOAP," "it's undue weight for a minority opinion" and so on.  What is even more amazing is that they ignore these same arguments when they are applied to the material they support.  I believe I have demonstrated this at Talk:Circumcision, and so have many other editors who have since giving up attempting to wrench ownership of this article from Jakew and Avraham, and earlier with Jayjg and Nandesuka.  All four editors (three being administrators) consistently and demonstrably push a pro-circumcision POV with their inconsistent, chameleon-like arguments peppered with personal attacks and dismissals based on bad faith.  It is a travesty and a discredit to Wikipedia.  Blackworm 11:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a formality
You do know that edit summaries such as this one while humorous, and a viable method of releasing your frustration, are still forbidden under wikipedia's personal attacks policies. -- Avi 03:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, Avi, let's stop this nonsense. You attack me by questioning whether English is my first language, I attack you by pointing out the irony that you question my English while making English mistakes.  I realize I've been more dangerous to you and Jakew lately because I actually am starting to play this silly game on your level.  I'm sorry if this is a burden to you.  However, I believe you need to come to the realization that all of us have "POV bias" when it comes to this subject.  Wikipedia has policies in place that could potentially let us come to agreements and make a better article.  To allow us to separate the POV from the facts.  Let's follow them and do so.  The circumcision article reads like an advertisement for circumcision, because it is mostly written and edited by advocates of circumcision such as yourself and Jakew.  This violates WP:NPOV.  Work with me to change this.  Blackworm 08:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding nonsense. Your edits are intentionally provocative and as often as not directed against editors and not edits. Your view regarding the article is well known, and I find it unsurprising that you feel it so drastically skewed one way. However, I do not believe you are a suitable judge. Neutral Point of View requires that someone be able to read the article in such a way as to be uncertain as to the point of view of the author vis a vis the major viewpoints on the subject, in proportion to their penetration and representation. My personal opinion is that it seems that for every overtly pro-circumcision statement there is a balancing anti-circumcision one. To me, it appears that you feel that a statement that is not overtly anti-circumcision will be interpreted as pro-circumcision, and so you feel the need to insert negative connotations most places in order to balance what you personally feel is an imbalance. It is natural for you to feel that imbalance; but, as I said, I do not think that your sense of balance is the one with which the article needs to conform. Regardless, your history of overtly attacking statements and lack of respect for fellow editors will not serve you, the article, or wikipedia well. -- Avi 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel exactly the same way regarding yourself and Jakew, exchanging the words "anti" and "pro," and "positive" and "negative;" and also regarding your attacking editors rather than edits. I agree with your description of NPOV.  I believe the current article is demonstrably failing to meet this standard, and shows widespread bias, aided by your and Jakew heavy handed guardianship, which may be a violation of WP:OWN.  I do not believe you nor Jakew are suitable judges either.  Thanks for commenting.  Blackworm 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA. Again.
Blackworm, in spite of numerous reminders, you still seem to have forgotten the essence of no personal attacks: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please have a look through your recent talk page contributions. In a worrying percentage, you repeatedly attack other editors. I'm happy to provide examples if you want, but I doubt you need me to do so. This behaviour really needs to stop. Jakew 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a lot of gall. I have actually been the victim of personal attacks, from you and others.  rAlso, your continued WP:OWN violation merits a repeated demand that YOUR behaviour stop.  Blackworm 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a recent example: "I am sorry you seem see any information existing anywhere in the universe which may, potentially, upon reflection, cast circumcision in a negatively light as "opinion." Perhaps you should refrain your circumcision advocacy to non-encyclopedic arenas -- your ubiquitous presence in circumcision advocacy (as a simple Google search on "Jake Waskett" reveals) may be causing you to see bias where there isn't any."
 * Please remember that even if you are not able to comply with WP:AGF, there is no reason why you must voice your assumptions of bad faith. Doing so is incivil, and constitutes a personal attack. Jakew 12:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in engaging you in this childish diversion. Examples of your personal attacks and the personal attacks of your allies are abundant, and your constant and ongoing utter disregard for the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy (other than quoting it when it serves your goals, and constantly and often incorrectly accusing your opponents of violating it to undermine their arguments) is also evident.  I do not wish to engage you in this meta-discussion -- already your "discussion" style seems calculated to frustrate, intimidate, and tire, as several editors have pointed out.  It is clear that your complete lack of giving ground in any discussion, complete lack of ever admitting a mistake, constant "confusion" allowing you to "discuss" ad infinitum all the while claiming lack of consensus, constant misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy (or simply reinterpretation based on the scenario), and constant heavy handed and unilateral edits made without discussion or consensus, result in de facto ownership by you of every single article related to circumcision; this regardless of the number of editors agreeing or disagreeing with you.  That time must come to an end.  Your bias smells just as bad as everyone else's, even if you have turned it into a personal crusade.  Blackworm 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel frustrated, Blackworm, but this is not a diversion, childish or otherwise. If you wish to participate in talk page discussions, then you must abide by core user conduct policies. These are not optional, and you need to take them seriously. Please limit your comments to the subject of the article in future. Jakew 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If only you could follow your own advice.  Blackworm 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Blackworm and Jakew
Re comments by both of you at Talk:Circumcision: "...since that would imply either self-denial or deceit on your part, ..." and "Perhaps English is not your first language?": I would like to ask both of you to try harder to "keep a cool head" as it says at the top of the page, and to write in such a way that it's also easier for the other person to do so, too. Thanks. I will put a copy of this message on Jakew's talk page. --Coppertwig 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing hot-headed said by me in that thread. The example you quote from me above was exactly in the format thrown at me by Jakew, except phrased as a rhetorical question, which I then answer in the negative.  It was intended to show that his incivility and other violations were not welcome, in a format he may understand (since he flatly denies any accusations of any violations).  Blackworm 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When you feel that something has been "thrown" at you, that's an indication that the temperature of the debate is somewhat raised. The thing that's needed then is not to do something "exactly" in the same format back to the other person (or not even "exactly ... except"), but instead to do something that helps cool things down.
 * People with different POV's react to the same words differently. We each tend to see what we ourselves have written as being more harmless, innocent, justified, clever and obviously true, and what people we're debating with have written as more insulting or obviously false.  In order to avoid escalating conflict, we need to compensate for that.  If each person reacts with something they perceive as exactly the same level as the other person, then because it will usually be perceived differently by the other person, conflict will tend to (rapidly) escalate.
 * It helps to try to put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to feel, with some degree of accuracy, how they probably feel on reading your words. It takes a great deal of detachment to do this well.  It can help to practice by looking at debates you have no feelings about yourself but in which the participants are expressing strong feelings, and put yourself in the shoes of first one and then the other side, trying to feel their feelings and understand how they perceive the whole debate.  It also often helps a lot to take a 24-hour break so that both sides can cool down.  --Coppertwig 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is the best course. I do not agree that I escalated the conflict with my response.  Perhaps if I had said: "What if I told you, Jakew, that you 'chose' not to see my arguments?  Wouldn't that be a violation of WP:AGF..."  The meaning is the same, minus the sarcasm.  In any case I appreciate your attempt to defuse the conflict (which was relatively minor on that Talk page), as well as your constructive responses in that thread.  Blackworm 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's usually best to avoid sarcasm in these sorts of discussions. Sarcasm tends to sting, and it also greatly increases the chances of being completely misunderstood.  I'm still not sure I understand the sarcasm you're talking about here.  The version above without the sarcasm seems far better to me.  I think it might have been appropriate and constructive to post something like that on Jakew's talk page;  but then again it might be counterproductive -- I'm not sure.  I think those sorts of remarks are out-of-place on an article talk page.  When you use a word like "deceit" it's too easy for the other person to misread or ignore the context it's in and just take it as if you'd said "Deceit!" directly to them, even when that is not what you said.  The part of the brain that handles emotions tends to ignore things like grammar and logic.
 * I didn't say that you'd escalated the conflict and I didn't mean it. If we try hard to defuse minor conflicts, maybe major ones will never start.
 * I congratulate you and Jakew on keeping the discussion relatively civil at Talk:Prevalence of circumcision. Coppertwig (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the RfC
Hi Blackworm, thanks for the comments left at Talk:Loudness_war. There is no question that is a very good article. And, you are correct, the article's author (User:Riprowan) CAN NOT post that link himself. Which means that you can, if you believe of course that this editor is notable and his site is a reliable source. I say "his" because he owns it. One more thing, there is no link to the ProRec article on the RfC section because the discussion wasn't about how good the article was but whether articles's author can post it himself or not. Can you tell me how you got to it? Thanks. Jrod2 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jrod2. I didn't quite assert that the article's author couldn't post the link himself; only that it's unclear, and perhaps more valid if someone else did.  The issue of reliable sources does not come into play here; the Links section (uncommented links to external sites related to the subject) does not fall under this requirement to my understanding.  If, however, information from the ProRec article was used in the Wikipedia article, then the issue would arise.  In that case, I believe the WP:RS requirement would be met if the views were properly attributed to Rowen (it is a reliable source for the claim that those are his views).  The only remaining issue would then be as to his (and his views') notability, which I believe is unquestioned.  To answer your question, as an amateur music producer I actively read ProRec years ago, and read Rowen's editorial then.  By pure coincidence I happened to be looking at the RfC page yesterday and came across your request.  Perhaps I will try to help improve the WP article, now that I know of its existence; this is a subject that interests me as well.  Thanks for commenting.  Blackworm 16:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Blackworm, thanks for the response. So I think you need to read "Writing about subjects close to you". Find this: "When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.". One more thing, writing about a subject close to you doesn't necessarily only apply to your biography or your company. These are mere examples. So, if you are an audio engineer, you can't write about audio and use your own article to reference it. This may still apply to someone who never had contributed to an article but wishes to use his own link (See COI paragraph #1 Now, Rip Rowan claims that the article was written by someone who used his text. I don't think so (See the user who posted the link). As you can see it was months after the LW article was written. In order to say that he invented the term "Loudness war", verification through references are needed. Now, forgive me but you seem to be a bit misguided yourself because when it comes to being an editor at WP, admins and guideline guardians like editors to edit and contribute on a wide variety of subjects and topics, but require citations from verifiable sources and most important, notable people. There is also a user's (GlassFET) contention that the link is a "blog". But that's not the main issue right now. If you feel he is notable, then why don't post that link back? Jrod2 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you have made your case against Rowen linking to his own site, as this guideline states. I do not believe my interpretation of WP:RS is misguided -- I was not commenting on any content on the page, or on Rip Rowen's assertions, but only on the question of the ProRec link being posted to the Links section.  With regard to this content, I would agree that the Loudness War article suffers from a great lack of citations and references, and that WP:V calls for us to aggressively remove unsourced sections.  However, I don't believe the subject is very controversial, and since the article seems still to be in its infancy I'm not sure that widespread blanking is appropriate; at least I wouldn't engage in it myself.  Compare Women's Rights, for example, which has been unsourced for a long time and yet persists, despite its remarkably questionable claims about a much more controversial subject.  Blackworm 20:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Blackworm, I lost you with what you said about "widespread blanking". All I want to know is, will you or will you NOT reinstate the link for him? Jrod2 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on editing the article; I was hoping the editors normally active on the page could come to a consensus. So the answer for the time being is, "no."  This may change in the future, if I decide to become more active in editing that article. Blackworm 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, when citing Wiki pages in an authoritarian way, it helps if you're actually citing Wikipedia policy and guideline, not just someone's User Page version of it. Just a friendly tip.  Blackworm 06:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did TWICE. That user page (an Administrator) attempts to explain to some people who are "conveniently" confused, what all these guidelines mean, just like I did with you until you finally got that the RfC wasn't about whether the content was good or not. I advise you to move on, if you leave more messages here, you're talking to yourself Jrod2 09:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your tone is unwelcome. Administrator's user pages are not policy nor guideline; their essays may be good advice, but it is not a consensus.  Your quoting it as if it were binding, and in a demanding way, is inappropriate.  Blackworm 09:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care if my tone is unwelcome, yours was bad from the beginning as I didn't cited policy in "an authoritarian way" . I don't want to continue this discussion with you anymore. You should stop leaving irrelevant and redundant messages to me. This Admin's essay is VALID and based on previous consensus and contributors' history. But, most importantly, I gave you links to WP guidelines for you to read, so quit fixating on this particular essay and use your common sense. If that text was not valid other admins (and users} would have erased long ago. Anyway, what's your problem? The RfC is finished and the issue for now is over. Jrod2 12:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be clear that any "problem" I have here is unrelated to your RfC, but instead related to your hostile and patronizing attitude, which is unjustified in my opinion. I've noticed this tone in many of your entries, in response to several editors, and I believe it may be costing you support despite the potential correctness of your main arguments.  As for "leaving irrelevant and redundant messages," I suggest that you take your own advice, while remembering that you are free to remove my talk page from your watchlist. Blackworm 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you started with the "tone" when you stated that I cited policy in "an authoritarian way". What was that about? The fact is you are one of those who can't eat crow after they are set straight. That's your problem. Proof is, out of all the links to the guidelines I cited, you had to find the link to the admin's essay "inappropriate" to make yourself look like you are the one who knows better. Meantime, at the RfC, you couldn't even comment about the issue at hand. Who cares that "the ProRec article was well written"? The point was he couldn't place it, Period. You said: "I think he may not...". Is that the answer from someone who knows the most important guidelines? If anyone has problems with me, is usually for his or her inability to step up to the plate on a given issue. Ok? I think I am done, but I know you're gonna come back with more excuses to justify your absurd behavior. Jrod2 20:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If only you could justify your continued incivility. Blackworm 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a tip
Perhaps you didn't notice, but when you file an RfC the text is supposed to be a neutral statement of the issue. Jakew 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did notice, and carefully made sure the statement was neutral. Why do you believe it is not?  What would you have written?  Blackworm 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you've phrased the question as though the article does 'define and use the word "circumcision" to solely describe the circumcision of males', though this interpretation is itself disputed (see, for example, the last sentence of my post dated 17:12, 6 November 2007). So instead of neutrally presenting the facts, you're presenting your own interpretation of the facts. Jakew 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is entitled "circumcision." Its first sentence is, "Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis."  It is ridiculous to dispute that the article defines circumcision to solely describe the circumcision of males.  Nonetheless, since you claim you dispute it, and you are a party to the conflict, I reiterate my request for you to suggest a more neutral description of the nature of the dispute.  How about this:
 * The article is entitled "circumcision." Its first sentence is, "Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis."  Does the combination of these facts define circumcision as solely performed on males?  If so, is this neutral and appropriate?  Blackworm 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you're counting 'first' sentences, but the preceding paragraph begins, "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting." Jakew 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so that you understand my viewpoint, allow me to edit your suggestion: The article is entitled "circumcision." It begins, "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting."  Does the combination of these facts define circumcision as solely performed on males? If so, is this neutral and appropriate? Jakew 18:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely disingenuous. The article proper begins with the lead, not the fine print hatnote.  Further, your version is not an accurate representation of the dispute.  As per WP:LEAD (emphasis mine), "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence,' and should appear in boldface."  If you insist, we can say:
 * The article is entitled "circumcision." While the hatnote disambiguation says, in part, "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting," the first sentence of the lead is, "Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis," and the remainder of the article uses "circumcision" without qualifier to solely describe male circumcision.  Does the combination of these facts define circumcision as solely performed on males?  If so, is this neutral and appropriate?
 * As one more attempt to appeal to your logic and reason, if there was an article called "Circumcision," which proceeded to say, "This article is about female circumcision; for male circumcision see..." and then went on in the lead, "Circumcision is the removal of the clitoris," and then in the rest of the article, "Circumcision is opposed by the UN and the WHO," and "Circumcision causes death in X number of cases per thousand" and "Circumcision is usually done in non-sterile conditions" etc., wouldn't you have an objection? But this is exactly the kind of usage you are defending.  Finally, for the third time, can you suggest a phrasing for this RfC that actually represents the dispute neutrally? Blackworm 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm think you've misunderstood the sentence you're quoting from WP:LEAD, which requires us to begin article ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha with something like "In galactic co-ordinates, ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha is...", and does not appear relevant to this disagreement. Regardless, it's helpful to know that you're counting from the lead section onwards, and I think that your proposed statement of the dispute is a considerable improvement.
 * As for your "attempt to appeal to your logic and reason", I think that if the primary definition of "circumcision" was "female circumcision", and if the vast majority of source material used "circumcision" without qualifier in that sense, then I don't see why I'd object. After all, if we actually mean what we say in the hypothetical hatnote, then the article you describe should be about female circumcision. Jakew 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I to infer by your comment that it is a "considerable improvement," that the above is a neutral statement of the dispute in your opinion? You still have not provided an alternative wording.  My goal here is work with you to come up with a brief, preferably one-line statement of our dispute in that matter that we can both agree on -- and the above paragraph may be excess detail for this purpose.  May I propose "Does the circumcision article inappropriately limit its discussion to male circumcision?"  This seems to leave open the question of whether it does limit the discussion, and also whether such limitation, if any, is appropriate.  Does this phrasing meet with your approval?  Suggestions for improvement are welcome.  Blackworm 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you can safely infer that the "considerable improvement" version is ok, Blackworm. It's not perfect, and it would be nice if it were shorter, but it seems to be the best statement so far. Incidentally, I suspect that we'd find it easier to express the dispute if we both agreed upon what it was fundamentally about. Jakew 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I believe it is evident that we are on opposite sides of proposed changes in this talk section; I am referring here to that dispute.  I believe the one-liner I propose above is a better representation of that dispute, since it avoids limiting the analysis to a few sentences, and additionally avoids presenting arguments, which is both more neutral and more brief.  Again, this would be much easier if you had a counter-proposal.  Thanks. Blackworm 18:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Please, stop making personal attacks and assume good faith. '' Jrod2 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the above as an accusation that I failed to assume good faith. Could you please point specifically what I said that leads you to believe I violated this guideline?  Thank you.  Blackworm 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what you did. But, if you want to get technical, calling someone "authoritarian" remark without justification, is not considered assuming good faith. Jrod2 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not refer to you as authoritarian; I referred to your remarks as authoritarian, which I believe is justified by the language you used, e.g., "So I think you need to read [...]," followed by three lines of boldface text quoting another user, who himself uses authoritarian language including, "If you don't have such sources, don't write," [emphasis as in your original post above]. Regardless, it was not my wish to upset you; only to suggest that you can come off as abrasive and commanding, and it is unwelcome.  Blackworm 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, I didn't write that. The admin did. I was merely copy/pasting the part that was relevant to the discussion about using references, so you didn't have to spend time looking for it in the essay. If his tones is in your view "authoritarian", I am sorry, but I am not the one who is saying that. Jrod2 22:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of its source, you posted it here, in bold text, preceded by the words "Find this:" [Emphasis yours.] I claimed you cited text in an authoritarian way, meaning that you cited directives in such a way as to imply that the directives were binding on me.  I merely pointed out that if you choose to do so, it would be somewhat more appropriate if you would restrict yourself to citing actual Wikipedia policy and guideline, not someone's interpretation of it; this regardless of the credentials of the person, or ultimately the correctness of the interpretation.  I hope this clarifies my position.  Blackworm 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you have misconstrued my actions. I always bold things that I want people to clearly read from other text. I did say "Find this", but inside the essay so that you can verify the admin's position. That's all. That's how he wrote things. If you continue to insinuate that I have other motives, such as pretending that I am an authority or anything else, then you are not assuming good faith. Funny, but I think you wouldn't have this discussion with me if I was an admin. However, If you don't find that admin's text admissible, fine. I can live with that. There are all the other guidelines at WP:COI anyway. But, don't tell me that his tone is mine, or that I speak in an "authoritarian way" because according to you, he does. Regardless what the admin said, the policy is clear, and in effect, I didn't even have to quote the admin at all. If you believe that his views are wrong, I urge to take it to an admin right now. As far as you and I, though, it's too bad you took me completely out of context. Jrod2 23:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of pretending to be an authority, or in fact of acting in bad faith at all. However, some of your actions, such as responding to my question above with, "You know what you did," directly accuse me of acting in bad faith (i.e. asking a question of which I know the answer).  I excuse this because you seem offended by my characterization of your remarks as authoritarian, and I understand how conflicts like this can arise and escalate.  I will acknowledge my part in this conflict, having perhaps been insensitive, in the interest of putting the conflict behind us.  Blackworm 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am really glad that you and I can come to terms with this and put this behind. Peace. Jrod2 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NPA
Blackworm, as I have reminded you on numerous occasions, the essence of no personal attacks is to "Comment on content, not on the contributor. ... Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

In this edit, the bulk of your edit failed to do this. Instead, you speculated about my memory, and whether I am acting in good faith.

Since you ask, I will answer your question here.

I agree that I agreed that the following statement was an accurate paraphrasing of the source: "The Catholic Church condemned the observance of circumcision as a mortal sin and ordered against its practice in the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442."

Now, as I understand it, you believe that this means that I agreed that the Catholic Church prohibited circumcision under any circumstances, including medical emergencies.

I believe that you have made two mistakes in your interpretation.

Firstly, while you may read the above as "and ordered against [the] practice [of circumcision outright] in the Council", I read it as "and ordered against [the] practice [of observance of circumcision] in the Council". I think my interpretation is closer to the source itself when one examines the source: "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation". (emph added). Interestingly, this source also gives the interpretation of "unnecessary" rather than "outright ban".

Secondly, an "accurate paraphrasing of a source" is not necessarily an "accurate paraphrasing of fact".

If you wish to request clarification on such issues in future, I would not be offended by a polite request on my talk page. Jakew (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't accept your interpretation nor your explanation. The source clearly refers to the practice of circumcision, despite your tortured interpretation.  Are we to claim that Jews do not practice circumcision outright, but practice the observance of circumcision?  That is completely silly.    I believe your claim is easily taken as specific evidence of malice, thus my request for an explanation is completely justified.  Blackworm (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, Jewish people do practice the observance of circumcision, much as a Christian might refer to the desire to "practice the observance of Sunday". Indeed, if a Jewish child were to be merely circumcised, but the observance ("a keeping or celebration by appropriate procedure, ceremonies, etc.: the observance of the Sabbath") had not been practiced, then that would be considered insufficient.
 * It is unfortunate that, rather than accepting your mistake, you make matters worse. The essence of AGF is that when there are two or more explanations for something, and one is compatible with good faith, assume that it is correct. It is worrying that you appear to take it to mean quite the opposite. Jakew (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The only worrying thing here is your denial that the source above indicates that the Catholic Church prohibits the practice of circumcision, the bizarre interpretation from other circumcision advocates (UNAIDS) notwithstanding. (I suppose what is ordered against is also "unnecessary," but that does not change the fact that it is ordered against.)  The part after the word you highlighted, "since," only describes why the Church prohibits it; it does not change the fact that it does.  Your continued denial in light of this fact is not defensible.  Now that you have confirmed that memory loss was not the issue, the only possible explanations that I can see right now, in light of your steadfastness on this, are outright lying, insincere rationalization, or pathological denial. Blackworm (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The source, in the same sentence as the order (and in the explanation for it) refers to circumcision as something that is "observed" (as opposed to, say, "performed"). To my mind, this suggests that they are referring to circumcision, the religious observance rather than circumcision, the procedure. Also, it is not unreasonable to interpret a source as though it were logically consistent: the order to not practice circumcision, the observance follows logically from the stated justification.
 * I strongly encourage you to assume good faith and cease making personal attacks. Jakew (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to assume good faith and cease making personal attacks. Jakew (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand by my words. The phrase "we order not to practise A, since A cannot be observed..." only means "we don't really order not to practise A, but really only against the observing of A" in your tortured mind.  It is pure doublethink.  You may be able to argue that "observing" circumcision is a separate concept from "practicing" circumcision, but that doesn't change what was prohibited, i.e. its practice.  It is, in fact, unreasonable for you to apply your singular "logical" interpretation of the source to remedy your apparent confusion, discounting any possibility of any other explanation; especially when this application leads you to conclude that the Church really meant the logical negation of what it said.  "We order not to practise circumcison..." becomes "We do not order not to practise circumcision...." in your mind, and you continue the rest of your day as if nothing unusual happened.  That is "worrying," Jake.


 * Regardless, all of this nonsense coming from you is a tangential diversion. My original point was that all information in the lead section of the circumcision article regarding circumcision and religion casts circumcision positively (paraphrasing, "it's a custom and a religious commandment"), and none casts it negatively; and this despite this very negative position (never revoked, apparently) from the largest organized body of any world religion, a church with over a billion followers.  For your comment (paraphrasing, "I don't know any religions that prohibit it") to even have been relevant to the discussion, you would have had to argue that you know of no negative opinions about circumcision from any religion.  But had you argued this, I doubt you could have used even the most fractured logic and transparent rationalization to distance yourself from your documented knowledge of the above quote from the Catholic Church.  Then, further, you expect me to continue to calmly discuss with you and assume good faith in this circumstance?  You waste other editors' time rather than making sense, and making the encyclopedia better.  If I were to assume good faith, I would have to also believe that you are completely intellectually ill-equipped to discuss this subject in logical and rational terms and edit the article accordingly; so please, for the record, which do you prefer?


 * You assert that the current text of the lead section is fine (thus, assuming good faith, neutral), including the 1/3 of the lead that details (unopposed and never controverted, despite the reliable sources that do so) the WHO's opinion on how male circumcision should be generally promoted simply because of its supposed (but contested) limited protection from HIV -- but no, it's not fine. It's not neutral.  It's unbalanced.  It's biased.  At best, it's inappropriate for the lead.  Other editors who I'm sure you consider more reasonable than I agree.  The current lead section begins the "controversial article" by synthesizing a position (how positive circumcision is) rather than defining the term, summarizing the subject, and establishing context, as called for by WP:LEAD.  It's your so-called "NPOV," but quite clearly not WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, perhaps you were unaware of this, but one meaning of practice is "to follow or observe habitually or customarily: to practice one's religion". Indeed, circumcision itself is defined as both "A religious ceremony in which someone is circumcised" and "the act of circumcising; surgical removal of the foreskin of males", and the intended meaning could be either. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that to believe that an order "not to practise circumcision" means "not to observe (ie keep or celebrate by appropriate procedure, ceremonies, etc) circumcision habitually or customarily".
 * Thus, I interpret the order as "do not perform the ritual of circumcision" rather than "do not perform the act of circumcision under any circumstances".
 * Consequently, my comment that "I'm not aware of any religions that prohibit circumcision outright (ie "sorry you've got a gangrenous foreskin, but you can't be circumcised"), though of course in several religions circumcision has no special meaning." was a fair representation. I'm sorry that it isn't representative of your interpretation, but I can only be expected to express my own views.
 * I am not saying that you must accept this interpretation. But it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and it is appropriate for you to accept that others may accept it, in accordance with AGF.
 * What is highly inappropriate is to respond with numerous personal attacks, including "malice", "outright lying, insincere rationalization, or pathological denial", "doublethink", "fractured logic and transparent rationalization", and told that I am "completely intellectually ill-equipped to discuss this subject in logical and rational terms".
 * I will discuss issues relating to the article with you at the appropriate place, but you must comply with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Jakew (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ref tags
It's easy to make mistakes with ref tags -- I've done it myself. Two of your edits  at Circumcision of yesterday introduced ref tag errors which made the page display wrong and had to be fixed   by two other users, who luckily noticed them. Please try to pay attention to little details like that. Although this is technically an article content issue I thought it more appropriate to bring it up here rather than on the article talk page -- I hope that's OK. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

FGC
Blackworm, your criticism on FGC is not constructive. Instead of fixing things, you revert them. You don't check diffs to note that your language objections are not my contributions, but pre-existing language in the article or well-documented in citations. I have asked you to focus on the material and not the editor. Other users have found no problem with my contributions and built upon them. You are the only one. Despite all your criticism you haven't produced a single source to support your claims of POV and OR. Nor have you contributed anything to the article in the weeks you have been criticizing my continued efforts to improve the article. I have provided multiple top-tier references to support international consensus. A third party asked that we summarize and restate - your were unwilling to restate your points. I have cited WP policy regarding the use of terminology and you haven't acknowledged it. Twice you have accused me of removing material, adding unref'd content, and changing things that I haven't done. You continue to revert my edits with no basis ([])and after I asked that you discuss the change, you reverted again [], with no additional discussion Despite what your edit summary says, you did not respond to my discusiion and you did not address the fact that I changed aspects of it based on your commentary. You continue to accuse me of being uncivil. It is not uncivil to respond to disruptive behavior. So here are some of your behaviors to which I am responding.
 * You have a vested interest in this page as it relates to your attempt to steamroll Circumcision. With this POV, you have switched gears, trying to bring the FGC page into the (ended) debate over "Circumcision".
 * You have acknowledged and shown that you have very little understanding of the terminology, its history or its purpose (evidenced by your quote "Your sentence which ends, "[...] whereas groups who oppose the stigma of the word "mutilation" use the term female genital cutting (FGC), or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)" seems to be WP:OR, and is nonsensical besides (why would they use "mutilation" if they are opposed to the supposed "stigma of the word?". First, much of the language predates my edit. Second, that you find such a concept nonsensical shows that you do not understand the contexts of the terminological debate. This is also evident by your continued unrefed claims of "OR" and "POV" - these terms and the debate of FGM or FGC or FGM/C are well-established in FGC discourses as the provided citations show.
 * You keep trying to push POV by insisting on language (circumcision) that the page consensus has deemed inappropriate (because it is a euphemism and anachronism). The only debate current is over FGM, FGC and FGM/C. Circumcision is not an option per consensus and documentation. This is not my POV. It is documented international consensus.
 * Twice now you have accused me of adding something that you objected to, only to discover that I had actually removed or addressed these issues
 * You accuse me of poorly sourcing my contributions. My sources are peer-reviewed journals and respected international health orgs. I do try to improve material sourced by other forms. But these are not "my" sources. In contrast...
 * Outside of reverting some vandalism, you have contributed nothing during the course of your criticism. Nothing to the article, nothing to support your claims of OR and POV, nothing to support your repeated reverts on the religion section, nothing to support your assertion that "circumcision" is not a euphemism (even though the cited material states that it is within the context of the FGC debate).
 * From the very beginning you have failed to WP:AGF (please see the origins of our encounter on FGC at Talk:Female genital cutting)
 * Despite the fact that other users have built upon my contributions, you choose not to focus on the article, or even other users. Just me. I can only conclude that this stems from the fact that I left a comment on your RfC:Circumcision that you clearly didn't like, and this has made it personal for you. Reviewing your talk page, I see this is not the only time this has happened, and indeed, it has happened in ref to the Circumcision page. This is clearly an issue of great personal significance for you. Perhaps you should rethink this personal attachment when editing or step away from editing these subjects.

Frankly, I don't know what to do. You don't understand the subject, you won't provide documentational support, and you continue to target me personally in an effort to disrupt constructive contributions to the article. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can move forward from here? Phyesalis (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your assertions regarding my previous actions, motivations, acknowledgments, provision of sources, and comprehension are untrue. Even if your claims regarding my comprehension of the subject were true, Wikipedia is organized such that even someone with no knowledge of a subject can contribute; since all claims must be sourced, anyone should be able to check articles against their source.  Any experienced editor can point out original research, unattributed claims, undue weight, and other policy violations.  Some of your recent additions fail these checks, and fail in their adherence to Wikipedia policy, as I have calmly and repeatedly pointed out despite your hostile, accusatory tone.  I have no personal issues with you, despite what you may believe.  Your appearance on the FGC page, a page on which I have been active for some time, came after your comments on the circumcision RfC.  There is no merit to your longwinded personal attack here.  To move forward, I suggest you continue to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV, and internalize the spirit and letter of these policies.  Thanks for your comment.  Blackworm (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All the sorces I have contributed have been from peer-review journals or accepted reliable international health orgs. You have again failed to do anything but cite policy without supporting how it applies, specifically. Your generalized and unsupported accusations of policy violation are without merit. You have failed to provide any documentation supporting your view of things. I have opened things up for informal comment and given a detailed review of your last round of accusations and a detailed response. If this cannot help resolve our dispute, I suggest we move this RfC:User. Phyesalis (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly indicated the specific problematic additions you have made, on the appropriate Talk page, citing appropriate Wikipedia policy. You have not addressed these concerns to my satisfaction, as I have made clear.  If you feel that a Request for Comment on my conduct in this matter is appropriate, that is your prerogative; although I would stress that it is a decision not to be taken lightly.  Blackworm (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, it's not clear to me at all. You refer to "my edits" in the general sense and then cite policy. You do not discuss any particular change specifically. And by specifically, I mean, quote what the original was, what I changed it to, the citation present in the material, how this is all lacking and then bring documentation to support your interpretation that my work is OR. This you have not done. If you would do this instead of summarily reverting a considerable chunk of work after merely stating that it is OR, POV, V or SYN, I think this would be a much more productive process. If you would just compromise and agree to stop reverting my contributions, I think we can move forward. Also, I think it would be useful if you discussed your objections one at a time, before you change things. I have provided considerable documentational support. You have provided none. I think the burden of proof is on you. Phyesalis (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What you say is plainly false, as a reading of recent Talk:Female Genital Cutting shows. Note in particular my edits of 0:34, 29 November 2007, and 19:35, 20 November 2007.  Neither of your responses to those posts are valid reasons for retaining the material.  There is no "compromise" in agreeing to not revert your contributions -- what violates policy is to be simply removed as quickly as possible.  There remains a ton of unsourced material in that article; rather than adding more unsourced and unattributed material, I'd suggest a course of attempting to source what is there already.  Of course, you are free to adopt whatever manner of editing you choose; however, you must adhere to WP:V and WP:NPOV, which you have repeatedly failed to do. Blackworm (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is tons of unsourced material - however I am not the one who put it there. I don't have to source every pre-existing contribution before I add sourced material or attempt to improve material with pre-existing sources. I might add that if you are so concerned about the unsourced material you might want to contribute something to the article by looking something up instead of constantly criticizing and reverting my constructive contributions. Phyesalis (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct that you are not responsible for the existing unsourced claims. On the Talk page I have apologized for misreading your diff; however I make clear there are many remaining issues with your edits.  Finally, if you look at the revision history of the FGC page you will find that I have, in fact, been active in contributing to the article by verifying sources, adding material citing new sources, and removing other unsourced material.  Blackworm (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If I have miscategorized your contributions allow me to provide you with the opportunity to defend yourself. I missed the sources you have provided since we started this dispute, what were they? If you wouldn't mind posting the diff links, I'd really appreciate it.

Also, I have taken a good deal of time and effort to respond to your allegations. I would really appreciate you restating your points, instance by instance showing exactly how they violate the policies you say they do. You keep saying that yu've said it all before, but clearly I am not understanding what you are saying. Taking it slowly and in great detail, as I have done, would really help. As you pointed out, I am a relative newbie. Instance by instance crit will also help us move through this in an orderly fashion. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going do the work you ask of me to help you find the changes I have made to the article. Go to the article, click on "history," go to the bottom and select "show 500 edits" or whatever it's called, and use your browser's page search function (usually Ctrl-F or Command-F) on the string "Blackworm" to find my edit summaries and edit diffs.  Regardless, whether I have otherwise contributed to the article or not is completely irrelevant to our dispute.  I only point it out to you in hopes of convincing you that my opposition to your edits is not personal as you claim it to be.
 * I have already explained why I believe the material you added is inappropriate, in detail, citing Wikipedia policy as appropriate. If you are not understanding what I am saying, perhaps you could obtain help from other editors; I feel I have already devoted adequate time and space to these specific issues.  I again strongly encourage you to read, slowly and carefully, the text of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.  Reading some of the essay pages linked to from those pages may also help your understanding of what Wikipedia policy means in practice.  This will take a long time, but will be extremely useful to you both in understanding others' objections to your edits, and formulating convincing objections to others' edits.  If, after doing so, you have specific responses to my objections, grounded in policy and guideline, I would be happy to hear them.  Blackworm 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read them, but thank you for the advice. I still don't see where your arguments are coming from. My edits have sources. Perhaps if you could explain how you feel a certain source isn't appropriate, and do this for all your objections, maybe we could move forward. I'm sorry that this has escalated to this point. The RfC comment was a bit hasty. I apologize. But repeatedly mentioning that you've already "gone over it" is not helping me understand your points, since you still haven't offered any. Better yet, since the info is sourced, why don't you contextualize them instead of reverting my edits. This would also help us move forward. Another option might be to post how you would rephrase it on the talk page. I don't understand why you are unwilling to put some time and detail into your objections. It isn't helping me get a better understanding and it doesn't seem to be moving the article forward. Phyesalis 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will attempt to reinstate your changes with modifications to address my objections. I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of time to do this -- obviously doing so is much more time consuming than simply reverting, but I agree that it is the ideal.  I know that it is frustrating to have your edits reverted, especially long, thoughtful edits like the ones you have made.  I do believe that I have given objections in enough detail on the Talk: page.  I will try to illustrate my objections by editing the article appropriately; hopefully things will become clear then.  I'll try hard to devote time to this in the next couple of days.  Blackworm 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Your contribution would be greatly appreciated. I've found more documentation on FGC that helps explain that while it is sometimes taken for a religious practice, it really is a cultural practice. I hope if you have a problem with the new material we can discuss it. As my efforts here hopefully show, I am willing to work together to find a workable solution. I look forward working with you on improving the article. Phyesalis 09:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
Please see WP:CAT, number 7. Thank you. -- Avi (talk)
 * This belongs on the Talk page for the article, not here. You should know better.  Blackworm (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation
You have reverted Reproductive rights 5 times in a 24 hour period. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy.


 * 1st revert: 3:27 12/08/2007
 * 2nd revert: 8:02
 * 3rd revert: 20:36
 * 4th revert: 21:07
 * 5th revert: 22:00 12/08/2007

When to revert

Do


 * Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
 * Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
 * If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
 * If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Do not


 * Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
 * Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
 * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
 * There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
 * Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "2nd revert" you mention above was not a reversion. I admit to having violated WP:3RR, having not understood that any reversion to any section of the page counts, not merely a reversion of the same material. These reversions, however, were required owing to your repeated violations of Wikipedia policy, and the seven reversions you made between Dec 7 21:23 and Dec 8 16:13:

[21:23, 7 December 2007] [23:14, 7 December 2007] [13:26, 8 December 2007] [13:52, 8 December 2007] [15:54, 8 December 2007] [16:08, 8 December 2007] [16:13, 8 December 2007]

Blackworm (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, mine weren't reverts, I continually made efforts to address your requests and your illicit reverts. You repeatedly used wholesale reverts to reverse multiple edits and removed inline citations from reliable sources, this is considered to be poor form. Second, fixed the incorrect link, it wasn't 5, it was 8:02. Phyesalis (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The edits I link to above, from you, were quite clearly reverts. I have no comment on your other allegations, comment already having been made at Talk: Reproductive rights. Blackworm (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed irrelevant info from the worst possible sources and reintroduced inline citations you repeatedly removed. Not reverts. Phyesalis (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing material another editor adds is a revert. Reintroducing material another editor deletes is a revert.  Your defense of your reverts is irrelevant to the question of whether they are reverts.  Blackworm (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductive rights
I have moved this discussion from the talk page here because the discussion is about your behavior, not about the article. Let's continue the discussion here:


 * Secondly, you continue to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. The sentence which begins "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights..." has for its cite a source which does not appear to contain the phrase "reproductive rights."  Thus, the sentence seems not supported by the source.  If you can quote material from the source which validates the article sentence, please do so.  Otherwise, the phrase remains WP:OR. Blackworm (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is ridiculous. You argue that my source does not contain the phrase "reproductive rights" and thus seems to not support the cited sentence. Oh really? Have you read the citation quote (that you reverted) that states "The first comprehensive statement of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, failed to mention reproductive rights at all. It was not until 20 years later, at the international human rights conference held in Teheran in 1968, that human reproduction became a subject of international legal concern." I've tried to extend good faith, but even if you only read the first page, you would have noticed the phrase "reproductive rights" in the intro summary . I think I can reasonably conclude that you have not read the cited sources and suggest you cease objecting to that which you cannot take the time to read. It appears as if you are baselessly persecuting my contributions. One might think it was personal.


 * As for your allegations, I did not revert your material. I made continued efforts to address your challenges. You asked for citations, I gave them. You reverted my citations claiming they were unsupported, I added citation quotes in support. You reverted those. I reintroduced them because of your revert abuse. Phyesalis (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I applaud your finally providing, after multiple requests, a quote from the source which you believe supports the Wikipedia article sentence. Your citation quote, however, does not support the article sentence.  If the sentence said, "According to (author), human reproduction first became a subject of international legal concern in 1968," it would be much more defensible.  Attention to detail in these matters is extremely important.
 * It is clear from the history that your edits were reverts, your defense of them being irrelevant to the question.
 * I'd also ask you again to please stop the incivility, and stop making personal attacks. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To Blackworm and Phyesalis
Re comments such as "It is disruptive - for someone who refuses to read provided quotes, let alone whole articles, you really need to show a little more good faith." and "From the very beginning your attitude toward me has been unacceptable,": If you must discuss such things, would you please move it to user talk pages or someplace so the article talk page can be kept focussed on article content discussion? It would really help. Thanks. I'm posting a similar message at User talk:Phyesalis. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm: I hope you don't find it condescending, (and I hope Phyesalis doesn't mind), but I'd like to commend you for the calmness and civility with which you've responded to Phyesalis' messages to/about you and about your edits. Well done. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Blackworm, this edit of yours is quite excellent. Not only does it correct weasel words and represent the source accurately, but it seems to me you're displaying considerable neutrality here by making this edit. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. Blackworm (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for steadfastly focussing on article content issues only at Talk:Reproductive rights recently. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

GM&M
Regarding your comment at GM&M, Blackworm, you may notice that my comment was dated 11:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC). The most recent version at the time was this. I'd be grateful if you would review your comments in light of this and, if you think it appropriate, strike out some comments referring to material added later. Jakew (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is indeed appropriate, and I have struck out the entire comment and added my apology [here]. Sorry for the rudeness and thank you for politely pointing out my error in the face of it.  Blackworm (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks! Jakew (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins noticeboard post
I was writing a long response to your first post on my talk page when you added your additional comments about my use of the term "boys" in reference to vandals of my userpage. After a long look at your talk page, I thought it might be a good idea to solicit more eyes on the situation at WP:AN here. If you have any information or opinions about this, please post them. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[The following two posts were moved by me from User:Phyesalis where I had accidentally posted them:] Blackworm (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the notice, especially since it comes as a response to my post above from you seems pending. Blackworm (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, my post is not above, but here. Blackworm (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Gender Studies
Thanks for your help at WikiProject Gender Studies. I restored the following line to the Project overview: "Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up." This is a reasonable estimate of the situation. It is worth keeping since it describes what the subsequently mentioned gender bias would probably be. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of estimates on the demographics of Wikipedia editors. Not to be curt, but do you agree or disagree?  If you disagree, please provide a reliable source stating the estimate.  If you disagree and cannot provide a WP:RS, you must not revert my changes on this basis.
 * Basing a WikiProject's stated aims on things that "probably are" (to paraphrase), even if true, violates Wikipedia policy to my understanding. My reasoning is discussed on the Talk page here.  I invite you to please read the discussion (yes, it is long, and for that I apologize) and respond there.  Thank you for this comment on my Talk page.  Blackworm (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to read [this]. Blackworm (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)If you disagree with these estimates, you might want to take this up with WikiProject Countering systemic bias, which is the main WikiProject advancing these concerns. If you think a WikiProject in some fundamental way violates Wikipedia policy, you might want to start a discussion at The Village Pump. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. I believe that if WikiProject Countering systemic bias is the parent project of WikiProject Gender Studies, this should be explicit on the latter's Project page.  Ultimately, WP:BIAS was invoked as a defense of the contested material on that page, thus I suppose I must should ask the editors there to comment on the dispute.
 * Thank you for the excellent suggestion of posting at the Village Pump. I believe discussion on the Project's talk page is more appropriate as an initial approach, but this may indeed change as events unfold.  Blackworm (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See User_survey: for the German wikipedia, Gender: 88 % male; 10 % female. Unless you can provide some better evidence, that's the best we have. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not read German, and therefore cannot read the source and confirm that the estimate is a reasonable interpretation of the source. Further, it is in my opinion moot, since the source seems to be the German Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of scientific data, nor a reliable source.  Blackworm (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've discovered that [this] seems to be the external source for your claim. I dispute this source, even if reliable (debatable), and even if it claims (not shown, and I can't read German) that the survey respondents (all on the German WP, not this English WP) are 88% male, verifies the claim made on WP:GS that Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia. The statement is an interpretation of the source, specifically prohibited by WP:V.  If you would like to propose a rewording, I invite discussion on Wikipedia_talk:GS. Blackworm (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS and the prohibition against interpretation would not apply here because the WikiProject is not an article page. Any number of decisions internal to Wikipedia rely to resources besides studies published in reliable secondary sources. Obviously it would be absurd and irresponsible to take the position that problems discovered by Wikipedia's own investigations cannot be addressed because only reports from outside sources will be accepted as evidence. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am willing to accept that, if you can provide a link to official Wikipedia policy or guideline supporting the assertion that WP:RS and the prohibition against interpretation would not apply here because the WikiProject is not an article page. I do not agree with your comment apparently claiming that my position is obviously absurd and irresponsible, and would ask that you please consider avoiding such characterizations of my position in the future. Blackworm (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Verifiability repeatedly refers to "article" content. Nowhere does it state that this applies to other discussions on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have merely used the fact that WP:V often (but not always) discusses in the context of articles, as evidence that it does not apply to other Wikipedia content. This is a logical fallacy.  In the first paragraph of WP:V, I read: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.  This says nothing about the policy only applying to articles, and not applying in the case of claims made in material included in Wikipedia WikiProjects.  Blackworm (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That WP:V discusses articles is all I need to prove this. Your proposal that Wikipedia cannot act on its own evidence seems weirdly extreme and would be impossible to implement consistently in non-article space. For example, your statement "I do not speak German" is not verifiable from a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) No, that would be true if WP:V only discussed its policy in the context of articles. As I show above, that is not true. If WP:V discussed hats, you could not use that as evidence that it doesn't apply to umbrellas.

Do you challenge my statement, "I do not speak German?" The entire question here hinges on reasonable interpretation and reasonable challenges to that interpretation. Is it reasonable to question whether I speak German, despite my saying clearly that I do not, and in the absence of any source serving as evidence to the contrary? I believe not. Is it reasonable to question whether observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia based on a self-selected, non-scientific survey of German Wikipedia users? Perhaps not to some, but definitely to me. If the content and stated goals of this Project page really does come down to the judgment of the Project as a group (rather than individual member editors) about which group-specific biases are reasonable to assume and which are not, I see that as opening up a huge can of worms -- but I'm willing to accept that, if it is backed by official Wikipedia policy. In that case, I would have to look for another WikiProject that suits my desire to help remove gender bias (of ALL kinds) from Wikipedia, serving WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally, users are free to post their relevant opinions on talk pages. It does not follow from that that a consensus statement at the top of a Wikiproject is necessarily free to state something as if it is verifiable fact. The two situations are not at all the same. Wikipedia policies, which are consensus statements but are not articles, usually avoid making any statements of fact (especially ones which might be disputed) but pretty much confine themselves to definitions and rules of behaviour. Presenting something as a consensus of Wikipedian editors gives it a credibility which unverified fact-like statements do not deserve. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong link?
I'm pretty sure you meant to include a different diff here, but I'm hesitant to fix it on your behalf because I'm not certain what you actually intended. Jakew (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, Jake. Fixed. ([diff])  Blackworm (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not upset
No, I'm not upset with you. It's a very rare occasion that I get angry or upset on WP. I haven't been contributing to the discussion on WP:AN because I said most of what I wanted to in my initial post. Although I did just leave a long post about you on Cailil's talk page if you're interested in reading it.

Mostly I'd like you to be aware that you should be a little more considerate and laidback in your interactions on Wikipedia. You haven't violated any policies that I know of but if you're not careful you could find yourself blocked. (Um, please don't take that as a threat from me in particular but a general observation.) Vigorous argument is to be expected, particularly on very controversial subjects. On any article, I highly recommend you stay focused on the article itself and find ways to collaborate and compromise with other editors rather than insisting on your way or the highway. And, yes, perhaps choosing highly controversial topics wasn't the best introduction to WP for you. There are huge swaths of WP where such contentious argument is very unusual and I suggest you look at some less polarizing subjects to get a sense of this.

A final word: WP operates by building consensus. While a strongly determined individual can often effect and impose their particular views on WP articles for a while, these views are unlikely to last because of the many editors who will follow them, changing and developing previous work. So work with consensus, not against it. In some ways, Wikipedia is a process, not an end result. Sorry if that's too zen or general for you but if you don't enjoy what you're doing here and the people you're doing it with, you will burn out and resent it. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Female Genital Cutting
[ This discussion began here. Quizzical Bee copied my entire comments, including my signature, here. -BW ]


 * You are missing the point. For the context in which the word is used here, it doesn't matter if clitorectomy or clitoridectomy is inaccturate as descriptive terminology. If you're unhappy with that inaccuracy, you can wage that battle with the makers of dictionaries and people who use the word. But because this is Wikipedia, what matters, in the context the word is used, is that these are names commonly used for this procedure. It is a fact that these are names used. On Wikipedia, you are not supposed to have original research or original ideas. That the word is problematic because of its inaccuracies is something I would agree with. But it's an opinion, while it's a fact that this word is used. What you can do is make a comment somewhere explaining why certain terminology is factually inaccurate--so female circumcision, clitorectomy and clitoridectomy all have problems with them--but for you to remove the term from usage on the page because you don't like it is a violation of Wikipedia neutral point of view policy.QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I miss your point too, QuizzicalBee. Maybe you could try to explain it more clearly.


 * "Clitorectomy" is a word that comes from two parts: "clitoris" and "ectomy".  "ectomy", according to Wiktionary, means "to cut out".  (It comes from Greek.)  "Clitorectomy" means to cut out the clitoris, or perhaps to cut our part of it, or the clitoris plus something else, according to the dictionary definition above.  "female genital cutting" is a broader term, which might mean a cut that doesn't remove any tissue, or it might mean removing tissue but none from the clitoris.  "FGC" and "clitorectomy" do not mean the same thing.  (I don't know if there's a distinction between "clitorectomy" and "clitoridectomy".)  --Coppertwig (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand what the word literally means, if you want to break it down into its root terms. However, it has come to be used to mean more than that which is just encompassed by those root words. In fact, it is used, repeatedly and conventionally, to refer to the same procedure that is also called female genital mutilation. By mentioning it in the entry in question, I make no claim that it adheres merely to its most narrow definition. I claim, as is demonstrated in the reference, that it is used to refer to many different kinds of female genital mutilation. Do you understand the difference between a semantic disagreement, and a factual disagreement? Ours is a semantic disagreement, but you are using a factual basis for your explanation.QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You say, it has come to be used to mean more than that which is just encompassed by those root words. I challenge this claim.  The source you cite does not back up this claim.  Please cite a reliable source supporting the claim that clitoridectomy and clitorectomy are terms that refer to the excision or tissue removal of any part of the female genitalia.  Blackworm (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Female genital mutilation is not a procedure. It's a collection of procedures which are not all the same as each other. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AN
I was wondering if you would agree to stop editing Reproductive rights and Female genital cutting during this period of dispute resolution. I have disengaged in a GF attempt to de-escalate the situation. Would you be willing to do the same? I have made a similar request of Coppertwig. Phyesalis (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that appropriate at this time. I note that one of the editors you have directly contacted to comment on one of our disputes (User:QuizzicalBee) has just edited [] the FGC article, making highly questionable edits, and, similar to you with your inappropriate edits on RR, labelling them "fact" and reverting my corrections (labelling them "opinion"), despite the edits being demonstrably incorrect, as I show here.  Blackworm (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Did you not read what I wrote about those edits? Your example certainly does not show them to be correct. I suggest you reread my message to you above.QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I'd just like to point out that I contacted Quizzical Bee in a neutral manner because QB had previously commented on the page. As our dispute is about to go to mediation, I don't see how her edits have anything to do with me (particularly since I contacted her weeks ago and I myself have not edited the page in days). For the record, after this contact, I am shunning you for the length of the dispute resolution process or until you show some good faith in your co-collaborators. [-P] Phyesalis (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This constant refrain of (paraphasing) "Assume good faith, you POV pusher!" should have been recognized as ridiculous long ago. How is one to respond to that?  Seriously.  Blackworm (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but I think usually during mediation the parties refrain from editing the page(s) in question, and that often (or at least sometimes) page protection is used. I suggested at User talk:Phyesalis that if you, me and Phyesalis agree on it, it may be a good idea to request page protection, in order to address the concern you raised.  However, the shunning complicates things -- I think that may mean that there won't be a mediation process after all, in which case I suppose the page protection (or the refraining from editing) wouldn't be needed. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Blackworm. Truly. I have stricken the comment. I am not shunning you. You have agreed to mediation in good faith and without complaint. It was completely inappropriate for me to respond in that manner. I thought I could shun you on talk pages while moving through mediation. My original post didn't make this clear, but it doesn't matter. Besides being incorrect, the comment is counterproductive and is tantamount to a failure to assume good faith. (But please note, while I agree that my comment does mention good faith, I made no comment about you pushing a POV.)


 * Regarding page protection, I really didn't want to protect the page. A number of editors are now editing the page and I wouldn't want our dispute to interfere. I had hoped to get us to informally agree to stop editing. But if the two of you would like it protected, I'd agree.


 * Again, please forgive my faux pas. I would still very much like to proceed with mediation. Coppertwig and I were starting to discuss the possibility of co-writing the mediation request. I suggested that we start the request at someone's sandbox. I'm not sure if either of us have discussed this with you. What are your thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Phyesalis. I accept the apology.  I do feel the need to point out you have, actually, mentioned POV pushing many, many times in our disputes (example: "Please stop your POV pushing and discuss changes"[]).  Accusations like that linger, and can easily poison interactions.  Since you have combined these accusations with the many, many times you have suggested I "show more good faith" (paraphrasing), it seems like that kind of combination of accusations has no defense.


 * In my opinion, whenever one party explicitly accuses another of violating the WP:AGF guideline, it is absolutely true that at least one party has violated WP:AGF -- it's just not necessarily clear which party that is. Note that this is somewhat different from politely and gently reminding someone to WP:AGF -- the latter not being an accusation of violating AGF, it can be more easily taken as good-faith advice, rather than a dismissal of the other party's good faith.  Apparently others see this conundrum, as evidenced by the non-binding essay WP:AAGF ("assume the assumption of good faith").


 * As Coppertwig seems to suggest, a series of brief descriptions of questions to be put before a mediator would be useful. If we both agree on a statement of a dispute, that brings us one step closer.  For example, one example might be:
 * Does including the phrase reproductive rights are a subset of human rights without attribution to any party violate policy?
 * I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding this approach. Thanks.  Blackworm (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you, Phyesalis. That's a relief.  I thought you had responded without having taken much time to think it over, and it's big of you to be willing to apologize and change course.
 * Blackworm and Phyesalis, another option we might want to consider (perhaps as an alternative to page protection) is asking QuizzicalBee to refrain from editing the article(s) and/or to join us in the mediation.
 * I suggest describing the dispute using statements rather than questions, or if using questions to use the type of question that doesn't expect a yes-or-no answer.
 * Phyesalis has already summarized (part of) the dispute here, so that gives us something to start from. I based the following partly on it.
 * Here's my first try. I suppose my presentation of the positions other than my own is rather sketchy and will have to be corrected and added to.

A draft description of the dispute

 * Phyesalis wants to include certain material in the articles, including:
 * "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" or "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" or a similar statement (RR);
 * A paragraph about men, health and behavior (2nd paragraph of this edit) (RR)
 * "FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice." (FGC)


 * Phyesalis' side:
 * Phyesalis has provided reliable sources and believes that the sources support and verify the material and that the material satisfies all relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Phyesalis believes that including a prose attribution gives the impression that the statement is opinion and not fact, and that this impression is false because the statement is (as Phyesalis sees it) fact.
 * Phyesalis believes that it's a fact that reproductive rights are a subset of human rights.
 * Phyesalis believes that any argument that some material violates WP:NPOV must be accompanied by reliable sources supporting an opposing POV.
 * Phyesalis believes that the article is about reproductive rights in the international context, and that all sources used must be international in scope.
 * Phyesalis believes that the pro-life view is the view of a tiny minority and can be ignored per WP:NPOV.
 * Phyesalis believes that the number of people practicing FGC as part of their religion (as opposed to merely cultural) is a tiny minority and can be ignored per WP:NPOV.
 * Phyesalis believes that if a view is being ignored as part of a tiny minority, that it's acceptable to make statements as if that minority didn't exist.


 * Blackworm's and Coppertwig's side:
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig dispute the material and are not convinced that it's supported by the sources given or that it's possible to find sources supporting it.
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig believe that it's important to delete as quickly as possible material that's (apparently) unverified and unverifiable, so as to avoid misleading readers.
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig believe that some of the material Phyesalis wishes to include violates WP:NPOV.
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig believe that when material is disputed, often a good solution is to present the material with a prose attribution, closely following the wording of the original source.
 * For some of the material, Coppertwig doesn't remember seeing sources that would allow it to be included even with a prose attribution.
 * Coppertwig doesn't understand what Phyesalis means by a "fact" about reproductive rights (e.g. whether the UN has the power to create human rights or to discover what they are). Coppertwig believes that human rights are something that cannot be created or even discovered for certainty by human beings, and that any statement about them is therefore (as Coppertwig sees it) necessarily an opinion.
 * Coppertwig believes that all statements must be written so that practically all people, including people with pro-life views, people with pro-property rights views etc. can compare them with the sources and agree that they're verifiable facts; and that this is required by WP:V.
 * Coppertwig believes that the person wanting to add disputed material has a responsibility to provide reliable sources, but that the person opposing the material normally doesn't have to provide sources.
 * Coppertwig believes that all statements must be completely verifable, and that the tiny minority clause in WP:NPOV is only talking about which statements to include and which to leave out; that it does not have the effect of allowing statements which are merely mostly true.


 * Blackworm wants to include material on:
 * A paragraph about NCM and a court case referred to as "Roe vs. Wade For Men."


 * Phyesalis believes:
 * that the paragraph is not relevant to RR because RR is about reproductive health.
 * that the paragraph is not relevant because it's not based on sources that are international in scope.


 * Blackworm believes:
 * that RR is about reproductive rights, not focussing exclusively on reproductive health, and that the material is relevant.

--Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I didn't realize before I wrote that how many aspects there are to this dispute (or collection of disputes). No wonder we haven't untangled it all yet.
 * I think it might be a good idea if we dig a little deeper and say a bit about our values, e.g. things like truth and freedom that we particularly value, and how that relates to how we want to edit here; although I'd like to keep the main emphasis on more practical matters like policy, relevance of material to the article, etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work, Coppertwig! Might we agree that each of us is free to tweak statements regarding our perspectives? Also I want to include a section on BW's alleged tendentiousness (primarily as outlined by various administrators on AN and project editors on other pages, plus a few other examples). As this was how the whole ball got rolling, I hope we can all agree that my presenting certain info is appropriate. I hope to present diffs/links with little editorializing so as to present info in as neutral a manner as possible. Are we agreed? I'm not sure what you mean by "values". If you would provide a starter example of what you'd like to say about yourself, that would be really helpful. Phyesalis (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Phyesalis, if you want to discuss my behaviour, in addition to article content, then be aware that I will demand direct quoted evidence from you, I will involve any editors you reference in your allegations in the mediation, I will involve editors involved in any discussions you quote as evidence, I will involve other editors I have had contact and/or disputes with, and I will present any and all material possibly indicating any tendentiousness on your part. I strongly dispute your assertion that my behaviour got, in your words, the whole ball rolling; therefore I do not agree that any such info is appropriate.


 * Coppertwig, thank you for this tremendous effort. I'll review it more carefully and possibly propose changes.  I think a discussion of "values" is too similar to a discussion of behaviour to be appropriate.  I believe that an mediated analysis of the article content desired by Phyesalis and myself will prove that my edits correspond much more closely to Wikipedia's values, which are the only values that are relevant here.  Blackworm (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if the two of you make a small number of small changes in the draft above, but not in other parts of my posts and only by striking out words with or adding words in small print with  ;  otherwise, please make a separate copy here or somewhere.  --Coppertwig (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will provide diffs and quotes. I disagree with your insistence on including everyone I quote from the AN and from the Gender Studies dispute. The dispute is a) about the article content and b) per AN, about the nature of your editing patterns. The dispute is primarily between you and I over a series of pages. The way I see it, I have a content dispute with Coppertwig and a behavioral dispute with you. I feel like much of the material has already been covered by third parties and there seems little reason of take up server space by reproducing it in the mediation.


 * As to your objection, two third-party administrators felt the need to bring up your behavior at the AN. I didn't do it nor did I request that it be done, therefore I see it as your behavior that got the mediation ball rolling. A number of of uninvolved people have commented on your behavior at AN and no one suggested they be named in mediation. What do you mean when you say "you will involve any editors"? If you would like to bring up evidence to support allegations of tendentiousness, I understand it to be your right.


 * Per Coppertwig's reasonable request, I suggest that we move this to my sandbox (User talk:Phyesalis/Mediation request) where each person may feel free to edit sections their respective sections. Phyesalis (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Phyesalis, at Requests for mediation it says "...and is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute over content", so I take that to mean that the focus should be on article content, not on behaviour. I really think it's better to focus on article content.  Think about it:  if we achieve a situation where we all agree (or at least are willing to compromise) on what the article will say, then will any particular behaviour still be a problem?
 * If something someone is doing is a major irritant, then it may (or may not) be more productive to mention it than not to mention it. The other person might not be aware that the behaviour is bothering someone.  Or, the person might not be willing to change the behaviour.  But I think it's best if any mention of behavioural things like that is done in the gentlest and most tactful possible way and with good timing.  Focussing on it as one of a number of central issues in mediation may not be the most productive way to address it.
 * For now at least, I'm quite open to having problems with my own behaviour mentioned on my talk page, at the top of which I say "Among other things, I welcome politely-worded criticisms of my behaviour here."
 * Re the draft I wrote above: It may be better to shorten it, (or to make two documents, one even longer, and one a short summary).  Also, I find that it has too much of a binary feel, like the yes-or-no questions I was trying to avoid.  I'm thinking of trying to write something more goal-oriented, like:
 * Goal: to produce versions of the articles that each of us is reasonably satisfied contain no inaccuracies, touch on all the points of major importance in the topic, and present a variety of points of view in a balanced way.
 * Goal 2: We would also like to develop mutually compatible procedures for handling situations involving differences of opinion.
 * --Coppertwig (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I've been assuming we're planning to do formal mediation, but I just noticed recently that when Cailil suggested mediation at WP:AN, the user gave a link to the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation process. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose we can choose how to proceed, not necessarily putting a tremendous amount of weight on one other user's advice. I believe Blackworm has the right to insist on including   whichever other people he considers necessary or advisable under the circumstances.  If any one of those people refuses to participate, the mediation won't be able to proceed, I suppose.  I hope we can all work this out amicably. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology
I'm afraid some of the things I said at WP:AN were somewhat arrogant and tactless, and I've posted a clarification there. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuing our discussions
Hi, Blackworm. I'm looking forward to your joining in the editing of the draft mediation request at User talk:Phyesalis/Mediation request, when you have time.

Re this post, which seems to be by you, at Talk:Circumcision and law: Oh, maybe I'd better be careful, because I've been saying things sort-of like that to Phyesalis. It's supposed to help people get along by indicating understanding of and respect for the other person's point of view. Maybe some people don't like to hear things like that -- or maybe it's a matter of saying it with the right timing etc.

I'm sorry if I overstepped my authority in making rules about how people could edit my post on your talk page. You may, of course, archive it or delete it or whatever. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Coppertwig. I hope to pour over the details of the draft mediation request in the next couple of days.  I have to admit the sheer volume of stuff there is daunting.  Also, as far as I know Phyesalis insists on bringing my "behaviour" as a subject of the mediation, which I think is irrelevant compared to the article content disputes, as well as unsupported by any evidence.  Should Phyesalis continue this insistence I will be forced to spend a lot of time defending myself in that regard, as well as rereading past discussions and compiling evidence of Phyesalis' inappropriate behaviour, which I have minimized mention of until now.  I'm not looking forward to it.


 * As far as the edit you refer to, the whole point is that "the other person's point of view" is irrelevant other than their support or opposition to specific article content, grounded in policy. I have done Jakew the courtesy of not insinuating any ulterior motives on his part recently, and it was disappointing that he would not return that courtesy.  My response was an attempt to keep discussion on subject, i.e. edits, rather than editors' motives.


 * I'm not sure what you are referring to in the last paragraph. Rest assured that I have not taken offense to anything you've written recently (or possibly ever).  I feel extremely fortunate that you are involved in editing these articles, as you have shown impeccable civility and neutrality throughout, despite our differences on a few proposed edits.  Blackworm (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Blackworm.


 * I think I will soon post a suggestion at the draft mediation request that we make the whole thing much, much shorter. I think the document is useful, but that if we post it as the mediation request, the mediators will likely reject the request as being too complicated.  So, it may not be necessary for you to go through the whole thing in detail before the mediation requset is posted (though going through it in detail will still probably be very helpful.)  I think we should keep that document in long form, but also develop a separate, shorter one to actually post as a mediation request. So go ahead and make it even a bit longer if you like.


 * I don't think Phyesalis is insisting on including a discussion of your behaviour in the mediation. She had said earlier (here on your talk page) that she was intending to;  you objected to that; and since then she hasn't said anything about it as far as I know, and she has been editing the draft mediation request with, I think, no mention of your behaviour in it.


 * Re Jakew: What I mean is that I believe that Jakew was intending to be courteous when he said that, and that I think you interpreted it in a way that I think Jakew didn't intend. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that a short and long form may be appropriate. With regard to Phyesalis' insistence on discussing "behaviour," I refer you to Phyesalis' post dated 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC), above, which came after my objection.
 * I'd rather not comment on the intent Jakew had with his statements -- regardless of his intent, he was clearly inappropriately commenting on the editor rather than the edit, something he has asked me not to do several times. I have learned.  It's time for him to learn as well.  Blackworm (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

comment re FGC article
I hope you don't mind if I make this comment here, since Phyesalis has requested that I not edit this article or its talk page. I think you added this to Female genital cutting: "The only contemporary examples of Christians practicing FGC are in Africa."  I find that hard to believe. It sounds like a claim that there isn't a single Christian person outside Africa practicing FGC. How could anyone know that, since there is such a large number of people in the world? I think this statement requires a prose attribution, if it's included. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I did not add that, although it may look that way from the diff -- look at the following paragraph, which I merged into the previous one. I completely agree with you that the statement is out of place, along with many, many others in that article.  I don't wish to recklessly make a series of large edits to the article, however, preferring to see how (and if) my recent edits stick up to editor consensus and WP policy.  Blackworm (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Maybe I should have checked the edit history more carefully before posting the above. By the way, I think this edit of yours was well done. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I've made the same mistake myself; the diff viewer is kind of lousy by industry standards.  Re: the edit: thanks. Blackworm (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FC?
I noticed that you've removed a few instances of the acronym 'FC', and I wonder if you could explain. The acronym is used in sources, so it isn't our own invention... Jakew (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would assume that where it is abbreviated, it serves a purpose, presumably that of avoiding repeating the term over and over. Here, I removed two instances, both of which were immediately preceded by the full text.  No purpose was served.  Oddly, the abbreviation MC is [used in sources] to refer to male circumcision, and yet we repeat "male circumcision" or "circumcision" at least a dozen times rather than use the abbreviation in this article which exclusively deals with male circumcision.  Blackworm (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR articles
I've figured out how I can get access to JSTOR, and have obtained electronic copies of the two JSTOR articles in the Reproductive rights reference list. I'm not sure if you already have these or not. It's my understanding of the JSTOR terms and conditions that I can distribute a few copies for non-commercial use, so if you email me that you agree not to redistribute them, I can email you copies. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I agree with you here, both about conceptual arrangement of article, and about credentials. I like your humourous description of the credentials controversy.  That reminds me -- I forget if I already mentioned this, but I got a good laugh out of your "WP:WHATEVER" that you said a while back in some context I've forgotten. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) Humour does help me through occasional frustration.  As for JSTOR, thank you very much for the offer.  I am still hesitant to use e-mail on Wikipedia.  By keeping my e-mail closed, it is a badge of proof that I am not engaging in any secret collusion with other editors.  All of my interactions with all other editors are done in public and are on the record.  I wish I could say the same for some other editors, who appear to e-mail each other to discuss strategy.  I think that kind of behaviour has the makings of (or appearance of) a cabal, and prefer to avoid it.  If I reconsider, I'll let you know, and thanks again.  Blackworm (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The JSTOR web page lists institutions that have access to the service. I found a university near me that's on the list, and discovered I could just walk into the university library and they would give me access.  (Well, after waving random ID at them and signing some agreement.)  If you're in the habit of buying things over the Internet by credit card, I think you can also get a copy sent to you for only about $4 each.  Anyway, walking to the university was good exercise.  Apparently one of the articles is a "Comment" rather than a regular article. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing you might consider is to enable your email function for just a short time, and post the entire contents of all emails exchanged (except for the attachments, which would be the already-published articles themselves) here on the wiki. Just an idea -- I realize you might not want to do that. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your personal objection to Circumcision ?
[ This edit, an offensive personal attack from SimonHolzman, has been deleted by me. ] Blackworm (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies if my question offended you in some way, it was not intended to. If my comment about Hitler was the cause of the offense, I actually only meant it in the context that even things which are generally considered to be horrifically bad often have some redeeming feature. I was genuinely interested in your reply and hope that you will give me one. I tried to express my feelings on the subject so that you would know that I recognised that my question impinged on your privacy. If you choose not to answer, that is your choice and I respect, but I did not remotely intend to 'attack' you in any way.SimonHolzman (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology. Unfortunely I don't wish to discuss my "personal objections," if any, to Circumcision as they are irrelevant to Wikipedia, as has been pointed out to me several times.  I already contribute too much time attempting to encourage people to follow WP:NPOV, and probably will give up soon; I don't wish to get caught up in meta-discussions with any new people at this time.  Blackworm (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A comment
Re your comment where you said, "Utilising the rules in a manner contrary to their spirit in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community and will get you nowhere." I don't see Jakew doing what you describe. Maybe it's just a disagreement about how the rules should be applied. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is stopping anyone who wants the status quo in an article from arguing without end, constantly claiming "no consensus" even when opposed 3 to 1, and making up interpretations of policy? Apparently, nothing.  Blackworm (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Filed mediation request
Thank you for your participation in composing the mediation request. I have filed it here. -Phyesalis (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
 * Discussion about page protection is here. Not much happening. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I think my head is going to bleed from all the scratching at the ridiculous statements made by a certain party in this dispute.  Blackworm (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My sympathy for the loss of haemoglobin, but please try to AGF. A person's arguments can be treated with respect even if one doesn't agree with them. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be, but I'm not of the school of thought that they must be. An illogical, nonsensical argument is not one that will garner any respect from me, especially when it is impeding article progress, and especially when its arguer cannot write a full paragraph without attacking me personally.  Also, I'm not failing to AGF; people say lots of nonsense in good faith, and I'm sure this is no exception.  Blackworm (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't feel respectful about an argument, you can still act in a respectful way. That way, the other person is more likely to focus on arguments rather  than on people and there's more likely to be some sort of real progress. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I feel disrespected by accusations of having not AGF'd, when I'm convinced that is not true, I respond in kind; and perhaps it is a failing. I apologize for any undue references to any parties who felt targeted by my remarks, or potentially making ridiculous statements, including myself. Blackworm (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that a mediator has offered to take our case; please indicate on our mediation page whether you accept. . --Coppertwig (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

egypt and fgm
Here's a source for Egyptian clerics condemning the practice, and it was on the BBC recently as well :

http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/news/news/146 XYaAsehShalomX (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind my responding here instead of on your talk page. I don't doubt that some clerics condemn the practice, but I don't see how that implies that these moves have gone some way towards making the practice unacceptable.  That seems to imply that the population have embraced these comments.  Unless that specific analysis is clarified and sourced, it remains original research.  If it can be sourced, it should be attributed, since it is expressing that the practice should be unacceptable, which violates Neutral Point of View unless attributed.
 * Similarly, the comments about patriarchy have WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues. Blackworm (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/Montreal
I see you are a user located in Montréal, you may be interested in:Meetup/Montreal. Add your name to the "Interested" or to the "Not interested" list. Time and place haven't been decided yet. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment removed
I removed this harassment. Blackworm (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite entitled to remove a warning from your talk page. You may also remove this notice that I have raised the the problem at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminder
Re "nowhere do I claim I wish to insert my views", I thought it might help to remind you of the following:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." WP:TALK

Jakew (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, Jake, I ask you to please follow your own advice (e.g. "apparent scientific consensus," "claims attributed to a source are 'extraordinary'," "not convinced that we need to discuss HIV here," etc., in that discussion). Do you really want me to post to your talk page with a "reminder" every time you express a view?  Or is this a case of "good" views and "bad" views, like the "good" WP:SYN and "bad" WP:SYN dichotomy you attempted to establish in one of our discussions?  Blackworm (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Blackworm, there are indeed "good" views and "bad" views. "Good" views are expected, and include thoughts about the article and application of WP policy, as well as attempts to summarise views expressed in reliable sources. "Bad" views generally include those about the subject of the article, especially novel criticism or interpretation of sources. Jakew (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Now can you show me how what I said is the latter, on that article's Talk page, please?  And how yours ("apparent scientific consensus") are not the latter?  Blackworm (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok... Quoting from this edit:
 * "The above is the data that Stallings et al. tried to explain away, and failed". Tried to explain away? Failed?
 * "What "seems plausible" to these people seems quite a bit more irrelevant, especially when no biological mechanisms were studied." Seems irrelevant? According to whom? Since you're trying to dismiss the stated conclusions in a source, where is your source?
 * "It's clearly a statement of faith that the data are flawed, because of the moral and ethical "conundrum" created if one applies the science properly." Moral and ethical conundrum? Applies the science properly?


 * For each of the questions I ask above, try rephrasing as a statement about the article in which positions about the subject are attributed to a reliable source. For example, "Well, author X argues that, when one applies the science properly, the true result is... So, in order to adhere to NPOV, I think we ought to note this fact."


 * But the problem seems to be that these are your opinions, not those of a verifiable source (or so I gather from comments like "Had I been in the room, I would have mockingly laughed out loud"). And to be blunt, they don't belong.


 * Now consider my comment about "apparent scientific consensus":
 * "I don't think that there's any point in discussing HIV and FGC because the apparent scientific consensus is that there is no association (3/4 of authors report no association, 1/4 report an association due to irreducible confounding). Thus, it seems to be the sound of a dog not barking." First of all, note that the comment is primarily about the article, and whether a change is warranted. Second, note the parenthetical comment, which implicitly refers to the four reliable sources that I cited in an earlier post. The purpose, quite evidently, is to summarise the positions expressed in these sources, and to use this summary as a rationale for an opinion about the article. At worst it is WP:SYN, and perhaps I might have phrased it better, but I thought that the intent was clear enough. Jakew (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN is WP:OR. Can we drop this now?  Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nifty userpage content
Hi, Blackworm. I just read your userpage. I like your collection of quotes, particularly the contrast between the first and second quote.

I think I agree with you about not raising the possibility of FA status etc. in arguments about article content. The MOS, policies etc. can be referred to in arguments, and if they're adhered to very well then FA status may follow; but I don't think the possibility of FA status is a valid argument in itself to do one thing rather than another in the article. However, some editors may find it motivating to hear arguments about FA status etc., and if it happens to influence them, that's fine. I guess I just mean I don't think I'll be influenced by those arguments.

I've been working on Che Guevara, which is under FA review (i.e. it might lose its FA status). Part of my motivation for putting a lot of work into it is so that it will keep its FA status; however, the actual changes are to improve the article. There's usually no conflict between the two, but if there is, I'll go with what I think is a better article, not what would seem more likely to pass FA review.

"I don't know, and wouldn't know where in Wikipedia to look." Ah -- an under-documented phenomenon? A problem not only in Wikipedia perhaps, but in the world that generates (or doesn't) the reliable sources on which Wikipedia is based. I don't know what to do about it.

"In a formal logical argument, the word 'and' means the same as the word 'but.' " That reminds me. Once just for fun I was solving logic puzzles in Dutch, a language I hardly know. The only thing I had to ask the author for clarification on, though, wasn't because I didn't know the language. "Maar" means "but". Each character in the puzzle might or might not have been lying, and if I remember right, if they were lying, then every statement they made was a lie. I had to ask: if the character said two things joined by "maar", should I treat that as one logical statement as if joined by "and", or as two separate statements, as if they were in separate sentences, which would both have to be false? The answer was the latter.

I would take this approach: "but" can be used to add colour, motivation, flow to an article, and can be useful in guiding the reader: it's easier to parse a sentence if you have a feel for what type of statement is coming next. However, if there is any question that it affects POV, it's best to replace it with "and". Just my opinion. (We're free to express opinions on such things in signed comments on talk pages.) --Coppertwig (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments Copperwtig. On FA stuff, I agree with you, and perhaps I should refine my comments on the user page to reflect that.  I don't have anything against FA discussions and process.  I didn't like it when it was brought up in article talk as a reason for expedience in determining article content.  I also believe people may tend to be less bold when editing FAs, going along with the majority view.  This might explain why articles on controversial subjects seem to be very rarely FAs.


 * I wouldn't called my impressions of the gender bias of people who cite "systemic gender bias" an under-documented phenomenon, because I have no other experience to draw on but my own. I felt like relating my experience, and maybe nothing more should be done about it.  There are apparently several who indeed feel I should do no more (or perhaps even should do less than what I am already doing).


 * The part you write about "and" vs. "but" in Dutch is quite interesting. Were you clearly informed as to whether "and" was also indicative of separate statements with truth values to be established separately in the puzzle?  I mostly agree with your approach on the word.  I wonder, though, about "if there is any question that it affects POV."  Some may see it as not whether the "but" itself affects the POV of the statement, but rather whether there's any question that the source has that POV.  If I remember correctly, you reverted a change I made that removed the word "but" and replaced it with "and," citing evidence that the source intended the POV implied by "but," by its use of the word, "however."  I accepted your reversion agreeing with your argument.  It could be viewed as a case of common sense trumping a pedantic view of WP:NPOV.


 * Thanks again for the comments, they are always welcome. I enjoy and learn from our discussions.  Blackworm (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re "but" and "however": you win.  I remember making that argument, though I don't remember what it was about.  However, if the source doesn't express such a POV, then "and" would have to be used.
 * Re "but" in Dutch: Just to make sure it's clarified: it wasn't a language thing. The words were used just as they would have been in English.  The question was about how "but" would be interpreted in such a logic puzzle.  I don't remember what was said about "and" ("en" in Dutch), but I suppose I assumed that it would be treated as the word "and" would normally be treated in such puzzles, i.e. forming a compound statement which is true if and only if both its parts are true.  I think I probably stated that when I asked my question, and the author didn't contradict it.  Anyway, I made that assumption and managed to solve the puzzle. :-)


 * Re relating your experience of systemic gender bias: if it's about such bias in society in general, unfortunately Wikipedia may not be the place to relate it. If it's about bias of Wikiprojects or whatever, I suppose that's probably a fair target of discussion.  (Though bias of individuals might not be? I'd have to think about it some more.) I encourage you to seek places outside Wikipedia to express your views about such bias in society in general.  You may be only one individual, but you've collected information about many other people while forming your impression.  Your insight may be a valuable contribution to society.  It might be worth writing a magazine article or a web page or something. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it embarrassingly flattering for you to suggest such a thing, but thank you. The first two sentences of your post above sum it up well -- the WikiProject WP:CSB is relating its unverified experience about bias in society in general, and asking editors to act according to those experiences.  I question that WikiProject.  As for my views, if they are appropriate for that WikiProject, they are appropriate on my user page; especially since unlike the WikiProject I'm not advocating editors take action against this perceived bias. Blackworm (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to off-topic query
Just a quick note in reply to this, Blackworm.

You asked, "What is the purpose of writing that if not to state your personal view that circumcision advocacy is grounded in a sound evaluation of all evidence?" I simply felt it important to note that the WHO's role is (in part) to evaluate evidence and make appropriate (in their view) recommendations as a result. Therefore the fact that they've made a recommendation (or "advocate", if you prefer) simply reflects their charter. I didn't mean to imply that their evaluation was sound or unsound, only that they made one and acted accordingly. Jakew (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. Their charter might just as easily cause them to make a recommendation against circumcision, in which case you likely would dispute that the WHO advocates circumcision.  The faithful fulfillment of their role as "evidence-based recommendation makers" (paraphrasing you) in no way suggests that they "advocate circumcision" unless you also believe that the evidence demonstrates an overall benefit of circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely the faithful fulfillment of their role as evidence-based recommendation makers would suggest that they're going to recommend something, though, whether for or against? Consider their earlier position (quoting from a 2006 document): "WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF and the UNAIDS Secretariat emphasize that their current policy position has not changed and that they do not currently recommend the promotion of male circumcision for HIV prevention purposes." In this earlier instance, weren't they simply evaluating evidence and making an appropriate (again, in their view) recommendation? And if we describe them as "circumcision advocates", does that mean that they were circumcision advocates in 2006? Jakew (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, precisely, it suggests that they recommend something, for or against; thus your apparent claim that it follows that they were advocating circumcision due to that role, is a non-sequitur unless one is already convinced that the evidence calls for a positive recommendation. It's not the end of the world; you're allowed to have your opinion.  It just bugs me that you can't seem to admit to being human and having one and "inappropriately" expressing it sometimes, just like I do.
 * To answer your questions: (1) Yes, and (2) not necessarily, no. I don't see the relevance, however.  Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, in (1) and (2) I'm referring to the last two questions. Blackworm (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we're misunderstanding each other, Blackworm. My argument is not "because of their role as evidence-based recommendation makers, they were sure to recommend circumcision". It is somewhat closer to "because of their role as evidence-based recommendation makers, they were sure to recommend something about circumcision, so I don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of the fact that they made a recommendation". Put another way, I don't understand why you're investing so much energy into convincing me that they advocate (such as going to the trouble of citing sources), when the fact that they advocate positions on health matters is frankly unsurprising.
 * As for my personal opinion, yes, I agree with their evaluation (hope that makes you happy [[Image:Smile.png]]), and judging by papers published over the last couple of years there seems to be near-universal agreement with it. But in the absence of allegations of incompetence, conspiracy, or malice on their part, I don't understand why the soundness or non-soundness of their evaluation should even be an issue. Jakew (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jake, there is a difference between a group advocating a position on circumcision, and a group advocating circumcision. Surely you can see this.  You wrote: "I don't dispute that since March 2007 they advocate circumcision, Blackworm. After all, their role is to evaluate evidence and recommend accordingly." Blackworm (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not the soundness or non-soundness of their evaluation that is the issue; the issue is whether your statement I quote above expresses a personal opinion about the soundness or non-soundness of their evaluation. :)  And yes, it makes me happy.  Blackworm (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Particular --> Principle
Blackworm, I am curious, do you think Warning: would be more effective? Jrod2 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have already suggested something, then apparently stated your opposition to it. Are you now proposing this edit seriously?  To answer your question, I do not feel that labeling "a principle" as a "WARNING" is appropriate on policy pages.  Pointing out particularly dubious and policy-violating actions is, of course, called for.  If emphasis is desired, we can emphasize the word particularly. Blackworm (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I miscommunicated perhaps. I didn't oppose it, I just thought that others users might. "Warning" it's a more deterrent word than Particular. When I read "In particular", I thought, Ok well, if we are going to use medium threatening language, why not make it elegant? That's why I chose "In principle". If you also feel that "in particular" is not conveying a more serious meaning, why not take it up a notch higher and use, say, "specifically". If you don't think it's a suitable word, then let's use "particularly. But, let's change "in particular", it doesn't work too well, I don't think. Jrod2 (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A problem I see with "specifically" is that it might be read as suggesting that actions not mentioned specifically are not prohibited. I really like "particularly," (I didn't realize the article said "in particular") but I could also support something like "Some examples of clear violations of this policy would be using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll, or to circumvent other Wikipedia policies."  What do you think?  Blackworm (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Some examples that clearly violate this policy would be using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll, or to circumvent other Wikipedia policies." . If you do that, I'll support it. Jrod2 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, and thanks for being flexible on this. Blackworm (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I think we needed to separate the sentence with commas, though. If this is wrong, revert. Jrod2 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversal due to source question
Hi. I'm learning more all the time on contributing to make WP better. From the looks of your experience, I'm about to learn something valuable for my future WP contributions. You reversed my addition to the following page on the 23rd, quoting the reason as being: "rv that non-attributed view is not from a reliable source". Thanks for your feedback. Would you mind taking a few minutes to tell me why? I'd love to learn. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexism&action=history --Negotiations (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. Blackworm (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rv on sexism
Blackworm did you mean to make a whole-scale revert here or just on the hate-crime link? I understand your point about that link, but the revert on everything else (such as the conversion of the list into prose and the internal wikilink correction and the addition summary of Occupational sexism) I don't get. Since you didn't mention them in the edit-summary I'm assuming you didn't mean to revert all of it. But if you do have a rationale for a whole-scale revert please do let me know-- Cailil  talk 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, clearly something went very wrong there. Thanks for the alert.  Let me undo and try to sort that out.  One moment... Blackworm (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I was sure it was just a mistake-- Cailil  talk 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I must have made the first edit to an old revision, or something. I've redone the changes.  Thanks again.  Blackworm (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Circumcision article
Blackworm, you said: "It seems you believe that it is a fact that circumcision reduces all males' chances of contracting HIV by 50%, and we should present it as such without attribution of the view." No, I was simply presenting an idea without having thought it through all the way. I said that the sentence might need some work to make sure it was accurate, etc. I figured that in the wiki spirit, if my idea had merit, that others might fix up the sentence to an acceptable standard. Thanks for pointing out a shortcoming of it – just the sort of thing I trusted people would come up with. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Coppertwig, I didn't express myself well. If clearly attributed to the secondary source, I don't see a problem.  The primary sources, however, don't conclude this.  The problem I saw with your statement is that the data indicated a 50% reduction in the trial, which was cut short.  As scientists but with common sense, let's consider this: if the trials were left to continue longer, say a few years, do you believe the data would have indicated a higher rate of reduction, a lower rate, or the same rate, if a protective effect of circumcision per sexual encounter and prevalence of HIV infection were constant?  Honestly, the "circumcision reduces HIV by 50%" blanket statement, with no time indication, i.e. begging the question, "50% over what period?" makes no sense to me at all.  Do the WHO specifically address this?  Are they clear about it being over a lifetime?  Is it really over a lifetime, because that was the reduction in the short RCT?  That doesn't seem to follow logically to me.  Also, saying it without attribution in Talk arguably violates WP:OR, as well, especially by the incredibly pedantic standards of certain editors of the article.  It doesn't bother me much, and thank you for your kind and patient message here.  I hate, though, that the "rules" seem to only get pointed out when the unattributed view is not shared by certain editors.  That smacks of avoiding "writing for the enemy" and I've perceived several examples on Talk:Circumcision lately.  Blackworm (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA draft.
A fair and good point which I will address right now. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for the constructive criticism. -- Avi (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Blackworm.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. We will have to continue to disagree as to how you perceived Jay's comments, and I look forward to seeing your comments should I decide to submit another such candidacy in the future. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Ah, I mislabeled my edit to Talk:Women's rights. Per WP:TALK, "material that is not relevant to improving the article" should (or at least can) be removed from talk pages. I personally think that this keeps talk pages from devolving into debate about the article topic and it makes it easier for editors to make sure that all serious issues in the article have been addressed, since they don't have to wade through soapboxing. But you're definitely right, it shouldn't have been labeled vandalism. I meant to click the other rollback link and couldn't think of a way to rectify the mistake. Thanks for keeping me honest. :-) --Gimme danger (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, and no need for an apology. :) I guess I preferred to explain to the user on the talk page why his post was inappropriate, since I saw the blanking as having the potential to invite cries of "censorship" and actual vandalism -- it seemed a bit bitey.  But yeah, I see how it wasn't relevant to improving the article, so I hope you weren't offended by the revert.  Blackworm (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RM
I can appreciate your dreams of having an admin magically side with you, but I have read all of the Requested move for circumcision and see no compelling arguments for the move, and from day one there was clearly no consensus (split 3:3 at that time, now split 7:5 opposed:support). Most requested moves do not require an administrator to close them - any un-involved editor can intelligently close them if there is no consensus or consensus for not moving, and many times the move can be done by a non-administrator if the consensus is to move an article (change the name). There are a few ball of waxes that there is no clear way to decide what to do and these languish in the backlog section for too long until someone makes a decision. Circumcision had no hope of reaching consensus, which is why it was closed on the 19th, and does not have any consensus, which is why it was closed again today. I'll give you a chance to read this and close it again tomorrow. 199.125.109.125 (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You closed a discussion prematurely and anonymously, and after I reopened it the number of responses doubled (and it is still low). A neutral and fair discussion trumps your pre-emptive closing of the discussion, a tactic which could be used to influence the outcome, and is thus to be opposed by any means necessary.  Administrators are empowered by the community to judge whether there is or is not consensus and what a reasonable amount of time is for the subject to be discussed.  When they do so, their reputation is on the line.  You, it appears, have neither the community's nod to act as judge, nor any identifiable reputation to be considered.  You are not to act in an official capacity in Wikipedia.   I insist that an administrator properly close that requested move, per WP:RM, which states, If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". (Emphasis mine.) Blackworm (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the concept of administrator. Admins have more tools than registered users, who in turn have more tools than IP users, however, everyone follows the same rules, and can interpret those rules, given a modicum of intelligence and the time to study t]]he issue at hand. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you are deadlocked with an equal number of other editors each taking the opposite side of a non-issue - what to title the article about circumcision. As I see it, you are not doing very well in swinging anyone over to your side, and are destined to remain deadlocked on the issue forever, and the best thing to do is just close the RM and move on. In fact I noted that one editor had switched their view - had they not it would still have been "no consensus" with a vote of 6 to 6. Trust me, you won't find any admin finding any other result. 199.125.109.125 (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately, you are misunderstanding the concept of administrator. Since you are clearly not a neutral party in that dispute, it is wrong for you to act in an administrative capacity in that dispute.  In fact, one could say you already unfairly biased the result by making it appear as if a trusted member of the community evaluated the requested move.  This discussion ends here.  I'd also appreciate it if you would stop archiving discussions on Talk:Circumcision, as your archiving frequency makes it more difficult to find past discussions (which I imagine is your goal).  If I notice any other irregular activity or impersonation of an administrator on circumcision or elsewhere from you, I will request administrative action to stop you.  I know you're probably some user who is too cowardly to put their name on what they're doing, because they know it's wrong.  Prove me wrong; make an account.  Otherwise, go away.  Blackworm (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting everything into one file does not make finding subjects easier, it makes it harder. Talk:Circumcision archives have an index that is updated twice a day by a bot, making it super easy to find what you are looking for, plus every archive has a navlink to the next and previous archive so that you can read the whole archive sequencially. 120 k archives, though large, are pretty standard. FYI my first edit was made with a username, but I long ago forgot the username and the password and lost interest in using a username. It isn't a game I either need to play nor wish to play. I would suggest that you reread the first sentence of WP:Admin. Administrators have extra tools and nothing else ("technical features that help with maintenance"). If you want an admin to close the RM, you are just wasting their time, when I can close it just as easily, allowing them to do the things that only they can do. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of archive length is a matter of opinion. Discussions on this page take place at a snail's pace, and in the past archives were made with much less frequency. Unfortunately, the archiving procedure breaks all links to discussions, making the discussions more difficult to find (though admittedly, not much more difficult for an editor wishing to go through the trouble).

I'm not particularly interested in the history of your not using a username. I'm informing you that the level of trust you have earned to perform administrative tasks which require neutrality and judgment is in question. I specifically reverted your closures twice, and instead of discussion you chose to inform me that you would be closing again. This is a clear lapse of judgment. Then, you state that you "see no compelling arguments for the move," clearly VOTING yourself on the issue, betraying your lack of neutrality. Ultimately, I objected to your actions, and no one else so far has objected to mine, and more editors discussed the problem. Let an admin decide whether a discussion should be "closed." The RM discussion is not for investigating the issue and judging it, it's for discussing the issue and coming to a consensus. You can't pre-emptively cut the discussion short because you agree with the momentary outcome of such an action -- and we trust administrators better to make those kinds of decisions in controversial disputes. Blackworm (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have some rocket propelled snails, because those snails wrote 475 k of talk in less than two months. It was beyond ridiculous to wait so long to archive it. As I said, I read all of the support and oppose arguments and didn't find any of the support arguments that were compelling. That isn't a statement of my view, it is a statement of the validity of the arguments. You may wish to know, however, that out of the seven oppose votes two are admins, and of the seven support votes none are admins. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I said was "discussions on this page take place at a snail's pace." What that means is, topics remain open for a long time because there are a lot of opinionated editors and not everyone fanatically reads and responds to Talk:Circumcision discussion daily.  Ultimately I don't really care about the archiving.  120k seems a reasonable size, and as you point out, the browsing tools are there.  Archive away.
 * You write: "That isn't a statement of my view, it is a statement of the validity of the arguments." Sorry: that's ludicrous prima facie.  It is your view on the validity of the arguments.  Clearly others disagree.  Have they miscalculated something, in some algebraically provable way?  It not, then clearly your position is a view -- your view on the validity of those arguments.  Blackworm (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As an admin, I agree with Blackworm that the attempts by to close this requested move are troublesome. At a minimum such a close should be performed by an uninvolved person, and an IP with little or no track record won't be able to show they are uninvolved. (Others may be concerned that the IP is the sock of an editor who has strong views in the debate). EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EdJohnston. Blackworm (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for looking out. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision
Blackworm, your reversion of the material I added aren't based on any existing policies, and meanwhile you're removed massively sourced and supported material in favor of your own unsourced opinions. Your edits are contrary to policy, and if I "reverted" myself, then my edits would be contrary to policy too. Instead of removing properly sourced and relevant material, why don't you try to find material that explicitly contradicts it, as I keep asking on the Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is based on policy, and your edit is not properly sourced for the statement it is making, namely the definition of circumcision, as I've stated in the discussion. Look, you have my sympathy, but your edit doesn't have consensus, as at least one other editor has tried to tell you.  If you feel that there is a mass misinterpretation of policy going on by the editors in that discussion, your next move is dispute resolution, not editwarring your new desired change.  One would think you were aware of this.  Blackworm (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A Girl's Guide...
If you are going to pick one feature from one episode then you would need to do an episode list which lists the topics for every episode in order. A list of the topics covered can be used as a general guide for what the program covers, if you begin to list individual episodes then you will need to start listing sources. I would say WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N would cover this. As you are not providing reliable, verified sources and giving reasons why this one topic is more notable than the others then any single item (like the ones you have added) could not be added to the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't listing individual episodes, I was adding to the list of topics covered, i.e., the topic of every man's secret desire to have a larger penis, stated directly by the show's host, and violent penis mutilation, which was a topic covered by the show and mysteriously omitted from the list of topics. There is no precedent in policy for insisting on the inclusion of some statements not sourced to any reliable sources, and not others.  If you suppress this material I claim to be "evident" from watching the program, and yet insist that other unsourced material be included because you claim it's "evident" from watching the program, that is an inconsistent position, and you have no basis to revert deletions of the unsourced material, as you have done.  Blackworm (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision lock
Hi Blackworm. Not the case: See The Wrong Version. I protected it as I saw it, and not in favour of any certain version; it is very much the luck of the draw, in a way, and most of the time it will be wrong. Anyway, I will look over the discussion and make the necessary changes if I see consensus. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that you've already supported two editors making changes without consensus. Lacking any consensus to make the new change, the article must return to the stable state that existed from the last seven months, with the sentence unchallenged, since the new challenged statement lacks consensus and in fact has majority opposition.  If you see no consensus, this has to happen.  Blackworm (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, why are you pointing me to a HUMOUR page? Is this to support Jayjg's assertion that this discussion is "amusing?"  I don't find what I'm seeing funny at all, and I ask that you refrain from linking to joke pages as if they support your actions.  Thank you.  Blackworm (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly; I was actually being totally serious. It demonstrates that admins are not supporting either side; they just protect as is. Perhaps too sarcastic in its tone, the link is used by most protecting admins for the same reason. Anyway, the point is that I protected it as I saw it at RfPP. No other reason. I am not supporting anybody, because you'll note that I'm uninvolved. But I see no consensus yet. I see four against two, with the other two providing many sources to back up their claim. How is that a consensus? Please explain. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am stating the opposite: there is no consensus to make the new edit supported by Jayjg and Nandesuka, thus the edit must be reverted. The sources the supporting editors provide do not back up their implicit claim that surgery is universally or even near-universally considered intrinsic to circumcision.  The sources I provide back up my claim that surgery is not intrinsic to circumcision and thus cannot be used in defining it.  Editors have agreed.  As I note in the discussion linked here, WP:CONSENSUS recognizes prominence of the edit, as well as time unchallenged as indicative of consensus, and this first sentence of the lead hasn't been challenged in seven months, until now, with an edit that clearly lacks consensus (and that you have locked in place).  Blackworm (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the addition of the word "surgical" was unchallenged from June 27 to June 30, so an argument could perhaps be made that it had wiki-consensus. (21:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)) I had already been considering requesting page protection, and did so when more than two editors had been involved in editwarring and when the article was in the "wrong" version, i.e. the version I would be less likely to be accused of purposely requesting protection to support, although I oppose both versions.  I think the way some editors see it is that there are many sources verifying the fact that circumcision is surgery.  (I see it as a definition, (not the only definition,) not a fact.) To them, the argument in favour of including "surgical" may look compelling.  We need to consider that we're working with people who have different POVs on this matter. I appreciate PeterSymonds' prompt response to my request. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing that shows about consensus, in my opinion, is it that it wasn't urgent for fanatical editors who check circumcision every day to change it right away. No way can three days be considered to have any "wiki-consensus" against an edit in the lead sentence of the general article on a topic that has stood for seven months.  Blackworm (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [To PeterSymonds:] Actually, oddly enough, the humour page makes its points possibly better than a link to policy would. No need to explain further, PeterSymonds.  Forgive my weariness.  Blackworm (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry! I made a mistake!! When I check a page history, I often don't look at most of the diffs but spot-check to see if it seems that certain material was remaining unchanged. In this case, I unfortunately missed the fact that you had reverted about 5 hours after RasterB inserted the word "surgical" on June 27 (for the first time in 7.5 months I believe, though again I haven't checked every diff). RasterB then re-inserted "surgical" on June 29. I noticed this when checking the page history in order to write a summary of the debate, which I've just posted. I'm very sorry for any effect this mistake may have had on the debate. Apparently I only mentioned it here on your talk page, and am now striking it out. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Blackworm (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I enjoyed reading the "Hypothetical" archived discussion which you linked from your user page. I believe that was during the time I was a Wikipedian, but before I began editing the Circumcision article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask, "Oh? What were you involved with?" but then I realized I could just check your contribs.  But then, I thought, dirt-digging is "bad."  But then, I realized, dirt-digging is the only way to understand wtf is going on.  And not in terms of which way editors' POV lean with respect to your own, but to point out that everyone has their POV, and that fact is not an argument against:
 * Blackworm (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look through my contributions if you wish: I'd probably enjoy the attention. Since you asked about it, I glanced at my own early contributions to see what they looked like.  I started with math.  Things I did in my early months also included translation, nutrition, birth control, corporal punishment, and disambiguation. Around March 2007 I started spending almost all my time on the Attribution controversy for over a month; I tell a small part of that story here, and I describe the dispute that concerned me here. In late April 2007 I left Wikipedia in disillusionment over the outcome of the Wikipedia:Attribution controversy: but it's hard to leave completely, isn't it?  I seem to have returned fully on June 3.  Meanwhile, I don't think it had ever occurred to me to edit the Circumcision article.  I had a vague notion that there were probably lots of articles I might find very interesting to edit if I happened to think of them or run across them.  I was involved in a discussion on trivia sections, and somehow from there, via user talk page, (probably yours, since you were in the trivia discussion,) ran across mention of the circumcision article.  I'm not sure, but I think this was my first contribution there.  Perhaps I was wiser then than I am now. Anyway, after returning, trying to hold the thought "don't worry too much about the exact wording of Wikipedia:Attribution; just edit articles", I did miscellaneous things for a short while and then seem to have settled on editing Circumcision and related pages.  Not long afterwards, I was busy shortening the Circumcision article according to summary style, which took a lot of work; some of that now shows up in my contribs as being in User:Coppertwig/Sandbox6.  I was also continuing my translation of Safavid art, which I still haven't finished.  Apparently I started doing New Page Patrol right after finishing the shortening of Circumcision on Sept. 2, 2007; that seems to have kept me busy for a couple of months.  Then there was the mediation with Phyesalis over Reproductive rights: you know all about that.  I started spending a fair amount of time voting in RfAs for a while.  I took on a couple of adoptees: helping with Lamb waves and with water supply and sanitation. At some point in time I was spending time on discussions at WT:NOR. I may have started answering Help desk questions in January 2008; I also seem to have been doing some Recent changes patrol around that time. In January 2008, I was also starting on the development of new wordings for the CSD templates, along with Moonriddengirl. Happy-melon and others: that took quite a bit of work, including fiddling with the template code and writing documentation as well as the actual wording.  I may have first started editing Chiropractic on Feb. 14, 2008. I started helping at WP:3RRN on March 20, 2008, a few days before the new CSD templates were implemented.  I got onto the Che Guevara article from the 3RR noticeboard.  The three main articles I edit now are Circumcision, Chiropractic and Che Guevara (all starting with "C"!). I RfA-ed in May 2008. I participated in some discussions on flagged revisions and "civil POV pushing". Some pages I've worked on are also described here. Plus miscellaneous this-and-that here and there. Anyway, enough about me. Re your comment about my use of the word "ouch": You replied about the word "suppressed", but the "ouch" was actually intended mainly for the edit summary.  Re "suppress": By the way, when I edited one of your comments I wasn't aware of Jayjg's earlier editing of this comment, and when I quoted it although I was aware at that time that a comment had been edited, I had forgotten what it was and was not aware that I was quoting a modified version. The "ouch" was not intended to imply that you had explicitly or obviously violated any policy. If your sentence is parsed carefully and logically perhaps there's nothing wrong with it. The "ouch" was intended to represent the likely emotional reaction of the person to whom the comment was addressed.  I believe it's accurate, although I have no direct information about Jayjg's response to that particular comment.  Since a number of days had passed since you had posted it, I might not have said anything if I hadn't happened to have been quoting that comment for another purpose.  I also considered saying something about Jayjg's comment which contains the word "ignorant", for similar reasons, but decided to say nothing because too many days had passed: which no doubt you will think a rather flimsy excuse, yet if I had said something I suppose Jayjg would have found it objectionable partly for that very reason.  It's not always possible to please everyone. If I had happened to be quoting what he said for some other reason, I would have commented anyway. Anyway, the similarity I see is that in both cases, if the sentence is parsed logically, there doesn't seem to be any problem, but if it's looked at in a more emotional, alogical way it seems to evoke an emotional response. The emotional part of the mind doesn't always pay a lot of attention to grammar or to which person or thing is actually being modified by an adjective, for example. Because you replied in the way you did, I'm wondering whether saying "ouch" might not be the most diplomatic way to express that; and also whether replying on the article talk page might not be the best.  I haven't made up my mind about those things and am open to input. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusion: my POV is that names of articles should begin with the letter C. (Just kidding!!!! I hope you don't mind a little humour.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ) Of course. Sorry if my responses haven't been adequate.  I didn't mean to imply that I was dirt-digging (or threatening to -- even more weak).  I think I was trying to make a statement on the futility of getting into arguments (or paranoias) about editors' POV when the only arguments that will convince the neutral editors are those based in reliable sources.  If I check an editor's contribs, it's because I'm interested in getting a feel for how you edit.  It's natural curiousity and interest.  Even if I come to the conclusion that an editor has an "obvious" POV, that doesn't make the editor always incorrect in their defense of an edit, and that's one thing I've been taught in circumcision -- as I've often been drawn myself into arguing long after I've become convinced that my opponent is POV pushing, out of a feeling of "doing what's right for the cause" rather than actually considering my opponents' statements.  It seems almost par for the course, at least in some articles, but then if there's any evidence of that happening, eventually the issue needs to be addressed -- and having new, neutral editors come into the discussion is the best way to do that.  That's perhaps why I'm particularly upset by the threatening tone sometimes used, as it has the effect of driving away these very editors.  (I admit I'm not the most diplomatic editor either, at times.)  Blackworm (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ) Of course. Sorry if my responses haven't been adequate.  I didn't mean to imply that I was dirt-digging (or threatening to -- even more weak).  I think I was trying to make a statement on the futility of getting into arguments (or paranoias) about editors' POV when the only arguments that will convince the neutral editors are those based in reliable sources.  If I check an editor's contribs, it's because I'm interested in getting a feel for how you edit.  It's natural curiousity and interest.  Even if I come to the conclusion that an editor has an "obvious" POV, that doesn't make the editor always incorrect in their defense of an edit, and that's one thing I've been taught in circumcision -- as I've often been drawn myself into arguing long after I've become convinced that my opponent is POV pushing, out of a feeling of "doing what's right for the cause" rather than actually considering my opponents' statements.  It seems almost par for the course, at least in some articles, but then if there's any evidence of that happening, eventually the issue needs to be addressed -- and having new, neutral editors come into the discussion is the best way to do that.  That's perhaps why I'm particularly upset by the threatening tone sometimes used, as it has the effect of driving away these very editors.  (I admit I'm not the most diplomatic editor either, at times.)  Blackworm (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) I didn't mean to imply that you meant to imply anything. ☺ I was just taking the opportunity to go over my contribs, perhaps more for my benefit than yours. I agree about editors' POV: we have to try to avoid polarization. Polarized debates don't get anywhere – nobody gets convinced of anything; why bother talking in that case? Editors need to really listen to each other. I may have lost track of whether your point was in response to some particular comment by someone else. Re being diplomatic: I use methods I describe at User:Coppertwig/Techniques for handling emotions when editing, though as I admit there I don't necessarily use them perfectly or 100% of the time. Re this edit: I'm not sure if I can explain why, but I don't mind your use of "wtf" in the middle of a sentence above, yet in this edit summary I think a more diplomatic expression would have been better. I like much of the message: much of it feels to me to be a good, heartfelt attempt to really communicate. But I'm afraid Jayjg probably won't take it that way, because the part about not respecting, and possibly also the part about talking as to an adult human being, will have too much impact and overshadow the rest of the message. Regards, Coppertwig (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A comment
Re your comment at Talk:Circumcision: I realize that you felt you had a relevant point to make, and that you took care to include some friendly words. Nevertheless, with respect, I'd like to ask you to give greater consideration to the feelings of other editors before posting comments like this. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping you posted a message to Jayjg suggesting he avoid casting an editing dispute in terms of whether its opposers are "anti-circumcision editors" in that discussion, or commenting on his suggestion months ago that comments I made made Charlene's "point"(-Jayjg) that such comments "[come] off as anti-Semitism and as immature ranting"(-Charlene) "perfectly."(-Jayjg) The day other editors consider my feelings, and lower their level of pedantry and extreme, legalistic interpretations of policy, I will no doubt err on the side of compassion rather than pedantry in response, and you can tell Jayjg that.  Blackworm (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't snap at you, especially given how gentle and friendly your message was. My apologies, and thanks for your compassion. Blackworm (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Blackworm. I hope this means you aren't still angry with me for changing my mind over the page-renaming issue. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't angry, just very disheartened and disappointed. Apologies for my disheartened tone and lashing out.  I still see your decision as a loss of good faith in me on your part, since as I am clearly the most motivated editor for this change, and you've known from the start that though I'd see the discussed change as an improvement I could abide by if consensus went against me, I would prefer more be done.   By suddenly opposing the change (we had discussed this often and months earlier) at a crucial moment, it can't help but give off a strong implication that it isn't my ultimate favoured state of the circumcision articles (male and female), nor my current position on one change, that you have a problem with, it's the chance I might actually succeed in convincing others of further changes.  If that were the case, I would consider that strongly indicative of desire to push a POV.  The thought is indeed unpleasant.  Give me some time to recover.  Blackworm (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. No, I don't think I had any loss of belief in your good faith.  If consensus – perhaps arrived at by means of you persuading people – is that there should be a male-and-female circumcision article I can easily live with that.  The scenario I began to worry about – and which I hadn't considered earlier because I hadn't thought much about what the change would actually be like until it looked as if it might actually happen – was that people – not you, but various different new people who come along and see a situation that looks as if it needs to be improved – would change the redirect to an article.  I said "To clarify: I'm not implying that anyone involved in the current discussion would do that."
 * I'm sorry I changed my mind at a crucial moment. The reason that happened was that discussion was going on and I was thinking about the possible change.  I think people usually change their mind more often during discussion than at some other time.  From the beginning of that discussion, I didn't want the responsibility of having been the one who started the discussion.  I think my comment on my talk page was a more accurate reflection of my feelings: I said I was "fine" with it.  I meant I didn't mind if it happened; I didn't really want to be the one taking the initiative in making such a change.  What I should have done, when you asked me to state my position on the article talk page, was to say that if a discussion started up on the topic then I would state my position at that time.  I didn't think of doing that.  You could then have started a discussion and I could have replied, and it wouldn't have been as big a deal if I changed my mind.
 * You can still try to convince others (and me) of further changes. If there's a consensus for some other configuration, such as your preferred configuration, then the scenario I was worrying about wouldn't be a problem.  I'm not entirely sure that the current configuration is best, and I'm not afraid of possible changing consensus on the page names provided some stable consensus is reached.  Perhaps I could even be convinced that a redirect at Circumcision would be stable.  Perhaps the idea didn't occur to me of putting a comment in the wikitext of the redirect warning people to discuss it before changing it.  I wonder whether there are similar examples of redirects that might be subject to frequent change, and what their fate has been.
 * For example: you could start an article on male and female circumcision. It would likely have to go through AfD (I might or might not nominate it for AfD). If it survived, then it might be a good time to have another poll on renaming Circumcision, since the situation would be different: i.e. there would be this other article which many people would think would be better moved to the name Circumcision.  I might still vote against the renaming, for reasons I explained. Much would depend on the quality of the article, I think.
 * When I changed my mind, I asked myself: is the reason I'm stating the real reason I'm changing my mind, and do I feel it's a strong enough reason? It seemed to me that it was.
 * Re your earlier comment above: Just now, I considered posting a comment at Talk:Circumcision stating that I believe most or all editors prefer not to be labelled as "pro-circumcision" or "anti-circumcision" (and explaining why, and linking to the wording Avi used ("the people who believe that the Circumcision article is improperly skewed towards a pro-circumcision outlook"), which I think is a good way of putting it (I wonder whether you agree)).  But I decided not to post such a message.  There have been many messages at Talk:Circumcision which I believed were likely to hurt peoples' feelings.  While I oppose such messages, my most usual response to them has been to ignore them, with the hope that the person posting the message would realize the inappropriateness on their own.  My strategy changed at the moment I posted this message: "Pleasant editing environment?", because I figure people have been warned.  Sometimes I think it's not productive to go into the past to find things to criticize people about ("the past" having various meanings, but in this case meaning particularly messages posted before that message of mine).
 * In commenting on remarks people make, I'm trying to be fair, objective and neutral, of course. I'm definitely not, however, undertaking to respond to all remarks in a way that will be seen by all participants as consistent, fair and objective, because I see that as an impossible task, especially given the tendency for there to be large differences in perception from one person to another when it comes to emotional impact of words; variability in my own time available to read and respond to comments would also be problematic even if the task weren't already impossible.  What I am undertaking to do is to try to influence all editors, including myself, to spend more time and effort considering the feelings of other editors, especially those on the other side of a dispute. I can only try within the limitations of my abilities, my time available and my personal beliefs, right or wrong, about what is or is not likely to be effective.  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your AGF. Perhaps I need to follow my own advice more often.
 * Basically, what happened was this. I used to (almost) never, ever edit other peoples' comments, no doubt because I'd read things like that bit of policy you quoted. I hardly even edited my own comments, usually being careful to use strike-through. But then a week or so ago I found myself deleting a BLP violation from a talk page.  That seemed to go over well, and somehow I started down a slippery slope. I deleted an uncivil, irrelevant comment from a page I wasn't involved in, and nobody objected to that (yet); then I edited your comment, which I'm sorry about.  Thank you for showing me the tree branch of policy to grab onto so I wouldn't slide further down the slope.  On the other hand, Talk page guidelines says "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)."
 * Re your edit summary: "What happened that the atmosphere in here is suddenly so poisonous? It's seemed relatively civil lately, if not necessarily productive." This is interesting. I'm wondering whether your perception of the civility level of the atmosphere might be quite different from mine.  When do you think it was relatively civil?  When do you think it got poisonous?  I don't remember the level of incivility changing much over the past few weeks.  I agree, however, that it was uncivil of me to edit your comment, especially without saying anything to you about it on your talk page.
 * I'm hoping everybody will start getting along better. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Chauvinism
I've tried to trim the coatrack in Chauvinism, and retain only those criticisms of feminism that actually relate to the term (even if indirectly). That still leaves quite a bit of unbalance in the weight given to usages/concepts, but it's an improvement. However, I have a concern that editors who have put in the unbalanced material are likely to get revert-happy. I'd very much appreciate your help getting this article into more encyclopedic quality. LotLE × talk 05:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me know how I can help. I'll take another look and see how we can balance up the article.  I think a combination of trimming the "female chauvinism" section and adding more to "male chauvinism" is called for, based on the prevalence of sources discussing each.  Blackworm (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it will be relevant to my (hopefully paranoid) concern about possible edit wars, but purely from an article perspective, fleshing out the "male chauvinism" to say something beyond the brief definition would be the best thing... at least for the section.


 * Beyond that, the real work would be utilizing some actual sociology or social psychology usages of the term, maybe cite some relevant work around it. The article is obviously pretty informal, even sloppy, overall.  I sort of stumbled across it, but it might be a good place to spend some attention making a good article. All the best,  LotLE × talk  06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's sloppy, as is sexism, and to a lesser extent feminism; both articles seem to contain a lot of interpretation from sourced facts about men and women, implying sexism where no such implication is evident in the source, or not attributing the claims of sexism to sources. Blackworm (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... "sexism" indeed seems all over the place, with random concepts pulled from here and there, with an inconsistent tone, and lacking any real coherency. I don't really agree on "feminism"; that one seems fairly well structured and worded.  Let me read it more carefully though, I'm not familiar with that article, and only skimmed just now.  LotLE × talk  08:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm perhaps improperly assessing feminism, as from my perspective the article is written from an unwavering feminist perspective. If you want to hear the story of another possible source of my bias, read on, otherwise (as I can understand not everyone cares about the roots of people's biases) skip the rest of this post.
 * I am concerned with the article being under the watch of (what I view as) feminist Wikiprojects like WikiProject:Gender Studies (formerly known as WikiProject:Feminism), which are seemingly unopposed in feminism-related articles and have no counterpart in any organized group of editors. One editor I've had huge disagreements in the past from that Wikiproject recently changed the WikiProject's stated aims, seven months after this dispute.  In that dispute, that editor immediately cited WP:AGF and WP:SOAP when I opposed the language that editor has now removed and replaced (and now with not a hint of opposition on Talk).  I really didn't see a reason for it.  They just weren't used to an outside perspective.  Other editors sternly rallied behind the WikiProject member.  The experience with the dispute back then fed my already low opinion of a blurry set of WikiProjects I view as topically-centered groups.  This new change of the stated aims, though, admittedly restores some hope, although I find the mechanism of action confusing, bizarre and seemingly non-Wikipedian.  I am tempted to interpret the events as meaning that to the editors there, criticism is okay, just not from outsiders (e.g., potential non-feminists) -- but I'm resisting for the moment.  Anyway, I suppose I can only applaud the move, and express hope that whatever mechanism that made it happen spreads quickly to Wikiproject:Countering Systemic Bias, the WikiProject that has an original philosophy that WP:GS apparently rested its (IMO sexist) former stated aims on until this new change, and with which I had another similar, heated dispute, with some of the same editors involved, that dispute leading to all kinds of disconnected, unfounded attacks on AN/I, where my opponents referenced my dispute on WT:GS.  I'm still sorting out my confusion at this latest change to WP:GS's stated aims to apparently precisely address my complaint that drew so much ire.  All that to say, I've had reason to think I'm not welcome around feminism much, due to the ambiguity of my feminist status, and except for a couple of examples of non-neutral [presentation] I haven't touched it, and I'm still wary of making substantial changes to it (which might be just fine; maybe its feminist perspective is apparent to the reader as well, and makes for a better article).  Blackworm (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPA and please show me what "unbalanced" material I added to Chauvinism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if anything I wrote seemed personal. I am merely concerned with the coatrack material that was/is in that article.  In any case, this is the wrong page to discuss that article among us third-parties (i.e. not to address or hear from Blackworm).  LotLE × talk  15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind third parties coming to counter statements about things that don't concern me here, if it stays cordial and that thread of the discussion is promptly moved somewhere else. :) Feel free to link to the rest of that discussion here. Blackworm (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The impropriety of criticism
Most of the background you mention, Blackworm, about various Wikiprojects and articles, is not specifically familiar to me. I cannot opine on those matters. I did have the opportunity to read Feminism more carefully. Not fine-tooth-comb closely, but more than just a skim. Overall, I think it's a quite good article that deals with a bunch of topics in a reasonable fashion. A few portions don't flow as well as I'd like, and I think there are some flaws of emphasis, but still quite solid in my mind (compared to a whole lot of other articles I've looked at).

Some comments you make remind me of a general issue I've often had around academic/intellectual topics. Mostly I've edited biographies of specific thinkers rather than discussions of concepts or schools. But some of each. In both cases, I think that WP:CRIT is never taken seriously enough. I know that's just an essay, not policy or guideline, but it gets at an important idea. There's a false notion of "balance" that pervades many WP articles, which often comes out as an urge to add "criticism" sections to articles (as I say, I've especially seen this around persons/intellectuals, but the same idea is true of concept articles).

Often someone opposed to the concept or practice of "Fooism" will wish to put in many details of this critique. Sometimes those are sheer WP:OR, but even when they are cited, they almost always fail WP:WEIGHT. These editors often see their mission as letting readers "Judge the truth of Fooism" (often with the presumption that it will be a negative judgment). That is really, really not the purpose of WP. Rather, we want to let readers know what something is, not evaluate it pro or con. With a concept/school, the way to do that mostly consists of describing the claims made by its proponents who have defined the field, and critics and opponents by the structure of an article are usually vastly less important to discuss, and deserve vastly less space in an article. Same story with a particular thinker, where presenting a litany of critics really misses the point of letting readers understand why that intellectual has the notability they do.

This perspective is obviously not because I advocate every position of every school/thinker. I want to see articles on contradictory schools both presenting their subject matter in the "best light" (which doesn't mean whitewashing). A reader should come away understanding why a concept is something that a number of people have advocated, advanced, believed in, etc. That next step of "understanding its flaws" is generally a matter for oratory and advocacy, not for an encyclopedia.

Within the article on Fooism, we might comment discretely that "Barism arose in opposition to Fooism". But from there, the weight of explaining the arguments of "Barists" should be delegated to the Barism article, and that article in turn should put the best face on Barism. We don't want to force-fead readers "the final truth", just inform them of the lay of the land. LotLE × talk 08:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I disagree with most of what you say, particularly with: A reader should come away understanding why a concept is something that a number of people have advocated, advanced, believed in, etc. That next step of "understanding its flaws" is generally a matter for oratory and advocacy, not for an encyclopedia.  I don't know what that's based on, but I believe it quite clearly conflicts with WP:NPOV, that states: A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct.  Creating material that has for its purpose making a reader understand "why a concept is something that a number of people have advocated, advanced, believed in,  etc." is the definition of advocacy, that Wikipedia is WP:NOT for engaging in.  It is Wikipedia's role to inform us that a concept is something that a number of people have advocated, and what their arguments are, not whether those arguments are coherent and should be "understood" by the reader.  Feminism presents lots of facts and other information to support its points of view.  Necessarily, the feminist interpretation is part of the feminist presentation.  When this feminist presentation is duplicated here, exclusively by a group of controlling editors who shun non-feminists, who may not be aware that interpretation has occured (the interpretation having been commented on by others, in reliable sources), we in fact duplicate the interpretation and fail to attribute it, which contradicts WP:V. Blackworm (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm... advocacy is trying to convince someone that a certain idea is true. Advocacy is pointedly not showing someone why a concept "is something that a number of people have advocated, advanced, believed in, etc." (not sure I love my list in its exact form, but close enough).  What you describe, unfortunately, is exactly the misperception of the meaning of WP:NPOV that I mentioned earlier.


 * I confess that I wrote what I did because it sounds like you want an "anti-feminism" section in Feminism to "countweight" the presentation of feminist positions. I wonder if you likewise want an "anti-Capitalism" section in Capitalism, "anti-Communism" in Communism, and "antinomianism" section in Nomianism :-).  In any case, I'd oppose all such things, since they automatically refuse the duty of an encyclopedia.


 * For comparison, read any encyclopedia in the world other than Wikipedia. You never see that sort of false balance in those, and for good reason.  LotLE × talk  10:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, A reader should come away understanding why a concept is something that a number of people have advocated, advanced, believed in, etc. sounds like you're trying to convince someone a certain idea is true. Again, it's the "understand why" that has ambiguous meaning -- I do not understand why some people advance and believe in a Flat Earth, even after reading that article, but I still think the article does its job.  I do not understand why a number of people commit or otherwise advance murder even if that article does a decent job explaining to me what the concept of murder is and what people think about it.


 * I don't necessarily want criticism sections in articles, but I do insist on WP:NPOV in articles where the topic is controversial, especially the part I quoted above. That means competing views are represented, and notable views of proponents that have been notably challenged need to (or at least may fairly) have that criticism presented.  That idea permeates WP:NPOV.  Not that a topic must be written from one point of view which presents the topic positively (how I initially read your statement), or, to paraphrase you, in such a way that we are made to agree with the Wikipedia editor on the subject of "why some people advocate it."  A topic isn't defined by its adherents:  The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints.(WP:NPOV)  Try applying your editing philosophy to a subject with tiny minority support, like female genital mutilation, for example.  Also, I don't see the phenomenon you're talking about at all in other encyclopedias, for example the 1911 Britannica, which presents supporting and opposing views on a topic, for example in its entry for Communism. Blackworm (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision (uninvolved editor)
I haven't even looked at the FGM article (though I will at some point soon now that you mentioned it). That's a funny one since the term itself carries the value judgment, which is not universal. "Murder" in contrast is condemned by everyone (although various caveats, "but it's permitted if..." obviously occur frequently). No one who practices/endorses female "circumcision" would describe it as "mutilation", rather they would suggest it has hygienic, religious, or social value that was positive. If there is an article on Female circumcision, I would expect it to put the "best light" on the practice, basically what it's proponents say... with only a discrete link to FGM (which is where you'd find the condemnations. Let me go look what actually exists. LotLE × talk  19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, skimming now, I see that both "Female circumcision" and "Female genital mutilation" redirect to Female genital cutting. While that last phrase is a bit klunky and little used, as a compromise term it's awfully good.  And skimming the article, I'm very impressed what a good job editors have done of presenting both advocates and critics of the practices in "best light".  I'm sure I won't think every word is done right when I read more carefully, but I definitely don't see a bias jump out at me.  LotLE × talk  [added your name -BW] 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think despite our disagreement we have a lot of common ground. I'm involved with trying to move circumcision back to male circumcision since that's what the article is about, and the classification is logical, unambiguous, common, neutral, and elegant, but encountering huge resistance from editors making what I see as very weak arguments, contradicted by sources.  You present a very interesting idea, that of presenting both advocates and critics of the practices in "best light", and I've read something similar before in a different form: To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents,[emphasis mine -BW] and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted.(WP:NPOV)  It's brilliant and important language -- and sadly, the last sentence isn't always the case, even when the article appears to the new, interested reader to be clear, well sourced, and non-tagged (and thus presumed to be non-disputed in Talk, and thus reasonably balanced).  Blackworm (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The current setup seems about right: "Circumcision" is about male circumcision (the more common usage of the term), but DABs at the top link to the related concepts. And "male circumcision" redirects to the general term. Is that not the way you want it? Do you want the redirect to go the other way? I am not involved in that page, but it seems correct the way the redirect goes now, since probably 90% or more of readers won't add the word "male" to their initial search.  Redirects are useful, but the native page name should match reader expectations as often as possible.  LotLE × talk  06:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess here is where our logic diverges. To circumcise is to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female).  By definition, the general term for the topic of circumcision is "circumcision," not "male circumcision."  Blackworm (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The defintions seem mixed. Obviously MW describe two sexes. However, look at http://www.answers.com/topic/circumcision. That summarizes several dictionaries and reference works:
 * 1) Medical Encyclopedia: Male only
 * 2) Surgery Encyclopedia: Male/female
 * 3) World of the Body: Male only
 * 4) Children's Health Encyclopedia: Male/female
 * 5) Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Male only
 * 6) Columbia Encyclopedia: Male only (but secondary description of "so-called female circumcision")
 * 7) Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia: Male/female
 * 8) Health dictionary: Male only
 * 9) Veterinary Dictionary: Male only

I skip Wikipedia itself since... y'know. Based on the sources, it seems like it could go either way whether the primary meaning is inclusive of FGC. I'd lean against that, but both seem plausible. LotLE × talk 03:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw. Looking at Circumcision, I see you've had a number of edit conflicts there. I wonder what general position or attitude (agenda sounds too partisan) is motivating you there.  I have no pony in that race, but I'm just curious.  Feel free to email from my user talk page if you want to comment "off the record".  LotLE × talk  03:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We'd have to get into a long discussion of exactly what form or forms of circumcision we're discussing. If you're interested, you could read recent (or older) discussions on Talk:Circumcision or Talk:Female circumcision.  Blackworm (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks to me, having read Talk:Circumcision, that your position is basically "(male) circumcision is bad", and that motivates you to want a common article name with "female circumcision/female genital cutting" because the latter is more widely condemned, especially in the West. Is that the correct take on matters?


 * In any case, like I've said, I don't have a horse in that race, so I've taken Circumcision off my watch list after my copy of the few definitions I found. I'm mildly inclined to think "Circumsion" is generically the word for the procedure on males in the predominance of source (and etymologically, the word should mean only the male procedure).  So were I involved, I'd want to keep the existing page names and redirects. 08:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC) [The preceding unsigned post is by LotLE (talk).]


 * If you perceived an editor's personal position to be "(male) circumcision is good," then would you be as quick to assume that that editor is motivated to separate the concepts of male and female circumcision? Blackworm (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The only matter that is relevant to choice of article names is the predominant usage of the terms. This leans towards "circumcision" generally being understood as "male circumcision", but this majority usage is obviously not unequivocal. I wouldn't assume any particular relationship between a personal belief that "male/female circumcision is good/bad" and article naming preferences.  I do get an impression about your preferences from reading several thousand words of talk page comments from you and other editors.


 * I guess, yeah... after reading a lot of your comments, I get the impression that you are letting outside political/social/ethical preferences cloud your judgments about encyclopedic writing, at least on this topic. It's very difficult to remove your own beliefs from the picture when trying to decide what makes the best WP article. LotLE × talk  09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Also, when you say that you read Talk:Circumcision, did you mean the entire current talk page, parts of it, all of it from the archives, or something else? Were you there when the article looked completely different, and the state of article Talk actually reflected the level of controversy of the topic it describes?  Did you read the conversations around the time this edit was made?  Did you read, for example, I dunno, the second paragraph of this comment made a few days earlier?  Have you even read the entire current circumcision article?  My point is, to be blunt, you really are missing a lot of context for your comment to impress me in any way.  People with opposed POVs should be able to write an article together.  Kind regards.  Blackworm (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight. You say:
 * It looks to me [...] that your position is basically "(male) circumcision is bad", and that motivates you to want a common article name with "female circumcision/female genital cutting" because the latter is more widely condemned [...]
 * I wouldn't assume any particular relationship between a personal belief that "male/female circumcision is good/bad" and article naming preferences.
 * Okay. "Whatever."  Blackworm (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As well as reading all of the (current) talk page of "Circumcision", I also read the talk page of "Female genital cutting". There's a claim that you make on the latter that seems unlikely to me. Do you have any evidence for use of the (English) term "female circumcision", or generally the term "circumcision" applied to female genital cutting, prior to the 20th C? Is that why you worried about the word "neologism" in a whole different context? LotLE × talk 09:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, your sarcastic dismissal of my ability to read because I supposedly lack "context" is unhelpful. Of course, I haven't read the complete change history of all the articles in question. You do indeed point to some talk page comments by Jayjg that seem a bit ill-considered, but I'm not sure what the point of that is. Please try to understand that I read all this discussion as an editor uninvolved in these edit disputes, and with no agenda in the underlying social issues. As such, I get the impression (stated above) that you are letting your social agenda cloud your judgment on writing issues. If you want to believe I have some covert agenda I guess I can't stop you, but it's just silly. LotLE × talk 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * References to one source from 1910, and one from 1837, are posted by me, with links, on the (current) Talk page of "Circumcision" (in this section). How did you miss that entire discussion if you just read the whole page?


 * "An account of what he calls the circumcision of females as well as of males by some of the African tribes is given by Bowman in his 'Description of the Coast of Guinea,' English translation 2nd edit pp. 179, 180, 329, 414."Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge -- published 1837)
 * S.L. Kistler, Rapid bloodless circumcision of male and female, and its technic, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 54, 28 May 1910, p. 1782-3. [No link, but the article is cited as ref. #30 in this journal article.
 * Most probably, however, circumcision (which in many tribes is performed on both sexes) was connected with marriage, and was a preparation for connubium. (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1911 )
 * You say you are uninvolved with these edit disputes, but you yourself just posted to Talk:Circumcision, stating, "Based on the sources, it seems like it could go either way whether the primary meaning is inclusive of FGC. I'd lean against that, but both seem plausible." Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but if you were uninvolved before, you're involved now.


 * Your statement on your total neutrality on the subject of circumcision is noted. Kind regards.  Blackworm (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you are jumping to inappropriate conclusions when you state that my comment was a "sarcastic dismissal of [your] ability to read." I have no reason to doubt your ability to read.  My doubt was that you had read enough to form an informed opinion.  However, now that you've dismissed my good faith and written off my arguments to POV, I'm not sure it's useful even to point this out. Blackworm (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikilove!
You started a chain reaction of positive energy. I was so happy about this edit of yours that I posted positive messages on a number of pages with "Wikilove!" in the edit summary. Redthoreau responded to one of them with a conciliatory message towards another editor labelled "adding to Copper's wikilove". Who knows where it might end up? So then I could tell them Where the wind goes... But where the wind comes from Nobody knows. Peace. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Female Genital Cutting
Hi:

You are incorrect regarding the consensus issue on the Female Genital Cutting. You have POV tag on the article, even though the article is NPOV. Your previous rationale had been that there was an active discussion about the article title. Which, at that time, there was. Since that time discussion has ceased and there is no longer discussion about the article title. The discussion was about whether the article title should change. There ended up being no consensus on changing the title, and the discussions ended. Since there is no one currently discussing the article title, or any other aspect of the article being discussed as POV, the POV tag no longer has merit. I'm happy to have the POV tag a little longer if you, or someone else would like to discuss article changes that they feel need to be made. But if you have suggested that the article title change, and then could not gain consensus for change, that does not seem to me to be sufficient to indicate that their is POV. I remind you that POV does not mean that everyone agrees with all aspects of the article, or that there is not a discrete POV discussed in the article. It means that the significant POV's are fairly expressed according to their weight. I feel that is the case with the article. Atom (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Atom and have started a Request for Name Change regardless so thank you for replacing tag. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi,

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on Female Genital Cutting
Hello.

I have removed the POV tag you repeatedly replaced on Female Genital Cutting. The fact that you disagree with the current article title does not mean that there is an actual POV dispute over it; in fact, the current title was arrived at as a result of the dispute being resolved in 2006. Unless you can demonstrate reasonable consensus to change the title, then the current title is the consensus; and repeated reinsertion will be considered disruption and edit warring (please remember that 3RR is not an entitlement, it's an absolute limit&mdash; edit warring does not require three reverts before steps are taken to prevent further escalation). &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you misunderstand. If I were the sole editor in support of a change in the article title, you would indeed have a valid point.  Unfortunately, it seems you have relied upon User:Atomaton's words as being factually correct.  In fact, if you examine the [|requested move in question], you would plainly see that not only did I not "vote" (as some insist on calling it) on the move, but there was clearly a balance of editors in support of both sides of the question.  This indicates, to me, and anyone truly neutral on the question, that a debate exists.  Honestly, my friend, I don't give a rat's ass whether you think a debate exists; I believe the evidence is clear that one does.  And, as I quote repeatedly and often and redundantly from WP:NPOV_dispute,
 * Right now, no one in their right mind can argue that this issue is not disputed. The way Wikipedia works, as I understand it, is that a consensus on article content sticks until there is a consensus that it be changed.  This is a reasonable and completely acceptable standard that must be followed if neutrality is eventually to take hold of an article topic.  On the other hand, suggestions have been made that do not have consensus disapproval; in fact the cardinality of opinions pro and con are definitely within the same ballpark ("range" -- to use a US expression, apologies for non-US editors).  To use an amazingly common category in circumcision-related articles, I would say the prevalence of opinion in this matter, that of the naming and article content of circumcision, female genital cutting, and related articles is most definitely 20%-80%.  A tag on the article indicating a true lack of consensus on an issue isn't defacing to an article (the word at least one editor, User:Jayjg, has used to describe such tags) .   To claim so, in my opinion, betrays a profound misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, WP:5, and everything I could ever hope to support Wikipedia for.
 * What you are discussing would be true if the "re-insertion" in question was a change to the article title. As it stands, there is reason for the tag -- the tag is indeed a boon to this article's ultimate adherence to Wikipedia policy.  The reason?  New editors are drawn in by tags, increasing the pool of available ideas for solutions to article conflict.  These new editors shed new light on the topic and increase chances for a consensus to be found.  As I understand it, that is the purpose of the tags.  If you disagree, please take it up with WP:TAG, WP:NPOV, WP:AN, WP:DR, or anyone else you believe has a reasonable point to make and supports your view on this issue.  Blackworm (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are discussing would be true if the "re-insertion" in question was a change to the article title. As it stands, there is reason for the tag -- the tag is indeed a boon to this article's ultimate adherence to Wikipedia policy.  The reason?  New editors are drawn in by tags, increasing the pool of available ideas for solutions to article conflict.  These new editors shed new light on the topic and increase chances for a consensus to be found.  As I understand it, that is the purpose of the tags.  If you disagree, please take it up with WP:TAG, WP:NPOV, WP:AN, WP:DR, or anyone else you believe has a reasonable point to make and supports your view on this issue.  Blackworm (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision (prevalence map, AMA)
[I created this section, Atomaton posted this above in an old section. -BW]

I was not forcing anything. The user removed the image that he placed. The image seemed to be acceptable by everyone. He wanted to remove it because people would not agree with him about the others issues. It seems to be a better image. Even though he may wish to remove it, once he placed it in the article, it no longer belongs to him. Did I misunderstand? Are there people who object to the image being there?

As for the AMA paragraph. I tried to edit it so that it was acceptable. The version you placed in was not the most current one. In the quote you used it places the sumamry of the AMA as higher than their recommendation, whoch is not appropriate. By paraphrasing it, and leaving out the "The AMA says" portion, it is a statement, backed by a reliable source. I was trying to find a compromise in your direction. The alternative is the much large statement that expresses the AMA policy first, and their opinion that virtually all medical organizations would come second. I discussed both of these issues and you made no comment. For you to remain silent, and then state your objection by reverting does not seem appropriate. Also, four editors had agreed to pull all of the paragraph out until a better wording compromise gained consensus, and you placed it back in the article against that effort, disturbing the attempt to work out a compromise. I would have preferred if you had just worked out the language with us first. I will put the working version that the three or four editors discussed into the article if you are not satisfied with this last attempt to phrase it in a way to your liking. Atom (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to your first paragraph, please read the objections raised at Talk:Circumcision and Talk:Circumcision. This clearly contradicts your assertion that "the image seemed to be acceptable by everyone."  Obviously if I reverted its inclusion, then yes, there are "people who object to the image being there."


 * In response to the AMA paragraph, it is a source for a summary of medical societies' recommendation on male circumcision, and thus is entirely appropriate. It is much more appropriate to the lead section than the AMA's recommendation itself.  Also, by removing "the AMA says"(paraphrasing), you are making us, Wikipedia editors, the source of the statement, rather than the AMA.  It's the difference between Wikipedia asserting something, and Wikipedia asserting that someone else asserted something.  It's an important difference, and though this issue hasn't been challenged by contradictory sources, I believe it is appropriate to attribute claims whenever there is a possibility of controversy.  By using attribution (i.e., "X states that Y" instead of merely "Y"), we are turning an opinion (the AMA's summary) into a verifiable fact (that the AMA made that summary).  I hope you can understand why that is preferable.
 * If you could link to the section where four editors stated that the paragraph should be removed until consensus is found, I would appreciate that. Blackworm (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I ask for evidence that four editors supported the removal of the paragraph, because as I see it, there is no consensus for any change, including deleting the paragraph, and thus the old consensus (the paragraph as it stood for months) must remain. Blackworm (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WHAT MAP EDIT WAR? I've not been involved in any map edit war. I created a map and added it but that's as far as it goes. Do your research in futre and don't presume poeple new to this little argument between you people automatically know there even was a map edit war. Signsolid (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You added it, then I reverted it, then you added it again without fully addressing the comments made. That in itself is mild editwarring, but my edit summary comment was really directed at all editors who are rushing to put this map in and getting frustrated by its constant reversion.  There have been 20 or so other reversion cycles from other editors in the last month or two regarding this prevalence map in similar forms, with the same issues coming up over and over, and I think that my general calls for this nonsense to stop are entirely appropriate.  Blackworm (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!
Sorry about the prevalence map: I hadn't read comments at Talk:Circumcision for a few days, (busy with other things; more activity than usual at Simple English Wikiquote for example) so I was just going on the discussion at Talk:Prevalence of circumcision. (I was wondering why it had gotten so quiet there!) You had been asking about the Google searches I did re the proposed renaming of Female genital cutting. With a database I use in my work, if I did a search from 2008 to 2008 it would give me results from the beginning of 2008 to the beginning of 2008 and I would get nothing. I figured Google probably didn't work like that but I wasn't sure, and I figured (not quite accurately) that adding 2009 wouldn't change anything, so I searched from 2008-2009 to get 2008 results. Then I chose a year a few years ago: actually I meant to choose a year about 5 years ago and got confused, later realizing that 2005 was only about 3 years ago, but anyway it serves the purpose of being a few years ago. In that case, I realized that "2005-2005" and "2005-2006" would give quite different results so I tried the former. I searched only those time periods in that set of searches. Re some earlier discussion on this talk page, here's something just for a laugh: on the concrete base of a signpost in a city I was visiting was stencilled a logo of a panda bear and beneath it the letters "WTF". I figured, "Oh, yeah, that's the logo of the World Wildlife Federation." But then I was trying to figure out what the "T" stood for. Then I noticed that the panda bear had one paw raised, as if it was scratching its head. "What the ...?" ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just on the topic of humour: reading this article I laughed out loud: I immediately recognized "holyuronic acid" as a misspelling of "hyaluronic acid". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, MoS
Hi. Thanks for your comment regarding changes to the Lafave article. I understand how my phrasing could have been taken to be POV. The qualifier was added in an attempt to balance what I percieved to be a "pro-presecutorial" bias in the article. My reasoning was that "alleged assault" was a more neutral position than the two competing versions of events - no assault and definite assault. If the difinition "to declare before a court or elsewhere, as if under oath" is accurate, then "allege" must also be accurate. The state alleged assault. King of Corsairs (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "So-called assault" is what you wrote, not "alleged assault," and it brings to mind a common point of view that males may not "really" be statutorily raped since all males always "want it" from anyone. It's moot now anyway, since I replaced the text with a matter-of-fact, verifiable statement about the case.  Contrary to your impression of bias, I perceive an exculpatory bias, as evidenced most strongly by the fact that the article makes absolutely no mention of the established facts of the statutory rape, e.g., when, and how many times the 23 year old LaFave had sex with the 14 year old boy, and how she lured the boy into her home in order to have sex with him.  I intend to include those details.  Blackworm (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: What's up?
Hello, Blackworm.

First of all, thank you for the three barnstars which you gave to me. That was kind of you, and is appreciated. (I'm a little confused by "The Real Life Barnstar", though: was that an error?)

Thank you also for the note which you left more recently on my talk page (about two weeks ago, to be exact). That, too, was thoughtful of you. Unfortunately it makes it somewhat more difficult for me to answer your core question, ie., "what's up?". Why am I not editing? The answer is that I find the editing environment too unpleasant, and in part (though not entirely) that's due to you. I don't like telling you this, especially after a gesture of goodwill from yourself. But you asked, and I think you deserve an answer.

It's a little difficult to express how puzzled and perplexed I am. I was surprised at some of the sentiments you expressed in your note, such as expressing good wishes and indicating that you looked forward to my return. Such statements were highly surprising to me, given the hostility that you expressed towards myself on a fairly regular basis for about a year and a quarter. My previous impression was that you regarded me as harmful to the encyclopaedia, corrupt, and even dishonest. (Having said this, our discussion on my talk page of 5 Jan '08 indicated quite the reverse.)

I don't know if you will share my perception of the kind of "hostile" statement that I'm talking about, so I'll give you a couple of concrete examples. I'm not going to produce an exhaustive list because the purpose of this message isn't to lecture you but to answer your question and tell you how I feel (plus doing so would be time-consuming and, frankly, very boring). So I'll just give you a couple that serve to illustrate. Consider, for example, "That should be the focus of the attention given Jakew -- his consistently one-sided edits, and the misinterpretation of policies and invalid arguments ad nauseum he uses to defend his edits or oppose others' edits." (see here). Or: "[...] that Jakew and his longtime supporters here have in fact displayed a disregard for neutrality and a disregard for any editor who would bring to light any sourced material critical of circumcision" (see here).

Such comments are hurtful and irritating, but considered as individual events, only mildly so. If there were only a handful of examples, it would be easy enough to ignore. But the cumulative effect is unpleasant and exhausting. I've tried in the past to persuade you to raise issues in a more appropriate forum (such as on my talk page or a user conduct RfC), where I could respond to the issues where they are not off-topic, but I was unsuccessful. Hypothetically, if you had left a message on my talk page in which you expressed concerns about certain edits, we could have discussed our perspectives and perhaps we might reach an understanding. I wouldn't be thrilled to receive such a message, but I wouldn't feel attacked. But in an environment which is intended for discussion of an article about circumcision, that's exactly how it feels. I spent some time drafting and re-drafting an explanation of why such comments are insulting, but on reflection I think it should be obvious, and that an explanation would only be patronising. It's not as blatant an attack as "Jakew is scum" (a hypothetical example, obviously), but in many ways it's actually worse.

I'm sorry to say it, but that's one of the reasons why I decided to stop editing. There are other reasons, too, not least of which is the fact that maintaining the circumcision articles is hard and time-consuming work. The articles act as a magnet for well-intentioned but misguided edits as well as, sadly, POV pushing. Dealing with the seemingly endless problems is tiring, and I need a break. I may be back at some point, but I can't yet predict when that will be.

In the meantime, I wish you well. Jakew (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jake, for your thoughtful message. I think I know how you feel.  I read things like "you're an anti-circumcision zealot,"(paraphrasing) and "Blackworm's comments and the comments of those 'on his side' come off as immature whining and antisemitism?"(paraphrasing) or "Stop POV pushing"(paraphrasing).  Well, now you know how your multiple staunch supporters, which you do not seem to see as contributing to a poisonous environment in the way I am, make me feel.  I also feel that making incorrect or wavering interpretations of policy based on the immediate result for a given edit, is hurtful; especially combined with accusations of soapboxing. Throughout our interaction I continued to be confused and frustrated by your silence on your supporters' actions, especially given that I made and continue to make an effort to condemn similar actions from editors that support my side of a debate on an edit.  These supporting editors of yours are still active in this article and related articles, and still attacking me in that way; yes, indeed, it is hugely time consuming, tiresome, and hurtful to engage them.  Nevertheless, I welcome your ideas on how we can rise above this apparent conundrum.
 * I agree that "maintaining" the articles is hard and time-consuming work, but I was worried that your efforts at "maintaining" the articles really meant "maintaining the article exactly as I've created it," which to me leans heavily into ownership of the article, especially combined with the aggressive, incivil, consistent actions of your supporters, and your ensuing silence. Has the article crashed into a disaster since you've taken a break, in your view?  Is the atmosphere on Talk:Circumcision completely gone crazy?  Does it seem more or less civil than when you, Avi, Jayjg and Nandesuka were prominent posters who consistently and unanimously edited the article at will?  I think it's doing fine, as new editors aren't getting their heads bitten off and there are still enough moderate eyes on this article that POV pushing isn't likely to happen, at least not by those actually discussing the issues (editors like you and me) rather than those driving by and making incivil, irrelevant accusations.
 * I posted the message about your real life activity in a reference to your writing letters to journals criticizing articles and having the results presented here. The barnstars in general were sarcastic, exaggerated, and born of disgust for Jayjg's and Coppertwig's outpouring of "wikilove" and apparent solidarity without substance in the form of multiple barnstars each.  If you wish me to remove the barnstar(s), I will, or you may of course remove them yourself.  Ultimately, it was an expression that barnstars are cheap to give; a coherent argument for or against an edit is not.  In that way, I suppose it was an attack.  The motivation is again your silence on the irrelevant attacks and misinterpretations of policy made by your supporters, while insisting that their support equals a WP:CONSENSUS.  That smacks of dishonesty, Jake.  I do prefer to attribute it to weakness, however.  Similar to the weakness I showed by giving you those barnstars.  We're only human.  It's okay.
 * I posted the message expressing interest that you return out of two things -- a feeling of remorse that indeed my behaviour *had* hurt you and been a factor in your absence (hinting that if that's the case, it's unfortunate and regretful), and secondly out of a feeling of respect for your hard work on the article, given that now *I* had a much larger workload dealing with many people unfamiliar with policy. You've taught me much of what I know of Wikipedia, Jake, and in large part because of you, I have an appreciation for and see a certain beauty in WP policy.  It may surprise you, but sometimes, when pointing out policy, I think of you and feel a certain kinship, despite our disagreements on some practical aspects or interpretations of policy.
 * I wish you well too. Thank you again for reaching out, and I hope my response isn't seen as too much of an attack.  I would like nothing more than to come clean with you and edit the article together, without anyone perceiving any double-standards.  Discussion is *always* a better result than one "side" giving up (or worse, attempting to derail and close discussion) out of frustration -- something I've recently argued, actually, in reference to a POV tag, of all things.
 * I understand the need to take a break, and there's no harm, foul, or prejudice if and when you decide to participate again, and to what level. I respect whatever you choose to do.  I truly hope that I'm not editing the articles now in a manner that upsets you.  I too wish you well.  Blackworm (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackworm and Jakew, may I participate in this thread and try to help straighten things out, or would you prefer to manage here without me? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind your commenting here, if it's okay with Jakew, but note that I'm wary of the appearance of "ganging," for example if one of us accepted your suggestions and the other did not. Please tread lightly if you do.  Blackworm (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Blackworm, thank you for your response. I appreciate the fact that you've described some of your own perspective, and I'd like to try to understand a little more. There's quite a lot to digest already, though, and I'm taking my time. It will probably be a few more days before I properly reply. Hope you don't mind.

Coppertwig, I feel sure that your input would be valuable, and I'm grateful for your offer of assistance. However, bearing in mind the concerns raised by Blackworm, would it be ok with you if I declined for the time being? Jakew (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's probably better that way. I'd just like to mention this thread, although there rather than treading lightly I feel more as if I'm stumbling around bumping into furniture. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, I had hoped that a dialogue between us would be productive. However, I'm afraid that I view comments such as "Jakew, Avi, Nandesuka, and Jayjg worked as a team for years, unopposed, skewing this article into a POV mess[...]" as a thinly-veiled accusation of bad-faith editing, and as such I have changed my mind. It seems fair that you should know. Jakew (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Jake. I don't see it so much as an accusation of bad faith editing (and certainly not on your part), but as a reflection on the near-unanimous agreement (and remember, silence implies consent) on all edits between the four of you -- with many edits later shown to be reversed by consensus for many apparent WP:NPOV violations.  Bad faith implies my questioning the cause of this long, sustained unanimity.  Please note that some editors I have openly accused others of POV pushing as well -- do you take their accusations as that of bad-faith editing?  Blackworm (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Want to chime in?
Blackworm, care to join the shit storm that is brewing over at Talk:Circumcision? My request is based solely on your history of acting as the careful voice of moderation, not because I believe you will affirm my position (i.e. I'm not looking for allies). It's entirely possible that I'm being unreasonable, but I'd like to hear it from a few more editors before I acquiesce. Thanks, AlphaEta  19:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I posted in the shit storm in question. :)  (I'm openly immature because I have no problem with smileys.)  Blackworm (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Dear Blackworm, please revert yourself on Acid Attack in accordance with Wikipedia policy on synthesizing, one can not say "X people have been accused of doing X or Y" and then list a bunch of unrelated sources as "evidence", this is a clear violation of SYNTH policy which clearly states that "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C." To claim such claim, you need a source that explicitly says "X people have been accused of doing X or Y", you can't connect the dots yourself, doing so is synthesizing. --CreazySuit (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand Wikipedia policy. No one is claiming that a specific number ("X") of people have been accused of anything.  The claim is that there has been religious motivation for acid attacks.  The sources already explicitly verify this claim, specifically commenting on the religious motivation for specific attacks.  Synthesis as a policy violation happens when a sources are combined to demonstrate a claim forwarded by a Wikipedia editor.  In this case, any of the sources, taken individually, [(late edit:) are said to -BW] verify the claim.  [Note: I haven't read the sources, and didn't have to in order to know they are books and newspapers, not primary sources as Cailil says.  If you have checked them, and find one where religious motivation isn't discussed by the source, say which one and I'll have a look at it.  But that doesn't seem to be your objection, which is unclear.  What is the basis?  If you have evidence in support, present it. -- BW]  Please also see the discussion at [].  Blackworm (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Acid attack
See what you think of this compromise_solution --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello, Blackworm. I know you know this, but being that you have no proof of what you say here in the edit summary, only your opinion, and furthermore, the very same accusation may be leveled at you, I see no other explanation for the edit summary than a veiled personal attack. May I take this opportunity to remind you (again, as can be seen from your talk page history) that such attacks are as great a violation of wikipedia policy as is WP:NPOV editing. Thank you -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Avi, that edit summary is my opinion, my view; stating that your position on the content is impeding progress toward a solution that complies better with NPOV policy. The "proof" you ask for is in the policy, and ultimately in someone's interpretation of that policy with respect to the dispute.  You having no "proof" to the contrary, I will stand behind my view for the time being.  I remind you that your persistent and quick accusations of editors' POV pushing for political motives is much more of a personal attack, even when vaguely stated and vaguely directed.  Blackworm (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

General comment
One other thing, if I may. I know you personally do not like me, and may actually hold me in some distaste. That is fine; 'tis your prerogative. However, it serves neither us nor wikipedia for such personal enmity or otherwise to bleed into the content and policy discussions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I could easily say the same to you. For what it's worth, I have no reason not to like you; you do seem to actually listen and sometimes respond to the arguments of those opposing you, unlike many who consistently support your positions and whose positions you support.  However, since we both seem to often come to content and policy discussions with baggage and eventually with veiled accusations directed at each other (about being politically or culturally motivated to skew towards a given POV, if not outright bad faith), I don't understand how you can say the above without acknowledging your part in contributing to that kind of tangential discussion.  Ultimately, I'll stick to content until you force me otherwise and derail constructive discussion with accusations about editors' motives.  Blackworm (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Blackworm. I was just catching up again on the Talk:Circumcision discussions over the last couple of days. I commend both you and Avi for your efforts to overcome your differences and to try hard to get along with each other, for example adjusting things you'd said:, . I particularly like where you say "I appreciate your cool-headedness, and your kind words, however." in that second diff. Civil words like that can go a long way towards de-escalating conflict. However, re this edit, please comment on content, not on the contributors.  And please be careful what you write in edit summaries; some things can easily be taken the wrong way. I'm also posting a message on Avi's talk page. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How to communicate
I hope you don't mind my message at Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm accustomed to a method of communication where the listener paraphrases what was said, in order to check whether they understand it correctly and give the speaker a chance to clarify. If I remember correctly (and maybe I'm getting you mixed up with someone else) you've asked not to have what you say paraphrased, though. I'm not familiar with how to communicate under those circumstances, so I might not have handled it very well. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Re this edit summary: It seems to me that the word "silly" is usually used to describe people, not things. Please focus on article content and be careful what you write in edit summaries. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and re your second comment in that diff: I'd like to ask you to please edit with AGF, or with a convincing facsimile thereof   ... but I've just been reading your user page, which contains many interesting things, including a statement about "and" and "but" which I agree with ... as well as a number of userboxes, one mentioning ellipses ... and am reminded about something you've said before I think, about accusations of non-AGF being themselves non-AGF ... and remain somewhat confused. Perhaps a better thing for me to say would be to ask you to clarify your comment because it gives a (presumably mistaken) impression of non-AGF. Personally, I think someone can in good faith fail to AGF, (e.g. inadvertently), so I don't think asking someone to AGF necessarily fails to AGF. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have a few quotes by GTBacchus about AGF on my userpage, and apparently got oppose votes on my RfA for, ironically, too much AGF. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't express that very well. (There I go, bumping into furniture again.) Let me put it this way: Please give more consideration to the feelings of other editors. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also posted a message to Avi. ☺  Coppertwig (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re this post where you say "which you wish to suppress" and "If the facts about what are being done with severed foreskins upset you": again, please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, I use "suppress" without accusation of malice, as meaning "strongly wishing to remove the material from the article," which is the substance of the discussion between Avi and myself. The other quote is a response to Avi's original research, namely his apparent labeling of the word "severed" as being too "shocking" to use in the circumcision article, despite no evidence that the word inherently possesses any shock value, and evidence of its use in reliable sources.  In contrast, and for comparison, I believe the term "uncircumcised," which carries explicit, strong connotations of being ritually unclean is somewhat "shocking" in this article, and yet I recognize that it is also used neutrally and don't demand its banning from the article.  I am simply not accepting of the requirement that all discussion of circumcision everywhere must frame the topic as if (a) male circumcision is the only circumcision, and (b) male circumcision must always be couched in language those advocating male circumcision would use, while avoiding language viewed by those advocating circumcision as "shocking" and "sensationalistic" (but not language viewed by those opposing circumcision as suggestive or biased).  Am I wrong on this, Coppertwig?  Should we in fact do that?  In any case, while regretting any upset on the part of opposing editors, I am discussing edits, and not unduly addressing the editor in the cases you mention.  Blackworm (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in reading the discussion again I see that the second quote it was in response to labeling a neutral news report on a wrinkle cream made from foreskins from circumcised babies, including a note on the price of a six-week supply of the cream (US$130), "sensationalism." I was confused since I see the argument as the same.  The "sensationalism" and "shocking" labels, as a rationale to remove the material, without sources stating same, should be ignored per WP:OR.  Perhaps we should ask Jakew for his opinion on that?  Blackworm (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Blackworm. I've just read your above comment twice and might reply to it, and this content dispute in general, either very soon, or later, depending on time available; I'll just say here that I think you've made some good points at Talk:Circumcision. I suggest you consider refactoring this comment, since as written it seems to me to give the impression of implying that another editor has acted disengenuously. I'm not aware of any significant difference in meaning between "push an agenda" and "POV push", and I don't think two wrongs make a right, so I'm puzzled how you justify this comment in light of this comment. Please consider the feelings of other editors before using phrases such as "wild attack" or "ridiculous". Re the last part of this diff: this looks to me very much like a comment about other editors' motives. Please consider how your comments may be interpreted by others and word them carefully. Having previously posted that message, please avoid the use of phrases such as "which you wish to suppress";  you can say instead "which you wish to delete from the article", which sounds neutral and factual. I'm also posting a message on Avi's talk page. Friendly greetings, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had time to reply to some things. I'd just like to mention this: Re this edit: As I've asked you before, please be careful what you write in edit summaries and please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, why don't you comment on the content? Where are your thoughts in this matter regarding Avi's deletion of "severed," a word which "seems to [you] to be a reasonably neutral term," from the male circumcision article?  An editor repeatedly reverting neutral material on WP:NPOV grounds and defending the current version.  If the editor invokes the same fiat in every response, eventually a rationale must be demanded, correct?  Questions from opposing editors should be addressed?  Is that not how Wikipedia works?  Which is the greater wrong, my demanding a rationale, or Avi's failure to provide one?  How can he be correct both for "severed," (which he opposes by asserting its non-neutrality, without sources, and in the face of many sources using that word in this context) and "uncircumcised" (which he insists is neutral, and insists on inclusion, despite objections from an editor, and reliable sources stating it means "spiritually impure")?
 * Perhaps you would consider if it may help resolve the dispute much better by commenting on it rather than on the behaviour of editors involved. Blackworm (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've thought of that, and was going to comment on the dispute yesterday, but ran out of time and energy after collecting all those diffs for the messages to you and to Avi. You can help by carefully checking your messages and edit summaries for possible problems before posting. My purpose is not only to resolve the current dispute, but a more long-term goal of encouraging people to maintain a pleasant editing environment at all times, therefore I prioritize response to things that I think may cause problems. I think the disputes will be resolved much more easily and quickly when people are getting along well with each other. I would prefer to spend my time participating in the content discussions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Coppertwig. I appreciate the desire for a friendly, cooperative atmosphere.  I've tried to engage those with apparently diametrically opposite views, editors who seem to be in a pluratlity at best, considering the opinions of editors who come in who don't regularly edit the article.  I see myself in a role as fighting WP:BITE -- as I feel such violations greatly interfere with a policy that makes Wikipedia much better, namely WP:CONSENSUS.  I believe this latest intense dispute with Avi can only be resolved through Avi's recognition that for the longest time, his (and others') unwavering support for Jakew's edits and iron-fisted control over the article created a violation of WP:NPOV.  The policy states: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.   Avi appears to me, in as objectively a state of mind as I seem to be able to put myself, as shaping, or supporting the shaping of every edit that organizes the material in such a way as to present the foreskin as something inherently separate from the male body -- something to be removed, circumcised, or unattached.  I can't sit back and watch this happen, while reading Wikipedia policy that apparently states that that is not how Wikipedia works, in the presence of a majority of reliable sources that do not take that view, without expressing myself as best I can on that issue.  I'm sorry if the language I choose seems unfriendly -- then again, I believe that the discussion (and article) is already quite unfriendly, given the zero recognition to a contrasting point of view to the one I outline above.  Had I blurted out my initial reaction to this article some time ago when I first read it, there is no doubt I would have been removed from Wikipedia and probably never would have edited again.  That I had the faith in the system to recognize that WP:NPOV grinds slowly, but surely, is something I am proud of myself for.  Shouldn't I be?  Blackworm (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a lot to be proud of, Blackworm. However, a requirement is that you uphold Wikipedia policies at all times.  When you see policy violations in the articles or in other editors' behaviour, there are always ways of responding to those situations and of attempting to rectify the situation that do not involve violating policies yourself.
 * Re the edit summaries of these edits: 21:20 2 October 2008, 15:31 3 October 2008: I've previously asked you more than once (00:40 8 September 2008, 01:49 26 September 2008) to be careful about what you write in edit summaries, and Jakew has asked you (18:42, 23 August 2008) "to raise issues in a more appropriate forum (such as on [his] talk page or a user conduct RfC)". Edit summaries are not an appropriate forum for such. I believe these comments are the type of thing Jakew is referring to when he says (in that diff) "Such comments are hurtful and irritating, but considered as individual events, only mildly so. If there were only a handful of examples, it would be easy enough to ignore." Looking at such comments, I expect that they would be unpleasant to the people they're directed at. In the interests of maintaining an environment in which everyone feels welcome to edit, in future please raise any such issues in an appropriate forum (see WP:Dispute resolution and see Jakew's suggestions for such fora in the quote earlier in this comment) and please avoid writing such remarks where they don't belong, especially in edit summaries. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, I don't believe that you're scrutinizing editors' behaviour fairly in this matter. How can one feel "welcome to edit" when two editors arbitrarily ban terms they don't like and insist on the use of other terms other editors don't like, against the protest of even more editors? You haven't addressed these points, you've only seen fit to act as a kind of unsolicited moderator, keeping score on editors' talk pages of behavioural issues during the discussion.  I find that, and what I see as weak and infrequent warnings to Avi compared to those you give me here, and your response to Avi's incivility toward both of us (ignoring questions), to be somewhat annoying -- I realize you are attempting to do well, but I now believe you are now squarely on their side of the dispute as I see it, by allowing Avi/Jakew to ban all terms used in reliable sources they say are "shocking," and suggesting edits yourself to that end.  Thus, you appear to support my reasoning (that of most editors there, apparently), but in practice you support the reasoning behind Avi/Jakew's edits by suggesting edits that conform to it.  That appears very odd to me.  I didn't see you anywhere when I said "uncircumcised" meant heathen, or suggest anything else for the lead sentence when myself and others had issues with "removed," and I've seen you shower Jakew with barnstars and get nominated for admin by Avi.  I'm not convinced you are behaving consistently with respect to edits and editors -- Avi suggests he respects your ability and judgment, which worries me, given that I do not respect Avi's ability nor his judgment, but then he ignores your questions, while avoiding all response to me, and you seemingly shrug it all off and instead of pressing him, [See below -BW] warn me about edit summaries.  Sorry, I don't think we see this situation similarly at all.  A moderator doesn't allow editors to ignore questions.  Blackworm (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you did repeat the question to Avi, so perhaps it's simply a case of your patience with incivility greatly exceeding mine. Blackworm (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Blackworm. Thank you for your message.
 * I don't wish to take on the responsibility of being a moderator. I'm just one of a number of ordinary editors.  I read the parts of discussions that I have the time and inclination to read.  I have opinions about article content which may have some similarities and differences with those of various other editors. I try to follow the principles described in the MeatBallWiki page DefendEachOther, which arbcom has linked to, and I would like to see more editors doing the same.
 * We all have our own individual values. I happen to have a fairly strong tendency (with some classes of exceptions, I suppose) not to fault people for errors of omission, especially on a wiki.  Wikipedia policy says "comment on content, not on the contributor"; I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that specifically requires editors to answer questions, although WP:CONSENSUS emphasises discussion, and "administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed." (here)  Words that evoke negative emotions in the addressee cause severe problems on Wikipedia (as I list here). Omission to answer questions leads, I suppose, only to failure to convince others of one's POV in a dispute, which I don't see as causing problems for others.  Finding uncivil words is easily done by looking at one post;  noticing and verifying that someone has omitted to answer a question would take broader searching.  For these reasons, I don't tend to criticize people for not answering questions.  However, there are a number of other regular editors of the page, and perhaps some of them share your values about answering questions: perhaps some of them could step in, in the spirit of DefendEachOther, to make the kinds of criticisms you hope to see.
 * Because of differences between people, we don't all see things the same way. Because we each control our own edits, there is a tendency for our own edits to usually conform precisely to all of our own standards, and others' edits in comparison to be wanting. ☺ As I think I've told you before, I think it's usually impossible to criticize editors in such a way that those on both sides of a dispute see the criticisms as being fair.  While you see my criticisms of Avi as having been mild and infrequent in comparison to my criticisms of you, it would not surprise me at all if Avi thinks that my criticisms of him were exaggerated and that there are worse things you've done that I've said nothing about.  Perhaps he isn't complaining about this likely perceived unfairness because perhaps he realizes that that sort of thing is par for the course in this type of dispute, and that we have to make allowances for the inevitable differences in perceptions.
 * Regardless, I don't think transgressions by one person justify transgressions by another.
 * I disagree with your interpretation that some word or words have been "arbitrarily ban[ned]". That's not a factual, neutral description of what happened, but an interpretation (whether valid or not). The facts are that some editors have expressed opinions for and against some words and that some edits and reverts have taken place. Perhaps you would like to assert that some specifically identified (with diffs) edits or reverts were done without adequate discussion or explanation.  Perhaps you would like to assert that there are more editors supporting one choice of words than another.  Either of these might be a step towards productive discussion with other editors. (This is not intended to imply that there isn't already productive discussion occurring. (00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
 * While interpretive descriptions of other editors' behaviour such as "suppress" or "ban" may perhaps be appropriate on your own talk page, or possibly on the talk page of an editor you're criticizing, or a user conduct RfC, I'd just like to re-iterate my request that you avoid these or other interpretive terms to describe user behaviour in other places (e.g. article talk page, edit summaries). There are always neutral ways to describe the same actions, thus avoiding unnecessarily evoking negative emotions in other editors.
 * Thank you for editing your comment. I really appreciate that.
 * I hope you don't mind the length of this comment. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Partial reply to your comment of 09:21, 27 September above: the problem with saying "which you wish to suppress" is that, while it can be interpreted to mean the same thing as 'which you wish to delete from the article", on the other hand it can also be interpreted to mean "which you wish to prevent people from finding out about", which would be an unpleasant accusation, especially when directed at the type of person who would choose to contribute to "the free encyclopedia". Please avoid words likely to be interpreted in such ways. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll just keep reverting to my preferred edit, and I'll adopt your and Avi's extremely detached tone about it. Thanks for showing me the way, Coppertwig.  Blackworm (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]]. C-Twig understands me in the main. While I believe that you, Blackworm, have been exhibiting more incivility, truculence, and inflexibility than I have, I understand that C-Twig is trying (and succeeding) in walking a fine balance moderating between different viewpoints. While I think that the mid-point between your edits and mine would not be neutrality, but far into anti-circ territory, I'm certain you think the reverse. Regardless, I have not complained at length to C-Twig, for while I may disagree with C-twig's analysis at times, and may disagree as to the various and relative levels of adhering to wiki policies and guidelines that you and I display, I have no reason to believe that C-Twig has any agenda other than to try and help the process, and I respect that. Bringing C-Twig a list of your statements in direct comparison to mine, and pointing out why I believe the differences between methods of talking, and not just our positions, would serve little purpose and I have no reason to see C-Twig harried or feel as if the work C-Twig does is unappreciated. Thus, my lack of volumious complaints. -- Avi (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems odd to me that you claim that the mid-point between your edits and mine "would not be neutrality, but far into anti-circ territory," when Coppertwig himself and at least two others say they have no problem with "severed foreskin," which is my edit and which you dispute. And no, I don't think the reverse.  I think our edits may both subtly shift the POV of the article toward our own, especially on the choice of words used and the organization of the material (since it's much more subtle and even our good-faith attempts to eliminate that non-neutral POV may fail, as it may be much more difficult for us to see it).  But that's fine, if we both can recognize that and work together to find neutral compromises, or some kind of give and take ourselves and the other editors can abide by.  If it indeed means a lot to you to avoid "severed" and "cut off," it seems you should be prepared to accept the avoidance of some terms those supporting an apparently opposing POV feel are inappropriate (some of which you may see as having no problem).  I don't believe using the word "severed" or "cut off" to describe a foreskin some of the time, and "removed" or "excised" some of the time, is "far into anti-circ territory."  It seems to balance the terms viewed by the editors in the discussion as leaning pro- and anti-.
 * Wanting to avoid the word "uncircumcised" is probably viewed by most as being firmly into anti-circ territory, I'll admit that. But that is precisely my point; if I can come to you with a sourced example of why the term may upset some people, and yet you still deny that it is a problem and insist on its inclusion in the article (one would presumably especially object to its use to describe men), I don't see how you can feel comfortable being in the position of having apparently won that dispute ("uncircumcised" still being used liberally in the article), and later asserting that the phrase "severed foreskin" is shocking, without any sources, and continuing to demand its non-inclusion on that basis, with even more editors (including one who perhaps "understands you in the main") stating that the term is neutral, and thus apparently opposing your edit. Blackworm (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up
Hey Blackworm, we had initiated a conversation about the prominence of Tannenbaum and Shechet in the circumcision article, but the thread appears to have stalled. Any thoughts on the latest proposal? Kindest regards, AlphaEta  22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you
Thanks for the save at Penis enlargement article. As you seem to have noticed, my intention was to add a "citation needed" tag, which I misremembered as instead of. --EarthFurst (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Skin cream from attached foreskins
Unless you are envisioning some pharmaceutical company making skin cream out of foreskins that are still attached, there appears to be no reason for your continued addition of any term, be it "severed" or "removed" other than some form of subconscious emotional sensationalism, which is a POV violation. Please step back from the article a bit, and try to accurately conceptualize your reasons for these edits, and use the article's talk page to state your case. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for your removal of the term, and your assertions regarding "subconscious emotional sensationalism" are both pure original research, and a personal attack, and could just as well be leveled at you for your arbitrary edits. You are in the position of having to explain your reversion of my edit, not vice-versa.  Please learn Wikipedia policy.  Stop your violations immediately.  Blackworm (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are any number of valid words that may be used, and since there is some "discussion," AND the information can be disseminated without the use of ANY of the "problematic" words, any further reversion to one of the "problematic" terms would feasibly be done solely for non-encyclopedic reasons. -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that "discussion" is cause enough for retaining a disputed edit? That flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS.  If you dispute my edit changing "circumcised foreskin" to "severed foreskin," then revert it to that, as I think it superior to your new edit, i.e. having no adjective.  Then we can discuss that edit in Talk, and see if there's consensus.  Otherwise, one could easily view this situation as an inappropriate attempt to frame your new edit as the default edit pending some vague future resolution of "discussion."  That isn't how you've shown me Wikipedia works, Avi.  Or is it?  Blackworm (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey on a lighter note, Avi, do you think dog foreskins, or those of infant male horses, might make anti-wrinkle cream for women that's as good as human infant foreskins? Maybe we could work together and make that happen, you know, maybe market a bargain brand (not that $130/6 weeks stuff)? Do you think groups like PETA would object? Blackworm (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why limit it to only male horses? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "male" is redundant there but it sounded funny. Or maybe you were referring to whether infant cow prepuce makes good nose hair depilatory products.  Blackworm (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please revert your personal attacks
This edit is a gross personal attack at best, and may be worse than that. Please strike out your egregious violation of WP:NPA immediately. -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Avi, your recent grave incivility, multiple personal attacks, and multiple violations of Wikipedia policy far exceed anything I said in that edit. If you'll read it again, you may notice it was an attempt to show Jayjg that poking into someone's edits and attempting to frame them as POV pushers based on which articles they mostly edit is not a viable way to resolve disputes.  Blackworm (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, this edit summary is another example of gross incivility and a violation of wikipedia policy and guideline, Blackworm. -- Avi (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, and what is your opinion of Jayjg's description of "all" of my edits coming "from a decidedly anti-circumcision point of view?" (I don't expect an answer.)  Blackworm (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have 2724 edits as of now. While I would not characterize "all" your edits in any one fashion without analyzing them, there are some interesting and potentially telling examples. Try #45 or #46. -- Avi (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you whether you would make the same comment. Let me put the question differently.  In general, is a description of "all" a given editor's edits as coming "from a decidedly X point of view," rightly considered a personal attack? Blackworm (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * However, I was discussing your edits, not Jay's or anyone else's. Speaking of dodges… -- Avi (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL Avi. Why can't you answer the question?  Blackworm (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, you said, "I don't believe those kinds of claims are productive." I don't believe they're productive either; but I see little or no distinction between mentioning such and asserting such, so it appears to me that you're doing essentially the same thing as what you were saying isn't productive.(12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)) Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, thank you for asserting [affirming my belief in -BW] an equivalence between my statement [hypothetical example -BW], and that [the statement -BW] of two respected administrators, one of whom apparently adjudicated over 100 Arbitration Committee cases. Blackworm (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I didn't word that very well. I was having trouble finding the right words. I didn't mean to say that you were or weren't doing the same thing that other people were doing.  I meant that you were doing essentially the same thing that you were saying would not be productive.  I added words in italics to clarify. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Coppertwig, I shouldn't put words in your mouth, and consequently I've rephrased the above. That said, I strongly disagree with you when you say that mentioning something (as, in the form of a hypothetical question) is indistinct from asserting that something.  I apply the spirit of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:ASF, here -- it's for that precise distinction that in disputed cases, we quote sources and attribute the statements rather than assert the statements themselves.  I have added more clarifying language above emphasizing this distinction, as I do believe it important.  Blackworm (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentioning something and asserting something can be quite different or essentially the same, depending on context. For example, mentioning the idea of promising to give someone some money is quite different from promising to give someone some money;  but there is little or no practical distinction between mentioning, in hypothetical terms, the password to an account and asserting that that is the password.  In my opinion, the message of yours of which I gave a diff above essentially falls into the latter category.  If an unwelcome remark about another editor shouldn't be asserted, then in my opinion it shouldn't be implied or mentioned, either. Practical experience shows, I think, that such implication or mention also tends to be unwelcome. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that an unwelcome remark follows an unwelcome remark should not be surprising. If an editor makes an implicit accusation of POV pushing, they should be prepared to have their incivility condemned, and their own neutrality assessed.  Are you attacking this problem from the other side as well, pointing out Jayjg's incivility on his Talk page?  Blackworm (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An action can be unsurprising, yet still unjustified. Do you think accusations of POV pushing are acceptable, or not? Or do you think they're OK under some circumstances but not others, and if so, under what circumstances?  In my opinion, if one believes that another has been uncivil, then pointing this out (in a reasonably civil manner) is acceptable and should not be condemned as an attack in itself.  However, about other things, I agree with you when you say "I don't believe those kinds of claims are productive".
 * For your convenience: as far as I remember, the only message from me on Jayjg's talk page related to the Circumcision and related pages is this one, though I could be forgetting some in the more distant past. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think generally accusations of POV pushing are not acceptable, as policy and guideline state. That said, those repeatedly making the accusations do not heed these policies, or believe that their experience gives them license to ignore the policies; therefore, in this last instance I attempted a symmetric approach, stated hypothetically, as an attempt to illustrate the inappropriateness of the accusations in a manner that may resonate with these editors.  It also illustrates the double standard these editors apply in criticism of others' behaviour.  For example, you suggest my comment expressing my distaste for backroom e-mail conversations may have been taken by Avi as a statement that a "cabal" exists -- and yet when Jayjg openly suggests that an edit I support and several other editors support is invalid because I have "like-minded allies," no one, not you, Avi, or Jakew bats an eyelash.  I have no explanation for this consistent double standard. Blackworm (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I didn't intend to suggest that your "comment expressing [your] distaste for backroom e-mail conversations may have been taken by Avi as a statement that a "cabal" exists". My intention was only to point out an edit of yours in which you had used the word "cabal", as a possible explanation as to why Avi had put quotation marks around that word. On re-reading your message in which you had asked Avi for a diff, I see that I may have missed the phrase "in the context you describe". I apologize for any confusion that may have resulted. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries again
Re this edit summary: As I've asked you before more than once, please be careful what you write in edit summaries. Edit summaries cannot easily be edited or deleted and there's no convenient place to write comments in reply to them, so they are not an appropriate place for comments about other editors. This particular edit summary could easily be interpreted as implying blame. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of that edit summary was to show what the last edit that had consensus was, before this dispute. Blackworm (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the statement in the edit summary. I think the addition of the "Foreskin-based consumer goods" section didn't have broad consensus.  And regardless of what the point of the edit summary was, my comments above still apply. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

When I read this edit summary I feel a pang of distress on behalf of those who I expect would feel offended by it. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare that to over a year of distress at reading a skewed article on a sensitive topic... Blackworm (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article may seem skewed to you, but doesn't necessarily seem skewed to others. I don't think there's a well-defined objective test of skewness.  See User:Coppertwig/NPOV.
 * It may or may not be possible to arrive at a version of the article that will be acceptable to everyone. If it's possible, I think it will be through discussion; and I think the kinds of remarks you've been making which I'm pointing out to you make it more difficult to have productive discussion.


 * Re this and this edit summary: I don't think these remarks would be appropriate anywhere on-wiki, and certainly not in edit summaries where there is no convenient place to reply. ("Do you e-mail each other to decide who will attack me next, Avi?" and "Tag-team away.")


 * Re this edit summary: This could easily be interpreted as being a remark about another editor. ("Dodge.")


 * Re this edit summary: Please comment on content, not on the contributor. ("Gimme a break. Let's speak to each other as equals for a change, Avi. Or is that non-Wikipedian?")


 * Re this edit summary: I appreciate the good intentions of this edit, which shows a willingness to try to make amends. However, you really need to be more careful with your edit summaries. I doubt that Avi would use the word "misquote" to describe this situation, so your statement about Avi is not NPOV here. ("Oops. This isn't my talk page, so I'll leave Avi's misquote of me alone.")


 * This edit summary seems to me to give an inaccurate representation of another editor's position. ("Jakew's solution seems to be that we don't discuss the controversy at all.")


 * I have a suggestion: if you have difficulty remembering to take enough time to stop and think over your edit summaries before posting, you could get in the habit of choosing all your edit summaries from a short pre-selected list, saying only things like "reply" or "editing my comment" or "see talk", etc. Since this option is available to you, there's no excuse for posting controversial comments in edit summaries. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, your warnings are noted. So is your position on the disputed edit.  Blackworm (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting the warnings. If you're referring to the dispute over the word "severed": my position is complex and includes a willingness to accept a number of possible solutions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your neutrality and support of policy
Thank you for this comment, where you show neutrality while supporting Wikipedia policy. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks bad
Just a thought, but it looks like you will be engaged in never ending edit warfare with your arch enemy, Jakew.--Metalhead94 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Surgery
Revasser: "even though I agree with you that circumcision is surgery in any sense of the world [sic]."

Luna: Even though you had convinced him it is not intrinsic, it is still often a surgical procedure, and per WP:NPOV the common definition should lead.

Gary: Was indifferent, and appears to lean to "minor surgery."

Tremollo: agrees with you.

Gimmethoseshoes: agrees with you.

Coppertwig was trying to find consensus, but I believe would be fine with surgical as well.

So you see, even of the people you list, half of them are not as you represent them. Jake and Jay brought numerous sources as well. So, I reiterate, based on that conversation, that the consensus was not for the removal, notwithstanding C-Twig's attempt to find middle ground.

Also, once again, your headings and edit summaries are inappropriate for wikipedia, as I, C-Twig, and others have informed you about more than once. -- Avi (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note I also replied on your talk page. Your edit summaries are also inappropriate, as your "remembering" that I was "the only editor against the term," besides being untrue as you make clear above, is not even a valid reason for the addition.  Your repeated attempts (see ) to single me out as some kind of rogue editor, even in disputes where I am on the side of the majority, is tantamount to harassment; it is most certainly a personal attack.


 * Your assessment above fails to stand up to scrutiny, as my reply quoting the editors you claim I miserpresent plainly shows. Please abide by consensus, and self-revert, or follow dispute resolution as I suggested to Jayjg in the extended discussion.  Blackworm (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also that the edit removing "male" and adding "surgical" was performed recently by an IP user who was not part of the discussions, and apparently escaped attention until now. Blackworm (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI
I'm planning to start an RfC (user conduct) concerning you soon, Blackworm. I'm sorry for any inconvenience or stress this may cause you. I hope this is not a very inconvenient time for you, and I hope everyone will participate in a civil manner. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone well rested? Blackworm (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Blackworm)
Hello, Blackworm. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Blackworm, where you may want to participate. -- Coppertwig (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to your message at Talk:Circumcision: I don't think it's necessary to notify all editors active on this article since you've arrived; I think the notification at Talk:Circumcision is sufficient.  If you know of reasons why I should notify them, please let me know; this is the first time I've done an RfC (user) (or any type of RfC, as far as I remember) so I'm not familiar with the procedures.  However, if you wish to notify that complete set of editors, with a neutral message, in accordance with WP:CANVASS, that's fine with me.  It might make sense to restrict it to editors who have edited the article more than a certain number of times.  It seems possible to me that some editors who have edited a very small number of times might object to receiving such a notification. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way: I assume you're planning to post something in the "response" section of the RfC. I realize it may take time to prepare a response; I'm only mentioning this on the off-chance you hadn't noticed that section. I'll reply to other comments of yours later. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm planning to post something, but I'm a little undecided as to an approach.  I could sift through four users' posts for exact equivalent lapses of conduct, which are plentiful, but somehow I don't see that as very productive.  I'm tempted to sign underneath your, Avi's, Jayjg, and Jakew's names, to indicate my acceptance of your proposed remedies.  How amazing it would be if Avi, Jayjg, and Jakew began to abide by those guidelines!  Blackworm (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that I've set up separate sections for certifying the dispute and for endorsing the remedies. You might want to consider endorsing the remedies while stating that your endorsement is conditional on endorsement by certain other people.  It may also be possible to negotiate modified versions of the remedies; the talk page of the RfC might be a good place to do that. Coppertwig (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I find this part a bit confusing: Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section. The proposed remedies are in the "statement of the dispute" section, so adding my endorsement of those seems to preclude me from responding in the Response section.  I think I'll just edit the latter section, and indicate which proposed remedies of yours I support there, and perhaps add more.  Sorry for the delay in responding to this, it has actually been a bad time but I should get around to making at least a brief response this evening. Blackworm (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the standard RfC format somewhat confusing too. No problem; I look forward to reading your comments when you have time to write them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I spent a good part of the evening compiling diffs and find it to be very time consuming. The next few days are very busy for me, so it may be the weekend before I post a response.  In the meantime, and forthwith, I will make an attempt to abide by your good suggestions should I comment elsewhere.  Blackworm (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! One of my intentions on posting the initial message about the RfC on your talk page was to give you an opportunity to let me know if it was a particularly bad time for you, and then I could have delayed posting the RfC for a while. Maybe I should have made that more explicit. I've added a header to the RfC, "Please consider waiting until Blackworm has posted a response before commenting or endorsing." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I may not be willing to wait indefinitely for your response to the RfC. Above, you said something about last weekend. I'd rather not wait longer than 2 weeks after the original filing of the RfC for people to start commenting, and I'm thinking of striking out the above-mentioned header when we reach 2 weeks (i.e. in about 2 days from now). Do you have an idea as to when you'll be ready to post a response? ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was waiting on responses to your proposed amendment s . Barring the amendments or another mutually agreed upon solution, I will not be responding to the RfC.  I cannot endorse the proposed remedies while watching you apparently accept lapses of good faith of Jayjg, apparently calling on him to act as if he assumes good faith, while not suggesting the same to me vis-a-vis Jayjg, Avraham, Jakew, yourself, and other editors.  If you wish for me to respond notwithstanding the refusal to amend the RfC, please indicate so here.  Blackworm (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that. I had been intending to go ahead and edit in the amendment after a day or so if there were no comments, and I sort-of forgot.  I didn't realize you were waiting for that before responding.  (I've been preoccupied with events on another project, RL etc.) I've added the amended proposed remedy as C7.1, and changed my own endorsement to C1-C6 and C7.1.  I've left the original C7 there also, since some editors have endorsed that version.
 * You said "amendments": I was only aware of the one proposed amendment, on the RfC talk page. Were there others?
 * When you said "lapses of good faith" above, I assume you meant "lapses of assumption of good faith".
 * I'll try to remember not to just ask you to "assume good faith", but to ask you to assume good faith or else edit as if you do, which I think is pretty much all that can reasonably be required of anyone. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 00:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, lapses of the assumption of good faith. Thank you for your change.  I will respond to the RfC soon, and as I don't see any problem with any of the proposed remedies, I suspect it will be brief (by my standards).  Blackworm (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the sentiment you expressed in this edit; I really appreciate it. But I also find it problematic the way you've named one particular editor in that comment, and urge you to refactor it without singling someone out like that.  Yes, I know, I've singled you out by filing an RfC, but ... this is different, in ways I could perhaps explain but hope it isn't necessary to go into such detail. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing another part saying "remove part singling out an editor"; that was important too, and I'll probably endorse that remedy; but note that the above is talking about a different comment. I think it's important that you be able to recognize the problem with it. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your response to the RfC, which you've clearly put a lot of thought into. I'll reply more to it later. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking out those words. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote
I suppose this is very bad timing, but I wonder if you would mind if I include this quote from a comment of yours in the "Original research" quote section of my userpage? ""Invented by Wikipedians" doesn't mean "approved by the Wikipedia community."" ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Touché. At least if I get permanently blocked I will live on in you, Coppertwig.  So tell me, did you compile all those diffs against me or did others contribute?  I know you use e-mail here, and others do compile lists of "offenses" against me (as if their own offenses weren't as much or more egregious), so I'm just curious.  Blackworm (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't be blocked. I compiled the list of diffs myself. By the way, I was re-reading the civility policy and found this: "Editors are expected ... to be responsive to good-faith questions"; so maybe I'll pay more attention to that in future; although, as I explained, I may not be the best person to do that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not focus on whether they're "offenses" or not. Let's focus on wording your comments in future  so that they convey what you want to say about article content etc. but other editors are unlikely to feel hurt when reading them. By the way, I included a link to your block log at the top of the RfC, as you had requested: good idea. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In a milieu where the article's topic is circumcision, and some editors are hurt by the phrase "cut off the foreskin," that seems a lofty goal. Blackworm (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL!! However, if people feel hurt by ordinary discussion of article content or by necessary, neutral statements about editors' actions (in appropriate fora), that's not your responsibility. It's the unnecessary negative remarks about editors that are a concern. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But then you see fit to oppose edit summaries like this with comments on my Talk page, where I really don't see anything wrong with criticism of the circumcision article. Yes, I know Jayjg, Jakew, and Avraham see criticism of the article (or tags) as attacks on their own judgment, since they have molded the article more than anyone else.  That is also not my responsibility.  Yes, in my view, based on a good look at reliable sources on the topic, the article obfuscates key properties of circumcision, and also distorts other properties, with the effect of tilting the balance toward Wikipedia taking a stand accepting, tolerating, and being indifferent toward male circumcision, and also de-emphasizing its relationship with female circumcision.  Editors who may be completely accepting, tolerant of, or indifferent toward male circumcision may not be aware of the evidence against certain implied stances taken by the article, and thus may be skeptical at first.  (See WP:NPOV_dispute.)  Also, many editors besides myself criticize the article, as evidenced by the multiple open disputes on major edits lacking consensus one way or the other.  I think your attitude expressed in this discussion is admirable but ultimately flawed here -- if open, long disputes on content are what are causing editor fatigue, it is those content issues that should be resolved through official means, especially as many of the other editors involved also use inappropriate comments and violate policies (perhaps you disagree).  I would argue that unaddressed policy violations in edits are much more of a problem than the editors complaining about it, even if the complaints express frustration at the lack of progress. Blackworm (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information." Garycompugeek (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is that quoted from? It seems odd that editors in the RfC are already suggesting that I'm a POV pusher and should be topic banned.  The joys of a one-sided presentation, I guess. [Suggestion has since been withdrawn. -BW] Blackworm (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right here. For what its worth I think your a good editor who has been trying to counter systematic bias. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re this edit summary which you mention above: "Someday, the nature of the controversy will actually be neutrally stated in this article, rather than obfuscated and distorted." The point I was making about this one is a subtle one. I find the edit summary to be somewhat ambiguous.  I'm not sure whether I was aware, when I commented on it, that there was more than one distinct interpretation; I was trying to express as accurately as possible in words my emotional reaction on reading it.   This is an ambiguity that happens sometimes when the past participle is used.  Here's a hypothetical illustration: suppose someone says "When I read your comment, I feel harassed." (Or "attacked", "oppressed", "belittled", or even possibly (cough) "hurt").  If "harassed" is considered to be an adjective, this could be interpreted as a statement purely about the emotions of the speaker; a good I-message, and therefore relatively innocuous.  Or, if "harassed" is considered to be a verb, this could be taken as implying that the other person has harassed the speaker: in effect, a you-message although it starts with the word "I". In that case, the other person might respond defensively, "You're accusing me of harassing you! I didn't harass you!"  Back to that edit summary:  I see no problem when you say in your message above, "...the article obfuscates key properties of circumcision, and also distorts other properties, with the effect of tilting the balance..." That's clearly talking about the article, so there's no problem. But in the edit summary, there's that ambiguity: who or what is doing the obfuscating and distorting? It could easily be interpreted as implying that certain people had done that.  Since you've accused people in the past of similar things, this is an easy interpretation to jump to. We need to watch for such alternative interpretations of our words and reformulate them when those sorts of ambiguities are present.
 * In summary: there is nothing wrong with criticizing the circumcision article. The problem is comments about other editors or comments which can easily be interpreted as implying things about other editors.
 * By the way, speaking of I-messages, I found this to be a very effective I-message and appreciated the way you said it. Certain past participles such as "dismayed", "disappointed", "embarassed" (my feeling in that situation) or perhaps "hurt" tend to be interpreted, I think, as descriptions of the emotion of the speaker rather than as verbs describing the action of the other person. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Garycompugeek, you might want to comment in the "Outside view" section of the RfC. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re "multiple open disputes on major edits lacking consensus one way or the other": I've been thinking for some time that it might be helpful to set up a page Talk:Circumcision/FAQ which would lay out the arguments on both sides of the various ongoing content disputes. (Disputes such as the name of the article; whether certain words are used in the article, such as "surgical", "cut off", "severed", "uncircumcised"; etc.) At least, it could save time so we don't have to repeat arguments.  I would like to have it in essay form, edited collaboratively, describing the content dispute arguments in a similar way that we describe controversies in Wikipedia articles. Discussion of the content of the FAQ would take place at Talk:Circumcision. It seems possible to me that by working on the FAQ, we might learn things about how the arguments interact and possibly make some progress towards solving the content disputes.  You've said, "Questions from opposing editors should be addressed?" If one lays out the arguments for one side of a content dispute in a FAQ, it would practically force those on the other side to lay out their own arguments, for all to see and judge which seem more convincing. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re your "lofty goal" comment: I don't think that's an accurate characterization of other editors' reactions. It's one thing to state that one believes that certain words should not appear in an article because one considers them to be associated with a negative emotional tone.  It's quite another thing to feel personally insulted by remarks about oneself.  In this discussion, let's distinguish carefully between remarks about article content, and remarks about editors.  I don't think anyone has complained about your use of the phrase "severed penis" (17:36, 15 October 2008) on the article talk page.  I think that comment was probably fine, because although the comment was addressed to a particular editor, it was not talking about that editor; it was talking about article content, and making a point about article content that couldn't be made without using that phrase.  Quite a good point, in my opinion, actually.
 * We need to be able to talk about emotional tone of proposed article content in order to try to comply with the "impartial tone" required by NPOV. I don't think editors' expression of opinions about emotional tone of various words as reasons for including them in the article (or not) provides in any way an excuse for posting unwelcome remarks about editors.
 * In any case, even if a goal is lofty, that loftiness is not an excuse not to strive for it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor's reaction which came to mind was: "And to Blackworm: Kindly avoid crass and disgusting terminology such as "the practice of requiring males to be have certain parts cut off their penises in specific cultures" that reveal your own POV bias against circumcision [...]."  Again, editors are not to make claims about other editors' "POV bias" based on editors choosing to refer to the foreskin as "removed," "attached [to the penis]," "circumcised," and "excised," nor based on editors choosing to refer to the foreskin as "cut off," "part of [the penis]," "severed," and "amputated."  One major problem I see with the editing environment is that the administrators who watch this article all, without exception, use the first group of terms, and seem unjustly suspicious of editors who use the second group of terms, even when these terms are used in major, mainstream reliable sources.  Words from the first group are used to define circumcision in the first sentence of the article; when words from the second group are used in the definition, they are removed on sight by administrators, with the unsourced, uncited argument that the terms are "shocking" or "sensationalistic."  In my view, this enforces an implied stance taken by Wikipedia that the foreskin is not part of the penis, but something foreign to or detrimental to the body, to be "removed" like a tumor, cyst, mole, or parasite.  This is indeed the view of some, but I believe it to contradict the majority view, i.e., that the foreskin is a part of the penis.  I believe to frame the entire topic according to this minority view violates WP:NPOV.  (Note also that IZAK received no administrative warnings for incivil conduct.)  Blackworm (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, given that the topic is circumcision, there is nothing wrong with using on the article talk page a phrase such as "the practice of requiring males to be have certain parts cut off their penises in specific cultures"; calling an editor's comment "crass and disgusting" seems overly emotionalistic and could perhaps be called uncivil; and "that reveal your own POV bias against circumcision" is exactly the type of comment the proposed remedies are intended to proscribe. To ban from the article talk page forthright discussion of the topic in down-to-earth terminology would be counterproductive to development of a NPOV article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also believe your last sentence applies to the article itself, hence my opposition to certain recent edits.  Blackworm (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be reasonable to use the verb "cut off" in the first sentence of the article, but some editors disagree. However, I'm not sure that it's necessary to use a verb like that. We may find a version that's acceptable to everyone. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Jayjg#Comment_on_deletion
Blackworm (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring your comment which Jayjg had deleted. (I hadn't noticed the earlier re-deletion either, or I probably would have restored it.) However, I suggest that you strike out the words "on that", since we have no evidence that the views Jayjg expressed in that diff apply to the more recent situation your comment can be interpreted as referring to with the word "that". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Or you might try replacing the words "on that" with something more specific; but it may be hard to do that in a NPOV way.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the words "on that": note that Jayjg has quoted policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Your whole disputed statement seems to me to be saying something about Jayjg, not about the content of the article, not even about Jayjg's views about the content of the article. I would like to suggest either explaining how your comment bears on article content, or striking out the whole comment as not relevant on the article talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "on that" referred to Jayjg's previous comment, i.e., the diff seemed to illustrate another expressed view, which I believe relevant as it was never resolved, of Jayjg's on "why [Jayjg's] assertions should be considered more reliable than [Blackworm's]." Do you believe it NPOV to replace "that" with "why Jayjg's assertions should be considered more reliable than mine." (?) Blackworm (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that the entire discussion was derailed toward a discussion of editors, quite possibly due to one of my comments, which should perhaps have been nipped in the bud, not continued by other editors:


 * "I understand that you do not like the comparisons to urine, semen, blood, and fur, since it counteracts your emotional belief. However, this is wikipedia, not Blackwormapedia, and thus we need to discuss these issues as respectfully and as neutrally as possible, as Coppertwig and Gary have done in this discussion." User:Avraham (Note edit summary: "8-)" )


 * Later, Jayjg entered this discussion of editors with an accusation that I was violating WP:POINT,, and then with his explanation of why his assertions (which were contrary to my expressed views) should be taken as fact.


 * Again, the editing climate there is not one of mutual respect between editors, and it isn't clear to me how the RfC/U can change that. Attempts to give Jayjg respect and consideration have been met with disdain, threats, commands, and a refusal to amend his own misrepresentations (in the form of deleted comments, and quotes attributed to me containing words I did not use).  Blackworm (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it is unfair to ask Blackworm to strike out his comment before Jayjg strikes out part of his comment. -- DanBlackham (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was probably unfair of me to suggest to Blackworm to strike out that comment without also suggesting to Jayjg to strike out parts of the preceding discussion. I did that because when I restored the comment I felt somewhat personally responsible for it.  However, I had already been starting to think about perhaps also suggesting to Jayjg to strike out some things, before I saw your comment, DanBlackham.
 * By the way, Blackworm, if you should happen for any reason to want to delete or modify my edit which restored your comment, please feel free. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll comment more later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider this ("Status of dispute according to Blackworm") to be an excellent edit, refocussing back on article content. Your summary looks apt to me, and I think it was a good idea to acknowledge that others might not agree with your description and to suggest a way for them to respond if so. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re "Do you believe it NPOV": I'm not sure. I'll just say I'm undecided on that one, at least for now.  How about this formulation? "This diff, combined with parts of the preceding discussion, shows a view which has been expressed in the past by Jayjg of the value of other editors' edits to this page." However, rather than posting something like this at all, I think it's much more productive to focus on article content, as you did in the above-mentioned edit.
 * Re "Attempts to give Jayjg respect and consideration": You may not be aware of the extent to which your comments are perceived (more by some people, and less by others) to be hurtful and inappropriate. For an attempt of that nature to have the best chance of working, it helps to have a longish period of time during which you don't say or do anything that's perceived as an attack.  You don't have complete control over how people perceive your comments, but you can (as I think you're doing now) make an effort to try to avoid the types of remarks such as I listed in the RfC.  While ideally, in my opinion, people will forgive and forget the past and respond only to recent interactions, in practice it may take some people a long time to get over things that have been said in the past.  Sometimes one remark, which seems perfectly acceptable to the one who said it, can preclude someone from carrying on normal interaction with the person for many months.  The person might realize that logically it would be better to just forget about it, but find that emotionally they just can't.  Apologies can help.
 * If everyone makes an effort to behave in a respectful way, likely with time more respectful feelings will develop.
 * Jayjg might consider your comment about "...have been met with disdain..." to be inappropriate. He may disagree with the assertions and likely would not describe his own behaviour in those words; I wouldn't call that a NPOV description.  In general, I suggest that it's not a good idea to apply words for emotions (and I would interpret "disdain" as such) to a person unless you're confident that the person won't mind.  People are likely to disagree with the characterization, and as a subjective interpretation it can't be verified as fact.
 * Re "quotes attributed to me": as far as I remember at the moment, I'm only aware of one such quote, containing one word which may not have been used by you. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you say except that I also see myself as being attacked (still!) by three editors, presumably making recovery three times as long and difficult for me as it is for these editors. Also, I do not remember receiving any apologies from these editors, nor have these editors ever stepped back from, stricken, or refactored any personal attacks or incivility in response to my asking them to do so.  To do so would be an admission of wrongdoing, which again I have never heard from any of them.  I believe a more objective observer would see that I am as much the victim here as much or more as they, and not the sole [primary -BW] cause of the problems as you allege in your RfC (although admittedly it is easier to focus on changing one editor's conduct than three).
 * In my draft RfC response, I am now up to about 20 diffs showing inappropriate conduct (incivility, personal attacks) from Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, and I have gone through only about 10% of Talk:Circumcision history. This does not include the pervasive incivility that cannot be expressed in diff soundbites (e.g., one-line dismissals of arguments with no basis, failure to respond to good faith questions, the belief that assertions regarding neutrality are only valid from certain editors, and endless editwarring of edits lacking consensus).  That I am being forced to do this very time consuming task instead of spending time resolving the actual content disputes is upsetting to me.  It seems like "focus on content, not the contributor" is a rule that you, Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew sternly insist I follow, while yourselves constantly focussing on me (i.e. "the contributor"), even when I attempt to stop the nonsensical personal attacks in Talk by demanding dispute resolution on the content (demands that are ignored by all). Blackworm (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After the RfC complaint was certified by Jayjg, Jayjg made this edit. Do you believe that edit and its edit summary complies with your proposed solutions?  Are you equally addressing instances of improper conduct of others, or is the focus on me?  If the latter, why is the focus on me?  Blackworm (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now that you made this edit to your own Talk page. In light of your comment to Jayjg, "Please assume good faith, or at least formulate your comments as if you do," I ask that you change your proposed remedy on the RfC away from demanding that editors assume good faith, and toward demanding that editors "formulate comments as if" they assume good faith.  Otherwise, you seem to be holding me to a different standard than Jayjg, which I do not accept.  Blackworm (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to the above, I've made a proposal on the talk page of the RfC.
 * You said above, "and not the sole cause of the problems as you allege in your RfC". I don't think I alleged that.  Please tell me where on the RfC I seem to you to be alleging that, as I may want to refactor it.  Also please strike out those words, as I don't think they're an accurate representation of what I said; for example, the word "sole" doesn't appear anywhere in the RfC.  In the RfC I said, "While these proposals are designed to address problems raised primarily by Blackworm's behaviour," which I think can be taken as an acknowledgement that you are not the sole cause of the problems.
 * I'm sorry for the time taken away from work on article content. If I hadn't felt it necessary to write the RfC, I suppose maybe I could have written a couple of articles instead during the time it took me to write it; but I don't feel upset about that; I suppose I'll find time some time in the future to write the articles.
 * Re the edit by Jayjg which you refer to above: I think that edit does not comply with proposed remedies C1 or C2. I've put a message to Jayjg about it on my talk page, as you noticed above.
 * I try to respond to unwelcome remarks by all editors in an impartial manner, within the constraints that my time is limited and I don't monitor everything. I may not always necessarily succeed in overcoming my personal biasses; however, I've put comments on the talk pages of Jayjg, Avi and Jakew in response to comments of theirs, in a way that seems to me to be similar to the way I've responded to comments of yours. Only after you continued what appeared to me to be similar behaviour after many such comments did I start the RfC. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re "ignored by all": I'm sorry if I've ignored some things I shouldn't have ignored. Sometimes at first I'm not sure how to reply, and then later I forget.  Are there any current disputes between you and me that you feel require dispute resolution steps? What are the disputes, and what step do you suggest? ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems the deadlocks on the title dispute (the issue of the framing of the topic of male and female circumcision), and the issue of what terminology is neutral to use in the circumcision article are two good candidates for dispute resolution at this point, given the pages and pages of discussion and no emerging consensus. Right now, you appear in opposition to me (through your edits, not necessarily your arguments) on all these issues, but you're not the only one of course.  I respect your decision to focus on conduct right now, and I see no reason why these things can't wait until after this RfC/U.  Blackworm (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When you think it's the right time, I suggest that you tell me on my talk page what exactly the dispute(s) with me are, for example showing me a diff of an edit I did that you dispute. (Note: I've also commented today in a section above.) ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded here diff. Blackworm (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied here. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexism
How about we express the idea leaving men's attitudes out of it? Good thinking. Wingspeed (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not feed the troll ...
... is one of the most valuable and effective ways of preventing edit wars or disruptive editing and helping build the encyclopedia. As Larry Sanger said, "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Larry Sanger was himself shown the door, if I recall Wikipedia history correctly. In any case, as I understand it, the way to show the door to those you consider "trolls" is by appropriate formal measures, seeking consensus for blocks or bans, and other dispute resolution, not name-calling, ad hominem personal attacks, and other intimidation.  I consider the latter, by you, more poisonous that anything Caesar said in that thread.  Blackworm (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then we have a difference of opinion, which happens all the time between users acting in good faith. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice edit...
...here. Jakew (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This one too. Thanks for not reverting entirely despite your reservations.  Looking at it, perhaps the weight is enough, and a more detailed quote is more appropriate for the subarticle, as you suggest.  Blackworm (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Blackworm. [[Image:Smile.png]] Jakew (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (re your message on my talk) Hmm, I'm not completely comfortable with that, but currently I can't quite explain why that is. In the spirit of compromise, I'll go along with it if we keep the overall word count (and thus the weight) down by changing "Aggleton wrote that John Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and" to "Among them was John Kellogg, who". Although I prefer their use in general, I don't think we strictly need a prose attribution here as the statement is reasonably non-controversial and the quotation marks make it clear that "unashamedly punitive" is the assessment of a secondary source rather than OR. I'd also suggest changing "it" at the start of the following sentence to "circumcision". Jakew (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, "among them" doesn't seem to work since the previous sentence references "practitioners," of which I don't think John Kellogg was. How about simply "John Kellogg shared that view..."?  Also, here we quote Aggleton -- I hate to break our strictness on the prose attribution of views, and especially quotes, even ones that don't seem controversial to us.  (It's something I really feel is lacking in other WP articles, where many editors feel that a source cite is enough to state a view as a fact, or quote something without telling us who said it.)  Could we put "(Aggleton)" after the "unashamedly punitive" quote to attribute it?  Since this is getting confusing, I'm proposing:
 * John Kellogg shared that view, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach" (Aggleton), with no anaesthesia.[ref]
 * Blackworm (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I've no problem with including Aggleton in parentheses. According to WP's article, though, John Kellogg was indeed a medical doctor, so I think it's safe to describe him as a practitioner. I think I'm a little uncomfortable with the "supported that view" language because it seems to imply that his views were highly significant, as in "the Secretary-General of the United Nations supported that view". It's as though we fully expect that the reader would be on the edge of his seat in anticipation for a viewpoint as important as that of Kellogg ("yes, yes, never mind all that. Did John Kellogg agree with it or not?"). (I'm exaggerating a little to express my point, of course.)
 * If you're really uncomfortable with describing Kellogg as a practitioner (perhaps because you and I understand it differently in this context), a possible alternative might be: "John Kellogg further 'advocated an...'". Jakew (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're absolutely right. No, I have no objection to "among them," then.  I changed the above to "shared" view since it seemed more appropriate -- I don't really see any implication that his view is significant beyond the fact that he was a notable figure and the view is discussed in a good amount of sources, but in any case if you agree to "(Aggleton)" after the quote I think your suggested version is fine.  Blackworm (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy to other editors at Talk:Circumcision, can I suggest copying this discussion fragment there? Or would you prefer for me to do that? Jakew (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a link, or simply your suggested edit could serve the purpose? In any case, I don't object if you wish to copy any of this discussion there (I'm not sure exactly what part you're referring to).  Blackworm (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity
Thank you for taking the time to: Thank you also for doing this in a way that assumes good faith.
 * 1) source your point,
 * 2) make a case for it, and
 * 3) do this in a way that makes it easy for the objector to respond.

In one sense, and a very important one, I (and the Oxford for 100 years) completely agree with you. Not only that, but sexology also has a systematic nomenclature for addressing this sort of thing in the language of gender roles. Harvey Mansfield also holds up Margaret Thatcher as being a good example of manliness, in a positive way.

That women can be described as masculine is not a new idea to me at all. But masculine is also used to describe noun classes. There are at least three senses of the word. The noun class usage is explicitly mentioned in the lead of the article, and I see no problem at all with mentioning usage applying the term to women as well. Indeed, one antonym of masculinity is effeminacy, and that too is already mentioned in the lead.

I will have a problem with any simple blurring of usage that simply suggests that masculinity can be applied equally well to women as to men, because this contradicts the Oxford, which notes frequency of usage and primary as opposed to derivitive usages.

I think you are suggesting a definite improvement to mention that the word can be applied to women; however, I'm simply pointing out this would be better as an independent sentence or clause, rather than by blurring the normal application of the word to men, which your second source makes explicit, as do many others (Oxford etc.).

I'll tweak things so we don't give WP:UNDUE attention to a less frequent usage, while not ignoring that important and helpful usage altogether. Please feel free to challenge whatever tweaking I do. I see and agree with the point that women can be masculine too. It's just that we need to make that explicit, not blur things by suggesting the term is applied without notable distinction between reference to men and women by simply using the word people. I can't see that this needs to become a big deal, and probably it isn't. Thanks for making yourself clear. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I just noticed that despite having sources to back you, you did not even revert my last change to the article. You are a perfect Wikipedian! I'll follow your excellent example and post a proposed change here for your consideration before making a change to the article directly. Very best to you. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind messages. I'm optimistic about your proposed changes, but since you write about noun classes, I'm moved to point out the sentence you changed was When masculine is used to describe men[previous: "people" -BW], it can have degrees of comparison—more masculine, most masculine. It seems your edit implies things about the usage when applied to females.  For example, changing "people" to "men" in that case implies that masculinity cannot have degrees of comparison when used in reference to females.  It's a normative change, instead of a descriptive change, in my view.  It could be replaced entirely by When masculine is used to describe noun classes, it tends to imply an absolute masculinity, a class rather than an appraisal of characteristics with varying degrees of comparison.  Again, perhaps attributing these things to sources is possible, and would help clear up these (albeit mild) disputes.  Perhaps its use when applied to women is viewed as pejorative, for example, and this could be noted assuming a good source is found for that.
 * Perhaps the problem is that this article, from the first paragraph, blurs the concept of the masculinity of people (relating people to men, and describing characteristics of men) and the masculinity of noun classes, despite the fact that Masculine_(grammar) is a separate article. One might be inclined to ask why noun classes are mentioned here.  Are they related?  As far as I can see (with a quick skim), the first paragraph is the only time noun classes are mentioned at all.  The hatnote in fact already points to a disambiguation page.  Perhaps we should replace "Masculinity redirects here" with "this article is about masculinity in reference to characteristics of males (and/or gender roles)," or something similar, and possibly remove the apparently singular reference to noun classes.  Thoughts? Blackworm (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Oxford notes that usage of masculine in reference to women has often been pejorative.
 * The article is about the abstract noun rather than the adjective.
 * Your Google scholar hits were based on the adjective.
 * Masculinity might be inferred to have the potential to be associated with women, because of the usage of the adjective.
 * I rather like that, because male butterflies don't have anything to do with masculinity, whereas masculine women get a look-in.
 * In other words, masculinity is not merely about biological sex, it is about an aspect of being human, the human-ness is more important than the biological sex.
 * Again the Oxford helps on this because it was not always this way. Masculine used to be able to be used as a synonym for male, though it notes that such a usage was last attested a couple of centuries ago—a prayer for "a masculine heir" to the throne of England if I recall correctly, which the Oxford understands as intending "a male heir".
 * I'm not sure where you're going with the "noun class" point. It is used as an illustration of what masculinity is not, so it would be odd if it recurred in the body of the text. This is precisely what hat-notes do also. They describe what the article is not and redirect elsewhere.
 * I'm wondering how to deal with "masculine women" along the same lines. Interestingly, Harvey Mansfield's book Manliness is quite specific about including some women. I suspect that just as we redirect grammarians, we should redirect those interested in masculine women to Harvey Mansfield's book, or possibly to a section of the current article.
 * Splitting hairs like this is fun, and it also leads to quality treatment of topics. The "boundary cases" often tell us a great deal about a topic. But it tends to take rare, inquisitive minds to care to sort such details out.
 * Perhaps we should take this discussion to the article talk page, because it could gather some other interested parties. What do you think? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Feminism
I really appreciate your patience, you are an AGF star! I just wrote up my conclusions so far, on the feminism talk page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay
Hey Blackworm, I'm not ignoring your questions. Real life has interfered with my ability to formulate a thoughtful response at this time. Regards, AlphaEta  17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it!
As far as removing the statements I had tagged in Sexism. I was being a wuss in not just deleting them myself. :) --Susan118 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome
A pleasure. Your addition was an improvement, all I did was tweak it. -- Avi (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Another comment
Re, I'd like to encourage you to focus on content rather than on contributors, to consider using user talk if you want to discuss contributors, and especially to keep comments about users out of edit summaries. Thanks for many constructive and collaborative contributions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is discussing content. And stop harassing me -- you don't sully User:Avraham's talk page with negative comments for stuff like this, nor did you for User:Jayjg's abuse when that was going on, so stop singling me out for your red X's.  If you're harassing me about this rather than agreeing with my clear and rational comments, you're part of the same problem (as I've suspected).  Blackworm (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, C-Twig has warned me of the same too, for example here. Perhaps one of the reasons that such comments are less frequent on my talk page is that they are needed less frequently than on yours? -- Avi (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly not, as evidenced by your recent post linked above. Blackworm (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re Avi's post: I'm sorry I missed that one. I don't always have time to read everything. I've given similar comments to both Avi and Jayjg; for example this message to Jayjg, which also has a link to a thread containing other similar messages. If you would prefer that I put such messages on my own talk page instead (if such a situation ever comes up again) I could do that, provided you somehow acknowledge having noticed them. I assure you I'm not trying to harass you.  The purpose of my messages is not to bother you, but to try to influence you not to bother others, and I try to phrase my messages to you to be the least bothersome possible compatible with that purpose.  Your comment that I commented about above was not just about article content, but also about your theory of how the content got there in terms of interactions among editors.  Such theories are not necessarily either universally agreed on or a complete picture of the situation, and I suggest that it's more productive (on the article talk page) to talk about the actual content itself rather than about the interactions of editors.  See WP:DR for appropriate venues for discussion of editor behaviour.  Your edit summary also appears to me to go against C1, C2 and C4 (at least) of the remedies listed here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

MA of C
Jake corrected those changes already. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Jake and yourself wrongly equate "medical harms" and psychological risk, and therefore his edit incorrectly reflects this improper counfounding. It will be corrected by me.  Blackworm (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you mean he corrected your reversion of the other material. Thank you.  It's unfortunate that he also performed the above, inappropriate edit.  Blackworm (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hounding, I do not think so.
We have many of the same pages watchlisted, Blackworm, due to our overlapping interests. The fact that you edit on a particular page does not, therefore, make it ipso facto illegal for anyone else to edit on said page. It would behoove you, as it would behoove all of us, to focus on content and making it as correct and neutral as possible, instead of editor behavior. -- Avi (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Avi, I'm not talking about illegality, or even trying to harass you with allegations of violations of Wikipedia policy. You haven't quite understood me yet, despite our years of interaction, but understand that despite the fact that I am a human being, with human thoughts and emotions, with human reactions, human POV, human understanding of concepts, human varying amounts of respect for what sources have to say about things, human degrees of zeal for devoting time and resources, mass and energy, to debating concepts with people completely at odds with my understanding of things... Well, shall I continue?  Blackworm (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi, Blackworm. I added a section to Abd's userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing, and I would be interested in your comments on it. I invite you to participate in discussion on the talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
How do you know "Jake Waskett, User:Jakew, founder of Circs.org" is true? I only ask because I have examined the site and it seems very biased. My concern is Jake's involvement with notable scientist involving circumcison, his peer reviewed excerp papers and letters on the matter and the above site seem to indicate a WP:COI and could quite possibly be construed as an WP:SPA. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That information is available here -- note how Jake is cited (under his name). Some seem to believe a COI is strictly a financial or familial interest, rather than a crusade for a point of a view (in this case, against "the misinfomation of anti-circumcision activists" (to paraphrase) as expressed on Jakew's user page.  I don't really believe COIs are much of a problem when there are sufficent numbers of interested and educated editors making sure articles are neutral.  This of course becomes incredibly difficult when the user on the crusade spends inordinate amounts of time editing, and reverts neutral edits citing long, complicated interpretations of policy to support their non-neutral edits.  I compare Jakew's statement that he is "neither for or against infant circumcision" to a hypothetical well known, vocal pro-choice advocate editing all abortion-related articles on Wikipedia while saying they are "neither for or against abortion" -- possibly technically true, but somewhat misleading.  I believe the direction of the belief and the resonance of that personal belief with other editors goes a long way as to whether the Wikipedia community accepts that editor.  If I had the phrase "the deceptive activities of many activist groups supporting neonatal circumcision" on my user page, people would write me off as a POV warrior and a nutbar, and possibly a bigot -- but because Jake openly accuses those opposed to circumcision of deception, he has instant friends everywhere and in high places, supporting his edits and crushing his opponents with bureaucratic wrath, no matter what the sources say.
 * Whether someone has a single purpose account is a judgment call, and in my opinion doesn't really matter -- that page is an essay, not a policy, and in theory even someone with a single-minded purpose could edit Wikipedia without causing problems; again, if and only if other neutral editors are watching and keeping guard. It's extremely difficult when someone on an openly POV crusade speaks extremely well, knows exactly how to pick and choose sources and fragments of sources to promote their POV best, and has unquestioning administrative support.  Ultimately, the only thing a neutral editor can do is bring the sources, dispute non-neutral edits, and take tons of flak and administrative threats for daring to oppose the darlings of the correct POV.  Eventually, through civil and logical discussion, and the forced involvement of other neutral editors through RfCs and other more public discussions, perhaps a neutral framing of the topic can emerge.  I don't like seeing people who write pro-circumcision pamphlets come to Wikipedia and edit and control all circumcision articles, but that's just me -- apparently some others don't mind.  Blackworm (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Blackworm. I agree that having a COI and SPA can be overcome.  I also feel that Jake not a bad person and he does some good work for the project.  However in light of above recent evidence I feel it sheds some light on Jake's motivations and his tendentious editing.  My concern is his effect on circumcision related articles in the project.  Ultimatly I would like him to be honest about his associations and positions so that he can more effectivly deal with his own POV.  I have queried him about this and he has denied any conflict. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gary, for future reference, you can look up owner of any website by using WHOIS. Doing this confirms that Jake is the owner of circs.org: WHOIS lookup for circs.org Tremello22 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't create a WP:COI per wikipedia guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you misunderstand
No one was accusing anybody of antisemitism, Blackworm, and if it came across as such, you have my deepest apologies. However, that the ancient Greeks and Romans prohibited circumcision to directly attack the Jewish faith is fact. Please see Hanukkah for example. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's your position, we'll see what ARBCOM or whoever else has to say about it. You referred to editors, and claimed their position was "nothing new," citing the antisemitism of others.  Do you deny that?  Blackworm (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I referred to the fact that the prohibition against circumcision has been a technique used to attack the Jewish faith, which is fact, Blackworm. By all means, you may file an RfAr if you wish. -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And why do you refer to this in the context of a discussion of various editors and their points of view? The only possible reason is to tar your opponents with the "antisemitic" brush in order to influence the discussion accordingly. Blackworm (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Blackworm, I believe you are guilty of projection here. I am discussing differences between various points of view in a stream of conciousness manner, as I pointed out, and one of the things that occurred to me was that the legal prohibitions against parental rights to circumcise their children for a religious sacrament is ancient, millenia old, to my deep chagrin. You, however, seem to need to focus on attacking the person of those who disagree with you, as opposed to discussiing issues, as you have done in the past (with what I now feel is your deliberate misrepresentation of JayJg's comment) and here with your deliberate misrepresentation of mine. Here, I'll make your life easier for you: RfAR. -- Avi (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, Gary, to whom I was talking, did not misunderstand me. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that the opposition is old, your "point" is that the opposition is antisemitic. That others chose to let that go by is their prerogative.  Blackworm (talk)
 * No, my point was that it has been used for ages, and in ancient times it was used to attack Judaism. But I said that already. The fact that you choose to deliberately misunderstand is your prerogative. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The context, a discussion of current Wikipedia editors, and your words indicating that this "antisemitic" opposition is "nothing new" indicate that you are also referring to current opposition to circumcision as being necessarily antisemitic in nature, similar to the way Jayjg agreed that an editor had a "point" when the editor said, "As a disinterested reader, it seems to me that there is FAR too much misinformation from the anti-circumcision fringe. It comes off as anti-Semitism and as immature ranting," and similar to how you claim that Jayjg's agreement with that statement (his citing me as "making her point") was not an accusation of antisemitism.
 * The quote from you was: "The point of view of the other side is that parents should not be allowed to circumcise their children, even in cases of religious sacrament (although, to be honest, that is an antisemitic technique dating back to the Greeks, Romans, and early Christians, not anything new)."  When you say that is an antisemitic technique, the word that can only refer to "The point of view of the other side," not the specific antisemitism of the ancient people.  I understand words and their meaning, despite your attempt to backtrack.  Blackworm (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been informed of your misunderstanding. If you persist in deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation, that only serves to underscore your partiality, bias, and assumptions of bad faith. My point was pretty clear, as seen by Gary's statement, and even so, I further clarified it in the first sentence of this discussion. There is not much more than can be explained when someone deliberately refuses to understand. Oh well. -- Avi (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then again, if you misspoke as is apparently your claim now, I invite you to strike the comment and rephrase. Blackworm (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, if the phrase "that is an antisemitic technique" in your sentence refers to something other than "The point of view of the other side," I invite you to clarify what, exactly, that is, as used in the sentence. Blackworm (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, and for the last time here, I explained above, AND apologized for unintentionally causing any misunderstandings above as the first sentence. I guess if it makes you feel better to think of me as some ogre, there is nothing I can do to stop you. Thankfully, most people are capable of reading the text and explanations and coming to their own conclusions. -- Avi (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you now say you do not believe that "the point of view of the other side" is "an antisemitic technique," please strike the comments that indicate such. Saying something contrary afterwards without striking your original comment that clearly states that "the point of view of the other side" is "an antisemitic technique" is not indicative of any remorse.  Blackworm (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I maintain that the ancient Greeks and Romans prohibited circumcision as an attack on the Jewish faith, which is what I said there. That is fact. My first sentence in this section, and my sentence on Gary's page, is sufficient to ensure that no one else makes the mistake you did. There is no need to strike it out. But to make you feel better, I added italicized explanations. -- Avi (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I note the clear logical fallacy you bring to light in doing so. You wrote:  [-legal prohibition of circumcision even, and especially in religious cases-] is an antisemitic technique [-has been used to attack the Jewish faith-]   In other words, "any point of view that has ever been used to attack the Jewish faith is an antisemitic point of view, thus because the legal prohibition of circumcision has been used thusly, its adherents are following antisemitic techniques."   Lovely, just lovely.  I applaud your lack of logic and sad attempt to associate opposition to circumcision with antisemites.  Blackworm (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a bet with myself that you would find some way to continue to promote your deliberate misrepresentation in the face of all explanations. You did not disappoint me in this, Blackworm, and I thank you for allowing everyone to see just how far into denial and deliberate misrepresentation in the face of multiple explanations you can go when you so choose. -- Avi (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good dodge, you master. Blackworm (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll say once more. Your new additions only create more confusion.  Consider your comment that implies anything that "has been used to attack the Jewish faith" "is an antisemitic technique."  Is that what you intended to state?  That's what it says now.  I understand that you didn't intend to offend anyone, but I remind you that the text on that page still basically states that "the point of view of the other side [...] is an antisemitic technique".  Perhaps consider replacing "is an antisemitic technique" (remember, you are discussing editors' current points of view) with the phrase "was used to as a means to antisemitic ends in the case of the Romans..." since that, I believe, is the meaning you intended.  Here is what is written on the page now, minus your newly added parenthetical remarks (that do not change the meaning other than to create the above, also dubious equivalence ("[a point of view that] has been used to attack..." "is [i.e., is now] an antisemitic technique"), and with slight editing to show you how it may read to others: "The point of view of the other side is that parents should not be allowed to circumcise their children, even in cases of religious sacrament (although, to be honest, that is an antisemitic technique [...], not anything new)."
 * Please understand how your refusal to strike or remove the above looks to me. For my part, I will say that I may have reacted to your statement without considering that you may have misspoken, and in a way that makes it very difficult for you to agree that you misspoke.  For that, I apologize.  I now again ask in the interest of putting this behind us, that you please strike or remove the statement that as it is written, right now, still implies to me and in my opinion to the average reader that "the point of view of the other side," referring to other editors, "is an antisemitic technique."  Blackworm (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that I think your binary characterization of the dispute [points of view, offering yours and characterizing those of "the other side"], hinging on desired legality or illegality of circumcision rather than the ethics, or an appraisal of harm and benefit, is somewhat inaccurate. It is not true that everyone who opposes circumcision would wish to impose universal legal restrictions, for example.  Points of view vary widely.  Blackworm (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Note
Thanks for that info about Jakew. Nobody mentioned the organization's name on the COI noticeboard, and the context wasn't clear on the talk pages that Garycompugeek linked to (I couldn't tell what "CIRCS" was or what it stood for; again I haven't been involved in the circumcision article). There could certainly be a COI if Jakew has been promoting the CIRCS organization; has he mentioned the organization in the circumcision article, linked to any of their websites or publications, or anything else along those lines which would act to promote or bring attention to his group? If so, that's clearly a COI. Again, thanks for the note! --  At am a chat 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied. Blackworm (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good cop, Bad cop
While your opinion of me is pretty well known by now, I must say my opinion of you was adversely affected by your behavior above at User talk: Blackworm. In my opinion, you exhibited obstinacy, deliberate misunderstandings, propagation of misrepresentation even when others (not I) made it clear that your opinion on the matter was incorrect, and even when I decided to go beyond what was necessary and make the overture to make changes (which were unnecessary in everyone else's eyes - including Gary) you responded with more attacks. When overtures are met with more scorn, they do not engender further feelings of trust and respect.

You are an intelligent person, and you often have good comments and posts. However, From my experience, and this last instance of this witch-hunt against Jake topping it all, I find it difficult to believe that you can approach circumcision related articles with any neutrality. At this point, I think the wisest thing we both can do is disengage one from another for a while; perhaps we can start direct conversations again in a month or two. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Avi, you repeat phrases like "deliberate misunderstandings," and "others (not I) made it clear" like you are both the arbiter of good faith, and that of consensus. You may be entrusted by the community to determine consensus when uninvolved, but in this case you seem very involved, thus I don't consider those arbitrary judgments appropriate.  I did not entrust you to determine consensus, and in fact resisted the bestowing of that community approval, based on your repeated failures in assessing consensus observed in circumcision and related articles, as well as your very disturbing tendency to either passively agree on (as in the past) or more recently, openly suggest the antisemitism of those with a point of view on circumcision different from yours.  You may be surprised to learn that I agree with Garycompugeek that you did not intend to label any specific editor antisemitic; I merely point out that the words you use indeed plainly state that all those having an opposing point of view use an antisemitic technique, and it would calm tensions significantly if you changed them.  Perhaps you do indeed feel that opposition to circumcision is grounded in antisemitism, or that it de facto is antisemitic to oppose genital cutting of male minors.  I can definitely sympathize with that viewpoint, but I do not share it.  I consider, for example, that Sweden's enactment of restrictions on circumcision is not antisemitic, but based in an interpretation of principles of human rights; principles I believe the vast majority of Jews share but interpret differently when it comes to male circumcision, as many others do.  I also consider Sweden's move to be one expression of opposition to circumcision.
 * I'm not sure what overture you are referring to, could you please specify? If you are referring to this discussion, I believe I made a similar overture toward a more civil conclusion of the dispute.  I would appreciate the removal of the statement that I believe states that those editors having a point of view "on the other side," are using an "antisemitic technique."  It seems you don't believe that's what it says, in which case I'm prepared to accept that you will not remove it, and move on.
 * Indeed the point of my extended discussion in WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard is to provide evidence that might help one understand why some find it difficult to believe that Jakew and yourself can approach circumcision related articles with full neutrality. That it's not a witch hunt; that it's based in facts about edits and about editors.  I compare it, for example, to the RfC on my behaviour initiated by and supported by those resisting my suggested edits, among them yourself.  I remember making accusations similar to you being on a witch hunt then, so it seems fitting and perhaps even reasonable that you accuse me of one now.  I'm not trying to get Jakew to leave Wikipedia against his wishes; but if the community believes as I do that he may not be editing neutrally, and that he is bolstered by automatic support from others who aren't neutral either, then perhaps others will ensure that his edits remain neutral and that his global vision of circumcision does not become Wikipedia's.  I'm not nearly as focused as he -- I don't read every source he brings to ensure that his interpretation properly reflects it, and I don't think anyone around does, and I think the result is non-neutral articles.  Jakew has seemingly devoted more time to editing circumcision-related articles in Wikipedia in particular, and participating in the outside debate on the topic of circumcision in general, than we could seem to hope to find in another editor.  As for you, I think you assume Jakew is completely neutral because he makes the same basic assumptions about the topic that you do; i.e., that circumcision is something done on a penis, and anything done on a vulva is something else; that the foreskin is removed, not severed; that non-therapeutic circumcision is surgery, not cutting.  I believe that you and Jakew need to accept that both these points of view exist, and both need to be reflected in the article, or at best discussed in the article.  Jakew makes mistakes about due weight, about what sources are reliable, and about WP:NPOV.  In my opinion, you make similar mistakes and a mistake automatically defending Jakew's edits.
 * We seem to level the same accusations at each other, Avi. I'm not sure how to proceed but perhaps your suggestion of some disengagement is a good idea.  Perhaps we should indeed make moves toward mediation, which may provide a channel of communication less prone to degradation of behaviour such as leveling accusations of malice.  In any event thank you for your somewhat civil comment above.  Blackworm (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Avi, re "deliberate misunderstandings": I sincerely believe Blackworm is acting in good faith.  All his comments make perfect sense to me given his POV and I see no reason to think there might be any deliberate misunderstandings.  If Blackworm continues to hold an opinion and is not convinced by some arguments, please try to show respect for his right to hold an opinion.  The Wikipedian community might choose to set restrictions on when and how certain disputes are discussed, or on what behaviours are to be followed, but it doesn't make sense to require someone to change their mind if they aren't convinced, and it doesn't make sense to tell Blackworm that something has been "ma[de] ... clear" if he still doesn't agree with it.  When talking to someone with a different opinion, it's civil to acknowledge their opinion with phrases like "I disagree" or "I know you don't agree with this but" or "my opinion is", etc., not to baldly state things as fact which you know the person considers to be false. ( ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)) It can be difficult to imagine that someone else could really believe things which are far outside one's own worldview, and it can be hard to think clearly about such things when hurt feelings are involved; I can only encourage you to keep trying. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Coppertwig, Avi did prefix his comments with "In my opinion...", and did not suggest that his comments were otherwise. For what it's worth, as a result of recent events I share many of the views that Avi states above (I acknowledge that I am, admittedly, biased as a result of being the victim of Blackworm's recent behaviour at WP:COIN).  Perhaps the assumption of good faith has been strained somewhat beyond breaking point by repeated misrepresentations for which it is difficult to think of a plausible good-faith reason.  Please note that WP:AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence" &mdash; what constitutes "evidence" for one editor may not constitute evidence for another, and while I applaud your ability to AGF of Blackworm, I don't think it's reasonable to expect every editor to share it. I stress that this is, of course, my opinion.  Jakew (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected; Avi's "in my opinion" can be seen as applying to all clauses of that sentence. I've struck out some of my words as therefore irrelevant here. I still stand by the rest of what I said.  Sorry, Avi. Thanks, Jake. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "In my opinion, [...] others (not I) made it clear that your opinion on the matter was incorrect [...]" Blackworm (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I apologize to both of you, Blackworm and Avi, for my clumsiness here. One of my several mistakes was commenting after you had both said you were going to disengage.  (Where the heck did I put my ten-foot pole?)  So I might not comment further at this point; but if you are interested in further communication about this from me, perhaps later on, feel free to let me know. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision reconstruction
Hello Blackworm. Your idea of a new article structure in the requested moves seems to have garnered support. I have decided to try and create this new structure on my talk pages and was hoping to get your help and input. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro and Con points
I reduced the number of the points, mostly to delete the statement that the best time is neonate. That's hogwash. Please see discussion for the research findings. Here's ~your version, and the text I had to compromise to with the pro guys:

There is controversy regarding circumcision. Advocates of circumcision argue, for example, that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period.[10] Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that it is defended through the use of myths, interferes with normal sexual function, is extremely painful, and when performed on infants and children violates the individual's human rights.[11]

There is controversy regarding circumcision. Advocates of circumcision argue, for example, that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, and has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician.[10] Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that it adversely affects normal sexual pleasure and performance, is justified by medical myths, and is effectively comparable to female genital cutting.[11]Zinbarg (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I thought FMC was a better (more specific to tissue loss issues) than human rights (too vague).Zinbarg (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. See Talk:Circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Circumcision
Re : Your comment could easily be interpreted as implying that a particular editor is dishonest most of the time. In the same post you also comment about another editor. These types of comments are unacceptable on that page, as has been discussed elsewhere. Please consider striking out part of your post. I'm also putting a message on Zinbarg's talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Also here: The part in bold can easily be interpreted to mean that you think people are violating policy knowingly a comment the posting of which to the article talk page runs against the spirit of a number of policies, guidelines and agreements. All I see in these situations is the usual, humdrum, ordinary Wikipedian situation of different editors having different opinions of how to apply the NPOV policy to a particular article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, what I see is one editor, who already owns one "circumcision promotion" site, a fact not disputed seriously by anyone, still slowly but firmly editwarring anything deviating from his vision of what the "circumcision" article, while others like you consistently defend those edits, bypassing all logical argument in doing so. I am confounded by your suggestion that the accusation of others knowingly violating policy is against policy, considering you yourself have little to contribute to the article besides lapses of logic, curious decisions not to address edits, and unequally applied, selected, and directed accusations of knowingly violating policy such as the one above.  Blackworm (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry: I didn't mean to imply that you were knowingly violating policy. I didn't think you were.
 * Which edits I address depends on many factors, including fluctuating amounts of available spare time.
 * Of course each editor tries to move the article towards their own vision of what the article ought to look like (according to how they interpret the policies).
 * Yes, I already know we see things differently. Of course I have no intention of bypassing logical arguments.  Please feel free to present your arguments.  However, what looks logical and reasonable to you might not look logical or convincing to me.  We can discuss things in more detail to try to come to an understanding of why we hold different opinions about specific items of article content.  Article-content RfCs might be helpful at times.
 * I didn't say it was against policy; I said the action of posting it to the article talk page runs counter to the spirit of some policies. I meant WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.  If you think someone is knowingly violating policy, and if you think there's some productive reason for mentioning it, putting it on their user talk page might be more appropriate.  Posting it on the article talk page seems to me to go against the talk page guidelines: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, ...", "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. ..." (Talk page guidelines) and that particular comment also goes against WP:AGF. Plus C1 and C7, for which you expressed support. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That graph
I placed the (modified) penile sensitivity graph on the penis page with what I believe was some genuinely neutral text. It has been reverted, and I have asked for the opinions of other editors. Since you commented on the matter elsewhere, I thought you may interested Johncoz (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Poll
Their is a poll regarding the circumcised penis image on the discussion page of the Circumcision article (Talk:Circumcision). I thought I'd let you know, incase you'd like to participate.--Studiodan (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Human rights
I don't disagree that human rights could replace FMC, but the source text leads me to suggest (best fit, without using the effectively ~banned word mutilation) 'Milos and Macris argue that it adversely affects penile function and sexual pleasure, is justified by medical myths, is extremely painful, and is a violation of a violation of human rights comparable to female genital cutting. Is that OK?Zinbarg (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, because it's not what the source says. They mention some others' comparison to some forms of FGC ("labial amputation", I believe), but to say that opponents compare it to FGC is actually an argument of male circumcision supporters.  It basically goes like this: "opponents compare male circumcision to FGC, and FGC is obvious much worse than male circumcision."  The problem is that when people read FGC, they think "cutting off the clitoris and sewing the labia together," which isn't what the male circumcision opponents "compare" it to at all.  Blackworm (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I was looking at the conclusion ~double standard in medicine, but it is more respectful your way.Zinbarg (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculate
Hi. Yes, the deletion was inadvertent. Having considered the matter now, I do have an observation and a question:

(1) As I read the dictionary definition of "speculate", the problem with it is more akin to that with "noted, observed, insisted, surmised" (presupposing information about the speaker that is unverifiable) than it is to the problem with "claim" (inappropriately emphasizing any potential contradiction).

(2) Have you actually seen "speculate" used inappropriately here on numerous occasions? DocKino (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Pondering the definition of "speculate", I recognize that it could fall in with claim; still, the central issue is one of evidence, which places it closer to surmise. No, I don't object to its inclusion. DocKino (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're invited!
Hello, Blackworm,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ☎ call me!

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec) Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please visit the alerts page
You have posted an alert about me. I replied to your accusations. Wikipedia should have an eye on users like you. Sandynewton (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision
It is now being claimed that there is a consensus for the use of 'uncircumcision', with editors being given 24 hours to register their view if contrary to this. Your input would be appreciated. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert notice
Hello, Blackworm. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sandynewton (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Pro-POV Crowd
Thanks for your intelligent contributions. The pro-POV crowd will not be swayed by any enlightenment, unfortunately. I think the trend described in this article will please their agenda. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece Wikipedia shows signs of stalling as number of volunteers falls sharply From The Times November 25, 2009 Murad Ahmed, Technology Reporter [Article was reposted here in its entirety; deleting as copyvio -Blackworm] POV Detective (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. Blackworm (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will note however that I'm not involved in this to rid the article of that mean ol' "pro-POV crowd." I'm here to expand articles, and try to rid a few articles of a tiny fraction of the non-neutral bias that exists, where that bias is particularly resistant.  I don't like it when others proudly display barnstars for getting rid of those anti-POV fanatics, so I'll be consistent and go on the record as opposing your highlighting of that division here.  The important thing is the article, not the editors, easy as it is to forget that in such a climate.  Blackworm (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Kind of checkuser?
I'm not certain what you mean; if you believe that there is a violation of wikipedia principles or guidelines with regard to sockpuppetry or abuse of accounts, the best option is to file a request at Sockpuppet investigations. If the suspected abuse is not as clear cut, I would recommend e-mailing the functionaries list, arbcom directly, or a specific arbitrator or checkuser. Does that help? -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Avi, thank you. I don't know if it's worth pursuing; the situation is that I believe there is strong evidence to suggest that an administrator may have lied or been grossly misleading in a way that may be provable by technical means, in an argument regarding editor behaviour.  I feel so strongly that the statement made was dubious, that sometimes I find myself commenting as if the statement is simply untrue, an act that can easily be considered a breach of WP:AGF.  If I could obtain an answer from an official source on the veracity of the statement, it would at least leave no doubt.  In any case I'll consider my feelings about it in the coming days and decide whether it's worth the trouble, and if not then I'll just try harder to WP:AGF on the matter, which should be easier now just by the mere fact of discussing this dilemma with you (for that opportunity, thank you).  Blackworm (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with the theme, I'll note this very scary AN/I thread apparently establishing a statute of limitations on such false accusations by administrators -- with a slight whiff of possible inappropriate oversight as well. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Wow. Just, wow. I guess there aren't too many wheel wars, huh? Blackworm (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read Coren's note? "FYI, I can find no suppressed or oversighted edits with the summary you allude to." Coren has OS privs, so he can see if there was any. So there is no whiff of inappropriate OS, unless there is something there I missed? -- Avi (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The whiff I was alluding to was this:  The admin, John Carter, alleged that oversight had taken place, on top of his apparent unfounded claims of vandalism.  For this, his accuser gets shouted down and dismissed.  That was the "scary" part.  Blackworm (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Blackworm. Thanks for supporting my proposed edit here. Much more important: I forget if I said this already, and I probably should have said it a long time ago, (and I'm sorry to bring up unpleasant memories), but I really appreciate the way you responded to the RfC, taking it seriously and looking for points we could agree on. Thank you deeply and fully for that. Looking forward to continuing collaboration with you whether we agree or disagree on particular points, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Coppertwig, for proposing an edit that addressed my concerns, and for the other kind words. Blackworm (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the comments on my talk page - your points are taken. Unfortunately I have no time to engage with editing at the moment. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 21:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your response. Blackworm (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

K Letourneau
There is no consensus for your alteration, there are strong objections to it actually and you pushing it in and edit warring it excessive, please don't do that again without support on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The "alteration" is what you support, and the objections used to support it are baseless as evidenced by wider input and the weakness of supporting arguments.  I will not allow you to violate WP:NPOV, sorry.  Blackworm (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob using blatant WP:OR in contradiction to sources
[This was moved here from User Talk:Off2riorob by User:Off2riorob:, then renamed by me Blackworm (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC) ]

In this edit, which you incorrectly flagged as minor, you have reverted the victim's age when the reliable sources cited clearly state otherwise. I will immediately undo that edit, and must demand you base your edits in sources (WP:V) in the future. Blackworm (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats what the source I read said, I believe there is some dispute in the sources. There is also a fair bit of objection to your POV as to asserting child and rape and so on. I don't think the users that object are going to go away, I won't and the other users that object don't look like they will either so expect the objections to continue.Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is dispute in the sources regarding Fualauu's age at the time of the crime as cited in the conviction, bring the sources. Your comments regarding a different edit are irrelevant.  Blackworm (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?
You simply want to revert my removal of POV's off-topic commentary on 	 Talk:Ethics of circumcision‎ wholesale? If you're concerned about the meaning of what you wrote in responses to him being changed, then why not just do a partial restore? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I didn't have the time to devote to the task. Sorry, I was in a hurry, and I couldn't let my response be misinterpreted as a result of your edit.  I'll try to fix part of the problem now, but note also that I consider editing others' comments in article Talk to be something done only in extreme circumstances, and I don't believe that example qualifies.  I will leave the material on the page but will make it easier for editors uninterested in the tangential discussion to skip it.  Blackworm (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision
Hallo, Sorry if I write you here instead than on the talk page of the article, but the discussion is too long for me. If I understood you correctly, you wrote "There may be attempts to change the meaning of the word to only refer to cutting of male genitals". Well I understand that under that word in English is sometime understood male and female genital cutting, but the word actually comes from Latin and means "cutting around" not in the sense to avoid an obstacle but in the sense to cut something all around. So, at least in Latin (and in modern Italian too) circumcision is only for males. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumcision circumcision c.1175, from L. circumcisus, pp. of circumcadere "to cut around," from circum  "around" + caedere  "to cut" (see concise). ] I thought that maybe you would find it interesting.--Dia^ (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't cut around a clitoris? Or everything around the vulva? Your conclusions are amusing, especially since the very dictionary pages you cite make clear it's not "only for males." Blackworm (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This picture shows how a clitoral hood looks like. It is the one indicated with the number 1. As clearly shown in the image, the prepuce (or clitoral hood) hangs down from above, it goes from one side to the other above the clitoris (180°) but doesn't go all "around" (360°) as it does the prepuce in a man. Maybe you missed, but if you read the sentence I highlighted in my previous post, you will notice that I'm aware, that, in English, the word "circumcision" is used for female too. What I was trying to explain is that the word does come from Latin and in Latin (also the old/original meaning, the one that I copied&pasted in my previous post, still retained in Italian) "circumcision" is used exclusivity for men, never for women. The same is in German, if you check the German Wiki you will read: "Die Zirkumzision (von lat. circumcido, rings abschneiden[1])". rings abschneiden = cut out rings. In the Bible too, circumcision refers only to male circumcision. So it is not as you supposed that "There may be attempts to change the meaning of the word to only refer to cutting of male genitals" but exactly the opposite: there had been successful attempts to include FGC/FGM in the "more accepted" "circumcision" heading. I hope now it is a bit clearer. --Dia^ (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "All" around or around? I am reasonably sure a zealous circumciser could find a way to cut 360 degrees into female genitals, but this is a tangent.  As soon as it became clear in English speaking places that the practice of ritual cutting of genitals was also done on women, the natural choice was to refer to it "circumcision," which is a gender neutral term.  "Circumcision" took on its own meaning in English; it came to be known as the mutilation of genitals required of infants in certain cultures, especially on boys.  Circumcision of females was and is a much lesser-known phenomenon, but that seems because circumcision has virtually been exclusively performed on males in the West in modern history.  Circumcision of females has been known and discussed as circumcision for centuries.  If indeed it is correct, as you eloquently plead, that "circumcision"'s use in the case of females is a "change" of "the meaning of the word," it is not clear that that is so in English (note, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin Wikipedia).  That change actually seems to predate modern English, as dictionary entries seem to indicate, as their senses are ordered by first usage, toward more recent usages.  I invite you to correct any incorrectness you see in the German or Latin Wikipediae.
 * Of course, all of this is academic. It's used in reliable sources.  Lots of them.  Wikipedia is not for advocacy.   Or for righting great wrongs.  Supposedly.  Blackworm (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment to Baseball Bugs
Blackworm, your remarks here are wholly inappropriate, and I very nearly took them straight to WP:AN/I. I request that you strike them immediately. Do not speculate about editors' personal opinions about laws, and do not suggest that editors join paedophile organisations. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no speculation there, as his comments directly above my comments and elsewhere clearly indicate. I would have suggested another organization, but I don't know any others who express the same fringe views you and some editors of that page do.  Please do take it to whatever forum you see appropriate.  Blackworm (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not on the contributors, Blackworm. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How both of you can see fit to avidly watch my contributions and harass me with opposition and disputes on topics unrelated to any of the topics of our previous discussions continues to astound me. Why are both of you still allowed to edit considering this constant abuse?  Blackworm (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed your personal attacks. If you continue to post such material, I will propose a ban or other appropriate community sanction against you. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I've removed your WP:BLP violation from the article. Letourneau was convicted of the offence commonly known as statutory rape. To quote sources out of context, thereby insinuating that she was actually convicted of forcible rape, is the sort of yellow journalism that is incompatible with our fundamental content policies. Contrary to your accusations against the other editors attempting to correct your BLP violations, upholding the policy does not constitute an endorsement or trivialization of the crime of which she was convicted. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely absurd to claim that a statement that has the word STATUTORY in it is a quote out of context that insinuates forcible rape. Why do all of you repeat that, and then act like I'm in any way afraid of having wider input and administrative eyes on this matter? Blackworm (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In most contexts and according to common understanding, the term "rape of a child" refers to an act of forcible rape, with the aggravating factor that it was committed against a child. To modify the term with the adjective "statutory" would seem only to indicate that the act was proscribed by statutory law. However, what Letourneau was actually convicted of is commonly known as statutory rape for the express purpose of distinguishing it from forcible rape. Per WP:BLP, there's no room for muddying the waters here. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Per statutory rape's WP:LEAD paragraph, "Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present."  In common understanding, "statutory rape" means the child did not object.  I will revert your edit.  Take it to the article's Talk page or to WP:DR.  I'm also going to restore the statements I made on that Talk page.  Do not remove them or alter them in any way.  I've stricken part of the statement.  Please see TPO.  I consider Baseball Bugs' repeated claims that my desired edits make "Wikipedia look silly" is a personal attack, one which you apparently did not see fit to remove.  That is your prerogative, but my statements will remain on the page, if nothing else as an example of someone being banned for "personal attacks" made indirectly via pointing out the direct connection between some editors' arguments and some hated organizations or views.  Let's face it, senior administrators do that and no one bats an eyelash.  I am apparently free to make whatever comparisons I feel appropriate in a given context, especially when that context is made clear in my statement via a specific comparison to one aspect shared between the two groups.  I have already escalated this matter to WP:NPOVN, I invite you to seek any escalation to official procedures you deem appropriate.  Before doing so, you may wish to review the discussions here, here, and here.  Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reported your personal attacks at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Per statutory rape's WP:LEAD paragraph, "Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present." In common understanding, "statutory rape" means the child did not object." - blackworm... thats some pretty convoluted reasoning, the definition of statutory rape doesn't imply the child was consenting in every case; thats a gross generalization. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, since an examination of statutory rape and its sources reveals that "The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty," and puberty for a male generally is over by age 16-18, *and* a minor that is raped while objecting is a victim of a worse crime than what is merely commonly called "statutory rape," I'd say the argument is quite good. But in any case I find myself arguing for the inclusion of "statutory rape" per the sources -- if you think we should say something else, like "non-forcible" rape, then please bring the sources saying that, or emphasizing that point rather than the mere statutory nature.  All I wish to do is state "statutory rape," and something akin to "child rape" per the sources (currently we are using the actual legal term, "rape of a child," since some claim a difference).  If you want to call it "non-forcible" rape, then bring sources saying so and we can call it the non-forcible "rape of a child"[source].  Blackworm (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I got to the Letourneau article by happening to see a comment about it on your talk page when I was visiting your talk page for some other reason. Sorry about that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning on WP:NPA
Next time you personally attack other editors, either by directly stating or insinuating that they support illegal activities, you will be blocked until you state you understand this and will not repeat it. I have removed everything from the talkpage that could be construed as such; direct statement, insinuation or sarcasm. Do not repeat or re-instate it. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Link to removed comments. Blackworm (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No such statement or insinuation was made. It is not illegal to lobby against certain laws, distasteful as some of that lobbying may be to many.  There was also no sarcasm in any of my comments.  Compare this post by Steward User:Avraham, who, in a discussion concerning editors and in which he names me personally, compares the views of editors on certain edits to some antisemitic groups, specifically comparing their "techniques."  The statement was, "The point of view of the other side is that parents should not be allowed to circumcise their children, even in cases of religious sacrament (although, to be honest, that is an antisemitic technique dating back to the Greeks, Romans, and early Christians, not anything new). "  Now that if kind of comparison isn't banned and removed by the community, but rather is applauded with honours and powers, can you please elucidate the material difference between my suggestion that activism is best left to activist groups, and Avraham's suggestion?  Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, the statement clearly states (or at least insinuates) that other editors have a viewpoint that coincides with NAMBLAs - that's a personal attack however you look at it. I'm certainly not going to compare it to another editor's statements on an unrelated topic; it doesn't matter whether Avraham's was a personal attack or not - yours clearly was. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In my example Avraham clearly states (with no insinuation) that other editors have "antisemitic technique" viewpoints that coincide with antisemitic ancient people. Why doesn't it matter if Avraham's comment was a personal attack or not?  Why must you turn a blind eye to it?  Because I chose not to take it to other administrators at the time?  I assumed, since a senior administrator was making the comments and defended them to the end,(link) that such comments are not viewed as personal attacks.  If they are, as you repeat, and such comments must be warned, then someone must warn Avraham, no?  Why doesn't that happen?  Why are some allowed to make whatever associations they see fit, and others must have their comments removed by admins?  What recourse does someone who is associated with antisemitic groups in an adminstrator's comments about a content dispute have?  Blackworm (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am only dealing with your personal attack on other editors. If you have a complaint about another editor's actions, then there are plenty of venues to do that, notabilty WP:WQA and WP:ANI.  But to claim that your personal attack is OK because someone else personally attacked someone else on a completely unrelated article is no excuse whatsoever. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see response below. Blackworm (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also want to note the statement by Baseball Bugs that was made prior to my statement, and has received no administrative attention:
 * "I just think this continual insistance on using the term "rape" amounts to "trying to prove a point" and makes wikipedia look stupid. Ironically, it is Mary Kay and that kid who proved the point, making a mockery of that law in their continual defiance of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)"
 * Baseball Bugs states directly that Letourneau, convicted of a crime, proved a point (what point?) and made "a mockery of that law in their continual defiance of it." I claim that is a direct statement in expressing personal opposition to the law or its application in this case, and using that and that alone as a defense for an edit removing directly sourced information concerning a conviction.  Everything I said follows directly from that.  I am willing to let your removals stand, but I am unwilling to admit any fault in this matter whatsoever, especially given Avraham's comments linked to above, and Baseball Bugs' comments there and earlier in the discussion, (e.g., "Was it horrible in this particular case?"  If you disagree, I suggest we put Avraham and my comments to wider input, and do a detailed comparison.  Blackworm (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I will concede that my remarks were inappropriate. Not because they were personal attacks, but because they inappropriately drew a connection between the views of an editor, and the views of a group strongly opposed by many people.  I suggest that after all I've been through with that dispute, with the incivility and harassment brought on me, AND the documented fact that I saw myself and several other editors treated that way by a Wikipedia administrator, that there were mitigating circumstances.  I apologize to Baseball Bugs, and to the community for the failure to keep to my principles and refrain from making the kinds of comments that are directed at me.   Blackworm (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, I'm afraid it is my consistent experience of trying to edit w-p that except on the most non-contentious pages, the editing is dominated, perhaps better word would be domineered, by unreasonable people who bully those who try to make reasonable changes. Like all authoritarian bullies they love to play their mastery of The Rules and call in the Forces of Authority as soon as possible. Quite what the motives of these controlling trolls are is of course impossible to prove but apart from the sanctimonious arrogance of the self-appointed self-annointed, there may be a factor of underhand working for one or other profitmaking agenda. Either way, the best thing to do with wiki is to keep cool and not to let its severe abuses get you down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.172.129 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My congratulations, Blackworm -- you're in really good company :) Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter Karlsen: Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but your comment above seems to be a very inappropriate insinuation about Blackworm, rather similar to the comment by Blackworm that started this thread. Please retract it.
 * Blackworm: I've also posted a comment on Baseball Bugs' talk page.
 * Blackworm, inappropriate behaviour occurs fairly often on Wikipedia by many people. It's controlled by the dispute resolution system, but not controlled perfectly or completely, so some still happens.  An example of inappropriate behaviour by someone else is not any kind of excuse for other inappropriate behaviour, even if the other behaviour is very recent but especially not if the other behaviour is over a year ago.  Anyway, no two situations are identical, so two situations that seem very analogous to you may not necessarily seem so similar from others' POV.  Please follow the rules yourself, and if you want to call another editor on their behaviour, please do so through appropriate means, for example putting a message on their talk page with a diff and mentioning what policy or guideline you think they violated, without adding comments or insinuations about their motivations, capabilities or other characteristics;  not by bringing mention of such behaviour into the middle of a discussion about something else as you did here, which creates a distraction that complicates the other discussion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment above was an observation that 86.171.172.129 and Blackworm have engaged in similar (though not identical) types of policy violations -- 86.171.172.129 violated the BLP policy on Mark Harper, was upset at me for repeatedly reverting him, then came to this talk page and mine to characterize my editing , apparently believing that my opposition to Blackworm's BLP violations was likewise unjustified. Of course, the BLP violations aren't of the same degree -- per the policy 86.171.172.129 could be reverted without regard to WP:EW, Blackworm cannot. No insinuation about Blackworm personally was intended. In retrospect, however, my comment could have been better worded. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I did object to Avraham's equating of editors' points of view with "antisemitic techniques," and others read the statements and silently agreed with Avraham, and Avraham and others defended Avraham's statements to the last. Since Avraham respresents Wikipedia in an official capacity as Steward, then the only interpretation is that such comments are NOT actionable in any way. You may disagree, and claim the statements are so different that one can be rightfully applauded and rewarded and the other can result in immediate removal and threats of bans, but I think that position clearly indicates that every administrative action in Wikipedia is completely arbitrary and dependent on which editors and which views are being attacked. There is no equality between editors here, or between views, even non-tiny minority views, and it's made the encyclopedia a non-neutral piece of garbage in many areas. I had hope for it once, and it's now fading fast. I hope it doesn't take long for the greater public to realize it. Blackworm (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody's claiming that Wikipedia is perfect, but we can each do our part to try to improve it. You can help by being more fair to Avi by not bringing up over again this point which has already been discussed (here), unless it's in the context of a formal process such as RfAr and is on-topic there.  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Miss You
Please come back. Circumcision is getting chopped all to hell. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ditto. It is remarkable to me that the same editors whom I am now discussing the gross imbalance in the Circumcision article are the same ones who opposed your attempts to balance it up. They provide the patrol keeping it in its current woeful state.It was wonderful to read some of your analysis and rebuttal too  --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)