User talk:Jakew/Archive 2

Gliding action
You are so much fun to watch. Who else could have reverted the deletion of that idiotic, bad citations? "substantial sourced material" Oh my god, that is barking mad. I don't wanna attack you, but I actually expected this and it *did* happen, you really did it. Now, come on, do you *really* believe that "substantial sourced material" is contributing anything to the article? The first of the citations goes so far as to state its own inappropriateness in poorly disguised preemptive self defense. Is that good citation as suggested by the WP guidelines? And do you have hotlinks to all those circumcision-related pages? I get the impression you are engaging in an aggressive editing war (something I won't do, just wanted to give it a try) and you may want to read WP:DR before engaging in any further editing of circumcision articles. But while you're at it, why not pay a visit to Masturbation and revert my edit there, too? 87.78.178.102 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How unnecessary of me to remind you of goind to Masturbation. Of course you already changed it. I don't believe you guy. Well, carry on the good work of destroying Wikipedia articles. 87.78.178.102 17:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that despite your stated opinions on circumcision and advocating circumcision you are actually involved in the discussion at foreskin restoration and also try to weigh in on genital integrity. I have no words for you. You are a bad person, maybe. 87.78.184.150 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How charming. In point of fact, I don't actually advocate circumcision; I merely endorse the AAP's position that parents should be given accurate and honest information so that they can make an informed decision.
 * I'm puzzled, incidentally, that you appear to think that there's something wrong with my being involved with the articles you mention. You are happy to contribute to Talk:Circumcision, yet strongly oppose it, so evidently you don't feel that one has to support the subject of an article in order to contribute to it. So what exactly is the issue? Jakew 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad you're asking. I finally found what I was looking for on Troll.

"Creative trolling:

The nature of trolling is to be disruptive, and one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that aren't quite against the rules. No matter how great your definition of trolling may be, a dedicated troll will find something you haven't thought of yet.

This, then, is something of a catch-all category - if a user is being continually disruptive, and no amount of politeness, consensus, mediation, or anything else is reining them in, they are trolling. When a user, in a conflict of any sort, insists on the letter of a rule while grossly violating its spirit, this is often a sign of trolling.

In these borderline cases, however, it is more important than ever to try to assume good faith, and to seek consensus not only in your opposition to whatever you think is being trolled about but on the issue of whether or not someone is a troll. A good start when you are faced with creative trolling is to come to this page and propose an amendment to the types of trolling section. If people agree that it's trolling, then you can go back to the conflict with this on your side. Failing specific additions to this page, however, the arbitration committee should be the only ones to ban users for "creative" trolling."

I just feel that you are one rather creative troll. That's what I think and I'd like you to sit back for a moment and review the mass of contributions you have made at all the articles bordering the circumcision theme. Don't you think it's enough already? 87.78.184.150 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, JakeW. Sorry again for all the BS I threw your way. 87.78.148.26 20:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't be evading your block, but in the case of apologising for its cause, I think that can be excused. Thank you. I accept your apology. Jakew 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

IP editor edit-warring and violating WP:CIVIL
The editor in question uses a dynamic IP, so blocking is of limited use. There's nothing specific to tie him to Dabljuh, aside from the rudeness. I've sprotected the articles in question for now; if the personal attacks continue on the Talk: pages, I'll sprotect them as well. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

sprotecting
Jakew, I've sprotected your page for now. Let me know when you'd like it un-sprotected. Nandesuka 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

IA paper citation
I think "Cite paper" is the best choice, as it was a paper presented at the conference, so that is what I used. Slowly, most of the articles have been vetted to ensure they say what they are purported to say and then cited. Thanks, Jake. -- Avi 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A pleasure. BTW, I hope you do not mind if I tweak your citations by adding the DOI and a link to another cite, even if it just an abstract, for completeness. -- Avi 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

check your mail.
Dasondas 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked around and I cannot find any e-mail address to contact you on, so I've resorted to this (rather crude) method. I would appreciate any advice on reversing the meatotomy procedure. Please contact me on (deleted). Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.21.97 (talk • contribs).
 * Ok. Jakew 10:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

POV or vandalism?
You reverted a contribution by on Ultimate fate of the universe. Seems to me from his contribs, that it's not so much an NPOV issue as plain vandalism. Subversive element 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK.
I'll admit I went over the top a bit. But I felt Atom's argument was based on popular canards rather than historical fact. I was hoping mostly to show him that the issue is a lot more complex than the popular conceptions of it. And though I did go off on a tangent, I was really attempting to rebut Atom's belief that male circ and female circ should not be merged because (to him) they are vastly different things. I'll give it a rest. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

site
Thought this might help you out. Let me know how it is and how the one I sent you earlier is too. --Shamir1 22:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jakew 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Antler
Thanks for taking care of the article. I found that the redirect was broken, and did not see a way to fix it so I asked for a speedy. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

British nuclear tests at Maralinga
Just to let you know, I've moved your request to a military history peer review page here. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be easy enough to create such an infobox (perhaps generalized to allow any military site?), but I'm not entirely sure what fields we'd want to include. What are the standard things we need to list? Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Meh, to avoid making this absurdly complicated, I think it would be better to limit this to test sites specifically. Having said that: please try out Infobox Military Test Site and let me know whether it seems to work.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the barnstar!
 * I've fixed the two issues you've pointed out; if you spot any other problems, please don't hesitate to let me know! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to update the documentation; I just used the map that happened to be in the artice when putting it together. Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post on WikiProject Environment. Nice article. Alex 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Can you suggest...
Mmm, not sure. Cla68 might know something about that campaign, but I'm not entirely certain; he's more involved with the southern portion of the Pacific Theater. Kirill Lokshin 13:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The two sources you found appear to be the best sources on the web. Unfortunately, I don't currently have any books in my reference library that have details on the WWII Aleutian Islands campaign. There appears to be three good books in print that document the campaign: (1) Where the Williwaw Blows: The Aleutian Islands-World War II by Leonard Feinberg (2003), (2) The Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians by Brian Garfield (1996), and (3) The Capture of Attu: A World War II Battle As Told by the Men Who Fought There by Sewell T. Tyng (2000). I think all three of those books should be available cheaply in used form from Amazon or Half.com or at a public or university library. Samuel Elliot Morison's multi-volume history of the WWII Pacific War might also have some good information on the Aleutian's campaign. I'll eventually work on the Aleutian's campaign articles on Wikipedia if someone else doesn't complete them first. But, as I have a long way to go with the southern Pacific theater it will probably be a couple of years until I get to the Aleutian's campaign. If you're the one who has done the majority of the work on the Amchitka article, I think you've done a really good job with it. What exactly was the conflicting information that you found about Amchitka during the war? Cla68 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Balanitis xerotica obliterans
On a quick glance, the referencing looks really good. If you would like me to step through them one-by-one, it may be a few months until I can get to it :( Thanks. -- Avi 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Amchitka
Nope, anyone can add the task force tags. I've done so for this article; I'll try to comment on the peer review as well, once I have some free time. Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Caging the Dragon
My school's library is having some database problems right now, but as soon as it is back up, I will check to see if they have Caging the Dragon.CynicalMe 16:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
 * Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
 * Working on featured-level articles? We have some advice for nominators, and an A-Class review process to help check high-quality articles.
 * Want to help with specific requests for assistance? Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mail call
Dasondas 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion
I may at some point, but being that he uses a dynamic IP it may just be easier to revert without comment until he gets tired and goes away. It takes him longer to type than it does for me to revert. Thanks for the suggestion, though; right now it is just a mildly annoying (and, truth be told, mildly amusing) distraction. If it really turns into a hassle I may seek admin assistance. Dasondas 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Galleries and pictures
There's a discussion over at the Talk:Penis page about the appropriate number of images in the article. Your input would be appreciated. Nandesuka 12:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

DNFTT
I realized this after the fact and left a note on Jay's talk page. Dasondas 12:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize!! Thanks for getting involved! Dasondas 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Frenulum quotes
The full (paragraph) quote from Crooks (Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129) is: While the entire penis is sensitive to tactile stimulation (touch), the greatest concentration of nerve endings is found in the glans. Although the entire glans area is extremely sensitive, there are two specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation. One is the rim, or crown, that marks the area where the glans rises abruptly from the shaft. This distinct ridge is called the corona (ko-RO-na). The other is the frenum, or frenulum (FREN-yoo-lum), a thin strip of skin conecting the glans to the shaft on the underside of the penis. The location of these two areas is shown in figure 5.8.

The full quote from Hass (two paragraphs in Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100) is: Glans The head of the penis is called the glans, Latin for acorn, which is what it resembles. The rim of the glans is called the corona. The glans, and even more the corona, are richly supplied with nerve endings and contribute substantially to pleasurable feelings experienced buring sexual activity. The small triangular area on the underside of the glans, where the frenulum, a delicate strip of skin, is attached to the head, is also very reactive. It seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft. The entire penis responds to stimulation, but at least two other areas are sources of distinct pleasure. The underside of the saft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona, seeme sensitive to gentle friction. Another site is the base of the penis. Some men report that they can be brought to orgasm by them or their partner circling the base with their fingers and stroking.


 * You're right ... in all the edits it's strayed from the quotes. How about:


 * University sexuality textbook authors describe the frenulum and associated “small triangular area” on the underside of the penis below the glans as "very reactive," and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The corona and frenulum are thought to “contribute substantially to pleasurable feelings experienced during sexual activity, with the “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” one “source of distinct pleasure.”  " "  The frenulum is one of two specific locations on the penis “that many men find “particularly responsive to stimulation.”  " "  The frenulum can be stimulated to produce orgasm and ejaculatory response. TipPt 15:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * Thanks for doing this, Tip.
 * Your proposal is a start, but it needs some work. Some thoughts:
 * "University sexuality textbook authors" - this comes across as rather unprofessional (would you expect to see that in Britannica?). I'd prefer a different wording, perhaps specifically naming them.
 * In that sentence, we also need to specify which source each quote comes from, so we need a after each quotation.
 * The quote from Hass ("contribute substantially to pleasurable feelings experienced during sexual activity") refers to "the glans, and even more the corona", not the frenulum.
 * "The frenulum is one" - better to say that "Crooks states that the frenulum is one"...
 * I'll have to check the last sentence, too. Jakew 15:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By saying the frenulum "is also very reactive," Hass links the two sentences. Because of his use of that also, "very reactive" refers to the "pleasurable feelings experienced buring sexual activity." in the prior sentence.TipPt 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation. "Also" seems to indicate only that both are notable, not that all attributes of the former apply to the latter. Jakew 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally, we can call it a "source of distinct pleasure," since the "the underside of the saft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona" includes the frenulum.


 * Changed the bold to highlight the thrust of the paragraph...zones of erogenous sensation. Showed where the paragraph change is in Hass.TipPt 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That University text stuff is unprofessional, but will you permit some qualifier ... the sources aren't common bookstore fare, but rather utilized by professors and students in the UC system.TipPt 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re your first suggestion, we can't reinterpret the source in such a way. If the authors wanted to describe the frenulum in such a way, they could easily have done so, but they didn't. As for your second, I think any reader looking at our sources will see that they are reputable, but if you insist, I don't object to using some other qualifier. Can you suggest some possibilities? Jakew 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think some direct reference to sexuality is warrented.

University textbooks describe the frenulum and associated “small triangular area” on the underside of the penis below the glans as "very reactive," and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” is a “source of distinct pleasure.” “Although the entire glans area is extremely sensitive, there are two specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation."  One is the corona, and the other is the frenulum.  The frenulum can be stimulated to produce orgasm and ejaculatory response.


 * Please have a look at my latest edit to Frenulum. I believe this is a reasonable compromise. Jakew 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The second quote are inaccurately attributed.


 * You left out too much Hass ... that "distinct pleasure." Leaving out that second sentence is a compromise of the texts information.


 * In all almost all ... there are numerous ... of those ejaculatory stimulation articles the frenulum and the body of the shaft below the frenulum NOT the glans is the primary focus of the vibratory stimulation.TipPt 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision
I can live with that. :) Draffa 11:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm just being picky, really, and thinking of a blind person using an HTML-to-speech screen reader. He or she will hear the emphasis, but "bold" won't be meaningful. Maybe one day I'll learn to be less pedantic. :) Jakew 11:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to your note both here and on my page..

Did that (read the suggested sections) prior to edits submitted. Added based on conclusions currently used in pediatric practice and based on multiple neutral systematic reviews by such organizations as Cochrane.

I provided no original research "on purpose" - though I may have done so accidentally. Perhaps I could have re-referenced some statements but they have already been wonderfully provided elsewhere in the article and I did reference those that fit. If I left a major statement unsupported please point this out and I will fix the issue.

I added a relatively detailed explanation in plain english about conducting a risk to benefit analysis that follows the analysis in the paper referenced immediately above the explanation. This is not intended to be original research, rather a plain english description of a difficult subject that I have specific experience in teaching to medical students and residents (and I did not see explained anywhere else).

One cannot conclude that when a conclusion is arrived at through the analysis of undisputed evidence that one's opinion is somehow biased. If that were true, then I must non-neutral concerning the flatness of the planet.

Multiple well-established studies have determined "ranges" of risks of UTI and harm from circumcision. Choosing the best and worst case scenarios, there is no benefit to a population in the procedure and this article was not reflective of this analysis that has "been adopted by virtually all governmental and specialty medical organizations on the planet. The original entry continued to refer to the "public health benefit" aspects of circumcision as in dispute. This is untrue.

Similarly, most people consider the planet round. Just because a few think it is flat does not provide a forum for "equal representation" of the flat earth society in a discussion of geology. At best they would be a footnote.

Given the predominance of evidence (not just opinion in this one subsection) is it no longer reasonable to describe a public health controversy. Perhaps in social or ethical considerations, but the public health aspects are rather mathematical - an answer can be calculated in this paragraph, and I have explained the concept in detail. I hope this ads to the complexity of the topic and helps someone reading this section to understand the concepts I outlined. I personally have no opinion when it comes to the social aspects of circumcision but just like I have an opinion about the answer to 2 x 2 = 4 being correct I will continue to explain how the risk to benefit analysis doesnt allow us to say circumcision is a recommended public health measure to prevent ANY condition, period. This simply is not a controversy in current public health/epidemiology literature. Some aspects of the subject do require further research but this does not in itself imply disagreement over the current data.

I hope that clarifies the edits. I use this site extensively in my teaching and research when I read the entry I felt it only fair that I contribute in this area since this one portion of the entry is clearly incorrect. There are more areas of reference to the public health benefit of circumcision, but I have already spend more time than I should have spend on this issue tonight.

As for my qualification to make revisions, I am not a particular authority on the subject but I am currently the faculty physician assigned to our hospital's newborn nursery/ mother baby unit and I must make treatment decisions based on these very principals on a daily basis. I have training in evidence based medicine (though I do not have an MPH) and frequently teach these concepts in my practice.

I wholeheartedly support the right of parents to make desicisions based on available evidence and without scaring them into a decision based on false science. Seems you are one of the few people who were able to make a truly informed decision and give informed consent for the procedure.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Williamwells" Williamwells 11:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I think we may disagree on that fact. How does one have an opinion about the solution to a quadratic equation (other than the sign of the answer)? Opinions are a social construct and are best placed in an appropriate heading designed to present them. Opinions aside, there ARE elements of circumcision that are controversial, and some that are simply factual. This type of controversy is based on the lack of available or properly designed data and can be sorted out with additional study. I will cite the example of the roundness of the earth again to illustrate.

Whereas we can present both sides of a debate at to whether or not a particular tribe agreed upon this fact as based on carbon dating of artifacts is certain. These can be opinions, and still based on data - but with data that cannot provide adequate resolution to provide an answer to one's particular question. If the dating was to the year 1000AD +/- 200 years, and the artifact depicted a round earth, you will have a difficult time supporting your argument that the theory was not developed until 1500ad. If this is still your "opinion" then it is uninformed.

We cannot, however, present "opinions" within elements of an entry about this as if they were facts without support. There are uninformed opinions, and the interpretations may change as new data is made available, but risks and benefits can and have been calculated for this procedure. To present opposite "opinions" when experimantal data exist is ignoring facts and this type of contruct then becomes part of the social or political aspects of circumcision. This deserves to be included in the subject treatment, but not as if the experimental supported the practice. To do so is being dishonest or ignoring facts to present opinion. There arent multiple sides to this kind of data - there is merely an interpretation of the data and so far as epidemiology is concerned nobody is arguing about how to calculate risk to benefit rations.

I will grant you for example that some people say that 100% of penile cancer is preventable (at the cost of 6 complications per case prevented) and that is in fact true. Epidemiology states that this is too little benefit to recommend circumcision with no other pre-existing risks. Perhaps someone wants to argue with these issues under the subject of "epidemiology" or "evidence based medicine" but dont present that under circumcision as this is misleading to those who do not understand these issues. I count on the collective knowledge of the large group to edit these entries and I have not been disappointed. I feel I should return the favor with an unambiguous stand on known, factual experimental data. The social issues I will observe from the sideline. As it is accepted fact that the planet is essentially round, the flat-earthers may be mentioned for completeness in the historical descriptions of the history of navigation, but deserve no space whatsoever in the section on cartography.

With circumcision, all ethical, social, religious matters aside, it is a computation to determine risk and benefit. These computations may change with further research, but with facts in hand we can show that if we calculate in favor of and against circumcision, we will circumcise 100 or 200 newborn males before we prevent a urinary tract infection in one of them. One of every 100 babies we circumcise will suffer some untoward complication from the procedure. No amount of "explaining" will ever make this data interpreted as a favorable risk to benefit ratio unless the meaning of "favorable" is changed within the science of epidemiology. Therefore circumcision, from a public health standpoint, is not indicated to "prevent" any disease in a normal patient and there exists no valid argument against that. Throw me any argument and I can mathematically show you evidence to refute all comers including cancer, HIV, cleanliness, any infection, etc.. I have nothing to stand on to show you if I will be reincarnated or admitted into heaven achieve nirvana, etc. if I do/dont circumcise my son/daughter.

My goal is to remove the ambiguous statements from only those sections where such statements remain that imply that a medical benefit is enjoyed by NORMAL newborn male infants as a result of circumcision. There simply is no controversy among informed scientists as to this fact. There may be those with opinions to the contrary but I again cite my description of the flat earth society.

If I say there is no controversy as to the planets resemblence to a pancke, only those unfamiliar with the scientific method will continue to protest. Only those who do not understand how to calculate risk, benefit, pretest probability, NNT/NNH will continue to claim that an argument exists here. Sometimes one must draw the line. Circumcision may have value to some individuals for personal/religious reasons but it is never a medically indicated therapy when performed on a normal newborn infant. It is no different from a tattoo or a piercing. Personal benefits but no medical improvements. It exerts no evolutionary pressure on the fitness of the species whatsoever. Opinion doesnt enter into it.

As for editing to conform to Wikipedia's standards, I need lots and lots of help as I am not a writer by trade. I will revamp things and try again to be certain to cite specific sources but again I will not be citing any proof of the 2D earth as there is none.

Williamwells 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On all points - yes, absolutely correct. You are definitely on the right track here. Oh, and if you have any trouble accessing full text documents let me know because our university has a pretty good collection of full text journals available.

As for the form of the content - I will keep at it until I get the hang of it because this is important to me.

The sticky problem with the concept of a "complication" is you define the term in any way you wish before using it in the calculations. Yes indeed these issues may be a point of contention as to what things are considered complications. I think we can pick a set that would be relatively non-controversial such as serious bleeding, infection, adhesions leading to a short frenulum, interference with voiding, and all cases of traumatic injury to glans or nerve supply just to pick a fixed set. Now, even though bleeding is a serious complication its treatment (unless you managed to cut an aretery which is nearly impossible these days) is trivial. You probably just diagnosed the child with VonWillebrand's or something like that that is not at all associated with circumcision.

So lets throw all that out and take the most conservative estimate of complications you proposed which was 0.2-0.6%. This will suffice to support my example.

A UTI itself is not really something that must be avoided - the danger is an asymptomatic UTI that leads to an ascending infection and pyelonephritis, and subsequently renal scarring. This would require calculation of both the probability of a UTI and the probability of pyelonephritis and scarring in cases of UTI in males.

Probablilty of UTI in males is low, best estimates from pooled studies make the probability of a male experiencing at least one UTI by age seven of about 1.7%.

Of children with a UTI, the risk of transient changes in the kidney is large - about 40%, but only about 5% have any long-term detectable changes in the kidneys [note that this does not reflect dysfunction - but I will grant you that renal scarring is "bad"]

Worst case numbers are now that 1.7% incidence of UTI, and 5% of these will have scarring. If one assumes that all cases of UTI will be prevented with circumcision - your NNT to prevent a single case of long term renal scarring is now about 1,200. (thats a NNT of about 60 to prevent a single UTI, and 20 UTI's prevented to prevent one case of renal scarring).

Next take NNH for circumcision of 0.2 - thats 500 cases before having a single serious complication - pretty rare. This still doesnt approach the 1200 circumcisions that would be performed to receive a statistically significant improvement.

Nobody in this country selects circumcision without understanding that is is a purely elective procedure and has a much higher risk of harm than benefit, and both harm and benefit are extremely rare events. Despite this we probably have some of the highest rates of circumcision in the West at around 55%.

Everyone understands that this is an elective procedure. Perhaps you are missing this point but my point is this and only this - there is no rational argument supporting circumcision as a medical benefit to a newborn male without any pre-existing conditions. Here in the world of medical practice I have encountered nobody who argues this point - even supporters of routine circumcision at the parent's request. Everybody currently assumes this is a social phenomenon. Whats more, any statement that there is a rational "medical" benefit derived from prophylacic circumcision is false. Some things CAN be proven and this is a simple truth. I am not against circumcision but lets call it what it is - elective, decorative, religious or social practice. There is no argument to "medicalize" this as something that had any evidence supporting its routine use.

I am going to make sure the evidence based medicine topic contians the supporting information needed to support this position (seems like an EBM tutorial doesnt really belong here) and then will make the edits as neutral, cited evidence.

Nearly 11pm here, will conclude and chat more tomorrow. Have plans for the weekend so you will hear more from me next week. Thanks for your reply.

Bill


 * I've replied at your talk page. Unfortunately, my reply has been deleted by a banned user. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly. In the meantime, you can view my reply here. Jakew 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are either mistaken or lying. I have never deleted any comment you made to user_talk:Williamwells. And besides: Policy does not require anyone to delete contribs/comments made by blocked editors, it depends on the judgement of any user who comes across such an edit. 87.78.186.200 21:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh? What do you call this then? I count ten paragraphs I wrote that disappeared as part of your edit. Looks a lot like deletion to me.
 * Now if you want to apologise for your false accusation of lying, you can. Otherwise, please rest assured that I will exercise my best judgment of your edits, and likely as not they will be deleted.
 * You're blocked. That "edit this page" link at the top of the page does not apply to you. Move on. Jakew 21:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind reply. 87.78.186.200 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My views on circumcision are this: it is the right of every person to decide whether or not this practice is right for them or not. This means the persons whose body it is, not someone else. This means the persons whose body it is, not someone else. You do not have the right to strap down a grown man and amputate their prepuce, and neither do you have a right to do this to helpless infants who have no say on the matter. Since it the childs own body and they are the ones who will have to live with the negative consequences of amputating a totally normal and healthy body part, including the loss of sensitivity, and simply the fact that their right to a whole body has been forever stolen from them, their right to make their own choices about unessential mutilation of the body such as this, when they are a fully informed and consenting adult and can weigh the benefits and risks for themselves and do their own research on the manner. Only the person whose body it is will know whether or not they want a foreskin. The parents do not know. Only the person whose body it is can determine if this is right for them. If you want to be circumcised as a fully consenting and informed adult, please go ahead. But do not advocate that it be done to children, who can be too easily coerced and may not be able to fully research or understand the topic on their own.

There are no rational nor valid ethical reasons for routine infant circumcision. The human body does not need routine corrections of normal parts, and we do not amputate parts from unconsenting persons bodies that do not currently have anything wrong with them, or when there are less invasive alternatives, or where the condition is minor and not life threatening. The goal of medicine is to save the body including all of its parts. Amputation is only a very last resort measure in the case of a very severe essential health threatening or life threatening condition where lesser invasive options are not present, to treat a current and present severe medical condition. If there is some very serious PRESENT AND CURRENT medical condition that requires it, then yes, but that is not routine circumcision. Routine circumcision is cutting off childrens body parts that having nothing wrong with them. The prepuce is totally normal and healthy tissue that everyone is born with. Amputation is not ethical for minor or non-severe, non life threatening conditions or ones correctable via non invasive methods. If an adult wants an elective or nonessential amputation done, they are free to make that choice for themselves, but it cannot be made for unconsenting persons including children.

I find it so ironic, that you, Jake, after being granted the right to make your own choice on the manner, that you would then advocate the henious crime of depriving people of the same right to make such choices over their own body and to steal this wonderful part of their body from them. It is appalling. You can always become circumcised, but you can never get the prepuce you have lost back. And i know this from personal experience, since I am circumcised (mutilated, attacked, assaulted, raped) against my will and I am very upset about this. I cannot describe what I felt when I found out what they had done to me without my consent, and for no valid reasons whatsoever. it was a perfectly healthy part of my body that had nothing wrong with it that those criminals stole from me. It should have been my choice, it is normal and healthy body part, and no one has a right to take it from me. it is my body, not my parents, not anyone elses. Amputating normal body parts is wrong.

The UTI, Penile Cancer, HIV rationales are all invalid reasons for cutting of healthy tissue which has nothing wrong with it from an infant. UTI rates are 5 to 50 times higher in girls. UTI can be treated on girls with antibiotics and the boys can be given the same treatment. Are you going to start advocating we cut off parts of their bodies next? What about cutting of girls breasts to prevent breast cancer, it would prevent 100% of breast cancer, which affects 20% of women. By comparison the penile cancer rate is around 0.1%. Penile cancer is mostly occuring in elderly men, and besides for frostbite, and gangrene, this is the only condition where circumcision may be necessary. UTI, phimosis, balantitis, can all be treated non-invasively. Overall females have more yeast infections, etc, then men, and we find ways of avoiding cutting off parts of their genitals. HIV? Condoms are around 80% effective at stopping that. it makes more sense to distribute condoms. Even without the prepuce, the chance is still significant that you will get HIV, and it would be foolish to engage in sex with strange women still, a good chance you will be circumcised, and have HIV. The US has a twice higher rate of HIV than europe, despite the US having much higher circumcision rates than Europe. We have a lot of circumcised and HIV infected men in the US. Why is it only men who are being asked to give up sexually sensitive tissue? Women have plenty of HIV receptors on their genital mucousal tissue that we could excise. Many types of FGM are very much the same As MGM, such as removing part of the labia and the clitoral hood, would be very similar in scope of damage to MGM.

It is unethical to remove body parts that having nothing presently wrong with them, or where a clinically verifiable medical condition can be treated with non-invasive method, where the condition is minor, is not severely life threatening. The bottom line is it comes down to personal choice, that is, pesonal choice of the person whose body it is. We do not have any right to steal body parts which are normal and that everyone is born with from unconsenting persons.

Millueradfa 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, but I fear that you're sadly misinformed on many points. In particular, references to "wonderful" body parts suggest that you've been cruelly misled by anti-circumcision propaganda. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss this in depth here, since these pages are intended to help us build an encyclopaedia, but if you want to email me to discuss further, I'd be more than happy to talk with you. Jakew 12:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jake - your claims of neutrality on the topic seem to intentionally miss the point. The debate is not really about whether circumcision is good or bad, as that is quite clearly a matter of opinion. The debate is about whose choice circumcision should be - your argument that parents should be able to make that choice for their children puts you clearly on one side of the debate. The fact that you chose to be circumcised yourself as an adult is somewhat hypocritical as your position would seem to deny others that same choice. Personally, as someone who was circumcised as an infant, I feel that I was denied the choice that you enjoyed and I am willing to fight for it on behalf of children today. The fact that you yourself are pleased with your circumcision is irrelevant - you chose it - I am not happy with mine because it was done without my consent. 87.194.80.255 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jake - thanks for your reply on my page. You are welcome to your own opinion but you are being, to use your own word, 'deceptive' by claiming neutrality. You say wikipedia is a place to provide a neutral point of view - yet your point of view is clearly one-sided as are many of the edits and revocations you make. Your mis-representation of and opinionated slurs against those who fight for rights that you yourself enjoyed seems arrogant and inconsiderate. You may say what some people want to hear but that doesn't in itself make you neutral or right. 87.194.80.255 20:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jake - your reply on my user page betrays your personal bias - which I am prepared to accept you are not consciously aware of - you said -
 * "I think it perfectly reasonable to feed spinach to children, but because I also think it reasonable to not feed children spinach, I think it reasonable to describe myself as basically neutral on that subject."
 * - which sounds reasonable, but your choice of analogy is inappropriate because feeding spinach to children comes with the cultural baggage of being a generally accepted positive thing to do, much like circumcision is in some cultures. If I were to say that "I think it perfectly reasonable to feed excrement to children, but because I also think it reasonable to not feed children excrement, I think it reasonable to describe myself as basically neutral on that subject." you would rightly accuse me of choosing an analogy pre-loaded with cultural bias, because feeding excrement to children is obviously not a nice thing to do. The same is true for spinach at the opposite end of the spectrum.


 * So I stand by my statement Jake - you are not 'neutral' when it comes to circumcision - because -
 * 1) You feel that comparing circumcision to eating spinach provides a neutral analogy
 * 2) You refer to something like the 'lies and mistruths of many anti-circumcision organisations' - thus in a single statement slurring and dismissing an entire side of the debate. This is supplemented by constant references to 'propaganda' - that's a strange way for a supposedly neutral observer to describe someone else's point of view.
 * 3) You collaborate with Brian Morris of Australia, author of 'In favour of circumcision', thus implicitly endorsing the other side of the debate.
 * 4) You say on your user page that you voluntarily chose to be circumcised. Thus you are psychologically pre-disposed towards validating your own choice, whether you are aware of it or not, particularly when it comes to something as personal as modifying your genitals.


 * Jake, I understand that you may believe you are neutral, but your actions and writings demonstrate that your bias is entrenched and deeply personal. You frame your whole debate and 'neutrality' around your own personal bias. You may be able to please a few circumcised men by telling them what they want to hear, and you many be able to jump through the hoops of wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, but this merely demonstrates how ineffective they are, not how neutral you are.87.194.80.255 22:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

William
Who precisely is the anon who has been trying to talk to Williamwells? JoshuaZ 23:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Got it - and you probably loose sleep pursuing fun activities here.

There had been word of changing the recommendation in regiosn of highe prevalence of HIV - but the data seems to suggest even then it wont help much given the epidemiology of the spread of the virus - but it certainly wont hope.

The exercise of debating an issue has often been used by adult education paradigms as an effective teaching method and I have learned more in the last few days about the format of encyclopedias, thats for sure.

All I really want to do is to change the format of the issues contained in the factual sections on circumcision to present both the evidence based support for circumcision when it is medically indicated - and explain why at the same time, and to simultaneously explain why allopathic medicine methods argue against prophylactic circumcision for the same reasons. Its already in there but "split" into two different sections and now gives the impression that among allopathic physicians there is debate over prophylactic circumcision's value medically and given current data there is only agreement on this point (and notice that is an extremely narrow definition). There is insufficient current data to warrant the rec. even with HIV - but many suspect that will change and we will probably recommend it under certain circumstances.

I would rather not imply that scientists disagree over how to determine if a population level intervention is indicated or not - that one small point is inaccurate. I hope to make the whole idea more clear (I feel like I am still missing my point - probably just better to do than discuss)

Its a population vs. individual argument. Too often we handed two sides of an argument as if the two sides are operating on equal terms with different answers. Like what people say about the news - gives credence to "all sides" of an argument even if there is not any support which makes some extreme minorities appear popular.

Thanks for your time. I will run the next part by you through the discussion page on the topic (when I have been registered long enough to do so) and you will see what I mean. Its easier at this point to just write it rather than explain it.

BTW: Reference 93 mentioned the editor was unavailable to access the article. It substantiates nothing and the statement about harboring bacteria is clearly not supported by this reference. If this gets published then I think I publish anything. They even go so far as to tag washing as "inferior" or not with no support for their position.

Rather than delete it I thought I would give you a copy of the reference and let you delete it if you agree. Download PDF.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your credentials?

 * See Previous discussion

I have just added to my own with an MA with distinction from the University of London. I was wondering if you are ever going to assure me that you are suitably qualified to be posting all that material about circumcision. I see you are now branching out into nuclear weaponry. I imagine you can do less harm with that, because the governments of countries who have, or are developing, nuclear weapons will probably not look to wikipedia for advice on what to do with them. However, some people may be naive enough to think that wikipedia is a sound source of information to study when considering what to do with their son's perfectly formed penis.--AlexanderLondon 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! This Jakew is clearly using wikipedia to further his own personal agenda. He emphatically declares this agenda and confirms his bias, then attempts to hide behind the cloak of false neutrality. I'm not fooled by his arrogant, hypocritical charade one bit. Move on. MrEguy 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Langerhans Cells
Stop deleting the information regarding Langerhans cells on the female genitalia. I have provided documentation that they are there. This wikipedia article is about LC cells not HIV, so they are still relevant if they do not mention HIV. Some mention SIV which is a similar virus in primates. This material is relevant and will be restored. Millueradfa 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The docs do specifically mention LC cells on the vagina. Some mention T-cells which interact with the LC cells. So they are still relevantMillueradfa 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They may be relevant, but do they conform to policy? That is the question. Fuller response at Talk:Langerhans cell. Jakew 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Insecurities
Jakew, I do not wish to personally attack you. I must say this. On your profile it says you were circumcised in 2003. That's fine. You consented. Anti-circumcision ideas flooding the internet bug you. But UNDERSTAND, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MUTILATING babies, NON-Consenting adults. THAT'S why so many people are against it. With all due respect, a self-proclaimed nerd or geek or whatever, should be able to understand CONSENT. Just because you like being circumcised doesn't mean that every male on earth does. If that were true, how come MOST European men don't bother to get cut as adults. They're fine with how they are. In reality, it is YOU with the insecurities. People who edit hundreds or thousands of articles such as yourself, though perhaps not much social life, can still be reported for EDIT WARRING. You need to stop or you will be blocked, certain people will make sure of it. you don't own wikipedia articles. Leave your writings in. But don't be immature and delete other people's cited info because you don't like what it says. This is a conserted effort. Please Please Please grow up. Almost 30, please please please. (Woodstock2010 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

RfA
 Avraham would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Avraham to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

RfA response
Hmm, okay. I'm changing to a neutral after reading that. I would still prefer to see wider contributions, particularly if you plan to close XfDs, but nor do I think you'd misuse the tools or have any basic misunderstandings of policy. Regards. Trebor 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never agreed with those who think replying to oppose votes is harassment :-) RfA is an impossible process, where users attempt to judge months of work and thousands of edits in a matter of minutes, and if the user thinks judgements are wrong then they should feel free to try to correct them. I can't assess off-hand whether you understand Wikipedia policy, but a link to a couple of pages showing thoughtful analysis and use of it goes a long way to alleviating any doubts. Trebor 21:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I know Who Jake Waskett is
Thank you. The comment on the potential editor page about you being a circumcision activist mentioned Jake Waskett and now I know who you are. Thank you. Captain panda  Mussolini ha sempre tarche   Quis ut Dues  00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
Well, of course, per WP:OWN, nobody owns anything at Wikipedia. Having said that, yes, for the moment I seem to be doing most of the responding to posts at WP:WQA. But anyone's welcome to respond to a posting, and I often don't get to things for a half day or more, so I like to think I'm not crowding at anyone who's interested. -- John Broughton  | (♫♫) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You'd get bonus points for noticing (or at least being the first to say something) if Wikipedia had bonus points.  So, instead, I'll suggest that you might find User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia to be useful. (Any suggestions for improvement would, of course, be appreciated).  -- John Broughton  |  (♫♫) 16:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the barnstar, and of course any help at WP:WQA is always appreciated. As for the index being in userspace, there are a number of reasons, particularly that I don't consider it anywhere near finished (and, as importantly, am still making fairly good progress on improving it), and that sometimes writing by committee isn't as good as writing by oneself.  (I'm speaking of groupings of pages in the index and see and see also, as well as inclusion of a few personal pages and external links, all of which are arguably subjective; when it does leave userspace, I will of course concede to consensus.)  -- John Broughton  |  (♫♫) 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome
Thank you for your kind message. I am surprised that you withdrew your RfA as it looked like it was going to go your way. Anyway, good luck next time! MetsFan76 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it works out for you next time, Jake. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad, it's a shame it didn't go through. We've never come across each other on-wiki that I remember, but your contributions looked exceptional to my eyes.  I expect RfA shouldn't be a problem the next time.  Cheers -- Samir धर्म  02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to nominating him again, after he gains more mop experience [[image:smile.gif]] -- Avi 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Effects
I thought I did what you needed ... to cite the argument presented by significant proponents of circ's? I'd be glad to use more of their specific contentions?TipPt 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no way your getting out of covering frenectomy in Procedures.TipPt 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Hi there; I am in reality sorry that you felt obliged to withdraw, although clearly the consensus was not going your way. I am sure that you ae a good editor, which is of course why I did not oppose. Obviously, if you have strong views or special expertise on a particular subject then this is bound to color your edit profile. When you next apply, which I hope you will, do so with a greater edit record in WP:NAMESPACE, and perhaps a greater article presence in topics unrelated to circumcision, and you should walk it. I will happily support under these conditions. I had a similar problem with my RfA in November.--Anthony.bradbury 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User 195.195.235.12
I have noticed that at User talk:195.195.235.12 you have left a warning indicating if this user vandalized again, the user would be blocked. On February 6th, 2007, he vandalized Dartfish, as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartfish&action=history. I have left him a warning, but as he has vandalized before and had last warnings, I think he should be blocked. I am not an admin, and cannot block him. Do you know how to have him blocked? Thanks. - MSTCrow 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to reinstate some of my work?
The pain EMLA and DPNB review correction, and Landers, for example?TipPt 15:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Woodstock2010
Yes, it was him. I've blocked for a week, based on the block evasion. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The study into DPNB highlighted frenular pain. Frenulum is the current topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis#They_seem_like_minor_changes TipPt 19:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about your training
Hi Jake, as I'm sure you've noticed I have raised some questions at Talk:Circumcision about a citation of you as a source and I just want to be sure that I'm not misrepresenting you. Do you have any formal training in medicine, biology, physiology, or a related field? Are you currently undergoing any sort of training? Your userpage still says you're planning to start a Master's Degree in 2005, so I'm not sure. On a related point, I would be curious to know what sort of credentials you hold (degrees, certifications, etc.) in any field. I guess I should have thought to ask this before making my comments. Thanks, Zandrous 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. No answer to my question then? Incidentally, if anyone could find another source to critique Fleiss et al I would think it would be you! Zandrous 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the reply and for the citations. Still no answer to my question then?  I don't intend to suggest that there are any qualifications necessary for quoting statements from published studies, I'm just curious as to what (if any) formal training or education you have, given that you consider yourself something of an expert on a topic which is (in part) the subject of my own professional research.  If you would rather not say, that's fine too, albeit perhaps a bit unusual. Zandrous 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Female genital mutilation
Can you please answer me why did you revert my edit on Female genital mutilation, claiming that it was WP:POINT violation? Thank you. --antiXt 11:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talk. Jakew 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. So you're saying that trere is no way of making equal treatment to FGM/FGC and MGM/MGC? But, unequal treatment would be sexistic and would violate WP:NPOV as such. --antiXt 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talk. Jakew 15:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

EL
Oops, I was sure I had done my reading. However, I just formatted one of those citations, so as to provide a proper reference for anyone. Have a look. —AldeBaer 09:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another link that doesn't work, though this one's dead, not only restricted: Genital_modification_and_mutilation. That kind of "reference" is for the birds, in my opinion, and I'd like to delete it, as it gives the superficial impression of providing a reference when there really is none. —AldeBaer 10:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was bold and took it out along with the unattributed sentence . —AldeBaer 10:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there are no archive matches at Wayback Machine, that's why I deleted the whole thing. —AldeBaer 10:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision
Thanks! I tried to save the edits, but I guess I messed up. Thanks again! -- Avi 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey
The next time you run for admin, please leave a message on my talk page so I don't miss the entire discussion, OK?

Thanks. Nandesuka 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of date article
You might want to bring this article up-to-date: Aaron J. Fink. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision avoids cervix carcinoma
Shouldn't we mention this in the article? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11948269&dopt=Abstract and this site too sees avoidance of cervical cancer in female sexual partners as a reason to circumcise: http://www.med.nyu.edu/patientcare/library/article.html?ChunkIID=14792 --134.155.99.41 12:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest this text: There is strong evidence that Jewish women have up to 70% fewer cases of Cervical Cancer than non-Jewish women. The two most likely reasons for this are that their that their Jewish genetic history confers some sort of protection or that their sexual partners are likely to have been circumcised. Since this reduced incidence affects all Jewish women, whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic or Mizrahi, it seems unlikely that it is purely genetic. Their strongest common factor is that all Jewish men are circumcised and this therefore is a more likely explanation. This seems to apply even when compared with Moslem women who can be expected to also have predominently circumcised sexual partners and to have relatively few sexual partners. Therefore, since all Jewish men are circumcised at 8 days, while Moslem men may be circumcised at any age up to 13 years, there are suggestions that this protection only applies to circumcisions performed in early infancy. In America, the incidence of Cervical Cancer is considerably higher amongst Hispanics than among Whites. Since Hispanics are least likely to have their boys circumcised near birth, this provides additional evidence of this protection. Half of women affected by Cervical Cancer die from it and there are roughly 4,600 deaths in America alone each year. --Validside 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you be so kind? Thank you. --Validside 09:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say it, Validside, but I don't think that this text in its present form conforms to Wikipedia policies. In particular, speculative assertions such as "[the] two most likely reasons for this are", "it seems unlikely that", and "this provides additional evidence of" appear to violate WP:NOR. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with assertions of the form "Bloggs et al. argue that the two most likely reasons are...", since such language clearly attributes such reasoning.
 * Please understand that I'm not suggesting that the reasoning is wrong. I'm just concerned that it is not attributed, and also a little puzzled as to why you're building a case on such indirect evidence when direct evidence of a correlation is available (eg Castellsague). Jakew 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. The problem is that I am not a native speaker and therefore cannot formulate a text to conform to english Wiki policies but I would really appreciate if you could correct it to meet (fit?) the policies. TIA. --Validside 12:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)PS: The text about the cervical cancer ist just copy&paste, I found it in the history of the circumcision article, it was deleted by a vandal, instead of correcting or replacing it by a better text.

Image:Jake_Cooking.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jake_Cooking.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Honest work
The intro and risks repairs are neutral and well cited. Your removal of the AMA statement from the intro is easily propaganda. That represents soap.

After reading edit war, it looks like you and the cabal are violators. The history is all there showing prior consensus, your ~abuse of visiting editors, and the topic is clearly ridiculous. I would welcome mediation (having looked at the committee membership). More eyes on the Topic couldn't hurt.TipPt 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Effects
Is it OK now? If not, how can I make it satisfy your requirements.

You know, it's such a waste of time ... knowing that sexual effects may result if a circ is done poorly ... as with all gomco and plastibell procedures ... might motivate them to find a qualified operator. Frenectomy, too tight, not caring for the circ'd penis properly ... those are primary. I'd be satisfied if readers know how to get a proper circ (mogen properly aligned and ~loose) if they insist on a circ.

You seem to have a double standard with the Cabal.TipPt 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you haven't changed it since I last commented at 15:37, 13 July 2007. Jakew 10:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I took out the second sentence about the frenulum (already mentioned in the first) ... How about:
 * Boyle et al. (2002) argued that "structural changes circumcised men may have to live with are surgical complications such as skin tags, penile curvature due to uneven foreskin removal, pitted glans, partial glans ablation, prominent/jagged scarring, amputation neuromas, fistulas, severely damaged frenulum, meatal stenosis, uncomfortably/painfully tight shaft skin when erect, and keratinisation." "The loss of stretch receptors in the prepuce and frenulum and an associated diminution in sexual response" may reduce a "circumcised man’s ability to achieve arousal."  …"Due to the neurological injury caused by circumcision, and the resultant reduction of sensory feedback" erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation may be a complication of male circumcision, potentially making "intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised."  Taves (2002) argued that the foreskin may have an intromission function, facilitating penetration,, and Bensley et al. (2003) argued that circumcision may decrease vaginal wetness and orgasm in female partners.

Re "failing to attribute" ... do you want me to break down the et al to it's individual authors?

How much shorter?TipPt 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation case
Hello, you were a participant in a Mediation Cabal case that has been re-listed as possibly needing a new mediator. The case is listed at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Male genital mutilation. As some time has passed since there was last any activity on this case, I'm checking in to see if this is still an active dispute that requires mediation, and if so, to indicate that I am willing to take it up. Please let me know. Otherwise if this is no longer an active dispute I'll simply de-list the case, and thanks for your time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville
Huh? You are sending me a warning? Are you an official of some kind?

Edwardsville 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Input requested
I don't believe you're terribly interested in videogames, but if you could take a peek over at Dungeon Hack, I'm in a discussion with another editor about what seems like a fairly straightforward issue. A reliable source describes a certain game as being like game X. This editor strongly believes that this game is Not Like Game X, and thus removes the description and the associated citation. If you think i'm way off base on this, I'd like to know. Nandesuka 06:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Elite clones
You might laugh at me, but my favorite Elite clones are the ones that don't use any graphics at all -- eg, old versions of Galactic Trader and the like -- see, for example, here. Nandesuka 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a shame Spronck never developed picoverse :) -- Avi 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting..... Jakew 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Amusingly, I just tried version 1.65 of Oolite, and spent 20 minutes flying to some planet. When I engaged the auto-docker, the app crashed with a divide by zero error.
 * Now I'm checking out the source so I can fix it myself.
 * I blame you. Nandesuka 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept the blame with, I must admit, a certain amount of undisguised glee. (An open source advocate could hardly feel otherwise, I suppose.) But what I'm really wondering is: how did you obtain docking computers so quickly? Jakew 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't have them, but I figured, monkeylike, that I would hit the key anyway and see what happened. Nandesuka 21:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your message
I replied at User talk:Coppertwig. --Coppertwig 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with the word "vandalism" in edit summaries.
Re your edit at Circumcision:  This appears to be a revert of a good-faith attempt to improve the article. While I don't disagree with the revert, I disagree with labelling it "vandalism" and failing to give the editor an adequate explanation of the revert. (A very brief explanation in the edit summary would be OK I think, but "vandalism" is inaccurate and therefore doesn't qualify as an explanation.) From WP:VAND: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. " and "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. ", etc. I would appreciate it if you would provide a (very brief perhaps) explanation to the user, perhaps on the user's talk page or at Talk:Circumcision, in the spirit of WP:BITE. --Coppertwig 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The other edit by the same user appears to be a clear case of vandalism. I don't see why you consider the edit you reverted to be vandalism.  It appears to me to come clearly under the category of "what vandalism is not ... making bold edits".  I don't know which category of vandalism you consider it to come under -- none of them seem to me to come close to applying to this case.  I don't see anything about an edit being classed as vandalism just because other edits by the same user are vandalism -- did I miss it?  --Coppertwig 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize. You were right:  it can be considered to fit one of the definitions of vandalism.  And you had already left an explanatory message for the user, which I didn't bother to check.  Sorry about that.  --Coppertwig 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem -- that's very minor in comparison!! --Coppertwig 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand Middle School
Hi, I wonder if you would be good enough, please, to revisit Articles for deletion/Hand Middle School in view of the rewrite that I have now completed, and in particular the Time award? TerriersFan 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Post-publication peer review
I like the quotes you gave about post-publication peer review at the circumcision talk page. I'm not sure I'd ever quite thought of it that way, but it's an important concept. That's how science works! --Coppertwig 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Phimosis pictures
I've commented. You might also want to look at Glans penis, Pubic hair and some other articles, where a user (see User:DavidShankBone/BodyParts) is continuing to aggressively promote the photos he's taken, even when they don't really work (some of them, such as the Scrotum photo, are actually pretty good, but most of the lot are improperly lit and poorly framed). Nandesuka 12:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Frenulum of prepuce of penis, where he is inserting his picture of the lack of a frenulum. Classic. Nandesuka 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't allow yourself to be drawn into edit wars on articles you have never edited before after being canvassed by User:Nandesuka. -- David  Shankbone  15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from a) describing a single, brief editor-to-editor discussion as 'canvassing', and b) assuming that I am incapable of evaluating a dispute for myself and deciding upon what is best for the encyclopaedia. Bearing this in mind, I suggest that within reason we both attempt to maximise our appreciation for each other's activities. Jakew 20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

sentence in Circumcision article
Re this edit at Prevalence of circumcision: you may want to make the same change at Circumcision, as the same or very similar sentence appears there, i.e. "quick and easy way of making money". --Coppertwig 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarly for this edit ("no longer pay for the procedure under Medicaid");  Circumcision gives a link to a map as a citation. --Coppertwig 22:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Etuvlik River
Thanks for you participation in the debate on Etuvlik River, after doing a little more research I'm convinced that it is indeed just a mispelling of Etivlik. If the original article gets restored I can move it to the correct spelling. Kmusser 15:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pitfight team Article

 * Links: Pitfight Team Articles for deletion/Pitfight Team --Coppertwig 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This page has been completed and includes the following sources to support it's inclusion.
 * Iceman.com, One of the articles on Chuck Liddell's website
 * Sherdog.comLiddells fight finder profile on Sherdog.com which lists him as a Pit fighter under Association.
 * ESPN's MMA page ESPN's affiliation with Sherdog.com Unak78 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * CBS Sportsline- 'Iceman' looking to avenge loss to Jackson in '03 Here is an article on CBS Sportsline which references Chuck Liddell and John Hackleman preceding Liddell's matchup Quinton "Rampage" Jackson in UFC 71.
 * ESPN Page 2- This guy scares you? ESPN Page 2 preceding UFC 71. This article is written by ESPN columnist Allison Glock for ESPN The Magazine references both the Pit and Hackleman to Chuck Liddell
 * Sports Illustrated.com-Ultimate Regimen: A fighting champion gets intense Sports Illustrated article referencing Chuck Liddells training regimen. John Hackman is referenced in this article as well.
 * UFC.com- Hackleman Keeps It Old School for Liddell
 * The Boston Herald- UFC notebook: Liddell, Ortiz truckin’ on ‘Route 66’Unak78 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Jakew 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Dunno if you know about this. Requests for checkuser/Case/TortenGuise. TorstenGuise 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The man has a grudge to bear about me, as I have chosen to question his questionable actions. All I have received from this user is insults and accusations. TorstenGuise 13:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Might be worth consulting WP:WQA or WP:AN/I.... As an aside, I see you're also in Manchester. :-) Jakew 13:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He's already survived two WP:AN/I debates. Both times the administrators overlooked his actions. TorstenGuise 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Might be suitable for a request for comment. Can you give me examples of these recent actions? Jakew 13:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just suggested that to CR7. The evidence is all over the place. check his talk pages (including archive), my talk pages, CR7's talk pages, JMalky's talk pages. the RfCU is the crown of his actions towards us in this community. TorstenGuise 14:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the situation. If you can give me some diffs I might be able to help, though. Jakew 14:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The process says Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours.. We thus must contact Sherzo before filing a comment. CR7 (message me) 14:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few messages already - see his talk: archive. But before I can say whether they are related to this dispute I'd really like to understand what, exactly, are the issues with his conduct? Can you give me an overview? Jakew 14:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this user has been dictating the debate of several articles, and taking matters into his own hands in the fate of others.He has also being insulting users. In the article on Glasgow University Student Television, he first questioned it's notability and the notability of local newspapers in the UK. I had no real problem with this, and we entered into debate over it. The articles creator asked him to mark it AfD so that a consensus could be reached. After some time, and it not being marked AfD, he decided to take the matter into his own hands. He created a redirect to a new page that he had been working on with Tomisaac about British student television. The article had references to a station in the Republic of Ireland, and therefore, a change of name article was entered into. I stated my protest over the mothballing of the GUST article.

Entering into the name change debate, this user took the opportunity to insult both CR7 and myself over our nationality and actions. Refusing to enter into any real substance of debate. Eventually he started modifying the article in order to justify his own point of view. A name change debate was entered into, and the matter continued. CR7 made a WP:AN/I complaint over his actions and insults in the articles debate. This was brushed over by administrators.

At this time I restored the GUST page and marked it AfD in order that a consensus could be reached. He instantly reverted my edits as vandalism. another user reverted it to my version in order for the AfD debate to continue. I made a WP:AN/I in which much debate was made, but no action taken again. He started an WP:AN/I about me, but people ignored this as it was obvious he was just trying to have a pop at my complaint.

Purely by chance, I found out that he had taken similar unilateral actions over the LSE Students' Union article. Again, I reverted it and nominated it AfD. You kind of know the rest. TorstenGuise 14:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are my thoughts:
 * Strong feelings over the correct structure of the encyclopaedia are fairly normal, and bold actions usually encouraged within reason. However...
 * Insulting users is not ok (WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). Is this still going on?
 * Questioning notability is fine. Unilateral merging and redirecting is dubious, but fundamentally a content issue, not a user conduct issue. I'd say it's best to deal with the two separately.
 * Can you elaborate on the refusal to discuss the subject matter? How did this relate to the insults?
 * Reverting an AfD tag is worrying.
 * Can you give me approximate dates of the AN/I requests, so that I can read through them? Jakew 15:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with notability questioning either. That's the kind of debate that gives wikipedia credibility.

The main point was over the name change of the British student television article. the talk page could provide a good insight as to what was said. Also, comments made on my userpage, User talk:TorstenGuise. Might be worth reading my responces in his own talk page here.

The two AN/I tags are:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive282
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive283

His counter complaint was filed here. Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive283

Hope this helps. TorstenGuise 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. There's some incivility, but I don't think it's bad enough to pursue at this stage. I suggest taking extra care to remain civil, and with any luck matters will improve. If not, do let me know. Jakew 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I will add to this section a statement about User:Bluecord. He is using the above debate as evidence against Sherzo in an appeal to his block. I neither condone or support this action. The choice to use this as evidence is Bluecords ownTorstenGuise 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Jakew 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Chisholm School
Hi again, you quite rightly !voted delete on Articles for deletion/Caroline Chisholm School as I would also have done since the page was unsourced and lacked any pretence at notability. I have now sourced it up and included several clear claims for notability. Perhaps you would be good enough to take another look, please? TerriersFan 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)