User talk:Jakew/Archive 7

ANI
Hi Jake. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. No hard feelings? LW izard @ 07:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for letting me know. That is at least a small courtesy. Jakew (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang in there. :-) Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FGM
I certainly have no problem with the research you gather. But you must keep the original intention of the author. If you do not, it is not respecting the author and their research/work. It is also best to keep bias out of this article. I do feel one way about terminology, and I'm aware so do you, but I am keeping my bias out of it. If you have research, please do not distort the intention of the author. And always attribute quotes correctly. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on every point, but am somewhat baffled as to why you raise them. Jakew (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are completely aware of why I raise them. That is all I will say on this subject.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Next time no RfC please
Next time when we have a dispute can you not do an RfC such as you did? I know it seems obvious to say it now, but you came out with less than you would have gotten as a compromise from either me, Johnuniq or Snowded. It was looking good when we all had our say and were willing to compromise, and it was still looking good when there was a clear consensus for FGM, but now its just turned the article and talk page into a shit show. I would say this RfC was not worth it in any calculation. Vietminh (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior to the RfC there was no consensus and a poisonous atmosphere created by one side refusing to discuss the matter. Now there appears to be a rough consensus for using "FGM".  At least we're not stuck any more.  I won't say I like the outcome, but I've tried my best and can do no more than that.
 * As for the other effects on the article & talk, well, putting it tactfully I have seen better edits. [[Image:Smile eye.png]] Jakew (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus to leave the article as it was until something else came along, as well there was no opposition to reducing the use of the term in the article to solve some NPOV problems. That atmosphere was more productive and more positive than the one that exists now, now some of the most neutrally worded parts of the article are getting butchered and there's a neutrality tag on the article without anyone having specifically said why. Vietminh (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether there was a consensus back then. There doesn't seem much point in arguing about it.  In any event, I share your concerns about recent edits to the article, which are worrisome to say the least. Jakew (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, its pointless to debate it now. I only bring it up because as I say, I think in the future it is worth serious consideration whether such an action is worth undertaking as a last resort. As for the article, I'm not even sure where to begin, one editor has drawn up a list of problems they believe exist which I am reasonably sure is at least 1/4 as long as the article itself. Vietminh (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but the vast bulk of that text consists of huge quotations from various sources (which is questionable, to say the least, from a WP:COPYVIO perspective). If you skip over that, there's not that much text remaining. Jakew (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm putting a message on her talk page as we speak and then I am going to bed, I got your message on my talk page and I'll take care of that once I wake up. Vietminh (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize that feel that my writing was biased and did not write it the way the author intended, although that practice is universally frowned upon do this to ruin my name in the research community. Quotes also are not a problem if you attribute them to the correct source. It's a problem of plagiarism that is all over this article, which I had to go in and actually correct. Then it was revert. To prevent an edit war, I tagged this with WP:COPYVIO so someone else besides us with a NPOV can rewrite the information. I am washing my hands of all of this and both of you can deal with the NPOV edits from the third party.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I just want to point out, an RfC isn't a bad thing. Sometimes bringing in uninvolved editors helps smooth things out and brings new perspectives. Also, it's not a matter of winning more or less. Only Wikipedia should win from our efforts, regardless of how much or little of our personal contributions are kept. Anyway, glad you all are working this out. If I can be of any help, please let me know. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a talk page stalker. Awesome!  I've never had one before. [[Image:Smile.png]] Jakew (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LoL! I have 44... apparently, you have 49. [[Image:Smile.png]] R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 20:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Its a bad thing when it is unneeded, and it was completely unneeded in this case. Consensus existed and the only person who didn't think that consensus existed was Jakew. An RfC should also be initiated by a group of editors who collectively seek outside assistance in resolving a dispute, not by a single editor who holds a rejected point of view and is seeking a last recourse to try and have that point of view maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietminh (talk • contribs) 16:48, August 22, 2011
 * I'm sorry, where does it say that at Requests for comment? -- Avi (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (maybe in the same place where it says unquoted copyvio is ok if it's just a little?)
 * Right here: "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." The discussion took place, the dispute was resolved, and a consensus was clearly established. Jakew could not accept this so he initiated an RfC and he was the sole editor who supported that move. I believe the intent of an RfC is for a legitimate request to solve a dispute, not an avenue for one editor to relentlessly pursue an editorial goal. If I sound like a prick for saying this you might want to know that Jakew is currently being investigated for tendentious editing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jakew_and_circumcision. Also I didn't say copyvio was ok, I said there was no evidence of copyvio brought forth. Vietminh (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The passage you quote doesn't support your claim, Vietminh. It merely indicates that an RfC should follow attempts to resolve the issue through ordinary discussion.  Since we did discuss the issue &mdash; and at length &mdash; it actually supports filing an RfC.  In the case of the discussion prior to the RfC, there wasn't a clear consensus, as evidenced by the different interpretations of it.  You and some editors who (incidentally) shared your viewpoint thought that there was a consensus, while I judged that there wasn't a consensus.  Let me I remind you that I've recognised consensus in cases such as the RM and RfC, where it was clear, so I think we can safely dismiss the notion that I'm fundamentally incapable of recognising it.  However, since our own biases can affect our judgement (and I'm no exception), I requested guidance from an uninvolved administrator, on the principle that one of the functions of an admin is to judge consensus in contentious cases.  The outcome of this was a recommendation that I file an RfC.  As I said above, I don't regard the RfC as a mistake, because it got us from a position of being stuck to a position of being unstuck.  I'm sorry that you're so obviously indignant about my actions, but I think you'll find it helps if you try to see things from another perspective.  I'm not sure what else I can say to cool the animosity here... Jakew (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I am disturbed by recent events, Vietminh. You've suggested that other editors ignore USchick, and incorrectly claimed that Henriettapussycat added a spurious copyvio tag "because no one agreed with her".  Whatever your intention, the net result of this pattern seems to be to marginalise and silence anyone with whom you disagree, and I find that deeply concerning.  Wikipedia is built on consensus, and discussion is an essential part of that.  It's useful to remember that we're all trying to improve the encyclopaedia here. Jakew (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On a serious note, Vietnimnh, I sincerely hope you read up on various policies and guidelines, as I think it will make your contributions here a lot easier. You obviously have a sincere willingness to improve the project, but that amazing attitude needs to be tempered with an understanding of policies and guidelines. My talk page is always open for questions, and you'll find Avraham both exceedingly knowledgeable and willing to answer questions as well. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think my understanding of this subject is sufficient to warrant what I said. I am not alone in my tendentious editing assertion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jakew_and_circumcision and I think given Jakew's editing history it is fair of me to suggest that he ought not to use an RfC to continue pursuing his editorial goals once consensus has been established. That said, I will retract my statement about no more RfCs because it has clearly exposed other issues with the article that most certainly needed to be addressed. Also for clarification: my comment about Jakew "getting less" was an appeal to his ego in an attempt to bring about a better editing environment. Clearly, this is not about winning or losing but about what is best for the encyclopedia. Vietminh (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Email
If you wanna discuss things on my talk page or yours we can, but I'm not going to email you. If it can't be said here it probably shouldn't be said at all. Vietminh (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Jakew (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user talk page. I have blocked the offending user because he has a long history of vandalism and was just recently warned about it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I wasn't absolutely sure if it was vandalism (I can't read what I presume to be Hebrew), but my intuition was that if you wanted to make such drastic changes you'd probably prefer to make them yourself.  I'm glad I was right. Jakew (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Academic Journals
For my own research, what academic journals have you been published in?--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Advances in Urology, American Journal of Public Health, International Journal of STD &amp; AIDS, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, BJU International, and the Journal of Public Health in Africa. I apologise if I've overlooked any. Jakew (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP ethics
Hello there. I thought my own User page was pretty blunt and laconic in terms of presenting to other virtual users a real person in the real world, not just a virtual user name with no information whatsoever about the real person that may or may not exist behind it, as the current ethics in WP seems to be for the majority of users (I have no real data about it, just a gut feeling that this is true for the "majority of current WP users"). But coming to look at your User page by complete WP "happenstance" I have to say I was even somewhat shocked by your bluntness in presenting a real person. I thought I owed it to you to at least acknowlege here that I concluded it takes real courage to present yourself the way you do. I am impressed. WP regards from a fellow editor. warshytalk 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really nice of you to say so. [[Image:Smile.png]] Jakew (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 00:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment
WilliamH (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Restoration
Hi Jake, I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I hope I am doing this approximately right. About Kirby, there is one aspect of his review that seems problematic to me. While criticizing Bigelow for advocating restoration based on limited evidence, Kirby proceeds to do the same thing but more so, by making statements that sound like facts, but with no citation or even mention of evidence. For example: his statement that restoration is “not without considerable risks, not least of which is loss of sensation of the penile shaft". I feel that reproducing Kirby’s factual-sounding statement on Wikipedia risks propagating this problem, since some Wikipedia readers may not realize that his factual-sounding statement was actually an unsubstantiated opinion.  I think the Wikipedia article could be more informative and neutral if it were to make this more transparent. A separate point: my use of the word “circumcision” was deleted as being off-topic.  Although the articles by Bigelow and Kirby are about restoration, circumcision forms a central part of their reasoning, which can justify it being on-topic.  I would like to restore some changes to the article, and was hoping to clarify this with you so we don’t go back and forth. Also, there is a response to Kirby from Bigelow, BMJ 1994; 309 doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6962.1160  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasoned skeptic (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had two reasons for deleting the words "his opinion". The first is that it's partly redundant: he's hardly likely to be giving anyone else's opinion, after all!  But more importantly, from the perspective of a neutral point of view, we need to be careful to treat sources equally.  The danger of labelling one source (but not others) as an "opinion" is that it creates the impression that it's worth less.
 * I also think it's important to stay on topic. There's another article about circumcision; this one isn't. Jakew (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Being a scientist I’m used to a style where it is considered normal if not important to include subtle evaluations of quality when presenting or citing evidence (by using words like “demonstrates” or “suggests”).  Having read the NPOV page, it looks like Wikipedia style is different.  One solution, since Bigelow has published a response to Kirby, could be to briefly summarize and cite Bigelow’s response.  I hope that seems reasonable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasoned skeptic (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a brief summary of Bigelow's response would be fine. Jakew (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User label bottom
Template:User label bottom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JC Talk to me My contributions 02:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision
Hello Jake. I recently reverted [] an edit by Doc that did not appear to be a clear cut case of vandalism and requested in my edit summary (I have reverted this edit because it does not appear to be vandalism but done in good faith. Feel free to revert it based on editorial reasons.) and you promptly reverted with this edit summary (rv, for goodness sake...) which I am certain is not a rule or policy of the encyclopedia. I know you know how to use edit summaries Jake, and I see you asking and reminding new users to use the edit summary, so I ask you why you felt it necessary to thumb your nose at me when I specifically asked for a reason to revert this addition from a new user. How is the new user going to learn what they did wrong if we do not tell them and explain our rules and policies? Your quite proficient at explaining rules and policies when you want to be. If you believe it to be VAND then please put that in the edit summary. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "For goodness sake" was an expression of exasperation (and, I have to say, took some restraint on my part to keep it at that). I've already explained why your revert was problematic, and I felt that you showed an astonishing lack of judgement by making it.  By analogy, it was a little like returning a loaded shotgun to the toddler because another person hadn't been adequately polite when taking it away from him.  I agree that I should have entered a better edit summary, though. Jakew (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jake. I am missing the subtle distinction. Why is PubMed considered medical when others cite it, but not when I cite it? Why is PubMed considered secondary when others cite it, but primary when I cite it? I'm specifically talking about http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22269970, pmid 22269970. Thanks, TomTftobin (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom, this has been raised on the article's Talk: page, at Talk:Circumcision. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Raiding party
Hi jakew. I don't know how to use wikipedia so I apologize if I screw this up, I think this is how I can contact you. I just wanted to warn you since you maintain the wiki page for circumcision so well that there's a "rading party" coming from reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivists/comments/oia9k/trying_to_make_this_wikipedia_paragraph_on/ Even a few choice comments about yourself as per classy reddit disagreements. This group is extremely ignorant and biased, and they are working hard to poison the article to push their agenda. I just wanted to give you a heads up because they are inbound. Thanks for maintaining such a controversial article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.43.96 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for notifying me.  When we know about large-scale meatpuppetry, we can do something about it. Jakew (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Circumcision, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chlamydia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent WP:MEDRS change
Hello, I made a comment on a month old discussion which you may not have noticed. It concerns the guidelines which now strongly imply that tertiary sources cannot be used to determine balance/due weight. I'd appreciate you taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindjuicer (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)