User talk:SimonHolzman

Your edits on "Circumcision"
Hello. I'm happy to see you've taken an interest in the circumcision article. If you're new to Wikipedia, I'd highly recommend you read The five pillars of Wikipedia. You may also want to peek at:
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Regarding your specific changes to the article, I've begun a discussion on the talk page which I invite you to join. To add a comment, simply click on [edit] next to the section, add your comments at the bottom, and sign your name by typing four tildes (~). I believe that as it stands, the section has serious problems -- most of the claims are not sourced (see Wikipedia: Reliable Sources), and in one case the wrong claim is sourced. It seems like much of it states your own conclusions, rather than the conclusions of others, which around here is called original research and is very much frowned upon. This is especially the case in articles for controversial subjects, where the debate is often heated. Also, the section does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view, which is essential in any Wikipedia article. It is likely the section will be removed or heavily edited. If this happens, please don't take offense. Speaking from personal experience, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can seem unforgiving and wrong at first. Really though, they are for the benefit of all editors, and especially the encyclopedia itself. Blackworm 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision topic
Please visit the discussion.TipPt 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I refer to this edit. Blackworm (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies if my question offended you in some way, it was not intended to. If my comment about Hitler was the cause of the offense, I actually only meant it in the context that even things which are generally considered to be horrifically bad often have some redeeming feature. I was genuinely interested in your reply and hope that you will give me one. I tried to express my feelings on the subject so that you would know that I recognised that my question impinged on your privacy. If you choose not to answer, that is your choice and I respect it, but I did not remotely intend to 'attack' you in any way.SimonHolzman (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)