User talk:Edwardsville

Hello Edwardsville! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - TwoOars 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

PS: Test edits can be done in the Sandbox. - TwoOars 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for your work in Circumcision. You might find it more productive to make more actual edits and spend LESS time in Talk. They will just wear you down and revert when you're gone. Simply announce your intentions in the edit comment.

I have a honest concensus version we can paste and maintain.TipPt 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation

I would be grateful if you would not state that I have inserted my opinions into articles. You can easily verify that I have done no such thing. Jakew 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

Thank you for your advice about editing Twooars. I have a question that you may be able to help me with. I recently added quotes from the major medical associations to the article on Circumcision. They were all carefully cited back to the original source. Jakew immediately removed them. Is there any way I can charge him with vandalism? He removes the statements of the major medical associations and replaces them with his uncited personal opinions.

Edwardsville 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you can not call User:Jakew's edits vandalism. And content disputes like this happen all the time on wikipedia. Please do not take it personally. You can go to the article talk page or Jakew's talk page and discuss why he/she does not want your edits to be added and try to reach a solution. Keep your Cool and be Civil. Also remember the 3 revert rule. Do ask me if there is anything else. Cheers.

PS: Please post your messages on the Talk or Discussion pages, not to User pages as you did on mine. Thanks. :) - TwoOars 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking

I like your edits on the spanking page. You've added scholarly material and statistics and generally improved it. --Coppertwig 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from TipPt ... back working on circumcision

Jakew, avi, nand, and jayg form a cabal to promote circumcision; primarily for religious reasons.

I let them run wild for a couple months. The tactic worked. The topic is now obviously biased.

Help by coming in and reverting to the honest version (see history, or the discussion ... though someone has been violating my page too).TipPt 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Jakew 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on participating at the Circumcision page

Please continue to participate in the discussion at Talk:Circumcision. Your edits contain valuable contributions. Together with other editors we can work out better wording. I haven't had time to comment on all your edits yet. --Coppertwig 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

It is wikipedia ettiquete to inform someone if they arein danger of violating one of our policies or guidelines. Posting improper warnings, however, is a form of harrasment that is not allowed. Hope that helps. -- Avi 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hello. Comments addressed as dialogue with other people belong on user talk pages, not user pages. I moved your comments from user:Jakew to user talk:Jakew. Please address future comments to user talk pages. Thank you. -- Avi 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down.

Wikipedia is about getting along with other people, even with people who have very different ideas about things, even people who have very different ideas about how the Wikipedia rules should work. The rules don't always work the way you think they will when you read them for the first time. For example: if it were wrong for someone who is not an administrator to post a warning to you, then wouldn't some of the complaints you've posted about people also be wrong? It's very common for users to tell other users they're breaking rules. They need to do it calmly, though, and often they find out they were wrong: the other user wasn't breaking a rule after all. You do need to know about rules like WP:3RR. When someone tells you you're coming close to breaking a rule, try to think that the person is helping you. That's the rule Assume good faith. A person doesn't have to be an administrator to warn someone they're breaking rules. But, until you learn more about how things work here, it might be a good idea for you to calm down for a while before warning anyone, or ask a more experienced user for advice about whether to do it and how to do it. I think any warnings should be in the most polite way possible, and often it's better to just not say anything. Everybody needs to act in ways that will not escalate into fights. --Coppertwig 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edwardsville, I totally agree what Coppertwig already said. Jakew was not wrong in posting that 3RR caution. A good practice is to go and discuss on the talk page, the first time your edits are reverted. I am not saying your edits were right or wrong, because I did not go through them. But anyway, if all this is causing you too much stress, take a break or edit another, less contentious, article. If you need constant guidance, you can request someone to adopt you. And always remember that it is difficult to gauge emotions when something is written down, rather than spoken. Often it is surprisingly easy to misinterpret good natured advice as malicious. And while it does sting a bit when someone reverts your edits, it is usually not personal and most people are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Take care. - TwoOars 18:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since others have already explained the Wikiquette issues I won't repeat them, but I'm sorry you were offended by the note I left above. That wasn't my intention. Jakew 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editwarring.

These three edits of yours at Circumcision, [1] [2] [3] appear to me to be edit warring, which is not proper Wikipedian behaviour and can result in disciplinary action such as being blocked from editing. They come very close to violating the WP:3RR policy, which you've already been warned about. Note where it says at the 3RR page, "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day. ..." It's really more productive to carry on discussion on the talk page and only edit the article when you're confident that your changes will be accepted. Some of your changes might be accepted if you discuss them thoroughly on the talk page first. Repeatedly reverting the same edits wastes other peoples' time, annoys people and detracts from the cooperative atmosphere needed for reasonable and productive editing.

I hope you won't be discouraged by this, because you have valuable contributions to make. Note for example that the AAP quote you provided, "There is considerable evidence that...", is now part of the article. Note too, however, that I didn't put it in by repeatedly reverting; I put it in by discussing it on the talk page, showing respect for other editors, and only editing it in when I was reasonably confident that the edit was acceptable to the other editors.

Please don't edit in the same changes again unless you first gain consensus for those changes on the talk page. --Coppertwig 22:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please use informative edit summaries that describe the edit you're doing and/or explains the reason for it. See Help:Edit summary. --Coppertwig 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Edwardsville for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Jakew 14:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re my reversion

Although I reverted the edit at Circumcision when it was posted via account 74.230.142.124, that reversion is not an indication that I oppose the changes. Rather, it indicates that I oppose the way the changes were presented. I haven't had a chance to form an opinion yet about the changes themselves. I'm waiting for you to post a message at Talk:Circumcision along these lines: Does anyone have any objection to the countries being put into alphabetical order? (clarifying in what part of the article). I would also like to delete these words (quote exact words) and insert these words (quote exact words, and specify where they would go). What do people think about that? Before posting such a proposal, you should also re-read the relevant sections of the talk page and make sure you notice any concerns anyone has raised related to such an edit. It would be a good idea to demonstrate that you have read those concerns, and either modify your proposal or present logical arguments to support it. I look forward to seeing the proposed edits displayed on the talk page where I can see them conveniently and discuss them. --Coppertwig 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think your block has expired and you can edit now. See WP:AN3RR. --Coppertwig 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're getting an autoblock message, post it here and we can take care of it for you. According to the block log, you should be good to go now. -- Avi 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My upset was that I was blocked at all, when I did not break the rule. As I have said, I know for a fact now who made the last revert and he is in Florida - it should be easy enough to establish that my ISP is an Illinois ISP and his ISP is a Florida ISP.

Edwardsville 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the WP:3RR policy carefully, you will see that you can get blocked even if you do not do more than 3 reverts in one day. Even if you do fewer than 4, you can be blocked if your reverts are considered disruptive. In this case, you were reverting exactly the same material; you were not providing edit summaries nor explaining your edit; you were ignoring at least one message on the article talk page asking you personally to do differently. jossi might have taken these things into account when deciding to block: that is, jossi might have figured that even if there was no sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, the 3 reverts you did were probably enough for a block anyway.

If you know the other users, their relationship with you may fit the definition of meatpuppet, given below. Note that on the sockpuppet page it says that for some purposes sockpuppets and meatpuppets are treated the same. In other words, maybe if they act like sockpuppets, you can get blocked. Welcome to Wikipedia. As jossi quotes User:Kizor, "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." :-)

By the way, it would be helpful if you would format your messages on talk pages (especially article talk pages such as Talk:Circumcision) by putting a number of colons at the beginning of each paragraph as described here. It helps make it easier to keep track of who said what and to easily find messages when searching back through the page. --Coppertwig 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry

At Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Edwardsville, you state that "I have been emailing poeple with my concerns and encouraging them to get involved with the Wikipedia article. ... If I can get any more people, local or distant, to contribute the article, I assure you that I will do so."

I strongly advise against this, because in doing so you have already violated Wikipedia policy.

Some users begin editing on Wikipedia because another user has recruited them to push a certain agenda. Though such users are distinct people, it is difficult to tell them apart from sock puppets. These users are sometimes called meatpuppets, and are a kind of single purpose account.

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

(see WP:MEAT). Jakew 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except I didn't recruit meatpuppets and it is insulting of you to suggest that I did. As with the accusation of sockpuppetry, which I still have not received an apology for, I suggest that you gather some evidence before you make wild accusations against other people.

Edwardsville 13:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardsville, please see the quotation above, which explains what is meant by meatpuppetry. Also please follow the link and review the entire policy.

You have stated that "If a lot of our points are in agreement, that will be because I have been emailing poeple with my concerns and encouraging them to get involved with the Wikipedia article."

So which is it? Have these people started posting because you have emailed them and encouraged them to support your concerns? Or not? Jakew 14:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please read what I have been saying abou this Jakew. Repeating it only to have you ignore it is getting tiresome. Now, will you stop making wild accusations or are you going to keep it up? Hey, I still haven't gotten that apology for the sockpuppet accusation? Or have you just forgotten about that now that it turns out that I can prove it is nonsense?

Edwardsville 14:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardsville, what you've said you're doing fits the definition of meatpuppetry, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you think it doesn't fit the definition you might want to try explaining why you think it doesn't fit. However, don't be surprised if nobody agrees with you on that, particularly an admin making a ruling about it.

I don't think you should expect any apology about being suspected of sockpuppetry. First of all, having and expressing suspicions is not necessarily something one needs to apologize for even if the suspicions turn out to be unfounded. Secondly, as I've explained, meatpuppets are treated the same as sockpuppets for some purposes, for the very reason that they're difficult to tell apart. It would not surprise me if it turns out that admins treat friends who act like meatpuppets the same as meatpuppets for the same reason, even if it turns out that one can argue on some technicality that they aren't quite meatpuppets. Thirdly, if the reason you were suspected of sockpuppetry is simply that you were doing meatpuppetry, which is a violation of policy -- well, then, I see no need for an apology.

I don't think anyone is going to take the time to do phone calls and stuff to verify your identity. Wikipedia admins have other demands on their time, and since sockpuppets and meatpuppets are treated the same, there's no need.

I understand your frustration and sense of urgency. However, I really think you can do more to improve the article by patiently and carefully reading proposals on the article talk page, searching for references, composing draft wording for the article and proposing it on the talk page, etc. rather than sending emails to other people about it. There's a lot of work to be done. --Coppertwig 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this edit [4] of mine was addressed to your friends, not to you, and I'm not sure it quite fits in with Wikipedia meatpuppet policy. Please learn the policies by reading the policy pages carefully, not from this particular message. --Coppertwig 19:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't fit meatpuppetry. I never asked anyone to give my opinion. I directed them to the page and showed them the different versions. I urged them to get involved. What opinions they gave where entirely up to them.

Edwardsville 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere in the meatpuppet policy where it says that it makes any difference whether you ask people to give your opinion or not. Read it again, carefully, and read your own messages where you stated your purpose in sending out those emails. --Coppertwig 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

I'm not sure, but I think this is what happened with the Google Scholar question:

17:57 you posted a question.
Between 17:57 and 18:06, Jakew began editing, to answer your question.
18:06 you deleted the question.
18:13 Jakew may have clicked "preview" and seen a page with your question and his answer, then Jakew clicked "save page".

I think what happened then was that the wiki software tried to make a page that included both your edit and Jakew's edit. Anyway, at 18:13 a version of the page was created which had Jakew's answer but did not have your question.

Jakew may not have wanted it to appear that he had answered a question that did not exist, so he then quoted your question.

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially the sub-sub-section "own comments". By the way, I've been meaning to suggest to you that it would be a good idea to spend more time reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A good place to start is the links to policies and guidelines that people put in comments to you. It's good to re-read them from time to time. --Coppertwig 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "vandalism"

Re your message [5] at Talk:Circumcision: user Jayjg has not been editing Wikipedia since Aug. 4. You can find this out by going to the user page and clicking "user contributions" at the left.

I struck out some of my comments because I'm now unsure whether the material the user deleted fits the defition of WP:VAND after all. See the exchange between me and Jakew about another edit, on my talk page and his. --Coppertwig 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What letter?

You said: "My position is that the letter should not be cited. [6]". Maybe I missed it, but I don't see a citation to the specific letter anywhere on that talk page. Would you please give me the full citation (title, author's name, date, name of periodical, etc.) of the letter you are commenting about, or tell me precisely where to find that information? Thank you. (If you tell me a search string on a web page e.g. Circumcision I can find something with control-F, if it's unique on that page.) --Coppertwig 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: [7] "As for the letter, it should not be in the article at all.", but you still haven't told me what letter you're talking about. --Coppertwig 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 48 hours, because evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Edwardsville shows that you have used sockpuppets or meatpuppets to edit disruptively at Circumcision and Talk:Circumcision. If you believe this block is unjustified you may appeal by placing the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Murray Bridge Christian College

I have nominated Murray Bridge Christian College, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Bridge Christian College. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

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

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

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

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]