User talk:Garycompugeek/Archive 2 Jun09-Jun10

Your concerns

You are concerned that since Jake has been published in peer-reviewed journals that he has a COI, but an SPA such as Blackworm (check his contribution) is not an issue? I'm not certain I understand you. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avi. I appreciate your interest in my concerns for the project. Comparing both Jake's and Blackworm's contribs using Soxred93's tools [1] yes they could both be construed as different SPAs. Being an SPA alone is really no big deal as long as the community is aware and the editor is reasonable however it may point to a COI. It appears that Jake is heavily involved in trying to convince others of circumcisions merits on website forums (and his own website Circs.org), letters to the editor and collaboration on papers with other notable pro circumcision scientist. To borrow a Navy term he appears to be flying under false colors.

On Jake user page "In 2003, I became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision. My research has continued and intensified since, and I now consider myself something of an expert on the subject. I've published several letters and articles on the subject in academic journals.

I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision, but am opposed to misleading information. As the American Academy of Pediatrics states, "[t]o make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision."

The beginning sounds like an admission of a COI however he goes on to say he is neutral on the matter. This is clearly not true and if you follow Jake's edit histories you will clearly see a pattern support for circumcision.

Considering he has the most edits [2] to Circumcision and its related articles could be a serious COI NPOV issue for the project. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Gary. May I respectfully disagree? Jake may have a point of view regarding circumcision, but in my experience his edits have consistently been within wikipedia policy, both content related and conduct related. From what I see, he is not trying to convince people to circumcise; rather, he is engaged in preventing others from giving too much or too little undue weight to various studies, preventing inflammatory descriptions, and preventing the article from becoming a mouthpiece for EITHER side. In my experience, it has been people who are against circumcision, those who term it the "bloody mutilation of babies penises," or a barbaric ritual, who attempt to have the article lean towards a view that they agree with. The ultimate article for NPOV purposes should be one where the point-of-view of the editor cannot be determined from the text; not one where we have a clear bias against or towards the procedure. There are more blatant violations (the classic "mutilation" vandalism that gets reverted immediately) and there are more surreptitious violations, (for example highlighting particular studies above and beyond their respective merits). In my experience with the article, and I have been editing it for years -- AND I may be biased, it has been editors such as Tremollo, TipPt, Dabljuh, etc. who have tried to skew the article; not Jake, who does have an encyclopædic knowledge of the scientific literature on the subject. Here is another difference I perceive in this issue. I have never seen Jake make the points that children, or adults, should be circumcised; rather, I beleive his point, (and certainly my point of view) is that they, or their parents, especially as regards the religious sacrament, should be allowed to. The point of view of the other side is that parents should not be allowed to circumcise their children, even in cases of religious sacrament (although, to be honest, that [-legal prohibition of circumcision even, and especially in religious cases-] is an antisemitic technique [-has been used to attack the Jewish faith-] dating back to the Greeks, Romans, and early Christians, not anything new [-used thousands of years ago by the aforementioned cultures-]).

Another point (and please excuse the stream-of-conciousness) regarding your discussions with Blackworm, they may be construed as "since I cannot get the best of so-and-so in a content debate, let's try and disqualify him/her on the basis of some outside reason." Looking at Soxred's tool and the "Top" articles and talk pages, by my calculations, jake has over 6000 edits outside of Circumcision-related materials. Blackworm has less than 2000. On a percentage basis, Jake is <50% circumcision, BW is >50%. Of course, a better analysis could be done with the complete data dump, but this is reasonable.

In closing, I think you should take a step back and consider why you are following this train of thought, especially in light of how your arguments actually apply more to people with whom you are currently identifying in this discussion, as opposed to Jake, and whether or not you may be succumbing to the lure of argumentum ad hominem where proper arguments to content have not succeeded. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Avi has clarified here a statement at the end of the first paragraph in the above comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts on this Avi. First let me assure you I am not trying to get Jake out of the way. Yes Jake and I butt heads once in a while (seems all the pro and con circ editors do but that is natural) but I have no content dispute with him at the moment and this is nothing personal. If anything I would say that we have learned some respect for each other and work better together because of it. I also agree with you about the blatant NPOV that flavors many editors post and our words as editors should be as neutral as possible (Neutrality and working with issues that have pros and cons is a difficult process). I am more concerned with systematic bias of a subject over the long term. To restate a point made on talk:Circumcision advocacy, Blackworm and Tremello, to my knowledge, have never claimed to be neutral about circumcision. My perception of them is con circ editors against routine infant circumcision and circumcision that is not medically necessary. Jakes high edit count of circumcision and related articles could be considered the fox guarding the hen house. Myself and other have accused him in the past of gatekeeping and ownership issues and his editing style slips into tendentious editing on occasion. These are all warning signs of a COI. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When a reliable source says "medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven," and Jakew's edit to the article quotes "medical harms [...] have not been unequivocally proven"[3] instead, we have a case where the article indeed does not reveal the editor's point of view -- however, a reading of the SOURCE reveals the Wikipedia editor's point of view; in this case, omitting words that detract from the pro-circumcision agenda. Also, when User:Avraham equates opposition to circumcision with antisemitism above, as User:Jayjg and others did before him, and simultaneously defends Jayjg's outright accusation of antisemitism of Wikipedia editors by claiming it wasn't intended -- well, we now see that Avraham himself feels the same way. How sad that some insist that others who believe in the "rights to bodily integrity and to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health," as written by UNICEF[4], must also bear some special, specific animosity toward Jews. It is that kind of means of attack that is so incredibly reprehensible in User:Avraham's case. Coming from a senior Wikipedia official, it is absolutely disgusting. Blackworm (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that I find it somewhat amusing that Avi apparently counts the edits to the article I've editted the most times, female genital cutting, as being part of ">50% circumcision," while simultaneously implying elsewhere that female genital cutting is a completely different topic than circumcision (and indeed enforcing the complete absence of any discussion of female genital cutting, commonly known as "female circumcision" or "the circumcision of females," from circumcision and all related articles). How... contradictory. Blackworm (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seen as though we are not discussing Gary but Jakew, we should continue this discussion on the user in question's talkpage. It seems rude to talk about someone behind their back. I have copied the current discussion and added my 2 cents. Discussion: User_talk:Jakew#User:_Jakew:__Discussion_of_behaviour.2C_influence_on_circumcision-related_articles_and_possible_conflict_of_interest Tremello22 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have brought the matter up to Jake (and I kinda assumed he was aware of this) and had planned on going to his talk page next and linking the discussions. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tremollo, I am talking about Gary to Gary; I am not talking to Jake. Secondly, Gary, I hope you understood that I was not calling you, or anyone, antisemitic, but bringing up the fact that the ancient Greeks and Romans did prohibit circumcision specifically to attack the Jewish faith. Blackworm has made this misunderstanding before, and this time, I fear that it is deliberate; another method of argumentum ad hominem because regular discussions fail. Oh well. -- Avi (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Avi I do not believe you were calling me antisemitic. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, and, as I said elsewhere, if you or any other party to this discussion felt that I was referring directly to you, you have my deepest apologies. -- Avi (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you're just referring indirectly to us. Your statement that you believe opposition to circumcision is by nature antisemitic is now on the record. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Avi, the subject is Jake. If Gary has a problem with Jake - he should address Jake. It is evident that me and Blackworm and a number of other editors over the years also have a problem with Jake. So why are you being Jake's intermediary? You seem to be trying to avoid discussion of Jake's behaviour. Is this your way of not addressing the true issue? I think I know why you don't want to go deeply into this - it is because deep down you know we are right. That is why you are treading so carefully: Thank you for your reply Gary. May I respectfully disagree? Cut the insincerity. Tremello22 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded on Tremollo's page. No need to inundate Gary with multiple streams. -- Avi (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic

I'm sorry Blackworm decided to hijack the above discussion, and despite multiple explanations, continues to deliberately try to paint me as claiming the bunch of you are antisemitic. He tried this tack with Jayjg once before too; thankfully it was seen for what is was then as well. Back to the matter at hand, you wrote:

I am more concerned with systematic bias of a subject over the long term. To restate a point made on talk:Circumcision advocacy, Blackworm and Tremello, to my knowledge, have never claimed to be neutral about circumcision. My perception of them is con circ editors against routine infant circumcision and circumcision that is not medically necessary. Jakes high edit count of circumcision and related articles could be considered the fox guarding the hen house. Myself and other have accused him in the past of gatekeeping and ownership issues and his editing style slips into tendentious editing on occasion. These are all warning signs of a COI.

— Garycompugeek (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it can be perceived as you so describe. But I think that it is a matter of perception. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines that relate to disputed articles do so in a manner that is supposed to minimize changes to the article and force compromise and consensus-seeking on the talk page, which leads to the "inertia" for lack of a better word that many such articles (e.g. Macedonia/Greece, Israel/Palestine, Fringe Science, to name a few highly contested areas) display. To those who are trying to implement a disputed change, it can be seen as someone "guarding the henhouse." And I've been on that side of discussions a number of times too(e.g. discussions I partook relating to the article on Rashid Khalidi took us something like six months, a failed MEDCAB, and a full MEDCOM discussion; but in the end, we decided on one paragraph of a few sentences and some painstakingly constructed references). On the other hand, consider the perspective of the opposite side: policy indicates that significant disputed changes need to be discussed and agreed upon (consensus) to be implemented. It is not as if the article is being hijacked to display patently absurd information such as "the earth is flat;" rather, at least how I perceive it, the arguments are more subtle regarding how should various studies be represented, which papers and/or studies should be included, and in what order. When do we replace older studies with newer ones, and should we even do that when outcomes may be so different. How to handle "current events" as it were (HIV-related studies, for example). In this case, continued disputed changes can be just as frustrating to either side. Lastly, there are the long-term perennial discussions (circumcision vs. male circumcision may be the most intense). To compromise on wording and finding a neutral middle ground for representation is good; compromise for the sake of compromise that leaves the article in worse shape than before we started is bad. At this point, I think it would behoove us all to pick the 2 or 4 most pressing discussions, and try and enlist (on wiki via wikiproject talk pages and RfC's) more "new" input, and we may need a full MedCom eventually. -- Avi (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach

Hi Gary! I put up the {{fact}} because I thought an inline citation should be there. When the reader comes upon the section with the inkblots, he won't know what the RS for them is, without a citation there. Isn't that why we have inline citations in Wikipedia, instead of just a list of references at the end? Interested in your thoughts. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bob. The ISBN is sufficient. See Talk:Rorschach test#Is source for inkblots reliable? Garycompugeek (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

COI tag

The tag was placed to defame a living person, who happens to be a wikipedia editor, look at the history. this is covered by BLP, and I request you revert. -- Avi (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag was placed over concern of a COI (probably could have been done more tactfully) but you could argue the same thing on any COI. Another editor supported the tag and I have have lent my support to its placement. Do you really beleive that I don't feel Jake has a COI after what has transpired? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Request review of administrative action, and I think your COI is just as large as Jake's, since you continue to conflate COI with POV. You both have strong POV's, I do not see either of you with a COI, unless you are employed by a genital-integrity special interest group? -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes well I know your view and you should know I disagree with you. You are too close to this Avi and should not have protected the page but attempted to get another admin involved as I have. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to BLP's, we act first. However, that is why I immediately requested a review in the appropriate place. You are more than welcome to comment there, I informed you of it directly after I posted. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Avi. I have also lodged a complaint at the COI notice board and requested uninvolved mediation. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wdl1961

Hi again, LHvU. Thanks much for your assistance with Vegavairbob. I'm having trouble effectively engaging with a user — Wdl1961 — with a long track record of disruptive edits accompanied by incoherent discussion (or none at all) on the relevant talk pages (see his user and talk pages, as well as the bizarre, incoherent edits he's made to my talk page [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. His present fixation is removal of valid maintenance templates from articles without correcting the problems the templates indicate, despite being asked, told, and warned to stop. Present targets of this behaviour include Bumper (automobile) and Engine control unit. I've filed for another WP:3O, reported his continued vandalism following final (level-4) warning at AIV, and co-certified an RFC/U (with plenty of diffs). Can you please assist and/or suggest what else I might try? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already blocked for 48 hours per your AIV report - I noted the similarities to Vegavairbob in not following consensus in my block message; do you think they might be the same editor attempting to harass you? It is a bit depressing to think someone may wish to irritate a stranger because of a dispute over an article, but it does happen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can all but guarantee Wdl1961 won't change his behaviour one iota once the block expires. I'm not sure I think he's a VVB sock; his meatpuppetlike aping of VVB's edits appears to be opportunistically aimed at what he thinks will perturb me right now; I've been cleaning up after his strange, incoherent babbling and odd fixations for quite awhile. See Talk:Poppet valve, for example. I think there's something the matter with the guy; his behaviour is overall really strange. Take a look at how he carefully copies bits and scraps from talk pages (and [ sections of my contributions]...weird kind of stalking, eh?). Look at this, the least-incoherent comment I think I've ever seen him post. It's still pretty detached from reality, and appears to contain natural and artificial MPOV flavouring. This is more typical, and less coherent (but no less tendentious). Here is one of his more overt attempt to sic admins on me (for…um…for…uh…???). What's the best approach to someone like this, d'you figure? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is the "...encyclopedia anyone can edit" I think the best response would be to ignore everything accept obvious violations of the policies and then report them as you would any vandal/ill intended editor. Not raising to the bait is the best long term solution to anyone trying to get a reaction - although in the short term they may try harder. I would also suggest changing your mindset, so you simply consider the other party as a well meaning but wrong editor rather than an adversary. This may help you deal with the irritation factor better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is much in accord with my present approach. I don't see Wdl1961 as an adversary, though he seems to see me as such. As they say, it takes two to tango, and I'm not dancin'. I'll just carry on treating his disruptions, when they occur, the same as anyone else's. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

i apologize for not signing the item above. it was not intentional . i did not think you would need additional comments or evaluation or explanation Wdl1961 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I have been following the threads of your RFC and user talk page since I commented on it. Pasting some of them onto my talk page eludes me to your meaning. Please, simply ask direct questions and will do my best to answer you. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xeno^talk

I have not agreed to this and do not wish to be a party. I feel consensus has been very clear in the matter. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thanks

Thanks for the support - I just speak as I find, and I do not succumb to bullying - I just like to see things represented fairly, and at the moment this doesn't seem to be happening. Mish (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Re the fourth and fifth sentence and the edit summary here: Please avoid these types of comments, which tend to lead to polarization and which don't tend to foster a cooperative atmosphere. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's disingenous to pretend our POV's do not flavor our edits, and I don't think there was anything uncivil about this. On the contrary, the purpose was to try and illustrate opposing POV's so they may be dealt with constructively. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Our POVs do flavour our edits; my message wasn't intended to pretend otherwise. Maybe your message would have been easier to take if it had said "a bit more" instead of "a bit". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues

Hi, Gary. Please see Talk:Circumcision#Recent law-related addition or User_talk:Walkabout12#Legal_issues. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychological tests on Commons

I thought you might be interested to know I've created a new category about Psychological tests on Wikimedia Commons, on which I'm trying to gather all the Commons (or other free) images I can find of or relating to psychological tests, and you might perhaps help spotting more relevant images to add. --LjL (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Did you at least appreciate my edit summary? . -- Avi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I did :) It was quite complimentary and gave me a chuckle. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the "my pal" quip, I figure that was a manifestation of defensiveness, not malice. Well, at least I hope so :) -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re changing direct quotes

Re "please do not change direct quotes", that is usually unacceptable, as it misrepresents a source. However, in this instance Lamber111 had actually replaced one direct quote with another direct quote from the same source, which is an acceptable way of changing a direct quote. I'd agree with your revert, as we've had long-standing consensus to include that quote there, and major changes should follow discussion & agreement. But I think your edit summary was potentially misleading. Jakew (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it could be seen that way and I could have worded it differently. Something like "Revert good faith edit of long standing direct quote", but I was quite pressed for time at the moment and just jotted down the first thing that popped into my mind :) Garycompugeek (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you refer me to the discussion you've already had on this quote? Because, I can tell you that it may appear to be a perfect representation of the source to a circumcision insider, but to the casual wiki user the quote carries a heavy and inaccurate bias as a result of removing the context of the quoted source. Lamber111 (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to dig through the archives for you. There have been many discussions about it and another editor would have reverted you if I had not. The basic gist of those discussions is that is the best secondary source quote we have that encompasses broad policies of major medical organizations. If you disagree feel free to bring the matter up on Talk:Circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Answer of you message....by annon

look, its been 4 or more years i am here i know what to say there. if you read my comments there you will notice that these questions are still to be answered by them...:& based on facts. i know the FAQ everything there but i have asked the question they or you should answer. you just cant try to ban or cotrol everything while roaming arround. abuse of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

You were referring to this? You're welcome :P It's great to have links to the relevant discussions at the top, so that people can avoid going through the same arguments over and over again (I'm sure some will insist on doing that anyway, though). The box is not really useful at the WP:RM page, so that trick keeps it from displaying there. It wouldn't work if the bot updated Wikipedia:Requested moves directly, but since it populates a subpage and transcludes it onto the main RM page, the <noinclude> tags keep the sidebox from being included. Jafeluv (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean it didn't work? If you look at Wikipedia:Requested moves, the sidebox isn't displayed there, which was what I was trying to do. What was it that you wanted to do with the sidebox? Jafeluv (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. The bot only updates the page every hour or so, so changes aren't visible immediately. Glad to help :) Jafeluv (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

• Please note spelling of "hypocrisy", not "hypocracy". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet my own personal spell checker. Wonderful and thanks... you might want to folow me around I make lot's of spelling mistakes. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Careless revert

Gary, what on earth were you thinking when you made this revert?

Among other problems, your revert modified six direct quotes, changing them such that they were no longer faithful quotations. On top of this, it altered the very citations for four sources, changing the titles of the sources from the correct titles. This is inexcusable.

• Modified the title of the source, "Falling incidence of penis cancer in an uncircumcised population (Denmark 1943-90)"
• Changed a direct quote from the AAP: "Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."
• Changed the title of another source: "Sensation and Sexual Arousal in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Men"
• Changed another direct quote: "the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis."
• Changed another direct quote: "The percentage of circumcised men reporting a diagnosis of genital warts was significantly higher than uncircumcised men, 4.5% (95% CI, 3.6%–5.6%) versus 2.4% (95% CI, 1.5%–4.0%)"
• Changed another title of a source: "Clinical Presentation of Genital Warts Among Circumcised and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic"
• Changed another title: "The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children"
• Changed yet another direct quote: "Balanitis was diagnosed in 2.3% of circumcised men and in 12.5% of uncircumcised men."
• ...and another direct quote: "...made a strong case for leaving boys uncircumcised, allowing the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans to take place gradually, and instructing boys in proper hygiene. This obviates the need for 'preventive' circumcision."
• ...and yet another direct quote: "... Evidence regarding the association between cervical cancer and a woman’s partner being circumcised or uncircumcised, and evidence regarding the effect of circumcision on sexual functioning is inconclusive. ..."

Please be more careful in future. I hope you will have the good grace to revert yourself this time. Jakew (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My purpose was clear in the edit summary. Replied here. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Gary, it wasn't. Your edit summary commented only on the absence of an edit summary in the edit that you reverted. You didn't explain why you were reverting, and you most certainly didn't provide anything approaching a justification for misquoting sources and introducing errors in citations (it is doubtful whether a justification could exist, but the fact remains that you didn't provide one). That's why I asked you to be more careful in future. Jakew (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop badgering me. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the advise. I'm cool. I'll probably have to install the POV tag next (after Jakew reverts). Please help them know it's serious; they need to work (or at least stop obstructing) to help fix the article to get rid of the tag.Zinbarg (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert to neutral in Circumcision

Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([[10]]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.204.241 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)