This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Religion and circumcision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There is an article called "Female genital mutilation". The disambiguation page defines it as:
"... any procedure that involves injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."
The introductory paragraph states that it is *also* called "female circumcision".
For non-sexist consistency this article should, it would seem, follow the same standards. I.e. it should be called "Male genital mutilation" and mention that the practice is also called "male circumcision". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.101.231 ( talk) 20:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Which is why I deleted the sentence.
Moreover, there are several errors in the text, both grammatical & informational. AneGaarden ( talk) 23:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Hotpass105: and I have been involved in a recent series of edits and reverts. At first I though Hotpass105 was just a vandal and would leave if I reverted, but has not. I would like to get some opinions from other editors. What do you think? Should their edits stay? Editor2020 ( talk) 18:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Editor2020,
First, your comments "At first I though Hotpass105 was just a vandal and would leave if I reverted, but has not." are both disrespectful and dismissive. I would ask you to refer to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism for instructions on making a proper claim.
Per Wikipedia rules, I have raised this issue on your talk page. You must respond according to Wikipedia rules, "Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page." This quote is from the
Template:Uw-ewsoft.
You are obliged to
1) Address me in resolving apparent conflicts
2) Cease reverting this page until either a) Some consensus can be reached b) An administrator takes action to resolve this issue
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." [ [4]]
I will restore my changes, and advise you cease your errant behavior until some agreement can be reached. Otherwise, please feel free to contribute.
Best,
Dayton Hotpass105 ( talk)hotpass105
__________
@ Jayjg:,
As @
Editor2020: failed to raise the issue in talk, I assumed his changes were either in error, or it that the account was a bot. Ultimately, I made meaningful and significant changes to my contributions such that the earlier reverted edits are a separate issue. Nevertheless, the responsibility lies in the hands of the person raising the objection to 1) Clearly state their objection 2) Reference the contributions and explain how/why they are in violation of some rule. Simply disagreeing with the contributions are not justification for reverting.
Hotpass105 ( talk)
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 11:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Religion and circumcision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There is an article called "Female genital mutilation". The disambiguation page defines it as:
"... any procedure that involves injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."
The introductory paragraph states that it is *also* called "female circumcision".
For non-sexist consistency this article should, it would seem, follow the same standards. I.e. it should be called "Male genital mutilation" and mention that the practice is also called "male circumcision". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.101.231 ( talk) 20:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Which is why I deleted the sentence.
Moreover, there are several errors in the text, both grammatical & informational. AneGaarden ( talk) 23:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Hotpass105: and I have been involved in a recent series of edits and reverts. At first I though Hotpass105 was just a vandal and would leave if I reverted, but has not. I would like to get some opinions from other editors. What do you think? Should their edits stay? Editor2020 ( talk) 18:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Editor2020,
First, your comments "At first I though Hotpass105 was just a vandal and would leave if I reverted, but has not." are both disrespectful and dismissive. I would ask you to refer to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism for instructions on making a proper claim.
Per Wikipedia rules, I have raised this issue on your talk page. You must respond according to Wikipedia rules, "Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page." This quote is from the
Template:Uw-ewsoft.
You are obliged to
1) Address me in resolving apparent conflicts
2) Cease reverting this page until either a) Some consensus can be reached b) An administrator takes action to resolve this issue
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." [ [4]]
I will restore my changes, and advise you cease your errant behavior until some agreement can be reached. Otherwise, please feel free to contribute.
Best,
Dayton Hotpass105 ( talk)hotpass105
__________
@ Jayjg:,
As @
Editor2020: failed to raise the issue in talk, I assumed his changes were either in error, or it that the account was a bot. Ultimately, I made meaningful and significant changes to my contributions such that the earlier reverted edits are a separate issue. Nevertheless, the responsibility lies in the hands of the person raising the objection to 1) Clearly state their objection 2) Reference the contributions and explain how/why they are in violation of some rule. Simply disagreeing with the contributions are not justification for reverting.
Hotpass105 ( talk)
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 11:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)