In a distant galaxy, two leaders were discussing the end of a long galactic war. During a tense moment on treaty negotiations, a freak acoustic wormhole opened up and carried words originating from Earth, "be careful not to demand too much evidence lest you be called upon to substantiate the myriad of anti-circumcision speculation". In the alien tongue, purely by phonetic chance, this was the most horrible insult and would lead their galaxy to another two centuries of galactic war.
Welcome to my user page. Aside from reading
Douglas Adams, lately I've been keeping a close eye on the terrible Wikipedia actions of
User:Robert the Bruce, which I've paraphrased in my introductory paragraph. Some of his actions verge on infuriating, but most of them are just humorous.
In addition to accusing me of feigning neutrality to trick admins, and then turning around and "proving" I'm not (I never said I was), RTB has been making trouble and failing to justify his edits (a list of his edit summaries provided below).
I have asked him several times to share Wikipedia with others, and RTB has a wonderful time insisting:
My positions do not "deserve equal time"
Genital integrity is a "lunatic extremist view" and has "psychosexual motivation"
He also has vandalized my user page. I hope somebody is keeping tabs on him.
Some of RTB's excellent rationalizations
All of these
edit summaries were made by
User:Robert the Bruce or his past account on Wikipedia. I just could not contain myself reading them. Get some popcorn folks, these are good.
24 Sep 2004
Foreskin (Be carefully not to demand too much evidence lest you be called upon to substantiate the myriad of anti-circumcision speculation)
29 Sep 2004
Frenulum (This is nothing but wild eyed speculation - deleted)
30 Sep 2004
Smegma (My dear Theresa, the connection between lysozyme and smegma is pretty dubious)
30 Sep 2004
Frenulum (If every bit of speculation has to be included where would we end up - delete)
1 Oct 2004
Frenulum (Fringe opinion has no place in an encyclopedia)
1 Oct 2004
Penile cancer (Theresa, your revert was a deliberate misrepresentation of the references. Please show where in refs 1 & 2 it states what you reverted to - this is wikicrime)
2 Oct 2004
Foreskin restoration (If there are nutters among them then why should that not be stated and stated clearly?)
3 Oct 2004
Frenulum (Psycho sexual content must be supported with credible references and proof to be inserted.)
3 Oct 2004
Frenulum (Will you please stop misrepresenting my opinion. The article is not mainstream opinion but rather from the lunatic fringe. It does not deserve mention.)
1 Nov 2004
Foreskin fetish (Off topic stuff deleted - Michael this article is about the perversion of foreskin fetishism, lets keep the focus tight shall we?)
3 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (Rv: DanP please don't attempt to use this article to push your POV - this is not supposed to be a promotional site for foreskin restoration. I think you need to accept this.)
5 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (Sorry DanP this article is no place to promote Foreskin restoration and hide the side that would rather not see exposed. Revert to previous JakeW version)
6 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (logical deductions are not merely the thoughts of "some" - psychosexual is just that and not physical or anatomical - lets not confuse this)
6 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (→Emotional and Psychological Aspects - The evidence is that half of foreskin restorers have mental problems - Psychiatric therefore is appropriate)
7 Nov 2004
Genital modification and mutilation (Sorry Dan just about anything is better than allowing you to lead the march back to rabid anti-circumcison POV, either by stealth, by proxy or "in your face")
14 Nov 2004
Male circumcision (This is fascinating. We need to cast our minds back to when there were desperate attempts to present CIRP as neutral. Now suddenly DanB can see clearly in such matters. Worth a laugh.)
21 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (Once again the bizarre concept that more is better)
21 Nov 2004
Phimosis (Deleting trash does not need explanation. Who gives a flying fart what 'Organizations that oppose circumcision" think?)
24 Nov 2004
Balanitis (Sadly Van Howe is a throughly discredited source. Find another respctable one please.)
29 Nov 2004
Balanitis (Please don't cite Van Howe - his methodologies are proven to be weak and his findings are not worth the paper they are printed on)
7 Dec 2004
Clitoris (Sorry Dan but I don'think that adds to the quality of the article ... a bit more research needed maybe?)
8 Dec 2004
Foreskin restoration (→Emotional and psychological aspects - You can state why "Psychiatric" is an inappropriate word?)
8 Dec 2004
Foreskin restoration (→Emotional and psychological aspects - There is beyond doubt a psychiatric dimension to this ... I wonder why you wish to deny this?)
13 Dec 2004
Medical analysis of circumcision (Rv - if he is involved in anti-circumcision activism, then he must be an anti-circumcision activist. We require factual stuff here remember?)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a distant galaxy, two leaders were discussing the end of a long galactic war. During a tense moment on treaty negotiations, a freak acoustic wormhole opened up and carried words originating from Earth, "be careful not to demand too much evidence lest you be called upon to substantiate the myriad of anti-circumcision speculation". In the alien tongue, purely by phonetic chance, this was the most horrible insult and would lead their galaxy to another two centuries of galactic war.
Welcome to my user page. Aside from reading
Douglas Adams, lately I've been keeping a close eye on the terrible Wikipedia actions of
User:Robert the Bruce, which I've paraphrased in my introductory paragraph. Some of his actions verge on infuriating, but most of them are just humorous.
In addition to accusing me of feigning neutrality to trick admins, and then turning around and "proving" I'm not (I never said I was), RTB has been making trouble and failing to justify his edits (a list of his edit summaries provided below).
I have asked him several times to share Wikipedia with others, and RTB has a wonderful time insisting:
My positions do not "deserve equal time"
Genital integrity is a "lunatic extremist view" and has "psychosexual motivation"
He also has vandalized my user page. I hope somebody is keeping tabs on him.
Some of RTB's excellent rationalizations
All of these
edit summaries were made by
User:Robert the Bruce or his past account on Wikipedia. I just could not contain myself reading them. Get some popcorn folks, these are good.
24 Sep 2004
Foreskin (Be carefully not to demand too much evidence lest you be called upon to substantiate the myriad of anti-circumcision speculation)
29 Sep 2004
Frenulum (This is nothing but wild eyed speculation - deleted)
30 Sep 2004
Smegma (My dear Theresa, the connection between lysozyme and smegma is pretty dubious)
30 Sep 2004
Frenulum (If every bit of speculation has to be included where would we end up - delete)
1 Oct 2004
Frenulum (Fringe opinion has no place in an encyclopedia)
1 Oct 2004
Penile cancer (Theresa, your revert was a deliberate misrepresentation of the references. Please show where in refs 1 & 2 it states what you reverted to - this is wikicrime)
2 Oct 2004
Foreskin restoration (If there are nutters among them then why should that not be stated and stated clearly?)
3 Oct 2004
Frenulum (Psycho sexual content must be supported with credible references and proof to be inserted.)
3 Oct 2004
Frenulum (Will you please stop misrepresenting my opinion. The article is not mainstream opinion but rather from the lunatic fringe. It does not deserve mention.)
1 Nov 2004
Foreskin fetish (Off topic stuff deleted - Michael this article is about the perversion of foreskin fetishism, lets keep the focus tight shall we?)
3 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (Rv: DanP please don't attempt to use this article to push your POV - this is not supposed to be a promotional site for foreskin restoration. I think you need to accept this.)
5 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (Sorry DanP this article is no place to promote Foreskin restoration and hide the side that would rather not see exposed. Revert to previous JakeW version)
6 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (logical deductions are not merely the thoughts of "some" - psychosexual is just that and not physical or anatomical - lets not confuse this)
6 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (→Emotional and Psychological Aspects - The evidence is that half of foreskin restorers have mental problems - Psychiatric therefore is appropriate)
7 Nov 2004
Genital modification and mutilation (Sorry Dan just about anything is better than allowing you to lead the march back to rabid anti-circumcison POV, either by stealth, by proxy or "in your face")
14 Nov 2004
Male circumcision (This is fascinating. We need to cast our minds back to when there were desperate attempts to present CIRP as neutral. Now suddenly DanB can see clearly in such matters. Worth a laugh.)
21 Nov 2004
Foreskin restoration (Once again the bizarre concept that more is better)
21 Nov 2004
Phimosis (Deleting trash does not need explanation. Who gives a flying fart what 'Organizations that oppose circumcision" think?)
24 Nov 2004
Balanitis (Sadly Van Howe is a throughly discredited source. Find another respctable one please.)
29 Nov 2004
Balanitis (Please don't cite Van Howe - his methodologies are proven to be weak and his findings are not worth the paper they are printed on)
7 Dec 2004
Clitoris (Sorry Dan but I don'think that adds to the quality of the article ... a bit more research needed maybe?)
8 Dec 2004
Foreskin restoration (→Emotional and psychological aspects - You can state why "Psychiatric" is an inappropriate word?)
8 Dec 2004
Foreskin restoration (→Emotional and psychological aspects - There is beyond doubt a psychiatric dimension to this ... I wonder why you wish to deny this?)
13 Dec 2004
Medical analysis of circumcision (Rv - if he is involved in anti-circumcision activism, then he must be an anti-circumcision activist. We require factual stuff here remember?)