Jake, you can email me at mail2danp@yahoo.com for discussion on any topics you might want to elaborate on. I think your contributions have been beneficial to several articles. Even though I don't agree with many of them, they have good clarity. DanP 22:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. As you suggest, we don't have to agree with each other to appreciate the qualities of our respective contributions. There are a couple of points I'd like to discuss when I have the chance. Things are very hectic for me at present, but please don't infer from my lack of response to date that I don't want to talk to you -- I'll be in touch soon. - Jakew 11:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for being so picky with the Cirp breastfeeding link wording but there have been enough discussions of POV regarding circumcision in the article and I didn't want to leave that one to cause problems either. I think your latest amendment works, so thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 23:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted your most recent edit. Please refrain from calling me a vandal; my changes to the page were clearly not vandalism. Please do not revert again. Take your concerns to the talk page and discuss them there. Exploding Boy 20:33, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Let's see, Exploding Boy... Imagine you'd just spent a considerable amount of time and energy improving some article, and - to be fair - made a considerable improvement, and then someone came along and discarded them, with no explanation except for "revert large series of questionable changes". What would you call it? I'd say it's no different to spraying graffiti over a sculpture. If you had objections to specific changes, it'd be different, but just to discard the lot is highly inappropriate. - Jakew 22:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You might want to review our policies on reverting and on editing. The article does not belong to you. Changes will always be made, no matter how good you think your writing is, and to be honest, there's an awful lot you don't cover, things that are well covered in my changes. Once more I suggest that you refrain from reverting again and take your concerns to the talk page for discussion. Exploding Boy 22:49, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't belong to me, nor to you either. If you have specific objections, why not follow your own advice - refrain from reverting and take your concerns to the talk page? At the moment, the difference between your advice and your actions reek of hypocrisy. - Jakew 23:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I have no idea why Exploding Boy is going after your edits Jake. I guess this is yet another phenomenon of Wikipedia where someone who has "been around for some time" feels they have the right to "pop in" and mass revert on the basis of some "self appointed" authority on the matter and yet demand of others to do so via the talk page. Its bizarre ... but I like it ;-) It is something I could get used to. Jake the best advice is to persevere as these passers-by do not appear to have the stamina of the real headbangers. They are an irritation today but will be gone tomorrow. - Robert the Bruce 03:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you are being a posterior orifice over the aap reference. Few people revert over a quote from a reference. However, I will decline an edit war. Enjoy your triumph. Alteripse 17:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the following statement, in your view?

In adults, whilst in some cases it may prevent effective hygiene, and has been implicated in penile cancer, it is not necessarily a health issue for those who bathe regularly.

I'm mystified as to why you keep reverting when you seem to agree that non-pathological phimosis exists and is not necessarily a health problem.

-- Minority Report 23:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The main characteristic of phimosis is that it is not possible to retract the foreskin. This is necessary for cleaning underneath the foreskin, which in turn is necessary in order to avoid infections and other diseases. It doesn't matter how much a male bathes if he is unable to actually get clean. - Jakew 20:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that retraction of the foreskin is the only way to stay clean. Present evidence to support this view. -- Minority Report 17:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jake: you are wrong. The non-retractile foreskin may be cleaned by flushing it out with a bulb syringe. See http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/ Robert Blair 13:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please explain your reversions of what appear to be valid edits on this page. Exploding Boy 20:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Please see that article's talk page. - Jakew 20:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Exploding Boy 20:48, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

See the talk page. Explain how I can satisfy your concerns and I will make an attempt to come up with wording that you can agree with. But please stop deleting paragraphs that are supported by links and are clearly relevant. --- thickslab 16:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits without posting edit summaries. Your behaviour is beginning to strongly resemble vandalism. Post relevant discussion on each article's talk page. Exploding Boy 22:56, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Exploding Boy, please explain your frantic and desperate attempts to retain blatant POV in the articles? - Robert the Bruce 10:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jakew, your constant reverts are vandalism. If you do not stop this continued edit warring, I'm going to recommend you be blocked. Exploding Boy 16:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• This is an interesting threat and it appears that you want to continue with what you attempted to recruit Dan Blackham into a while ago. You need to check the definition of vandalism for starters. Then I have just checked the user pages of DanP and Revasser who have been at the centre of the revert orgy and both it appears violated the 3RR yet you have made no comment there. I would suggest that if you continue with this harassment there will be no alternative other than to put you up on a RfC to start a process leading to your admin powers been revoked. Your behaviour is a disgrace to Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 03:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a word of appreciation for your efforts to try to defuse the situation between Robert the Bruce and Theresa Knott. Great work. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 22:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jake. I was also circumcised by choice as an adult and while doing extensive research beforehand I, like you, have found some of the anti-circumcision material shrill and unsupported by facts. Good work for trying to restore balance and keep Wikipedia based in truthful experience. Nick 02:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Jakew/resolve.

I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours because you reverted an article more than three times in 24 hours. The article is Medical analysis of circumcision, and the applicable rule is Wikipedia:Three revert rule. In the future, please remember that you can be blocked from editing for violating the three revert rule. This is done to prevent revert wars. Rhobite 01:23, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

---

---

Note:

Crossposted to both Jakew and Robert the Bruce

---

Either having pro/con-links in an article or having another article balance it works for me. Robert the Bruce added links against Genital Integrity to Genital Integrity. This does not bother me as long as balance exists. I added links against circumcision to Circumcision advocacy. Jakew reverted the addition. I do not care whether both articles have con-links or neither, but consistency would be nice. I shall leave you to to decide what to do amongst yourselves. If you two cannot decide what to do by the end of the weekend, I shall let a coin decide for me and take care of it myself.

--

Ŭalabio 03:47, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

If you want to add links to criticisms of advocates' positions, I don't object. An example would be this. Note the distinction - one is criticism of the topic (circumcision advocates), the other is an opposing view. To put it in another context, in an article on rock music, it would be valid NPOV to include criticism of rock music, but irrelevant to include sections on classical music. Hope that clarifies. - Jakew 11:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't on my watchlist, thanks for telling me, I appreciate it :).

By the way, I noticed your user page was empty...don't you have something to say about yourself? Come on, this is the one time you can show off :P - Frazzydee| ✍ 22:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JakeW, I reverted DanP because he himself violated the 3RR to insert that version. This is often done by admins who block people for 3RR violation. However, his other changes are un-related to this 3RR violation, and I have no stake in, or knowledge of, the topic itself. That said, removing disputed notices, when there are disputes on a Talk: page, is frowned upon in Wikipedia. If there is indeed a dispute on the Talk: page, I recommend mentioning this on the Talk: page, and perhaps pursuing some other mediation method, such as a Request for Comment. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User pages are not the place for discussion. If you continue to edit user pages against their owners wishes it will be construed as vandalism. If you disagree with the page content, take it to WP:RFC. -- fvw * 00:16, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Yes it is, stop modifying other people's talk pages against their wishes. This is your final warning. -- fvw * 00:27, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

User talk pages are for anyone to edit, to communicate with that user. A User page is for that user to tell the community something, either about themselves or about something they want them to know. Some people do not mind others editing their user pages, but even then it is expected that only minor, helpful edits should be made (spelling corrections, fix a broken link, etc). In other words, if you edit another user's User Page, you should not alter the substance of the page, but help improve the page along the lines of the user's clear intent. Any comments you have for a user or the community at large should be placed on a talk page. Editing a user page in such a way that the user would likely disapprove of is disruptive activity and can get you blocked from editing. SWAdair | Talk 04:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to highlight the difference in how this issue was handled by both Fvw and SWAdair. SWAdair I thank you for your courtesy and contrast it with the out of control gunslinger style of Fvw (which is exactly why I opposed his appointment as a sysop). There is, however, one question that remains unanswered and that is whether users should be allowed to use their user pages as a platform to launch attacks on other people (safe in the knowledge that any attempt to insert a "right of reply" will be read as vandalism)? - Robert the Bruce 04:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's rich coming from you. Maybe you should look at your own user page before commenting on other people's. Exploding Boy 17:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy for either of you to create a subpage in which you can bicker as much as you like. - Jakew 02:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jake. You've violated the 3RR on Medical analysis of circumcision [1] [2] [3] [4]. Please note that the 3RR does not state that you have to revert to the same version within 24 hours, it says that you can't revert any part of a page more than 3 times within 24 hours. I'm letting it slide this time, because I feel that you tend to make a genuine effort not to violate the 3RR, but please be careful about this in the future.

Another reason I'm letting it slide is because I also thought that it had to be to the same version within 24 hours, until a few minutes ago! Please be careful about this in the future, and try to avoid those edit wars! - Frazzydee| ✍ 17:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eek! Thanks for letting me know! - Jakew 17:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jakew — While we don't always agree as to what counts as POV and what doesn't, you seem to be reasonably interested it working towards compromise and avoiding edit wars. I'm finding it quite difficult to contribute to Medical analysis of circumcision, though, as Robert the Bruce appears to revert everything I edit on sight without ever consulting the Talk page. The two sections in question are the one-line mention of The Cochrane review in the HIV section and the O'Hara & O'Hara study in Partner Preference that we worked on to try and make more NPOV. I don't see that it would be worth me adding them in yet again, as he would most likely simply revert. If you feel that the sections are worth keeping, however, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would lend a hand in putting them back in. You seemed happy with the state of the O'Hara write up when we left it, and I don't want to look like I'm someone who "marched in to push my POV" as RtB claims.
Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 18:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reply on your user page. - Jakew 00:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake, your proposal is a good one, but I don't know that it will come together. Robert and I have had unpleasant exchanges in the past, and I fear he would not be amenable to any mediation I attempted to arrange (trying to do the mediation myself would be impossible, I think). Furthermore, as an inexperienced mediator (only just arrived on the committee) I don't know the lay of the land well enough yet to know how these things start up, and who would be best to handle such a case. Do you really think mediation would work (especially as your attempts, though valiant, did not successfully resolve things)? I'll think over your idea, at least, as it would be good if this could be resolved happily. Please offer any further comments, as I'm mroe than open to hearing them. Jwrosenzweig 15:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care how the article is grouped, so long as it flows properly and makes sense. If you are sincerely concerned about including that information because of its appropriateness, then hopefully my post on the talk page addresses that.

Obviously, you are are free to oppose any change to the article for any reason at all. There will always be POV/incomplete/incorrect articles on Wikipedia, so I see no point wasting a significant amount of time arguing over a single one when I could use that time to create/change other articles. If you think that mentionning sensations shows kind of POV and you will argue to the death to keep it out, then I just won't add it. I don't really care what your motivations are or whether your contributions will be POV or not. There is no short supply of people who would love to argue with you all day long, but I don't want to be one of them. -- jag123 16:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey there, Jake. I looked over the edits in question (presumabely [5] [6] [7]), and while I wouldn't have blocked you (at least not that soon, I would've given you 1-2 more warnings), I'm very lenient with blocks. I don't think that Fvw was abusing his powers. Why?

• User pages are not generally for others people to edit unless it explicitly says so. There's probably no policy for this, but it's wrong, don't do it.
• User TALK pages are fine, but there was no reason for you to tell Dan to go there, he would've gotten the "you have new messages" thingy.
• The block was only 12 hours, that's all it takes to get the message through clearly. I think 1 hour would've done the job, but like I said, I don't like to block. If it was more than 24h, that would've been wrong according to me.

Editing others' user pages is considered taboo for many (but not all). You were warned twice, and fvw also told you beforehand that it was your last warning. I can't tell you whether you knew if what you were doing is wrong or not- only you can answer that- but I do know that you were given a final warning before being blocked; from my perspective, it looks like maybe you didn't know you would be blocked for it, but you did know that what you were doing was wrong.

Like I said before, there's no official policy for it, but sometimes sysops have to make calls for themselves, and use their judgement. Whether they're right or wrong isn't up to me, but I think that in this case, Fvw was okay. Sorry if that's not the answer you wanted, but that's just my opinion on the matter. If you want, you can ask others at the noticeboard and see what they say. - Frazzydee| ✍ 22:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with me. Like I (think I...) said before, it's depends on your opinion, but if DanP was fine with it, then that brings up a few more questions. Have you told Fvw that DanP didn't have a problem with it? - Frazzydee| ✍ 23:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

this is none of my business, but I would respectfully suggest that while fvw may have been arrogant in blocking you (briefly) over a trifle and refusing to discuss, attempting to team up with disrupting anons like User:168.209.97.34 is not the way to go: you are looking for support in the wrong camp. I agree that fvw was incivil and I would very much like to see him apologize for his arrogance, and then the matter could be laid to rest, because nothing good will come of making this into a feud. but as I said, this is only an outisde view, you are of course free to do as you choose. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

you are welcome. however, even if you don't get another reaction from fvw, I would recommend you just drop the matter. Far too much 'ink' has flown into this already, and I do think it is a trifle, at the core. Let's go back to encyclopedia-building. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jake, I'd appreciate if you changed the "Evidence presented by Jag123" header. I know you mean that the talk page "conversation" is contrary to the evidence I submitted earlier but it sounds like the talk page extract is evidence that I'm presenting now, which is definitely not the case. You could sign your name somewhere as well, to show that you are adding it, and not me. Thanks -- jag123 03:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice you did put your name at the bottom. I will be retracting my evidence and also remove the section you moved here (since it's no longer necessary -- there is no need to show contrary evidence to what I said earlier since it'll be gone). -- jag123 04:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After writing the first message, I wondered if it was possible to retract evidence, so I asked on IRC and was told yes. Sorry for the confusion. There's no need to do anything now. -- jag123 04:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As it clearly says on WP:AN, if you would have only read the header, it's at WP:AN/3RR. Noel (talk) 16:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be [8], [9], [10], [11], the section with One author's interpretation... was reverted three times, and Circumcision has potential benefits and risks... once. -- Chris 73 Talk 17:03, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, removed my comment from the 3RR page. Doesn't really matter anymore, since it was two days ago. Happy editing. -- Chris 73 Talk 17:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jake - you posted about the call for activists on the intact-l mailing list - what would be strong evidence for the case is a pattern of bad faith edits by the people in question on Wikipedia itself - if you have such evidence, it would be useful, broken down by editor (they would be dealt with individually). Thanks :-) - David Gerard 23:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I'm annoyed with both you and User:Robert Blair messing up cervical cancer. Please edit war on the talk page. JFW |  T@lk 07:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. - Jakew 14:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom case against Robert the Bruce has closed. As a result, you are advised to re-read Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, with particular attention to the idea that NPOV includes all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. You are expected to improve their editing habits and reminded that any future cases will consider seriously any failure to heed this warning. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 23:48, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

The case against Robert Blair has been accepted. Please bring any further evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Blair/Evidence - David Gerard 18:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I may have been high-handed in accusing you of POV-editing. Most of your "POV editing" was simply NPOVing of Robert Blair's horrible work. I have not seen all your work on other articles, but on cervical cancer you have been fairly exemplary. I'm glad that the peace & quiet has returned to that article.

The circumcision wars have always annoyed me. I am pro-circumcision from a religious perspective and take strong issue with those who brand this as genital mutilation or cruelty. On the other hand, I also feel that the scientific evidence for routine circumcision is too thin. This is why I felt quite qualified to raze the POV stuff on cervical cancer so forcefully. I still thing there is too much emphasis on circumcision in that article, but thanks to Brim, the real medical issues have been addressed quite adequately.

Please call on me if there are further problems. I will probably desist if the article in question is not immediately medical, as I may not be qualified to contribute to the policy & ethics discussions. JFW |  T@lk 20:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I just found your user pics today and, as part of the wikipedia image tagging project, I'm marking them as yours and noting that you release them into the public domain for copyright purposes. If any of that is inaccurate, please feel free to correct it. -- InShaneee 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really appreciate the comment. I'm not worried about the arbitration case. I haven't done anything wrong but I'm being hounded by a vindictive admin. I've been a bit controversial and I don't toe the majority line all the time. I'll remember your offer of help because I'm trying to build a consensus on a compromise on the clitoris page. I want to prove people wrong who think that a page on which there are fiercely opposed factions cannot find a resolution that isn't one or other position. If I can negotiate a compromise between some of the two sides, and get support for it, we'll see. I hope your own work is going well. You saw what happened to Robert. I know you're not as inclined to the, erm, dark side as him, but take care not to cross the wrong people. Dr Zen 23:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The case against Robert Blair has closed. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 19:28, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Please reconsider reverting my edit of circ article. The Ohara critiques didn't say anything about Ohara so I deleted them. The word 'many' is not justified and the word 'several' is contained in Ohara article, so I used 'several' carefully putting it in quotes. The combined edits to the studies section were a bit clunky, so I shortened it but tried to keep your fundamental points and your reference intact; I was not censoring you. Bill Jones Please read comments in history section before reverting - I explain my edits there.

Wikipedia recently deleted this article. I am appealing this decision on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. This is one of the most important circumcision related issues of our day. The article explored links between circumcision and denial that such links exist. It discussed possible psychological connections between anti-semitism and circumcision. It was also one of only a handful of articles that discusses academic bias in favour of circumcision due to religious backlash. If you have anything to say about this subject I'd be delighted if you wrote it here. Thank you. Sirkumsize 03:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

---

I see you've noticed some of them; however, you might have missed these: [12], [13] where he equates circumcision with vivisection. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He even reverted me when I removed his absurd additions. He was subsequently reverted by another editor on one article, but the other was obscure enough that his edit stayed for many days. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

¡Oh please! ¡Medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation on live people by definition is vivisection! You can argue all you want that medically unnecessary episiotomies, præpucectomies, cæsarian sections, orchiectomies, et cetera are neither vivisections nor mutilations, but by definition they are.

Vivisection:

The dissection of an animal while alive.

Mutilation:

Mutilation is an act or injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death. The term is usually used to describe the victims of accidents, torture, physical assault, or certain premodern forms of punishment. Acts of mutilation may include amputation, burning, flagellation, or wheeling. In some cases, the term may apply to treatment of dead bodies, such as soldiers mutilated after they have been killed by an enemy.

--

— Ŭalabio 03:14, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Please be serious; circumcision is not dissection, and people are not animals. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC):

> Please be serious;

I am serious.

> circumcision is not dissection,

Dissection:

Dissection is usually the process of disassembling.

> and people are not animals.

¡Oh! ¡That is right! ¡People are not animals! ¡People are fungus mutualistically symbiotic with algæ or cyanobacteria! ¡We are lichens! ¡You cannot help but like lichens! ¡Lichens are like, so likable! ¡Like, I better like quit going on about like lichens!

Domesticated animals have more legal protection than mothers in labor and infants. [14]

--

— Ŭalabio 01:08, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC):

> From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox

The please stop pushing medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of unconsenting minors. I truly do not care what consenting adults do to each other (we all live in glasshouses, so it is not a good idea to start throwing stones), but please leave the children alone. I do not need a soapbox because the facts and the definitions (especially the definition for mutilation) speak for themselves. If we just stick to the facts (routine cæsarian sections, præpucectomies, and episiotomies) are medically contraindicated sexual genital mutilations and the inner mucosa of the præpuce is a sensory organ, while the outer præpuce protects the inner mucosa of the præpuce and glans; and furthermore, the præpuce and shaftskin are mobile, we would not have a problem.

I have no intention on continuing this discussion. Just please keep in mind that routine cæsarian sections, præpucectomies, and episiotomies are medically contraindicated sexual genital mutilations, when you edit.

--

— Ŭalabio 00:22, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Well, I agree that humans are animals, but after that we part company, I fear. If you want to believe that circumcision is mutilation, then feel free. It is subjective, after all. While you may believe that circumcision degrades the appearance or function of the penis, others consider it an improvement. Thus, it may be a mutilation in your opinion, but not in ours.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is inappropriate to try to discuss your feelings on the subject of circumcision in every conceivable article. Removing inappropriate references to the opinions of fringe groups is not "pushing medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of unconsenting minors". It is simply making a better, more coherent encyclopaedia.

Circumcision is not normally contraindicated, though it is often unnecessary. There is a difference. It is not a fact that it is a mutilation; that is an opinion. Neither is it a fact that the mucosa is a sensory organ, though it does appear to have some kind of sensory role (as does the outer foreskin). These are facts, Walabio. Please ease off the hyperbole and there will be no problem. - Jakew 11:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly, DanP is still POV-pushing on the two vivisection articles; you might want to add them to your watchlist. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I did miss your comment. If he persists in this, I suppose Arbitration is the next logical step, but I'm hoping he'll see reason instead. He's been reverted by enough editors on Vivisection that he appears to have stopped trying to POV it. He met with less opposition on Vivisection_and_experimentation_debate, no doubt because it is viewed by far fewer eyes. His latest edit there hasn't pushed his personal POV; let's wait for further developments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good one; it made me smile. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 14:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, ltns. Just passing through. I noticed this edit summary:

• 11:31, 15 Jun 2005 Jakew (rv. when a thesaurus lists 'intact' as a synonym for uncircumcised, such terms may be appropriate for an encyclopaedia. but not now.)

Dictionaries normally define "intact" in anatomical contexts as having all original parts. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary for instance says "of a living body or its parts: having no relevant component removed or destroyed: a : physically virginal b : not castrated" [15]. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines intact as "complete and in the original state."

So the term doesn't seem inappropriate here--circumcision is removal of part of the prepuce. Moreover the term is in common use. Whether for better or worse, the circumcised penis is no longer intact. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't regard your argument that a pierced organ is not intact as a tenable one. A pierced ear, nipple or nose is still an intact organ and indeed usually the piercing will heal unless delibrately kept open. It would be even harder to argue that a tattooed or scarified organ is not intact. "Uncircumcised" is undoubtedly at least as good here, however I think you're being over-sensitive in identifying "intact" as a propaganda word. A circumcised penis can be more healthy than it was prior to circumcision; nevertheless it is not intact. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 13:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jake. It seems that other editors have noticed the issue with this unsourced POV and have been helping out as well, but I'll certainly keep an eye open. Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hahaha, nice try. but they don't agree with your ethnocentric bullshit. try that on for size! ScapegoatVandal 17:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jake, DNFTT. JFW |  T@lk 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue could be going away at this point; maybe we can see if there's a recurrence. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tony

I know you're not an official mediator, but I wondered if you'd be willing to try to help calm down a situation here. The reason why I'm asking you is basically that we disagree so often that I can't see that the person concerned is likely to regard you as having a pro-circumcision (or pro-Jewish or pro-gay) agenda.

The person concerned has agreed in principle, if with some antagonism, to mediation through somebody.

The mediation is partly over conduct, but also over some edits with which most users seem to disagree.

You'll find the original disagreement over at [16].

Examples of the conduct can be found there. Also at: [17] [18] and [19].

If you decline, I understand. - Jakew 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jake, do I have it right, that the guy you want me to help to smooth things over with is ScapegoatVandal? If he will accept me, I will do what I can, but you should look at his user talk page and at the edit history for Judeo-Christian and you'll see that we have a recent history. I intervened to reword a paragraph to avoid potentially contentious references to anno domini, and then reverted his edits twice when he still pushed it. Well you may have made a shrewd choice, because you and I have different opinions on many things but have still remained civil. Maybe together we can work things out with this guy so things will click with him and he'll be able to work with Wikipedia. So yes, by all means, I'm your man for this. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scapegoatey is in the wilderness for 24h due to 3RR violations. JFW |  T@lk 22:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony,

You're exactly right, and I should have stated his username. I apologise for that. I hope that he won't hold your past disagreement against you, but obviously I have no idea. Would you mind asking whether he'd accept non-binding mediation with yourself? If so, what in your view is the best way to proceed? If not, does he have a preference for an alternative person?

Thanks. - Jakew 22:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll sleep on this. As he has been blocked for a day there's no point hurrying it. I'll probably proceed by asking him to give an email address for contact so we can discuss things confidentially. Mediation is supposed to be a no-fault process, where people can express themselves freely within the bounds of mediation without fear of it being used against them. I'd ask you both to agree to be bound by this--freedom of expression coupled with confidentiality. This isn't going to work unless we all feel that we can be honest and that the discussion is understood to be outside the policy constraints of Wikipedia. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 22:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good edits. I didn't notice the exaggerated complication stats and I should have caught that. alteripse 9 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

Yes, after the Robert the Bruce stuff I was hoping the POVing from the anti-circumcision activists would stop, but apparently at least one now has a second wind. Very unfortunate: I hope he can abide by policy this time, but it doesn't seem likely given his recent edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say that your edits on the AIDS article were semantically very good. I still thought it slanted your way slightly, but it was readable. Now it's not even that, and today it reads to me like list of chess moves. Sadly, it seems that sometimes we get NPOV, sometimes we get readability, and sometimes we get neither one (aka Medical analysis of circumcision). DanP 23:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on AIDS the best possible before trying to submit it as a " Featured Article", I've looked up some active submitters in the last month or so and found you. Please, take a little time to go by the AIDS article and it's Talk page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).

AIDS is a very serious world wide issue; never before have we needed to spread AIDS education as much as we do now. We need as many people as possible working together to make this article on AIDS the best it can be. Hope to see your contributions soon! JoeSmack (talk) 23:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

There's a massive POVing going on at Foreskin. I'm just waiting for the anonymous editor to calm down before wading in... Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Hmm. It's worse than I thought: 4.86.11.247 ( talk · contribs) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Sigh. Circumcision. Papilloma. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply

There seems to be an endless supply of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Sirkumsize ( talk · contribs) seems to be going on a bit of a POV rampage. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aposthia. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Also, please check on my latest contribution to the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Whatever your beleifs about AIDS, including language that recognizes a diversity of opinions among qualified scientists is not POV pushing. The scientists who hold views other than your are more qualified than you to represent these views. Your overt references to your own sexuality suggests your interest in the article might be more related to your point of view than to an interest in precise language.

Either allow accurate language, or I will add a factual dispute header to the article. Sandlawould 20:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep it factual, cite sources, and don't go off-topic then. I apologise for excessively reverting your changes, some of which were not at issue. Your changes to the circumcision section were inaccurate, unbalanced and off-topic, however. Referring to buried penis syndrome, among others, in an article on AIDS suggests pursuit of an anti-circumcision agenda. If you want to refer to older studies on HIV and circumcision, we've already been there, but cite credible, primary sources, not an anti-circumcision opinion piece. - Jakew 20:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply

you must have confused me with another writer. My contributions are limited to talk pages related to AIDS, and to the lead graph in the AIDS article. None of my revisions advanced a point of view, but instead relied on standard journalistic techniques to properly describe the scope of a prevailing point of view, a view which otherwise dominates the content of the article. In my reading of related talk pages I found ample discussion for those who care to appreciate the difference between theory and fact. I am not weighing in on one side of that debate or the other, but simply acknowledging that credible debate exists. As I stated above, that debate is represented in Wikipedia (in the AIds reapprasial article) regardless the tenacious efforts of those who hold the prevailing point of view to slant the article toward the prevailing point of view.

All I'm asking is that you tolerate accuracy. The phrase "generally held" acknowledges the source of the generally held viewpoint. Sandlawould 20:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I think that this must be an unfortunate mixup. I have no objection to the phrase "generally held." I don't remember doing so, but if I removed it, it must've been by accident. You have my apologies. - Jakew 10:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you reverted the page foreskin after user:jayjg vandalized the page Aposthia listed in the also see section. I believe this action were unprofessional. I have filed a rfc at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jayjg. Would you care to support this action? Sirkumsize 21:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply

BTW I noticed that you reverted the article again and did not give any explaination. What's going on. Are you now censoring medical terminology from wikipedia as well? Sirkumsize 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply

My comments on your RFC are there. I do not consider your complaints valid, at least as stated.

I reverted your addition to foreskin, because at that time Aposthia redirected back to Foreskin. It makes no sense to 'see also' the same article. I then saw that you had reverted my revert, though being unaware at the time of the edit war at aposthia, the edit summary was confusing and made no sense. I admit that I did not click the link a second time, but assumed that it still redirected. I apologise for this, but had your edit summary been clearer (eg., "Aposthia no longer redirects.") this would not have occurred. - Jakew 10:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I see you voted to delete Aposthia in its recent VFD. I've now substantially rewritten the article, removing the dubious POV statements and (I think) sourcing everything. I had to wade through several pages of Googlecruft to get any decent information about it, but it is out there. The fact that so many of the top Google results are highly biased anticircumcision sites makes it all the more important that Wikipedia has an informative and neutral article on the subject. Hopefully you can be persuaded to review the article and change your vote! Thanking you, Soo 17:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I'd like to think so, but it's unlikely that will end it. Michael Glass has a thesis he wants to present in the article, and he's not going to let little things like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia:Cite your sources get in his way. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I hate to say it, but I told you so. :-P Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I think you're doing a splendid job there, and I'm not sure in what way I could be of assistance. When it comes to linking to PubMed, simply type PMID and the number at the end of the reference. The wiki automatically generates a link to Pubmed, like here: PMID 12345678. JFW |  T@lk 00:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Of course I will review the results! Please let me know. JFW |  T@lk 09:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I got your message but it's been busy... Can't promise I'll manage today. JFW |  T@lk 10:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I have removed your image from VfD - I think it should be on WP:IFD -- Doc (?) 15:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply

If a complement is to be added to the barnstar system, I think a page for people to apply for barnstars will be better than a separeate system for wikimedals. Deryc k C. 12:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

On my own contribution to this page, sorry to be sitting on the fence. I think that any initative to encourage good work and generally spread the wikilove is a good thing. My only qualifier is that "community discussion" could too easily spill into "why I think this person shouldn't get a medal", which would be an unfortunate development, in my opinion. If you do implement it, however, I'll certainly try to support it in practice. Cormaggio 13:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Jake, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I'm sorry, but I don't know of any discussions or precedents about what exactly "overwhelm" means in this instance. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Someone has added this statement to the article:

The most recent cost-utility study (2004) reported that the overall effect on male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision on health is more likely to be negative rather than positive. [20]

Hmm. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Neither article indicates (1) how many members JAG has, (2) how many people actually perform the brit shalom. I've edited the VFD to include both articles, any you may want to delete both - see here. JFW |  T@lk 22:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I've removed Brit Shalom from your vfd of Jews against circumcision. Combined VfDs are controversial at the best of times, adding articles halfway through is definitely going to cause trouble. You can always VfD it separately though. -- fvw * 00:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jake. I'm currently engaging in a minor revert war on Intersexuality with User:AlexR. There is some verbiage at the end of one section that (currently) consists of bald assertions of various aspects of what biological sex is and what people believe about them. I asked for references a few weeks ago, they haven't come in, and so I removed the paragraph in question. AlexR keeps putting it back, claiming that the opinions therein "are mere statements of fact", and therefore do not need any supporting documentation.

I suspect part of the problem here is that AlexR is on a hair trigger to believe that anyone who touches this article in this way must, by nature, be a fascist Republican pig intent on passing judgment on him and everyone else. I'm not, but so far my attempts to convince him that I'm editing in good faith have been in vain. I've indicated that I would support including the text in the article if we can find some primary or secondary research sources that support the points make, but he doesn't seem inclined to listen. I have great respect for your phlegmatic attitude in documenting and finding supporting evidence for assertions made in articles. Could you possibly drop by Talk:Intersexuality and the article itself, and offer your opinion? Maybe he'll listen to you where he won't listen to me.

Thanks, Nandesuka 18:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Enjoy. How hard is it to get another IP address? 82.34.42.120 18:22 10 Sep 2005 (sig added by Jakew)

82.34.42.120 has the netname TELEWEST-HSD_1-BASILDON

This user is now using the IP 213.104.88.5. (NTL, Luton). - Jakew 18:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now 213.104.88.55 Jakew 18:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Background info

First edit (shown as diff with previous version, not a revert) -- correction, 2nd edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Circumcision&diff=22972800&oldid=22966827

4 or more "impure reverts" follow, replacing 'uncircumcised' with 'intact'.

First "pure" revert, 17:46 10 Sep 2005 as 82.34.42.120 [21]

(see below for IP address context)

Second "pure" revert, 18:31, September 10, 2005, as 213.104.88.5 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Circumcision&diff=22984058&oldid=22982033

Third "pure" revert, 18:58, September 10, 2005 as 213.104.88.55 (note that's two 5s) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Circumcision&diff=22985391&oldid=22984058

"Rosa" leaves a libellous message containing many personal attacks against myself at another user's page (user page, not user talk). [22]

I leave a message (at 82.34.42.120) advising user of relevant policies. [23] I also delete the personal attack in accordance with policies on user page vandalism and personal attacks. [24]

"Rosa" replies to me with a further personal attack. [25] She says: "How hard is it to get another IP address?"

"Rosa" deletes warning left for her. [26]

...I don't think violet/riga is trying to censor you. I think she is just frustrated at the fact that there are infinite amounts of discussion of a tangential subject on the breastfeeding page. I understand her frustration. Reverting to the status quo ante may not be such a bad thing, when compared with the alternative of "eight paragraphs of POV explanatory text in a barely-related article." What do you think? Nandesuka 18:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Jake, thanks for supporting my RfA. It means a lot to me. I think you're one of the calmest, most tenacious, and thorough editors we have, and sometimes when editing articles I ask myself "What would JakeW do?" Nandesuka 00:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply

No, actually, I had forgotten him completely, and didn't even know he had an Arbitration Committee ruling aginast him. I did remember Robert the Bruce. In any event, it's obviously him editing again - good catch. I'll try to find out what to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply

O.K., the advice is for you to post it on WP:AN/I, and for everyone to simply revert all of his edits. He's banned from editing the articles, that means no edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I've put the notice up myself, and blocked the IPs for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello Jakew, skimming your user page, it seems that you know a lot about foreskins, circumcisions, etc. (Given the relative size of the foreskin compared to the human body, I am finding it hard to resist repeating the old joke often said about PhD's, which is that you "know a lot about a little". I hope you understand this humour is not meant to belittle you or the topic.) Anyway, since you are knowledgable and have access to the relevant reference materials, I am wondering if you can please provide a sentence from this article that supports its use as a reference on female preference for or against intact male genitalia? Thanks for your help, Johntex\ ^talk 19:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi! A quick question: why did you recently get circumcised? (e.g. medical/sexual etc.) Thanks -- Dumbo1 10:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Jake

Although I don't understand most of the stuff which you have posted on the internet, I do understand how you could have wanted to be circumcised, as when I was about the same age I wanted the same thing

Couldn't understand why as boys things weren't made easy for us to be circumcised, but am so glad it was eventually done.

Anyway, if you want to chat, then drop me a line.

KD

You are obviously creating bias and perpetuating your own revision war. If you're uncircumcized, don't look at it as a weakness or a reason for anger! You have the more sensitive penis, and thus sexual sensation is superior for you.

Hey Jakew...thanks for the help.-- Jfurr1981 15:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello. There has been a request for mediation made at WP:RFM involving you. Please note on that page in the relevant section whether you would be prepared to take part in this mediation and, if so, whether you would be prepared for me to act as mediator. [[Sam Korn]] 18:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Jake. I have opened the mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Walabio and JakeW. If you have any comments to make now, please do. [[Sam Korn]] 20:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I tried sending you an email with respect to Mad Merv the other day in support of your actions; now you are in edit wars with Michael Glass. This needs sorting out urgently: your edit wars are detracting from your other contributions and you may end up in a situation where no one will support you. Another editor has protected pages against your edit war, which is a very unnecessary step. Justinc 02:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I was looking at [27] which was almost entirely you and Michael Glass, and really not constructive. Anyway content of email was can you stop reverting Mad Merv and let me do it instead, as he is unhelpfully thinking it is all a personal attack on him from you, which means he doesnt seem to realise that nobody agrees with him. Justinc 11:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I wonder if you would be kind enough to provide a differences link in the paragraph containing this sentence on your user page for the benefit of those of us who would like to see how the text then compares with the current version? "When I came to Wikipedia, I was horrified to see that anti-circumcision activists had authored pages on the subject of circumcision that read much like a crank website." Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the reference. I added the link you provided to your user page. I linked only the old version. It seems to be almost entirely rewritten. Please remove the link if you don't think it helpful. Do you know why first comment isn't wrapping properly? Perhaps it is just my browser. - Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Jake, I have manually amended my posts on your User page to include dates and times I posted, culled from that page's wiki-history data. With your permission, I should like to cut both posts from your User page and paste them into your User Talk page at the appropriate level. My fault; I hadn't got the full (wiki) hang of the difference when I posted, and obviously, my rather long posts, while I fully stand by them, are sort of muscling in and taking over your "primary real estate". Sorry about that. Decision is yours. I am happy to shift them to your other, more approapriate, page if you wish. :) Trevor H. 19:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply

You might want to keep an eye on Foreskin restoration, you'll find the same issues there. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Jake, I've moved your debate on circumcision to a subpage of your user talk (User talk: JakeW/Circumcision debate). Talkpages of articles, even subpages, aren't meant to be Usenet-style debate forums. I don't want you to find yourself in the shit for doing that. Grace Note 00:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• But it was me who suggested this in the first place. Why does nobody care about me! Dabljuh 00:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The only editing I did there was to remove an offensive joke ("ignorance is bris") and correct a minor grammatical error. I don't feel that I'm in a position to find sources for the anti-circumcision section of the article for a couple of reasons. Religious Jews against circumcision are the posterchildren for the concept of POV pushing; in spite of the rather high profile given them in the article, they are extremely few, far between, and not at all influential. Personally, I think that the section ought to be whittled down per the comments on the article's talk page. That said, I'd be more than happy to look at anything you want me to take a look at. Benami 23:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for posting the "ignorance is bris" joke here, Benami. I'll use it as often as I can. MrEguy 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On a completely different topic, why on earth do you keep Dablujah's insulting "Jakew's story" on your user page? I know you asked for feedback on your page, but Jeezus! Benami 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Good lord. I've never looked at his contribs before about an hour ago, and I'm appalled. This business is much more heinous than I thought. I'm frankly shocked that he hasn't been permanently blocked already. Tom e r ^talk 07:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Grrr. I would have thought you'd have removed it! I told you not to worry about my toes! [They'll heal ;-)] Tom e r ^talk 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jake, I see you're engaged in what [finally] appears to be constructive dialog with W. Say the word, and I'll hold off on submitting the RfC for now. If you'd rather go ahead at this point and solicit community comment right away, say the word and I'll submit it (or go ahead and feel free to move the page to the WP:RFC zone on your own). All the best, Tom e r ^talk 06:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ding! Tom e r ^talk 14:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Just so you know. Tom e r ^talk 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey jake. I wrote you something, here. Dabljuh 15:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry I didn't respond sooner - I was off combatting hard-headedness and ignorance among the 12 - 14 year old demographic sector... Benami 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neither of those editors are Dabljuh. However, ZimZum is Scandum. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I'm calm. But OMFG, the chutzpah. I think that's what you brits call "cheek". And why is are the wheels of justice grinding so damned slow? What's the next step? Benami 21:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. And you, on the other hand, have an uncanny ability to keep calm in the face of outrageous provocation. :-) Benami 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I see there is mention of a "skin bridge" in at least 2 articles (both times used in the plural) Special:Whatlinkshere/Skin bridges. If this is the correct medical term, could you write up at least a stub for the phenomenon? If it's a medical term for which an article already exists, could you make a redirect to the proper location? I have a feeling it's that word you said that I don't remember. Synechiæ is the only thing that comes to mind... Tom e r ^talk 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Nevermind. Found it. Skin bridges are quite another matter, it appears (thanks Google). That said, our current synechia article is about something completely unrelated to the glans|foreskin membrane. Perhaps synechia (penis) or synechia (genital) [if there's a clitoral analog] is in order. Tom e r ^talk 06:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Another big project when you get around to it...someone created phallocrypt. It could use some serious work, and should be considerably less aggravating than your normal work area.  :-) Tom e r ^talk 14:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow. I was coming here to tell you off for reverting me on National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers but got distracted by the insane quotes on your user page. You have some truly bananas people after you, kudos for continuing your work despite that. Anyway, please review the reasons I listed in the page history before reverting. I answered an email on m:OTRS that asked for advice on that page, so I tried to give it the once-over before they edited it themselves. I don't really have a stance on the issues involved and I think my edits are generally neutral as can be. silsor 18:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

You might want to take a look at the recent edits at the Foreskin article; I can't tell whether or not they're valid. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate you have done some good work on this article, and the current one is indeed an improvement from the version you link to, regardless that I think it has gone too far.

I recently edited the sexual preferences part of this page and was struck by several things:

1. Clearly you know the topic well
2. You are pro circumcision, as in you see the benefits outweighing the costs, regardless of your claim on your user page
3. You seem to have an almost pathological dislike for original research, and class personal interpretations of results as personal research. I'd argue you take this too far, original research suggests we are going out and collecting evidence and presenting it, merely stating that the papers on a particular subject are generally biased does not fall into this category.
4. While I agree there is alot of anti-circumcision bullshit around, there is just as much pro-circ bullshit also; just a reminder to try to consider everything from a neutral point of view, and many of the papers linked in that article are very poor.

So a mixed comment really - good work, but don't go too far.

One last thing - I don't appreciate being told I am censoring WP when I am removing sources that are very poorly written and conducted. Censoring would suggest I was removing information from a side of the article I didn't want people to see, so removing poor sources from both sides of the debate hardly falls into this category.

129.67.10.184 17:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC) - probably best to post any replies here, as the IP changes. reply

Thanks for letting me know. Regarding Robert Blair's editing via IP, if it continues please let me know; when banned editors start edit-warring on article pages, the pages are simply sprotected. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The page has been sprotected. Please let me know if he edit-wars anywhere else. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I recently removed a section of the article because, as I explained in my comment, the person quoted is not notable and his ideas are extremely POV. If you follow the link, you'll see that he accuses NOCIRC of being a far-right conspiracy to make sure that Jews and Muslims are easily detected by their lack of foreskins. Uhm, with all due respect, that's way out there and shows that this man is an extremist.

Now, all this should be brought up on the article's Talk page, and it will be. The reason I'm writing here is because you reverted with a false and insulting explanation, accusing me of censorship. This violates both the requirement to assume good faith and civility, and is unacceptable behavior on your part.

Acceptable behavior would be to recognize that my objection to Otto is reasonable, even if you disagree with it, and to therefore provide some explanation for why Otto should stay. If you fail to do so, I must assume that you have no such explanation, hence the text must be removed. If deleting unnotable and biased sources is censorship, then I'm bucking for Head Censor of Wikipedia. Alienus 12:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Some of the recent changes are highly suspect, including unsourced claims, and long tangents regarding penile cancer, linked to unreliable sources. [28] What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Must remind myself that there is no cabal. Oh, while I have the cabal's attention, I ran into a few decent anti-circ links that I added. For balance, it would be helpful if you dug up a comparable number of pro-circ links and added those, too. Oh, wait, there is no cabal; I forgot. Alienus 21:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Two editors communicating on a public Talk: page can hardly be considered a cabal, can it? Anyway, the links were hardly "decent", as I've explained on the talk page there. Wikipedia is not a link repository, and personal websites etc. really don't qualify for inclusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You were circumcised as an adult, and the prepuce of adults is fully developed and therefore less likely to be damaged during circumcision (relative to infant circs). The precise amounts and location of skin and mucosa to be removed is usually specified to the surgeon.

My point is that many circumcisions in the US are frequently radical. I'm the guy that tried to edit in the following:

"The primary zones of erogenous sensitivity are the frenulum, frenular delta, ridged mucosa, the preputial orifice, and the external fold of the foreskin. All of these zones are orgasmic triggers. Continuous and gentle stimulation of any one of these areas can elicit pleasure, orgasm, and ejaculation. All save a portion of the frenulum and possibly delta is removed during routine circumcision, and this remaining mucosa may be damaged by the procedure."

Uncircumcised guys would call the above common knowledge.

It is my opinion that if your circumcision had been similarly radical, you would feel differently about infant circumcision.

Completely missing from the Circumcision articles are facts about the erogenous functions of normal mucosa and anatomy, and how results of a circumcision will depend on exactly what was excised or damaged.

In the US, infant circs are frequently radical and thus mutilate.

I'd hate to be involved in keeping that information from new parents.

You talk about if my circumcision had been "similarly radical", but do not explain to what. In medical terminology, a radical circumcision is one that leaves the glans fully exposed at all times. I would therefore describe mine as a radical circumcision.

I'll respond to your that do not apply to me personally on Talk:Circumcision. Jakew 20:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

That referred to the prior paragraph. I used "radical" to indicate including a frenectomy, which would damage and reduce the delta.

Did your surgeon leave you frenulum and all of your delta?

Where is your most erogenous zone? Is there more than one?

The circ video everyone's seen (looks like) removes most of the frenectomy and all of the delta. Remember, removing so much is not considered a "complication." My niece is a nurse, and stated that the doctors will not predict how much will be removed claiming differences in anatomy.

I'd love to know if you were born without a frenulum, as that looks fairly common. More personal research here, sorry, but anecdotally it looks like guys born without a frenulum have their prime erogenous zone further down than normal; thus more erogenous sensation will be excised by neonatal circumcision.

I'm going to remove the "similarly poorly written" comment ... the erogenous zone article is actually fairly accurate and encyclopedia like. TipPt 23:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, my frenulum was fully removed. Jakew 09:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you have erogenous sensation in that zone before your circ, and if so, did you loose sensation?

Here's another fasinating study: http://www.bjui.org/cases/bju_v90_i3cr/bju_2854.htm TipPt 18:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I never found the frenal area to be erogenous. Jakew 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a congenital defect. I'm sorry, though maybe you're G-spot is much higher ... into the head. I am frequently amazed and wide variance in human genitals (especially female). TipPt 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Nope, sounds perfectly normal to me. And given that there is no evidence to the contrary, it's hard to see how any other conclusion could be reached. Jakew 10:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You might have seen the picture of the guy had his frenulum removed...I think they also showed pics of the operation...I think for looks, but he states (and I believe) that his sexuality improved.

The interesting thing about the article was the caption below the final result picture where he states that his G-spot is way down (relative to me) his penis. Probably 2 inches! There is evidently (between he and I) a very wide variation in the location of that penile erogenous zone! Another consideration is that if this man had been circ'd as an infant, he would have lost that zone.

A seperate sub article might discuss the how the brain adjusts to nerve loss. For example, the blind (reading Braille) demonstrate exquisite (relative to me) sense of touch. TipPt 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

One last personal question please. Where is your penile g-spot? Mine is the frenular delta, especially the frenulum, where movement, especially stretch, is highly erogenous. TipPt 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I don't know what picture you mean. If you have a link, please share it and we can discuss it.

We cannot create a sub-article discussing the brain's reaction to nerve loss in the context of circumcision unless this has been discussed in reliable sources. Very few such discussions have occurred in reliable sources, and those have been extremely speculative and barely worthy of note.

Finally, I would say that my penile g-spot is on the corona (rim of glans). As a gay man, I've found the same to be true of most, whether circ'd or not. Some men, however, have an additional site on the underside of their shaft, close to the base.

BTW, I've noticed that you edit your text a lot. It's fine either way, but you may find it convenient to use the 'show preview' facility, which allows you to get your text how you want it to be before adding it. Just a suggestion. Jakew 17:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but I just keep thinking of how I should have expressed myself better.

The pictures I refer to are the two uncirc'd on the first page...which have been made dark again. I'll go provide the link in the discussion. TipPt 23:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Might help for you to know my POV's ... I'm all for adult circ's, given that's what they want. I'm Ok with the circ of boys, personally assuming that they are generally following their internalized cultural or religious ritual (they are caught up in it all and prefer being circ'd). I'm against neonatal circ, because parent’s decisions are primarily driven by cultural factors. I don't like the idea of forcing cultural rituals on anyone, even one's own infant. I also believe that erogenous sensation is lost. I think the medical benefits and risks are a wash (except in Africa, if they won’t use condoms).

It's my duty to find research showing the frenulum and it's delta are highly erogenous. If that can be done, I may provide the Tipping Point. (great book BTW) TipPt 00:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you need to note the continuous references to the "cabal"; he must have used the word in at least a dozen comments. The sheer number of these statements, and similar ones, will help illustrate the extent of the violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Good work. The cabal that doesn't exist is trying to attack me with an Rfc I've never heard of. Keep it up, guys. Keep it up. Alienus 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Jay, that's a good point.

Alienus, the reason why you weren't informed about the RfC is that it is currently a draft in my user space. If you stop the personal attacks and start being civil, I'm more than happy to delete it and forget all about it. Otherwise, you have my assurance that you'll be notified just as soon as it is presented to the community. Jakew 08:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to stop doing the wrong thing because I never started. This Rfc is in bad faith from the very start, as you've made no attempt at getting mediation. As a result, it will be thrown out. Alienus 10:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

"Oops, that was an accident." I'll restore it. Nandesuka 13:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Alienus 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey Jake, can I get your attention? I restored the images and it sparked a rv war with an anon user (dynamic IP's always changing) who doesn't believe in the concept of consensus... can you try to talk sense to this person? Or, at the very least, assist me in protecting the article content? I've hit 3rr for today. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You are ruining circumcision on Wikipedia. Because of your painfully apparent fetish for circumcision, you are running around like a nut deleting anything remotely truthful from these pages. The main circumcision page is very pro-. I beg you to sort out your personal issues before you appoint yourself moderator of what is supposed to be an educational site. Not only are you one-sided; you're on the wrong side. For the love of God, get a grip. Admit you made a bad decision, and move on. LEARN FROM IT.unsigned comment by User:86.128.138.237.

How nice. If I may make a suggestion, perhaps, instead of merely complaining and alleging 'issues', why don't you find verifiable, factual information to add to the article, that is in accordance with our policies.

Incidentally, common sense is rarely common, and sometimes makes no sense when considered critically. I'm sorry that you don't like cited studies, but they are verifiable and appropriate sources for the article. If you'd like to include information to the contrary, you'll need to cite appropriate sources. Jakew 10:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Jake, you've twice reverted on Circumcision advocacy without offering the slightest bit of explanation. Some people might consider this to be intentional edit-warring, but I'm going to assume good faith and instead politely remind you that edit comments are very important and that reverting without a stated reason is not considered to be a good practice. For now, I'm going to undo your changes again, but if you have a good reason, all you have to do is explain it. Thanks! Al 19:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks Jake - your Mutilation edits do make it read better. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Since some may be offended at either it's inclusion or omission from the Mutilation article it does need some careful NPOV language with links to show this is not OR. Time will tell if other editors feel we have got it right. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 16:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm pretty sure he's beyond 3RR now, but I'm on my way out. Do you want the honors? Nandesuka 22:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nevermind. Nandesuka 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.

The mediation will take place here. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. -- Wisd e n17 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I've now added my initial questions and comments on this page. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Wikipedia for any length of time then please do infrom me.

I look forward to working with you. -- Wisd e n17 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

For some strange reason your picture wasn't displaying. It came up as "[[Image:Jake_Cooking_Small.jpg | Me]]" or something very similar. I've just tweeked it to work. Hope you don't mind. (i'm not even sure if it was not just my stupid laptop) -- Alex uk 86 12:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

It's because of your circumcision that you don't like the new picture of foreskin's page ?

No, it's because the photos are poor. Jakew 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

"the photoS are poor" ? I agree. These 3 photos are very poor. Ugly.

The newer is better. Thanks.

"You've now reverted foreskin at least 4 times in the last 24 hours, which violates the three revert rule. Please revert yourself. If you do not, you may be blocked from editing for upto 24 hours. Jakew 19:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)" reply

These 4 time include 3 reversions about vandalism :

User:Nandesuka

User:CB001

and your's.

Vote on the page of discussion if you want to erase the new photo.

I checked the archives as you suggested... it does seem an odd coincidence, doesn't it? I noted the tendency of all three to revert without any attempt at gaining consensus, as well as the tendency of the first two to upload non-free images of female circumcision. Furthermore, I found it surprising for someone "new" to the debate, who from their edits doesn't seem to read the talk page much, to already know you are homosexual. This indicates either previous knowledge, or a deliberate choice to ignore consensus.

Hmmm... do you think a request for checkuser would be in order? Kasreyn 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter if any of them were ever banned. Sockpuppetry is frowned upon. It's true that it appears the first two have been abandoned, but there's currently nothing stopping him or her from beginning to use them again, even enlisting them to construct false consensus. Then, if a checkuser attempt is made after the other two enter the debate, the person making the checkuser request will be accused of grasping at any straw to silence opposition. Think about the tactics you've seen people use to get their way in debate; you know it would happen. And you've been accused of WP:OWN so many times, many would believe it. As I see it, the sooner the better (and the more quietly, hopefully without alerting the user in question until after the checkuser is complete - which is why I have not been using their name here). And a final note: for all we know there is a fourth account, perhaps one which already edits the article. Why stop at three? I'd recommend proceeding with a checkuser request upon gathering some evidence. The worst that can happen is that the admins will deny the request on grounds of insufficient evidence. Kasreyn 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd say you should go ahead with it. Right now, I'm for bed and about eight hours of much-needed shuteye. Good night, Kasreyn 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Have you gone ahead with it, Jake? Do you remember my prediction about #4? Look what we have now... after #3's comments about systemic bias, suddenly a new user arrives called Systemic Correction and begins making exactly the same edits as #3. I think you've got enough to request a checkuser now. I think we're looking at a reasonable suspicison of sockpuppetry. Kasreyn 02:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmm... I'll leave this up to your discretion. I don't know much about the requirements admins have for a checkuser. In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised that the standards are so strict; it shows that admins really do care about user privacy. (Personally, I would prefer that Wikipedia have a system like any other webforum where it logs each account's IP address in a publicly visible manner - but some may well argue that there are users who are trying to add information that powerful groups want suppressed, and in those cases IPs could be used to attack them.) In any case, as long as the user in question continues to only use one of his socks at a time, we should be fine. If he starts using them together to revert war and to game the 3RR, requesting a checkuser might become necessary. Cheers, Kasreyn 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

but please stop laying down conversational bait for him, he can't seem to resist replying. I'm referring to your latest remark at Dabljuh's talk page. I don't mean to be offensive, but it really does appear like baiting to me - you know and I know that Alienus considers you a pro-circ POV-pusher, and you seem to be trying to lure him into making a personal attack against you. What's the point? The discussion serves no purpose, you two clearly disagree and his mind is clearly made up that you're a POV pusher. What further use is there in talking about it with him, except to get tempers high and result in more anger and recrimination?  :( Kasreyn 20:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The point is that it worked once, and got me blocked for a week. Al 20:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The only thing that got you blocked for a week is that which is between your chair and your keyboard. Nandesuka 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow, you are an avatar of civility. I endeavor to imitate your perfection. Al 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You can start by taking responsiblity for your own actions instead of trying to blame the moon, the stars, and the King of Siam. Everything else flows from that. Nandesuka 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Once again, you are the exemplar that I wish to follow. Al 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Check your email. Kasreyn 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I can't read his email, so this is a good way to avoid comment from me. Al 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not trying to avoid a comment from you. He invited me to discuss something privately with him. For all I know it may be another subject entirely, one which might not involve you. Kasreyn 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Dabljuh, I've removed the following comment, since you're not allowed to edit while blocked. 11:24, June 15, 2006 Feel free to add it once your block expires. Jakew 11:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

(Removed comment by blocked user [29])

Reported here. Jakew 12:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dabljuh You may be interested in adding your experiences with him especially regarding his involvement in the circumcision related articles. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

That was really nice of you, Jake, I appreciate it 8-). Of course, I still have around 90 citations to go, but little things like that go a long way. Once again, thanks! -- Avi 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Alienus. - Will Beback 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC) reply

You're the one who brings up POV, so you need to deal with the fact that you have a POV of your own, OK? People who live in glass houses... Nokilli 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Of course I have a point of view: everybody does! It's ok to have a POV, but not to try to use Wikipedia to advance it. Understand? Jakew 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Jake, did you start the Master's degree you were planning? If so, I hope it's going well; in the case that it's underway, may I ask what sort of department you're enrolled in? Zandrous 03:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

These are pretty serious issues you're dealing with here, Mr Waskett, and some parents or soon-to-be parents might just happen to look at wikipedia for some information if they're thinking about circumcising, or not circumcising, their son, or indeed daughter. I hope they'd seek out more authoritative sources, but who knows... You say you "consider [yourself] something of an expert on the subject", and that you've been undertaking a master's degree on the medical literature on it. I was wondering what your first degree, or degrees, were in. Since you're a computer software engineer, I guess it wasn't medicine. Various disciplines could be brought to bear on the topic, ranging from physiology or biology to history or philosophy, so I don't rule you out on the basis that you're not medically qualified. However, I would be interested to know what academic credentials you claim. More to the point, I wonder if you've been published in peer-reviewed journals. Or, if you are really an enthusiastic amateur - and there's nothing wrong with that - I wonder what you can tell us about the Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service. From the website, I can't tell much about it, so I wondered if anybody besides yourself is involved in it; if you, as its founder, have engaged the services of a paediatrician, a psychologist, a medical ethics expert, etc.; if, indeed, the CIRCS exists beyond cyberspace. I'm no expert on circumcision, and I'm about to recommend a writer who doesn't have any medical credentials, but she does have a reputation as a major mind of the 20th (and 21st?) century: you may like to have a look at Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman (Doubleday 1999; reprinted Anchor 2000), pp. 119-134 (it is concerned with male as well as female circumcision, as well as other practices of the medical professions). Speaking as an historian, I'd say that the studies that are favourable to circumcision, especially routine neo-natal circumcision, may one day meet the same fate as the opinions of the revered medical men of history who regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder that could be amenable to treatment. That isn't, by the way, meant to be a jibe at your own sexual orientation, which is fine by me, and by a number of psychiatrists of my acquaintance. I hope that, unlike some other people who have posted on this page, I have managed to maintain a respectful tone. I do, however, happen to think that you are misguided, both in your reliance on specialist medical studies (you could open up to anthropology, ethics, jurisprudence, etc), and in holding these views despite your ostensible lack of medical credentials. I do know that that argument is circular, or self-defeating, or something (I spent a couple of terms on epistemology and logic at university), but life's complicated (hence I changed to history).-- AlexanderLondon 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Mr Waskett, I see that you have been logged in here at least as recently as 30 July 2006. However, you have not as yet answered my enquiry about your credentials as an expert on circumcision, or those of your Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service. I wonder if you'd like to comment on the passage by Germaine Greer that I recommended. With all good wishes.-- AlexanderLondon 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I shall take it that you are indeed no more than an enthusiastic amateur. In my own field - cultural and intellectual, and specifically religious, history of Europe - there are a lot of enthusiastic amateurs who even get their books published. E.g. Martin Palmer, The Sacred History of Britain: Landscape, Myth and Power - The Forces That Have Shaped Britain's Spirituality (London: Piatkus, 2002). It is dreadful, not just in my opinion, but also in the opinion of critics, e.g. Christopher Howse, 'Domestic mouse, papal cat' (review of M. Palmer, Sacred History), The Tablet, 257:8473 (15 February 2003), p. 20. Now if an amateur with no academic credentials can't be trusted with something as comparatively trivial as writing a popular history of religion in Britain, I wonder how far we ought to trust an amateur with no academic credentials when it comes to something as difficult and important as presenting information about circumcision.-- 195.92.67.74 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

By the way, I just thought I'd say that I wonder if it ever occurs to you people who are clearly pro-circumcision that removing a part of a person's body is just plain weird. Apologies for the colloquial language, but I'm afraid that's what it is. For cultural, religious, political, and other reasons, certain groups of people have been practising circumcision for thousands of years. In this age of secularism, rationalism, empiricism, etc, the groups of people who practise circumcision need a new basis for it. Not surprisingly, the United States of America leads the western world in finding a scientific basis for circumcision, and in finding people willing to believe it.

Further, I think the burden of proof lies with the proponents of circumcision, because you are the innovators. Put another way, I wouldn't need to be against circumcision if other people didn't insist on doing it. If we had an entire generation isolated from the very idea of circumcision, I very much doubt that anybody would decide to start doing it. Of course, I exaggerate; there will always be one or two people who behave in a bizarre way (not meaning the word bizarre to offend), and so western, secular societies have a few "vampires" and so on, but we regard their behaviour at best as pathological and at worst as criminal. What I mean is that I can't imagine anybody saying, "Hey, I know, let's cut off the foreskins of around seventy percent of new-born males". It would be as alien as removing babies' toes, noses, or ears.

One final thing; am I the only person who finds it interesting that the USA is the only western country in which infant male circumcision is routinely practised, and it is also the only western country that retains the death penalty (and one of only eight countries in the world that since 1990 has executed people for crimes committed when they were younger than 18, having executed 19 such offenders between 1990 and 2003, the same number as executed by Iran in the period 1990-2006, compared to a total of ten between China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen)?-- 195.92.67.74 21:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I take it you have nothing to say on this subject.-- AlexanderLondon 19:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the late reply (I am certain I responded on your talk page :S). Anyway, I just want to say that I have emailed AOL about the vandal and will hopefully get a response. Thanks for taking the time to contact me about the user. Thanks and regards, Iola k ana| ^T 17:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I am happy with your changes to my text on the circumcision pages (although "research" is a bit grand). However I have a question. Do you think that unnecessary circumcision is identical in terms of ethics of any other kind of comestic surgery or is it a special case? I am just wondering about the rights of parents versus the rights of children. I have not worked out any view myself as yet. I will look back here for a reply -- BozMo talk 11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't intend to make any comment on the qualities of the inclusion. 'Original research' simply refers to the title of the policy on the subject. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

Yep... just that suggesting reasons for the difference between sources would not in my view count as "original research", nor count as it in terms of WP:NOR. But then "review" would not count as research for me either. More importantly I cannot see that the article is clearly better one way or the other so I am happy for your preference to rule...

"Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position." Jakew 11:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Read that. Ultimately you could read this as prohibiting any non-plagarised text but interpreted reasonably it does not prohibit a comment pointing out two studies referred to different time periods. However I am not so sure about some of the other analysis in the article, which is still very low quality-- BozMo talk 09:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

As for your question, I think it's a mistake to assume that there should be conflict between the rights of parents and those of children. Parents are rarely actively hostile towards their children; they usually act in what they consider to be the child's best interests. As long as a reasonable person can find a decision to circumcise to be in the best interests of the child in a particular situation, I don't see any problems. To assume that a child has a right to be uncircumcised or circumcised seems to beg the question somewhat. Jakew 12:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

That's fair enough, there should be no conflict and no doubt in most cases there is none. However there are medico-legal issues around consent which abound when you look at the literature as I have just done. Parents have given their children other purely comestic surgery under the age of consent, and at one end of the spectrum you could even put having your child's ear pierced in this category. I just wondered if circumcision was generic or a special case? -- BozMo talk 12:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think that there's a special case in the way it should be analysed, but it is unusual in that, while often performed for 'cosmetic' reasons, it has several medical benefits. Jakew 11:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Absolute medical benefits? Guaranteed medical benefits? Or potential medical benefits? The overwhelming majority of infant circumcisions chosen for medical reasons are in fact not treating particular conditions. Accordingly, they are rightly understood to be prophylactic surgeries, because parents are making their choices in the interest of potential future medical benefits (for example, an infant has no UTI, but parents have heard that circumcision makes UTI less likely, so they elect the surgery in the hopes of it preventing future UTIs. They are not treating a condition, but hoping to prevent a possible future condition, making this prophylactic surgery if chosen for medical rather than social or cultural reasons). To the point of this dialogue, circumcision for medical reasons is no special case beyond that of a prophylactic surgical intervention, which are usually treated as special cases of sorts, and bioethicists have a lot to say about the particular scrutiny that preventive surgeries must be subject to. The point is that any preventive surgery is a special case in terms of consent and medical ethics. Zandrous 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Listen Zanrous, JakeW has accepted that on the article page we put "claimed" medical benefits (since all are contraversial), so at least let him express his opinions on his own talk page...

Humble apologies anononymous, my intention was to query JakeW regarding his understanding of this particular point, not to challenge his opinions. I am very interested in his opinions and his understanding of the issues related to informed consent, as he is somewhat of an expert on circumcision and related topics. My intention was not to challenge or inhibit his expression of his opinions on his talk page, but rather to dialogue with him about things related to the topic, but not related to the article itself. I hope JakeW receives my comments in the spirit of congenial, open, academic intercourse which they are made; I am interested in understanding his opininons and understandings and comparing them with mine, as we are each relatively well-versed with the literature on circumcision. JakeW, I'd love to hear what you think, you're welcome to take it over to my talk pages if you think that's more appropriate. Love you brother! Zandrous 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm on vacation again til next week ... what you did messing with the discussion page was a huge waste of time.

It will be interesting what you do with the topic. TipPt 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

His "vacation" must have been cut short: [30] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I hope you enjoy your vacation, Tip, and hope that you'll be civil in future and address the subject matter rather than other editors. Jakew 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

We had a great time hiking in the High Sierras ... backpacking along the southern border of yosemite park. Saw 2 other people the whole week ... which can be really nice when you live in SoCal.

I have been pointed, but civil. You have been biased and obstructionist. I find drawing attention to specific issues is the key to not wasting our time. TipPt 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Focusing on specific issues sounds a splendid idea. Your holiday sounds most enjoyable. Jakew 18:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Avi, could you have a look at the history on 'circumcision'? I think TipPt has reverted different sections a total of about 5-6 times in the last 24hrs, and frankly it seems to be irritating a lot of people. What's your view? Worth reporting? Jakew 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I do not believe it is technically a 3RR, as there are only three reverts (chronologically contiguous edits count as one) in 24 hours, but he is close. I left a reminder on his page, but I do not believe that there is any violation. -- Avi 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I did cite evidence, don't accuse me of vandalism when I go to the talk page and post the fucking refutation to the information a removed. Furthermore I removed information that had NO CITATION, and that it's impossible to give a good citation for because all the studies are fatally flawed. I removed it becuase it was FLAT OUT WRONG. Your restoration of it therefore constitutes vandalism Lordkazan 13:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Please consult Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks for what qualifies as a personal attack before vandalizing other people's user pages with false warnings Lordkazan 13:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I have already replied on your talk page. Jakew 13:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought you might find this interesting or helpful. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2228114_2,00.html -- Shamir1 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Jakew, I just reverted the Genital Alteration article back to my earlier formulation and made an editorial note and discussion on the talk page to the effect that it is intolerant of religious practice to call religiously-based male circumcisions "contentious" or "controversial". Anyhow, I am writing you because it may appear on my revert note that I was implying you are intolerant. Of course, I was not refering to your edits but to those of Lordkazan. I apologize sincerely if the way I wrote my edit note implies otherwise; I did not perceive the ambiguity until after I published, and if you choose to clarify the record please know that I did not mean to impugn you in any way. Dasondas 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Jakew, of course there is intolerance and controversy everywhere about any type of belief or practice, but my point is that in the case of religiously-motivated circumcision this controversy has not risen to the level necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia. There has been a long-running debate in the main Circ article that has centered around primarily medical and secondarily psycho/sexual effects; as you can see from my edits in this article I have been quite open to the inclusion of responsible circumcision criticisms that discuss these aspects. However, I am quite alarmed at the present morphing of these criticisms on the genital alteration page to include the religious motivations as well. I want the critics to be forced to "prove" the existence of the controversial nature of religiously motivated circumcisions, as opposed to circumcisions performed for non-religious reasons. They should not be allowed to make this contention without citing reliable, relevant, and non-fringe (e.g. non-trivial) sources that clearly establish such a controversy exists. The BBC article that Wolfkeeper insists on using as a basis for his edits does not do this; it establishes that the new Swedish law has become controversial, but as for the practice of religious circumcision itself the BBC article only infers that such a controversy exists without actually giving any evidence (it may well be the case that the author of the BBC article has the same agenda as some of the Wiki editors). Mark my words, Jakew, if these editors are successful in creating a controversy about religious circumcision in this article they will try to insert it in the other more mainstream articles as well. They shouldn't be allowed to simply assert that a strong controversy exists and then write about it as if this is something more than a fringe opinion. There are probably over 600 million people alive today who have been circumcised for purely religious reasons, and I think there needs to be a fairly high standard of editorial "proof" before Wikipedia articles can state that this is a controversial practice. Anyhow, that is my reasoning (or some of it); I hope you agree and can help out on this point. Obviously, I am available to continue this discussion with you to try to convince you if I haven't yet succeeded. Dasondas 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Jakew, that is a very interesting article. Thanks for making me aware of it. My point, as to Wikipedia policy, is that editors should not just be able to insist, a priori, that a controversy exists wrt religious circumcision. They should have to cite proper sources which would then be open to proper rebuttal sources; in this way we avoid silly and resource-wasting edit wars that are devoid of content. If such sources exist, fine; but I want to see them (btw, I wouldn't consider the article you sent to be prima facie evidence that the controversy has risen to the level for Wiipedia inclusion -- the article is without any doubt a highly-serious and informative piece and discusses the situation in terms of its contentious nature, but it doesn't directly cite the anti-circumcision literature. Thus, as far as the very narrow question as to whether or not a "Wikipedia-worthy" controversy actually exists, I would consider this piece a secondary source. For an issue as sensitive as this one, with hundreds of millions of religious adherents and at least three thousand years of history on the "pro" side of the equation (as well as a history of the practice of circumcision being used by bigots as a tool to advance anti-religious agendas), I think it is appropriate to insist on an examination of serious primary sources before conceding that such a controversy exists. Don't you? Dasondas 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Great! Let's see what happens. Dasondas 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

JakeW, I got your request and will be working on it -- hopefully later today. As yet I haven`t decided to register an e-mail with Wiki, and when I do I`m not sure if I`ll use an existing account or open a new one for the purpose. I do want to respond to your request, so please give me a little time to figure out the best way to do it, and I`ll be in touch. Dasondas 14:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Jakew, will you shoot me a note explaining how to create diffs -- I want to know how to isolate specific areas of text throughout Wikipedia and create a link that I can send to another user. Along the lines of, "please take a look at this {...}, this {...}, and this {...}", with the various {...} being links to different Wiki-communications that I want to show the user. I think you can gues why this is important to me right now, and I`d appreciate the tutorial. Thanks. Dasondas 15:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I had used diffs before but didn´t realize that that was what they were called. And I never noticed that there were unique URLs associated with them. Thanks for the help. I assume you got my e-mail; let me know if you disagree with me on anything. Dasondas 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply