User talk:Hans Adler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the near future I may not read my talk page as frequently and reliably as I used to do. For urgent or important matters, it may be better to use email.

Notalkback.svg I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.
Barnstar free.svg I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.
Say no to WikiRape.png I do not fancy non-consensual templated "WikiLove".

Hello?[edit]

Bishzilla mentioned you here. Welcome in pocket, bring all the bobsledding Adlers! bishzilla ROARR!! 12:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC).

  • Wer ist diese Bishzilla? Und wo ist der Bahnhof? Drmies (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I see you are aware of the infamous de:Kannitverstan trap and know how to avoid it. But I guess you are actually no more confused than I am. Sorry for the lack of proper, timely response. I am very busy recently and shouldn't be editing at all. Hans Adler 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Und wo ist dieser Kannitverstan? Anywhere near the snowy Långtbortistan? bishzilla ROARR!! 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC).
        • Dear Hans, a highly belated response: I hope you are well, being busy elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Don't worry, I am in fact well and busy. And the few times that I tried to do something non-trivial here again, I was immediately discouraged by even more extreme behaviour than I had experienced earlier. I don't know if things are really getting worse or if the difference has to do with my long absence, or even with my grumpiness due to the extremely unsatisfactory working condiditions I had last year. But in any case this is not an environment in which I am willing to make any substantial contributions. For a while I tried to work on the Interlingua Wikipedia instead, but then I realised that a Spanish pedophilia advocate was the other most active user there, and there seemed to be no competent steward available to look into this. Currently my major online activity is learning Dutch and Scandinavian languages on Duolingo (while waiting for certain more interesting ones) and supporting other learners there. Hans Adler 09:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You appear to be involved in an edit war. If you continue someone might block you. Not me of course. Just a friendly heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You might have mentioned your own involvement. You have removed a POV template because you don't consider an article which you passed as GA biased. Hans Adler 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I am involved. I did state that it would not be me blocking you. There have been requests for evidence. Wikipedia is based on sources not editors opinions. If you do not provide high quality sources along with suggested changes nothing will change. Attempting to continue to add tags is disruptive.
On a professional level I do not nor would I ever perform this procedure. Personally I am against it except when medical indicated (and yes it sometimes is). The English article is not pro-circ. It states "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure." Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet you seem to be insisting to write and organise the article based almost exclusively on Pubmed sources and according to MEDRS. As this is as much a cultural and political topic as it is a medical topic, the resulting American medical bias is inappropriate and makes the article seriously POV.
For comparison, here is a translation of the layout of the corresponding article in the second-largest Wikipedia, the German one:
  • Circumcision in cultural history and religion (Origins and ritual significance of circumcision; Circumcision in Ancient Egypt; Judaism; Christianity; Islam; Modern Era; Present)
  • Performance of circumcision (General; Gomco clamp; Plastibell; Coverage of the frenulum; Traditional circumcision)
  • Styles and forms of circumcision
  • Medical and aesthetic motives for circumcision (Indication; Contraindication; Hygienic and medically preventative motives; UTI; Balanitis; HIV infection risk; Transfer of other infectious diseases; HPV infections; Penis carcinome; Aesthetic and cosmetic motives; Female preference; Hirsuties papillaris penis)
  • Impact on sexuality (Influence on penis sensibility; Masturbation; Intercourse [Sexual satisfaction and susceptibility to orgasm; Ejaculation control; Impact on female partner])
  • Possible problems and complications of circumcision (Medical complications [Pain and postoperative troubles; Meatal stenosis; Formation of knots in venes; Adhesions; Herpes risk; Cases of death; Other risks and complications]; Subsequent psychological problems)
  • Criticism of circumcision of minors (Historical controversies; Present criticism of circumcision; Subjects' lacking capacity to consent; Positions of German professional organisations; Religion and culture as justification of circumcision; Health consequences; Differentiation from female genital cutting)
  • Regulation of circumcision of minors in various states (list of countries)
  • Depiction in art
  • Interpretation in psychoanalysis
And here the outline of the corresponding French article (top level only, for brevity):
  • Ritual practice
  • Circumcision in the anglo-saxon world
  • The surgical procedure and its consequences
  • Geographic distribution
  • Legal aspects
  • Intactivism
  • Psychoanalytic perspectives and psychological consequences of circumcision
  • Controversies
There are many aspects in which the English article is better than the German and French articles. But only the English article has the peculiar quality that an atheist could read it with a completely open mind and as a result decide that it's best for their newborn to be circumcised.
It appears that for years a British circumcision fetishist (not using the word as hyperbole but as a technical description of a specific sexual perversion) had control over the article. (If you didn't know this I will see if I still have the pointers and send them to you privately. May take a week or so, though.) Unfortunately the structure of the main circumcision article and the various related articles still carries much of that legacy. Hans Adler 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I encountered that person; his last edit was in 2012. A really extraordinary beyond-what-can-be-made-up case. If info is wanted, feel free to contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I misremembered an important detail, so I just had to correct my description. But given that the guy has been active so recently, I guess Jmh649 = Doc James was already aware of him anyway. Hans Adler 13:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry Hans I think your personal feelings are getting in the way of productive discussion regarding circumcision, please see here. Zad68 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion[edit]

The thread has been closed, please do not post into it for any reason. Let it go and move on. GiantSnowman 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The only one editing disruptively here is you. Given all your problems recently I would have thought you would have wanted to keep your nose clean. GiantSnowman 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Given all my problems recently? Would have wanted to keep my nose clean? And not even so much as a trout for Coffee for making this non-neutral closing comment? Interesting reaction. Congratulations for your first impression on me. I vaguely remember your name, but so far I had no opinion on you.
As I shouldn't be editing anyway, I am in fact not going to pursue this.
Just for the record: You misunderstood my edit comment, though I have trouble guessing how you understood it. "no, YOU are making the scene" doesn't seem to be a good response to "IAR is still policy. The alternative would be making a scene." Obviously, what I tried to express is that regardless of what the current fashion for closing AN threads may be, non-neutral and misleading closing comments must still be highly inappropriate and just appending a quick counterdeclaration is a milder alternative to starting a thread discussing the close or reopening a discussion that has run its course.
And last time I looked, edit warring on AN was still inappropriate. Hans Adler 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Who has edit warred? Other than yourself, I mean. If you have an issue with the close, you should have raised it with the individual directly or an uninvolved admin, rather than pettily trying to get the last word in. GiantSnowman 11:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It was a crap, biased close. Is that User:Coffee's usual style? Couldn't one of you admins correct it? Why do editors who take problems to your clubhouse have to put up with that kind of patronising, condescending, biased shit? You people wouldn't last one minute in anything but a monopoly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
...and the way to resolve that is by furthering the very 'us vs' them' mentality you complain about? Very good. GiantSnowman 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It's resolved by admins being mature. To clarify, the problem with Coffee's close was "a select few individuals' opinions do not make a consensus, and to drop the pitchfork". Shallow and inflammatory. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong - I am not supporting the close. I am not opposing it either. My only issue here is an editor trying to comment in a closed discussion. If people feel the close is wrong, then I suggest they request it is re-opened. GiantSnowman 13:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
And it doesn't occur to you that acting on incomplete information might be a problem? That commenting on a bad close in the only place where people can see it is less disruptive than making a scene, so long as nobody decides to jump in for the sake of process wonkery? Hans Adler 17:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You could/should have "commented on a bad close" in any way other than editing the closed discussion. It's really that simple. GiantSnowman 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You shouldn't have defended a bad close for the sake of process if you are unwilling to defend it on the merits. It's really that simple. Process is not the purpose of Wikipedia, it's a means to an end. Which is IAR is still policy. Hans Adler 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sigh, where have I "defended a bad close" - cos I'm pretty sure I said "I am not supporting the close" earlier today... GiantSnowman 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Hans Adler 21:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech[edit]