User talk:Dasondas

Welcome!

Hello, Dasondas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome again! Glad you decided to join us. If you need any help you can contact me on my user talk page. Take care, FloNight ^talk 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

UNSC 242

The "inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force" is not ambiguous. --Ian Pitchford 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Secure and Recognized Boundaries" is a lesser element because it's not accompanied by a specific recommendation or instruction and the phrase has no explicit meaning, whereas the abolition of the right of conquest was a core principle of the Covenant of the League of Nations and is a core principle of the Charter of the United Nations. --Ian Pitchford 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Charter of the United Nations does not allow the acquisition of territory by conquest. This prinicple is empahised in the preamble to UNSC 242. The addition of an ambiguous phrase about secure boundaries doesn't change international law. --Ian Pitchford 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation

The work you are deleting seems to be non controversial. It does not seem to condemn relgious positions in any way.

NPOV is about capturing POV, not removing it from the encyclopedia, and this simply notes that there are POVs in the world. AFAICT it is correct in that, although I would prefer it if it noted that some religions perform these procedures as part of their belief structure and it had citations. But it does not seem to be incorrect, and so I have therefore reverted your edit.

If you believe that this piece is non NPOV, then I suggest you read NPOV again.WolfKeeper 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're violating 3 reverts. You've also removed a cite, and you are making false accusations that completely can't be sustained. You've got no leg to stand on here really. Seriously, the world isn't going to end if you leave this alone.WolfKeeper 03:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed high quality of your contributions. Thank you for making WP better. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Circ changes you made are wrong

Those were exact quotes from the citations. Do not change exact quotes.TipPt 15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

NB I changed no quotes whatsoever, and the few words of the article I have modified up until now had nothing to do with any quotes; I was neutralizing the POV that was inserted into the article byTipPt's dishonest and reckless manipulation of medical literature.Dasondas 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your note re Genital modification and mutilation

Thanks for your note - and your concern - on my talk page. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. But I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning. I would agree if you said it was intolerant for people to object to religious circumcision, certainly. However, there is intolerance in this world, and some people do indeed object to this. Their numbers are probably smaller than those who object to elective secular circumcision (itself a fairly small group), but they do exist. While we should be careful to avoid implying that there's a lot of controversy (as a certain editor seems to desire), surely it isn't intolerant to note that some exists? Jakew 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas, I understand the point you're making, and to an extent, I agree. The question, however, is at what point does a fringe element become noteworthy? I don't know the answer.

Please would you have a look here. It is an article by a gentleman who addresses the issue of religious circumcision from a supportive point of view. However, in doing so, he notes many of the objections that have been made. I'd be interested in learning your thoughts on the nature of the controversy in light of this. Jakew 12:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the points you've made, and I agree that they're valid. I'm not entirely convinced that there should be no mention, but I'll help out and see if we can get some facts to help decide upon that. Jakew 15:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"intolerant fringe groups"

excuse me? you're the one being POV and intolerant. I have no problem with you VOLUNTARILY getting YOURSELF circumcised for religion reasons. However you have no right to FORCE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING to be circumcised. Furthermore for religious purposes, would not voluntary circumcision be more religiously meaningful?

If you circumcise another without their consent (or before they're old enough to give consent) then you have engaged in genital mutilation and the violation of human rights. No religion gives anyone the right to deprive others of their human rights.

Do NOT attempt to imply others are "intolerant fringe groups" when you are merely projecting your own intolerance and bigotry. Whatever religion you are is not my concern, it is irrelevant. (and no, don't tell me, because I don't care what religion you are) Lordkazan 16:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're now doing exactly the same thing that you reported, Lordkazan. Jakew 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

You need to consult the dictionary on the term "bigot". If I was a bigot I would be attempting to outlaw your religion. I am not, I don't care what religion you are. You, as part of your religion, can have yourself voluntarily circumcised if you want. Yes I do understand the religious significance of it for some people, no that significance does not justify you doing it to other people without their consent. As I noted above "Furthermore for religious purposes, would not voluntary circumcision be more religiously meaningful?". You have been reported for your repeated personal attacks, and I am watching the genital mutilation article for any vandalism from you Lordkazan 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep cool

Keep cool, Dasondas. I know the issue's important, but try. :-) Jakew 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH!

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Circumcision, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lordkazan 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Genital_modification_and_mutilation, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lordkazan 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Warning

This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lordkazan 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE THE VANDAL DASONDAS! DO NOT CLAIM TO BE REVERTING VANDALISM WHEN YOU REVANDALIZE A PAGE AFTER SOMEONE UNDOES YOUR VANDALISM! YOUR ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN REPORTED ON THE ADMIN NOTICE BOARD AND TO SEVERAL CVU MEMBERS! Lordkazan 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

POV-pushing vandalism

I'm sick of edit warring with you - your vandalism and personal attacks have been reported at the appropriate pages. RESTORE THE CONTENT YOU VANDALIZED IMMEDIATELY http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&curid=6783&diff=74594757&oldid=74594205 Lordkazan 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No Personal attacks

Personal attacks such as those found here and here are against wiki policy

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Crimsone 21:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

It seems that you are removing content on some of your edits. I am not sure if this is vandalism or not, because I don't really have a lot of knowledge about circumsision, but what I indicaed was that more knowledgeable editors and administrators may decide that it is vandalism. What concerns me more are your edit summaries. You claim that some of the other editors are vandals. Right now, I don't really think anyone is vandalizing the article. It is a content dispute and definitely needs mediation, but I am not really the right person to do most of it. A good start, however, would be for you and everyone else to stop claiming that the articl eis being vandalized, for now. Academic Challenger 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Lordkazan

Dasondas, you have been a bit off hand with User:Crimsone, who was only trying to help. I agree that Lordkazan's edits look harsh and his shouting above contravenes talk page guidelines etc. Crimsone has asked me to look into the dispute, which I will happily do, though not now as it is twenty to one in the morning where I live and frankly, I'm too tired. I will look in the morning, however. If you feel this needs discussing sooner, you can make a request for comment or suchlike. --Robdurbar 23:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I've had a further look at this now, and Crimsone was right - calling Lordkazan a bigot was a personal attack. According to WP:NPA, there is no excuse for these, no matter what the provocation.

That said, I have told Lordkazan that he was wrong to label your editing as vandalism (and if you wish to remove the vandalism warnings from your talk page, then feel free; the no personal attacks one should stay though), and that his conduct on talk pages has countered guidelines and shown a presumption of bad faith.

You should also visit Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. In paticular, it is not 'NPOV violations', or 'mistakes' in editing. If you think that Lordkazan has made those (and I'm not passing judgement on the content here), then there are routes to solving this but it is not vandalism.

I hope you two can solve your differences on the various talk pages; that the article has been protected should be a warning to both of you that you have let this go too far. --Robdurbar 09:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

reply and possible solution

Hi Dasondas. I too have been able to take a look, and I roughly agree with Robdurbar. The bigot issue was a personal attack according to the "letter of the law" in WP:NPA. However, I would explain further and say that I understand that you have been antagonised to a fair degree, but WP:NPA does state...

• There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors.

... And gives one example of a personal attack as...

• Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

...and as such, there can nevertheless be no excuse for a personal attack. Given the level of antagonism though, I am prepared to extend an olive branch. If you would be willing to reword your edits (as per the two diffs provided in the npa2 warning) to remove the offending remarks and to describe the edits themselves rather than the editor (perhaps using such language as "it is my belief that..."), it would be a strong enough demonstration of good faith for me to replace the npa2 with a simple note to suggest that you edit the remarks, to which you could reply that you have done so. If you do this, I could also make a note of the removal of npa2 in the WP:PAIN report and remove it.

I see the dispute over some of User:Lordkazan's edits, and I agree with Robdurbar that your reverts do not constitute vandalism. However, I do note that there are conflicting points of view that are fuelling this particular edit war. It appears that you hold a belief that what Lordkazan would describe as "forced circumcision" (for lack of a more concise title) is an acceptable practice in a religious context, and Lordkazan believes that it is never an acceptable practice, and these conflicting POV's are fuelling the edit war. I will not offer a POV on this issue as I don't really have one. By that same token, a whole edit war is not something I am going to involve myself in either, but I would like to offer one particular edit for discussion as an example so that you both might be able to resolve the edit war in good faith. My reasoning for this is that opposing points of views, when focused correctly, can make for far better articles with a far better degree of neutrality.

The edit I will refer to is this one.

Firstly, I note that both of you are concentrating here on the circumcision of boys, but it should be noted that religious circumcision is not limited to boys, and in a number of countries and cultures, a practice commonly called "female circumcision" is currently a very hot topic.

is indeed correct in intoducing to the article a mention of the controversy surrounding religious circumcision, but I feel that the wording of his contributions does indeed introduce a POV element. A little evidence of the controversy surrounding circumcision in judaism in particular can bee found here. In Islam and Judaism, it is indeed the case that the law says that males should be circumcised, though to the best of my knowledge, it does not have this to say about females. By the same token, to the best of my limited knowledge, Judaism does allow for circumcision as an adult rather than 8 days after birth, and the holy book doesn't actually state specifically when circumcision must be performed, but offers strong indication that it should be after birth. As such, the statement that it is "customary or obligatory" is not only a contradiction of itself, but it is also incorrect. The rest of the paragraph regarding the various views on the subject of religious circumcision at birth may indeed be correct, but needs to be cited, and were not particularly POV with the exception of the fact that they did not include the religious POV. On the second paragraph however, I note that Lordkazan is incorrect in the removal of description of the new law as contraversial, as the source for the statement does indeed make mention of the controversy around it. In fact, the rewording of the whole paragraph makes it less accurate as it does indeed give a biased view of the source.

As such, in the interests of resolving the edit war, I would like to suggest the following...

• 1, Allow a statement that religious circumcision is a practice surrounded by a little controversy in line 407.
• 2, Revert the rest of Lordkazans edits to the rest of the paragraph starting at line 407 to the version you have been reverting to, and add a note to see a section on controversy.
• 3, Add a section or subsection to the article which MUST be well cited, and MUST include multiple viewpoints in a NPOV manner, and these viewpoints MUST include a religious one. Each argument should be left open ended, and the section as a whole must not be biased towards any given viepoint.

With the facts available through various sources, I am sure that the above is possible. Given that I have no POV at all on the subject itself, also please be aware that this is an entirely unbiased view of the given edit. It is not given as an instruction or demand, but is given as a possible solution to the ongoing edit war. It is a means for you both to extend the olive branch to each other and cooperate in the spirit of wikipedia, creating an article in accordance with the stated goals of wikipedia. Given the shear amount of time and effort I have given to this attempted resolution, I feel it unlikely that anybody else is likely to offer so much effort should this fail, and the next step would possibly be arbitration.

As a cautionary note for my own benefit, Not that I am assuming that you would, but please realise Dasondas that this message with regards to the edit mentioned above is not only for yourself. It equally applies to Lordkazan, and anybody else on either side of this particular fence. The only part of this message specific to only yourself regards the npa2 warning. Following the advice there would be the first step to resolving this issue, and I would highly recommend it. If not for any other reason, it would be a lot easier than taking this whole thing to arbitration. I have not yet seen what as been said to Lordkazan, but I shall take a look momentarily. --Crimsone 18:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem at all presenting both views. I have a problem with his calling me a bigot for opposing nonvoluntary circumcision. I have a problem with his calling me a "sympathizer of fringe groups" for opposing nonvoluntary circumcision. I have a problem with him calling me ignorant. I have a problem with him doing all these after I made a statement to accomodate his religion, despite the fact that I am antireligious (People can choose to be whatever they want). My problem is with "forced circumcision" (quite an accurate description), and I am in a position of authority to talk on the subject as I am a victim of such. You are absolutely correct in your parallels to female circumcision, I even know a woman (know her online) who was FGMed in 1954 in the state of kansas (as a minor.. an infant I believe, I haven't read her book yet but I know her from a mailing list we're both on). I would prefer that Dasondas not revert his personal attacks, but instead make an apology for them. Furthermore I don't know exactly how I atagonized him - I simply have a completely different view tham him and that is what got me personally attacked by him, the revert war was later in the day than the PA incidents. Lordkazan 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When I refer to antagonism, I am making no qualification on wheteher it was deliberate or not. I have simlpy put myself in Dasondas's shoes and looked at how I would feel if I were trying to edit in good faith (as I believe your edit was also intended originally), and was repeatedly accused of vandalism. The antagonism aspect stems from everything mentioned on your talk page.

With regards to the npa warning, you (lordkazan) need to be able to abide by the advice given to you on your talk page and assume good faith. You are after all referring only to two incidents close together. You will need to accept that this entire situation has arisen from misunderstanding on both sides and a breakdown in communications, and that these two things have resulted in all that has followed from that at the very beginning. You need to both forget the past, and try to move on in the spirit of wikipedia. My offer to Dasondas still remains.

I would hope that you are able to see that in order to resolve this dispute, which really is in the interests of everybody, what's past is past, and what matters now is how weto continue, partake in the reason that we are all here in the spirit that we are all here, and to do so amicably. --Crimsone 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but expirienced has taught me the foolishness of forgetting things as in the past, and principles have taught me to be indignant when my statements are misrepresented and my opinions are misrepresented - even in the purpose of accomodation. I have no illusions of his intentions, he called me a bigot for having a different opinion than him because it contradicts what he sees as his religions teachings. I even went out of my way to make a gesture of good faith and suggested an alternative way for his religion to exercise that belief, and he calls me a bigot for it? This is a prime example of why I am antireligious. Forgive him? sure if he renders an apology. Forget his transgression? Never. Forgive him for violating the human rights of others? Not on you life, I'd drag him before a court of law and have him sentanced to the full extent of the law if I could. Lordkazan 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)