User talk:Tremello

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Water fluoridation opposition. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You've gone to 4 reverts in only about half an hour. Please self-revert your most recent edit in respect of the three-revert rule. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

UTI

Hey Tremello, thanks for the links. I was working from the abstract, but I hadn't seen the other page you provided. I like your latest iteration of the UTI section. We did a good job working together to present a high quality synopsis of the study. I'm still not too sure about the breast feeding sentence though. I agree that it is practically useful, but it seems more like advice than something that should be in an encyclopedic article. Let me know what you think. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good faith

Hey Tremello, the debate is getting a bit intense over at Talk:Circumcision, and I wanted to let you know that my responses are in no way meant to be critical to you as an editor, or as a person. We have some disagreements (probably less than it seems), but I respect your point of view. Regards, AlphaEta 13:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Me again

I think your previous edit was a huge improvement. I was just trying to remove a few superfluous words. All of the relevant info remained. For example, what's the substantial difference between this:

Little smegma is produced in childhood; production increases during adolescence. When the boy reaches sexual maturity the function of smegma for lubrication assumes its full value. From middle-age on, production starts to decline and in old age virtually no smegma is produced.

and this:

Some researchers have claimed that smegma production is greatest between the ages of 20 and 40, when a man is most sexually active.?

1. It doesn't present Wright's hypothesis as fact (which, at least according to the citation, it isn't).

2. It is much more concise.

Maybe "filler" was a poor word choice. Sorry if you found it offensive. Oh well, either way the article is much better than it was before. Also, I agree, we should both do a better job of using the talk page.... AlphaEta 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-write of HIV section

Trem, check out the proposed re-write of the HIV over section at Talk:Circumcision. Thanks, AlphaEta 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Really good work here : Human immunodeficiency virus Garycompugeek (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good move

Hey Tremello, I agree with your move of "Genital integrity" to "Opposition to circumcision." The article had/has very little info about woman. It also doesn't seem to cover more radical alterations of male genitalia, such as sub-incision and testicle crushing. AlphaEta 20:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Current 3RR violation on Medical analysis of circumcision

You may not have realized it, but you are actually currently in violation of WP:3RR on Medical analysis of circumcision and cannot self-revert as someone else has editied after you:

• Original edition

1. 11:45, September 23, 2008
2. 11:54, September 23, 2008
3. 12:41, September 23, 2008
4. 12:53, September 23, 2008

I personally am not going to block you now, but please remember WP:3RR and try and work out the issues on the talk page. This does not mean that another sysop may feel the same way, and of course, further reversions may result in measures taken to protect the project. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Then try not to ignore what I say in the future. Tremello22 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with ignoring, Tremello, we are having a difference of opinion as to the optimal way to section the article. Respectful dialogue is the only way any compromise will be reached. Also, please rememberthat WP:CIVIL is just as an important pillar in wikipedia as is WP:NPOV. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Re the last sentence here: please comment on content, not on the contributors. I've given similar messages to Blackworm and Avi. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

... for formatting references at Medical analysis of circumcision. I was going to do that one of these days but never seem to find the time. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bleustein

here is the discussion , point 4. According to Jakew's reasoning only later studies of the same series need to be cited. I hope he isn't selective in that. I think it is the same series the abstracts (2003) and (2005) seem very similar. So it makes sense to just use the larger sample(2005). Tremello22 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good call! Thanks for the clarification. AlphaEta 23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Re this message where you said, "There is only so many wikipedia rules you can use as a get-around before it gets obvious that the medical benefits of circumcision are presented way out of context. I think secretly , you know this": Please assume good faith. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: Re this edit: Please don't simply delete information when you're unable to access the full text of the article (as opposed to just the abstract) to verify whether it accurately reflects what's in the source. Instead, you can place a template such as {{Verify source}} to request that someone obtain the article and check. (I'm not sure whether there's a more specific template for that, but I think that one would do.) There is no requirement that sources for Wikipedia articles be available online; in fact, one could argue that it's more useful to the reader to supply information that can't easily be found online. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Often when I delete information from an article for any reason, I quote the deleted information on the talk page, to assist any other editors who might come along months later and want to put the information back in for some reason. It takes work to generate information, and editors differ in opinions as to what's valuable, so it's helpful to indicate it on the talk page when deleting something. I won't claim I necessarily always do this and depending on the amount of information being deleted it may not always be necessary. However, I just explained some of my edits here, for example. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re "I think I have a good handle on your views on circumcision" [1]: please comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Smegma

Hi Tremello,

I'm thinking about preparing a request for comment to get some more input on the proposed additions to smegma, as unfortunately it seems that we're having difficulty finding an acceptable compromise. In order to be fair to your proposal, I wondered if you'd mind adding refs and so on to your proposed text? Thanks, Jakew (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image vandalizing

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 09:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not my image, was it? Quit your threatening tone. Tremello22 (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a level 1 warning, hardly threatening. One more revert and you'll be in contempt of the 3-revert rule, at which point I will have to report you. -Axmann8 (Talk) 09:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well this isn't over. I know i am in the right here. please discuss on Talk:Penis Tremello22 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, this Isn't an argument. It's simple. Revert it once more, and you'll be in non-compliance with the TRR. -Axmann8 (Talk) 10:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like an argument to me. I disagree with your edit. You have just removed perfectly informative images without consensus. You haven't even given a good reason. I have attempted to explain my problems with your edit on the penis talk page, you have yet to respond. Tremello22 (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I already explained my reasoning when I originally replaced the image. It's a failure on your part to read it thoroughly. -Axmann8 (Talk)

And actually, I did respond to you on Penis (Talk). -Axmann8 (Talk) 10:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Re your comment here: In this comment you seem to be experiencing some frustration with Jakew's behaviour. Unfortunately, I don't understand what behaviour of Jakew's is leading to this frustration. Let me know if you'd like to discuss this further. Re the word "hypocritical" in that comment: please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If I think he is being hypocritical, I will say so.