User talk:Zad68

numerous times now I have caught you changing my edits on the circumcision page after we had reached consensus on talk page regarding an addition. I would like to remind you that you must gain consensus on the talk page for any edit, and that includes changing my edits. Please open discussion on the talk page if you find that my edits are inadequate.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnPRsrcher, your interpretation of the events is incorrect, unfortunately. Also see WP:BRD. Just as you were busy earlier in the month I've been busy recently. Remember there is no timeline, there is no rush. I plan to address the recent edits tomorrow. Zad68 04:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Understood.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bolnick Textbook

I can't access this book, so can't see their summary of policy statements. According to cirp, these are all of the policy statements made by English speaking nation, and the majority of policy statements in their entirety. I don't know if we can trust cirp, but we should investigate this matter to see if it is true.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JohnPRsrcher if you are serious about developing Wikipedia articles according to the content rules, you'll stop trying to use CIRP to support your arguments. Continuing to reference the self-published website of an activist group just further points out an agenda. Zad68 05:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How about this? I would like to use the policy statements from Canada, Britain, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands for the page. These are all reviews of the literature and are indicating that the question of whether it is a human rights violation has been raised. They also indicate that this procedure has different value for different sets of demographics. For instance, it may be encouraged in the US where we have a significant amount of HPV, but in other nations there may be no cost benefit. In addition, other nations may be more willing to not encourage it because of an increase of protesting from persons in their society.

Also, I would like to see this Bolnick textbook. I may be able to get a copy at school to look at.

JohnP 17:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

JohnPRsrcher you clearly are still attempting to use the CIRP self-published advocacy website to influence your Wikipedia editing. This is not good-faith editing in line with Wikipedia's purposes. If you'd like to develop the topic, find an independent, academic resource that surveys the available position statements, rather than going to a single-purpose advocacy website and using their biased view. Zad68 04:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I'm not. I found all of these technical reports from other countries. They are technical reports. They have good information about the cost effectiveness of circumcision with respect to UTIs, HIV, and other STIs with respect to the demographics in those countries.

They are technical reports not policy statements. I'm sorry for mispeaking, I thought you would understand what I was trying to say. Lol, of course I'm not trying to directly cite policy statements, I'm not stupid.

JohnP 16:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPRsrcher (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

From the editor: Looking for new editors-in-chief

In the media: Wales on GamerGate

Featured content: Still quoting Iolanthe, apparently.

WikiProject report: Microsoft does The Signpost

Traffic report: North Korea is not pleased

Blacklight Power

Hi Zad - wonder if you could turn your admin's eye in this direction - there's some disruptive editing going on again and it may be that the semi-protection is in order? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexbrn sorry I haven't been paying closer attention, been busy IRL, so thanks for the pointer. Looks like Bishonen is trying blocking the IP. Let's see if that works. Will try to check in later. Hope you're having good holidays if they're yours this time of year! :) Zad68 16:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yes, I'm taking a break from the celebrations by hanging out on Wikipedia ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on see the talk page

Hey. Sorry I wrote a bunch of stuff on the talk page under some of the comments. I did an analysis of some of the sources we have (on ethical and moral issues) and also redid my analysis on MSM. To make it easier I put **** (stars) above the most recent comments, and so that you don't have to read the whole thing.

Also, I'm not trying to be bias by using the technical reports that I found on cirp. I literally found them through a google search when I was searching for other countries technical reports. Cirp made it really easy because they were all translated and I didn't have to go look them up on foreign countries websites. So don't think that I'm biased or anything I just found a bunch of technical reports, I can probably do more searching and find more too.

JohnP 17:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPRsrcher (talk • contribs)

OK JohnPRsrcher. In addition to the fact that they violate copyright and so can't be linked from Wikipedia, the dangers of using CIRP are that 1) They put their own comments into the documents they host, or otherwise modify them, and do not always notify you which comments are in the original documents and which ones are theirs; 2) They will only host the versions of the documents they find most favorable to their positions, so they will for example feature a version of a document from 1994 which favors their position, but will not notify you that the document has since been updated to a version less favorable to their position, so you get a skewed perspective; and 3) They generally only host documents that favor their position, of course. Any serious editor who's coming to Wikipedia without an agenda would as a matter of course steer clear of using such a website. The fact that you keep going back to it is rather telling. Zad68 02:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No but I literally went to Britain, Canada, and Australia's websites and found them. They're all current too because I found them on their websites using a search and was careful about that.

JohnP (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in medical articles: Dyslexia upgrade section

Hello Zad68: Recently i saw that you might have an interest in refining and improving medical articles. My own interest was in pulling the article on Dyslexia up to peer review quality consistent with the integration of the categories in ICD-10 to expand the material to include the Alexia material from the old ICD-9 classification. Is this something that might be of possible interest for you? Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the note FelixRosch. That would indeed be a worthwhile task, especially if the goal were to bring the article to GA status. I believe also that Dbrodbeck has some interest and expertise in the area so he might be able to help. My Wiki-time has been limited in recent weeks so I can't promise anything but will try to help. Bringing it to GA status would be great. Zad68 02:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zad68: That sounds good to make a try at the GA status level. The time frame on this can be medium-length or long-term in terms of the enhancement approach. My preference is for team work and if there is a preliminary list of things to start looking at then I can try to get a start at them when you have a chance to begin listing them. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to both of you. Yeah, that article needs some work. I have not looked at it in a while, other than reverting vandalism, but, I think getting the sourcing up to snuff is a good place to start. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sourcing is looking pretty decent now. I have not looked closely at the article in quite a while. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68 and @Dbrodbeck:; Agreement with your comments, though I'm not fully sure the article is ready as is without at least some enhancement and improvement. Possibly one of you could suggest the best step to take. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why was there edit warring with Dolfrog and why isn't this "talk" going on the article talk page?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa; Previous user apparently was unfamiliar with ICD10 reclassification. The other edits of the previous user on Dyslexia were all retained. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate discussion for history of ICD10

For those not familiar with the history of ICD10 on Dyslexia see the link. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see Talk:Dyslexia#Merger with Alexia -- Moxy (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cucurbita at FAC

It is finally there! Your input and review would be greatly appreciated. I can never thank you enough for helping me all you have. The main reason I got serious about editing was to improve this article. HalfGig talk 00:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations HalfGig and fine work! I'll peek in. Zad68 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Zad68!

Happy New Year!

Zad68,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]