User talk:Jakew/Archive 5

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


uk circumsision law[edit]

I have proposed some changes to the article on the lawfullness of circumsion in the UK

have a look at add your comments


...for catching this error on my part. Blackworm (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Jake. I added a section to Abd's userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing, and I would be interested in your comments on it. I invite you to participate in discussion on the talk page. Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)[edit]

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Help adding logo to infobox[edit]

Hi Jake,

I'm new to this and would really appreciate some help understanding how to add a second image or logo to an existing infobox. The infobox is located on the page. It's using "{{Infobox musical artist" now. That infobox is perfect, but I would like to add the band's logo above the picture. I tried adding the following line: "| logo = 350px", but it didn't even appear on the page. I tried using the same "| Img = logoname.png" code style that's being used for the image, but that didn't work either. Can you please tell me how to do that? Thanks very much --Warriorboy85 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Jakew (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again Jake,

Yes that helps a little. I realize there's no image yet, but I need to know how to add another image or logo parameter to that infobox so I can add another image. If you take a look at the infobox at you'll see that it has both a provision for a logo and an image. That's what I want to do. I suspect that means I have to add a logo parameter to the infobox I'm using, but I don't know how. Can you tell me how to add the parameter? Thanks for all your help. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again Jake,

You've been very helpful and I thank you very much! --Warriorboy85 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

behaviour, influence on circumcision-related articles, and possible conflict of interest[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion about you Jake on Garycomputergeek's talkpage: User talk:Garycompugeek. Avi is doing a stern job of fighting your corner which I think is wrong. You should be the one answering the accusations. That is why I have transferred the discussion here. I have also added my opinion. Tremello22 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, Tremello22. However, I have actually been monitoring the discussions at Gary's (and, to a lesser extent, Blackworm's) talk page with interest. On the 4th of June I invited Gary to discuss his concerns with me here. He has not done so, for reasons that only he knows, but has instead repeated his claims in several talk pages. I am disappointed by this, to say the least, but my invitation to Gary remains open. Though I may change my mind on this, my present feeling is that I am unlikely to respond to Gary's accusations unless he makes them in an appropriate place.
(I've deleted the material that was copied from User talk:Garycompugeek, and/or that seems to be part of that discussion.) Jakew (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jake. First let me assure you that I have had every intention of coming here and talking with you. Second I don't want you to think I have something personal against you or some kind of crusade to get you banned from wikipedia. It might help if I first go over my motivations. Recently I have become aware that you seem to be heavily involved in convincing others of the merits of circumcision. I knew you were passionate from our previous discussions but had no idea of the extent. I commend you for you dedication but it paints you in a difficult position. Your bias, whether intentional or not, seems to have colored circumcision and related articles. This COI is not good for the project. I would be more comfortable if you were more open with your background and position concerning circumcision on your user page. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Gary. I'm glad you've finally decided to come here and discuss the issue. As far as I can tell, there seem to be several sub-issues.
First, is a POV a COI? I note that you and Avi have discussed this point here, and I agree with Avi: there is a distinction between having a POV and having a COI. Let's be realistic: why would anyone edit the circumcision article unless one had a point of view about it? We all have points of view. If having a POV about circumcision presents a conflict of interest, then nobody with an interest in editing the article should do so. That's absurd, I think you'll agree. So the only rational conclusion seems to be that, although a person with a COI usually has a POV, having a POV does not by itself mean that one has a COI.
Second (and I'm borrowing some specific issues from your posts elsewhere), does publishing material on the subject in academic peer-reviewed journals constitute a COI? No, to quote WP:COI#Examples: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." I guess one could quibble over "academic expertise", but I think the intent of the guideline is clear: since any academic expert would almost certainly have published on the subject, having published on the subject is in itself not a COI. The guideline goes on to discuss citing one's own work, but the issue here seems to be the existence of the material.
Third (again I'm borrowing some specifics from elsewhere), is having a website ( a COI? Normally, no. However, there are (relatively rare) occasions when it can present a COI. For example, in late 2006 a message was added describing as "pro-circumcision", which I felt was inaccurate. I complained about it on the talk page (see here), but did not address the issue directly, stating "Given my personal involvement in one of the sites concerned, I will avoid editing the notice." 2.5 years later, the message still remains on the page, though I still consider it to be incorrect. I hope that gives you confidence in my handling of COI issues.
Fourth (once again, borrowing specifics from elsewhere), is the fact that I debate (or, perhaps more precisely, "have debated") circumcision on USENET and a small number of web sites evidence of a COI? No, specific messages may be evidence of a POV, but having (and expressing) a POV isn't a COI.
Fifth, as I understand it (and putting it into the most NPOV terms), one of your key objections seems to be that you disagree with my statement regarding my views on circumcision. I'm afraid I'm going to have to be blunt, you seem to think that you know better than I do about my own position re circumcision. From my point of view, this is ludicrous: I know my position, whereas you can only guess. It seems almost surreal to have a debate about it, so what do you want to do? I'm more than happy to discuss it, but such a discussion would have to be on the basis that I'm helping you to understand my position. Jakew (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Jake. I'll try to respond in order but some of my answer/questions may overlap.
My understanding of a conflict of interest is when someone is too close to an issue. Everyone has a POV. For simplicities sake lets just say circumcision editors could be divided into con, neutral, or pro (I understand it is much more complicated than this). Neutral editors that could care less one way or the other seem to be a rare bird for this topic. Most editors that edit circumcision can be placed in the pro or con camp based on their actions. My very first edit to talk circumcision placed me con camp for a specific purpose. I wanted the editors involved on the page to understand how and why I felt the way I did about the issue. Whether I revealed this information or not is not going to change the way I edit but I feel passionate about the subject and wanted everyone to understand my motivation. This doesn't mean I am unable to edit the article in a neutral manner. If that were the case only true neutrals would be able to edit articles and we would have a very tiny volunteer encyclopedia. So a POV is not COI, everyone has a POV. More difficult to determine is when is someone too close to an issue? It isn't just one thing that makes me think you have a COI Jake. It was the combination of the things listed above in their totality. Let's go over them for posterity.
  • Involvement in scientific papers and letters to the editor regarding circumcision.
  • Owner of pro circumcision website. (add some con circ material and I'll believe your site is neutral)
  • Heavy involvement of many forums on the internet (this being one of them) promoting the merits of circumcision
  • Last but not least your continued stance that you do not have a pro circ position (pro parental choice is simply a thinly veiled way of saying I'm pro circ because parents should be able to circumsise their children because you believe in the merits of circumcision). Michael Glass and Tip expressed their surprise at your neutrality declaration in the link you provided [1].
These things altogether add up to a COI coupled with your incredibly high edit counts of circumcision and related articles to create a pattern of bias over an extended period of time.
Regarding your claim of neutrality, I'm not claiming to read your mind and know it better than you, but your actions speak louder than your words. I've seen you revert blatant pro circ NPOV additions but this doesn't make your stance neutral, it just means you are trying follow NPOV policy. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Following NPOV policy is all that is required, Gary. Even WP:COI is is a red flag (although not a prohibition) because of the inherent difficulties of editing as per NPOV with a financial or familial interest. Wiki neutrality does not require its editors to act lobotomized, if the edits are in accordance with NPOV, that is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Avi I was referring to Jake's declared stance of neutrality on that last paragraph and I refer to Jakes's COI as many things not just one. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I just wanted to make sure that the point was clear that NPOV relates to a user's edits, not a user's opinions. -- Avi (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for your response, Gary. I'll also try my best to respond in order, but as I'm sure you're aware, this isn't always possible.
First, I need to say that I think your system of classifying editors is overly simplistic, as it fails to take into account the subtleties of the way that real people view an issue. Certainly I resent being classified as "pro", and I feel it is inaccurate. You did state, though, that it was a simplification, and I suppose that maybe this doesn't matter for the purpose you have in mind. I guess I don't understand the purpose of the classification system in the first place: what is it intended to achieve?
Moving on, I recognise that you have clearly stated your position (and I remember you doing so). I think this can be useful, but at the same time we also need to avoid using talk pages as a soapbox for our own views. (I don't mean to suggest that you've done that; I'm just offering a counterpoint to the idea that stating one's position is desirable per se.)
Next, we seem to agree on the points that everyone has a POV, and that a POV is not the same as a COI. That's good.
Unfortunately we don't seem to agree on the next part. I'm sorry, but I'm not persuaded by this "totality" argument. I think that to establish a COI you need to establish that a specific link between an editor and the subject is a COI. Your argument seems to be that there are a bunch of links that do not by themselves establish a COI, but that together they somehow do establish a COI. I just see a bunch of links that aren't a COI, I'm afraid.
A couple of specific points:
  • I'm not sure that a collection of papers can really be considered pro- or anti-. It's expresses very few opinions, it's mostly just a collection of articles. And although articles sometimes express opinions, many simply describe scientific observations. It seems unfair to call these either pro- or anti-. It might be more accurate to talk about "papers that assert a benefit", etc. It's true to say that there are more of these, though, partly because that's true of the literature in general, and partly because of the history of CIRCS. Whether you personally believe that the site is neutral is up to you, of course.
  • I don't think it's accurate to say that I've "promot[ed] the merits of circumcision". I am certainly involved in debating circumcision, though.
  • It seems rather circular to argue that my edits on WP are evidence of a COI.
  • I've explained the distinction between pro-circumcision and pro-parental choice in my reply to Tremello, below.
  • I know that Michael and Tip responded in their own way. There's nothing I can do about that. I disagree with those editors on almost everything, sadly, and this seems to be no exception. Smile.png
Jakew (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You say that "It's true to say that there are more of these ['papers that assert a benefit'], though, [...] partly because of the history of CIRCS." How specifically would the history of CIRCS be partly the cause of it containing more papers that assert a benefit, as a distinct cause separate from the prevalence of such article in the literature? As founder of CIRCS, you seem well suited to answer. Blackworm (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature. It created what I suppose you could call a kind of "information availability bias", which, I must admit, misled me at first (until I discovered PubMed and medical libraries), and would presumably mislead others. My aim was (and is, though I haven't worked on the site for some time) eventually to include at least an abstract for every study on circumcision, but early on I realised that I needed a short-term goal as well. So I decided to focus, in general, on papers that were not available at CIRP, the idea being that for any given subject, the index pages for CIRP + CIRCS should be complete (or if not complete then at least not leave out too many important papers). Jakew (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm very familiar with the "information availability bias" and it is a source of great irritation to me as well. Blackworm (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you have deleted it Jake. I also have something to say about you (which you deleted). I think you are being a bit disingenuous in being annoyed at Gary. I think you know what his concerns are. I for one think they are legitimate and share his view. Tremello22 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, since Gary has now arrived, he and I can discuss his concerns. :) Jakew (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You offered to explain your position on circumcision. I think that would be a good way to clear up any tensions that might arise from not knowing. Obviously there are different types of circumcision. The one that we are concerned with most is non-therapeutic infant circumcision. If you want to give your opinion on any other kinds of circumcision such as circumcision in Africa to prevent HIV, religious , and any other you can think of, then that would be a bonus. Tremello22 (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Certainly, Tremello. As I state on my user page, I'm neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision. Let me put that in concrete terms. If you were expecting a son (for all I know, perhaps you are), and you asked me whether I thought you should have your son circumcised, I wouldn't say "yes", nor would I say "no". I'd probably say something like "I don't think it's appropriate for me to say. All I can advise is that you do plenty of research, and do please ask if I can help you with any questions relating to scientific facts." (This has been more or less my response on the few occasions when people have asked.) I consider this to be an important distinction between my own position (which I call "pro-parental choice") and those whom I would consider "pro-circumcision": I believe that a pro-circumcision person would say "yes". I hope that this also explains why I find it offensive to be described as an "advocate": I make a deliberate choice not to advocate.
Hopefully that has explained what I would (or in this case wouldn't) suggest to others, but some background is probably needed, and in any case you may be wondering "what does Jake actually think?" Let me briefly give you some background (for my own convenience this is lightly adapted from one of my off-wiki posts).
Generally, I imagine the range of benefits and harms as a line:
HARM ___________*___________|________.________|___________%____________BENEFIT
At one end of the line are actions that are extremely harmful. Most people would recommend against these, and there is a point (marked with an asterisk) at which the degree of harm is so great that most people would be in favour of making such actions illegal. At the other end are actions that are clearly beneficial. Most would recommend in favour of these, and there is a point (marked with a percent sign) at which the degree of benefit is so great that there would be support for making these actions compulsory. At the exact centre of the line are actions that are completely neutral, and surrounding this point is what could be described as a "fairly neutral" zone. My personal assessment is that circumcision lies between the centre point and the percent sign: put another way, I think it's somewhere between "fairly neutral" and "net benefit" (my assessment of the exact placement changes from time to time as new evidence becomes available), but I don't consider that benefit to be large enough to mandate it. In other words I agree with the position of Benatar and Benatar that it's a procedure that is a legitimate parental choice. For the same reasons, I consider religious infant circumcision to be a legitimate parental choice.
Does this help? Jakew (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does help. At least I know your view now. Of course you may say that you are pro-parental choice but I am sure you would agree that their eventual decision would then depend on the information you give them. If you give the parents information that is likely to convince them to circumcise, isn't that more or less the same thing as advocating it?
Just to bring this back in relation to the article: circumcision, what is your purpose for editing that? What are you trying to protect the article from? Tremello22 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
To answer your first question, I think it would depend on the situation. For example, if a person were to rush up to pregnant women and excitedly give them one-sided information that is intended to convince them to circumcise, yes, you can call that advocacy. But at the other extreme, if a scientist were to conduct a rigorous study in which she found evidence of a benefit to circumcision and then published the results, I wouldn't say that's advocacy, even if the information she published convinced parents to circumcise. So I think that it depends on the context, the situation, and the intent.
To answer your second question, I want circumcision (and related articles — and unrelated articles, for that matter!) to be neutral, accurate, and informative. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good (IMHO it's by far the best page on the subject on the Internet), and that's because it sticks closely to applicable policies and guidelines.
In general, I'm passionate about what I call "bias-reducing methodologies" — that is, systematic approaches that can reduce or eliminate bias. The best example, in terms of academic papers, is the meta-analysis. Here you define a systematic method for identifying and retrieving papers (typically PubMed searches with specified search terms, retrieving every paper, then looking through the ref list for related papers and, if necessary, retrieving those). Then you extract data into a standardised format, and apply a mathematical process to summarise the data (doubtless this part appeals to the software engineer in me). It's not perfect (and I've seen some awful meta-analyses), and perhaps nothing can be, but it's so much better than a typical non-systematic review, in which authors seem (particularly when they have a clear agenda) to simply select whatever sources best advance their agenda, and ignore the rest. The framework of the systematic approach can seem restrictive at times, it can seem to stifle creativity or prevent one from making a decision that seems "obviously" right, but the fact that it forces one to be neutral and objective adds more value than it takes away.
I'm mentioning this because I think that WP policies and guidelines act in a similar way, especially when you consider how they work together. As with meta-analyses, the framework can seem unnecessarily restrictive sometimes, but it works, and it produces something of value. And I think that's pretty remarkable, when you consider that it's put together by a bunch of (mostly) anonymous individuals, who mostly disagree with each other, and who have varying degrees of familiarity with the subject matter. It shouldn't work, logically, and the fact that it does indicates that WP policy is something that's worth upholding. Jakew (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jakew I wasn't talking about a scientist giving them information. I was talking about you giving a parent information; either directly (say in a forum) or indirectly (say the wikipedia article: circumcision). Would you call Brian Morris an advocate or Edgar Schoen? Tremello22 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, Tremello. Those examples were deliberately chosen as extremes, to illustrate my point that one has to consider the context and intent. I'm not suggesting that either scenario would directly apply to myself. I don't think I have an answer to your original question ("If you give the parents information that is likely to convince them to circumcise, isn't that more or less the same thing as advocating it?"), though, because I think it depends on the specific information, how it is provided, and the intent. I'm sorry if you were hoping for a simple answer, but I don't think there is one. Jakew (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jake for trying to answer our questions concerning this matter. I have a few closing thoughts I would like to add. As far as your position goes, you are perceived as a pro circumcision editor (we could always take in informal poll by uninterested editors if you don't want to take my word for it). For me to see you as a truly neutral participant (remember they are rare birds for this controversy) you would have to debate on the con side at least half as much as you do for the pro side. I understand the controversy is not as simple as pro and con but, but since you are perceived to be pro circ, if you claimed you leaned toward pro circ like above I feel it would be less misleading than your current statement. Your POV doesn't mean you cannot edit the article in a neutral manner. Indeed we should strive to be as neutral as possible when editing any article. I would also like to point out your sabbatical from wikipedia last summer/fall. There was a lot more editing to the article in the spirit of the wiki while you were gone. The article didn't fall apart and go to hell as many editors feel will happen if they don't monitor everything 24/7. I bring this up because of your high edit counts to circumcision and related articles. I think you should have a little more faith in the process and not be so quick to criticize other edits (even if you know your right) and let other editors modify or revert. In the long run this will give you more credibility and even the editing process out between more editors. PS Happy Birthday Garycompugeek (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Jake, I love the way you're passionate about systems that lead to neutrality. I guess I feel similarly about science, and about Wikipedia: it's the interaction of forces (data points, or editors) in various directions that leads to the optimal neutral result.
Gary, I consider that it's generally best to avoid calling people things they don't want to be called. Jake has explained why he doesn't consider himself "pro circumcision". Maybe you could find a more accurate phrase? Avi came up with a very good phrase IMO: "the people who believe that the Circumcision article is improperly skewed towards a pro-circumcision outlook": if you replace "pro" with "anti", though, I'm not sure whether that would be true of Jake or not. Perhaps you could find a phrase that describes the position he described above: "someone who believes circumcision is somewhat more beneficial than neutral". If Jake agrees that that's accurate, could you call him that instead of "pro circumcision"? "Pro circumcision" makes him sound like someone who would tell people "I recommend that you circumcise your son," which he has said he wouldn't do, so it gives the wrong impression. I really think it's important to be accurate in this type of discussion; taking the time to type those few extra words can save endless unnecessary discussion.
For there to be a conflict of interest, there has to be one person taking two roles, and there has to be a conflict between the roles. Like Jake, I don't see the collection of things you listed as establishing that. The COI policy says " It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." Merely having a POV is not a COI; others here have also admitted to having POVs. It's when it's a high level of commitment, for example in someone who is actively campaigning for a candidate in an election. Jake is passionate, but his passion is for accurate information and neutrality: that poses no conflict with Wikipedia's goals. I've seen him respecting COI by staying on the talk page and not editing the article where citing his own work is concerned. I don't see a problem. Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Gary, I think you're misunderstanding what Jake has said. In trying to simplify things by classifying editors into three types, "pro", "neutral" and "con", I think you're committing the "fallacy of the excluded two-thirds-of-the-way-along", to coin a phrase. Jake has stated that he is "neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision", but it doesn't follow from this that he has no opinion about circumcision nor is neutral in all senses of the word, although of course we all strive to edit neutrally. Coppertwig (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for giving us your opinion Coppertwig however I must disagree with your summations. Your praise and respect for Jake's editing is duly noted. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Pro circumcision" makes Jake sound like someone who extolls the benefits while minimizing the harms, minimizes the link between male and female circumcision, exaggerates the prevalence of male circumcision, dismisses controversy about male circumcision, accuses anti-circumcision groups of deception, participates with other advocates in distributing material that claims male circumcision has no harm and is valid ethically, and founds websites with collections of medical journal articles that reflect a view of male circumcision that is more "pro" than the collection of such existing sources, with the explanation that such bias is necessary to counter "anti" websites. Blackworm (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What's "minimizing" or "exaggerating" in one person's eyes may be the opposite in someone else's eyes. Coppertwig (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It bears mentioning that the primary debate is not about whether parents should have the procedure done, but whether they should be allowed to make the decision at all. The APA recommendation on Jake's userpage is itself POV in that context. It states that parents should make the decision, when their right to do so (one way or the other) is one of the issues being argued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly one of the issues, but whether that's "the primary debate" is a matter of opinion, and has little or nothing to do with whether Jake has a conflict of interest or not. Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for discussion[edit]

Hello Jake. Please, I would like to discuss with you on the topic of Meissner's corpuscles, End bulbs. Not really an anti/pro circ discussion as I'm not an anti circ activist. I did discuss on this topic on Youtube. You can contact me at mail: ... as I dont see here on wikipedia any PM box or mail. I'm total noob here.:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olyrac (talkcontribs) 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've sent you a message. If you need to reach people in future, look on the left-hand side of the page while viewing their user page or user talk page. In the box labelled "toolbox", you should see a link reading "E-mail this user". Jakew (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)[edit]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you…[edit]

…that was much appreciated :) -- Avi (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Long table / search results on Circumcision talk[edit]

Hi, I'm going to move the table itself to a sub-page for readability and leave a link. This sort of thing is covered by wp:TALK but if you think your way is better, feel free to revert it back.—Ash (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I hadn't considered a sub-page, actually. Having thought about it, I think that the main talk page is more suitable, but I don't feel strongly enough to revert. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether I should move my own analysis to a subpage too: perhaps to another section of the same subpage, although the title of the subpage wouldn't be quite right. Thanks for watching over things, Ash. Coppertwig (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually as soon as I saw the second search results I wondered if the subpage should be renamed something like "Sample searches" and then Search 1, Search 2... can be added in as titled subsections as needed. Could be a better solution compared to making the talk page a bit too unwelcoming (it can put people off contributing to an RFC). I'll leave it to the real contributors here to decide.—Ash (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I need you're help for the creation of my infobox of oil refineries in Canada and United States of America. This is the desired infobox.


Hello, is it possible to help me to create this infobox about oil refineries in the world.

…………………………………………… INFOBOX: REFINERY ……………………………………………

  • TITLE (TITRE) : Inside the infobox on top of all information.
  1. PICTURE (IMAGE) : Picture of the oil refinery
  2. LOCALISATION : First Section
  3. CITY : City of the Oil refinery
  4. REFINING CENTER : Name of the refining center.
  • REFINERY DETAILS Second section
  1. COMPAGNY : Name of the compagny
  2. FOUNDATION : Year of the refinery foundation
  3. CLOSURE : Years of the refinery closure (essentially for old refineries)
  4. CAPACITY : Refining capacity per day
  5. REFINING UNITS (: Refining units inside the refinery

(End of the Infobox)

  1. 1 Web Site - Shell Canada Montreal East Refinery
  2. 2 Web Site - Imperial Oil Dartmouth Refinery

Thanks for you're help !

FREDOUES USER —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I help? It sounds like a good idea! I suggest taking a copy of another infobox. Here. Let's start from Template:Infobox revolution biography. I'll copy the contents to Template:Infobox oil refinery, then I or you or someone can edit it to contain the information you suggest instead of the biography information. Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This guy dropped a comment at my talk page too for some reason, but I think copying Template:Infobox Oil field would be a better start. Or the two infoboxes could possibly be merged.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I added some comments and suggestions at the template's talk page. Your input and opinion is highly appreciated. Beagel (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of the HIV section[edit]

I think this boils down to what we see as the purpose of the HIV section. So in order to progress I think it would be helpful if you gave me a good idea of what you think its remit should be. Tremello22 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Haven't I already done so, in the last paragraph of this edit? Jakew (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think some of my edits yesterday were lost in server errors. I had said something like this: that I think the section is about whatever the sources talk about in relation to HIV and circumcision that is prominent enough for inclusion in such a short summary, and that I think I'm agreeing with both of you when I say that it isn't just about the scientific questions but also the social implications. Coppertwig (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


The filter is only in log mode now; after a few days, I'll likely update it to prevent the edit. If you run it against the article, you see that it picks up the last edit, but it only does the last 100 or so edits, so we cannot test it against any earlier vandalism. -- Avi (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think it might be a good idea to wait a little longer than a few days (perhaps a week or two). The reason is that I've noticed that these problematic edits tend to occur in clusters, so it's entirely possible that we might have peace and quiet for a week followed by repeated stubborn & determined attempts to insert the material for another few days. Also, it's just possible that it might catch a genuine edit. I think that's unlikely, probably sufficiently so that we needn't worry too much (an auto-confirmed user could easily make such an edit) but still it would be good to be able to set an upper bound on the probability of that happening. Possibly I'm just being over-cautious! Jakew (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Filter Manager[edit]

Per your request, I have granted you access to the edit filter interface. Please remember to be careful and thoroughly test any filters you implement. MBisanz talk 01:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Smile.png Jakew (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been over a month and you have taken no actions on the abusefilter. Do you still intend to use it? Prodego talk 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've had less free time than I expected. I do still intend to use it. Jakew (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)[edit]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks Jake, I missed seeing your edits too. :-) Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time. It's good to see you back, Jay. Smile.png Jakew (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Careless post to my talk page[edit]

Spare me your lecture Jake. I reverted MrOllie because I dislike editors who pop in and revert others good faith edits without explanation as I explained in the edit summary. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that you dislike yourself? I merely ask because you provided no explanation for your own revert... Jakew (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Cute Jake but as usual you make little sense. I know that you know that you know that I know that you know what I meant. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)[edit]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started![edit]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re BRD or not, etc.[edit]

On second thought, Jake, I'd like to suggest some alternative actions you could have taken instead of repeatedly reverting at the Circumcision article September 16 to 19. Some principles to keep in mind are:

  • Don't panic. Not every jot need always be dotted nor every tiddle crossed.
  • Following WP:BRD is not required by policy. Some editors may be following different customs.
  • Editwarring is not justified by being right.
  • I know it's not a vote, but nevertheless repeatedly reverting doesn't look good if you've been the only editor to express support for those reverts (before I had commented).

Some alternative actions you can consider if you run into a similar situation again include:

  • Just leaving it as is. If the edit is objectively very bad, someone else will probably revert it.
  • Asking for opinions of other editors, for example at a noticeboard or Wikiproject.
  • Asking the other editor to self-revert.
  • Instead of completely reverting, editing in a compromise version, whether previously suggested on the talk page or not. A series of such attempts at compromise can sometimes arrive at a consensus version more efficiently than talk page discussion.

However, I think you did very well discussing the matter on the talk page and even extended yourself by coming up with an alternative version including additional source material even though your preference was not to include the material at all. See also a comment I posted at User talk:Garycompugeek, although it's been deleted. Coppertwig (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Coppertwig. However, I don't revert (or perform any other editing action) unless I have considered the situation and have decided that it is the best course of action. I dislike edit wars as much as anyone else. However, I consider NPOV violations to be more harmful still. In this situation, I regard slow reverts (usually, from my time zone, the following morning) as the best compromise. Jakew (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
On third thought: Thanks for reading my comments in a collaborative spirit and for your explanations. I understand: you saw it as a tradeoff between refraining from reverting on the one hand, and enforcing conformance of the article to a core policy on the other hand. I hadn't noticed that you had been deliberately refraining from reverting for periods of time, in effect partially implementing one of the alternatives I listed above. I now see also that at that time, none of the compromise proposals had yet undergone sufficient opportunity for discussion to be ripe for posting to the article. In light of these matters, although I have a strong tendency to oppose the use of repeated reverts, in this particular situation I can't consider your actions to be unreasonable, I'm sorry I commented, and I'm withdrawing and striking out most of my comment. Sincerely, Coppertwig (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks again for your thoughtful comments, Coppertwig. Smile.png Also sincerely, Jakew (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)[edit]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing Attitude[edit]


I don't patrol the circ page as you were last time I looked but last time I looked you took a very narrow minded stance on the issue and actively prevented a balance perspective from being presentended on the topic. I hope you've managed to improve in this area. You are not the gatekeeper of that topic or any other and I don't appreciate your condescending tone on my chat page.

Jookieapc (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a standardised message; I'm sorry you found the tone condescending. As I recall, I left the message because one of your edits had seriously misrepresented a reference, something that is generally considered unacceptable at WP. Rather than attempting to shoot the messenger, you might wish to just avoid doing that in future. Just a suggestion... Jakew (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it but I suppose I may have. The real problem was that you removed references to any study which did not support your opinion (anything more recent than the 60s) and the quotes included were taken out of context. I'll take another look.

Jookieapc (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't remember the specifics of the dispute, but I find it extremely unlikely that I would have removed references on the basis of personal disagreement. Was that really the reason I gave? Jakew (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest![edit]

Henry Allingham in 1916.jpg

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)[edit]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see circumcision discussion[edit]

Please explain.Zinbarg (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you prepared to give us your credentials at last?[edit]

You contribute to Wikipedia on the very important subject of circumcision, forcefully representing very strongly held views. It would not be an exaggeration to say that you come across here and elsewhere on the internet as a fanatic (for all that you protest that you are neither in favour nor opposed, you do a pretty good job of pushing a pro-circumcision line). If I make contibutions in my fields of expertise I can assure other editors that I hold three master's degrees from the universities of Oxford (where I was a prizeman) and London (in one of those degrees graduating at the top of my department), that I have in progress a PhD at one of the most prestigious Russell Group universities, that in the course of my education I have studied with some of the most distinguished scholars in the world, that my work has been peer reviewed and published, that I speak at conferences and seminars, and that I hold a part-time lectureship in a 1994 Group university as well as acting as an advisor to an educational social enterprise which works with schools of all types ranging from inner-city comprehensives to exclusive public schools. In short, when I make a contribution on a subject in which I have expertise you can be assured that it is a contribution that would be respected by any reputable scholar in the field.

Your contributions, on the other hand, seem to be those of a fanatical amateur, a self-taught maverick. You say that you are a computer programmer. Surely you also hold degrees and professional qualifications in medicine, paediatrics, urology, sexual health, psychology, etc, probably including a PhD or MD. You are, I assume, an established scholar whose work appears in journals with rigorous peer-review procedures, and I assume that you are a regular contributor at academic conferences at universities, royal colleges, and hospitals. I take it that you are employed as an academic by a university, the NHS, or a royal college. No, it seems that you are not any of these things. Your publications, as far as I can tell, extend to letters to the editor and a co-authored article of such brevity that it is little more than a note or comment. You are affiliated to the Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service, which appears to be nothing more than a website, and the website doesn't contain anything more than a bibliography and an email address. You are, I suspect, an unqualified amateur fanatic with no scholarly credentials. You have consumed all the literature on your subject but you do not have the critical faculties to interpret it intelligently. You consistently argue against the grain of prevailing opinion, pushing a point of view which does not deserve the kind of exposure which you give it. Of course it deserves exposure, but you push it as though opinion were divided 50/50 on the topic, or even as though your point of view were held by the majority of established scholars, when in fact yours is an extreme minority perspective which ought to be portrayed as such. You remind me of holocaust deniers and paedophile activists with whom I have come into contact: you have all the knowledge and all the arguments but you lack the intelligence or the academic basis to see that you are so obviously wrong.

If you would like to provide us with your CV so that we can see whether I am wrong I'd be most grateful to see it.--AlexanderLondon (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

AlexanderLondon, please see WP:NPA. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. This is not Citizendium. Arguments about article content on this wiki are to be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and on citations of reliable sources, not on CVs of editors. If you disagree with some edits of Jakew's, please present arguments about the article content on the article talk page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor".
AlexanderLondon, in line with the policy I give a link to above, please consider striking out some or all of your above comment. You can do that by putting <s> before the part you want to strike out, and </s> after it, like this. Note that editors who violate Wikipedia's policies can be blocked from editing. Coppertwig (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I am not going to back down on this point. I am not going to strike out anything. You are a self-important bully. You are one of those ridiculous people who thinks that Wikipedia actually matters. The only reason why I think that Wikipedia matters is because people read it and use it as a source of information. I don't care a jot about Wikipedia's protocols. What I care about is the fact that dangerous misinformation is being published in one of the most widely used information resources in the world by an uneducated fanatic. If Jakew had any credentials he'd be telling us about them. QED.--AlexanderLondon (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an answer, Jakew. I'd love to argue with you now but I'm lecturing for two hours today and have to finish my preparation. Yes, that's right, I have a job in a university. Do you?--AlexanderLondon (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
As I explained in my comment above, there is no reason why Jakew has to answer these questions. Repeating such questions could be considered harassment. Coppertwig (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I didn't realize the entire material was available online and was only relying on the abstract. I can re-edit the text a bit. --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, could you edit the FGC article further to remove the term "irreducible confounding" you've inserted (from the source), which encyclopedia readers will not be familiar with. I've studied math in university and I don't know what it means, it's possible that the authors themselves don't know. --Dailycare (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, sorry for the delay in responding.. how about simply "the authors expressed surprise at their finding, and were not able to explain it?"--Dailycare (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No, that would be misleading. They offered an explanation: that it was due to irreducible confounding. Jakew (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That is not an "explanation" - it's an admission they couldn't explain it. Assuming that "irreducible confounding" means what we're discussion here. --Dailycare (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Depending on the exact definition of "explanation", it could be considered to be an explanation or it could be considered to be an expression of a lack of explanation. Therefore, stating that they didn't explain it would be misleading or confusing to readers who interpret the term "explanation" as Jakew does, which seems a reasonable interpretation of the word to me. Dailycare, perhaps you could make another try at finding simpler words to express the concept. How about "They concluded that the correlation was due to correlation with some other variable or variables that had not been identified and could not be controlled for." What exactly does "irreducible" mean in this context? The wikilink to "confounding" helps: maybe that's all that's needed. Coppertwig (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, what is your relationship to Jakew, or is there one? This appears at first glance to be at least the second time you're apparently fortuitously agreeing with him on his talk page. I modified the wording, although why you prefer to have this language in the article frankly escapes me. I also added a subsection about FGC and HIV, and added a wikilink to it from the "circumcision and HIV" page as that is, I'm told, devoted to the male operation in its entirety. I hope this is all agreeable. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sow Doubt[edit]

Jake, you wrote: "Fifth, most of the other medical association sentences, and certainly the 1999 AMA statement quoted in the lead predate the three randomised controlled trials that led the WHO and CDC to issue their statements. In order to give a more complete picture, therefore, it is necessary to cite these medical associations as well. Also, doing so helps to "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" and "summarize the most important points"

You sow doubt because most of the assoc recommendation do not predate the 2005 and 2007 studies. But by saying 1999, you sow doubt. It is not relevant to the fact (that all do not recommend). You are wrong to put so much emphasis on the 3 (I see only 2 gold standard) studies.Zinbarg (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Zinbarg, the AMA statement reads, "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice." Now, it seems fairly obvious that the AMA were commenting on policy statements that were "current" at the time at which they wrote their statement (which was published in 1999). I am sure that the AMA did not mean that this would be true for all time — that's something they couldn't know. So the date is of critical importance. Jakew (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The date is not important, because the information is current. Specifically, virtually all underlying assoc statements (RACP, AAP, BMA, ~CPS) are post HIV gold studies and do not recommend. We could add assoc in Germany, France, and New Zealand. We could do without the AMA qualifier?Zinbarg (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Zinbarg, we have no way of knowing that the information is true today. There are approx. 200 countries in the world, and each of those likely has at least one medical association, perhaps more. So proving that it is true today would be an almost impossible task, involving tracking down the statements of these medical associations, translating most of them into English, and then tabulating the results. And even if we did all that, we couldn't draw any conclusions because that would be original research. All we can do is to quote (and date) the AMA's 1999 statement, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. (Since several countries have introduced circumcision programmes in the last few years, presumably with the support of their respective associations, it is dubious whether the statement is in fact true today. But without performing original research, it's the best summary we have available, and it is undeniably true that the AMA stated it in 1999.) Jakew (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Zinbarg, I don't understand your statement "By saying 1999, you sow doubt". How could stating the date of a document sow doubt? Jake has a good point: that because the quote says "current", we need to specify what "current" means or it could misleadingly seem to mean "current, when this Wikipedia article was last updated". Obviously it meant current when the document was written. Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)[edit]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)[edit]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)[edit]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)[edit]

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened![edit]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Swedish physicians and circumcision[edit]


Would you care to comment on Talk:Circumcision and law#Sweden's 2001 law? I have some suggestion to include other views on the law while remaining on-topic. Gabbe (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)[edit]

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

You probably didn't see my addition to discussion before removing the necessary tag. Please see circ discussion.Zinbarg (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are on 3 reverts right now so I suggest you both leave off the POV tag for a bit, either talk it out or let it cool off. |→ Spaully τ 15:51, 14 April 2010 (GMT)
I'm afraid you're mistaken, Spaully. I've only made 2 reverts to circumcision in the past 24 hours: see the history. Jakew (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you are correct. You have two removals of the tag and I misread Jayjg as a third by you. Still probably best not to do so again yourself. Though it should not be reinstated by anyone without discussion now anyway. |→ Spaully τ 16:01, 14 April 2010 (GMT)
Thanks, and don't worry - I misread the history when I first looked at it, too! Regarding the tag, I believe that four editors (myself, Jayjg, Atomaton, and you) have now removed the tag, with a fifth (Coppertwig) expressing disagreement with it but not actually reverting its addition. I think further edit warring to include it is likely to be viewed in a very poor light. I certainly share your hope that this won't occur. Jakew (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done.[edit]

Thank you for responding courteously to out-of-line comments at Talk:Circumcision. Coppertwig (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:[edit]

I have reported this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: ) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's very thoughtful of you to let me know. Smile.png Jakew (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


See my comments here, mentioning you. Coppertwig (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)[edit]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User pages, warnings, and personal attacks[edit]

Regarding this edit, first, please do not edit other users' user pages. If you wish to communicate, the correct thing to do is to edit the user talk page: that is, User talk:Jakew, not User:Jakew.

Second, as I am an established user it is generally considered inappropriate to use a template (in this case {{uw-npa}}). A polite message regarding the personal attack in question would have been more appropriate. Please see WP:DTTR which, although not policy, is a good guide.

Finally, I am mystified as to why you are warning me about personal attacks at all. Who did I attack, and when? The warning I gave you, which you later deleted, was in response to your edit summary here, in which you referred to me as a "fool". Although I have searched through our interactions, I have been unable to find anything comparable; if I have attacked you I apologise, but I would be grateful if you would specify how I have done so. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You attacked my character in the edit summary here, in which you imply my contribution is a meritless, self-serving untruth (when in fact I was correct and you were not). Then you proceeded to ignore my explanation and enter into an edit war (throwing your weight around as 'an established user'). Nevertheless, your apology is accepted. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If I have the correct edit, I think this is the diff you mean. And I did not attack you character — my edit summary was "rv: whether individual editors consider it valid is irrelevant. the fact remains that it is a common treatment". I'm sorry that you were offended, but it wasn't a personal attack. It was a relevant comment that directly related to your edit summary ("Circumcision is not a valid emergency treatment"): whether you or I feel that a treatment is valid is completely irrelevant; sources confirm that circumcision is (at least sometimes) used as emergency treatment, hence it should be included. Feel free to take this to WP:WQA if you wish to get third-party input.
Incidentally, rather than copying my entire message, you can reply in-place and, if you wish, use the {{talkback}} template to notify me of your response. Jakew (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You tube[edit]

Hi, is this your u tube account? Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't — it's the second false social networking page created in my name — but thanks for letting me know. Jakew (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how you do it but you should contact them and get them to take it down, glad to have brought it to your attention, it was in a message on Jimbos talkpage and at ANI today here Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I've just done that. They don't make it easy to contact them, but the correct method for complaining about impersonation/harassment seems to be their Help and Safety centre. Jakew (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears you are have the attention of someone who has time to waste, it seems to be getting more and more common these days, impersonation of wiki editors from people with grudges. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So it seems. I've a fair idea who it is, and am disappointed that they'd stoop so low. Sigh. Jakew (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



If you read about tags, there is less of a concensus criteria for posting POV than for deciding on specific content problems. In other words, if just a couple editors have detailed and neutral objections to specific problems of POV, the tag belongs.Zinbarg (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, I'm afraid. Since the "consensus" you claimed is nonexistent, I'll remove the tag. Please do not misrepresent consensus in future. Jakew (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Please read Wiki on the subject before making changes [[3]], and though its' evidently not necessary, we had this ~vote [[4]] which found for one the the three tags. I looked to see most of the complaints still present in the article. Remove the tag and you're simply edit warring.Zinbarg (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read the essay you mention on many occasions. And as myself and others have explained to you previously, a straw poll from Jan/Feb 2009 has no relevance to this particular situation. Jakew (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)