| Revision as of 19:34, 17 January 2014 editGiantSnowman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators603,172 edits →AN discussion: rsp← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:47, 30 October 2024 edit undoDreamRimmer bot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Extended confirmed users17,529 editsm Fix mass message error per WP:AWBREQTag: paws [2.2] | ||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} | {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} | ||
| '''In the near future I may not read my talk page as frequently and reliably as I used to do. For urgent or important matters, it may be better to use email.''' | '''In the near future I may not read my talk page as frequently and reliably as I used to do. For urgent or important matters, it may be better to use email. <s>I am actually completely inactive nowadays. If you leave a message here, don't rely on getting an answer in less than a couple of years.</s>''' | ||
| ] I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.<br/>] I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.<br/>] I do not fancy non-consensual ]. | ] I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.<br/>] I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.<br/>] I do not fancy non-consensual ]. | ||
| == Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago == | |||
| ==Zurich or Zürich== | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| Hi Hans, ] might be of interest to you. Best Regards -- ]<small>.]<sup>]</sup></small> 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | title = Awesome | |||
| :Thanks. In this case I would actually have been slightly in favour of Zurich. But no doubt Zürich is slowly becoming the more common and more 'correct' spelling in English, so I am happy with the outcome of the discussion. I guess I will have to stop using this as an example, though. ] 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | image = Cscr-featured.svg | |||
| | image_upright = 0.35 | |||
| | bold = ] | |||
| }} | |||
| --] (]) 07:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ]. | |||
| ==Hello?== | |||
| Bishzilla mentioned you . Welcome in pocket, bring all the bobsledding Adlers! ] '']'' 12:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC). | |||
| *Wer ist diese {{U|Bishzilla}}? Und wo ist der Bahnhof? ] (]) 16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Drmies, I see you are aware of the infamous ] trap and know how to avoid it. But I guess you are actually no more confused than I am. Sorry for the lack of proper, timely response. I am very busy recently and shouldn't be editing at all. ] 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Und wo ist dieser ]? Anywhere near the snowy ? ] '']'' 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC). | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Time to smoke the peace pipe? == | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Do you think we might call a truce between us? We don't have to be best buddies or anything, but I don't think our mutual sniping is doing anything beneficial for the project or the community, or maybe even each other. What do you say? ] (]) 23:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 18:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not interested in pursuing this further. And so long as you don't trample on weaker editors again, I don't anticipate any serious future conflicts either. ] 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ]. | |||
| Can I get in on this too? I'd prefer it if we could just discuss the sources and the article content. <code>]]</code> 00:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It is impossible to improve a fiercely protected super-biased article without discussing stonewalling techniques and the editors who apply them. ] 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some references to back up claims would help. I have requested some from you here for "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation"" ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This question, which you have actually asked at AN as well in the meantime, is not constructive. The claim that "male genital mutilation" is a more politically correct term than "circumcision" is a political claim and as such cannot be proved or stated as fact in the article. No doubt there are reliable sources making this claim (I am pretty sure I saw some when I last researched the non-medical literature on circumcision), but as these won't help us I am not going to invest the possibly significant time required to locate one through Google searches. (I do not own any printed literature related to circumcision.) | |||
| :::Given that removal of the clitoris foreskin is almost universally accepted as a form of genital mutilation, you would find it very hard to argue against removal of the homologous but larger penis foreskin being genital mutilation as well. Due to lack of time I cannot provide sufficiently high quality sources making this obvious connection right now. (The main problem for me is that the discussion is so much overshadowed by female genital mutilation. Most sources explicitly define only female genital mutilation -- presumably to avoid conflicts with male circumcision supporters.) | |||
| :::But such reliable sources are not even required for saying in the article: "The analogous surgical procedure for females, ], is known as type Ia ]." This could easily be supported with references to the political debate, the extensive section "Female genital mutilation vs. NTC" in the KNMG paper, legal opinion in Germany, Scandinavian laws and ombudsman positions etc., all of which would show that this modest sentence is by no means making an original connection. | |||
| :::''That'' is the real reason why it is so outrageous that FGM only appears in the head note for people looking for female circumcision. That and the fact that this is not an isolated omission. You are systematically downplaying everything that might make circumcision appear in a bad light, while relying way too much on an AAP position paper which asks for more research on circumcision benefits, but does not ask for research on circumcision risks. ] 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So long story short is you have no reference to support the claim "more politically correct term male genital mutilation" And it is too much work to look for one. Best. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *, Hans. There was no valid criticism of anything here, and I always thought that the term "censorship" (or, "censorship!") belonged to the less intelligent and the more zealous--I didn't think you fit that bill. You know I didn't censor anything, and you know that drivel like "Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs" is nothing but trolling. ] (]) 14:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are wrong. The Norwegian IP's first comment was totally constructive, helpful, intelligent, and represented the mainstream Scandinavian POV. It also exposed how extremely biased the article is, so it was related to improvement of the article. ] 14:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's funny. (Funny also that you recognized the problem with the IPs rather stupid remarks.) You, the IP, and me are on the same side on this topic, but I'll stay far from it since I'd hate to be associated with trolls like that, or with established editors who are so gung-ho as to lose sight of other things, such as etiquette and common sense. And to think that I get yelled at for enabling abusers: you should know better. BTW, I have some serious issues with your "Drmies hid this commentary" remark, but you're a grownup so I don't have to tell you how wrong you were--you know. Kind of like the IP: there may be a valid point somewhere, but one can't really see it among the ranting and the insults ("censorship"--I take that as an insult). Fare you well, Hans Adler. ] (]) 15:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hatting is a technical term for hiding away in a specific way. I don't "know" that anything was wrong about using that word. I also disagree that the IP is a troll. Making a valid point forcefully is not trolling just because it's undiplomatic. | |||
| ::::Infant circumcision is a form of child abuse with an uncanny similarity to the worst kinds of sexual abuse. It's hard to make that point without making proponents of the practice angry. ] 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Find pubmed indexed recent ]s that make this point. That is all you need to do. I have no personal opinion on this topic but am able to determine the best available literature. Reflect this literature is all we are here to do. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't need pubmed indexed sources for moral, legal etc. matters. As an admin you must know better; you can't possibly believe in good faith that MEDRS applies per-article and is applicable to non-medical aspects of a topic. Trying this strategy anyway is a pretty bold move. Are you sure you can get away with it? ] 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Check out this from the Norwegian IP where he reveals way too much information about himself. For some reason the circumcision topic attracts some deeply troubled individuals and I see this as another example. That gentleman appears to be in need of marital counseling and perhaps a visit to a divorce lawyer. I don't think he is helping himself by his participation here.] (]) 16:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I certainly don't see your point. As you are posting with a German IP, I find it hard to believe that you really believe talking openly about something like that with one's wife endangers a marriage. Sex isn't everything, you know, and nowadays it is not necessarily expected of women that they maintain the illusion that their current partner is the best they ever had, physically speaking. On top of that, I guess people talk even more openly about sex in Norway anyway. | |||
| :It appears to me that when you describe the Norwegian IP as "deeply troubled" for such a reason, you might actually be exposing a great deal about yourself. See ]. ] 19:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit warring== | |||
| You appear to be involved in an edit war. If you continue someone might block you. Not me of course. Just a friendly heads up. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You might have mentioned your own involvement. You have removed a POV template because you don't consider an article which you passed as GA biased. ] 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes I am involved. I did state that it would not be me blocking you. There have been requests for evidence. Misplaced Pages is based on sources not editors opinions. If you do not provide high quality sources along with suggested changes nothing will change. Attempting to continue to add tags is disruptive. | |||
| ::On a professional level I do not nor would I ever perform this procedure. Personally I am against it except when medical indicated (and yes it sometimes is). The English article is not pro-circ. It states "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure." Best ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yet you seem to be insisting to write and organise the article based almost exclusively on Pubmed sources and according to MEDRS. As this is as much a cultural and political topic as it is a medical topic, the resulting American medical bias is inappropriate and makes the article seriously POV. | |||
| :::For comparison, here is a translation of the layout of the corresponding article in the second-largest Misplaced Pages, the German one: | |||
| * Circumcision in cultural history and religion (Origins and ritual significance of circumcision; Circumcision in Ancient Egypt; Judaism; Christianity; Islam; Modern Era; Present) | |||
| * Performance of circumcision (General; Gomco clamp; Plastibell; Coverage of the frenulum; Traditional circumcision) | |||
| * Styles and forms of circumcision | |||
| * Medical and aesthetic motives for circumcision (Indication; Contraindication; Hygienic and medically preventative motives; UTI; Balanitis; HIV infection risk; Transfer of other infectious diseases; HPV infections; Penis carcinome; Aesthetic and cosmetic motives; Female preference; Hirsuties papillaris penis) | |||
| * Impact on sexuality (Influence on penis sensibility; Masturbation; Intercourse ) | |||
| * Possible problems and complications of circumcision (Medical complications ; Subsequent psychological problems) | |||
| * Criticism of circumcision of minors (Historical controversies; Present criticism of circumcision; Subjects' lacking capacity to consent; Positions of German professional organisations; Religion and culture as justification of circumcision; Health consequences; Differentiation from female genital cutting) | |||
| * Regulation of circumcision of minors in various states (list of countries) | |||
| * Depiction in art | |||
| * Interpretation in psychoanalysis | |||
| :::And here the outline of the corresponding French article (top level only, for brevity): | |||
| * Ritual practice | |||
| * Circumcision in the anglo-saxon world | |||
| * The surgical procedure and its consequences | |||
| * Geographic distribution | |||
| * Legal aspects | |||
| * Intactivism | |||
| * Psychoanalytic perspectives and psychological consequences of circumcision | |||
| * Controversies | |||
| :::There are many aspects in which the English article is better than the German and French articles. But only the English article has the peculiar quality that an atheist could read it with a completely open mind and as a result decide that it's best for their newborn to be circumcised. | |||
| :::It appears that for years a British circumcision fetishist (not using the word as hyperbole but as a technical description of a specific sexual perversion) had control over the article. (If you didn't know this I will see if I still have the pointers and send them to you privately. May take a week or so, though.) Unfortunately the structure of the main circumcision article and the various related articles still carries much of that legacy. ] 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I encountered that person; his last edit was in 2012. A really extraordinary beyond-what-can-be-made-up case. If info is wanted, feel free to contact me. ] (]) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks. However, I misremembered an important detail, so I just had to correct my description. But given that the guy has been active so recently, I guess Jmh649 = Doc James was already aware of him anyway. ] 13:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| Sorry Hans I think your personal feelings are getting in the way of productive discussion regarding circumcision, please see ]. <code>]]</code> 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| == AN discussion == | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| The thread has been closed, please do not post into it for ''any'' reason. Let it go and move on. ]] 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The only one editing disruptively here is you. Given all your problems recently I would have thought you would have wanted to keep your nose clean. ]] 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| ::Given all my problems recently? Would have wanted to keep my nose clean? And not even so much as a trout for Coffee for making this non-neutral closing comment? Interesting reaction. Congratulations for your first impression on me. I vaguely remember your name, but so far I had no opinion on you. | |||
| ::As I shouldn't be editing anyway, I am in fact not going to pursue this. | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| ::Just for the record: You misunderstood my edit comment, though I have trouble guessing how you understood it. "no, YOU are making the scene" doesn't seem to be a good response to "IAR is still policy. The alternative would be making a scene." Obviously, what I tried to express is that regardless of what the current fashion for closing AN threads may be, non-neutral and misleading closing comments must still be highly inappropriate and just appending a quick counterdeclaration is a milder alternative to starting a thread discussing the close or reopening a discussion that has run its course. | |||
| ::And last time I looked, edit warring on AN was still inappropriate. ] 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::Who has edit warred? Other than yourself, I mean. If you have an issue with the close, you should have raised it with the individual directly or an uninvolved admin, rather than pettily trying to get the last word in. ]] 11:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was a crap, biased close. Is that ]'s usual style? Couldn't one of you admins correct it? Why do editors who take problems to your clubhouse have to put up with that kind of patronising, condescending, biased shit? You people wouldn't last one minute in anything but a monopoly. --] (] · ] · ]) 15:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| :::::...and the way to resolve that is by furthering the very 'us vs' them' mentality you complain about? Very good. ]] 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 --> | |||
| ::::::It's resolved by admins being mature] To clarify, the problem with Coffee's close was "a select few individuals' opinions do not make a consensus, and to drop the pitchfork". Shallow and inflammatory. --] (] · ] · ]) 04:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please don't get me wrong - I am not supporting the close. I am not opposing it either. My only issue here is an editor trying to comment in a closed discussion. If people feel the close is wrong, then I suggest they request it is re-opened. ]] 13:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And it doesn't occur to you that acting on incomplete information might be a problem? That commenting on a bad close in the only place where people can see it is less disruptive than making a scene, so long as nobody decides to jump in for the sake of process wonkery? ] 17:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You could/should have "commented on a bad close" in any way other than editing the closed discussion. It's really that simple. ]] 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You shouldn't have defended a bad close for the sake of process if you are unwilling to defend it on the merits. It's really that simple. Process is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages, it's a means to an end. Which is IAR is ''still'' policy. ] 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Sigh, where have I "defended a bad close" - cos I'm pretty sure I said "I am not supporting the close" earlier today... ]] 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:47, 30 October 2024
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
In the near future I may not read my talk page as frequently and reliably as I used to do. For urgent or important matters, it may be better to use email. I am actually completely inactive nowadays. If you leave a message here, don't rely on getting an answer in less than a couple of years.
I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.
I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.
I do not fancy non-consensual templated "WikiLove".
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jass
A tag has been placed on Category:Jass indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Apothecaries' system
Apothecaries' system has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:West Balkans card games
A tag has been placed on Category:West Balkans card games indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz 08:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,