Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 31 August 2008

Warning

Tip, you have been responded to more than once, and checking the archives should show more times consensus was against you. Restoring the information aganst consensus will be viewed as disruptive. -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point

Archives serve to prove my point about the troll gang. Several admin editors warned me that "circumcision will always be a mess" specifically because of certain editors (you and jakew). You bring spurious arguments (like the sources you cited in discussion that DO NOT address your point) to waste time.
Your unscholarly behavior (citing a source that does not support your claim) and writing (misleading, non factual) is disruptive and misleading. You are responsible for physical great pain and sexual harm http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs] without religious purpose.

— TipPt (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC), http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAvraham&diff=235408361&oldid=235394608

The above is proof positive that your purpose is not to build an encyclopedia, but to use[REDACTED] as a soapbox. Preventative measures may need to be taken. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am objecting to your current (see troll) role in Circumcision. Specifically your citing sources that are quite religious but clearly not relevant (not mentioning technique at all), and past war discussions. You have been quite unscholarly.TipPt (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=235412935 demonstrates your inaccuracies; thanks -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how. I am accurate to the published studies ... one from a mohel and urologist! It shows you citing unverifiable sources. The sources you provided did not support your claim.TipPt (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot read the sources does not make them verifiable. You bring examples of one or two persons opinions; I have brought the unargued source for Jewish tradition for the past 600 years. Of course, this argument is somewhat moot, as my goal is to build an encyclopeida and your self avowed goal is to prevent "physical great pain and sexual harm," or a classic WP:SOAPBOX violation. -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You evidently didn't read the Times (on pain) and Boyle (sexual hard) articles that support my claim of pain and harm. More than half of "Jewish tradition" (Thousands of years not hundreds) employed the covenant procedure. Please provide (and rely on) verifiable facts.TipPt (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I will try once again. Yoreh Deah 264:3–6 discusses the technique of Jewish Circumcision, and that is many, many, many, many more times authoritative than the syudies you bring with regard to the Jewish tradition, Tip. Try speaking with a few Orthodox Jewish rabbis, Tip, you may find it enlightening. -- Avi (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yoreh Deah discusses the new technique only, not the original ... which helps make my point. I have documented the original technique with valid (unbiased) sources, please provide sources that refute the statements of those sources.TipPt (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New technique? Yoreh Deah is around 600 years old? If you would like, I can try and trace Yoreh Deah's sources back to Maimonedes and the Talmud, but to say that a twentieth-century non-Jewish court document is more authritative than Jewish Law is basically absurd. -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Hello, I just undid your recent edit to circumcision because it may have reverted further back in the history than you intended. My revert is not meant to support or reject your current position in the debate at Talk:Circumcision. Regards, AlphaEta 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know changes had been made in between.TipPt (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I knew it was an honest mistake. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 19:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: two weeks due to persistent edit warring on circumcision. When you're released from this block, please strive to edit in a less hostile manner and try negotiation and before devolving into reverting others' edits. east718 // talk // email // 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)