I have protected the page in an effort to get you two to discuss it, and a mediator may have a look at it if assistance is needed. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have written that you were interested in reading my contributions. I have created an overhauled article that fixes the major issues that I percieved, namely, lack of flow, structure, and npov. I have started an RFC on the issue already. I perceive you as a balanced editor, I am interested in reading your assessment of my article, be it praise or criticism. Dabljuh 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my conclusion that no mention of CA-MRSA will be allowed under any condition. Likewise, the issue of bleeding in babies with undiagnosed coagulation issues has been censored repeatedly and will not be allowed. There is a group of like-minded admins that ensures this and bans anyone who gets in their way. See my talk page for examples. Alienus 10:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told you so. Alienus 16:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the events at User:Jakew/Alienus_RFC, or not. Up to you. Alienus 17:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. I do have one suggestion. I notice that, after acknowledging what you consider to be unacceptable incivility (presumably by me, though you might have meant others), you go on to describe some rather nasty tricks that some (unspecified) people use to get their way. I wonder if you might be willing to be more specific about who is doing what. If you mean me, please say so. If you mean someone else, likewise. Anyhow, that's my suggestion. Alienus 01:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Alienus 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started reading this article and researching on google. I have not found anything to justify this term as an article as I have only found it as a non capitalised description of a point of view (this is in contrast to terms such as Pro-life). To be honest circumcision advocacy seems no more of a separate term than chocolate lover or tennis enthusiast. From what I have seen so far I would want to nominate this article for deletion (or better still redirect it to Circumcision#Cultures and religions which explains the reasons why circumcision takes place). You seemed to be the person most in favour of keeping the article last time so I would like to know what you think of this. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 16:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the warning and I will bear it in mind. IMHO I have not found external justificaion for this article - but I may have missed something so please point me in the right direction. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took your comment as well meant. I'm aware that everyone has a POV and I have made it clear on the talk page that personally I do not support non-medically required circumcision. You have valid points but POV forking off to dilute the debate won't help. Circumcision and it's directly related articles are where these issues should be addressed. I genuinely don't see the justification for Circumcision advocacy and feel that it's clouding the issue. The info you have added should be in the main articles. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sooo agree.I will also defend to the death a NPOV stance on the circumcision page so hopefully we can constructively work together to merge the contents in without loss of important material. I'm a veteran of the 'ol "off topic" and OR/RS fights from Christianity pages so I'm aware of the issues and will be reading up carefully to make sure all the evidence gets a NPOV place in the main article. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 06:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.

The mediation will take place here. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --Wisden17 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added my initial questions and comments on this page. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Wikipedia for any length of time then please do infrom me.

I look forward to working with you. --Wisden17 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to make corrections, which you can see here [1] #22 and after.

Mostly I'd like you to help when I write a new sexual effects intro and new text to the main body. I'll be back for that in about a week.TipPt 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Circumcision was not cast in a neutral voice, but blantantly anti-metzitzah. Firstly there has been no evidence linking the death of the NY infants with the mohel. Secondly, Phil Sherman is in no way shape or form a notable mohel. Try Paysach Krohn if you want to find someone who has done something, I believe, over 5,000 brisim. Next, casting the decision as "political" is at most your opinion, and that is not apparent from the article, if you read it. Please be careful with WP:OR and WP:NPOV in wikipedia in general, and very careful with potentially contentious articles. Thank you. -- Avi 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was discussed months ago. This edit has no other ostensible bearing in the Circumcision article, other than to disparage Orthodox Jews. Please revert your NPOV comments. For the record please adhere to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, otherwise the appropriate measures will be taken to protect the encuyclopedia. Thank you. -- Avi 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, Please look at the link that I provided. The article [2] said, "The ultra-Orthodox community lobbied the mayor, saying freedom to practise their religion was guaranteed by the US constitution." What I have added to the article, I believe, is a fair summary of this quotation.

• As a person of Jewish descent, I find your accusation that I was casting aspersions on Jews or any Jewish group unwarranted, inaccurate, offensive and unfair.
• Secondly, it is perfectly respectable for people to lobby politicians. That is certainly the case in Australia. If lobbying politicians in America has different connotations, please let me know.
• Thirdly, my statement was backed up by a report in a reliable source, namely, the British Medical Journal.
• Finally, it is necessary to understand that there was lobbying about Metzizah to make it clear that there were political as well as religious and medical considerations affecting the decision-making process.

Please do not try to bully me. The rules of Wikipedia advise you to assume good faith. Please adhere to that policy. As I said before, I am willing to work with you to put material in a way that does not cause unnecessary offence. However, that does not extend to suppressing facts.

Please read your comment again. The obvious typo suggests to me that you are reacting too emotionally to think clearly. Please calm down and reconsider your position. Michael Glass 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, but I wouldn't know where to start helping you. I assume you clicked my username at random from the history; choose another long-term contributor to that article. --AdamM 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Circumcision policies of various countries. Thanks, Jakew 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on the circumcision article. The duration of the block is 8 hours. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes, rather than engaging in an edit war. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your questions. It doesn't require a complaint to be blocked for breaking the 3RR, if an admin happens to see a violation someone can be blocked regardless, but most often it is a complaint that draws an admin's attention to the situation. We have a noticeboard for 3RR complaints, yours was filed there.

Also, please read the page on the three-revert rule. Reverts need not be bit-for-bit identical versions to qualify, just substantially similar. Generally, if you're reverted even once, it's time to go to the talk page and hash things out. If you feel that biased editors are trying to own a page, you certainly can file a request for comment on the article to get input from the wider community. Sometimes mediation is also beneficial, there's an informal mediation process here, and the formal committee mediation here. I would strongly advise you engage in some of these dispute resolution steps rather than keep making a controversial change over and over-that just ends up being a disruption, and inevitably ends badly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be perturbed. Perhaps this will help explain the issues. -- Avi 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You asked for a citation on "(Smegma) has a characteristic strong odor and taste." on the Circumcision page. Where do you expect to find such a citation? Do we need to ask a *professional* sex worker, or would we be okay with someone who just enjoys it a lot? Hopefully we can find a trustworthy reference for this assertion of "fact". Thanks! -- Cjbprime 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for putting the citation notice there was that we need to be able to verify the information that is in the article. That is all. Michael Glass 06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I'm unable to verify the quotes you added in this edit. The text states that:

The 2004 statement "did not recommend circumcision for newborn boys" and noted "Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

However, the text cites the 1996 statement (which, assuming that the Canadians have yet to perfect time travel, seems unlikely to refer to a 2004 document). I can't find the quoted text in either document. This may be due to a web browser bug on my machine - would you mind quoting the full paragraph for each? Thanks Jakew 10:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, When I made that edit I was relying on the "quotation" embedded in the article. Thanks for showing that it is a furphy. I stand corrected. Here is a quote from the abstract of the 1996 policy: "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." [3]. Michael Glass 23:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many gross misrepresentations and omissions in the current version ... why not adopt the honest version?TipPt 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that it removed some changes that were simply stylistic improvements. I'll have a closer look at it when I have time. Michael Glass 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes to Sorrell's in Sexual Effects to account for Jakew's objections.

Please see the difference in the introduction (AMA cited emphasis on cultural ritual), outline (emphasis on circ as a surgical not religious practice), procedures, sexual effects, judaism (current omits discussion of brit periah), risks (the current version omits meatal stenosis), and pain ... the current version leaves readers ignorant of the fact that separating the prepuce from the glans is extremely painful.TipPt 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work fixing the CPS statement is good and interesting; but note that Jakew created that statements section to highlight the CPS saying benefits and risks are balanced. It's been fixed at least four times, to be reverted to Jakew's biased version (usually by Jakew). The discussion of Sorrells was also interesting, because most of those sexual effects studies are MORE grossly flawed. I showed that study (and the related discussion) to a UCLA professor (stat) ... does study design reviews ... and he said it was well designed and the conclusions valid.TipPt 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TipPt. I believe that the article as it stands is too long. I think the introduction could be cut drastically and several other parts could be dealt with in other articles such as the medical analysis of circumcision. Michael Glass 05:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best writer, and most likely to not get reverted ... please include text stating cultures have placed high value on the prepuce.[4]

Don't you object to how the jewish tradition is represented? See History [5]

"The Jews adopted circumcision as a religious ritual8,10,15,18 and preserved this prehistoric practice into modern times.10,16,18 The circumcision of Abraham removed only the very tip that extended beyond the glans penis.8,17,22,28 Moses and his sons were not circumcised. (Exodus 4:25) Although Moses apparently prohibited circumcision during the 40 years in the wilderness,15,18 (Joshua 5:5) Joshua reinstituted circumcision at Gilgal after the death of Moses.15,18 (Joshua 5:2-10) It is interesting to note that after the Israelites were circumcised, they immediately became soldiers in Joshua's army for the conquest of Palestine. (Joshua 6:1-3)

In contrast to the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans placed a high value on the prepuce.31 The Romans passed several laws to protect the prepuce by prohibiting circumcision.31

Much later in the Hellenic period, about 140 C.E., the circumcision procedure was modified to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25 A radical new procedure called peri'ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis. In this procedure the foreskin was stripped away from the glans, with which it is fused in the infant (See Normal.) In a painful procedure known today as a synechotomy, more foreskin was removed than before and the injury was correspondingly greater. With the introduction of peri'ah, the glans could not easily be recovered, and so no Jewish male would easily be able to appear as an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25

It may have been at this time that the Pondus Judaeus (also known as Judaeum Pondum), a bronze weight worn by Jews on the residual foreskin to stretch it back into a foreskin,8,18,23 gained popularity amongst Jewish males. This lessened the ugly appearance of the bare exposed circumcised penis.18 This restorative procedure was known by the Greek word epispasm,8 or "rolling inward."

The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E).8,17,23 In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth.31 This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection.13 In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead."

PS ... I'm a secular humanist.TipPt 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, can you find a reliable source that discusses the HPV vaccine in the context of circumcision? If it hasn't been linked in a reliable source, it'll have to be removed. Jakew 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, I can't understand your reasoning here. I feel that it is important background information. In Australia the Federal Government has released the Gardasil vaccine and made it available to all young girls, so this will obviously have an impact on the spread of the HPV virus. Michael Glass 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you may well be right in saying that it will have an impact, but WP:NOR does not allow us to synthesise facts unless others have already done so. Surely if it is important enough to include then at least one WP:RS will have already linked the two facts? Jakew 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a helpful contribution. Thanks!

ChrisPer 07:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you did not mean it, but you removed the word "surgical" in this edit. Please refer to Talk:Circumcision/Archive 27#Circumcision is not Surgery and Talk:Circumcision/Archive 29#Plain English where this was discussed in detail and consensus was to retain proper definition including the term. Thank you. -- Avi 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no evidence of consensus in those discussions. Michael Glass 07:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: [6] In the interests of harmonious editing, I've been refraining from editing that section of the article while discussion is going on about it. Perhaps you didn't notice the currently very busy talk page section Talk:Circumcision#BMA source curiously used. I think it would be a good idea if you self-revert and participate in the discussion, waiting until consensus before implementing changes. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being hasty in reverting: and for then being slow to comment. I've posted comments on your edit at Talk:Circumcision#Revisions to the consent section.

Note that at the top of Talk:Circumcision it says "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Some more heavily-edited or controversial pages work like that. In practice, if an edit is not controversial people get away with just editing anyway, but on some pages almost any edit is controversial. My revert was also because the same paragraph/sentence was already under discussion on the talk page. I hope you don't mind. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Please see my comments on your talk page. Michael Glass 05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I've responded here. I've got some questions that you might be able to help me understand. Phyesalis 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kristen O'Hara, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AP Shinobi (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false charge. The edit, whatever defects others might see in it, was made in good faith.Michael Glass (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is clear, Michael. I think that AP Shinobi made a mistake in this instance. These things happen. I wouldn't worry. Jakew (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]