Hi,

a belated welcome from me, and thanks for your help on medical analysis of circumcision (still a lot of work to do there). You may want to put some information about yourself on your user page.

By the way, you can sign comments by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~).—Eloquence 07:11, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Well my fellow Intactivists (this will appear on other talk:pages):

The circumcisiophiliacs won this round. The main problem is that they are more commited than we (they make it impossible for us to correct any of their lies and bias on præpuce and circumcision). Now, they go after our articles (maybe I should not have tried to expose them by writing about Circumfetishism).

Hugh Young wrote complaining about me creating articles about Intactivism and Genital Integrity without consulting anyone. He was right to complain; I did create such articles without consulting. Let me just point out to things though:

1. I invited other Intactivists to join me last year to join Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org last year (within a month of that, I gave up on editing Præpuce and Circumcision because I was so badly outnumbered, that I could not do any good).
2. I am the only full-time Intactivist with Michael Glass dropping in every now and then.

Now that you are all temporarily here, I ask you to stay. If you would just check on our articles weekly and also præpuce, circumcision, and articles linking to them, it would truly help much. While you are at it, you can edit and start other articles. ¡Editing and starting articles is fun! Look at this cool article, which I started about Laurentia.

¡E Pluribus Unum!

¡Thanks!

Ŭalabio 00:31, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

I find your implication that anyone who opposes your attitude on the articles is a 'circumcisiophiliac' offensive. I personally agree with the principles of your movement.

You fail to understand that the 'pedia is not here to pronounce anything as right or wrong, we are merely here to present the facts as neutrally as possible. The facts are that there is a body of people who oppose the principles we support, and fairness demands that they be presently in an equally unbiased fashion.

I have regularly written/edited articles on topics which I find offensive and contrary to my own values, but the 'pedia is not a place for me to espouse how *I* think the world should be. You have done more to harm your cause than benefit it by persisting in this edit war, as people who might have not formed an opinion may have been swayed against you by the tenacity of your attacks. Reason, not extremism, is the key to changing people's minds. Manning 23:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

You recently added a link to Jehova's witness to the article Limits to religious freedom which is listed on vfd. I am inviting you to vote on the article. Thank you. Sirkumsize 15:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your support of this article. Also take a look at Circumcision and Media Ethics. Thanks again. Sirkumsize 03:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia recently deleted this article. I am appealing this decision on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. This is one of the most important circumcision related issues of our day. The article explored links between circumcision and denial that such links exist. It discussed possible psychological connections between anti-semitism and circumcision. It was also one of only a handful of articles that discusses academic bias in favour of circumcision due to religious backlash. If you have anything to say about this subject I'd be delighted if you wrote it here. Thank you. Sirkumsize 03:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just thought that I would mention that I filed an rfc against this user at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jayjg if you would care to join me. His action on the page Aposthia was highly inappropriate! Sirkumsize 21:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on the proposal to use the term intact rather than uncircumcised in the main circumcision article. I thought it was very balanced and fair. Not to sound melodramatic but its become clear that pro circumcision POV pushers are censoring wikipedia uninhibitedly, which can be seen in their attempt to remove the article Aposthia and removal of the disambiguation page at uncircumcised to eliminate any other interpretations of the word supported by the dictionary that they feel improves their political agenda. For the sake of intellectual freedom I implore you to look into these matters and make choice about how you will respond. Thanks again. Sirkumsize 02:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I was just wondering whether you ever heard back from CIRP? To refresh your memory, at Talk:Circumcision#CIRP_links I made a number of comments, which you said you would pass to CIRP for their consideration. Since this was more than a month ago, I figured you would probably have heard something by now. Thanks. - Jakew 19:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]