• Archive 0

Regarding this edit, "vandalism" does not mean "edits with which you disagree", however strongly you may feel. I suggest you review WP:VAND, which explains what is and what is not vandalism. Please note that misrepresenting good-faith edits as vandalism is uncivil and violates WP:AGF. Don't do it again. Jakew (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawering to push hate speech into an article is uncivil. Putting hate speech in an article is bordering on (if not crossing) the line of vandalism.--Studiodan (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would find it difficult, to put it mildly, to gain a consensus that the word "uncircumcised" constitutes "hate speech", so that is a moot point. I frequently think that your edits are misguided, but I believe you're acting in good faith, hence I don't accuse you of vandalism. Extend me the same courtesy. Jakew (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I frequency think your edits are misguided, but I don't change "circumcised" to "mutilated". You could extend the same courtesy.--Studiodan (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content issues are not behavioural issues. Please don't conflate the two. Jakew (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Studiodan. I just surfed here from this discussion at AN/I. I'm not going to get involved in this dispute but want to say I think you have a point. The trouble is, it is a subtle one of English expression, requiring some familiarity with biblical usage. and some discernment. You can't expect to find that in the average editor; and, if you do find an editor who understands, you yet have to persuade him/her that it matters. I suggest you

1. change your tone. Never respond or resort to snide or snarky comments. That's how other editors game you out of here. Be patient.
2. consider another alternative term. Maybe "intact". Google medical articles for "amputee". What do they use instead of "unamputated"? If one of those terms is appropriate in this case, you'll have solid WP:MEDRS to cite as precedent.

Good luck. Anthony (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncircumcised" is normal English usage. It's "hate speech" only in your mind, connected with your obvious obsession with the topic (as can be seen from your user page). Stop reverting it or you'll be blocked for edit warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that I have reported your behavior to WP:ANI and WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing hate speech into an article is a violation of policy. Don't push it.--Studiodan (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncircumcised" is not hate speech except in your mind. You've already been blocked once for edit warring. The next time could well be a lengthier block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting and threatening me is uncivil. I'm following policy, and upholding NPOV. The problems with that word are as follows...

Your user page and your edits indicate you are singularly obsessed with this subject. That's not uncivil, it's observing your own words. And just because a fringe element considers a word offensive doesn't make it so. Consensus is against you and your NPOV argument, so it stays as it is. You have also violated the 3-revert rule, more than once, which means you're subject to blocking for edit warring. That's not a threat, that's policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Just" because? You're speaking of the last item on the long list below. Look at the rest. However, all you need to do is pick up a dictionary. This isn't up for debate, unless you plan on changing the definition.--Studiodan (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncircumcised is commonly used to refer to a negative, unclean, godless state, in numerous biblical, religious and cultural references. Various Google searches for "uncircumcised" turn up about 1/3 of all results in this religious and cultural negative (offensive) context.^[1][2]

Many dictionaries include "uncircumcised" with the following synonyms. From Merriam Webster's dictionary: antichristian, christless, crusted, ethnical, pagan, remorseless, infidel, heathen, heathenish, heretical, merciless, miscreant, profane, rude, undeveloped, unorthodox, barbarous, bestial, uncharitable.^[3] From Dictionary.com: unregenerate.^[4][5]From Collins dictionary: not purified.^[6]

• Circumcised = Positive
• Uncircumcised = Negative^[7]

• Unfinished
• Incomplete
• Lacking something
• Abnormal
• Confers a sense of inferiority
• Not Yet circumcised
• No longer circumcised

What uncircumcised implies is clear in use of the prefix un-. Wiktionary definition #2 refers to "absent" or "lacking".^[8]

• Uncircumcised is not a neutral word.^[9]

• Un-beheaded: someone who wasn't beheaded.
• Un-wheelchair-bound: a motorcyclist who isn't in a wheelchair.
• Undead: someone who isn't dead.

Use of language is important, otherwise words such as "intact" or "mutilated" can also be used in the context of circumcision.

• Mutilated

• Intact
• Normal

• Not Circumcised
• Non-Circumcised
• Without circumcision

The Dutch KNMG does not use the word "uncircumcised" in their latest policy statement.^[10] This is also true of the British Medical Associations statement "The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors"^[11] What words the KNMG and BMA use and avoid are important, as this represents a trend from certain cultures that are not generally in favor of circumcision. This must be taken into account to maintain NPOV.

Groups that oppose circumcision have replaced the word "uncircumcised" with alternative words, precisely because the word is deemed offensive. At The Second International Symposium on Circumcision, Elizabeth Noble presented the following. "We must stop using the word uncircumcised, which suggests that circumcision is normal. [...] Defining an intact male as uncircumcised is like defining an intact woman as 'unclitoridectomized.'"^[12] In the NORM Southern California glossary, "Term [uncircumcised] commonly substituted for the correct description of the normal condition of the penis: intact. Obviously pejorative if compared to analogous terms such as "unmastectomized," "unappendectomized," and "unclitoridectomized." Also used somewhat tongue-in-cheek but descriptively by restoring men in reference to a circumcised penis that has undergone foreskin restoration."^[13] Activists groups are usually first to note offensive language that should be avoided. The fact that this word has been noted to be offensive by activist groups alone may not be a good reason to avoid it's use, however, it supports the fact that this word is deemed offensive by many.

--Studiodan (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've reported you WP:AN/3RR#User:Studiodan reported by User:Jakew (Result: ) for 3RR violation. Jakew (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The consensus is clearly that replacing "uncircumcized" with "non-circumcized" is disruptive. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and continually replacing a perfectly acceptable word with a your preferred alternative gives WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe view. TFOWR 09:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is unrelated to the report at WP:3RR, and I stress that the above warning is made without prejudice to any decision taken at WP:3RR/WP:AN3. TFOWR 09:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time you've falsely reported me. I did not violate the 3RR Jake, and you know that.--Studiodan (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is a "bright line": you most likely will be blocked if you cross it. It is not, however, an entitlement: you can be blocked for edit warring if you, for example, space reverts out over a number of days. TFOWR 09:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, reverting vandalism and hate speech in an article doesn't violate the 3RR.--Studiodan (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. What you are reverting is neither WP:VANDALISM nor hate speech. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. TFOWR 09:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note [1] that you have reverted FOUR TIMES in less than 24 hours. That's a violation of the rules. And consensus is that "uncircumcised" is neither vandalism nor POV violation, so your claim is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. Reverting vandalism doesn't violate 3RR. As for consensus, just check the dictionary definitions of the word.--Studiodan (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Studiodan, to assert that I've knowingly made a false 3RR report — twice — is a serious claim, and one that should not be made lightly. I suggest that you present your evidence at WP:ANI. If, on the other hand, you find that you're unable to prove your assertion, I suggest that you retract it. Jakew (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous claim was proven to be false.--Studiodan (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A diff of this proof would be appreciated. Jakew (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on archive. However, I'm not interested in wikilawering with you. Respect is to be earned, and not to be expected when you treat someone poorly.--Studiodan (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and violating the 3-revert rule, as you have done more than once, is not the way for you to earn anyone's respect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which might be a valid point if reverting vandalism and hate speech was a violation of the 3RR rule. However, one of the worst ways to earn respect is to push hate speech into an article. Before you repeat yourself again, pick up a dictionary and read all the definitions. The fact that this word is offensive isn't up for debate.--Studiodan (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Studiodan, you are exhibiting an alarming case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You were not reverting WP:VANDALISM and you were not reverting hate speech. You were edit warring to give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe opinion. Assuming, of course, that your belief that "uncircumcized" is a "Bad Word" is shared by anyone else. Which, frankly, I remain sceptical about. TFOWR 10:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you share the opinion or not. It's in the dictionary. Many dictionaries include "uncircumcised" with the following synonyms. From Merriam Webster's dictionary: antichristian, christless, crusted, ethnical, pagan, remorseless, infidel, heathen, heathenish, heretical, merciless, miscreant, profane, rude, undeveloped, unorthodox, barbarous, bestial, uncharitable.^[1] From Dictionary.com: unregenerate.^[2][3]From Collins dictionary: not purified.^[4]--Studiodan (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me be clear. It doesn't matter whether you share the same opinion as everyone else. You can believe "uncircumsized" is hate speech if you wish. If, however, you continue to ignore consensus and you continue to edit war: you will be blocked. If you accuse good faith editors of using hate speech: you will be blocked. Is that clear? TFOWR 10:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, let it be seen (above) that the dictionary definitions of this word are being ignored (no comment on) to maintain bias over fact.--Studiodan (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record so state, if you wish. TFOWR 10:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These definitions of the word are not up for debate. Calling the dictionary definitions a "fringe opinion" is unwarranted. Furthermore, threats of blocking for maintaining policy is also unwarranted.--Studiodan (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is thataway. Raise your concerns about my handling of this incident there. TFOWR 10:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Circumcision. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Template:Z9 The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Studiodan reported by User:Jakew (Result: 1 week). EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Studiodan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The following dictionaries include "uncircumcised" with these synonyms: From Merriam Webster's dictionary: antichristian, christless, crusted, ethnical, pagan, remorseless, infidel, heathen, heathenish, heretical, merciless, miscreant, profane, rude, undeveloped, unorthodox, barbarous, bestial, uncharitable.^[5] From Dictionary.com: unregenerate.^[6][7]From Collins dictionary: not purified.^[8]

Decline reason:

If it is not yet clear to you that riding this hobby-horse is not going to get you anywhere, this week will be useful for you to consider your options. You have clearly been edit warring and it will not be permitted. I agree with User:EdJohnston, whom I quote from this link, when he said: "He has learned nothing since the last block on May 10 about the same article. He should decide whether he is suited for a collaborative editing environment." Accounting4Taste:talk 21:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reverting vandalism and hate speech in an article doesn't violate 3RR or constitute edit warring. I was upholding policy by changing the word "uncircumcised" to "non-circumcised" only where there is no cited source to warrant the use of that offensive word (the fact that it's offensive isn't up for debate, which I'll demonstrate below). It doesn't matter if you personally think the word "uncircumcised" is offensve or not (or whether there is a consensus). It's clearly defined as offensive language in multiple dictionaries. The following dictionaries include "uncircumcised" with these synonyms: From Merriam Webster's dictionary: antichristian, christless, crusted, ethnical, pagan, remorseless, infidel, heathen, heathenish, heretical, merciless, miscreant, profane, rude, undeveloped, unorthodox, barbarous, bestial, uncharitable.^[9] From Dictionary.com: unregenerate.^[10][11]From Collins dictionary: not purified.^[12]. Failure to acknowledge the definition of this word in favor of personal bias is an enormously bad reason to block a good faith editor who is only upholding Wikipedia policy.--Studiodan (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point which you have failed to appreciate, and doing so will, I think, be a rerquirement if you are to continue here, is that while the dictionary definitions of "uncircumcised" which you quote - "antichristian", "christless", "pagan" and so on - are unarguably correct in the terms of a dictionary, they are in themselves not offensive, unless considered in a specifically one sided framework of belief, which wikipedia by statute and policy is forbidden to do. My personal belief system, for the record, is on my userpage.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And many of the other definitions which you quote arise from people having ethical belief systems polarised to point where any male who is not circumcised is automatically and inherently evil. even a dictionary needs to specify its sources; the definitions contained therein are not god-given mandat. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary definition of "uncircumcised" in my Webster's is "not circumcised". That is not hate speech, it's factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said before, when you go looking for something to be offended about, you're almost certainly going to find it or invent it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Go looking? You'd have to be living under a rock not to know that this word is offensive and deliberately demeaning. You have not eliminated these definitions from any dictionary, and so your argument holds absolutely no ground what-so-ever.--Studiodan (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Undeveloped, bestial, uncharitable, barbarous, heathen, not purified, crusted, etc. These are not in themselves offensive? In what contexts are each (and everyone of) these words not offensive, and how practical of a context is it?--Studiodan (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can change the definitions of the dictionary, blocking someone for upholding Wikipedia policy is in violation of administrative rules. So far, you haven't presented any case.--Studiodan (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue this approach, you will likely find yourself indef'd and unable to edit your talk page. Is that what you want? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You lost the argument. You've failed to change any dictionary definitions for the word. Threatening me is uncivil and unwarranted. This is on record.--Studiodan (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no authority to block you. I'm just giving you good advice. You've flown (mostly) under the radar for awhile, but now you've got the attention of admins. So unless you change your approach, the endpoint of your visit here is fairly predictable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far you've been lucky to have found admins who fall into the 25% block of the pro-circumcision world who doesn't care if offensive language is used or not (even if it's demonstrated and unarguable). Your luck will not continue. It shall also be noted that Wikipedia [is not a democracy], and so facts (like definitions) trump opinion.--Studiodan (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Whether or not a certain word should be used here is not down to a reading of multiple dictionary definitions, it's simply down to consensus as to whether to include it. You haven't been blocked for your beliefs about the word, you've been blocked because you are unable to edit according to Wikipedia policy by edit-warring over it. Whilst you continue to do that, you will certainly continue to be blocked for doing so; it doesn't really matter how "right" you believe yourself to be or how many times you repeat it. If you really want to start a discussion on the subject, that is what the article talk page is for. But merely editing disruptively will get you nowhere - as can be seen. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at the talk page, I demonstrated the word to be offensive in 10 different ways, and several others have been in agreement. Only the pro-circ advocates (like Jakew) who patrol the page have choosen to ignore the definitions and report me for false edit warring. Edit warring isn't reverting vandalism and hate speech.--Studiodan (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not upholding wikipedia policy, you are violating it. And you are going to see a permanent block unless you can come to realise this. Your stated definitions above are not a meaningful argument; undeveloped, barbarous and heathen are cultural descriptions and are not offensive; "not purified" is a purely Jewish expression relating to a male who is not a circumcised Jew, and I defy you to find a dictionary in which "uncircumcised" is the primary definition of the words bestial, uncharitable or crusted. Please take note that arguing a hopeless case single-handed against a group of admis is not going to work. Please drop it now and go back to productive editing. I do not think that the community will tolerate the same behaviour wehen your block expires. This is not a threat, any more than was the message just above. This is a request and a warning.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin or no admin. Violating wiki policy by unfairly blocking someone for reverting vandalism and hate speech is in violation. It doesn't matter how many times you try to re-define a word, it's been demonstrated in multiple dictionaries to be offensive, and no amount of argument will change that unless you go work for these dictionaries and change the definition. It doesn't matter if a million admins are in agreement, Wikipedia [is not a democracy], and facts must always trump opinions.--Studiodan (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would be correct if those edits were obviously vandalism and/or hate speech. However, since you appear to be in a minority of one that they are such, this is not the case. At the very least they are a WP:NPOV issue, and as you can see from WP:VANDTYPES, such issues cannot be assumed to be vandalism. As I said above, merely repeating ad nauseam that use of the word is vandalism/hate-speech does not make it correct. You really need to drop this crusade if you are to continue editing here. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT seems directly relevant here. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a point, it's a fact. The definitions of this word still remain.--Studiodan (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia [is not a democracy], and facts must always trump opinions.--Studiodan (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How badly do you want to keep editing here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play threat-games with me Bugs. How much do you care about upholding actual policy?--Studiodan (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no authority to "threaten" you. You have to ask yourself that question, because if you don't, then you'll be done here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to kindly take your threats elsewhere. They are uncivil and unwarranted. Please remove them or remain away from my userpage.--Studiodan (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here since January and appear to be on a crusade of some kind. If you continue, an admin will most likely block you for good. That's not a threat, and it's not uncivil, it's a prediction based on past observation of what happens to crusaders here. Oh, and it's not "your" userpage. It belongs to the wikipedia community. During a block period, you should only be using the page to file proper unblock requests, and not to continue the same debate that caused you to violate the three-revert rule on at least two occasions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far every comment you make includes a direct attack, and it needs to stop. Regardless of what you think about me, policy is what matters. Please leave personal comments to yourself, and stick to policy.--Studiodan (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not "following" policy, you're interpreting it the way you feel like interpreting it, despite more than one admin telling you that you've got it wrong. And pretty much every edit you've made in 5 months is about this one topic. That's not a personal attack, it's an observation about your editing. I have no idea why you're so fascinated with this topic, and I really don't want to know, either. (Too much information!) I've seen many crusaders come and go here. Do you want to edit wikipedia, or do you want to go down in flames? That's not up to me, it's up to you to decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to have to repeat myself again. Leave personal comments (about users) to youself, and stick to policy. Once again, regarding multiple admins; Wikipedia [is not a democracy], and facts trump opinions.

I have made no personal attacks, and it is you that have violated policy and are currently blocked for it. Whether you stay blocked is your own choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I have not violated any policy. Whether the admins above decide to uphold policy is up to them, not me. I will not violate policy or stand by and watch others do so because of any threats by you or others above. That does not mean I will do something to get myself blocked, it means I will will uphold policy by reporting everyone who violates it, includes those above who have done so. Trying to stop me from upholding policy with threats is unwarranted, and it needs to stop.--Studiodan (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your block status is your choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I do not block myself, that requires an administrator. Whether an administrator fairly or unfairly blocks someone is up to them. If an admin decides to block someone because of their personal bias over demonstrable facts, that is their choice, not mine. What you mean to say is, if I do not submit to authority (regardless of facts or policy, or if said authority is violating policy), I may be blocked. That is your threat, and it needs to stop. Stick to policy.--Studiodan (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is that consensus rules, not "the truth"; sincere edits are not "vandalism"; and that more than 3 reverts in 24 hours can get you blocked. You made the choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wikipedia [is not a democracy], and facts trump opinions (even if they are the majority).--Studiodan (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, reverting vandalism doesn't meet the 3RR criteria.--Studiodan (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may win through use of censorship, but you have lost the argument (regarding the facts). If you are comfortable with that or not is up to you.--Studiodan (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere editing that you happen to disagree with is not defined in wikipedia as "vandalism". That's policy. You were warned, and you kept edit-warring. You made the choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who use hate speech never think it's hate speech. The dictionary disagrees with your opinion, and facts trump opinions.--Studiodan (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your cherry-picking of the dictionary is trumped by consensus. Meanwhile, show me what part of WP:VANDAL justifies your reverting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking? In virtually all definitions but one it's an offensive term.--Studiodan (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It describes a condition. Circumcised vs. uncircumcised. Or in slang terms, "cut or uncut". I'm sure "uneducated" would be an offensive term to some folks also, but it's not hate speech, it merely describes a condition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not properly considering the issue of context here. One of the biggest problems with dictionaries (as I often tell my English-learning students) is that they have limited facility in explaining words in context. While more definitions given for the word "uncircumcised" may in fact be negative, none of the negative ones is likely to apply in an article about the actual surgical procedure. It remains a simple fact, furthermore, that the most commonly used adjective for a penis that has not been circumcised is "uncircumcised", and almost all other possible terms sound like contrived English (such as "non-circumcised") or POV (such as "normal") or ambiguous (such as "intact"). And before you go after me, I'm no supporter of circumcision. I still believe that "uncircumcised" is the most neutral term available. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]