---

---

Hi ?alabio. If you are interested in continents, given that Australia is mainly concerned with the country, you might like to pay some attention to Australia-New Guinea instead. Just a thought.

Best Tannin 07:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

---

I undid much of your categorization spree from a few days back, sorry. I note that some of it has been discussed on talk:Australia. Wikipedia:Categorization is another good page for finding general consensus on how article categorization is done on Wikipedia.

On another note, perhaps Category:Cratons would be useful to create as a subcategory of continents if you plan to add articles on those as well? Bryan 15:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

---

Nothing, except the high-pitched shrieking of those who believe that having one's foreskin removed is like having one's brain removed. I have seen you before, Walabio, and all I can say is that I hope I never find myself so one-track-minded on an issue as you. While I am neutral in the circumcision debate, I see intact Day as a huge joke (what are you going to do - wave your foreskin about?). Neither of these articles is acceptable for Wikipedia, either because they are (genital integrity) a neologism, and (Intact Day), a singularly unrecognised celebration. Did you not bother to read my comments? Denni☯ 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

You posted on my user page: "¿What do you have against Genital Integrity and Intact Day?" All I can do is point you to the last sentence in the post above. I have nothing against them as entities or concepts. The topics might make fine articles for a newspaper, a magazine, or a special interest group publication. I can even see merit in the medical/political stance of non-circumcision, especially as regards clitoridectomy, which I regard as evil. I am intact, and am pleased my parents made that choice. However, not every circumcised individual is cursing =his= parents for their choice. The sentiments you express, though valid, are not universal. Moreover, I reiterate that Intact Day is a singularly unrecognized event except among "intactionists". "Genital integrity" is a nice phrase, but it is a neologism. I would also not that your level of, um, =passion= makes it difficult to accept that I am doing anything other than wasting my time by responding to this. Since you chose not to read (or process, I'm not sure which) my initial comments, and have demonstrated a strikingly unidimensional pose on this issue, my guess is it doesn't much matter what I say - to you, I'm the guy with the meat saw. But my version of Wikipedia does not recognise neologisms or self-proclaimed special days. No offense to the foreskin-challenged, but hey, we all have our burdens. Be glad yours involves only the loss of a few square centimetres of skin. It could be a LOT worse, brother. Please note that this is my final comment on the issue - it obviously matters far more to you than it does to me. Denni☯ 23:45, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

---

---

An advocate is a wikipedian who serves to offer advice to a fellow wikipedian in a conflict, with the purpose of ensuring the best possible outcome for the user the advocate is advising. If you only want someone who will punish Denni for what he has said to you then I must decline. If you are seeking an advisor to help you with the user conflict and subsquent article deletion conflict, I accept.

I suggest we correspond by email to maintain protect your privacy. You can contact me by going to my user page and selecting the E-mail this user option. I will wait to give most of my advice until you have emailed me. This is so my advice remains confidential, if I post it now, on your talk page anyone, can read it. However, one thing is too important to wait. I strongly suggest that you distance yourself from users such as DanP or DanBlackman; association with these users is detrimental to your interests at this point in time. I'll explain why once you have contacted me via email. I also suggest that you temporarily refrain from editing pages related to the possible deletion of either Genital Integrity or Intact Day and also user pages associated with the conflict.

Two off subject questions:

1. What is your native language? I have had some difficulty understanding some of what you have written. If you speak Spanish it may be easier for us to correspond in Spanish.

2. Why have you selected me as advocate?

---

---

In regards to the e-mail I sent you: Unforunately this is slightly more complecated than I originally thought but still doable. Edits cannot be transferred to an alreday created account. If you are willing to move your account, yet again, ?albio and Walabio edits could be moved to Ulabio or another name of your chooseing. You can make the request at Wikipedia:Changing username. I also find the Unicode rejection somewhat odd. Have you asked about it on the village pump? -JCarriker 04:41, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

---

You are of course free to vote however you please, but I just wanted to warn you that the Genital Integrity article won't be kept or deleted on the basis of a deal concerning the Intact Day article. The votes for those two articles will be tallied on their own merit. I say this to warn you so that if the vote goes in favor of deletion in both cases you won't feel as if you were tricked into casting a delete vote. --Starx 23:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

---

It is generally very bad form to crosspost "article-specific" comments on a person's private talk page, particularly when you have already posted them to the relevant discussion page on the article itself. Please don't do it again. Manning 01:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but since the vote was over, I was not certain that you would see the resources. I knew that you would see a message on your talk because the system notifies users. At any rate, I shall not do it again.

I am sorry.

Ŭalabio 01:33, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

---

---

When your posting on discussion pages like the Genital Integrity VfD page. I understand that you want to respond to people on a point by point basis, but don't split up their comments. It makes the page very hard to read, it makes it impossible to determine the author of certain snippets of text, and it's generally taboo to edit other peoples comments. It's not a huge deal, pages are just much easyer to read if we all follow a messageboard type format. --Starx 04:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry.

Ŭalabio 10:08, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

---

---

Re: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity Please don't engage in personal attacks such as "¿Who told you that? This is one of the most idiotic statemes, which, I have ever read." Read and understand Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's also very bad etiquette to modify other people's comments, like how you struck out Denni's entire comment. Also a suggestion, don't debate issues on the VFD page. It belongs in the article's talk page. Rhobite 12:13, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I struck out my own comment which quoted Denni. I concede that maybe Denni believed the lies of the circumcisers and may not have anything against child-advocates.

Post Scriptum:

If the thread about the benefits continues, I shall ask the next responder to take it with me to email.

Ŭalabio 13:56, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

I think you have too much emotionally invested in this subject to edit it in a neutral point of view. It's quite evident that you see circumcision as abuse, which can be (and is) debated. I think the best thing is to step away from this subject, at least until you can edit without POV. Mike H 17:33, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

---

I apologise for my forceful language in replying to your question. In the spirit of Wiki, I should simply have provided reasons without resorting to insult. You should know that I am not pro-circumcision; I think that what we are born with, we should be allowed to keep as long as it falls within the realm of "usual things". Foreskins and such belong in that category. My primary concern is using Wikipedia to push a particular social-political agenda. My objection was not to your point of view, but to what I perceived as an inability on your part to accept criticism of the encyclopedic value of your articles.

Nonetheless, please be assured I will treat your comments with more respect in the future.

Denni☯ 01:00, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

I never had any objections to the deletion of Intact Day. We created Intact Day so that we would have a holiday with a name for balancing the name of the Feast of the Circumcision. Interestingly enough, the Feast of the Circumcision is not in itself a procircumcision-holiday:

The Feast of Circumcision is about the blood, which Jesus Christ shed during his circumcision foreboding the blood he shed on the Cross.

That is not exactly procircumcision. At any rate, Christians are not suppose to circumcise.

Given that to my knowledge, none ever did anything on Intact Day, I always figured that it might get deleted.

I am sad about the merger of Intactivism and Genital Integrity:

In Genital Integrity, I planned to present arguments from Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC). In Intactivism, I planned to write about the movement Intactivism and Genital Integrity Awareness Week:

Genital Integrity Awareness Week is an annual protest. Google.Com says so. I have photographic evidence. After I wrote enough about Genital Integrity Awareness Week, I planned spinoff Genital Integrity Awareness Week into its own article.

Now, I must cram everything into one little article. I shall have to fight just to add information about Genital Integrity Awareness Week to the newly merged article:

User:Rossami stripped out all references to Intact Day from the new article just because none celebrate it -- none celebrate the Feast of the Circumcision either. It will be a real pain to just write about this annual Genital Integrity Awareness Week in the new article without people fighting against its inclusion.

No matter how big, jumbled, and incoherent the merged article becomes, I shall never be able to fork it into smaller better-organized articles like Iceland when it forked into Iceland and the History of Iceland.

I am glad that you are intact. You have no idea how fortunate you are.

Ŭalabio 04:33, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, you have no idea how dearly I would trade my foreskin for better fortune in other areas of my life. I understand, because of another interested Wikipedian, the nature of your passion, but I deal with demons far more cruel than an inability to achieve orgasm. Would that that were the most pressing issue in my life. Being intact, in the greater scheme of things, is =zero= big deal. Denni☯ 01:37, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

2004-08-14T01:37 (UTC), Denni☯:

Ŭalabio, you have no idea how dearly I would trade my foreskin for better fortune in other areas of my life.

I am sorry to learn that you have troubles.

I understand, because of another interested Wikipedian,

the nature of your passion,

That statement is not true anymore. Due to Præputial Restoration, I can orgasm coitally. I can never regrow the 20 thousand nerve-endings which went into a medical incinerator (this makes me both angry and sad at the same time), but I can split the difference.

What keeps medically unnecessary human genital mutilation of minors going in my country (my country is the one with the court-appointed President who retaliated for a Saudi terrorist attack by invading Iraq) is the greed of OB/Gyns and denial of men:

Most genitally mutilated men are sexuallyimpaired, but can still after much effort which causes physical pain to women, achieve coital orgasm. Due to denial, these men say to themselves, "I can orgasm, so I am okay." To these men, I have to words:

1. Lubricants
2. Frottage

When a man does not have a wife, he must drain his prostate occasionally manually. Over 90% of intact men can do this using just the hands. Over 90% of sexually mutilated men require lubricants. Denial is so strong that when I point this out to sexually mutilated men, most insist that I lie and intact men must also require lubricants.

I can now make sweet beautiful love much as an intact man. Looking back at how I had sex before I could orgasm coitally and in the first year after I could orgasm coitally, I feel like I was a rapist, yet this is how hundreds of millions of men have sex.

I have a good relationship with this nice woman now. I fear it may not last:

I started restoring in 2000. In 2002, one of the first signs of returning sexual function occurred, manual orgasm without lubricants. I was anxious to find someone with whom to try sex. I gave up dating years before then (¿What was the point in dating if nothing good could ever come of it?). I took an illegal shortcut (illegal for no logical reason), which, I never tried before.

Over a year ago, I met the above mentioned woman. We became fast friends. I got to know her family (she is the sole support for herself, her mother, her son, and her cat). She met my family too.

She entered her profession because her creep of a husband decided to disappear one day. She had to earn much money quickly or she her infant son (he is now in elementary-school), and her mother would have to live on the streets.

Now, because of her profession we probably have no future:

If we would marry with each other, and I would keep my ordinary job and she would quit her job and get a regular job, our family would earn only a little over half as much money as she provides for her family alone.

We love each other, but it does not seem to be meant to be.  :-(

but I deal with demons far more cruel than an inability to achieve orgasm.

I am sorry to learn that.

Would that that were the most pressing issue in my life.

Still, humans have strong primitive need for sexual release. Humans also have a higher-level need for companionship. If not for Præputial Restoration I might have ended up like the Unabomber, the Mad Bomber, et al (lonely virgins who cracked under the strain of loneliness and biological compulsion to have sex, went insane and started making bombs.

Being intact, in the greater scheme of things, is =zero= big deal.

As someone who was going slowly insane before starting Præputial Restoration and still has a rotten disposition (¿Did you notice?  ;-) ), I say that that it is a big deal on the microscopic insignificant human level.

Denni☯ 01:37, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Ŭalabio 22:59, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

---

Its good that ya'll have established a civil dialogue. Please remember, Wikilove and Wikiquette as you continue it. Ŭalabio, you have not e-mailed me in a week, so I am assuming that you are satisfied with the outcome of the situation on which I advised you and as such I am free to serve as an advocate to other users. Please remember Ŭalabio, that a setback is only a new opportunity to succeed. -JCarriker 03:45, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the outcome.

¡Thanks!

Ŭalabio 22:59, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

---

---

Hello. May I ask why do you use the symbols '¿' and '¡' in English? As far as I know, they're only used in Spanish - see Talk:Spanish language. --Fibonacci 03:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello.

May I ask why do you use the symbols '¿' and '¡' in English?

You may ask. I await your reply.  ;-)

These symbols seem more logical to me.

As far as I know, they're only used in Spanish - see Talk:Spanish language.

They are also used in Esperanto, sometimes:

Doctor Zamenhof, the creator of Esperanto, deliberately set no rules about punctuation, figuring that the speakers, writers, and signers would figure out the most logical usage. The plurality -- not majority -- mode of punctuation esperantically, is like that of central Europe. Some Esperantists from South Eastern Europe use semicolons (;) for questions, while many Esperantists of South Western Europe and the Americas use inverted punctuation.

Post Scriptum:

It is nice to know that my old talk/user-pages work again.

--Fibonacci 03:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ŭalabio 04:53, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Mi neniam vidis ĉi tiun uzon de tiuj simboloj en iu ajn lingvo krom la hispana, ¿sed kial ne? Mi amas uzi ilin kiam mi parolas hispanlingve ĉar oni ĉiam scias elparoli frazon kial demando aŭ (¿kiel nomi frazojn kun "!"?) antaŭ legi la finon de la frazo.

(For non-Esperantists) I have never seen this use of those symbols in any language other than Spanish, ¿but why not? I like to use them when speaking Spanish because you always know to pronounce the sentence as a question or (what to call sentences with "!"?) before reading the end of the sentence. Livajo 05:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2004-09-12T05:12 (UTC), Livajo:

Mi neniam vidis ĉi tiun uzon de tiuj simboloj en iu ajn lingvo krom la hispana, ¿sed kial ne?

Estas nenia kialo por ne uzi.

Mi amas uzi ilin kiam mi parolas hispanlingve ĉar oni ĉiam scias elparoli frazon kial demando aŭ (¿kiel nomi frazojn kun "!"?) antaŭ legi la finon de la frazo.

¡Pravas vi!

Ĉiuj samideanoj uzu ¡¿-punkton.

Ŭalabio 05:45, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

---

Yes, if you dissect (i.e. use dictionary definitions) then any mutilation involves some form of modification. However, in established usage by people who engage in body modification, "body modification" entails the positive, consented, willing, desired and non-self-loathing aspects of modifying the body, while "mutilation" clearly has a very negative connotation, that of causing harm (i.e. changes that, from the point of view of the patient, are negative). The "Body Modification" category is for types of body modifications in the sense just described: the types of things self-proclaimed body modification enthusiasts are into. "Self-harm" is NOT that! The article in question is not about types of body modifications in any way: it's about the psychology of self-harm. Please do not add back the body modification category to that article -- it is simply not relevant to the topic of Body Modification. If you require more convincing, I would prefer that we discuss it over a more interactive medium than user talk, i.e. AIM. -- tooki 20:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even better summary:

• Body Modification: the person feels good about the procedure completed, and does it because they like themselves.
• Body Mutilation: the person hates him/herself, and does the procedure either a) "in order to feel alive at all", b) to feel even worse

As such, perhaps it would make more sense to create a new category "body mutilation" to encompass the negatively-charged topics involving physical alteration of the body. I am just trying to say that (at minimum, to those who engage in it) "body modification" is a closed category, so to speak. (Just as one says "PC" to mean specifically a computer running Windows, even though a Macintosh is also a personal computer, "body modification" has a specific meaning that is narrower than what the constituent words imply.) --tooki 20:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

---

I gather you invited DanP or at least welcomed him enthusiastically. I gather you understand that there are some limits as to how many articles can be turned into anti-circumcision sermons. DanP has decided that the article on sexual differentiation needs such a paragraph, even though it made no mention of circumcision or has anything to do with circumcision. As you see, when I objected, he simply deleted a large portion of the article with a message to the effect that he wouldn't allow such a topic to exist if it didn't contain his message. I'm getting ready to go to the community with a complaint but thought I would give you a chance to suggest he get reasonable first. Can you help? Thanks in advance. Alteripse 22:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:DanP is basically a good guy, just passionate. I shall write to him. He just wants to make certain that no more babies suffer.

Post Scriptum:

You see the most committed intactivists trying save babies playing off the most extreme circucisiophiliacs wanting all babies mutilated -- I shall not even go into my theories about why the circumcisiophiliacs want to mutilate every baby. Most Intactivists like User:Michael Glass and User:DanBlackham are for more mellow. Unlike the monomanical. We only focus on saving the babies because the circumcisiophiliacs wish to hurt the babies. User:DanP has contributed to Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org in articles totally unrelated to saving babies, unlike User:Robert Brookes who only wants to hurt babies.

You are right; I invited User:DanP to counter the circumcisiophiliacs voting against us on the vote for Genital Integrity (User:Robert Brrokes originally joined Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org for voting against Genital Integrity). I am not proud of inviting others to the vote, and disclosed what I did openly about what I did in the vote before anyone questions of the new users voting. I am not proud of this and I feel that people who are not contributers to Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org before a vote starts should not participate in that vote. I am not the only one:

Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Ballot-Stuffing

User:DanP is just passionate. He does truly care about saving babies. I am sure we can work this out.

Ŭalabio 00:25, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

---

---

Hi Walabio! Thanks for voting to keep my article. I will be happy to send you Dr. Sank's article as a PDF so you'll know it isn't a hoax, if you give me an e-mail address. Mine is doug22123@yahoo.com. Doug22123 02:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2004-09-15T02:15, Doug22123:

Hi Walabio!

¡Hello, oh Doug22123!

Thanks for voting to keep my article.

You need not thank me. I did not vote the way I did for you. The logical thing to do is withhold judgment until we can confirm or deny it. In this case, that means keeping the article with a disclaimer until we can either confirm or deny it.

I will be happy to send you Dr. Sank's article as a PDF so you'll know it isn't a hoax,

If you like. What would be better would be if you would reduce the article to plain text, wikify it, and submit it to WikiQuote.

if you give me an e-mail address.

If you must, just click:

"E-mail this user"

Mine is doug22123@yahoo.com.

I shall keep that in mind.

Doug22123 02:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ŭalabio 04:06, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

---

---

---

Üalabio you don't need an advocate, Neutrality can revert anything he percieves as trolling. Unfortunately some of the woriding in your posts, can and probably were percieved as aggressive. I have intercede on your behalf, and asked Neutrality to contact you. Wikiquette Tip: Use questions and passive language to soften potentialy controversial statemnts i.e. Don't you think it may be somewhat sexist to .... rather than Sexism. -JCarriker 03:46, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) P.S. I think I have discovered something that will tickle you pink (please excuse the Southern expression). I have to investigate it further but I will notify you as soon as I know for sure.

¡Thanks!

I just do not see why male genital mutilation is on rfd and female genital mutilation is not. I would like to see three redirects:

1. human genital mutilation
2. male genital mutilation
3. female genital mutilation

When I heard that male genital mutilation was on rfd, I check the other two and found female genital mutilation but not human genital mutilation. Putting human genital mutilation aside for the time being, female genital mutilation should stand with her brother; if one is POV, then both are POV.

All of these redirects should go to circumcision which should cover both males and females because everything done to boys also happens to girls and vice versa. No real difference exists. Certainly, I could compare dissimilar cuts such as the ritual nicking of female genitals one finds in Indonesia against combined præpucectomy and frænectomy boys endure in the United States of America for making it seem like the mutilation of boys is worse than girls, but that would not be honest. Both boys and girls endure a range of sexual genital mutilations from mere nicks to complete genitectomy (removal of the genitals).

¡Thanks for your help!

Ŭalabio 00:35, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

---

---

That's the way Wikipedia classifies it; there's nothing I can do about that. Jayjg 05:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Ŭalabio, might I suggest a wikiholiday in regards to circumcision. While I recognize that you have strong convictions on this issue, I believe it would be in your best interest if you voluntarily refrained from editing circumcision related articles and concentrated on editing non-contorversial topics for a little while. E-mail me for more info, if you so desire. -JCarriker 05:50, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

• • I shall email you. We just edit-collided

I am not certain whether it refers to minor edit or revert. Just to make certain that we understand each other, I would like to quote policy:

Reversions of pages are not likely to be considered minor edits under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it's better not to mark any edit as minor.

Ŭalabio 06:11, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

As I said above, that's the way Wikipedia classifies it. I am not marking it that way, I am just using the automatic revert function. Wikipedia automatically lists the revert as a "minor edit", there's nothing I can do about that. Jayjg 21:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • • Please check your e-mail. -JCarriker

---

Please dont make personal attacks against this user (or any other user for that matter) I know he can be frustrating, and I know that he has made personal attacks in the past but that does not mean that you can accuse him of trying to mutilate babies in order to make everyone be like himself. (OWTTE). I've removed all the personal attacks that I have seen in your reply to him at sexual intercourse, please don't reinstate them, it looks bad to new users to see this kind of thing on talk pages. Thanks in advance. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 13:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've revcieved your e-mails Walabio but don;t yet have time to respond. Unitl I do please listen to Theresa knott, she won't lead you astray. -JCarriker 14:56, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ŭalabio, I agree with JCarriker. Theresa Knott's counsel is helpful. -- DanBlackham 01:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Walabio, thanks for your offer to develop a VfD policy together. I had said in my post that I would offer to do this if there is a consensus. But most people, strangely, seem to be happy with the existing procedure and this two-thirds majority approach, and I currently don't see how to get support for a policy that I think would be good. I don't have very much time for Wikipedia currently, and I don't want to spend time writing up a policy that few will support. Your ideas for a policy sound interesting to me, but I think they, too, are currently unlikely to gain sufficient support. So, thanks for the offer, and good luck if you try it yourself, but I'll only put time into this if there are enough people who would support the change. Fpahl 13:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Walabio I recieved your picture, thanks. You should post it on your User page! However, I believe you have the misperceptions about me that I need to clear up. I am not still your advocate and their is a no need to retain confiedntiality thorugh e-mail. Please use my talk page as our primary means of correspondence, which is more in the spirit of wikipedia. I only serve to offer you advice as an "elder" wikipedian. I am only you advocate when you request it as you did in the case of your conflicts with Denni and Neutrality. Also I am not a Mediator nor am I a member of the Mediation Committee, and unless you or another wikipedian has nominated me I am not even being considered at this point in time. As an advocate, I choose to mediate the responses because we concured that it was in your best interest to resolve the conflict amicabily. In answer to your e-mail querry our the conditon of our cordial relationship does not depend on your personal political views, so long as they to not degenerate into prejudice. I would encourage you to take a more relaxed stance at wikipedia and be more tolerant of others opinions. Such a move not endanger your work at wikipedia, to the contrary it would strengthen it. Thanks, for the pictures. - JCarriker 05:07, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC) P.S. Your talk page is 30 kb long, you may want to consider archiving some of this page at User talk:Walabio/archive1 or another location of your choosing.