User talk:Zinbarg

Circumcision

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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. You are new enough that you may not have known, and we don't anyone being blocked without knowing the rules; that is just not fair. -- Avi (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, etc

Re "You just feel that way because it doesn't meet your purpose (sow doubt on the current recommendations)."[1], I do not appreciate you speculating about me or my purposes. Please discuss the subject, not other editors. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zinbarg. I came to your talk page actually to say the same thing! Please avoid posting comments like this on article talk pages: "~~Copper you seem to suggest, and~~ Jakew's purpose is to sow doubt on the current recommendations of medical associations..." [2] and "So why is HIV in the lead at all? An attempt at propaganda" [3] and "You just feel that way because it doesn't meet your purpose" [4]. If someone's editing style is irritating to you or if you think someone is violating Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, you can discuss it with them on their user talk page (as I'm doing now), or see Dispute resolution. Article talk pages are reserved for discussion of article content, and comments about other editors are discouraged there, as they detract from a collaborative editing atmosphere. I look forward to continuing to discuss the article content with you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: (from a standard welcome template)

Welcome!

Hello, Zinbarg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Sincerely, (although I'm often away for days and may not always be able to respond quickly to questions), ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your friendly message on my talk page. I've struck out "Copper you seem to suggest, and" in my quote above. That actually wasn't the part I meant to refer to; I was talking about what you said about Jake. Jake knows best what are the reasons for what he does. However, the article talk page is not for discussing editors' motives, but article content. I think that editors usually dislike having that sort of statement made about them. You don't see Jake making statements on the article talk page speculating about the motives of other editors. Please help maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect.

However, I think I've figured out what you mean by sowing doubt: I think you do have a good point -- not about the motives of any particular Wikipedian editor, but about the current sentence in the article. If the article doesn't give a date for any other reference but does give a date for the AMA reference, it could be construed as implying to the reader, "Reader! Watch out! The information in this reference may no longer be current!", an implication you don't believe is justified by the overall situation. I think that's a valid point, (although I'm not convinced by your analysis of the state of current medical association policies: I think there's considerable uncertainty about their reaction to the HIV data until they publish new statements.) However, I think the solutions you've proposed, such as deleting the date, are worse, since the current version presents valid information which could possibly be construed as implying something that might or might not be true, while the version with the date deleted seems to state or imply something that isn't true, i.e. that the AMA made that statement about "current" (2009) policies. Let's try to think of other versions that would solve the problem, avoiding stating or implying anything we can't justify with citations. How about putting the year 1999 inside square brackets immediately after the word "current" within the quote? I'll try to think of other possible solutions.

Re your comment on my talk page: I don't know what exchange exactly you're referring to when you say "I addressed Jake's criticism directly with him", and I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "with his own prompting discussion text". I gather you're disagreeing with me and arguing that under some particular circumstances it's OK to make comments about an editor on an article talk page. Certainly there are gray areas; however, I think the comments you made about Jake are of a type which are likely to make the subject of the comments uncomfortable, and it's actually quite important to make an effort to avoid that sort of comment if we're to maintain a discussion civil enough to have a good chance of progressing towards consensus.

You say "HIV belongs in the text, but not in the lead", but I'm not convinced by your arguments. I disagree with your statement "It is not a significant healtlh issue basically unless you live in Africa." Try telling a non-African who has AIDS that HIV is not a significant health issue! And your argument seems to assume that non-Africans are not interested to know about what happens in Africa, an assumption I'm not willing to accept, as I had already tried to explain.

You asked "You don't understand, or disagree, that medical issues are over emphasized in the circumcision article?" At the moment, I have no particular opinion about whether the amount of weight given to medical issues in the current article is too much, too little or just right. I chose the amount of weight rather arbitrarily when I shortened the article around August 2007, (when I was relatively new to editing the article), largely based on what the weight had been in the longer version of the article, and other editors accepted it in this discussion back then. I'm not sure if the weight has drifted since then. If you have information about the relative weight on medical issues in reliable sources, please present the information on the article talk page, and we can discuss whether and how to change the weight in the article based on that. It's not a simple decision, because there are different types of sources: books will give one relative weighting, and peer-reviewed review articles will give a different relative weighting (the latter heavily medical, I think). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much to address. You're right about being more civil. Is my last proposed paragraph OK? It leaves the HIV benefit info in the lead. If you and/or Jake insist on dates for the WHO/UNAIDS and CDC publications, I'd like to put in the several association statements and their dates (mostly post gold standard HIV/circ studies) that each say do not recommend. I don't know if you see this on my page, so I'll paste in into yours.Zinbarg (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

A quick bit on referencing. This tool can format the refs properly using the PMID. [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I forgot to make it formal, and usually have to copy a similar ref and then put in the correct info.Zinbarg (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Re [6]: In your second sentence you comment on the personal views of another editor. In the past we've found that attempts to label or categorize editors according to their views have sometimes led to offense being taken, which can easily trigger escalation and heated conflict. Some editors don't mind being categorized and even apply a label to themselves, while others strongly dislike such descriptions being applied to themselves. Your third sentence is rather confusing and could possibly be interpreted as implying that others are dishonest. There's an agreement among a number of the regular editors of the circumcision pages to restrict comments to talking about article content only, not commenting about other editors; in any case, this practice is supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would appreciate your cooperation in this regard. Please consider striking out part of your post using <s> </s> ~~like this~~ as described at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. I'm also putting a message on Blackworm's talk page.

By the way: I apologize for having edited the section headings you had put in without notifying you, Zinbarg. I had intended to tell you that I'd modified the level of the headings and to invite you to revert if you wished, but I forgot for a while, ran out of time, and figured my description of what I'd done in the edit summary was sufficient. I noticed you changed one of them back, which was fine with me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

I dream of horses @  17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC) -->[reply]

Please bring issues to discussion, but first read Blackworm's related comments [[7]] in discussion. I was trying to meet his requirements for neutrality and accuracy, and well as true encyclopedic fact. Please read the source before you make changes[[8]], or simply note it's title! "Circumcision: A medical or a human rights issue?"

Why do you object to the addition of those words? What other words would you add to the con side so they have equal representation (20 con versus 28 pro, currently). Do you think the equal thing is proper? Is it POV?Zinbarg (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not every website is held to the standard Wikipedia is. Saying the holocaust actually happened is one thing (while there is a subculture of people saying it didn't, almost everyone on the outside of that culture agrees it did); calling something that is as debated as male circumcision a "human rights violation" isn't neutral, nor is it even a fact (it's an opinion).

IMO, the best way to enforce NPOV is to have no opinions at all in an article, or at least making clear that it's an opinion stated by somebody else, who isn't editing the article. --I dream of horses @ 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor that removed human rights, which is not true to the source. I think you've mistaken my changes.Zinbarg (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, at one time you were saying you were adding the words "human rights" in, and now you're saying that you've taken them out? --I dream of horses @ 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the actual edit. I removed human rights and extreme pain. My only issue is with Schoen's false statement that neonatal (24 hours after birth) is the best time. 8 days, or 5 months, or 6 years is better (than right after birth) based on clinical research. I pointed out above the title of the cited source.Zinbarg (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you *inserted* human rights in your edit that I warned you about, but I looked at the edit that you did on January 23rd, and it ends up that you were talking about the *critics* of circumcision. My sincere apologies. --I dream of horses @ 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circ—Schoen

I confess I am a little perplexed. From my POV none of what Schoen says is "true". The point of the list is what he, as an expemplar of a circumcision advocate, claims about circumcision. That facticity of the claims is irrelevant. Ditto for the opponents' list. The existing lists seem to capture the main points of each side of the current debate. You do however have a point about Muslims, which that par is not intended to address. That can perhaps best be dealt with by saying: "There is controversy over routine circumcision ..." although it would not be fatal if we left it as is, since it is clear from context that that is what we are talking about. Regards, John. Johncoz (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace dove

I dream of horses @ has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect Wikipedia policy

While you're free to believe that "WP:UNDUE is silly", as you put it, it is Wikipedia policy, and we all have to abide by it. Repeatedly trying to include the image is unproductive and, indeed, disruptive. Please try to gain consensus for changes on the talk page. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I said YOUR use of WP:UNDUE was silly. It is. Trying to keep objective facts out of the article because they don't agree with your vision of the world is propaganda.Zinbarg (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say that, but thank you for clarifying. Jakew (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I count both you and User:Jakew to be on 3 reverts at present. Any more and an admin is in their rights to ban you. Discuss it on talk or cool off and don't touch the article for a bit. |→ Spaully ^τ 15:48, 14 April 2010 (GMT)

Please note that one edit was to install the properly based and discussed POV tag (not a revet). The next was to reinstate the POV tag post Jakew's improper (he should bring his objections to discussion, as I did) removal of the tag (a revert). The third edit I made today in circ was to fix the intro as discussed, which is a new edit and not subject to the 3RR rule (an edit, not a revert).Zinbarg (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: I, and likely any admin enforcing 3RR, would consider an edit adding or removing the NPOV tag to be a revert. Adding or removing the tag is a revert because it had previously been removed or added at some time in the past. Adding or removing any substantially similar tag would also probably be considered a revert. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Thanks for your message on my talk page. No problem: it's a wiki; there's no hurry.

However, as I've asked you previously, please restrict your comments at Talk:Circumcision to discussion of article content, not remarks about other editors. This is in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and is necessary for establishing the kind of working relationship that is conducive to editors with diverse views finding common ground and arriving at consensus and compromise. I'm sorry that I have to remind you about this and hope you take this reminder as constructive criticism.

I realize it can be frustrating trying to get changes made that seem to you to be obviously required but are opposed by other editors. I had similar experiences during the early months of my participation at Wikipedia. It can help if you try explaining your arguments more fully (since what's obvious to you may not be obvious to others). Convincing arguments usually refer to reliable sources and/or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (See "What, Why, Where" on my user page.) It can also help if you demonstrate that you understand other editors' arguments and explain exactly why those arguments aren't convincing to you. Finding points that everyone agrees on can also help to establish a positive working relationship.

Please avoid posting comments like the following on article talk pages. Such comments can be damaging to the working atmosphere since they are about editors rather than about article content, and are likely to be unwelcome to the editor being commented about: " You evidently don't know what WP:NPOV means Jakew." "You just want to push false pro info." (and the rest of that paragraph). (Clearly, that's a claim about Jakew's motivation.) "...evidently (from your statement) fearing presentation of clear facts!!! "[9] "You push viewpoints (opinions)..." [10]

If you have problems with another editor's behaviour that you feel you need to comment about, please follow WP:DR, usually beginning with a polite discussion on the editor's talk page with the goal of resolving the issue through friendly discussion – as this message is intended to be. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

Zinbarg, please delete or strike out (per Wikipedia policies WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks your comments [11] on my talk page about user Jakew. Note that in general, if you don't comply with Wikipedia policy you can be blocked from editing.

It's not acceptable to post personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. If you feel that a user's editing behaviour is problematic, there are fora for discussing that; but my talk page is not an appropriate forum for you to post criticisms of editors other than myself. If you have concerns about Jakew's editing behaviour (as opposed to his alleged motivations and other allegations which are not appropriate discussion topics) his talk page, not mine, would be the place to raise them (in a civil manner). See WP:DR.

Users occasionally forget to log in, and this can be fine; but if one edits in such a way as to give the impression of being more than one different editor in a way that can give one an advantage in a discussion or edit war, that violates the Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry. This edit appears to be an edit by you where you forgot to log in. Please avoid editwarring at all, especially on frequently-viewed pages or pages marked on their talk page with the "controversial" template, both of which the page Circumcision is. See WP:Edit war. However, if you do repeatedly revert any article, please look carefully at the page history, so that you can notice things like having accidentally reverted without logging in. That could be fine if you then stated on the article talk page, before doing any further such reverts, that that was your own edit and that you had accidentally forgotten to log in. However, you then did two further reverts of the same material under your own username: reverts which you shouldn't be doing anyway even if there were no sockpuppetry problems, since the issue has been discussed on the talk page and there is no consensus for such a change.

Perhaps you didn't see this comment of mine. I had made a suggestion for a wording re the joint statement, attempting to accommodate your concern. I see that you didn't even comment in response to this suggestion of mine, but went ahead and editwarred with your earlier proposed version of that sentence which other editors have rejected. Please read the talk page more carefully, and carry out more discussion with other editors, before reverting. The goal is to find, through discussion, a version of the article that all editors are happy with or at least willing to accept, if possible, or if not possible then compromise; the goal is not to force your own preferred version in, which of course it's not possible for everyone to do.

I'm sorry that you feel that Jakew has treated you with disrespect. Perhaps disrespect is in the eye of the beholder. What I've seen is that Jakew has responded with patience and respect towards you, taking the time to explain in detail his position on the article content issues you raise, in response to your own comments which are often inappropriate, for example when you make allegations about Jakew's motivations. I complimented Jakew about this on his talk page last week. [12] I don't see Jakew making those sorts of allegations about you. If you would like Jakew to respond even more positively towards you, I suggest that you take a careful look at your own comments and modify your behaviour to carefully and consistently model the level of behaviour you would like others to treat you with. Note that people usually tend to view their own behaviour in a much more positive light, and the behaviour towards them of those who disagree with them in a much more negative light, than independent observers do; we all need to constantly make a significant mental effort to compensate for this effect.

Please review WP:AGF. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you want to continue to edit in the long term, you'll need to learn to get along with others who have different points of view from yourself.

Things that seem obvious to you may not seem obvious to others with different points of view. If you want to convince editors, you'll need to make more complete arguments. Your comments about article content tend to be very short. I'm unlikely to change my opinion based on any short comment. Once at some time in the past Blackworm made a short comment about the difference in meaning between "severed" and "circumcised", which I found quite compelling; but it's rare for a short comment to convince me like that. For example, simply stating that another editor's comment is "silly" or "crazy" is extremely unlikely to convince me of anything. Instead, step back and try to imagine how the situation appears to someone with a different point of view than yourself, and then lay out your argument in a step-by-step way, making small points and joining them together tightly in a logical framework. If you've already done this somewhere, then when you argue again later or complain that your arguments were ignored, give a link to your earlier argument. I'm interested to read your arguments and discuss the points you raise, and frustrated that I can't seem to find your full explanations of why you hold the positions you do on various article content points. You also need to respond positively to others' comments, finding points of agreement and modifying your own suggestions to try to take others' concerns into account, or acknowledging others' concerns and explaining why it's not possible in your view to accommodate them, even if you don't agree with those views. You need to comment in a way that demonstrates that you have read and understood others' arguments, even if you disagree with them. You need to comment in a collaborative way even while disagreeing and arguing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I think I was confusing two different issues re two different parts of the lead, and have struck out that paragraph above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zinbarg. You have new messages at Coppertwig's talk page.
Message added 01:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zinbarg, please also note my reply to you on my talk page in section "The tag poll". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work

Hello Zinbarg. Glad to see your not scared or intimidated by the bullies. Adhere to rules and you'll go far. Feel free to message me for advice and I'll try and check back in a week but my time restraints our severely limiting right now. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

I reverted you because you removed a sourced sentence and didn't replace it anywhere while consensus was clear to keep the sentence. If you think it should be moved elsewhere that's a separate claim. Please don't keep edit warring. It isn't a helpful way to build articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 72h for the long time edit warring. See Wikipedia:AN/3rr discussion for details. In future please edit cooperatively. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Poll

Their is a poll regarding the circumcised penis image on the discussion page of the Circumcision article (Talk:Circumcision#Image_Poll). I thought I'd let you know, incase you'd like to participate.--Studiodan (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, because I'm not too good at looking back to prior discussions.Zinbarg (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged "discussion concensus"

Regarding your edit summary here ("See discussion concensus for the tag"), would you be kind enough to point me towards the discussion in which consensus to retain the tag was reached? I've just looked over recent discussions, and I can't find any sign of it. Jakew (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to neutral in Circumcision

Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([[13]]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.234.191 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Is there some issue because I fixed a citation so that the URL would work (diff link)? I must say that I feel inappropriately canvassed. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no opinion one way or the other, and do not anticipate forming one in the near future. I am completely unaware that I ever expressed a "concern regarding changing meatal stenosis" or anything else regarding the article. My only involvement with the article, thus far, was to fix a URL link in a cited reference. In all honesty it is a subject that I really don't wish to think about – I couldn't even watch the ER show without feeling queasy. The "thanks for the mental image" was intended as humor (i.e. now I have a mental image of meatotomy etc. in my head), sorry for being obtuse. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I remember the Type 3 = Alzheimer thing. This term has sort of died out and has not become common usage. The only cure I have seen was bariatric surgery. Very few people have success with diets.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts and/or IPs to feign consensus. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:51, 4 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been in contact with username yris about editing in Wikipedia, but his and my opinions and edits are independent. We are simply associates in employment, though he has alerted me about content and edits in circumcision. He just came and told me his IP and user name have been permanently blocked, including his chance to use email to contact you and other administrators, or Jimmy Wales. I am not "using multiple accounts" or trying to "feign consensus". I will disassociate myself with his input about Wiki content. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

Sorry, no. As per the results of the sockpuppet investigation noted below, you used five different IP numbers to make disruptive and inappropriate edits, and you haven't demonstrated that you intend to do anything differently if unblocked. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:39, 5 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.

Note to reviewing admin: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zinbarg; this isn't about that one named account, which I didn't even consider before making this block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]