User talk:Jakew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Archive 1 (20:02, September 18, 2006)

Contents 1 Gliding action 2 IP editor edit-warring and violating WP:CIVIL 3 sprotecting 4 IA paper citation 5 check your mail. 6 POV or vandalism? 7 OK, OK. 8 site 9 Operation Antler 10 British nuclear tests at Maralinga 11 Re: Can you suggest... 12 Balanitis xerotica obliterans 13 Re: Amchitka 14 Caging the Dragon 15 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 16 Mail call 17 Thanks for the suggestion 18 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006 19 Galleries and pictures 20 DNFTT 21 Frenulum quotes 22 Circumcision 23 William 24 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006 25 Your credentials?

[edit] Gliding action

You are so much fun to watch. Who else could have reverted the deletion of that idiotic, bad citations? "substantial sourced material" Oh my god, that is barking mad. I don't wanna attack you, but I actually expected this and it *did* happen, you really did it. Now, come on, do you *really* believe that "substantial sourced material" is contributing anything to the article? The first of the citations goes so far as to state its own inappropriateness in poorly disguised preemptive self defense. Is that good citation as suggested by the WP guidelines? And do you have hotlinks to all those circumcision-related pages? I get the impression you are engaging in an aggressive editing war (something I won't do, just wanted to give it a try) and you may want to read WP:DR before engaging in any further editing of circumcision articles. But while you're at it, why not pay a visit to Masturbation and revert my edit there, too? 87.78.178.102 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How unnecessary of me to remind you of goind to Masturbation. Of course you already changed it. I don't believe you guy. Well, carry on the good work of destroying Wikipedia articles. 87.78.178.102 17:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that despite your stated opinions on circumcision and advocating circumcision you are actually involved in the discussion at foreskin restoration and also try to weigh in on genital integrity. I have no words for you. You are a bad person, maybe. 87.78.184.150 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How charming. In point of fact, I don't actually advocate circumcision; I merely endorse the AAP's position that parents should be given accurate and honest information so that they can make an informed decision.

I'm puzzled, incidentally, that you appear to think that there's something wrong with my being involved with the articles you mention. You are happy to contribute to Talk:Circumcision, yet strongly oppose it, so evidently you don't feel that one has to support the subject of an article in order to contribute to it. So what exactly is the issue? Jakew 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're asking. I finally found what I was looking for on Wikipedia:Troll#Misuse_of_process.

"Creative trolling:

The nature of trolling is to be disruptive, and one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that aren't quite against the rules. No matter how great your definition of trolling may be, a dedicated troll will find something you haven't thought of yet.

This, then, is something of a catch-all category - if a user is being continually disruptive, and no amount of politeness, consensus, mediation, or anything else is reining them in, they are trolling. When a user, in a conflict of any sort, insists on the letter of a rule while grossly violating its spirit, this is often a sign of trolling.

In these borderline cases, however, it is more important than ever to try to assume good faith, and to seek consensus not only in your opposition to whatever you think is being trolled about but on the issue of whether or not someone is a troll. A good start when you are faced with creative trolling is to come to this page and propose an amendment to the types of trolling section. If people agree that it's trolling, then you can go back to the conflict with this on your side. Failing specific additions to this page, however, the arbitration committee should be the only ones to ban users for "creative" trolling."

I just feel that you are one rather creative troll. That's what I think and I'd like you to sit back for a moment and review the mass of contributions you have made at all the articles bordering the circumcision theme. Don't you think it's enough already? 87.78.184.150 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, JakeW. Sorry again for all the BS I threw your way. 87.78.148.26 20:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be evading your block, but in the case of apologising for its cause, I think that can be excused. Thank you. I accept your apology. Jakew 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP editor edit-warring and violating WP:CIVIL

The editor in question uses a dynamic IP, so blocking is of limited use. There's nothing specific to tie him to Dabljuh, aside from the rudeness. I've sprotected the articles in question for now; if the personal attacks continue on the Talk: pages, I'll sprotect them as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sprotecting

Jakew, I've sprotected your page for now. Let me know when you'd like it un-sprotected. Nandesuka 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IA paper citation

I think "Cite paper" is the best choice, as it was a paper presented at the conference, so that is what I used. Slowly, most of the articles have been vetted to ensure they say what they are purported to say and then cited. Thanks, Jake. -- Avi 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A pleasure. BTW, I hope you do not mind if I tweak your citations by adding the DOI and a link to another cite, even if it just an abstract, for completeness. -- Avi 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] check your mail.

Dasondas 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV or vandalism?

You reverted a contribution by user:Alasdair22 on Ultimate fate of the universe. Seems to me from his contribs, that it's not so much an NPOV issue as plain vandalism. Subversive element 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK, OK.

I'll admit I went over the top a bit. But I felt Atom's argument was based on popular canards rather than historical fact. I was hoping mostly to show him that the issue is a lot more complex than the popular conceptions of it. And though I did go off on a tangent, I was really attempting to rebut Atom's belief that male circ and female circ should not be merged because (to him) they are vastly different things. I'll give it a rest. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] site

Thought this might help you out. [1] Let me know how it is and how the one I sent you earlier is too. --Shamir1 22:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Jakew 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Antler

Thanks for taking care of the article. I found that the redirect was broken, and did not see a way to fix it so I asked for a speedy. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British nuclear tests at Maralinga

Just to let you know, I've moved your request to a military history peer review page here. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to create such an infobox (perhaps generalized to allow any military site?), but I'm not entirely sure what fields we'd want to include. What are the standard things we need to list? Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh, to avoid making this absurdly complicated, I think it would be better to limit this to test sites specifically. Having said that: please try out {{Infobox Military Test Site}} and let me know whether it seems to work. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar!

I've fixed the two issues you've pointed out; if you spot any other problems, please don't hesitate to let me know! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to update the documentation; I just used the map that happened to be in the artice when putting it together. Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post on WikiProject Environment. Nice article. Alex 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Can you suggest...

Mmm, not sure. Cla68 might know something about that campaign, but I'm not entirely certain; he's more involved with the southern portion of the Pacific Theater. Kirill Lokshin 13:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The two sources you found appear to be the best sources on the web. Unfortunately, I don't currently have any books in my reference library that have details on the WWII Aleutian Islands campaign. There appears to be three good books in print that document the campaign: (1) Where the Williwaw Blows: The Aleutian Islands-World War II by Leonard Feinberg (2003), (2) The Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians by Brian Garfield (1996), and (3) The Capture of Attu: A World War II Battle As Told by the Men Who Fought There by Sewell T. Tyng (2000). I think all three of those books should be available cheaply in used form from Amazon or Half.com or at a public or university library. Samuel Elliot Morison's multi-volume history of the WWII Pacific War might also have some good information on the Aleutian's campaign. I'll eventually work on the Aleutian's campaign articles on Wikipedia if someone else doesn't complete them first. But, as I have a long way to go with the southern Pacific theater it will probably be a couple of years until I get to the Aleutian's campaign. If you're the one who has done the majority of the work on the Amchitka article, I think you've done a really good job with it. What exactly was the conflicting information that you found about Amchitka during the war? Cla68 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balanitis xerotica obliterans

On a quick glance, the referencing looks really good. If you would like me to step through them one-by-one, it may be a few months until I can get to it :( Thanks. -- Avi 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Amchitka

Nope, anyone can add the task force tags. I've done so for this article; I'll try to comment on the peer review as well, once I have some free time. Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caging the Dragon

My school's library is having some database problems right now, but as soon as it is back up, I will check to see if they have Caging the Dragon.CynicalMe 16:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

[edit] Mail call

Dasondas 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the suggestion

I may at some point, but being that he uses a dynamic IP it may just be easier to revert without comment until he gets tired and goes away. It takes him longer to type than it does for me to revert. Thanks for the suggestion, though; right now it is just a mildly annoying (and, truth be told, mildly amusing) distraction. If it really turns into a hassle I may seek admin assistance. Dasondas 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galleries and pictures

There's a discussion over at the Talk:Penis page about the appropriate number of images in the article. Your input would be appreciated. Nandesuka 12:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNFTT

I realized this after the fact and left a note on Jay's talk page. Dasondas 12:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize!! Thanks for getting involved! Dasondas 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frenulum quotes

The full (paragraph) quote from Crooks (Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129) is: While the entire penis is sensitive to tactile stimulation (touch), the greatest concentration of nerve endings is found in the glans. Although the entire glans area is extremely sensitive, there are two specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation. One is the rim, or crown, that marks the area where the glans rises abruptly from the shaft. This distinct ridge is called the corona (ko-RO-na). The other is the frenum, or frenulum (FREN-yoo-lum), a thin strip of skin conecting the glans to the shaft on the underside of the penis. The location of these two areas is shown in figure 5.8.

The full quote from Hass (two paragraphs in Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100) is: Glans The head of the penis is called the glans, Latin for acorn, which is what it resembles. The rim of the glans is called the corona. The glans, and even more the corona, are richly supplied with nerve endings and contribute substantially to pleasurable feelings experienced buring sexual activity. The small triangular area on the underside of the glans, where the frenulum, a delicate strip of skin, is attached to the head, is also very reactive. It seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft.

The entire penis responds to stimulation, but at least two other areas are sources of distinct pleasure. The underside of the saft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona, seeme sensitive to gentle friction. Another site is the base of the penis. Some men report that they can be brought to orgasm by them or their partner circling the base with their fingers and stroking.

You're right ... in all the edits it's strayed from the quotes. How about:

University sexuality textbook authors describe the frenulum and associated “small triangular area” on the underside of the penis below the glans as "very reactive," and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The corona and frenulum are thought to “contribute substantially to pleasurable feelings experienced during sexual activity, with the “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” one “source of distinct pleasure.” "^[1]" The frenulum is one of two specific locations on the penis “that many men find “particularly responsive to stimulation.” "^[2]" The frenulum can be stimulated to produce orgasm and ejaculatory response. [2][3][4]TipPt 15:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks for doing this, Tip.

Your proposal is a start, but it needs some work. Some thoughts:

• "University sexuality textbook authors" - this comes across as rather unprofessional (would you expect to see that in Britannica?). I'd prefer a different wording, perhaps specifically naming them.
• In that sentence, we also need to specify which source each quote comes from, so we need a <ref> after each quotation.
• The quote from Hass ("contribute substantially to pleasurable feelings experienced during sexual activity") refers to "the glans, and even more the corona", not the frenulum.
• "The frenulum is one" - better to say that "Crooks states that the frenulum is one"...
• I'll have to check the last sentence, too. Jakew 15:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By saying the frenulum "is also very reactive," Hass links the two sentences. Because of his use of that also, "very reactive" refers to the "pleasurable feelings experienced buring sexual activity." in the prior sentence.TipPt 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. "Also" seems to indicate only that both are notable, not that all attributes of the former apply to the latter. Jakew 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, we can call it a "source of distinct pleasure," since the "the underside of the saft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona" includes the frenulum.

Changed the bold to highlight the thrust of the paragraph...zones of erogenous sensation. Showed where the paragraph change is in Hass.TipPt 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That University text stuff is unprofessional, but will you permit some qualifier ... the sources aren't common bookstore fare, but rather utilized by professors and students in the UC system.TipPt 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re your first suggestion, we can't reinterpret the source in such a way. If the authors wanted to describe the frenulum in such a way, they could easily have done so, but they didn't. As for your second, I think any reader looking at our sources will see that they are reputable, but if you insist, I don't object to using some other qualifier. Can you suggest some possibilities? Jakew 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think some direct reference to sexuality is warrented.

University textbooks describe the frenulum and associated “small triangular area” on the underside of the penis below the glans as "very reactive," and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” is a “source of distinct pleasure.” ^[3] “Although the entire glans area is extremely sensitive, there are two specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation." One is the corona, and the other is the frenulum.^[4] The frenulum can be stimulated to produce orgasm and ejaculatory response. [5][6][7]

Please have a look at my latest edit to Frenulum. I believe this is a reasonable compromise. Jakew 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The second quote are inaccurately attributed.

You left out too much Hass ... that "distinct pleasure." Leaving out that second sentence is a compromise of the texts information.

In all almost all ... there are numerous ... of those ejaculatory stimulation articles the frenulum and the body of the shaft below the frenulum NOT the glans is the primary focus of the vibratory stimulation.TipPt 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circumcision

[emphasis in original statement]

I can live with that. :) Draffa 11:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm just being picky, really, and thinking of a blind person using an HTML-to-speech screen reader. He or she will hear the emphasis, but "bold" won't be meaningful. Maybe one day I'll learn to be less pedantic. :) Jakew 11:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to your note both here and on my page..

Did that (read the suggested sections) prior to edits submitted. Added based on conclusions currently used in pediatric practice and based on multiple neutral systematic reviews by such organizations as Cochrane.

I provided no original research "on purpose" - though I may have done so accidentally. Perhaps I could have re-referenced some statements but they have already been wonderfully provided elsewhere in the article and I did reference those that fit. If I left a major statement unsupported please point this out and I will fix the issue.

I added a relatively detailed explanation in plain english about conducting a risk to benefit analysis that follows the analysis in the paper referenced immediately above the explanation. This is not intended to be original research, rather a plain english description of a difficult subject that I have specific experience in teaching to medical students and residents (and I did not see explained anywhere else).

One cannot conclude that when a conclusion is arrived at through the analysis of undisputed evidence that one's opinion is somehow biased. If that were true, then I must non-neutral concerning the flatness of the planet.

Multiple well-established studies have determined "ranges" of risks of UTI and harm from circumcision. Choosing the best and worst case scenarios, there is no benefit to a population in the procedure and this article was not reflective of this analysis that has been adopted by virtually all governmental and specialty medical organizations on the planet. The original entry continued to refer to the "public health benefit" aspects of circumcision as in dispute. This is untrue.

Similarly, most people consider the planet round. Just because a few think it is flat does not provide a forum for "equal representation" of the flat earth society in a discussion of geology. At best they would be a footnote.

Given the predominance of evidence (not just opinion in this one subsection) is it no longer reasonable to describe a public health controversy. Perhaps in social or ethical considerations, but the public health aspects are rather mathematical - an answer can be calculated in this paragraph, and I have explained the concept in detail. I hope this ads to the complexity of the topic and helps someone reading this section to understand the concepts I outlined. I personally have no opinion when it comes to the social aspects of circumcision but just like I have an opinion about the answer to 2 x 2 = 4 being correct I will continue to explain how the risk to benefit analysis doesnt allow us to say circumcision is a recommended public health measure to prevent ANY condition, period. This simply is not a controversy in current public health/epidemiology literature. Some aspects of the subject do require further research but this does not in itself imply disagreement over the current data.

I hope that clarifies the edits. I use this site extensively in my teaching and research when I read the entry I felt it only fair that I contribute in this area since this one portion of the entry is clearly incorrect. There are more areas of reference to the public health benefit of circumcision, but I have already spend more time than I should have spend on this issue tonight.

As for my qualification to make revisions, I am not a particular authority on the subject but I am currently the faculty physician assigned to our hospital's newborn nursery/ mother baby unit and I must make treatment decisions based on these very principals on a daily basis. I have training in evidence based medicine (though I do not have an MPH) and frequently teach these concepts in my practice.

I wholeheartedly support the right of parents to make desicisions based on available evidence and without scaring them into a decision based on false science. Seems you are one of the few people who were able to make a truly informed decision and give informed consent for the procedure.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Williamwells" Williamwells 11:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I think we may disagree on that fact. How does one have an opinion about the solution to a quadratic equation (other than the sign of the answer)? Opinions are a social construct and are best placed in an appropriate heading designed to present them. Opinions aside, there ARE elements of circumcision that are controversial, and some that are simply factual. This type of controversy is based on the lack of available or properly designed data and can be sorted out with additional study. I will cite the example of the roundness of the earth again to illustrate.

Whereas we can present both sides of a debate at to whether or not a particular tribe agreed upon this fact as based on carbon dating of artifacts is certain. These can be opinions, and still based on data - but with data that cannot provide adequate resolution to provide an answer to one's particular question. If the dating was to the year 1000AD +/- 200 years, and the artifact depicted a round earth, you will have a difficult time supporting your argument that the theory was not developed until 1500ad. If this is still your "opinion" then it is uninformed.

We cannot, however, present "opinions" within elements of an entry about this as if they were facts without support. There are uninformed opinions, and the interpretations may change as new data is made available, but risks and benefits can and have been calculated for this procedure. To present opposite "opinions" when experimantal data exist is ignoring facts and this type of contruct then becomes part of the social or political aspects of circumcision. This deserves to be included in the subject treatment, but not as if the experimental supported the practice. To do so is being dishonest or ignoring facts to present opinion. There arent multiple sides to this kind of data - there is merely an interpretation of the data and so far as epidemiology is concerned nobody is arguing about how to calculate risk to benefit rations.

I will grant you for example that some people say that 100% of penile cancer is preventable (at the cost of 6 complications per case prevented) and that is in fact true. Epidemiology states that this is too little benefit to recommend circumcision with no other pre-existing risks. Perhaps someone wants to argue with these issues under the subject of "epidemiology" or "evidence based medicine" but dont present that under circumcision as this is misleading to those who do not understand these issues. I count on the collective knowledge of the large group to edit these entries and I have not been disappointed. I feel I should return the favor with an unambiguous stand on known, factual experimental data. The social issues I will observe from the sideline. As it is accepted fact that the planet is essentially round, the flat-earthers may be mentioned for completeness in the historical descriptions of the history of navigation, but deserve no space whatsoever in the section on cartography.

With circumcision, all ethical, social, religious matters aside, it is a computation to determine risk and benefit. These computations may change with further research, but with facts in hand we can show that if we calculate in favor of and against circumcision, we will circumcise 100 or 200 newborn males before we prevent a urinary tract infection in one of them. One of every 100 babies we circumcise will suffer some untoward complication from the procedure. No amount of "explaining" will ever make this data interpreted as a favorable risk to benefit ratio unless the meaning of "favorable" is changed within the science of epidemiology. Therefore circumcision, from a public health standpoint, is not indicated to "prevent" any disease in a normal patient and there exists no valid argument against that. Throw me any argument and I can mathematically show you evidence to refute all comers including cancer, HIV, cleanliness, any infection, etc.. I have nothing to stand on to show you if I will be reincarnated or admitted into heaven achieve nirvana, etc. if I do/dont circumcise my son/daughter.

My goal is to remove the ambiguous statements from only those sections where such statements remain that imply that a medical benefit is enjoyed by NORMAL newborn male infants as a result of circumcision. There simply is no controversy among informed scientists as to this fact. There may be those with opinions to the contrary but I again cite my description of the flat earth society.

If I say there is no controversy as to the planets resemblence to a pancke, only those unfamiliar with the scientific method will continue to protest. Only those who do not understand how to calculate risk, benefit, pretest probability, NNT/NNH will continue to claim that an argument exists here. Sometimes one must draw the line. Circumcision may have value to some individuals for personal/religious reasons but it is never a medically indicated therapy when performed on a normal newborn infant. It is no different from a tattoo or a piercing. Personal benefits but no medical improvements. It exerts no evolutionary pressure on the fitness of the species whatsoever. Opinion doesnt enter into it.

As for editing to conform to Wikipedia's standards, I need lots and lots of help as I am not a writer by trade. I will revamp things and try again to be certain to cite specific sources but again I will not be citing any proof of the 2D earth as there is none.

Williamwells 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On all points - yes, absolutely correct. You are definitely on the right track here. Oh, and if you have any trouble accessing full text documents let me know because our university has a pretty good collection of full text journals available.

As for the form of the content - I will keep at it until I get the hang of it because this is important to me.

The sticky problem with the concept of a "complication" is you define the term in any way you wish before using it in the calculations. Yes indeed these issues may be a point of contention as to what things are considered complications. I think we can pick a set that would be relatively non-controversial such as serious bleeding, infection, adhesions leading to a short frenulum, interference with voiding, and all cases of traumatic injury to glans or nerve supply just to pick a fixed set. Now, even though bleeding is a serious complication its treatment (unless you managed to cut an aretery which is nearly impossible these days) is trivial. You probably just diagnosed the child with VonWillebrand's or something like that that is not at all associated with circumcision.

So lets throw all that out and take the most conservative estimate of complications you proposed which was 0.2-0.6%. This will suffice to support my example.

A UTI itself is not really something that must be avoided - the danger is an asymptomatic UTI that leads to an ascending infection and pyelonephritis, and subsequently renal scarring. This would require calculation of both the probability of a UTI and the probability of pyelonephritis and scarring in cases of UTI in males.

Probablilty of UTI in males is low, best estimates from pooled studies make the probability of a male experiencing at least one UTI by age seven of about 1.7%. ^[5]

Of children with a UTI, the risk of transient changes in the kidney is large - about 40%, but only about 5% have any long-term detectable changes in the kidneys [note that this does not reflect dysfunction - but I will grant you that renal scarring is "bad"] ^[6]

Worst case numbers are now that 1.7% incidence of UTI, and 5% of these will have scarring. If one assumes that all cases of UTI will be prevented with circumcision - your NNT to prevent a single case of long term renal scarring is now about 1,200. (thats a NNT of about 60 to prevent a single UTI, and 20 UTI's prevented to prevent one case of renal scarring).

Next take NNH for circumcision of 0.2 - thats 500 cases before having a single serious complication - pretty rare. This still doesnt approach the 1200 circumcisions that would be performed to receive a statistically significant improvement.

Nobody in this country selects circumcision without understanding that is is a purely elective procedure and has a much higher risk of harm than benefit, and both harm and benefit are extremely rare events. Despite this we probably have some of the highest rates of circumcision in the West at around 55%.

Everyone understands that this is an elective procedure. Perhaps you are missing this point but my point is this and only this - there is no rational argument supporting circumcision as a medical benefit to a newborn male without any pre-existing conditions. Here in the world of medical practice I have encountered nobody who argues this point - even supporters of routine circumcision at the parent's request. Everybody currently assumes this is a social phenomenon. Whats more, any statement that there is a rational "medical" benefit derived from prophylacic circumcision is false. Some things CAN be proven and this is a simple truth. I am not against circumcision but lets call it what it is - elective, decorative, religious or social practice. There is no argument to "medicalize" this as something that had any evidence supporting its routine use.

I am going to make sure the evidence based medicine topic contians the supporting information needed to support this position (seems like an EBM tutorial doesnt really belong here) and then will make the edits as neutral, cited evidence.

Nearly 11pm here, will conclude and chat more tomorrow. Have plans for the weekend so you will hear more from me next week. Thanks for your reply.

Bill

I've replied at your talk page. Unfortunately, my reply has been deleted by a banned user. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly. In the meantime, you can view my reply here. Jakew 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are either mistaken or lying. I have never deleted any comment you made to user_talk:Williamwells. And besides: Policy does not require anyone to delete contribs/comments made by blocked editors, it depends on the judgement of any user who comes across such an edit. 87.78.186.200 21:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh? What do you call this then? I count ten paragraphs I wrote that disappeared as part of your edit. Looks a lot like deletion to me.

Now if you want to apologise for your false accusation of lying, you can. Otherwise, please rest assured that I will exercise my best judgment of your edits, and likely as not they will be deleted.

You're blocked. That "edit this page" link at the top of the page does not apply to you. Move on. Jakew 21:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. 87.78.186.200 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William

Who precisely is the anon who has been trying to talk to Williamwells? JoshuaZ 23:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Got it - and you probably loose sleep pursuing fun activities here.

There had been word of changing the recommendation in regiosn of highe prevalence of HIV - but the data seems to suggest even then it wont help much given the epidemiology of the spread of the virus - but it certainly wont hope.

The exercise of debating an issue has often been used by adult education paradigms as an effective teaching method and I have learned more in the last few days about the format of encyclopedias, thats for sure.

All I really want to do is to change the format of the issues contained in the factual sections on circumcision to present both the evidence based support for circumcision when it is medically indicated - and explain why at the same time, and to simultaneously explain why allopathic medicine methods argue against prophylactic circumcision for the same reasons. Its already in there but "split" into two different sections and now gives the impression that among allopathic physicians there is debate over prophylactic circumcision's value medically and given current data there is only agreement on this point (and notice that is an extremely narrow definition). There is insufficient current data to warrant the rec. even with HIV - but many suspect that will change and we will probably recommend it under certain circumstances.

I would rather not imply that scientists disagree over how to determine if a population level intervention is indicated or not - that one small point is inaccurate. I hope to make the whole idea more clear (I feel like I am still missing my point - probably just better to do than discuss)

Its a population vs. individual argument. Too often we handed two sides of an argument as if the two sides are operating on equal terms with different answers. Like what people say about the news - gives credence to "all sides" of an argument even if there is not any support which makes some extreme minorities appear popular.

Thanks for your time. I will run the next part by you through the discussion page on the topic (when I have been registered long enough to do so) and you will see what I mean. Its easier at this point to just write it rather than explain it.

BTW: Reference 93 mentioned the editor was unavailable to access the article. It substantiates nothing and the statement about harboring bacteria is clearly not supported by this reference. If this gets published then I think I publish anything. They even go so far as to tag washing as "inferior" or not with no support for their position.

Rather than delete it I thought I would give you a copy of the reference and let you delete it if you agree. Download PDF.

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your credentials?

See Previous discussion

I have just added to my own with an MA with distinction from the University of London. I was wondering if you are ever going to assure me that you are suitably qualified to be posting all that material about circumcision. I see you are now branching out into nuclear weaponry. I imagine you can do less harm with that, because the governments of countries who have, or are developing, nuclear weapons will probably not look to wikipedia for advice on what to do with them. However, some people may be naive enough to think that wikipedia is a sound source of information to study when considering what to do with their son's perfectly formed penis.--AlexanderLondon 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! This Jakew is clearly using wikipedia to further his own personal agenda. He emphatically declares this agenda and confirms his bias, then attempts to hide behind the cloak of false neutrality. I'm not fooled by his arrogant, hypocritical charade one bit. Move on. MrEguy 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)