User talk:87.78.178.52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 87.78.178.52). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

With regards to your comments on talk:circumcision: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. -- Avi 12:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems actually impossible to ignore Jakew's inclination on the subject matter. I really believe that he is heavily abusing NPOV arguments. And what's worse, he stays so very friendly and Wikipedia-compatible at all times, because that's a viable strategy. He just knows the rules he has to comply to, but within those set boundaries he IS a POV pusher. I think that people like him are a disgrace to the community. And unlike you, I am not a long-time Wikipedian, I AM ONE OF THOSE USERS THAT FEEL DETERRED!! 87.78.178.52 16:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, wikipedia has guidelines and policies that govern behavior. Participation in wikipedia is voluntary, you do not have to stay here, but if you do, you must abide by the policies and guidelines that govern editor behavior. I'd suggest starting with Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. -- Avi 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

People like you are the reason I won't waste my time here. But, for what it's worth: Jakew is the one not *ACTUALLY* adhering to your holy guidelines! And I wasn't personally attacking him until he completely ignored my thoughts in an offensive (but of course perfectly polite) way. Thank you for nothing. 87.78.178.52 18:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, please calm down bro. Getting yourself banned doesn't help anybody and it doesn't help reduce the pro-circ pov in sections of Circumcision. Calm down, try to play nice and we may be able to break Jakew's blockaid of unbiased information. Lordkazan 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I'm sorry I overreacted like that. But what do you propose? As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong about Jakew's contributions guideline-wise. And according to Avi, that's the only important thing here, he just ignored the point I was trying to make, just like Jakew did in the circumcision discussion. 87.78.178.52 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't give him an opening to abuse in the rules. Get good, high quality citations, that satisify the wikipedia realiable sources and verifiability guidelines and insert the information into the article to make it non biased, without asking Jakew's permission - we don't need his permission to edit articles. Remember articles on wikipedia need to be non-biased - that means information (even the crappy auvert study) that could be seen as pro-circ information must stay in the article, just the article must be complete and accurate. Right now the wikipedia problem with the article is it is leaving out imprtoant information and thereby creating a bias. If he reverts your edits and claims they were in the violation of the rules, restore them and then challenge him to show you how they violated the rules. Remember not to violated the Three Revert Rule. Lordkazan 18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Lordkazan, I am currently looking for suitable citations. But still, I feel my original point was intentionally overlooked. You see, recently, I edited a German article concerning a Neonazi brand name (de:Consdaple). In that article, I inserted totally "biased" ridiculing phrases, because I felt that in Germany, it is always better to decidedly distance yourself from Nazism (and because I am rather convinced of my eloquence in German, although I am certainly not as godlike at it as Avi is with English). Now, with the circumcision article, I have a similar dilemma. But my POV here is, although not more biased than with the Nazi topic, not the Public POV. And that's what I meant in the circumcision discussion: My POV is that there is no NPOV besides the instantaneous total rejection of neonatal genital mutilation, be it in Jewish tradition or whatever. And all that pointing to the respective guidelines by Avi or Jakew won't change that. But the article does not even feature the word "intact", which in itself (the word and its rejection by the pro-biased lobby) is sufficient proof to me that they will never cease to bombard common sense. So alright, I'm Sancho Pansa, but do you really believe in playing the game like this? After all, Jakew doesn't have a problem with the Wikipedia guidelines, because his personal bias is similar to the American/community bias on the topic of circumcision. 84.44.170.118 20:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Lordkazan's advice -- stay calm, find reliable sources, cite them, and maintain a neutral point of view -- is excellent. Nandesuka 02:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is to a certain degree. But please abide from provoking me by posting on my personal page in the future. You and I have nothing in common, I'm afraid. 87.78.178.102 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)