User talk:DanP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DanP, please stop adding your stuff to childbirth. Pushing a POV agenda is very poorly tolerated on Wikipedia, and only leads to edit wars and banning. Please go and do something else. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I make efforts to present both sides of every issue. If you have an opinion, that does not mean yours is the only one. DanP 21:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, your other edits have been quite evenhanded. This childbirth stuff was simply getting too far off-topic. JFW | T@lk 21:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Breastfeeding

A consensus was reached to mention the negative effect neonatal circumcision may have on breastfeeding in the "Breast refusal" section of the Breastfeeding article.

Discomfort, possibly due to recent surgery or medical procedures (for example, circumcision [1][2])

In my opinion that is the appropriate way to include information about circumcision and how it may adversely affect breastfeeding. I am opposed to adding more information about circumcision to the Breastfeeding article and I am also opposed to deleting the information that is already there. -- DanBlackham 06:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The information focuses on breastfeeding and circumcision, which is neither surgery (according to Wikipedia's definition), nor is it medically-indicated in the majority of cases. Nonetheless, I believe the reader should explore this topic and make up their own mind. Automatically judging circumcision as unconnected is equally as biased as automatically judging it as connected. So ideally, it is up to the reader to make form their own opinion. I thank you for your views, and hope every person's perspective is respected in the article. DanP 18:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please join in the discussion in Talk:Breastfeeding rather than having an edit war. I thought we had already reached a consensus position, but apparently not. You have added the same text four times now (in breach of the spirit, if not the technical wording of the three revert rule). Please try not to do it again until we reach an agreed position - adding and deleting the same (or slightly modified) text time and again is only giong to entrench positions, not lead to consensus. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I only want a neutral viewpoint.DanP 20:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Male Circumcision

I've reverted your latest changes to this article as non-neutral. Please don't take it personally: I agree with many of your edits and have defended them against other users' objections. Please be careful what words you choose when editing articles; some suggest (dis)approval and are thus inherently non-neutral. Exploding Boy 19:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if I stumbled into non-neutral territory -- not taking it personally. Many of the changes I made were to correct factual errors as well, and existing POV (like that part on "most men", never saying who says so). If I introduce POV, I apologize, but clearly some parts of the article say POV things without backing them up. DanP 19:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette

DanP, on Wiki, there is something called the Three revert rule. It states:

Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.

On the Foreskin restoration page, you've now performed four reverts today. Furthermore, you've failed to make the reverts explicit in the edit summary, disguising them instead. These are the reverts:

19:15 16 Dec 2004 is a revert to 19:00 (but disguised thru the summary)
14:51 16 Dec 2004 is a revert to 14:30 (disguised)
14:30 16 Dec 2004 is a revert to 13:29 (disguised)
13:29 16 Dec 2004 is a revert to 23:49 10 Dec 2004 (disguised)

- Jakew 19:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan, please note that, if true, this could get you blocked (I'll take Jake's word for it). Four reverts would be a fairly serious matter. Firstly you're holding up any attempts to resolve differences of opinion. Secondly you're making people upset. Don't revert, modify. If a change really needs to be reverted and you've already reverted an edit on the same page once in the past day or so, contact someone else and ask them to have a look at the page and see if they agree with you. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I only inserted a paragraph that Jakew previously deleted without explanation. If Jakew says I repeatedly reverted the article, my apologies as it should not have been so and was terribly inadvertent. I'm pretty sure we can dig up Jakew deleting the same paragraphs over and over without the last month, while attempts to compromise are made on my part. I also have followed my edits up with discussion. Jakew has not done this so well. Take a look at 20:21, 19 Nov 2004 for just one example of Jakew's trademark pattern of article vandalism, among several repeated content deletions that day. No discussion, just deletion without explanation. DanP 23:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, play nice with each other, I'm sure you'll find it more productive to assume good faith and be fair. Jake could have gone running to an admin and got you blocked for breaking the 3RR, but he didn't. I think he's genuinely interested in working with you and you should try to hammer out your differences in talk. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of TotallyDisputed tag

In this edit to Gliding action, you reverted the insertion of a TotallyDisputed tag. I have already objected to this, and to your misleading edit summary, on that article's talk page. This act of attempted censorship is totally unjustifiable and unacceptable. Please justify it on that article's talk page, or better still, undo it. - Jakew 19:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

Please be advised that you have violated the 3 revert rule, which states that each user is only permitted to revert a page three times per day, unless it is a case of obvious vandalism. You can be blocked for up to 24 hours if you violate the 3RR, and I will do so if you continue to revert the page. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of such an instance without vandalism present. Please direct me to it, since I want to respect the 3RR rule. DanP 22:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, sorry for not telling you before. The violation was at Foreskin restoration (hist). You reverted 5 times between 24 Jan 2005 (23:53) and 25 Jan 2005 (19:11). The exact times were:

19:11, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. See talk page.)
18:36, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. Use discussion page please)
00:58, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. please use talk page)
00:47, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. Immerman is in this one.)
23:53, 24 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. and add Schultheiss)

You should note that it's within 24 hours, not within a day, so the reverts on January 24 and January 25 are both counted towards your limit. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. You may (or may not) want to present your point of view at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. That's how I came to know about the violation. Sorry you got blocked, but I'm not going to unblock you since you did violate policy. I have, however, asked Jayjg to consider unblocking you himself. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The block was for 24 hours, and should come off by itself in a few minutes. If it doesn't, I'll undo it manually. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should be ok now, I've unblocked. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm OK now. I'll review Wikipedia policies to make sure I stay in compliance. DanP 23:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointed

Dan, I see that the very first change you make after coming back is to describe an edit as vandalism. This was on your user page ("rv repeated user page vandalism by Robert the Bruce"). Vandalism is replacing a page with "cock shit balls", and it upsets people to describe their edits as such, even if you strongly disagree with them. It would help to create a more peaceful atmosphere at Wiki if you chose a different term. - Jakew 23:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is BS. The revert was of my own user page that was vandalized repeatedly by him with insults (psycho-sexual motivation, has a mental condition, etc.). Check the history. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism and the section on User page vandalism. It is also Sneaky vandalism, as he is somehow implying that I feign neutrality (which is clearly noted on my user page as well). Your lies about vandalism are even worse, so back off please. DanP 23:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't see that he replaced your user page with insults or profanities. I'm not so sure about adding hostile comments to your user page, however - I don't think it's vandalism, but it does seem a bit rude to me. As far as the vandalism "lies" go, look above, in the section "Wikiquette". See the sentence: "Take a look at 20:21, 19 Nov 2004 for just one example of Jakew's trademark pattern of article vandalism, among several repeated content deletions that day."? - Jakew 00:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So burn me at the stake. I am not perfect. In my defense, you had repeated deletedly paragraphs with bothering to discuss. DanP 00:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack (historical)

You chose to attack me on your user page (note: now deleted). Concerning vandalism:

Yes, each will doubtless follow similar accusations by yourself. Childish? Yes. Irresponsible? Yes. Can you find anything after November 2004? I doubt it. I can change. Can you? - Jakew 00:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would love for you to delete all this, which is only self-defensive. I have only included all this because you:

Have reported me as "infuriating" and describing your edits as "vandalism".
Have described me here as "coming back to describe an edit as vandalism"

Clearly this is within the last 24 hours, not November. I offer you the freedom to delete this whole "personal attack" section, the "disappointed" section just above, and the whole "Jakew" section on my users page once you retract these two statements. After that I have no outstanding grievances except with Robert the Bruce concerning the bullet points listed. DanP 00:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have briefly reviewed your edit history. I found several examples since November. Here are a few: [3] [4] [5] [6]. However, I agree that this has become much less common recently.

I have described your inappropriate use of the term "vandalism" as infuriating. It is. It is undeniable that you described an edit (I believe your first since unblocking) as vandalism, and I cannot see why you find this so upsetting. I don't think it appropriate to delete the sections, but I have made amendments to this section, as you can see. - Jakew 23:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is not the whole truth. What particular instance are you talking about? Your statement was "DanP frequently describes edits he disagrees with as vandalism - a habit I find infuriating". How frequently may I ask? When I was unblocked, I removed User:Robert the Bruce's edits of my user page that were clearly indicated as unwelcome edits. He made changes four times -- knowing I was blocked! Can I edit yours with childish nonsense next time you're blocked? Further, Robert has posted that exact same graffiti of email in several discussions, purportedly as an elephant in the room to prove something (who knows what - I wasn't feigning neutrality, that's for certain). That is easy enough to prove and I'm finished discussing this. Yes I make mistakes, but you have no evidence that I make frequent vandalism claims -- certainly not at your level you describe, or even at the level you've engage in. So let's drop it unless I'm wrong about some particular fact here. Sometimes I think you and Robert enjoy arguing these meta-accusations. DanP 23:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about Robert's edits. That's between you and him. Your descriptions of edits as vandalism are rarer these days, and I agree that "frequently" was not the right word. It's more frequently than I would like, but "occasionally" seems a better description these days. I apologise. What would you like me to do about it? - Jakew 01:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Dan, could you remove the inflammatory material from your user page? Although I don't agree with Jake and Robert's activities on the page I think you're doing the wrong thing in using the page as a forum to air your grievances. The right thing to do if you have a problem with someone else's conduct is to go to RfC and put your opinion into RfC form. There is already a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce|RfC on Robert the Bruce] so you could add your complaint to that if you'd prefer not to start your own.

As it stands now you have a good chance of others raising a RfC against you for putting this kind of material on your user page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Robert the Bruce's "list of anti-circumcision activists" (or similar) on his user page. You know, people do this type of thing all the time on their user pages, but I don't think there's any specific policy that deals with it. Exploding Boy 16:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Tony, actually I believe EB is right that it's not against policy if it's true Wikipedia behavior and not a lie. Notice I insulted no person, but only make true claims of actions and behavior. But I happen to agree with you that it's distasteful blaming, even if true. So I deleted Jakew from my user page even though he probably will again say I "accuse him of vandalism" on every edit or conflict resolution effort ("DanP frequently describes edits he disagrees with as vandalism - a habit I find infuriating" see User:Frazzydee discussion). If you noticed, I indicated that mine was also part of that "stupid game", only I admit it and oppose it. Now if you can get in Robert the Bruce to agree to this principle regarding his user page, we'll all be happier. DanP 18:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DanP you need to help me understand Sidaway with this. He was the one who tinkered with my user page and yet he now gets all defensive about what happens on yours. What do you call that? There must be a word for it? - Robert the Bruce 14:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I welcome you to "tinker" with my user page in some way that is reasonable and helpful. However, you:

knew your edits were unwelcome
posted much of the same material, at random, in other discussions
knew I was blocked and could not react
acted repeatedly to leave unwelcome edits in place

I recommend you tell Sidaway your feelings. DanP 14:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quick question, Dan, does your welcome to tinker in reasonable and helpful ways apply to me? - Jakew 14:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. I am sure that we can have a gentleman's agreement that unwelcome changes are unreasonable ones. You know enough by now to know what I'd surely revert. DanP 15:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just a quick note to let you know that I appreciate your efforts to help engage Robert Blair in discussion. - Jakew 23:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Just too many civilian casualties in the edit war. :) DanP 23:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No kidding. I'm drafting an RfC (see my user page), but hopefully it won't be needed. Thanks again. - Jakew 01:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gliding action

Just when we seemed to be reaching agreement, 207.69.137.202 appears and reverts. Can you revert? I'm running low. - Jakew 01:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Obviously I have objections to other things in the article, but it probably is collectively less disturbing than versions before today. DanP 01:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It's maddening to spend an hour trying to sort this out only to have this person revert the lot. Please raise the issue on the talk page and we can try to find less objectionable (or equally objectionable) versions. Please also reply on genital integrity. - Jakew 01:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This so so nice for a change. I love WikiLove. I wish that we could all just get along.

Ŭalabio 02:48, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

[edit] FGM

Well, then that would be just called GM, not FGM. Please use the google. The word FGM is used specifically in reference to female circumcision carried out in African countries. The US State Department also uses the word in this context. See [7] OneGuy 20:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I have explained this on your talk page. Please go there and realize one can be a subset of the other, not necessarily synonyms. DanP 20:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the word FGM is used for African practice of Female circumcision. If I am looking for that information, I am going to search FGM. If you search google for FGM, I bet you are not going to find information about piercing in the first 100 hits. Almost all the search results would be in reference to Female circumcision. OneGuy 20:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here the search result on google for "Female Genital Mutilation." Given that, now where should that article be redirected to? [8] OneGuy 20:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are obviously instances where one term is used, and the other is inapplicable. This is an encyclopedia, remember? DanP 20:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's illegal even if the adult women is forced (as sometimes happens in Africa), not just minors. Please fix your edit there OneGuy 02:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy Discussion Regarding Slogans

Hey DanP, I noticed your avid support for one of the slogans on the VfD and was wondering if you'd mind putting some of your opinions about political slogans at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inclusion of Slogans as Separate Articles. Everyone there so far is in favour of deleting them (myself included), but it would be nice to hear the other half of the debate (if indeed there is one). Thanks for your time! Regards, [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 22:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leave the medical articles alone please

If there is an issue of fact, raise it on the talk page please and we can discuss it. Your changes are not improvements; while they don't change the meaning much, I can't see that they make it any better. I am tired of reading that your changes are "NPOVing" when you can't even explain on the talk page what POV you are removing, and you admit you are here simply to advocate a single extreme POV. I mean single POV in the most literal and accurate sense. Single-- you have no interest but genital surgeries and procedures, and extreme --- your viewpoint is that of a small proportion of the population (I am against circumcision, and I can't even understand your perspective), and POV-- you are willing to add any info no matter how trivial or rare that seems to support your pov no matter whether it distorts or misrepresents facts about a topic by overemphasis, lack of balance, or what is omitted. I stay away from the circumcision articles. Please don't mess with the other medical ones. alteripse 01:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Understood. I have no problem with cooperating in a civil manner with circumcision advocates like Robert Brookes, or conversely entering into disputes with those who support genital integrity. Wikipedia is not about turf, or about taking sides. But I do have a problem with being immediately accused of severe one-sided or POV edits, when in fact, my accuser is guilty of worse. I am admitting that I take a genital integrity position -- never denied it. Perhaps you can explain why I am met with such hostility for merely trying to work with you? When one really sits down and sifts through articles on Wikipedia, one finds the circumcision articles are some of the most NPOV, and are stripped of blatant value judgement. To that end, circumcision advocates are partly to be given credit, despite their evil intentions. When you say things like you just did, it is hardly your desire to give anyone a chance to oppose your opinion or to correct article POV. I am not assuming bad faith on your part, only telling you not to assume such a thing when I make an edit. Neither side is perfect. As far as Wikipedia edits go, I don't give a rat's ass if you're against circumcision. It doesn't justify using the editor to judge the edit. DanP 01:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You ask why you are met with hostility? (1) Because each of your changes in the articles I wrote claims that you are correcting POV but in none of them did you explain what POV you are correcting. (2) You accused me of suppressing iatrogenic problems but you clearly didn't read the article. (3) You removed important meaningful information, twice. I have worked hard on these articles. I am willing to discuss any questions or pov issues on the talk pages with civility and reasonableness. Try starting there if you think an article doesn't present all sides or has inaccurate info instead of starting with unexplained deletions and unsubstantiated accusations and you might be surprised how civil I can be. alteripse 04:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alteripse, you do not have the balls to deal with this POV onslaught ... all you do is whine. - Robert the Bruce 06:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee ruling

The arbcom case against Robert the Bruce has closed. As a result, you are advised to re-read Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, with particular attention to the idea that NPOV includes all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. You are expected to improve their editing habits and reminded that any future cases will consider seriously any failure to heed this warning. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grun t ҈ 23:48, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

[edit] Template:genital-integrity-stub

I'm a little bothered by this template, as it appears laudatory. Though the ribbon is the actual symbol of the supporters of genital integrity, when applied to an article in such a manner, it appears to be an endorsement or sign of support for the position, rather than a NPOV categorization of a subject. Perhaps another image could be used, or none at all? I doubt there is a need for such a stub-sorting template anyway, and I note there are only three such stub articles at present. Furthermore, there is an organized process for creating new stub-sorting templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, and I do not see that yours was first discussed there. Please list your template on that page and present your reasons as to why it is necessary. Thanks! Postdlf 22:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is subject based. Thanks for letting me know, I'll follow your advice with the stub sorting. DanP 22:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vivisection

Hi DanP. I get the impression we're at cross purposes over our edits of the vivisection article. What in particular don't you like about the 'disputed paragraph'? I genuinely don't understand. I want to try and work this out so this damn revert war can stop. As you can imagine, I don't see anything wrong with how it has stood. That is, if you want to do *any* work with humans, even just asking them *questions* you need ethical approval. The link I provided was evidence to that, and not limited to "some research centres". The ethical review process for human experimentation is the visible result of laws on work on humans. G.hartig 00:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia, we are under an obligation to report occurences of this event without making value judgements. Whether or not ethical review is required in some legal systems and at some universities is a very different question than whether or not such review is actually carried out worldwide. The article, as you've defended it, makes the claim that ethical review is ubiquitous. The link you provided does not support that. Clearly, slaughterhouses do not get ethical review when they strip meat off a conscious animal. Your claims are overreaching, and I hope a more limited claim makes sense now. DanP 18:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The section is on human vivisection, and the paragraph starts with "Human volunteers...". Slaughterhouses have nothing to do with it. Instead of deleting the paragraph, how about referencing something that disproves that "Human volunteers can consent to be subjects for invasive experiments which may involve, for example, the taking of tissue samples (biopsies), the implantation of catheters, or other procedures which require surgery on the volunteer. These procedures must be approved by ethical review..." I've started, by finding a reference that supports the statement. G.hartig 00:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The section on human vivisection seems to exactly be the problem. Look up vivisection in dictionary, there is no mention of volunteers or ethical constraints being a requirement. The link you provided is just a form -- it doesn't mention vivisection whatsoever. It might as well be under any old human research article. It is not a principle in Wikipedia that speculation can be included and subsequently must be "disproven". That's not how science works. You must provide sources for the claim. DanP 17:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation (this was a false claim made by Nandesuka)

DanP, please be advised that you have violated the 3 revert rule, which states that each user is only permitted to revert a page three times per day, unless it is a case of obvious vandalism. As you know due to previous penalties, you can be blocked for up to 24 hours if you violate the 3RR. The page you violated the rule on was Erection (hist) with the following edits:

07:06, 16 July 2005 DanP (rv. edit which includes incomplete and off-topic data)
06:39, 16 July 2005 DanP (rv. according to precedent, see talk page)
18:54, 15 July 2005 DanP (Not at all, it is also unpiered, unscarified, and unsubincised. Be honest here.)
17:42, 15 July 2005 DanP (Further clarification)

All four of these edits involved a dispute over a particular word in a caption on a photo. All four involved changing the word back to your preferred version. Nandesuka 14:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your edits. The edit at 17:42, 15 July 2005 was not a revert! I'm glad that you're paying attention to the rules though. DanP 13:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to sign. As discussed in Wikipedia:Revert: "A revert is a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page." Are you seriously trying to claim that you didn't make four edits in 24 hours that had the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page (that change being the earlier addition of the world "uncircumcised?" You can't pretend that something isn't a revert by just not typing "revert" in the Edit summary field.Nandesuka 14:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. The presence of the word revert means nothing. In fact, I reinforced exactly the change you're supporting by using "unaltered". It expands on your POV and encompasses more mutilations not fewer (as you are claiming I am duplicating from previous edits). That is an entirely different stance, and I hope we can both see eye-to-eye on this. Which do you want, all mutilations, none, or just some to be referenced in the caption? If it is "some" they why do you get to choose? Clearly I did not hold a stationary assertion during the course of your purported (and plainly false) 3RR violation. DanP 14:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS article needs your help to make it a Featured Article

Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on AIDS the best possible before trying to submit it as a "Featured Article", I've looked up some active submitters in the last month or so and found you. Please, take a little time to go by the AIDS article and it's Talk page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).

AIDS is a very serious world wide issue; never before have we needed to spread AIDS education as much as we do now. We need as many people as possible working together to make this article on AIDS the best it can be. Hope to see your contributions soon! JoeSmack (talk) 23:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro circumcision POV pushers are attempting to censor wikipedia

Thank you for agreeing with proposal to use the term intact rather than uncircumcised in the main circumcision article. Not to sound melodramatic but its become clear that pro circumcision POV pushers are censoring wikipedia uninhibitedly, which can be seen in their attempt to remove the article Aposthia and vandalizing the disambiguation page at uncircumcised to eliminate any other interpretations of the word supported by the dictionary that they feel improves their political agenda. For the sake of intellectual freedom I emplore you to look into these matters and make choice about how you will respond. Thanks again. Sirkumsize 23:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 22:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SamiAldeeb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SamiAldeeb.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 18:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More replaceable fair-use images

Image:TimHammond.gif

—Chowbok ☠ 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EdgarSchoen.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EdgarSchoen.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:MarilynMilos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MarilynMilos.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)