User talk:Garycompugeek/Archive 3 Jun10-Jun12

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_is_not_a_pop_up_book

Hello, Garycompugeek. You have new messages at Talk:Rorschach_test#Wikipedia_is_not_a_pop_up_book.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Four Lords of the Diamond Series

I've made some sweeping changes, taking the small synopsis for the three books shown and replacing/expanding them. Just giving you the heads up on that, one Chalker fan to another. Alexandria177 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I added some references, some sections, and added the "Medusa: A Tiger by the Tail" entry. Alexandria177 (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I got your message, thank you! Alexandria177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

Removal of current literature

Your removal of current literature and replacing it with stuff from 20 years ago is completely inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course I disagree and feel your removal of three paragraphs from the intro is completely inappropriate for reasons already explained on talk:circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/EW

FYI, I've reported your recent edit warring here. Jakew (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reverted 3 times in a 24 hour period and I have been talking on the discussion page AND Doc's changes do not have consensus. Curious why you didn't report him also? Garycompugeek (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Garycompugeek,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

If I am in violation so is Doc James. I am trying to discuss on the talk page and have no wish to edit war. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

current lead

Do you agree that the current circumcision article seems to be promoting the surgery? It looks non-neutral to me Pass a Method talk 12:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Its very one sided at the moment and pretty much reads that you should be circumcised to prevent HIV. First of all you practice safe sex to prevent HIV or any STD. These figures only apply to the third world contries/areas that do not practice safe sex. In essence and restrospectively we are suggesting that you just have to get circumcised and you will no longer have to practice safe sex. Completely false for you can easily get HIV/STDs and still still be circumcised its just a slightly lower percentage because a circumcised penis has less surface area. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Which editors are mainly responsible for this biased pro-circumcision editing? Is it only Jakew and Jmh649 or are there others involved? Pass a Method talk 08:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Typically Jake, Avi, and Jayjg. Looks like Doc is the new front man. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg said here that he made only 4 edits to that article in 9 months aftr i sent him and Jakew a WP:OWNER warning. But i agree with you about Doc who contrary to admin conduct appears to engage in WP:Tag team. Do you think i should send Doc a WP:OWNER warning notice? Pass a Method talk 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it will do any good. I've work with Doc before and he understands wikipedia's rules. He will not back off as long as he has a couple of admins backing him, however he will usually listen to reason. Balance must be restored. The problem with circumcision is that both sides firmly believe they are in the right so our job is try to maintain a proper balance of the pros and cons of the issue, to highlight the controversy, and give a brief synopsis of prevalent medical opinion. The intro is no longer conveying that and consequently very unbalanced. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can try an RfC to revert it to the old version. The old version was more balanced. Plus, the current refs negate the fact that the HIV prevention is limited to an African study.

There are enough editors that disagree with the current tag-team, as you can see by the amount of talk-page complaints and amount of reverts. I think it has gone on for long enough. Jakew, Avi and Jayjg have been edit-warring on this page since at least 2008. I think our final option will be to go for a dispute resolution or arbitration. What you think? Pass a Method talk 20:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes but I hope it doesn't have to go that torturous route. Perhaps logic and reason will prevail. Do what you must to restore balance my wiki friend. I will be watching and help out when I can. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As state I am happy to review the evidence. I have no personal opinion on this topic and am only here to write an encyclopedia based on the best available resource. A couple things I did not like about the previous version 1) long quotes 2) references to old sources (things have changes since a number of RCTs have come out from a scientific perspective) ie. it is now more than a religious practice. Finally I am not fond of people removing a summary of the most current scientific position on a topic. This is against consensus developed in many other areas. So if we can agree to use reviews / major governmental positions published in the last 5 years we can hopefully work together. I have no problem with using papers from the sociology literature to cover aspects of the controversy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Even though we are at odds over one issue, I have enjoyed working with you in the past and hope we can come to an agreeable solution. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Same here. Hopefully we can find a way to accommodate my two main concerns. I have no concerns with adding a few lines regarding controversy just wish that it is supported by better / more current sources. Will look when I have time unless you beat me to it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you have turned into a WP:SPA. You would do well branching out.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

and you have turned into an edit warrior who apparently doesn't accept wikipedia's definition of a paragraph. I have limited time these days to edit and what I do with my time is my business, construe it how you will. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you take this as a threatening posture. All the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Insults and threats typically rub me the wrong way. Edit warring over a paragragh mark. Very disappointing Doc. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I too agree that it is disappointing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, It appear the article has been hi-jacked by pro-surgery people, lets get together sometime and find some consensus in restoring it to a NPOV.174.28.162.94 (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes that has been the case since Jakew got involved. His edit count of Circumcision is many times that of all other editors combined. If you plan on sticking around and helping, create a user page so we don't refer to you as the anon ip. All help is appreciated but try to be neutral and familiarize yourself with our rules and policies. There are two sides to the story and both must be well documented. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm behind you . I've been editing under 174.28.162.94 . I was planning on just fixing stuff anonymously. Apparently, the three Puppeteers feel they own the article and revert anything based on their minority, but heavily active consensus. I'd like to get that article fixed with clear presentations of both sides of the issue. Gsonnenf (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gary, I just thought you should know that Jayjg has tried to recruit his friends to defend his articles in the past. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html . I think its a bit unfair that other editors are kept out by a close circle of regular editors who defend each other. Gsonnenf (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad

Thanks! Too lazy to do it myself. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Restoring misinformation

Gary, your edit cited a source that says:

The strong evidence that male circumcision substantially reduces the risk of HIV infection is summarized below. [...] In summary, randomized clinical trials of almost 11,000 men found that male circumcision was associated with 58% reduction in HIV infection risk in the “intent-to-treat” analysis and 65% reduction in HIV infection risk in the “as-treated” analysis. These findings were perfectly consistent with the observational study data.

And presented this as:

There is limited evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in populations that are at high risk by approximately 2%.

Please don't restore misinformation again. It arguably counts as vandalism per Wikipedia:VAND#Sneaky vandalism, but in any case your edit was harmful to the encyclopaedia. Jakew (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support this as a warning. People who change content to what the ref "does not say" is vandalism. I come across a great deal of it. People change words to their opposites, people change numbers, etc... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your both guilty of applying your own personal WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to a number of edits on Circumcision, please stop vandalizing the encyclopedia. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Garycompugeek. You have new messages at Jakew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gary, a lot of people are grateful for your work here, including me. 50.116.32.33 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Circumcision shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And specifically, you've already violated WP:3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Compromise 3

What do you think of compromise 3, here Pass a Method talk 16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I can live with it. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Please see WP:AN/3RR#User:Garycompugeek reported by Jakew (talk) (Result: ) Jakew (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Circumcision. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sorry didn't realize that was a 4th in 24hrs. I self reverted before you blocked me.Garycompugeek (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

• All* edit warring is prohibited. The 3RR rule is not an "allowance" that you can use up and then stop at the brink, but is just a "bright line" offence that gets an immediate block. To be unblocked, you will need to commit to not edit-warring at all, not just to avoiding 3RR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

By my count, you were at a 5th before self-reverting, though I am not going to decline your request since I was the one who placed the block. --Chris (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. Very embarassing. Never been blocked before. Happy polly logies. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it was the 6th (this was also a revert of an earlier edit joining the two paragraphs). But I didn't include it in my report. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, you were right to omit that one -- since he made two reverts that were consecutive with no edits in between by another editor, those two diffs together count as one revert. --Chris (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris: I hadn't noticed that. It is 5 after all, then. Jakew (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good because I was only adding a space to make a separate paragraph hardly a another revert. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a revert if you undo a previous edit (the edits in question being to join two paragraphs). Minor, but still a revert. And you must admit, you reverted it a number of times: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Jakew (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course I admit it. That's why I self reverted before the block. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For reference, here is my evidence:

• First revert
• Second revert
• Third revert
• Fourth revert
• Fifth revert
• Self-revert

--Chris (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have no wish to edit war. I reverted twice yesterday and twice today but did not realize it was within the 24hr period. I have been using clear edit summaries and the article's talk page. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Once again, 3RR is not a license to edit war as long as it's fewer than 4 reverts per day. Max Semenik (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Yes, you are missing the point that edit-warring is nothing to do with 24-hour periods, and any multiple reverts can be considered edit-warring. If you make a change and someone reverts it, you need to then discuss it on the Talk page and not re-revert unless you can get a consensus - there is no entitlement to revert twice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to User:Avi or does being a WP:Crat exempt his behavior? At least I was using the talk page. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Gary, I believed you made an error when you returned that information, as the accepted procedure is to keep the page as it was prior to the contentious addition or deletion when an RfC is in place, IIRC. You changed it back, and I thought you did so because you forgot that you yourself made the original change in early February, and I pointed that out in the summary of my second correction. When you continued to revert, I realized you were actually edit-warring, and so immediately disengaged. You had made reversions both prior and subsequent to my edits, and it is pretty clear that you were actively edit warring, unlike pretty much anyone else in that list. Having extra wiki responsibilities gives one absolutely no extra absolution from following policy and guideline. -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi are you trying to say that you thought my addition to the medical summary section in February was actually the to the lead of the article? Garycompugeek (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems I was mistaken. -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am astonished that TWO uninvolved administrators would block a veteran editor who has never been blocked before, even after a self revert and apology before the block, plus a simple history check would have verified that I was in fact correct as Avi grudgingly admits after the fact and the block. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see any grudge? -- Avi (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As a adverb Avi. Grudgingly definition = done, given, or allowed unwillingly, reluctantly, or sparingly. As in your actions contributed to me being blocked and your admission certainly would have been nice before the block or when I asked to be unblocked. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

But at the time of the block I was under a misconception, as you demonstrated earlier, and under that misconception, you were edit warring. By the time you corrected me you were already unblocked. As much as I have wished many times in my life to change the past, I am unable to do that :) -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok Avi, apology accepted. Since we agree I did not add the KNMG statement and records clearly demonstrate Lizardwizard did 10 months ago, would you be so kind as to add it back to the lead of the article? There was never any consensus to remove it, which was what started the latest round of edit warring and page protection plus the RFC also clearly demonstrates no consensus for Jake's proposed change. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, as I've said on the talk page, I don't believe the KNMG statement belongs in the lede of the article, and would be a POV violation of UNDUE if it was, so please forgive me if I don't add it back unless we all reach a consensus on the talk page that it is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion of WP:UNDUE holds little weight Avi. The policy statement is clear and concise and correctly summerizes the prevalent world medical opinion regarding circumcision. To not unclude it would violate WP:NPOV policies. I assume you feel the AMA policy statement it replaced was UNDUE also, a statement we have had in the lead for years until a more current one could be found to take its place. Where were your objections 10 months ago when Lizardwizard added it? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jakew's website?

Hi Gary. I've been aware of the single-minded dedication since the early 90s. I got totally shot down in WP:COIN. The person there felt that although there may be COI, since he was not using his own articles, so what. The 'so what' part I feel he is missing, is that so few can actually edit the article. One singular point of view does not contribute to NPOV. Tftobin (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC) I don't understand what the WP:COIN editor was missing, but you can't get blood from a stone. Tftobin (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So, what's User:Jakew's website? You've referred to it a few times, but I haven't seen a link to it. Thanks! Banaticus (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Banaticus. User:Jakew's website is [8]. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Substing User Talk Templates

Hi there! When using certain templates on talk pages, such as welcome templates and user warnings, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:welcome}} instead of {{welcome}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. If you need any further help on the matter just ask me on my talk page. Cheers.·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries

I respect your work here. No harm done and look forwards to seeing you expand your attention to other areas. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Circumcision

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Circumcision". Thank you. Tftobin (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Please see WP:AN/EW#User:Garycompugeek reported by Jakew (talk) (Result: ) Jakew (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jake you are starting to develop a disturbing pattern of harassment. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You have reverted a lot of vandalism lately. Thanks for all your contributions Pass a Method talk 03:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Garycompugeek (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Garycompugeek. You have new messages at Zad68's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zad68 15:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Highlight

To make the votes easier to count (here), can you please highlight your support with a prefix like this "support"? Thanks Pass a Method talk 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. This should be a helpful bandaid where edit warring is concerned but doesn't address the cancer which is long term systematic bias. I think we need to bring the article to arbitration or open a couple of RFC/U's. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)