User talk:DanBlackham

Deletions and redirects

On the VfD page, you asked what "what will happen if there is now a consensus to redirect Genital Integrity". The truth is that the VfD process works reasonably well for it's stated purpose which is deciding whether a page and all its history should be deleted or not. It does not work well for other purposes such as deciding which way a redirect should go. Those who expressed a vote to "redirect" were really expressing a vote to "keep" and just chose to express some other thoughts about the content at the same time. What should happen next is that some form of the article will be kept and that the VfD discussion will be archived on one of the Talk pages. Anyone interested in the article can continue the debate about content, proper naming of the article, page moves, etc on the articles' Talk pages. The community will eventually reach consensus.

If you haven't already seen it, I found Wikipedia:replies to be very enlightening about how the community works and even survives when we all hold such disparate views on so many topics.

In this particular case, I would recommend stepping away from the article for a few days. Let a few people try some things then see if you can live with what they did. Remember that with the page history feature nothing is truly lost. If you feel strongly and can convince the community that it's encyclopedic, you can add anything back with a simple cut-and-paste. Have fun. And in case no one has said it yet, welcome to Wikipedia. Rossami 12:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rossami, Thank you for the explanation about the vote to redirect, the suggestion to read Wikipedia:replies, and the welcome to Wikipedia. DanBlackham 07:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce copyright violation

Thank you very much for looking into this. --Jondel 00:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jakew

Hi, I'd like to list Jakew for comment for his constant reverts on Foreskin fetishism (and in fact, a couple of other articles), but at least two users must have unsuccessfully attempted to solve the issue with the user on his talk page prior to listing. Exploding Boy 16:37, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Pro circumcision POV pushers are attempting to censor wikipedia

Thank you for your input on the proposal to use the term intact rather than uncircumcised in the main circumcision article. I thought it was very balanced and fair. 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 removal of 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 implore you to look into these matters and make choice about how you will respond. Thanks again. Sirkumsize 03:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Alienus 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, we're waiting on you to begin this RFM, so please sign your name. Alienus 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Robert Blair, who's slated to be dropped, you're the only person who hasn't yet signed. Please do. Alienus 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say...

From the stuff which I have read you are doing a great job and fufilling your duty as a Wikipedian perfectly.

Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.200.182 (talk • contribs)

Mediation

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.

The mediation will take place here. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --Wisd e n17 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation News

I've now added my initial questions and comments on this page. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Wikipedia for any length of time then please do infrom me.

I look forward to working with you. --Wisd e n17 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in policy suggested

After my experience with the case of Dabljuh, where you made a comment I found helpful, I suggested some changes to the policies and asked to enforce those we already have: [1] [2] Socafan 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPS

Response on talk:Circumcision. I'll look at the BMA issue again soon. Thanks. -- Avi 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out to the pro-circ'ers that their position is incorrect with evidence they canot weasel out of Lordkazan 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hex RfA

This is the RfA of user:Hex. I believe he would make a good and unconventional admin, so I'm running around right now, trying to encourage some of the more sensible people I know of to support him. Subversive 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just take a look at that RfA's opposition and you will understand why I am so much in favour of Hex. We need to pull together on this one, and we should tell as many others as possible. Subversive 13:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

forced circumcisions

Dan, I've put evidence on forced circumcisions in the Circumcision article. Full links and citations have been supplied. I would appreciate it if you would look at what I have added. It was quickly rejected by Avraham on grounds I consider spiteful and I have reverted it. Please look at what is happening. If it is unduly weighted, please feel free to trim it. Michael Glass 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael has still not answered the questions on the talk page, however. -- Avi 14:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, Avi's comment suggests that my right to edit the Circumcision article depends on my answers to his questions on the talk page! Is thhis in accordance with Wiki policy? Michael Glass 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with "right to edit", but your edits seem to be in violation of wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, and you have been asked to justify them on the talk page, where difficult edits need to be discussed before being applied. Anyway, we should not be burdening Dan with our discussion. -- Avi 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification posted on Talk:Circumcision -- Avi 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about misspelling your name :} -- Avi 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just David and Edwardsville

In your comment [3] at Talk:Circumcision you said "both Just David and Edwardsvill" (sic). Note that Just David is a suspected sock puppet of Edwardsville.

By the way, I really appreciate your contributions to Talk:Circumcision -- you have a way of hitting the nail accurately on the head. --Coppertwig 16:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Edwardsville is telling the truth when he said that he and Just David are not the same person. I have probably misspelled "definitely" the same way more than once myself.

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your effort to improve the editorial atmosphere at the circumcision article. When I have more free time I will respond to the other issues you have raised. -- DanBlackham 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologize for applying a certain edit to Circumcision before consensus was reached. I should have been more patient.

By the way, please comment specifically on my suggestion at Talk:Circumcision#Taddio 1997 to use (only) the following quote: The results of this study are consistent with studies of pain response in animals and behavioural studies in humans showing that injury and tissue damage sustained in infancy can cause sustained changes in central neural function, which persist after the wound has healed and influence behavioural responses to painful events months later. Pretreatment and postoperative management of neonatal circumcision pain is recommended based on these results. --Coppertwig 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please comment on the idea I raised that if the Taddio study were to be quoted in its entirety, then it would be appropriate to include the sentence Jakew wants to include, and that there may be some shorter summary of the Taddio article (shorter than quoting the whole thing, but perhaps much longer than two or three sentences) such that it would be appropriate to include that sentence. --Coppertwig 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the sentence you deleted here [4] was mostly not put in by me. Most of it was already there, and the edit I did (whose words were not composed by me) changed part of the last half of the sentence. Earlier, there had been a quote along the lines that the authors said their results were speculative. I criticized that on the grounds that it was from the 1995 study, not the 1997 study. It was removed and (shortly afterwards?) replaced by something like the sentence you removed (and Avi has put back in). --Coppertwig 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Dan?

Your keen insight is missed on Talk:Circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]