User talk:Sirkumsize

Welcome!

Hello, Sirkumsize, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abusive language[edit]

Your recent abusive language on User talk:Jayjg is grossly unprofessional, and has no place on Wikipedia, and is ultimately unproductive. Also, I couldn't help noticing that you consistently misspelled the target of your vitriol in the edits in question. For future reference, there is no such thing as "Judiasm" ("worship of Judy"?)...I believe the word you're looking for is "Judaism". Tomer ^TALK 05:48, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your insights Tomer. I only want to move wikipedia forward. I think that jayjg's reactionary reversions of my work is certainly unproductive too. I hope in the future we can work together in a more productive fashion and increase the NPOV of wikipedia by not shying away from controversial subject matter. Also I will work on my spelling. Please understand that I am here for the best of reasons. Sirkumsize 15:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision link[edit]

I deleted the link because an un-scholarly 1966 essay did not seem appropriate as it did not support the claim that circumcision is of growing concern and is currently a controversial topic. Please note that in the article's current state, in which those claims have been removed, and you restored the link, I have not deleted it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, lets just be grown up and admit that neither of us is perfect and put it behind us. Thank you for your honesty. Sirkumsize 20:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. Also, if you want to request comment, you need to post it on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page. Read the instructions carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision and Anti-semitism[edit]

Sirkumsize, I'm responding to the message you left at my talk page regarding this page. It's not clear to me what you want me to do, exactly. I've certainly no opposition to you gaining access to the text, as I've said at VfU, but my opinion that the article is not encyclopaedic is unchanged. I'm not even convinced that the potential is there, though I reserve the right to change my mind on that matter.

Look, the page was listed for a democratic vote, and the majority of voters felt it was inappropriate for Wikipedia. To undelete the page would require you to show that a) the vote was "improper", or b) that votes were somehow "wrong". The first would require a new vote, and the second would be tough to prove - the only people who could decide they voted inappropriately are the voters themselves.

I'm not prepared to change my vote based upon the article as I remember it, but I would encourage you to create a sub page of your user page. I'm prepared to try to help you to rework the article and make it appropriate (I realise it's tough to write NPOV content when you're emotionally involved), but I think it's a long shot. I will say this: if and only if I'm convinced that the resulting page is suitable, then I will change my vote.

I would also encourage you to think carefully about the subject of the proposed article. As I recall, the page was beginning to drift off-topic, rather - that might suggest that a wider scope is required (and no, I'm not suggesting that you create yet another article - talk first, then create).

- Jakew 12:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments regarding accusation of personal attacks[edit]

Dear Sirkumsize,

I realize that my response to you may have sounded empassioned; what I said was meant not as a curse, but rather as a tongue-in-cheek reprimand. Your empassioned arguments wrt the idea that circumcision is a widespread cause of antisemitism are interesting, but you have yet to bring forth any evidence that your accusations are anything but personal opinions, and that, held by only a few people, including yourself apparently. As a number of people, including me, have pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You may have strongly-held views on the subject, but that does not mean that they are grounds for a wikipedia article. That notwithstanding, you may turn your personal user page, User:Sirkumsize, as as much of a soapbox as you like, within the bounds of common decency, of course. As for your plea that people be gentle (is that what you're asking?) with you because of your expressed emotional or whatever problems, that's all well and good, but when it comes to giving you leeway with respect to your wikipedia edits because of your problems, as I said, this is NOT a therapy group; it is neither proper nor appropriate for you to regard the Wikipedia, nor your edits thereto, as a part of your "recovery" from whatever might be afflicting, or whatever might have afflicted you. That said, I would like to encourage you to continue to boldly edit articles, keeping in mind the policies of the Wikipedia. Nothing I have said was intended as a personal attack. I don't know you, nor anything about you, aside from what you choose to share. I can only respond to what you say and what you contribute. The past several weeks, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of your contributions have indicated that you are neither familiar with wikipedia policies, nor even mildly interested in familiarizing yourself with them. Until you do, expect your contributions to receive harsh criticism. This has nothing to do with personal dislike for you, it is, rather, a result of the strongly-held desire on the part of your fellow editors to make the Wikipedia a respectable online encyclopedia. Every published Encyclopedia you find anywhere, has editorial policies...your actions make it appear that you believe that the Wikipedia's policies should more closely parallel those of the National Enquirer, The Sun, or some other tabloid, or even the opinion pages of non-tabloid newspapers, rather than those of other encyclopediae, such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Tomer ^TALK 08:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have it backwards[edit]

It rather bizarre you would suddenly show up on a page I have been editing for months, revert me, and claim that I am on a personal vendetta against you. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think its time we had a chat and sorted this out like men.

I have a better idea; let's work stuff out on the Talk: pages, rather than you reverting me on 3 pages now and counting. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, weren't you convinced by my rebuttal of your argument you maybe for redirecting Aposthia on its talk page? Sirkumsize 05:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aposthia[edit]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I believe aposthia is a valid topic for an article and would like to see it remain. I am working on rewriting it now, and ensuring everything is sourced. I didn't realise a medical condition could be so controversial! Soo 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nor did I.

You invited me to look at aposthia. Unfortunately, I fell sick. I knew that aposthia should be here somewhere, but not sure whether it should be an entire article. Somehow the contributers managed make a small, but decent article for aposthia. I would have voted keep.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 06:55:32, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

RFM[edit]

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 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert Tralins for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Tralins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Tralins until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert Tralins for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Tralins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Tralins (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]