If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for 5 days it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

IN REGARDS TO YOUR TALK TO ME NOVEMBER 2013:Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Genital modification and mutilation. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Doing this from a registered account is no more acceptable than doing it anonymously. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE: It is objective truth that genital modification is different than genital mutilation. The difference lies predominantly in consent. That is what I was clarifying with a more accurate and neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation‎ Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body...

Modification is consensual. Mutilation is not.

Any physical injury inflicted on another person is a violation of their human right to safety and their natural body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy apply to the issue of genital integrity? Does Wikipedia present a balanced perspective on genital modifications versus genital mutilations? Do Wikipedia articles present balanced perspectives of male circumcision versus female circumcision?

Currently, Wikipedia has a page “Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision.” In contrast, a search for male genital mutilation redirects to “Genital modification and mutilation.” The page on “Circumcision” addresses only male circumcision. And “Genital Integrity” links to “circumcision controversies.”

It is common sense that genital integrity is a human right. Not a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yes, but common sense has no place in articles. We only include things from reliable sources. Your opinion has no bearing. ES&L 13:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an opinion. Whether you and I, or any other Wikipedia editors, agree or disagree with that opinion or not, and whether we regard it as "common sense" or not, it is still an opinion. It is also factually incorrect to state that the opinion is "not a controversy", as there are many people who regard imposing circumcision on children as totally unacceptable, and many others who regard it as acceptable, and even morally required. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I AM PROMOTING TRUTH. THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN MUTILATION AND MODIFICATIONTHAT THIS ARTICLE MUST ADDRESS TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what is the difference between MODIFICATION and MUTILATION?!?

That is the topic of the article, but it is not addressed at all in the version that you keep reverting back to. Please be objective as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THE DIFFERENCE IS CONSENT AND INTENT. THIS IS A FACT, NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are mistaken in saying that I "keep reverting back to" a version of an article. If you check the edit history of the articles in question, you will see that I have made one revert at Circumcision and law and one at Genital modification and mutilation, and I have never made any other edit to either of those articles.
2. I evidently had not expressed myself as clearly as I thought I had, because I thought that, in a post on your talk page, I had made it clear that promotion is unacceptable on Wikipedia even if you are convinced that what you are promoting is THE TRUTH, but it is clear from your comments that I have not managed to convey that message.
3. Almost everybody promoting a view believes that the view they are promoting is the truth, so if, rather than having a policy "you may not use Wikipedia to promote a point of view", Wikipedia had a policy "you may not use Wikipedia to promote a point of view unless you are convinced that that policy is he truth", then the policy would be completely pointless. However, whether you agree with that or not, the policy is that you may not use Wikipedia to promote a point of view even if you believe it is the truth.
4. The view you express certainly is an opinion, and it is by no means universally held. Indeed, there are many millions of people who believe that forcibly removing parts of children's genitals, without their consent, is the will of god.
5. You ask me what the difference is between "modification" and "mutilation". I could easily give you my personal opinion on that question, but to do so would be to completely miss the point, because the whole point is that my opinion is every bit as irrelevant to what goes into a Wikipedia article as your opinion or any other Wikipedia editor's opinion. A Wikipedia article should not express the opinions of those who wrote it: it should impartially report what existing published reliable sources say, without giving any greater weight to a view because those who edited the article agree with the view.
6. It is a very common mistake to think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means that anyone can use Wikipedia to publish anything they like. As a consequence, we get huge numbers of people coming here because they think Wikipedia is an ideal medium for publicising something, whether it be a business, a start-up band, a new game, a religious or political opinion, a great injustice in the which needs to be put right, or whatever else it may be. I have every sympathy with such people, who come here in good faith, and in some cases put a significant amount of time and effort in, only to see all their work thrown away. However, no matter how much I sympathise with such people, the fact remains that their starting point is a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" means not that anyone can use Wikipedia for any purpose that they think is a good and noble one, but rather that anyone is welcome to help contribute to the project to build an encyclopaedia, within the limitations of the project's guidelines and policies. Note that the emphasis is "you are welcome to help us achieve our goal if you would like to", not "we will help you achieve your goal".
7. Whether you are happy with the fact or not, Wikipedia policy is that we do not use Wikipedia to promote our beliefs of what is the truth. There are plenty of websites that let you do exactly that, and you are perfectly free to go to one of those to campaign for the view that surgical modification of people's genitals without their consent is unacceptable, or for any other view that you believe is true and should be propagated and publicised. However, that is not what Wikipedia is for, and if that is your purpose then unfortunately you made a mistake coming to Wikipedia to do it. If, on the other hand, you are willing to make contributions to the encyclopaedia, from a neutral point of view, and keep clear of putting statements into articles because you believe they are true, then you are, of course, very welcome indeed to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here... Zad68 20:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk archive navigation has been nominated for merging with Template:Automatic archive navigator. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will remember it from now on.--Jockzain (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are Cosplay photos allowed on wiki?[1] It seems that only certain people are being picked to being shown. What prevents someone else from putting a picture of someone else or themselves? Why does this user get to pick which cosplay photo gets to be used?108.82.14.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say anything else about this, I have a few words of advice. Try to give explanations that make it clear what you have in mind. The last time you asked me about this, I read your query as meaning that you thought for some reason that photographs of people in fancy dress of the kind known as "cosplay" were offensive, and should not be allowed. When I read your latest message to me, at first I took it that way too. However, having looked at your editing history, including talk page posts and edit summaries, I now see a different interpretation is possible. Perhaps you mean that one or more people are putting "cosplay" photographs of themselves into articles where there is little relevance to the article, and the purpose is more to do with getting themselves seen than to do with enhancing the coverage of the subject of the article. Is that what you mean, or something like it? If so, both in talk page posts and in edit summaries, you could have made it much clearer. For example, if you remove a picture from an article with the edit summary "Again with the cosplay photos?" or worse still with no edit summary at all, anyone who sees that will have no idea why you object to the picture, and may well see it simply as vandalism. Likewise, asking "Are Cosplay photos allowed here on Wikipedia?" looks as though you simply object to photographs of people in silly fancy dress, even in cases where having such a photograph is perfectly relevant to an article. Maybe that is what you mean, maybe it isn't, I am trying to make a best guess on the basis of what I have seen of your editing, but it would be much easier if you actually stated in clearer terms exactly what it is that you object to, so that I wouldn't have to guess.

If you really did just mean that you regard "cosplay" photographs as objectionable, and that you think they shouldn't be allowed, then I have nothing to add to the answers I gave you last time you asked me about this. You can see those answers at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 55#Cosplay photos and User talk:68.75.28.196.

If, however, you mean that people are putting irrelevant "cosplay" photographs of themselves into articles as a way of using Wikipedia for self-publicity, then you may well have a point. In that case:

1. When you remove such an image, always give an edit summary which briefly indicates your reason for removing it.
2. If you are dealing with an editor who repeatedly does this, post to their talk page explaining your concerns. Be prepared to discuss the issues on user talk pages and/or the talk pages of the articles in question. Doing this has at least four advantages: (1) you may be able to persuade the other editor to stop; (2) the other editor may be able to make it clear to you that they do in fact have a good reason for what they have done after all; (3) if the discussion doesn't lead to an agreement, and you need to take the matter further, you will get a much more sympathetic hearing from others if it is clear that you made a good attempt to resolve the issues; (4) if the matter ever is taken further, other editors can easily see the history of what happened in the discussion, rather than having to search through editing history of various articles.
3. If attempts at resolving the matter by discussion have failed, you may need to bring other peoploe in to help. There are various ways of doing this, as you can see at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution perhaps the simplest being a friendly request for a third opinion from another editor.
4. If you believe another editor has been acting disruptively (perhaps, for example, by edit warring, or by persistently using Wikipedia for promotional purposes) then you can request administrative intervention. You can do this by means of a report at whichever of the administrators' noticeboards is most relevant (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), but very often a quicker and simpler method is to ask an individual administrator for help. You are welcome to ask me for such help, but I am unlikely to take any action unless you have clearly made constructive attempts to resolve the issues by discussion. I am also unlikely to take action unless you make it clear which other editor(s) is/are involved, and when and where they have made the questionable edits: I don't want to have to search through hundreds of edits to try to find who added the cosplay pictures to the articles in question.

Finally, I strongly recommend getting a Wikipedia account. There are several advantages in doing so, and in this case it will make it much easier to keep track of what is going on. I have managed to find one other IP address you used some months ago, and putting together what I have seen from that IP address and this one gives me a clearer idea of what you have in mind, but I have no idea whether you have made other edits from yet other IP addresses that might be relevant and might help to make your case clearer. It is also an unfortunate fact that a large number of editors take less notice of anything said by an editor without an account, so having an account may help to get your points taken more seriously by some editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please semi-protect Alice (Avril Lavigne song) with expires two years, 2015, because "long-term disruptive editing on a number of related articles by an IP-hopping vandal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.179.2 (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention whatever in taking sides in any case of the infantile process known as "genre warring". I could protect the article, not for the one-sided reason you suggest, but for the more symmetrical reason of edit warring, but what would be the point? "Genre warring" is a complete waste of the time of the people who choose to do it, but it does no harm to anyone else. If people choose to spend their time quarreling over the exact wording which best describes in a one or two word summary the style of popular music made by some musician or group of musicians, then that is their choice. Alternatively, I could block the IP ranges that have been used, and I may consider doing that if I find that, as you suggest, the IP editors in question have been troublesome on a number of articles. However, if I do so then I will consider blocking both sides. As I said above, I have no intention of taking sides in this childish game. I would also be unlikely to block a lot of individual IP addresses each with a very small number of edits, with no evident reason to suppose they have all been used by one person. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since writing the above comment, I have discovered that you have a history of requesting semi-protection of articles, in what looks rather like attempts to use semi-protection to protect your preferred version in articles subject to content disputes. If that is so, then it is a disruptive abuse of semi-protection, and may lead to your being blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that we are from digital agency and Stayfree India given us instruction to create the page for the stayfreewomenforindia and it is not for the promotion of the product but it is for the good cause of the women in India . I really don't know who on the Stayfree page in the wiki , the wiki user is promotion. We can send you the content for the approval . It is genuine and original content for the periods , how to cure on those days . We would like to make awareness to women to use sanitary pads because it is very safe for the health.

Please let us know how we can add the content for women care in wiki . If you need we can use the J&J official id for this page . Hope to get the positive answer from your end — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getdpg (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I normally prefer to answer a message on the page where it was posted, on this occasion I have judged it more helpful to reply on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your detailed reply .I am mostly writing for the social cause and my motive is really very true for women in India . I would like most of the ladies aware the problems sue to the period cycle and how to handle these problems in later age . I am very open and true person and i am working for the noble world women cause . Can i send the content for the approval and review . If you get time please review it and can we add some content in the current stayfree page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getdpg (talk • contribs) 09:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you can send me any draft content, and I will have a look at it. However, you really do need to bear in mind all the issues that I have mentioned on your talk page. You may also like to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. In view of the title of that page, it is especially striking that you actually used both the words "noble" and "cause" in referring to the campaign you are trying to promote. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James i have small query , you have allowed user to create the wiki page for Splenda ,etc brands . When We were publishing the Stayfree wiki page for women cause, you have rejected the content . Please can you tell me the reason behind that . There should be a specific reason to reject the Stayfree brand wiki pages .Please can you help us to live the content for Stayfree page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getdpg (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is natural for anyone with a limited amount of experience of editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable. Unfortunately, however, it is not a reliable guide, for reasons you can see if you read WP:OTHERSTUFF.
2. As has been explained to you, the "specific reason" for deletion of the article StayfreeIndia was that it was promotional, not that it was about a brand.
3. I had never heard of "Splenda" before I saw this message from you, let alone seen the Wikipedia article about it. However, glancing quickly at the article Splenda, I see no immediately obvious problem with it, and it is certainly not blatant advertising, in the way that much of your editing has been. If you sincerely cannot see the difference, then I can only assume that you work in marketing/PR/advertising/etc and are so used to writing and reading marketing speak all the time that you have become desensitised to it and cannot see it when it is right in front of you.
4. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, as has been explained to you repeatedly. That is a matter of Wikipedia policy, and is compliance with the policy is not optional. There is no question of my helping anyone to use Wikipedia for promotion. As has already been explained to you, that applies no matter what is being promoted, and no matter whether it is a worthwhile and deserving cause. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Discussion: User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_53#Image_Question

You may remember back in May that we discussed a matchbook cover for the WKEY page. There wasn't a copyright for the image or the matchbook, so we kinda just winged it. Well, it's up for discussion on the WP:PUF board here. The image was kinda part of what made the article a GA, so I don't want to lose that, but I'm not sure what to do. Any help you can give would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've expressed an opinion in the discussion, and we'll have to see how it goes. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2]: I don't think is is the common norm in Wikipedia. But maybe I just don't know about Wikipedia: is this actually something that's common to say, i.e. you've seen many administrators make worse/similar remarks on people? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind but my mentor User:Nick-D is away and you are familiar with past problems with User:Gaba p. I saw he had opened a thread at WP:ANI regarding a dispute with another editor. WP:ANI#Please comment on vandalism accusation It seems very similar behaviour to what I remember, with him being unable to drop the WP:STICK over what he sees as a slight. Do you think I should comment or stay out of it? Personally keen to stay well away but hate to see the same thing repeated to someone else. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]