76.102.233.65

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (76.102.233.65) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Diego (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Balanced Ternary

Ah! Thank you for the clarification. TristanLuigi (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to It's All About the Pentiums has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The stupid mouthbreathers, along with the stammers, ruined UseNet! ¡ I would very much like to cap all of the morons meting and the spammers too!

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 0 (year). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

I observe that this is clearly the same editor who was editing when the warning in the #December 2015 section was issued. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello. Please do not add original research to articles as you apparently did to David Reimer here and here. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.

In addition, detailed technical information about a medical procedure is more appropriate to the article page about the procedure than on a biography article of someone who has undergone the procedure. Please consider adding your modifications there instead.

Finally, your attempts to add this material to the biography of David Reimer have been undone twice for cause. Please familiarize yourself with the three revert rule going forward. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that phimosis is not a valid diagnosis before puberty, not mentioning it in the article is censorship:

The impression of the article gives is that e necessary procedure went wrong, when the reality is that the procedure was unnecessary. I even know why doctors do that:

"I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time."
——
Dr.Thomas Wiswell
quoted in "The Age-Old Question of Circumcision"
by Betsy A. Lehman, Boston Globe, June 22, 1987, p. 43

Even though the reason the doctor misdiagnosed phimosis is clearly monetary, given that I cannot get into the head of the avarice quack, I shall drop the sentence about cash-grab, even though that is what it is, but I shall not let censorship stand. If I revert it daily, I shall not be in violation of #R and after a while, the censorers will get tired of censoring. I have the truth on my side that phimosis is not a valid diagnosis before puberty, so have no intention of letting this whitewash stand.

You accuse me of original research, but we have known for decades that most præpucii are incapable of retraction at birth, but capable of retraction by puberty. This is far from original research.
Above unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (contribs) at 17:42, 18 June 2016‎ - sig added by Mathglot (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There are (at least) two different things going on here, and I'm going to try and separate them.

1. There may be a legitimate content dispute concerning the content of the David Reimer#History section and whether it should mention anything about phimosis being unnecessary or not. Discussion about content should properly be taken up on the article Talk page so I'll address that issue there and say nothing further about here (except possibly to leave breadcrumbs from here to there).
2. Issues about user behavior are most properly taken up here on the User talk page, and there is at least one, and probably several, I wish to raise. I'll do that below. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative platform

This section attempt to address point #2 above.

Wikipedia is a collaborative platform which means other editors may come in before or after you and change what you have written. Content disputes sometimes arise, and there are procedures for this. Articles are improved by seeking consensus. One of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that editors should treat each other with respect and civility and should assume good faith on the part of other editors.

When you say things like, "I shall not let censorship stand" in reference to the actions of other editors, this goes against several of these policies, not least those of WP:CONS and WP:AGF. Idem when you address an editor on their talk page by claiming their actions are "Censorship", as you did here.

When you say things like, "If I revert it daily, I shall not be in violation of #R...", you may be technically right that that does not violate WP:3RR, but behavior of that sort would inevitably attract the eyes of other editors and admins and be seen as edit warring. Please don't do that; talk things out on the Talk page instead.

When you say things like, "and after a while, the censorers will get tired of censoring," meaning that you'll get your way in the end because you'll keep reverting till everyone else gives up, besides failing to show good faith it seems uncompromising and an attempt to push your own viewpoint through against the views of other editors attempting to seek consensus. That's simply not how WP works, and if you do choose that approach, you will probably end up being blocked.

If you wish to discuss content on the David Reimer article, let's take it up on the talk page there. In the meantime, please read up on basic Wikipedia guidelines starting with the Five Pillars, as well as the policies for dealing with other editors, including behavioral policies and dispute resolution policies.

Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)     edited by Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk page usage

You recently responded to a section on your Talk page in duplicate, by responding on your Talk page as well as on my talk page. This is not necessary.

Please familiarize yourself with Talk page guidelines. They apply to Talk pages in the User namespace (like this page) or in the Article namespace (like Talk:David Reimer).

In particular, please sign all your comments on article Talk pages by typing four tildes at the end of your comment, like this: ~~~~. Wikipedia will transform that into your user name and the timestamp of your post, like the one below at the end of this edit. I'll add one for you, to your last unsigned comment above. (And here is where I typed the four tildes, but it got turned into this ==> ) Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Another IP user

There's a recent Talk page comment at Talk:David Reimer in the discussion thread about phimosis which sounds very much like your voice. I assume that User talk:2601:643:C000:5C2A:B8A0:DB9B:B41:5E79 is you?

Although you don't have to register a Username if you don't wish to, it would avoid the problem of different IP addresses poppping up each time you edit. You can find how to do this here: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration. IP editing is less anonymous than you think so this is well worth considering. Regards, Mathglot (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And is User talk:2601:643:C000:5C2A:BC95:AED3:7437:E678 also you? Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Phimosis at David Reimer again

In reference to the David Reimer article, you seem to be carrying out your stated plan (threat?) to "revert it daily" until the "censors get tired of censoring" with this edit which was reverted by another editor. Your edit summary mentioned "censorship" which fails to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors.

I urge you again to seek consensus on the Talk page about this topic and to cease your tendentious editing. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

And this one. Though it be only a 3-letter prefix, the issue is still the same. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Please stop and read WP:SYNTHESIS. You could be right that David Reimer was misdiagnosed, but that is completely irrelevant. An encyclopedia is solely based on reliable sources. There are no sources that I am aware of that state explicitly that the Reimer brothers were misdiagnosed. Moreover, whether or not there was a misdiagnosis is not relevant to notability. David Reimer is notable for the attempted gender change that went bad. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Reimer.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I am One of Many (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Consensus by diktat

You cannot create consensus by diktat. By definition, a consensus is reached when others agree with you. You can't just say, "we agree on X, Y, and Z" and expect that to be considered consensus.

At Talk:David Reimer#Work with me or I work alone., you said,

We can agree on 2 facts:

• The Brothers Reimer did not meet the diagnostic criteria for phimosis.
• I shall not let you censor this article.

But I don't agree with either of those "facts". Let's take them individually:

1. Even if you are a pediatric surgeon and wrote the definitive text on phimosis, I still don't agree with your first point. Doctors don't diagnose remotely. Were you present at this procedure? Even if you were the attending physician at the Reimer circumcision, I even still don't support your first point. If you were there, and you wrote an article about that patient which was published in some reliable journal and you wish to quote yourself from that article, then I have no problem changing my mind, and supporting your point number one. Failing that, however, I can't agree with your first "fact".
2. Nobody is censoring your contributions, they are being reverted for cause. I certainly think you could add a statement to the phimosis article based on sources you've included at the Talk:David Reimer page previously something like this: "In the overwhelming majority of cases, phimosis is not diagnosable before puberty" (assuming that statement is backed up by your sources). But the David Reimer article is a biography, not an article about a medical procedure. Reliable sources say he was diagnosed with phimosis. Maybe it was a misdiagnosis. If you find a source that says that Reimer was misdiagnosed, you are certainly welcome to include it. Secondly, the "I shall not let you" makes it sound like you own the article and can "protect" it unilaterally by waving off opposition, but that's not how things work at Wikipedia. See #Wikipedia is a collaborative platform above.

I urge you once again to look up the Wikipedia guideline on WP:SYNTH which is a subset of original research. I really think this is the crux of the disagreement. The fact that you found sources that say that phimosis before puberty is a misdiagnosis IS sufficient for a comment about that at the Phimosis article but it is NOT sufficient to add a comment about Reimer's diagnosis to the David Reimer article. For the latter, you need to find a source that says that David Reimer was misdiagnosed. Do you see the difference? Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 76.102.233.65. You have new messages at Talk:David_Reimer.
Message added 11:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Diego (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 76.102.233.65. You have new messages at Talk:Pimple.
Message added 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tornado chaser (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

---