User talk:JohnPRsrcher

This user may have left Wikipedia. JohnPRsrcher has not edited Wikipedia since 12 June 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome

Hello, JohnPRsrcher, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 18:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Circumcision. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Zad68 02:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that you are most unlikely to be permitted to make any change, however well referenced, to the Circumcision article whether it is better structure, wording, references or content, unless it augments positive views on Circumcision. I hope that at some stage in the near future an editor with greater ability, access and time than I have will be able to overcome the current most unbalanced and selective article, but I am not holding my breath .......... --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your edits

Please remember to sign your edits on Talk pages with your signature. You do this by ending your comment with for tildes, like this: ~~~~. I see both BeIsKr and Yobol have reminded you to do this, please do it, it is important to be able to tell who said what on a Talk page. Thanks... Zad68 02:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate section removed

Hey John, just wanted to let you know I removed this section as a duplicate. Per WP:TPG you should only open one Talk page section per topic. As the same points were being made in the duplicate section as the section we're having the threaded conversation in, I removed it as a dup. Let me know if that's an issue. Thanks... Zad68 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop introducing duplicate refs

Hi John, please stop introducing duplicate refs. In your last series of edits you added duplicates of refs that were already defined and in use in the article. Before you add a new ref would you please check the ref list at the end of the article to see if it isn't already there. Thanks. Zad68 04:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

We do not add refs at the ends of article just for adding refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is well referenced. Stop removing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No its not I do not see consensus on talk page. Must come to agreement.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of articles

You have summarized

"Pooled analyses of available observational studies of MSM revealed insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STIs. However, the comparable protective effect of male circumcision in MSM studies conducted before the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy, as in the recent male circumcision trials of heterosexual African men, supports further investigation of male circumcision for HIV prevention among MSM."

as

"For homosexual men, circumcision does not seem to have an effect on the risk of HIV infection or the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases" [1]

This is not correct. It was corrected to "For men who have sex with men the evidence is less clear"

You have now removed it [2], [3], [4]

This is supported by a second ref: "Current evidence suggests that male circumcision may be protective among MSM who practice primarily insertive anal sex, but the role of male circumcision overall in the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among MSM remains to be determined." [5]

What is your argument? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best literature review on this topic that I have seen on the page comes from the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on circumcision. If you check, they do not use info from the Cochraine study and only use info from the JAMA study. Their statement is: Circumcision seems to be less likely to protect MSM, however, and has not been associated with decreased acquisition of HIV among MSM. To me, it sounds like they are saying that male circumcision has not been associated with a decrease in HIV among MSM. This would be our most credible source on the topic as this has been done by Pediatricians, who understand how to analyze this type of medical research. These two studies on the page right now are good, but we also have this literature review which has analyzed one of these studies and others. In response to your statement on insertive anal sex: This would be good to put in the summary as it reflects a possible trend in the outcome of the trials. I think that our best option is to go with the AAP since our abilities in performing a literature review of these studies is questionable. JohnPRsrcher (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the url and the quoted text

AAP is likely not the best source for men who have sex with men as it is not really much of a peads issue.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the url: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full AAP is probably not the best source but this is the only literature review that we have as of now.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted Text is: "Circumcision seems to be less likely to protect MSM, however, and has not been associated with decreased acquisition of HIV among MSM."

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go back to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 22:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

You added [6]

"A 2014 literature review highlighted significant gaps within the circumcision literature that include the need for rigorous, empirically based methodologies to address questions about circumcision and sexual functioning, penile sensitivity, the effect of circumcision on men’s sexual partners, and reasons for circumcision"

Ref says

"This review highlights considerable gaps within the current literature on circumcision. The emphasis is on factors that should be addressed in order to influence research in becoming more applicable to North American populations. Such gaps include a need for rigorous, empirically based methodologies to address questions about circumcision and sexual functioning, penile sensitivity, the effect of circumcision on men's sexual partners, and reasons for circumcision."

You must always paraphrase. This is a copyright infringement issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Circumcision— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since adequate explanation has been given for deletion of above message, I have done so in the manner prescribed by the guidelines (strike through). I see you have already restored the edit so nothing remains to be done. I am sorry I misunderstood this. Donner60 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly linking already linked terms and other issues

You edits repeatedly link already linked terms. We do not do this.

Yes HPV is clear from the body 90% of the time per the CDC.[7] The previous text was correct.

Balanitis does not need capitalization in the middle of the sentence.

You add "new treatments, such as the application of topical ointments to the foreskin, may lower the need for circumcision" when the very next sentence says "Steroid creams are also a reasonable option and may prevent the need for surgery including in those with mild BXO." Why repeat the same thing twice?

Your edits keep introducing wrong stuff / duplicate content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

Hi John, I need to inform you that Wikipedia has policies disallowing disruptive editing, and tendentious editing is a form of disruptive editing. One hallmark of tendentious editing is repeatedly bringing up the same edits over and over again without good supporting reasons for your contentious edits and without developing consensus for them (remember that consensus must be based on edits that comply with Wikipedia editing and content rules).

I have noticed that you have been repeatedly bringing up the same subjects on the article Talk page after it was pointed out that your edits are not well supported. Worse you have repeatedly re-introduced the same edits into the article, ignoring well-formed arguments against them. This appears to be tendentious editing. Please stop, it's wasteful of the time and energy of other editors, as well as not contributing to article improvement. Zad68 03:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

purpose of circumcision

Doc Jams asserts in response to your proposal to have a sexual effects section, that " Sexually (sic) effects are not the reason for the procedure." But there are many clearly recorded indications in Judaic tradition at least, for thousands of years. that that is exactly one main purpose- to reduce sexual pleasure.

Also check out the encyclopedia brittanica article for an example of what a balanced circumcision article looks like

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/118439/circumcision

The other many online encyclopedias may provide useful decent reference sources

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Internet_encyclopedias even if not referable themselves.

This weird right wing one Meta pedia is pretty anti-semitic but still contains some useful circumcision references in between the bile piles. It is so objectionable apparently that it cannot even be reference linked here.

--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn and Zad are unhappy that `i might talk to you here. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Requesting_adjustment_to_an_ANI_discussion_closure They are trying to turn my Circumcision pages ban into a total site ban. Is it a problem for you ? If so I will not trouble you further.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't care. Its ok if you talk to me.

JohnP (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Haven in a storm. Apparently it drives Zad and company berserk to have the whiff of open discussion of circumcision anywhere on WP -not just on the Genital Cutting related pages that are off limits to me at present. It does make you wonder what they are afraid of, and what WP is becoming if such a level of particular censorship is facilitated. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions at Circumcision seem to be pointedly ignored at present . I hope your talking to me has not had the effect of you being sent to Coventry by the dominant article patrol group.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC

 JohnP, I've read the talk pages of the Circumcision article, and still don't understand what the source of the currently displayed map is. Do you? The wikicommons image links to a data table at http://beyondcircumcision.blogspot.com/p/worldwide-circumcision-statistics-and.html. That site's data table is labeled "Source: Circumcision Reference and Commentary Service" with no links. That source doesn't seem to exist, at least according to my web searches. In short, that data doesn't have a reliable source. Given these points, do you know a reliable source for the 79% circumcision prevalence for the USA?

Surfscoter (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make this map; this was made by another one of our users. I have been complaining about this map for a while, as it is not sourced by any valid source that we have on Wikipedia. The previous map that I had made for this purpose was properly sourced; as I used the UN document and many sources found on the page to populate all of the countries on the map. If you could help me find a way to get the previous map onto the page that is properly sourced this would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

JohnP (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello! I've noticed that you've not been indenting your comments on talk pages. Please see this essay about indenting comments to help keep talk pages organized and easy to read. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Energy - wikitable - Annual Solar Energy Potential

Hi John, thx for your numerous edits in Solar energy#Energy from the Sun. Could you please tell me from which pages of this source you collected the data to produce the table "Annual Solar Energy Potential"? (The document has more than 500 pages). Moreover, I redesigned your table using a horizontal rather than a vertical layout (see tentative version in my sandbox). I think this horizontal format fits the layout of the section much better. What you think? -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 14:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking at it as a pdf file it corresponds to page 174 of the pdf. But this is actually page 163 of the book.

The edit to the chart looks fine.

JohnP (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World energy consumption - changed figures

Hi there, could you please explain yourself as to why and on what basis on you changed the key figures in article World energy consumption? The 2012-figures you removed are cited in IEA's Key World Energy Statistics 2014 report, and I can't find the one's you inserted nowhere in the report. So whats the source of these new figures? Please respond as soon as you can, because as of now this looks like WP:OR and that's serious violation and completely unacceptable. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 08:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is all from the IEA World Energy Statistics. I used the charts in that source to get all of that data, so it is all valid. I even used a ruler to make sure that my readings of the chart were accurate.

I tried to summarize it so it was as recent as possible. I also tried to make it more readable. To do this, I started out by listing the 2012 data and then listing the data from the past years.

All of the definitions are correct (for example world energy consumption, world final energy consumption, world electricity generation) as I just edited the terms that were world energy supply and etc so that they were more understandable to the casual reader who will be reading on Wikipedia.

Also, some of the interpretation of this data was really bad on the page. Whoever wrote the summary last time was talking all about nuclear energy and emphasizing it over other things. Nuclear energy isn't very hot or invested in right now so there is really no reason to be emphasizing it in that way. JohnP (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only referring to the changes made in the wikitable (electricity generation figures). Let's discuss that here. I know of the 18,000 TWh figure, but one cannot change sourced figures without changing the cited source itself. I suggest you post the source(s) with page numbers for the changed electricity figures, and then we will have to figure out what refers to gross generation, net generation, or to any other possibly used metric. For now, I reinstalled the wikitable as it was with the original figures. Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 23:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but it won't be consistent with the text. All of the numbers are correct, I found them all using a ruler and the data from that report. I only changed the names of the things (world energy supply, energy consumption, etc) because I wanted to make the terminology more consistent with the article. In this way it is more understandeable for the general reader. JohnP (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please post the URL of the source incl. page numbers on this section of the talk page as mentioned above, so others can see it too, take a look at it and find figures that are not based on measured diagrams. The figures in the text need to be cited as well. Also, if you have suggestions/ found discrepancies concerning the used terminology please post them, that would be helpful. Rfassbind -talk 14:57, 1 July 2015 (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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JohnPRsrcher. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]