User talk:Kendall Hallett

July 2018

Hello, I'm MutchyMan112. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Foreskin restoration, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MutchyMan112 (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I replaced the sentence, "Complete restoration to a pre-circumcised state is not possible." As discussed with Pugchump about 29 April, this factual statement is well supported by later sections on the issue that do contain clear citations. An IP user recently added the word 'yet', to make it read "Complete restoration to a pre-circumcised state is not yet possible." I was trying to communicate with the person who made that edit, but wasn't having much luck. I was about to ask for help with it. Kendall Hallett (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreskin restoration

Thank you for the thank you.. Your edit (and the revert) was what drew my attention. I think the article is the better for it. Work permit (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I was about to publish this on your talk page: You did some good work restoring the 'lede' for the article to a concise, accurate, and well stated summation... better than I could have done! (I learned a bit of new terminology: 'lede'! Thank you!) It had gotten pretty messed up. I do have one minor question/suggestion. In your edit, could ..."reconstruct an organ visually similar to the foreskin"... be more accurately stated leaving the word 'visually' out? That minor change seems like it would be well supported within the article. Respectfully Kendall Hallett (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to edit it, since the later part of the paragraph makes clear that the similarity is only cosmetic. Work permit (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]