User talk:Robert Blair

Welcome!

Hello, Robert Blair, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 05:49, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Medical analysis of circumcision

If you choose to revert changes on Medical analysis of circumcision, please do not revert changes to fix syntaxes, for example my change of "Long NPOV}}" to "{{Long NPOV}}". If you would refrain from using words such as "Vandal" when referring to another user's edit, it will go a long way towards creating NPOV pages.

Last, but not least, Welcome to Wikipedia!--Josiah 22:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

FYI, there is a ban against reverting a page more than 3 times a day. Effective today, violation of that policy will be enforced with 24-hour period bans. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement--Josiah 04:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disguised reverts

Please will you acknowledge a revert as such in your edit summary. Failing to do so is dishonest and deceptive. An example is your change to Medical analysis of circumcision. Your edit summary said "add info on UNAIDS and Centers for Disease Control", but in fact it was a revert to your edit of 16:04, with the typo that I'd previously complained about corrected (as my link shows). - Jakew 19:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I seldom use reverts. I usually improve the text or paste from a file on my computer.Robert Blair 14:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's really a technicality. It doesn't matter if you retype an old version of the article from memory: the net effect is identical to a revert. - Jakew 16:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

= Complaints

Robert Blair, there are a few items I wish to take up with you:

Your repeated reverts (I think you've broken the 3RR on medical analysis of circumcision again). Why can't you use the discussion page?
Logging out regularly (207.69.138.205 seems to be you), so as to disguise 3RR breaches. Do you think you'll fool anyone?
Misleading edit summaries (reverting while claiming to be adding information, etc) - please see above section. You continue to do this.
Refusal to use discussion feature: [1]. This feature is there for a reason - to allow conflicts to be resolved. Your "lone warrior" stance is not compatible with the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

Please respond! - Jakew 23:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I almost never revert as I said above. I don't intentionally log out but sometimes Wiki drops my login.

What would you like to discuss?

Robert Blair 14:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What would like to discuss is the complaints mentioned above. I'm sorry to hear about your technical problems with Wiki - perhaps someone on WikiEN-L might be able to help. The most difficult problem when trying to work with you is that you do not answer questions put to you on article discussion pages (eg Talk:Male circumcision. A second problem is your inclusion of clearly POV material (eg [2]). Had you written "Smith argues that...", it would have been a lot closer to NPOV. I have tried to work with you in some cases to reach a compromise (eg breastfeeding in Medical analysis of circumcision), but it is impossible when you do not discuss your edits, repeatedly revert/repaste the same text and ignore others' edits, etc. - Jakew 16:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, just because Robert the Bruce's hit-and-run tactics work, doesn't mean we should use them except to reverse his nonsense. His weasel graffiti and wild repetition are no model for success. I do not always follow the "golden rule", but I believe we need some balance between 1) fighting all the pro-mutilation POV , and 2) keeping the articles organized well with one another, not just in their own content. Some of your edits (in my opinion) have broad inaccuracies (maybe mine do too, but I welcome criticism), so please be much more careful -- we are on the same side here. DanP 21:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of TotallyDisputed tag

Robert, it is very bad form to remove a message warning of a dispute over an article unless that dispute has been cleared up. Please do not do that again. Please also give your reasons for reverting. - Jakew 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When and where do you think I did that?

Robert Blair 23:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here [3] - Jakew 23:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. I have fixed it. Sorry.

Robert Blair 01:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You've now gone and undone DanP's and my hard work (which has taken the last hour) in coming to a compromise version on the article's talk page. Can't you work with Wiki's version? - Jakew 01:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I complied with your request. Why are you complaining now?

Robert Blair 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, sometimes I get the impression you're editing a totally different version of articles than the rest of us.

Here is the edit history for gliding action. It shows all of the changes made to the article. Here is your last edit, compared with the version that DanP and I had been working on. It shows that instead of restoring the disputed notice, it reverts all of our changes. You should have got an "edit conflict" message - did you? Now, here, DanP has reverted your reversion (at my request), so you don't need to do anything else.

What's going on here? You don't seem to realise that more recent edits are occurring or something. If you can explain how you're editing an article, I might be able to help. - Jakew 01:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I edit off line and then go to the article and install the revision.

Robert Blair 01:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, at least I understand what's causing all these problems now. I've asked someone with more experience with Wikipedia than I to come and try to resolve this. - Jakew 01:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from this page, using an off line text editor is recommended by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_editor_support

Robert Blair 04:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Robert, using a text editor is not the problem. You can edit it in Braille for all I care. What is important here is that you're overwriting contributions. Could you try this:

Click on the "edit this page" link
Copy the text into your editor of choice, but don't close the browser window containing the original text (this is very important)
Edit
Paste the text back into the browser window.
Click 'Save page'
If other users performed edits, you will now be given an "edit conflict" page. This shows you the differences between the last edited version and your edit, and you can take steps to merge the two (unfortunately, it doesn't give any way of seeing the edit summaries - I usually open the history in a new window or tab).
If no other users edited, it will go through normally.

How does that sound? - Jakew 04:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jakew:

I responded to your complaint by restoring the "totally disputed" tag. I had no idea that anyone else was editing the same article.

I am surprised that you again find this objectionable, since it was done at your request.

Nevertheless, I'll keep your suggestions in mind, when I next edit an article.

Robert Blair 10:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I believe Jake was referring to this one [4], which pretty much trashed the recent changes. Please be more careful. DanP 16:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dan:

As I told Jake, I was responding to his request to put back the "totally disputed" tag, which was inadvertently omitted. When I put the tag back (at his request), he went ballistic. I had no idea that anyone was editing the article.

Robert

Sure, I can see your point of view here and understand the confusion. I do not know of any Wikipedia rules on this particular issue. One suggestion: immediately after you make any change, run a comparison between your new version and the one immediately before it. It's an easy way to make sure only the changes you intended are actually made. If there are more changes, it's a good idea to patch the two versions together right away (preferrable) or at least post a quick discussion point stating that a conflict exists and that the other editor should hash it out, if they so desire. That gives the other user notice that it was not merely a broad revert on some objection basis that might be inferred. By the way, in the anti-circumcision article, please see the discussion point on the notes on fetishism. It seems to be the view of myself and Jakew that the article and circumcision advocacy should not be so inclusive of fetishism in the article text. I have listed a short list of reasons. Comments on your part would be appreciated. DanP 10:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom temporary injunction

Ban on editing sex-related articles

1) For the duration of this arbitration proceeding, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any account or IP) is prohibited from editing any articles which relate to sex (in particular those relating to foreskin and circumcision). Admins can treat any edit to these articles as a violation of 3RR and act accordingly.

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_the_Bruce#Temporary_injunction. --mav 00:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not the same person as Robert the Bruce.

Robert Blair 01:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bioethics of neonatal circumcision

You have been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on Bioethics of neonatal circumcision, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for details. Please note that the block was for the 3RR, regardless if you are identical with Robert the Bruce or not. -- Chris 73 Talk 17:05, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cervical cancer

Do not disturb the formatting of cervical cancer. In particular, do not link to Pubmed in inline external links, but use references or footnotes. If you and User:Jakew want to edit war on that page, you should propose changes on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 07:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you can cite a publication that addresses supposed "flaws" in Castellague's study, then go ahead. Do not criticise academic work here - this is an encyclopedia.

I never suggested that circumcision is prophylactic for cervical cancer, nor does the article reflect this.

I don't care about the Vancouver format. I know what that is, and Wikipedia (at the moment) uses a different formatting style, as this is not a medical journal. With referencing support in MediaWiki in the pipeline, this may not the moment to change the style (also please review m:Instruction creep. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The arbcom case against Robert the Bruce has closed. As a result, you are advised to re-read Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, with particular attention to the idea that NPOV includes all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. You are expected to improve their editing habits and reminded that any future cases will consider seriously any failure to heed this warning. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 23:48, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Image:Gliding action1.png

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Gliding action1.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 00:01, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am notifying you that I have requested an injunction against you

See WP:RFAr. You describe your edits dishonestly, you refuse to discuss, you remove valid information, and you basically do not share the purpose of this project. You appear to be uneducable from the long list of complaints from other people here. alteripse 13:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case

The case against you has been accepted. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Blair/Evidence - David Gerard 18:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A temporary injunction has been decided in the above arbitration case. For the duration of this case, you are banned from editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia or any edits (addition, deletion or reversion) dealing with such matters in other articles. You may continue to comment on talk pages in an appropriate manner. -- sannse (talk) 19:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The case against you has closed. For a period of one year, you are banned from editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia. You also may not make any other edits (addition, deletion or reversion) related to such matters in any article. You may, however, continue to comment on talk pages in an appropriate manner. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 19:28, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

George Bush

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 2005-11-22 17:04:49 (UTC)

Preputioplasty

I have significantly expanded your initial draft. Perhaps you might like to consider further thoughts on the basis of what I have added. It might be useful. Masalai 05:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Preputioplasty regarding whethe ror not the article should link to Foreskin restoration and your opinion woudl be welcome. Fiddle Faddle 14:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

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 02:27, 9 April 2006 (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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Intactivist" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Intactivist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28#Intactivist until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]