User talk:Man-Man122

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Man-Man122! Your additions to Alvin Bragg have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Your edit to Alvin Bragg has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Neveselbert. I noticed that you recently removed content from Circumcision controversies without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested[edit]

There's bountiful evidence of Morris' behaviour meeting the definition of quackery. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I've researched both circumcision and Prof. Morris enough to have formed my opinions on both. In your opinion, you believe he's a "quack". I simply disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions on him. Also, it should be noted that the site of your "bountiful evidence" is an infamous anti-circumcision website. Man-Man122 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just "simply disagree". It's plainly a fact that he's a quack, as the evidence cited in the link demonstrates. Discrediting the website as "infamous" says more about your own bias, frankly. It's a good secondary source which sources most of the claims they make, just like we do here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I'm not discrediting it. You can say it says something about my 'bias' and that is your right. That is your opinion Man-Man122 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are by calling it "infamous". I could return fire by calling circumcision itself "infamous" but I haven't, because it's not helpful. I can't say whether you have a bias or not and I'm not going to per WP:AGF, but I strongly urge you to look at this issue more critically. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I have looked at this issue critically, through many lenses. I came to my conclusion by doing so. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What conclusion was that? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Circumcision is a very personal thing done in many places, for many reasons. Whether or not parents want to have their child circumcised is up to them. Either decision should be respected Man-Man122 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you condemn comments that it be “made compulsory,”[9] according to Morris, and “any parent not wanting their child circumcised really needs a good talking to.”? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert He does tend to flip-flop on that, but generally says it should be up to the parents. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit he's not reliable. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert No, that's not what I said Man-Man122 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do you condemn his earlier comments, yes or no? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Sure, I don't agree with them. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't comprehend how you can view a man who has lied about being "a peer reviewer for the RACP", lied that "The AAP recommends circumcision" as strong as it recommends vaccination, lied that 3.6% of "uncircumcised" boys have had a UTI by the time they are 16, lied that "19% of uncircumcised boys get recurrent UTIs", is somehow not a quack. If he isn't one, then nobody is. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. I can, and will continue, to simply disagree with you. Man-Man122 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you must believe in pseudoscience then, as clearly I can't reason with you despite all the evidence confirming what I've said. Per WP:PSCI, there's no place for that nonsense on Wikipedia. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert They are reasons supporting your opinion and your opinions, whether you like it or not, are not facts. Man-Man122 (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are facts. The fact that this individual has repeatedly lied is sourced. You can't deny the fact that the man is a liar, even if you deny that he's a quack. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Whether he's a quack or not isn't a fact, it's an opinion. You're entitled to it, the same way that I'm entitled to mine Man-Man122 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to your definition, nobody is objectively a quack? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert No. There are objective quacks. Man-Man122 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like the one I've just mentioned. If you refuse to accept that, then clearly you're just demonstrating that you agree with this individual and are therefore yourself compromised. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert That is your opinion. He is not an objective quack. Maybe you just don't like him or the things he says? Man-Man122 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like people who lie, no. And this is someone who lies, repeatedly. So if he's not an objective quack, then who is? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Quackery is the promotion of false or ignorant medical practices. If you believe he has done that, so be it! I don't. I've researched circumcision, anti-circumcision, and Morris himself for several years. Clearly, I've not come to the same conclusion as you. Man-Man122 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition of the term here, a quack is defined as a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". It's undeniable that he meets this definition, as evidenced by the incontrovertible evidence I've cited. Whether he has gone so far as to promote false or ignorant medical practices is not the point I'm making because that would be an opinion on the subject matter. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Undeniable, in your opinion. Don't forget that part. Also, you began this by saying his behavior was Quackery, which is the promotion of false or ignorant medical practices. Now you say that's a matter of opinion. Glad to see you're finally coming around! Man-Man122 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're nitpicking. It may be my opinion that it's a false and ignorant medical practice that he's promoting but that's not the point here. The evidence is undeniable, that's what I'm saying. How exactly can you defend his actions? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert It's not irrelevant. You accused the man of Quackery! That's quite literally how you started this. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition I quoted, yes. Not according to the definition you quoted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert The definition if quackery you quoted is the same as the one that I did Man-Man122 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's another argument, which I would defend if I thought you had an open mind. This article from a reputable magazine does a good of explaining though. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me close minded. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert If anyone here is close minded, I'd argue it's the one who messaged the other out of nowhere and shouted their opinions and proclaimed them as if they were set-in-stone by God himself Man-Man122 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually never condemned circumcision once, I condemned an individual I believe has misused their credentials to promote disinformation on a topic in which they have none. I happen to believe that meets the definition of quackery, though I can see I'm not going to get anywhere in convincing you so I'll leave it at that. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I never said that you did condemn it, so I don't see the relevance of saying that. Either way, I'm glad that you see that these are opinions and both of us are entitled to them Man-Man122 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find time to read the article? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert If you're talking about the one from the anti-circumcision website, yes. I've seen it probably 3 or 4 dozen times over the years. But, why is that relevant? Man-Man122 (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant the one from The Skeptic (British magazine). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert That was an informative read. I believe it's changed many of my opinions /s. In all seriousness, that didn't really change much. I've read works from both authors, and I disagree with them. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you disagree with them but not someone who has provably and repeatedly lied? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I disagree with Mr. Earp's view on the ethics of circumcision Man-Man122 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Anyways, how much longer do you plan to do this? You seem to be so adamant and eager to debate on this topic that you went out of your way to message me. Why is this and why did you feel the need to seek a stranger out and argue with them on this subject? Man-Man122 (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can take this off-wiki if you like, but sure, I guess we've reached an impasse and it's best to leave it at that. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert How would you go about taking this off-wiki? Not that I want to, just curious. Man-Man122 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd actually debate my views on the ethics of circumcision, which I'm very reluctant to do here because that wouldn't be appropriate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I meant where, if off-wiki Man-Man122 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit or Telegram, probably. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Ah, I appreciate the offer, but, as I said before, I decline. I'm a fan of debates, but clearly this one wouldn't be productive, and I'm certain both of us would come out with headaches. Man-Man122 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could help us understand each other's positions a bit better than here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Sure, it wouldn't hurt, I presume. Tough-Big-8758 on Reddit. How does an hour from now sound? Man-Man122 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll send a chat request. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you agree with Morris' view on ethics? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Wait, nevermind I read your message over. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Also, the fact that you had the audacity to message someone for the sheer purpose of yelling out your opinions as facts is ridiculous. Where do you get off on this Man-Man122 (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you? Why are you giving an individual who has repeatedly lied the benefit of the doubt? I'm not even insulting him, I'm just calling a spade a spade. The fact that you refuse to see that is absolutely insane, frankly. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I never said you were insulting. I said that you were calling him a quack, which is your OPINION. Also, calling someone's thoughts insane, simply because you disagree with them. You have to accept that your opinions are not facts Man-Man122 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So who is an objective quack if not him? And let's compare them, to see how exactly they're different. Because the very idea that this man is not a quack is absolutely insane and I completely stand by that. If he's not an objective quack, then nobody is. At this point, it's your opinion that he isn't one, and I can't speak to your motivations there. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert His actions and opinions, however unsavory to you, do not chalk up to Quackery, in my view at the very least. You are entitled to your opinion that he is a quack, and I'm entitled to my opinion that he is not. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained why that's your opinion. The actions of someone who repeatedly lies should be unsavoury to anyone, even you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I don't believe he promotes false or ignorant medical practices, nor do I believe he is an ignorant pretender of medical skill. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you believe that? Explain yourself. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert He is an accomplished and distinguished individual. The view he primarily promotes is that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. That's not an ignorant or false medical view. Many health academies and organizations agree with that, but it is not objective. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His view isn't just one of "benefits" outweighing risks, it's one that disproportionately downplays the risks, if not saying that they don't actually exist at all. That's an incredulously fringe view and I think even you can see that. Many more health academies and organisations disagree and disassociate themselves from his remarks on a topic he has zero credentials or authority to speak on, which is a fact worth emphasising. He derives all of his "accomplished and distinguished" status from his field of expertise, which has nothing to do with circumcision. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert You see a 6 and I see a 9. It's all about perspective. Anyway, it is not an incredulously fringe view. That said, that's why I said 'it's not objective '. It's not agreed upon in the slightest. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said the view that the risks didn't exist was incredulously fringe. They objectively exist. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I misread, my bad. The risks are considered to be minimal by most, though depending on who you ask, so are the benefits. I was saying that the 'benefits outweigh the risks ' thing wasn't fringe. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Anyways, do you have any plans wrapping this up soon? This has and will accomplish/change anything. All you've done was shout your opinions as loud as possible and call them facts. Neither of us are changing our opinions. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who started this. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. I'm blind Man-Man122 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are none so blind as those who will not see. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert Corny, but no, it was just my eye muscles failing me momentarily. In the end, we'll have our different opinions. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert In the sense that it is ethically permissible, yes. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's another of way saying you'd like to but can't because clearly those views are ethically impermissible. There is nothing ethical about performing surgery that isn't medically indicated. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I don't have to agree with him word for word. Again, this will be another impasse of opinions. I believe it morally and ethically permissible for parents to make such a decision. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message you[edit]

Hey, can I privately message you? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What did you say your Reddit was? I've never made an account. But I could. KlayCax (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

u/Tough-Big-8758

Sorry for the late response. I recently caught covid. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, Man. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to talk about? Man-Man122 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was meant for KlayCax, my bad. But, thank you Man-Man122 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Man-Man122 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, sorry. I was busy and forgot all about this.

It's ~9:15 PM rn so I'm going to have to go to bed. Are you open on Thursday? I'll message you then. KlayCax (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCax I completely understand. I am open on Thursday Man-Man122 (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foreskin RfC[edit]

Hello. There is an RfC about the Function section of the Foreskin article. You can participate in the RfC here. Prcc27 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. THREE editors already disagree with you. You do not own this article. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Rude way to come out swinging Man-Man122 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]