Gsonnenf

Some notes for me on templates:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Category

whenever a template is edited, all the pages that transclude it are put into the job queue to be recached during periods of low server load (but see The Mediawiki Manual, which appears to contradict this, emptying the queue only at periods of high server load). This means that, in busy periods, it may take hours or even days before individual pages are recached and they start to appear in the category list. Performing a null edit to a page will allow it to 'jump the queue' and be immediately recached.

If it is necessary to add the template itself to the category page as well, the 'includeonly' tags can be omitted, but this is generally not desired.

File:Int_bal_graph.png

That's based on some internal ballistics simulation software I wrote back in college. It is pretty basic stuff, using some basic physics and chemistry to figure out how much gas should be generated, then creating fudge factors for burn rate and friction so that the peak pressure and muzzle velocities matched those for various loads in reloading manuals. I still remember the "Duh!" moment when I finally realized why the velocity results were consistently off by a factor of 11.5--the chamber volume, pressure, and barrel length were in inches, and I was expecting velocity in feet per second... The original code was in QBASIC (which may run in SmallBASIC), and I think I have a C version lying around somewhere, if you want a copy. Standard disclaimers apply--this stuff WILL get you blown up if you try to use if for reloading. scot (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Is aggregation of primary sources synthesis?- your discusison

you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_importance_of_wikipolitics Dynsys (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi Gsonnenf, I admire your thoughtful work on the articles. 189.115.193.157 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

Alert User:Jayjg to this thread, as someone else posted. Sometimes one misses things when they aren't under one's thread name. CarolMooreDC 18:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia on the wrong side of history

I am the former editor known as "Joe Circus." When I attempted to learn the point of view of my colleagues on the circumcision page, jayjg personally went on my talk page and threatened to block me if I didn't shut up. None of you would accept that kind of bully boy behavior from a colleague, and naturally I fought back, resulting in the current situation. I'm not eating any of jayjg's [removed] just to post on circumcision. Any objective person who reads the lead will see that he & his cohorts are actively promoting circumcision as a GLOBAL strategy for HIV/AIDS. When an editor, Chevara, posted some research showing the truth of the matter, jayjg promptly called him a "Joe Circus" puppet. The fellow sees "Joe Circus" everywhere in his paranoia that his beliefs are under attack. He & his cohorts are on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, at this time, so is Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&action=edit&section=11 91.187.121.116 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of the history regarding the past disputes with Jayjg on the circumcision article. This brings more information to light about this situation. I am unclear about the puppet situation with regards to you or Chevara, and can't comment on that without checking the logs myself, which I can not do. We are actively trying to bring more non-partisan editors into the article via neutrality tag so we can reach a conclusion on whether there is a pro-circ bias to the article. Though this tag keeps getting erased by JakeW or Jayjg. I would encourage you to lobby for reinstatement and to stop any behavior prohibited by Wikipedia.Gsonnenf (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[comment from jayjg removed]] Jayjg ^(talk) 12:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, please do not delete comments from my talk page ever again. You have an obvious conflict of interest as we are currently involved in several heated disputes and these comments involve your past beahvior. You deleted these comments without informing me or leaving a place holder. Your deletion violates wiki policy. If you disagree, do not respond on my talk page. Your comments will be removed as they were above. If you wish to continue this, we can do so in a moderated forum. Thank you for your compliance.Gsonnenf (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a gross conflict of interest for an editor to stalk other's talk pages and remove comments. [removed for content]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.177.170.151 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A MESSAGE TO IP USERS. Though I value contributions from anonymous users, please try to keep your comments constructive and informative instead of insulting. I have a received a message from an IP users that some of the negative comments are not coming from him. I feel there maybe agent provocateurs involved in this IP editing.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I value all thoughtful comments myself. I've followed this article for over five years. Not once has an editor from the pro-gang been blocked or banned. In that time, about 30 different users (not socks, mind you) who were trying to edit the article in accordance with modern medical findings have all been hounded and bullied off the article. Blackworm, for example, a great editor for many years, finally threw in the towel when he realized that the other side was just playing for time. It's still that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.35.45.103 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I also suspect this may be a result of agent provocateurs Gsonnenf; these users never surfaced until just a few days ago (let's see if it continues now that we drew attention to it)... Therewillbefact (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

sources

Hi Gsonnenf, I'm confused. Every time I make an edit in circumcision, I get told that it has to meet a higher standard. The last one I used had been published in www.aidsmap.com. They told me it was a primary source. I found the same article, Sex With Stitches, in PubMed. The PubMed one referenced the one in www.aidsmap.com. That one got yanked, telling me it was still primary research. It needs to be systematically reviewed. All of the locations listed in the Wikipedia entry on Systematic Review are pay sites. Is this something which can't be worked, without a subscription? Thanks, 96.252.103.226.

Anonymous

Hi Gsonnenf, You've been requested to let your talk page receive posts from Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.75.22.112 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with receiving messages from IP users as long as they follow wiki rules. Its apparent that many people feel intimidated and may not want to post for fear of retaliation from special interest groups. Thanks. Gsonnenf (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you, Gsonnenf -- Since you edit a wide number of articles, I'd like to emphasize our common interest in promoting human freedom and progress. I don't think anyone but a Tyrant would oppose such a conversation. Anonymous 41.35.46.131 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually painful to read all their evasions and equivocations. Rush Limbaugh would be proud of them. Anonymous 190.90.162.67 (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have any useful sources and analysis I would be happy to look at them. Gsonnenf (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WQA

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Calling "Jewish" a source or an article improperly and without any valid reason. Ordinarily, I would suggest at this point that the discussion simply be closed. However, the user has been directed separately to withdraw his accusation of libel,[1] for which he should probably be given the opportunity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I added the administrators instructions to the WQA. That should hopefully take care of everything that needs taking care of.Gsonnenf (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've exercised my right of reply to my accuser. Please close/archive the topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts

[2] Nobody Ent 12:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I left the optional tag signature blank intentionally. Mathsci might have taken my name up there as an invitation to start another argument. Something that helps no one.Gsonnenf (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WQA Archive

I archived the WQA per your suggestion. I also noticed a couple of other edit summaries indicating that the auto archive bot had not been working. I've seen this happen before (see User_talk:Jeffro77/Archive2010a#Archive). If the current target archive is already too big to archive the first section of the main page, the bot doesn't correctly advanced to the next page. This usually happens when a manually archived section causes the current archive target to exceed the size specified for the bot. I have incremented the counter, so the archiving bot should start working properly as of tomorrow (depending on your time zone). (I realise that the last edit to the section I archived was not yet old enough for the automatic archiving threshold.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on Circumcision

Gsonnenf, you seem to return to Wikipedia on an irregular basis almost solely for the purpose of edit-warring on the Circumcision article, removing anything you view to be too "pro-circumcision". This kind of long-term activism and edit-warring is harmful for Wikipedia, and not at all in keeping with its goals. I'd like to be very clear about this; if you revert the article even once more, I will ensure you are taken to the proper venue for administrative action. Please take this notification seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, your accusations are without merit. Please stop making these baseless accusations and threats. Many see your tactics as some of the most disruptive in Wikipedia. I've asked you before not to comment on my talk page. If you have a problem feel free to seek dispute resolution.Gsonnenf (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Circumcision

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Circumcision". Thank you Tftobin (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed

Removed 41.219.160.203 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I had previously received an email from some banned contributors stating they were not posting these vulgar anonymous statements. They believed an agent provocateur is trying to disrupt the credibility of their cause by posting malicious and inappropriate messages under their guise.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Let People Censor Their Own User Pages, Champ

Jakew, I agree with you here. Zad68 19:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So we have a new Circumcision Boss. The torch has been passed to the next generation. Someone new to chuckle at the little one's pain. Iconoclast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.161.218 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for comment

As the subject seems to be of your interest, and you are an experienced editor, would be appreciated your opinion in this, as yet, non-consensual and critical talk. Thanks, Excalibursword (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)