User talk:Sambirano

Welcome!

Hello, Sambirano, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —usernamekiran (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind introduction and all the hints, usernamekiran! :) Sambirano (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to read wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Sambirano (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you are reverted, you get wpconsusnsu you do not just say you are right and revert. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my edit on the talk page? The revert destroyed the sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#This_does_not_make_sense Sambirano (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] now has reverted it back to make sense. Now get consensus for your change. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I explained what was wrong on the talk page. So, Wikipedialuva should have discussed the issue there before reverting.

I tried to get consensus. What can I do else?

Don't you understand that the problem is not the foreskin, but the non-retractable one? I have given sources. Sambirano (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you tried to get consensus. You posted a comment, in no fewer than nine separate paragraphs; now you wait for others to respond, and then we can start gauging consensus. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did Wikipedialuva ask someone for consensus for his revert that made no sense?

"Not being circumcised is the primary risk factor for penile cancer.[69][70][71] Alas, at the age of 18, only 1% of men have that condition"

It is not true that 1% of men at the age of 18 have penile cancer! Do we really need to discuss this? Sambirano (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#This_does_not_make_sense Sambirano (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would want to take that combative tone, or why you would want to argue about percentages of penises or whatever with me. I'm not interested in the content. I noted that Slatersteven warned you about edit warring and gave you some good advice, and I thought perhaps you did not fully understand what they were saying. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I came over in a combative tone. I just hoped that we could achieve some consensus. Sambirano (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the validity of either side's argument, you need to read wp:rightgreatwrongs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read that.

"This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources.."

I think that is what I did.

I didn't do anything like that:

"Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or

Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or

Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or

Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community" Sambirano (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Irrespective of the validity of either side's argument"

Where is the other sides argument? Sambirano (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its your combative attitude, and unwillingness to listen that makes me think you need to read that, as you are acting like it is ADVOCACY. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you find "combative", Slatersteven, can you explain? I'm just trying to improve wikipedia, isn't that we all try to do?

I am listening, but "the other side" (who is that?) doesn't talk yet Sambirano (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tone you have already apologized for, the oine in which you seem to refuse to accept you have done anything wrong. But I am now in danger of Badgering, so will not respond anymore; someone else will have to explain it to you. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"in which you seem to refuse to accept you have done anything wrong" I accepted that I made an error, in the talk section: "I messed up with the sources. That was my fault." And I corrected that. That error was the reason why wpconsusnsu reverted my edit. So now I guess, my edit could be re-reverted? "...will not respond anymore" Oh, that is a pity! I never had the impression you were badgering. So now I hope that sometime we could talk about the validity of my edits. Sambirano (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]