"

Talk:Female genital mutilation; please stop
Hi Elvey. I noticed you on Johnuniq's page, which I watch, and was moved to check out the discussion at Talk:Female genital mutilation. Your part of it worried me. While I have no opinion of my own on the statistics, as FGM is not a field I've studied, I see two principles in play on that talkpage, that are true for all articles, and that you seem to pay scant attention to: 

1) Use reliable secondary sources. It's important (for all articles, but more especially for a sensitive subject such as FGM) to be based on reliable secondary sources. Synthesising sources in order to argue, in Wikipedia's voice, with a UNICEF report from 2013 isn't on, unless you have a reliable source (as opposed to having your own synthesis and conclusions from sources) that offers the same argument. 
2) Consensus. Nobody (except partly Vetrisimino0) agrees with you about how the stats should be represented in the article. There is consensus against your section tags, described here as ""overly aggressive"". I hope the issue of the tags has blown over, but a few days ago you kept restoring them, and defend them aggressively; the fact that the article is being prepped for WP:FAC seems to anger you further, and makes you accuse SlimVirgin of WP:OWN: a serious accusation, which shouldn't be made without good evidence, and which you have taken to SV's user talkpage as well.

Combative and unresponsive discussion sours the editing experience for other users. Everybody else is speaking respectfully to you, as far as I can see; you're the one that has been upping the temperature with posts like this, where you call Zad's comment ""blatantly untrue, not to mention insulting"" — based, as far as I can see on a mistaken notion that he was impugning some arithmetic you had done (he wasn't). That kind of response reminds me of the old adage about the internet being populated by sensitive and angry people, ""eggshells armed with hammers"" (Google tells me it was originally said of heavily armed but lightly protected battleships). Please don't jump so quickly to the conclusion that people are insulting you. Worse, your header here is a noxious bad-faith-assuming personal attack, something to be scrupulously avoided in section headers. And you put it as the header to a post by SlimVirgin, which you had moved there from your own talkpage. That is truly awful behaviour, seemingly designed to discourage others and chase them off. (Charming edit summary at your own page, btw.) If you can't stop yourself from getting angrier and angrier whenever you're contradicted (this post, aggressively attacking Johnuniq, is a charming recent example), I advise you to take a break from the article. That's advice. What I tell you, as an uninvolved admin, is that you must stop filling the talkpage with rehashing of arguments that have not carried conviction before, and you must stop attacking people. Your accusation against SlimVirgin that she is ""abusing her position as an administrator to gain advantage in a content dispute"", currently at the bottom of the page, is made up out of whole cloth as far as I can see. Has she mentioned or hinted at being an admin, or warned you in any way? If I've missed where SV is playing the admin card, tell me where. The word ""disrupt"", which she used and which looks to be the basis of your accusation, is by no means _ the prerogative of admins.  | talk .

I appreciate that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia by dealing with the conflict at FGM by taking the discussion here.  I wish you'd participate in the discussion of the facts instead.  I feel that in coming here, you raise/reiterate some good points, but I don't think you should be raising the first few, at least, here:
""*1) Use reliable secondary sources."" (emphasis is in the original)  I totally agree, and I said that in the discussion, ""The sources are given and reliable and secondary."" and ""Also apropos ""Anything about prevalence needs a strong secondary source,"" are you saying that the source we're using for reporting the UNICEF stats in the first place is better? It s