TalkFemale genital mutilation please stop Hi Elvey I noticed you on Johnuniqs page which I watch and was moved to check out the discussion at TalkFemale 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 Ive 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    Use reliable secondary sources Its 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 Wikipedias voice with a UNICEF report from  isnt on unless you have a reliable source as opposed to having your own synthesis and conclusions from sources that offers the same argument   Consensus Nobody except partly Vetrisimino 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 WPFAC seems to anger you further and makes you accuse SlimVirgin of WPOWN a serious accusation which shouldnt be made without good evidence and which you have taken to SVs 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 youre the one that has been upping the temperature with posts like this where you call Zads 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 wasnt 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 dont jump so quickly to the conclusion that people are insulting you Worse your header here is a noxious badfaithassuming 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 cant stop yourself from getting angrier and angrier whenever youre contradicted this post aggressively attacking Johnuniq is a charming recent example I advise you to take a break from the article Thats 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 Ive 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      I appreciate that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia by dealing with the conflict at FGM by taking the discussion here  I wish youd participate in the discussion of the facts instead  I feel that in coming here you raisereiterate some good points but I dont think you should be raising the first few at least here  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 were using for reporting the UNICEF stats in the first place is better It seems that a UNICEF annual report is a strong source when it comes to what other UNICEF reports say  So then why are you here on my talk page informing me of the need to Use reliable secondary sources   Thats a serious question  If youre going to warn me like that why should I keep reading Im fucking sick and tired of this  If theres been a shred of evidence presented that Im insisting on relatively unreliable sources please point to it and I will eat my words  You just said that if youre going to levy an accusation you should provide evidence but you havent followed your own advice in this case have you    Re SYNTH The retrospective periods involved that is time lags For instance in the case of a country where girls are cut before  year of age most girls in the youngest cohort  to  years of age are generally reporting on an event that took place  to  years previously Any change that occurred after this period will therefore not be reflected in the data is supposedly SYNTH but as I noted on the talk page its A DIRECT QUOTE FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE  The accusation of SYNTH was made  Consider this sequence I explained why there was no SYNTH and the explanation received no response from the accuser Later someone else accused me of SYNTH but without any evidence or acknowledgement of my explanation  Later you accuse me of SYNTH in the same way  And thats supposed to accomplish what  Thats very poor communication  Why dont you respond to my explanation as to why there was no SYNTH  You say Im getting angrier and angrier and yet that sequence seems rather designed to make one angrier and angrier wouldnt you agree   Combative and unresponsive discussion sours the editing experience for other users  I totally agree and likewise have made pretty much that exact point re the FGM talk page    WPOWN a serious accusation which shouldnt be made without good evidence I totally agree  Have you an opinion on whether there are signs of OWN  I didnt know it was being prepped for FAC and dont much care and it didnt drive the OWN accusation and why would you even make the accusation that it drove the OWN accusation  It seems pointlessly accusatory  You say critically that I defend the tags aggressively  Is there no room for defending legitimate use of tags  Why is there no acceptable way for me to point out that I was using them for what they were designed for    In any case I will try to take a break and return with an enhanced effort to hear and speak better than it feels like others hear and speak to me  Thank you for your effort  If youre willing to engage in constructive dialog great theres more in your original post Everybody else is to discuss  If not please just go ahead and block me for a week or two now  Oh and if youre not Bishonen dont butt in U c   No I will not get into a content discussion  participate in the discussion of the facts instead as you say Im surprised you should ask me to after you have been complaining quite unfairly that SlimVirgin had mixed the roles of editor and admin you are apparently aware of the distinction between the roles and the inadvisability of mixing them Im wearing my admin hat in regard to this article and no Im not going to participate in the discussion on Talk Its your conduct that concerns me I notice you have nothing to say w r t my specific complaints on that score above  the personal attacks and other disruption  excepting that you take issue with what I said about using reliable sources Im sorry my explanation there wasnt clear I was trying to say you must use reliable sources as opposed to synthesising sources in order to argue in Wikipedias voice unless you have a reliable source as opposed to having your own synthesis and conclusions from sources for the argument you make OK You need a reliable source for the argumant you make I didnt mean to say your sources were unreliable but that you used them wrong you synthesised them into an argument your argument See WPSYNTH Sorry it wasnt clear   Im afraid youll have to discuss content issues with the other editors of the article not with me Please try to engage them respectfully      Im afraid that I see that your answer to the questions Ive asked about your opening points regarding RS and SYNTH means we wont get to the crux of the matter  I see that you think that you did answer when you said I must use reliable sources a