User talk:WisdomTooth3

Welcome!

Hello, WisdomTooth3! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 13:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Happysailor was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please note that all articles need to show notability (See WP:NOTE), and be verified by significant and reliable third party references (See WP:SOURCE) which should be included by using inline citations (See WP:REFB)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
- Happysailor (Talk) 01:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello, WisdomTooth3! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! - Happysailor (Talk) 01:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Reformist Left) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Reformist Left, WisdomTooth3!

Wikipedia editor Ajpolino just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please address the tag at the top of the page. Encyclopedia articles can include quotations, but shouldn't be primarily made up of them. This should be an article covering secondary sources about the term "Reformist Left". If you have questions, please ask at WP:TEAHOUSE.

To reply, leave a comment on Ajpolino's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Ajpolino (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of countries by genital modification and mutilation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of countries by genital modification and mutilation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by genital modification and mutilation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information

This edit was not vandalism. Please take care in how you employ that description. In certain circumstances accusing editors of vandalism without justification could be construed as a personal attack. Please read WP:NOTVAND to acquaint yourself with the proper definition. Regards Tiderolls 11:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking is vandalism (WP:VANDTYPES). Please read WP:PRESERVE to acquaint yourself with how a collaborative encyclopaedia works. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You misquoted the policy. Blanking, illegitimate is a form of vandalism. My message was intended to help you avoid future problems, not an invitation for debate. Your description of the edit was incorrect. You are free to ignore my advice but understand that when experienced editors attempt to explain how your behavior is problematic the best response is to ask questions and adjust your behavior accordingly. Regards Tiderolls 12:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking, illegitimate is a form of vandalism.

I'm glad we agree :) WisdomTooth3 (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Anarcho-conservatism has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Anarcho-conservatism. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anarcho-conservatism has been accepted

Anarcho-conservatism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Christian anarchism into Anarcho-conservatism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA General prohibition

Please note that per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

This may be applicable to your recent edits. Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Andrew Wakefield seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to MMR vaccine. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anarcho-conservatism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anarcho-conservatism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-conservatism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Again you are calling edits vandalism that aren't

The lack of an edit summary does not make an edit vandalism. Doug Weller talk 21:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Not all edits are vandalism, but simply deleting other people's contributions without explanation surely is!

The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. (WP:VANDAL)

— WisdomTooth3 (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. See WP:AGF. I think my almost 200,000 edits makes me a better judge of policy than your 337. I see no malice in those editors. If you continue to do this perhaps a short block will appropriate. Doug Weller talk 22:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: What "good faith" is there to assume in someone completely undoing one's contribution without even an edit comment, let alone a message in a talk page?? The policy I just quoted is quite clear: it's vandalism, plain and simple. I'm sorry but seniority buys you no authority here; that's what written policies are for. And neither do threats of censorship. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think experience doesn't count in interpreting policies and guidelines, then you may be in for a rocky ride. And continue infringements of policy usually end up in a block, that's not censorship. You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith if it's ok to say someone isn't editing in good faith because they haven't left an edit summary. You're assuming maliciousness in the absence of evidence. I see another Administrator, User:Tide rolls, had this same discussion with you months ago and you dismissed it sarcastically. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: You might want to ask … if it's ok to say someone isn't editing in good faith because they haven't left an edit summary.
Is that what I said? Course not. You keep strawmanning my words, and that is certainly not acting in good faith. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pointless. You said "completely undoing one's contribution without even an edit comment," which to me looks as though you are calling it vandalism because of the lack of an edit comment. That seems a reasonable interpretation of your statement. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Emphasis on "completely undoing one's contribution". When undoing someone else's edits WP clearly states:

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.

The instruction is there for a reason: to be followed. Thank you. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut a long quote at Anarcho-conservatism

We don't have an exact number, but in my experience the limit has been about 240 words. I have no doubt that you acted in good faith in adding such a long quote, and of course you've said they can be trimmed. In this case I removed the example. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Well there — see? — we can collaborate. Why make such a fuss about it all? The other option for some of the quotes is to move them into the reference templates. But, unfortunately, I won't be able to do that, as I've been blocked from contributing to WP. So good luck with that. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdomtooth32, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

DanielRigal (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: Why did you ask me a bunch of questions on wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-conservatism only to then ask my account to be blocked?? Did you ever really want me to answer? Or just make sure you had the last word? — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. But I can see why it might look like that.
What actually happened was that I asked the questions as soon as I saw what you had said. At that time I did want to hear your answers. Shortly after, I became suspicious of your account more generally and looked into it further leading to the SPI. I agree that the questions are now moot. I am no longer interested in any answers you may have come up with.
I wasn't trying to ask sneaky rhetorical questions or to have the last word but I probably should have thought to remove the questions when events overtook them. It is probably too late to remove them now but I will strike them out. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Tiderolls 17:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

This user has engaged in block evasion as of April, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]