User talk:WisdomTooth3

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Countries by Age of Consent (March 15)
 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:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Countries by Age of Consent and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of Countries by Age of Consent, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:List_of_Countries_by_Age_of_Consent Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Happysailor&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:List_of_Countries_by_Age_of_Consent reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

- Happysailor  (Talk) 01:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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  Tide  rolls  11:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  Tide  rolls  12:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Blanking, illegitimate is a form of vandalism."
 * I'm glad we agree :) WisdomTooth3 (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Anarcho-conservatism help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
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.,. 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 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)
 * Done. Thanks. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

ARBPIA General prohibition
Please note that per WP:ARBPIA3"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)

December 2018
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)

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)

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 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

Sockpuppet investigation
DanielRigal (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why did you ask me a bunch of questions on 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)


 * 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)

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:.  Tide  rolls  17:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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