User talk:WriZeo

Welcome!

Hi WriZeo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at 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.

Happy editing! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Take Me Home, Country Roads

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've removed the link you made on this article, as West Virginia was already a linked term. Have a look at MOS:BTW for direction this. If you have questions, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Ken McGrath (Pathologist) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ken McGrath (Pathologist), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _{[[User talk:discospinster|talk} 01:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you. WriZeo (talk)

And you subsequently re-created it anyway, contravening the instructions above. Graham87 07:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genital integrity, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Genital cutting and Trauma. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken McGrath (Pathologist) (September 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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:Ken McGrath (Pathologist) 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:Ken McGrath (Pathologist), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WriZeo! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ken McGrath a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ken McGrath (hurler). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for probably being a sock or meatpuppet of somebody, clearly up to no good, Wikipedia is not a battleground.

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 ~~~~}}.

Graham87 05:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place to write an encyclopedia, not to right great wrongs. Graham87 05:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WriZeo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hey. I simply have a heavy interest in the subject. As long as the articles I write about are neutral, reliably sourced, and of notable figures, does it matter if I put my focus upon a particular topic? The political controversies and ethical issues surrounding various forms of childhood genital cutting are not at all fringe subject: but a major controversy, particularly in Europe. See the current controversy in Denmark — 86% of their population wants to currently ban religious and routine neonatal circumcision — the previous one in Germany, etc. Why is an article addressing this a violation of Wikipedia's rules? I tried to make it as neutrally phrased as possible. And I thought that the articles were pretty fairly written and gave both sides a perspective. Though I do agree they may be slightly biased in one direct, and, all, like most Wikipedia articles, need revisions. Can you please reverse the deletions/block? Thank you. WriZeo (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Your editing pattern is highly suspicious and not at all typical of a new editor. I don't normally edit in this space and I'm not familiar with the main players there ... but edits like these to the article about Jonas Salk, not known for circumcision advocacy, show a severe lack of perspective. Wikipedia reports what secondary sources say about a topic, not what primary sources with highly emotive titles like "Sexual mutilations : a human tragedy" say. We have a widely cited essay, Beware of the tigers, about people who edit in emotionally loaded topics ... with the creation of a content fork and walled garden at Template:Genital integrity with absolutely no discussion, you're editing more like a "live tiger loose in a museum" at the moment. If it's found that you are unlikely to be a sockpuppet (and you are unblocked (I'll let another admin deal with that if need be), you should declare any conflicts of interest you have in this subject area, whether paid or unpaid. Graham87 07:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've noted your case at Talk:Circumcision and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. The last thing I'll say here is that with your editing pattern, you were headed for an indefblock ... I just short-circuited the process. Graham87 07:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right. I used to edit on Wikipedia around a decade ago. So I'm definitely familiar with Wikipedia's Wikicode, guidelines, and rules of conduct. Although the account that I used to edit under has been long lost for years.WriZeo (talk)

I decided to make an account on here due to the current controversy in Denmark over the issue. Since I noticed that Wikipedia has almost no information on the subject: in comparison to a substantial amount of notability and controversy on the subject. So I didn't see it as problematic to create an article on the subject. As for creating a walled garden: I certainly think that some of the articles were that. But I'm not sure why that necessitates that they be totally deleted rather than improved.WriZeo (talk)

As for having personal conflicts of interest: I'm not friends with any of the people mentioned, nor have I ever talked with any of the people I created articles of: I'm just highly familiar with their work and publications, since this subject is a personal interest of mine. (Although I'll confess that, as someone born in Europe, I tend to view routine neonatal circumcision as violating bioethical standards)WriZeo (talk)

As for right great wrongs. Opposition to legal circumcision is widespread throughout Europe. And a large amount of scholars, ethicists, and lawyers have increasingly argued for a general concept of genital autonomy and integrity. (As part of a greater right of bodily integrity) So I wouldn't necessarily say that an article handling the general concept of genital integrity should be deleted as WP:Fringe. WriZeo (talk)

As for McGrath, Earp, et al. They're all individuals who could be clearly be considered notable under Wikipedia's guidelines and probably deserve articles of their own. McGrath has discovered and coined a significant amount of structures on the male genitalia, including the frenular delta, and has been published in a wide variety of urological textbooks and sources; while Earp is a leading scholar on various forms of genital alterations around the world, has been published by hundreds of sources, and is clearly a substantial philosopher and ethicist. I don't think it's necessarily problematic if I create articles that generally revolve around a narrow range of subjects: as long as I cover them in a neutral manner.WriZeo (talk)

So you're free to edit or improve any Wikipedia articles that I made on them. I'm not sure if providing my real name could help. But I'd be willing to do that to prove that I'm not an alternate account. Finally: I'll agree that perhaps including Jonas Salk wasn't notable enough to be included in the template. But his advocacy against neonatal circumcision was well known towards the end of his life. And I only quoted that - admittedly, NPOV-violating book - as a primary source to show that he co-signed the Ashley Montagu Resolution. So I don't necessarily see that as problematic as long as it was used in that very narrow sense. You're free to remove Salk from the template. McGrath, Earp, et al. all definitely belong on that template, however. Take care!

As for being a sockpuppet: I am not. Although I'm uncertain how I could disprove that. My IP? Real name? I'll confess that I'm somewhat biased against the subject. But I'm perfectly alright with other editors chiming in to fix any possible bias.WriZeo (talk)

Should I appeal?WriZeo (talk)

Take care! WriZeo (talk)

What was your original account name? If you don't remember it exactly, do you remember any articles you created/substantially edited under that name? Or do you remember roughly what year you had this account in? There's no need to reveal your real name unless you're comfortable with that. Graham87 05:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I edited around the late-2000s and the early-2010s: predominately on various newly discovered species. I'd admit that giving my real name gives me a certain amount of unease. But if I have to give it to unblock myself: I'd definitely consider it. WriZeo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just got this. You don't have to give it out publicly; you can email it to me at grahamwpgmail.com and it will be safe with me; I'd only reveal whether I do or do not consider it in good standing. You may have already seen this but there is a page on clean starts that you might be interested in. Graham87 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)