User talk:DavidHGrateful

Welcome!

Hello, DavidHGrateful, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Zad68 14:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Genital modification and mutilation. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Doing this from a registered account is no more acceptable than doing it anonymously. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you thought my analysis of genital modification and mutilation was too personal.DavidHGrateful (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Sorry, I really didn't understand how these conventions worked.DavidHGrateful (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Zad68 14:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, please stop simply reverting to your preferred version at various articles. Several other editors have reverted your edits, as they clearly do not have consensus. If you continue to simply revert to your version without discussion, you will probably be reported for edit-warring. When your edits are challenged, you are expected to discuss your edits on the article Talk page, please see WP:BRD for the idea, and WP:EW for the rules against edit warring. You will need to show independent reliable sourcing to support your proposed changes, please see WP:RS. Zad68 14:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a medium for promoting an opinion, no matter how firmly convinced the person trying to spread it may be that the opinion is THE TRUTH. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not promoting an opinion, I am promoting fact. I have been trying to work with JAMESBWATSON, but instead of working, this person is ignoring my edits, suggestions and attempts to resolve this issue on his/her/its talk page. JAMESBWATSON is the one who is reverting to old edits. I, on the other hand, have been reworking each of my edits in order to clarify this issue.DavidHGrateful (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Should I delete this? Or is there something else we need to learn from it? DavidHGrateful (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Zad68 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Genital modification and mutilation. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please forgive me. I am a new editor here and did nor realize that the three-revert rule applied to changing content, which is what I have been doing to clarify the terms in the opening paragraph of "Genital modification and mutilation." As, my edits were challenged, I worked to improve my edit to make it more objective.

If you read, my final edit below, you will see that it is more accurate to the topic than what other editors continue to revert to.

The terms genital modification and genital mutilation both refer to permanent physical changes to human sex organs. However, they differ greatly in regards to consent. Genital modifications are performed at the behest of an adult, with their informed consent. Genital mutilation refers to violent acts resulting in emotional and physical injury that degrades the natural appearance or function of sex organs. [1] This distinction is at the core of the circumcision controversy.

I regret not being more familiar with the page editing discussion process, but I will do my best to work with the community of Wikipedia because I value truth, accuracy and knowledge.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not the contents of your edit. Please familiarize yourself with the edit warring policy; you'll find it much more pleasant working here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, David. I am very sorry to see that you have been blocked. I hope you will be able to avoid the same thing happening again, when the block expires. I came here to tell you that I have posted a reply to your recent comments on my talk page. I have tried to clarify some of the issues, and I do hope that what I have written will help you. Here is a link to the version of my talk page where I have made my reply. This link will continue to point to that version of my talk page, even when the page has been edited and the comments on this issue have been moved into an archive, and I am posting it here in case it is ever convenient in the future for either you or anyone else to be able to go back to read what I wrote.

There is no point in repeating here what I have already written elsewhere, but I will just add a few remarks about one thing, in response to some of the things that you have written above. It is no part of Wikipedia's remit to write what is true. Instead, we reflect what appears in existing sources. If that seems to you bizarre, then you are in the situation that I was in during the early part of my experience as a Wikipedia editor. I remember thinking it absolutely ridiculous to be told that "but it's true" is not an acceptable justification for what goes into a Wikipedia article. However, after a while I realised that there are, in fact, very good reasons for this seemingly crazy policy. There are several issues, but one of them is the question "who decides what is true?" If you say one thing is true, and someone else says the opposite is true, how do we decide between them? Perhaps it would be possible for Wikipedia to have either some sort of official committee to decide what is the truth, or a number of individuals given the authority to make such decisions. I can think of several reasons for being doubtful whether that would be a good system, and probably you can too, but in any case, the founders of Wikipedia did not choose to use such a system. In the absence of such a system for deciding what is "true" when different people disagree, it is not feasible to make "truth" a criterion for inclusion. (And make no mistake about it: there certainly is disagreement over the issue you are so concerned about. Apart from many millions of jews and muslims who would very strongly disagree with you, in some parts of the world, such as the United States, there are millions of other people who have a firm belief that surgical changes to children's genitals without their consent is right.) There are other problems with the idea that Wikipedia should accept "it's true" as a reason for inclusion of content, but I hope that the one I have described is enough to at least indicate that there is a problem, and that the policy is not as totally arbitrary as it may at first seem. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more point, that I didn't think of when I wrote the above message. If, despite what I have written, you disagree with the relevant Wikipedia policy, you are perfectly free to suggest getting it changed. I think the policy in question is so fundamental to Wikipedia's way of working that you have very little chance of success, but that does not detract from the fact that you are free to try. However, as long as it is the policy, you must accept it, whether you agree or not. There are several Wikipedia policies that I very strongly disagree with, and that I quite frequently find frustrating. However, I accept that they are policies, and I don't edit out of line with those policies. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of International Coalition for Genital Integrity

The article International Coalition for Genital Integrity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:GNG - insufficient coverage in independent secondary sources

coverage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best.DavidHGrateful (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copyright and notability

Hi David, I see you created the article International Coalition for Genital Integrity by simply copying the content from their "about us" page into the article. There are two problems with this: First, and most problematic, is that you cannot simply copy text published on other websites verbatim into Wikipedia articles. Doing so is usually a copyright problem, see WP:COPYVIO for details. I had to mark the article as a copyright violation because of that. Second, the notability of a topic cannot be established by using sources connect to it. In this case, you cannot use an organization's own promotional material they have published and distributed themselves to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you'd like to create the article, you need to find significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic, and then you must write the article in your own words based on those sources. Thanks... Zad68 14:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the harsh treatment? Aren't you being a little extreme?

There are no words that I claim as my own words... Only the words of our culture flowing through my consciousness.

DavidHGrateful (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, reliable sourcing, weight, leads, notability and canvassing

Hi David, looking through your recent edits, I see you've been having a little bit of trouble getting started with editing on Wikipedia. I just left you a Welcome message at the top of your User Talk page here. Please read through the links provided, paying special attention to Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability, reliable sources, and notability. Your editing has been singularly focused in particularly contentious topic area. As a result, every edit you make that changes the information contained in an article will require a citation to a reference that supports the change, and that reference will have to be what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. It will also need to comply with other policies, and in particular WP:DUEWEIGHT. If you are editing biomedical information, you will need to become familiar with WP:MEDRS which is the Wikipedia sourcing guideline for biomedical information. In particular, you need to be aware that statements by small advocacy organizations will not be considered reliable sourcing for general statements of biomedical information. Please through these policies and guidelines to save yourself and your fellow editors time and avoid unnecessary aggravation.

A note about edits to leads of articles: Please see WP:LEAD. The lead of an article should summarize the body. There should be no information or sourcing in the lead that isn't already in the article body. Please don't edit the lead of an article to make it say something not already covered in the body. (Many editors make mistakes in this area!)

I already provided some notes about notability in the above section; probably the most straightforward explanation is at: WP:42.

One last note, canvassing: Be aware that Wikipedia has a rule against canvassing. You've chosen to contact certain editors who have edited in particular topic areas, but failed to contact others who have also edited in those areas. I don't think this has technically gone against WP:CANVASS but you need to be aware about this behavioral guideline.

Thanks and happy editing... Zad68 15:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your input Zach, perhaps I have been somewhat brash. I will do my best to contribute within Wikipedia's guidelines.DavidHGrateful (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember always David that Wikipedia is not here to promote your cause, however noble you consider it to be. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. In my opinion, Wikipedia IS HERE to be as ACCURATE, COMPLETE AND NEUTRAL as possible, just like me.DavidHGrateful (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICGI

Good luck if you end up building an Infants' and Children's Rights Movement article or a International Campaign for Genital Integrity article, I'm not familiar with any particular organizations or efforts. Based on deletionist censorship tactics it'd probably be a good idea to build it on your own userspace for a while and try to accumulate reliable sources and referencing. The past days when Wikipedia could be built in real-time co-operatively are sadly far-gone, people are more interested in culling new articles than in co-operatively trying to grow them.

Regarding genital modification and mutilation, it's quite a bothersome article to begin with since the MvM problem is entirely perceptive and neither has been clearly defined. Personally I think it should just be 'modification' with a note stating that 'mutilation' is a term applied to modifications which are perceived negatively. Modify is clearly the inclusive and default term which lacks subjectivity. Ranze (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in your attempts to bring more neutrality to circumcision articles. Unfortunately I don't have the time these days to help with such things. Fig (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Wikipedia's Primary Source Policy and Common Sense

Hi, I am a new editor here trying to fill in some gaps and bring the content up to date, while adding a bit of objectivity and neutrality here and there. I have noticed a gap in Wikipedia's coverage regarding the highly controversial topic circumcision. Now, I have made a few edits here and there, and have met a lot of resistance from one of a group of editors in particular. This editor has told me several times that I cannot use primary sources, but according to the policy, it is evident that I can:

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge..." WP:PRIMARY

I realize that what is obvious to some may not be that obvious to others because people of different cultures are educated in variety of different ways to believe and accept as fact a variety of things.I am trying to do my best here to add accurate analysis and descriptive content portraying verifiable concepts, events and organizations, simply put, "...facts that can be verified..." Please specifically tell me what facts I am adding any false interpretation to.

"...Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment." WP:COMMONSENSE

I am here to understand and share the truth. Is that not the purpose of Wikipedia? Thank-you. DavidHGrateful (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the editor you are describing? You appear to have been proposing the creation of a number of new articles. Per Wikipedia policy, you may not build new articles or significant chunks of new content around primary sources, that is also part of WP:PRIMARY. You are also talking about primary sources here, and then go on to say "I am trying to do my best here to add accurate analysis and descriptive content"--it's not clear but this looks like you're saying you'd like to use primary sources as a basis for your own analysis, and you can't do that, see WP:NOR. Regarding your view that Wikipedia is here to allow you to "share the truth" (or at least your view of it), see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:ADVOCACY. Zad68 04:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your input.DavidHGrateful (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]