User talk:Jessicapin

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Your comments at Talk:Clitoris

Hello Jessicapin. Welcome to Wikipedia. I normally respond to comments about an article at the associated talk page, but you've just added 19 (!) new threads at Talk:Clitoris, and no one is about to respond to each of them individually, so I've come to your user talk page instead. As a new user, you're understandably unaware of the sometimes esoteric way that Wikipedia functions. While there is always room for improvement, Clitoris has been reviewed and found to be a "Good Article", so the kind of broad criticism you're providing is unlikely to meet with much approval. Original research—i.e., basing content on one's own knowledge or experience instead of reliable, mostly secondary, sources—is prohibited. If you believe you've found instances where a source that's cited is less than optimal or that the content doesn't reflect what the source says, we'd like to know about it, but please slow down and take it one thing at a time. No one can respond effectively to the barrage of commentary you've been adding; it's quite overwhelming. You might want to begin by reading Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Then please take a look at the policy on original research and the associated guideline on reliable sources, as well as the the more specific guideline governing medical and anatomical content. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I posted was original research. Pretty sure everything I said is in Lepidi and Marino or in sources already cited on your page. For example, Verkauf clearly says the longitudinal diameter of the clitoris is ~5 mm. This is the length. 1.5-2 cm is completely false and illogical. That is the length of the external portion off the body and glans put together. This should be an obvious fact to anyone with a clitoris. Not a single photo of any human clitoris in existence will show a glans 3 times as long as it is wide. That simple does not exist. Thus, the claim that the glans is 1.5-2 cm long is obviously ridiculous.

Primary sources should be used in this case, as we are talking about simple anatomy, and that is the only way to verify there is evidence for what people are claiming. There are tons of errors in the medical literature about the clitoris. This is a big problem that puts patients at risk for preventable mutilations. Choosing to perpetuate this ignorance in a venue that could instead set the record straight is really sickening. But actually, given the lack of research on the clitoris, the closest thing there is to a comprehensive review of published research on this anatomy is contained in Lepidi and Di Marino, as they go over prior research extensively. Review articles by Rachel Pauls cite sources incorrectly.

I've given up trying to contribute here. I have more luck correcting the authors and editors of the textbooks and editors than I do with the incredibly irrational people here.

Who decided the article was a "good article"?

April 2018

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Clitoral hood, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SilkTork. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Talk:Clitoris. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. SilkTork (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica. As you are not yet familiar with how Wikipedia operates, it would be unwise for you to directly edit sensitive articles. Your two attempts have already been reverted. It is unhelpful and disruptive to edit such articles when you are not aware of what you are doing. If you continue to attempt to directly edit such articles without first learning Wikipedia policies and protocols you may find yourself being blocked. My suggestion is that you confine yourself to making comments on the article talkpages, and when making comments to do so in a neutral and collegiate manner. If you have information that you feel should be included (or excluded, or changed), please provide a rationale and links to appropriate sources to support your reasoning. If you continue to make hostile posts or make unsupported claims, then at the very least people will stop reading your posts, and at the worse you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and the use of personal attacks at Talk:Clitoris

Hi Jessicapin. I want to draw your attention to a few edits that you recently made on Talk:Clitoris. Specific examples include your edits here where you state, "I realize you, Flyer22, probably do not come into contact with many real clits", here which is full of uncivil remarks and personal attacks including, "DO YOU REALLY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO GENITAL MUTILATIONS THAT ARE ON PAR WITH YOU GETTING THE HEAD OF YOUR DICK AMPUTATED? IF SO, YOU'RE A FUCKING ASSHOLE", and here where you ask, "Do you have a brain capable of basic critical thinking skills?" These interactions are not acceptable and are in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy in that they contain statements intended to insult, attack, frustrate, and disrespect the editor personally. They do not add to the collaborative or positive nature of the discussion and are not okay to make toward other editors here. As a contributor, you're expected to comply with Wikipedia's civility policy at all times and to treat other editors with respect. Please do not make any more personal attacks toward other editors, and do not behave in manners that are not in compliance with Wikipedia's civility policy. Continued violations of these policies can result in being blocked. Please let me know if you have any questions about these policies and I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for understanding. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessicapin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jessicapin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Using talk pages and uploading images

Hi, Jessica. Thanks for taking on a polite tone. Regarding edits like this, this and this, it's best not to significantly change replies after editors have responded to them (unless you indicate the changes), and you shouldn't edit others' comments. This is why I reverted you, but I likely would not have reverted you if you hadn't edited my commentary as well. When you significantly change replies after editors have responded to them, it can take their replies out of context. And editing others' comments to change what was there is you taking control of the editors' comments, which shouldn't be done unless personal attacks are involved. But even in the case of personal attacks, it's better to use Template:Redact. Per our WP:Personal attacks policy, I understand you wanting to remove your personal attacks, but do keep Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments in mind.

As for uploading images, like I told you on the Clitoris talk page, see Wikipedia:Uploading images. But, again, we can't use photos to make our own arguments, as this would be a WP:Synthesis violation. And the images need to align with our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline. The images must be free. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acc to the Wikipedia guidelines, non-free content can be used if there is no free content representing the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talk • contribs)

May 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Clitoris. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC) striking this warning - edit was not vandalism[reply]

I'm striking out this warning. While your edits to the article have issues with other editors, it was not vandalism and I reverted and warned you for such, which was not the right thing to do... I'm sorry. I'm going to respond to your message on my user talk page and help you with your concerns there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it: Regarding this, none of that, except for perhaps the Verkauf quote, is a misquote. It is you changing text to your preferred wording. You have yet to show how the Verkauf quote is misquote. I've already pointed you to a number of reliable sources stating that the clitoral hood is formed by the labia minora. When it comes to the "or the entire clitoris" piece, you yourself have also noted that sources vary on stating whether the clitoris or just its glans has 8,000 nerve endings. If you continue to edit WP:Disruptively, you are likely to find yourself WP:Blocked. Use the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to insist the clitoral glans is 1.5-2 cm long? All you have to do is look at ANY normal human clitoris to know this is obviously false. Jessicapin (talk · contribs)

I trimmed the Verkauf piece so that it only includes material you didn't object to. This is per the fact that I looked at the abstract and don't have access to the source. As for the "1.5-2 cm" long aspect, you've already been told that we go by WP:Reliable sources here, not anecdotal evidence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were constructive

The clitoris should not be termed “complex.”

Also, there is not a single commonly used *medical textbook* or any article in a high impact medical journal that says the clitoral glans is 1.5-2 cm. In terms of the “reliable source” standard, shouldn’t textbooks used frequently in residency programs and articles published in high impact journals be given highest weight? Verkauf has been cited over 100 times and is published in the highest impact OB/GYN journal. Should not it be given higher weight, according to Wikipedia standards, than whatever sources apparently claim the clitoris is 1.5-2 cm long? It is notable that the author of the source you cite for the 1.5-2 cm claim has verified this was a mistake.

Also, you say the clitoris is 1.5-2 cm long in the same paragraph where you say it is 5 mm long (longitudinal diameter). Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

Also, correct medical terms should be used to describe anatomy. Jessicapin (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits introduced unsourced material and your preferred terminology. You also changed the "clitoral hood is formed by the labia minora" wording despite the reliable sources I pointed you to on the article talk page showing what sources state. Those are medical sources that you are disregarding because you disagree with their descriptions or interpret their wording in a way they are not stating. And I told you before that we only have your word to go on regarding what that author stated and that, regardless, an author's email is not a reliable source. I also asked you: What did she mean if not 1.5-2 cm?

I see that you stated "commonly used *medical textbook*" to get around the sources that state that the clitoral glans is 1.5—2 cm long. I don't like citing JP Medical Ltd, but this 2013 "Evidence Based Color Atlas of Obstetrics & Gynecology: Diagnosis and Management" source, from JP Medical Ltd, page 342, states, "The clitoris consists of a midline shaft lying in the median sagittal plane and is about 1.5—2 cm long and 0.5—1 cm wide which bifurcates intemally into paired curved crura 5—9 cm long." How do you judge this description based on what is in the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol that source you just quoted doesn’t say glans! When those authors say “clitoris” they are referring to the external clitoris, which consists of the external body and glans. 1.5-2 cm is the length of the external clitoris according to that source. Get it? Nowhere do they say they are referring to the glans alone! Can you read!?

That is also not a textbook commonly used by OB/GYN residents. Refer to lists of recommended reading for studying for board exams or online medical library OB/GYN study guides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talk • contribs)

I know that the source does not state "glans," although, as I (and academic sources) have noted before, reliable sources are usually speaking of the glans when they state "clitoris." I cited it to ask you your thoughts on its description in relation to the 1.5-2 cm aspect and what is currently in the Clitoris article. Considering that I follow what sources state, while you interpret them in ways not stated by them and then try to use that interpretation for wording, I'd say, yes, I can read. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This medical source is obviously not referring to the glans when they say “clitoris.” No reliable medical source has EVER done that. By making that assumption, you are distorting the meaning.

This source says “clitoris,” not “clitoral glans.” You are the one interpreting sources in ways not stated by the authors. If I get the author of your cited source to get on here and edit it, will you allow this falsehood to be removed?

Based on the traditional definition of “clitoris” (prior to O’Connell) and methodology described repeatedly in the literature, the length of the clitoris, when reported as 1.5-2 cm has been understood to refer to that which can be externally measured. Okay? So that includes the external body and glans. This is analogous to how often when we refer to measurements of the penis, we are only measuring the external penis. Given that the authors say 1.5-2 cm as the length of the clitorus, and the glans is obviously rarely more than 1 cm in length according to the many slides, cadaver dissections, etc of clitorises that have been published, they are obviously referring to the external body and glans. Their definition of the length of the clitoris is the same as that used by Verhauf.

My dad, a plastic surgeon, asked if you had ever seen a real clitoris before. I told him you are a woman. So he asked if you knew what a centimeter is. This is, quite frankly, hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talk • contribs)

Are you saying that "no reliable medical source has EVER" referred to the glans as the clitoris? If so, I have reliable sources that state differently. It's also odd that you state that, given how you've gone on about how inaccurate medical sources on the clitoris are. Anyway, you are not listening. I did not cite that source because I interpreted it to mean "glans." I repeat: "I cited it to ask you your thoughts on its description in relation to the 1.5-2 cm aspect and what is currently in the Clitoris article." In other words, I was asking you if you think that the way the source is citing the 1.5-2 cm aspect is accurate and if you would prefer something like that in the article when it comes to the 1.5-2 cm aspect. Your repeated insults and WP:Edit warring are only making me want to not engage with you. They're making me want to take you straight to WP:ANI. You can feel free to take me there, by the way. While we discuss the 1.5-2 cm aspect, I have removed it to oblige you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And let me be clear: I don't care what you think you know about the clitoris based on looking at your own (as if it's authoritative) and what you interpret from looking at cadaver images, or what you interpret scholars to have meant when stating 1.5-2 cm for the length of the glans or whatever else. If you do not have reliable sources (read: WP:Reliable sources), you will be reverted. If you continue to be disruptive, I will take you to WP:ANI. You cannot simply change things to the wording you prefer when there are objections, and especially when the sources don't support you. You cannot state "most women" if the source doesn't, for example. Furthermore, when it comes to anatomy articles, we follow WP:Technical in some respects, especially for the lead, in order to make things more understandable for readers. See User:Tom (LT)#2015, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Newsletter/3 and WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. If you want changes made, you use the article talk page and make your case there. You don't edit war. You don't force your text in when multiple editors have told you no. The WP:ONUS is on you. Read WP:ONUS too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also replied on Oshwah's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this comment I made on Oshwah's talk page as well. To repeat: Even though so many sources are talking about the glans clitoris when they state "clitoris," I avoid stating "glans" unless the sources do. This is to avoid WP:Synthesis. There are sources that state that the average clitoris is 1-1.5 cm long, and then there are ones that state the average clitoral glans is 1-1.5 cm long. We can only go by what sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Jessicapin. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Septrillion (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

May 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Clitoris, you may be blocked from editing. SilkTork (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessicapin, I don't think you are here to collegiately build the encyclopedia. You have been advised that you should not directly edit sensitive articles until you understand how Wikipedia works, yet you continue to do so. This is disruptive and harmful. You have been advised that your attitude toward other users is not appropriate or helpful, yet you continue to be hostile, rude and insulting. You have been advised that unless you modify your behaviour and at the same time refrain from directly editing sensitive articles to insert your unsourced opinions you would be blocked. This is now your final warning. We do like to extend good faith and try to help people adjust to the peculiar world of Wikipedia editing, but I see nothing in your contributions, nor in your inability to listen to advice and learn how to edit here, to justify allowing you to continue to disrupt the work going on here. Please do not directly edit sensitive articles until you understand how to do so. Please read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia carefully and work your way through the tutorials. Try editing some less sensitive articles before returning to Clitoris. If you're unsure, seek out advice and assistance. You can put {{Help me}} on your talkpage with a question, and someone will come to your aid. Please stop being hostile towards other users. Please read Wikipedia:Civility very carefully. Our tolerance is running out. If you either directly edit a sensitive article to either remove sourced material or to add your unsourced non-mainstream opinions, or if you are hostile, rude or derogatory to one of our users, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not disruptive. I changed wording to be more clear and correct. Nothing I said wasn’t supported by the sources cited. I deleted the claim that the glans is 1.5-2 cm long as the glans is described as 5 mm long in the very next sentence, as is supported by the reference cited. Also, the author of the claim that the clitoral glans is 1.5-2 cm long confirmed herself that was written in error.

My opinions regarding the length of the clitoral glans are mainstream and simple, verifiable fact. They are even supported by the claim in this very article that the clitoris is shaped like a pea and measures 5 mm on average in the “longitudinal plane.”

It is ridiculous and harmful that this article is so poorly written and full of errors. This is a gender inequality issue, given how much worse this page is than the pages on penile anatomy. Insofar as women should have a right to correct information about their anatomy, the “work” you do here is destructive.

Go ahead and ban me if you want to. It would be nice if information on Wikipedia was accurate. I guess all I can do is spread awareness regarding how and why it isn’t. It is clear this isn’t a tenable venue for educating the public about anatomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I suggest you write your review, get it published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, and then we can use that to correct article inaccuracies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You keep talking about how the article is full of errors, and yet I've repeatedly shown otherwise, especially here, here, here, and here on the talk page. And what is your response to all of that? "All of the literature is wrong. You can only trust my word; what I say is more knowledgeable than what experts say. Or you can only go by Di Marino's research and Claire Yang's research." And when it comes to changes like this, how is your change to the lead more accurate than what is there now? It's a fact that the glans clitoris is above the urethral orifice. Per WP:ANATSIMPLIFY, the wording used in the lead is clearer. As for "healthy women," it is what the source states! But I will go ahead and reword it so that it doesn't state "healthy." The article using wording that you don't like does not make the article full of errors. And the Penis and Human penis articles are nowhere close to being better than than Clitoris article. Either way, I'm done trying to reason with you. I shall be reporting you at WP:ANI shortly. You've wasted enough of my time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jessicapin's disruption. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked this account from editing Wikipedia, essentially for your making of personal attacks against other editors who disagree with you. Wikipedia is very much open to disagreement, but that disagreement must be conducted in a respectful and constructive manner. How do we deal with disagreement? Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which strives for the expansion of knowledge in accordance with the academic consensus view of such knowledge, if you wish to edit here you must accept the project's requirement for material to be supported by multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia does not, and really can not, accept truth as asserted by personal experience.

But more than that, you must not try to address differences of opinion by making repeated personal attacks on those who contest your edits. When a change you make to an article is disputed, the onus is on you to seek consensus at the article's talk page.

I have imposed an indefinite block here, but that need not be a long block. If you make an unblock request that recognizes the problems and convinces a reviewing admin that you will a) not engage further in personal attacks, and b) will seek consensus at the appropriate article talk pages when your desired changes are contested, I would be happy for you to be 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 ~~~~}}.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was trying to change the part that said the clitoris is 1.5-2 cm long. Barely any “reliable sources” say this. The vast majority of “reliable sources” and all published studies where this anatomy is measured report that the glans is 5.0-5.4 mm in length. When the claim “1.5-2 cm” shows up, it is an ERROR. Errors do actually happen in medical literature. There are many problems also on other pages where sources are not read and evaluated critically. For example, saying that clitoral hood reductions are safe and effective bc a surgeon who is both board certified in plastic surgery and urology got good results is highly misleading. Most doctors doing these are not trained. There are no training standards. These are not taught in residency programs. ACOG does not offer CME. Many patients go to their OB/GYNs for these. The standard of care will not at all be the same. Also, Alter got a <50% response rate. Also, “sexual satisfaction” is not the same as “sexual function.” Thanks to misrepresented information, like that shown on multiple Wikipedia pages, women seek dangerous surgery and get their clitorises desensitized for life. This happened to me, and one expert I talk to (Goodman) thinks there are thousands of others like me. Obviously no one is publishing results like mine. Why would they? You need to think about the incentives behind the publishing of outcome studies. Consider whose results get published and whose don’t. At some point, you need to consider how your RS standard is actually leading to the equivalent of the most severe forms of female genital mutilation. My surgeon is still considered one of the best. I will never be able to feel cunnilingus again. Jessicapin (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC) I am done editing Wikipedia. I am helping with another project that will hopefully serve as a more reliable, more authoratative source for info on female genital anatomy, female sexual function, etc. Jessicapin (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the {{Unblock}} template to request an unblock. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 04:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It actually looks like I changed what most needed to be changed. So there is no need for me to get unblocked.

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am really sorry I was very rude and did not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I understand that the RS standard means that errors will be published as factual, and there’s nothing I can do about it. However, currently there’s a woman who has had a labiaplasty shown on the vulva page and that’s like showing breast implants on a page for breasts. Also, the vulvas shown are not a representative sample because 50% have protruding labia minora and the average labia minora lrnhtg is 2.1 cm. The lithotomy images should be changed. Can I please get unblocked? Jessicapin (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request indicates to me that you don't understand how reliable sources are used(it certainly is not "errors will be published as factual" and possibly how Wikipedia works in general, including WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I am not convinced that you understand the proper steps to take in the case of an editing dispute, or that you would be civil in doing so. As of this time I don't believe unblocking you would benefit the project, and as such I am declining your request. I would also suggest that an agreement to stay away from articles about the female anatomy might help, with also telling what other topic areas you want to edit in. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2019 (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.

.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I understand that I was blocked for being rude and disrespectful to other editors in my attempts to correct misinformation on the clitoris page. I am very passionate about the need for correct information about the clitoris because my clitoris was mutilated due to physician ignorance - the same ignorance that leads to incorrect information being published in many “reliable sources.” I understand that Wikipedia’s reliable source standard makes it very difficult for editors to not repeat even blatant, obvious misinformation, so I apologize for acting out of line and insulting other editors for simply repeating what they read. There is still a need for better information about women’s anatomy on Wikipedia. I would especially like to edit the page on the Dorsal Nerve of the Clitoris, as I have participated in dissections of 12 clitorises and published an anatomic dissection study of the dorsal nerve of the clitoris with plastic surgeons. I have gotten 4 medical textbooks to change their coverage of the clitoris, and I’ve gotten 14 more to agree to changes. I’ve also gotten Medscape, UpToDate, and WebMD to agree to changes. I would like to make it so Wikipedia has correct, complete information on the clitoris as well. Please consider lifting my ban. I promise to be more respectful and to follow all the rules. I sincerely apologize for being disrespectful in the past. Please understand how important this topic is for me. Jessicapin (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm afraid this does not convince me you understand WP:RS. I also worry that your goal here, while noble, is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I'm afraid you won't be unblocked to do that. Yamla (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2020 (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.