User talk:DerApfelZeit

Welcome DerApfelZeit!

Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your deletion because it bypassed discussion on the article's talk page. Please go and contribute your views to that discussion rather than making another large-scale change to the page without consensus. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page and edit history, @AntiDionysius: The edit was added in by a contributor who had a WP: COI about the subject and was used as a means of promoting their organization on Wikipedia. ("Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Intregrity".) The source also makes WP: FRINGE claims about sexual pleasure and function in regards to multiple genital alterations. Bon courage, me, and others objected to the changes, putting the onus on the editor who edit warred it back in.

I was actively in the process of adding a "views" section before it was prematurely reverted. DerApfelZeit (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Views on genital modification 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/Views on genital modification 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 until the discussion has finished.

Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Genital modification and mutilation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Raladic (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alternative for Germany. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The WP:UNDUE removal of sourced content is sanctionable too. Ixocactus (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion about the matter. The additions were recently added and by no means represent a consensus among editors.

The recent additions, albeit well-intended, are WP:ACREEP in action. DerApfelZeit (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Raladic (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:OntologicalTree per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]