User talk:OntologicalTree

Edit war March 2022

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Prcc27 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hi OntologicalTree! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Circumcision that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Renat 04:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Vast majority" at pub opinion of SSM

Hi. I think that might've been me that you reverted. Thanks for the quote. For most people, "most" means approximately 85% -- research indicates that's what people are most comfortable calling "most", both in English and Hebrew (and probably other languages by now). People feel it's dishonest to call either 55% or 95% "most", that doing so suggests you're exaggerating or downplaying one side. To me, "vast majority" suggests more than "most", and so > 85%, and I wonder if there might be a POV issue calling 70% (2-to-1) a "vast majority" even if it's a direct quote. That same research showed that there are exceptions for what "most" means, depending on one's POV. E.g., an Israel paper reported that "most" Palestinians support "terrorism" when the figure was 35% (and they gave the figure of 35% in the same sentence as the word "most"!), but we obviously wouldn't want to quote something like that on WP. — kwami (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision and HIV. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a message

Hello OntologicalTree, so I just wanted to clarify a few things, because in the past week or so we've been involved in an edit-war and several discussions. Based on what I've seen in your comments recently, what you are concered about/object to in wikipedia articles is implications that circumcised men lack sexually sensitive parts of their penis. I can understand why you wouldn't want that. From my side, I can assure you that I didn't really have any motives to spread content against circumcised men in wikipedia. In fact, when I first joined, I was pretty indifferent about the procedure itself and it didn't even cross my mind that there would be such controversy surrounding these topics. My main motive here was just to make some improvements in articles related to reproductive anatomy, which inevitably lead a conflict due our different interests. Overall, I try to understand and respect other people interests, and I hope you can do the same.

If we get involved in similar situations in the future, just remember that my edits are in good faith and conflicts can always be resolved with compromisation. Same message goes to KlayCax, who seems to have the exact same interests as you.Piccco (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll play my cards upfront Piccco. I am sure you could probably tell that I'm circumcised, and I'm not going to lie, it frequently comes across as a personal attack when editors want to insert into articles implications that there's something wrong or damaged about my body, and I don't believe there's anything from present research to validate that notion. OntologicalTree (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is totally understandable. I can assure you that under no circumstances would I want to offend anyone for their body, nor did I think that certain edits in wikipedia could have such a strong impact on others (I know you were not necessarily refering to things that I personally wrote). I have the same defensive attitude when being uncircumcised is strongly associated with being dirtier or simply prone to diseases. I think you can understand why. Maybe you can even understand which edits I may be refering to. I'll try to keep these concerns in mind when editing in the future. Hope you could do the same. Piccco (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Foreskin—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous consensus (including by MrOllie) on talk page that the citations were problemstic and shouldn't have been added, @Materialscientist:. Material was added against agreement. That's why it was reverted for the time being. OntologicalTree (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Circumcision. Thank you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting other editors

Hey, OntologicalTree. I've noticed a pattern of you insulting editors when they make circumcision-related edits that you specifically object to. While I agree with aspects of your points, the way that you're doing it is needlessly provocative and uncalled for. I suggest that you review many of Wikipedia's rules surrounding editor conduct before you continue commenting.

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Be aware that your edits will most likely be reverted. Must understand reconciliation in Australia is not at the point of acknowledgment yet. Just letting you know so you dont endup in an edit war.....best take your point to the talk page see if a talk is possible as the stewardship of the article is not always academic based. Moxy🍁 14:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is an a WP:RFC.... Better to get the community involved then fighting with one editor and getting blocked. The article has had a stagnation problem in the past few years.... thus many have simply given up.... but if you have the fortitude and think educating our readers is important..... Get others involved. Moxy🍁 00:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should make a listing of sources thus the OR replies can be refuted. Moxy🍁 00:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi

Talk:Australia#DiscussionMoxy🍁 02:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of History of the United States (2024–present)

Hello OntologicalTree,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username CoconutOctopus, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, History of the United States (2024–present), for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at History of the United States. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|CoconutOctopus}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CoconutOctopus talk 18:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your article to Draft:History of the United States (2024–present) to save the content you've created. I removed the speedy deletion tag because this article doesn't duplicate content at History of the United States. I moved it to draft space because I think the article is premature; I suggest waiting a few months to see how events sort out. I've seen people rush to declare every change of White House control as the start of a new era. Also, moving History of the United States (2008–present) to History of the United States (2008–2024) is sufficiently major a change that you should first get consensus on the talk page: Talk:History of the United States (2008–present).

Thanks for creating content. Whatever is decided as to whether late 2024 is the start of a new era, much of what you created can be used either in your draft article or the History of the United States (2008–present) article.

Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OntologicalTree,

All of your sources for Draft:History of the United States (2024–present) are from the past 2 days! They are just post-election analysis. I think it is way too soon for an article like this to be in main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note also that if you move the article back to article space prematurely, I think someone will probably take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and I think there would be consensus to delete. I suggest you wait until at least after the Inauguration, then discuss at Talk:History of the United States (2008–present) to get consensus for the change. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In support of my comment about deletion, Liz handles more deletions than probably any other admin. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical reputation of Joe Biden moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Historical reputation of Joe Biden. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Far too premature for mainspace.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CoconutOctopus talk 20:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it "premature", but instead that a page already exists to carry this information: Public image of Joe Biden. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting a lot of feedback today. Just remember content is the most important thing. Much of your content may be useful in an existing article or perhaps as new articles in the future. So don't get discouraged - keep researching and writing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Australia article

Hello there

I have reverted the material you added because the subject is likely to be controversial, there is an ongoing discussion of it on the Talk page and no consensus has been reached on the matter. I am also concerned that you gave a misleading edit summary which stated that you were restoring removed material for which there was a consensus. This is not the case. I would be happy to discuss the issue on the article Talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offense @Aemilius Adolphin, but this comes across as whitewashing. Canada's, the United States, and every other British settler colonies article mentions their respective genocides. It's not a controversial statement among modern statement. I recommend reading the citation in the article. The Australian Museum and every other major historical society has concluded that Australia committed genocide against the nation's Aboriginal people. Describing it as simply a "war" is at best nearly WP: FRINGE. OntologicalTree (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is an ongoing academic debate about genocide and quite a few of Australia's most reputable historians are more cautious about the idea. I think your best approach might be to see if you can get a consensus for one or two sentences in relevant sections of the article. For example, there is an ongoing discussion about the colonial expansion paragraph. You might like to propose a sentence about the genocide debate there. There is also a discussion about the stolen generations in which you might add something like: "the HRC inquiry into the stolen generations classified it as a genocide." No one can dispute that. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer a serious debate about genocide among mainstream historians. Cambridge World History of Genocide goes into this. The conservative historian Keith Windschuttle was perhaps the last to explicitly reject the notion and his assertions are no longer taken seriously among mainstream figures in the field. The government of Australia itself also recognizes the events as genocide. OntologicalTree (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. The debate has moved past Windschuttle a long time ago. The issues are whether there was genocidal intent, particularly by colonial authorities, and whether the actions of individual settlers amounted to genocide. The problem is that if you only read journals of genocide studies and works by professors of genocide studies then you are going to get a distorted view which leads to absurdities such as the claim that the contemporary issue of welfare cards to Indigenous Australians is an act of genocide. The old saying is: "to a hammer everything looks like a nail". If you haven't read Henry Reynolds' The Forgotten War (2022 edition) I can highly recommend it as a more nuanced assessment. And, as I suggested, if you want to propose one or two specific factual sentences with reliable citations for discussion on the Talk page then I think you might be able to find a consensus for them. For example, I wouldn't be adverse to a sentence in the frontier expansion section such as "many historians conclude that acts of genocide by settlers were committed during the frontier conflicts, although the question of genocidal intent is still debated." You still might get some pushback from others though. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A small minority of scholars believe in almost any view imaginable. The large majority conclude that it was a genocide with intent. Tens of thousands were slaughtered, women were taken as sex slaves, forced assimilation (which is a form of genocide!) was mandated, and genocidal massacres were common place. None of this should be disputable. The Cambridge World History of Genocide is not a "fringe source" that is somehow comparable to random unidentified scholars who claim that "the contemporary issue of welfare cards to Indigenous Australians is an act of genocide." In terms of mainstream scholarship? There's consensus that what Australia did is genocide. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no minimalist vs maximalist debate in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. You are adding a low quality source (BBC news article) into the lead of Genocide article while ignoring high quality academic sources. Bogazicili (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See below, @Bogazicili:. There was an ongoing edit war when I was editing that page. It was supposed to cite BBC. It's fine in the context it was used in (there's indisputably a debate in its range in scholarship). Although if it better source can be used than it should be replaced. OntologicalTree (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Genocide of the Amalekites for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide of the Amalekites 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/Genocide of the Amalekites 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.

Andre🚐 01:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

Welcome!

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

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

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

Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 10:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of source in Genocide

Your edit: "Maximalists" argue that genocide has been commonplace in world history, believe that the definition of genocide in international law is too narrowly defined, and have suggested alternative definitions.

There is nothing about that in the source quoted: The Cambridge World History of Genocide: Volume 1, Genocide in the Ancient, Medieval and Premodern Worlds, page 6.

You are also adding information from a news article (BBC), rather than using academic sources into the lead of the article. Bogazicili (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ongoing edit war when I added that sentence into the lead. That was my mistake and I apologize, @Bogazicili:.

It was citing the BBC and NYTimes articles. I think they're fine in the context they were used in. OntologicalTree (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your edit to Matt Gaetz has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Novem Linguae. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Matt Gaetz, but the source cited did not support that content. It has been removed for now, but if you would like to include a citation that verifies the content and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary All of this was cited so not a copyright violation, you are absolutely incorrect on this. You cannot copy paste (WP:COPVYIO) nor close paraphrase (WP:CLOP) a source without using quotation marks under any circumstances. This is a very serious problem and you will need to stop this if you want to continue editing here.

I agree with you on minimizing the use of block quotes. It's usually better to just use regular quotes. And it's even better to write it in your own words. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Moxy🍁 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan

You have recently made edits related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. This is a standard message to inform you that Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Bogazicili (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Bogazicili (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively 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]

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).

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

Request reason:

DerApfelZeit and OrangeSharp were alts created for privacy reasons and non-political, non-cultural, and non-social view areas (WP:GOODSOCK). DerApfelZeit and OrangeSharp didn't edit on the same pages and identified themselves as belonging to a master. This account is it. I want to maintain all three accounts. Thank you. OntologicalTree (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be accurate. Both OntologicalTree and DerApfelZeit edited both Talk:Australia and Female genital mutilation. Nor have you addressed the concern that you are the same person behind KlayCax. I also couldn't immediately find where DerApfelZeit and OrangeSharp declared themselves as alts. Yamla (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (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.

Comment @Yamla: you are right, the accounts did not declare themselves as alts, because they were actively roleplaying as different people; one example is I haven't edited in ten years (diff). There were also interactions with the master, two of which are included in the "Update" section of the SPI. The accounts were created/revived three months after KC's topic-ban for ban evasion and to continue (old) edit-wars accross several articles. The activity of the third sock (OS) in Talk:United States is revealing, as it pretty much aligns with KC's as described in the "Update" section, also including KC's habit of @pinging many editors. The SPI already provides strong behavioral evidence that connects these socks to KC, and there is still some (equally strong) evidence that was not yet presented for reasons of concision and evidence-keeping. Piccco (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

1) I am DerApfelZeit and OrangeSharp. I am not KlayCax, ShirtNShoesPls, or Bon courage. 2) The accounts identified themselves as alts and Piccco is incorrect on the matter. 3) DerApfelZeit's comment on the Australian talk page was an admitted mistake on my part. I thought I was logged on to my OntologicalTree account. That's why I switched over and started commenting right after the DAZ edit was made. I would have removed it if it was an option given. I cast a single vote on the RfC and every other comment was made on the OT account. The FGM edit occurred at the same time. Both edits were sloppy but it's wrong to call them malicious. 4.) In ten years/in like ten years is a figure of speech for "a very long time". 5.) I've taken positions in opposition to CBlau, KlayCax, Bon courage, ShirtNShoesPls, and the other users I'm accused of as being, which would make this supposed sockpuppeting a giant waste of time. I'm requesting a checkuser on my account and a video call with members of Wikipedia's administration team. One can hide behind accounts. They can't hide in a video call with their face and full name known. I grew up in Bavaria, lived in the UK/US, and now am a resident of Japan. If Piccco or any other accuser wants me to speak in Japanese or German that can be arranged. Many people are bilingual or multilingual. OntologicalTree (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=1) I am DerApfelZeit and OrangeSharp. I am not KlayCax, ShirtNShoesPls, or Bon courage. 2) The accounts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States&diff=1257084265&oldid=1257083313 identified themselves as alts and Piccco is incorrect on the matter]. 3) DerApfelZeit's comment on the Australian talk page was an admitted mistake on my part. I thought I was logged on to my OntologicalTree account. That's why I switched over and started commenting right after the DAZ edit was made. I would have removed it if it was an option given. I cast a single vote on the RfC and every other comment was made on the OT account. The FGM edit occurred at the same time. Both edits were sloppy but it's wrong to call them malicious. 4.) In ten years/in like ten years [https://context.reverso.net/translation/english-spanish/in%2C+like%2C+ten+years is a figure of speech for "a very long time".]  5.) I've taken positions in opposition to CBlau, KlayCax, Bon courage, ShirtNShoesPls, and the other users I'm accused of as being, which would make this supposed sockpuppeting a giant waste of time. I'm requesting a checkuser on my account and a video call with members of Wikipedia's administration team. One can hide behind accounts. They can't hide in a video call with their face and full name known. I grew up in Bavaria, lived in the UK/US, and now am a resident of Japan. If Piccco or any other accuser wants me to speak in Japanese or German that can be arranged. Many people are bilingual or multilingual. [[User:OntologicalTree|OntologicalTree]] ([[User talk:OntologicalTree#top|talk]]) 22:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=1) I am DerApfelZeit and OrangeSharp. I am not KlayCax, ShirtNShoesPls, or Bon courage. 2) The accounts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States&diff=1257084265&oldid=1257083313 identified themselves as alts and Piccco is incorrect on the matter]. 3) DerApfelZeit's comment on the Australian talk page was an admitted mistake on my part. I thought I was logged on to my OntologicalTree account. That's why I switched over and started commenting right after the DAZ edit was made. I would have removed it if it was an option given. I cast a single vote on the RfC and every other comment was made on the OT account. The FGM edit occurred at the same time. Both edits were sloppy but it's wrong to call them malicious. 4.) In ten years/in like ten years [https://context.reverso.net/translation/english-spanish/in%2C+like%2C+ten+years is a figure of speech for "a very long time".]  5.) I've taken positions in opposition to CBlau, KlayCax, Bon courage, ShirtNShoesPls, and the other users I'm accused of as being, which would make this supposed sockpuppeting a giant waste of time. I'm requesting a checkuser on my account and a video call with members of Wikipedia's administration team. One can hide behind accounts. They can't hide in a video call with their face and full name known. I grew up in Bavaria, lived in the UK/US, and now am a resident of Japan. If Piccco or any other accuser wants me to speak in Japanese or German that can be arranged. Many people are bilingual or multilingual. [[User:OntologicalTree|OntologicalTree]] ([[User talk:OntologicalTree#top|talk]]) 22:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=1) I am DerApfelZeit and OrangeSharp. I am not KlayCax, ShirtNShoesPls, or Bon courage. 2) The accounts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States&diff=1257084265&oldid=1257083313 identified themselves as alts and Piccco is incorrect on the matter]. 3) DerApfelZeit's comment on the Australian talk page was an admitted mistake on my part. I thought I was logged on to my OntologicalTree account. That's why I switched over and started commenting right after the DAZ edit was made. I would have removed it if it was an option given. I cast a single vote on the RfC and every other comment was made on the OT account. The FGM edit occurred at the same time. Both edits were sloppy but it's wrong to call them malicious. 4.) In ten years/in like ten years [https://context.reverso.net/translation/english-spanish/in%2C+like%2C+ten+years is a figure of speech for "a very long time".]  5.) I've taken positions in opposition to CBlau, KlayCax, Bon courage, ShirtNShoesPls, and the other users I'm accused of as being, which would make this supposed sockpuppeting a giant waste of time. I'm requesting a checkuser on my account and a video call with members of Wikipedia's administration team. One can hide behind accounts. They can't hide in a video call with their face and full name known. I grew up in Bavaria, lived in the UK/US, and now am a resident of Japan. If Piccco or any other accuser wants me to speak in Japanese or German that can be arranged. Many people are bilingual or multilingual. [[User:OntologicalTree|OntologicalTree]] ([[User talk:OntologicalTree#top|talk]]) 22:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Update There is no way user "thought they were logged on" to their OT account, as OT was permanently inactive since February 2023. The account was only revived (7/11) after DAZ's comments (4/11) because of its editing privileges. Personal information, like spoken languages, residence, etc. were never relevant to the discussion and do not mean anything. Piccco (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus OT claimed they expressed opossition to [...], KlayCax, [...] ShirtNShoesPls [...]. SNSP, whom I never indicated as a sock, was active from Nov 2023 to Feb 2024 and thus obviously never interacted with OT who was inactive since Feb 2023 (!) KC, however, did, in fact, oppose SNSP, as another editor pointed out (diff). Finally, OS did not in fact declare themselves as alts to any active account. On the contrary, saying felt the need to make a WP account over this and haven't been active in years (diff) on 13/11, same day when OT and DAZ were active on other articles, is the opposite of that. Piccco (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... what does Bon courage (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) have to do with this? As far as I can tell, Bon courage isn't blocked for socking (and has never been). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotism in settler-colonial states moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Patriotism in settler-colonial states. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it does not have a neutral point of view. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land theft moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Land theft. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it does not have a neutral point of view. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]