User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2022/September

Jungfraubahn Holding AG

Do not make personal attacks on other editors, as you did with this edit summary. Please familiarise yourself with what vandalism is and is not. I agree with Onel5969's assessment here—the company is not notable enough to have its own article, so I have again redirected the page. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ingenuity:, I do not find this specific revert covered by the examples given in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism . Please file an ordinary Wikipedia:Requests for deletion as creating such a redirect essentially is a deletion of my article. Until then, my article is restored.--Keimzelle (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I have now done so. I suggest that you withdraw your accusation of vandalism, however. Redirecting the article falls under the "Boldly editing" and "Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material" sections of WP:NOTVAND. Accusing another editor—one of the most experienced new page patrollers—of vandalism is nothing short of a personal attack. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ingenuity:, sorry for my bold edits and restoring encyclopedic material. I have one non-negotiable rule on Wikipedia, and it's having zero respect for people who destroy articles, or people who condone such behavior.--Keimzelle (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

So you still believe that Onel5969 is a vandal? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: Yes. Saying otherwise would be profoundly dishonest. He's insulting the work I have done.--Keimzelle (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Jungfraubahn Holding AG for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jungfraubahn Holding AG 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/Jungfraubahn Holding AG 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.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Keimzelle making personal attacks. Thank you. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: Awww! I can't say that my respect for people like you has increased by more than 0.00000000000000001%.--Keimzelle (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Keimzelle/Archives/2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was trying to keep vandalism at bay, and protect the work I have done for Wikipedia. Furthermore, the block probably serves to exclude me from discussing the relevant request for deletion.Keimzelle (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your block, which is to prevent further personal attacks. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before making another unblock request. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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

You're still calling it vandalism and are now additionally insinuating an improper reason behind the block. What actually happened is that I stumbled upon the ANI report linked above, looked up Special:CentralAuth/Keimzelle and found your dewiki block log, indicating that warnings wouldn't help in this case. To alleviate your (incorrect) concern that the block is about preventing you to participate in a deletion discussion before it is closed, I'll copy any civil, non-attacking arguments to the deletion discussion page. To take up this offer, simply write your deletion discussion argument(s) below, prefixed with "{{ping|ToBeFree}}: Please copy the following message to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungfraubahn Holding AG]]: ...". If I see correctly, there is no immediate need for this, as you have already edited the page to provide your point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Destroying articles and other informative content is, of course, vandalism. The people in question could have approached me with any idea that preserves the work I have contributed. But, of course, admins do not tolerate it when you call a friend of them a vandal even if any sane person would call him a vandal. In the meantime, I have read the guidelines for making requests for unblocking. The most important point there seems to be admitting guilt and try to make amends - even if he was simply defending his unpaid, voluntary work. In the best case, this is a rotten system. In the worst case, it's a fascist one. You have only chances of success if you never, never disagree with an admin.

Admin: I say it's not vandalism!

User: Okay, it's not vandalism!

Admin: Honor my decision!

User: YOUR DECISION BE HONORED!

Anyhoo, thanks for your offer. I expect to be unblocked soon.--Keimzelle (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)