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]