This is an archive of past discussions with User:Autisticeditor 20. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your edit to Vulvoplasty 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Urethra, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm SomeoneIguess. I noticed that you recently removed content from Penis without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list)23:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Penis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
I'm not sure exactly in which edit they occurred, but you introduced unnecessary piped links somewhere in
these 13 edits (over-all diff). Example:
−
and pulls the scrotum closer to the body, while the [[dartos muscle]] gives it a wrinkled appearance;
+
and pulls the scrotum closer to the body, while the [[Dartos fascia|dartos muscle]] gives it a wrinkled appearance;
N This is not an improvement! And there were others; find newly piped "spermatic artery" on that page, and fix that, please. And don't unnecessarily pipe links, okay?
Some of the other links seemed unnecessary, like adding [[sperm]]; but okay, maybe. But please watch the messing around with piped links, at least; that's been mentioned before by someone above. See WP:NOPIPE. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey there I just wanted to clarify why I reverted your recent edit on "Smile".
I'm actually autistic like you, and I have this weird OCD where I get irritated when things don't go my way too. I understand that us autistics can be obssessive, sometimes you just gotta control it like me.
Well, you see, I get kinda ticked when general articles that have animal information (such as vomit and wakefulness) use human anatomy links exclusively despite those topic not exclusive to humans or articles that only talk about humans (such as face) despite being present in other animals. This is because I'm an activist for animals and I want to see more animal coverage here on WP.
But that aside, I want to clarify that I reverted your edit on "Smile" as, well, smiling is also seen in non-human species such as our closest primate relatives, as well as some domesticated animals such as horses and dogs. Also, there's an entire "Other animals" section in this article. If there's a section on that, it usually confirms that that topic is not exclusive to humans.
I want you to rethink your edits. If its not exclusively human-centric, don't put human anatomy links, but if it does refer to exclusively humans, then do it.
I hope this message finds you well. I've noticed that your Talk page has grown quite extensive, which is a testament to your active engagement on Wikipedia. However, I'd like to suggest considering archiving some of the older discussions.
Archiving can lead to several benefits, including:
Better Organization: It makes it easier for you and others to navigate through current discussions without scrolling through a long history of past conversations.
More Conducive Conversations: With a cleaner Talk page, it becomes simpler for other editors to engage in ongoing discussions and for you to manage responses.
Improved User Experience: For users on older computers or slower networks, a shorter page can significantly enhance loading times and overall accessibility.
If you're unsure about how to archive your Talk page, you can find detailed instructions here. I'm also happy to assist if you need any help.
Thank you for considering this suggestion. Your contributions to Wikipedia are greatly valued, and I believe that archiving could make your Talk page even more effective as a tool for collaboration.
Step 1: paste this code on this page somewhere (usually the top of the page). {{subst:Setup cluebot archiving|archives=yes}}. Step 2: Done. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Neither of those are exceptions to the policy. I’m not convinced that SparksyFruit’s content-related edits were in bad faith, although the personal attacks were out of line. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The (or "a") problem with edit-warring is that nobody wins and often nobody is willing to stop, but everyone either gets annoyed or sometimes gets excitement by getting someone else annoyed. So instead, ask for an admin, who can force it to stop by locking the page and/or blocking an editor. DMacks (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)Autisticeditor 20, just wanted to reiterate what C.Fred has already said. Just because someone else is wrong (and you don't know that for sure until any disagreements have been talked out at the Talk page), that is no reason to revert them 25 times in rapid succession, as you did here. That is definitely blockable in a heartbeat, and you are lucky you are not blocked now. Two times is about the limit; if they revert a third time, take them to the Edit warring noticeboard. Don't keep edit-warring yourself just because they do; that is disruptive to the encyclopedia; let the other guy get the block, not you. When it starts happening, just stop, and go straight to the noticeboard, and let them know what is happening. Other than that, hope you are doing well. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Labia majora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page External pudendal artery.
Copying/moving content within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Vagina into Human vagina. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
You keep saying you are sorry but you keep incessantly adjusting sex articles. How could you possibly think that it would be ok to completely change and remove 117,380 bytes at Vulva without discussion? You will be blocked if unattributed copying between articles occurs again, see WP:CWW. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear colleague, please note that WP:Splitting says, with high-profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). The articles you were splitting, Vulva and Vagina, are definitely "high-profile". Please avoid such drastic changes in the future without a thorough discussion. Sincerely, Викидим (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Autisticeditor, you have just now reverted an edit I made on this topic, only a very short time after I made it. I wrote a very clear and complete explanation of my edit. You reverted it without comment. If you have a good reason for your reversion please say, otherwise I will redo my original edit. Thanks Bosula (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Autisticeditor, many thanks for your sterling efforts to improve Wikipedia with all those links. However, in articles like Animal and Domestication (and in biology and agriculture articles more generally), we definitely do not need links to common terms like "food", per WP:COMMONNAME. People reading a biology article will know quite well what food is, and the link is therefore surplus to requirement. I've mentioned this repeatedly in edit comments but as those seem to have been ignored, I'm letting you know here. I've undone several instances, by the way. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
