User talk:KoenigHall

KoenigHall, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi KoenigHall! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Henrik Anckarsäter

The article Henrik Anckarsäter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable bio; fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prod notice was removed by another editor, so the notice doesn't require any further action from you at this time. However, I've left my concerns about Notability on the Talk page of the article, and other methods of deletion are possible, so it would be good to address these issues in the article or on the Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm Bravetheif. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Irreversible Damage have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Bravetheif (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ds

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

—valereee (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hi KoenigHall! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Gender dysphoria 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. Marking changes which alter the meaning of the article as minor can be seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny, please don't do this. Srey Sros^talk 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srey Sros^talk Ok, thank you for notifying. KoenigHall (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing at Gender dysphoria

It seems that you are trying to push the point of view that children should not be medically treated for gender dysphoria, which is not the mainstream medical point of view (although it is a significant political opinion among the public). Your continual efforts to push this POV into the article are disruptive. It is also concerning that you seem to be misrepresenting the sources you are citing (or at least going well beyond the conclusions they present). If you haven't already, I would suggest looking over the original research and neutral point of view policies. I would also suggest gaining consensus for your edits on the talk page before making them rather than after, so that you can make sure your own biases are not interfering with presenting accurate and neutral information in the article. Kaldari (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2021 (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. Rab V (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rab V: Sorry, I was not edit warring, I simply responded to a complaint/ opinion of my too brief citation of one of the sources that was erroneously interpreted as an intentional distortion. After correcting and elaborating I then accidentally reverted my own revision and after revsising it, it was reverted by a different editor who raised a different concern, whereupon my edit to resolve this crashed because an editor changed the paragraph while I was editing to adjust the text to the requested concern. My problem is that the editors that keep reverting my edits are acting in consortium and raising new concerns that I did not expect when complying with each concern. This is politization of WP and serves noone.KoenigHall (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out on the article Talk page, such occurrences could be avoided by proposing specific text on the article Talk page and allowing consensus to form there, rather than making controversial changes in article space. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gender dysphoria. 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. Please see also the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Equivamp - talk 09:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

You have been blocked from editing Gender dysphoria for a period of 2 weeks for violating the 3 revert rule (you may still edit the article talk page, however). 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:51, 11 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was under the impression that there were only two actual reversals, since one was due to an error by user Equivamp. Equivamp reversed my edit referring to a different edit I made the other day (with a "ridiculous" referral to my source, clearly a misunderstanding where s/he confused the edits and concludes it is an element of WP:SYNTH etc. Please note also, I have urged other users to justify their claims on the TALK page, if they have valid claims/sources.

This below is the reversal by Equivamp which I thought wouldn't count, since s/he is obviously referring to two (!) different edits of mine, but reversing a third one (the one discussed here). Note that the "review" source s/he mentions in the comment to justify his/her reversal of my edit, is for a completely different section I edited in the article (which is stable), and has no bearing whatsoever on the issue here. Further, Equivamps comment (In his(her reversal) refers to whether treatment is evidence based, which is yet another DIFFERENT EDIT, (i.e. also not the one to which s/he argues on the "review" source). This one reversal is so messed up so I judged it possible vandalism, or, a mistaken reversal conflating TWO other, each independent, edits of mine. THis is the reversal I believd was simply a mistaken "undo" of the wrong edit of mine:

curprev 08:35, 11 June 2021‎ Equivamp talk contribs‎ 63,623 bytes −28‎ Undid revision 1028002634 by KoenigHall (talk) The review stating that certainty of conclusions for research is of very low quality is not a MEDRS stating that treatment is not evidence-based. Absolutely WP:SYNTH and ridiculous POV-pushing undo Tags: Undo Reverted [automatically accepted]

It is difficult to navigate amidst mistaken, or even possible vandalism, reversals when one can not see the reasons for the arbitrary objections that are piled up. KoenigHall (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In the WP:ARBGS area, any kind of edit warring is almost guaranteed to be problematic enough to justify a temporary partial block from editing the specific page. Whether there have been two, three or four reverts is not that important; the issue is edit warring, and the block does not prevent you from discussing the page's content on its talk page. All the block does is preventing you from currently editing the article itself, which is a fine thing to prevent during a dispute. The block will automatically expire, and if there are currently obvious uncontroversial changes that need to be made in the article, you can use {{Edit partially-blocked}} on its talk page to propose them, or wait two weeks before continuing more carefully than you did before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2021 (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 on unblock request - I had nothing to do with the admin decision, but for the convenience of anyone looking at this, KoenigHall performed the following reverts at Gender Dysphoria within a 24-hour period:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Note that, while the second edit is not labelled as a revert in the summary, it repeats the first edit which is already a revert (and labelled as such).

KoenigHall, you might want to look at WP:3RR and become more familiar with what does (and doesn't) count as edit-warring. Edit summaries seldom if ever allow extra reverts, and please note that the page in question is subject to discretionary sanctions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. Note, the first edit was not a revert, it was an elaboration to specify the subclass of "gender identity" referred to in the sources, so it is not a revert. (I picked, to preempt a possible edit-war, a more neutral descriptions than what the sources that are referenced would have required. The sources refer not to "gender identity" but to "Gender Identity Disorder" and "Transsexual Identity". Whoever wrote this section made a WP:SYNTH error and substituted "gender identity for these. Either that or the references are incorrect).

Please note also, the list and links to edits is here pooling different edits, different issues, different statements. The cooperated reversals of my edits, in both instances, may be an issue of bias or even vandalism to prevent the accurate attention to medical information on treatments needed. It is difficult to see why the edits are deprecated, if not to distort the evidence and accurate reference sourcing.KoenigHall (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KoenigHall- this latest comment shows how poorly you understand WP:3RR, which is a bright-line rule that applies to a page as a whole - reverts concerning different edits, different issues, different statements within a 24-hour period, on a specific page, are all supposed to be added together to determine whether or not 3RR has been violated; that is how 3RR works. And whether or not any of the edits are "right" or justified is never a justification for violating 3RR, with certain minor exceptions concerning BLPvio and copyvio that clearly do not apply here.

As far as your claim that the first edit was not a revert, why does its edit summary begin Undid revision 1027692359? As far as I know, partially automated edit summaries might produce false negatives as an indicator of reverting, but I don't think they can produce false positives. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial OK, don't have the time to check the rule details now, I'll take your word for it. Then I stand corrected. Thanks for explaining (in a civil manner). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoenigHall (talk • contribs) 06:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, last comment was mine KoenigHall (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not an WK:RS, yur statement "it is a false claim" is not a valid ground to undo. Either bring a RS for "it is a false claim" or desist. KoenigHall (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE content

Your promotion of FRINGE content in the domain of MEDRS, most recently here and here, seems to me to be becoming disruptive. If you are unable to recognize that the perspectives represented by the ROGD hypothesis, SEGM and Genspect are outside of the medical and scientific mainstream, then it seems to me that it might be necessary for you to be banned from this topic area to prevent further disruption. It is not reasonable for mainstream editors to deal with the same pseudoscientific arguments over, and over, and over again on different pages. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing other editors of promoting fringe content. There is no content being fringe here. On te contrary the content I edited by removing is fringe, so please explain or refer to a more accurate discussion of what you mean.

I can demonstrate how my edits have contributed to reaching consenxus while your reverts and deletions have been destructive and pointless.

hy is removing reference to Bauer et al. Fringe? It is not MEDRS, it is a very poor primary.

Te text I removed on the "medical diagnosis" is similarky nt promoting "FRINGE" it is a request for justification, if there exists for the undue and unbalanced discussion of (one part) of Lisa Littman's work, a person who is only one member of the Genspect team, but where the main part of the first paragraph is dedicated to her, presumed, discredited reasearch, Please note that there are many more elemnts to be cleaned up here.

I wil ltake this to TALK and hope that other editors will see that the page need a lot of further imporovemnt.

Please stop trying to intimidate other editors by uwarranted threats.

It is better to refer to TALK and stand corrected. KoenigHall (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also now saw your similarly completely unwarranted allegations that I make repeated "fringe" claims, on the Stella O'Malley Talk page, where it turns out that I have editos consensus with me and the "False claim" has been corrected, removed, and replaced by a cutation of "open democracy" claiming it is a false claim, i.e. it is not a WIkipedia consensus at all, which is exactly my claim tin the first place, that you call "Fringe".

It seems to me that you are not open enough to more neutral points of view, which leads you down the wrong path in challenging my edits.

Do you not see that my view reached consensus? KoenigHall (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the one who introduced the attributed statement [7] ), whereas you had simply replaced "made false claims" with "claims"[8]: no, I do not see that (your) view reached consensus. Your perception that a significant proportion of editors supports your view is another issue that might best be addressed at the Arbitrators Enforcement board. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't recognize the mistaken elements in your edit which stated "false claim" as a default Wikipedia standpoint, which was corrected, and, that this was my issue with your edit, and, that it wasn't WP:Fringe, then I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Please stop your repeated harassments and threats. KoenigHall (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, your view is not only that not only that the claims in question should not be presented as "false" in wikivoice; it is that they are not, in point of fact, false. Am I mistaken on that point? Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view is detailed on the TALK page discussion of this topic.

Please respect the WIKIPEDIA requirements on content and refrain from further engagement in personal irrelevant quibbeling, harassments and threats. KoenigHall (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my preceding comment, my conclusion from the discussion on the article Talk page is that you do not regard the claims in question as false, and that you regard the sources supporting these claims (e.g., Levine et al.) as reliable MEDRS. Do I have that right? Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Your recent editing history at Stella O'Malley 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. Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About pinging editors

Hello!

Just FYI, I didn't actually see this reply until now. If you want to notify an editor to a reply in a discussion, mentioning their name as plaintext (e.g. @KoenigHall) won't do it. Instead you'll want to use {{re|KoenigHall}} which produces @KoenigHall:, or {{u|KoenigHall}}, which simply writes KoenigHall.

More information is available at Help:Talk pages § Notifications.

Happy editing! – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.... @RoxySaunders: KoenigHall (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary comment

Hey. Could you please explain what you mean by "no hits for 'legal'" in this edit summary?

When I said "already challenged by another editor", I was of course referring to the sequence of edits between Saneintherain and Maddy from Celese. Saneintherain had proposed the exact same content you had done, and it had been reverted and challenged by Maddy. It was entirely inappropriate for that content to be restored, even by another editor, without discussing it on the talk page. Would you please self-revert and begin a discussion on the talk page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the edit which removed group? I got the impression you are just reverting "on principle", i.e. vandalism. I will check for the discussion you mention. If it doesn't raise the issue of "legal" term versus (MEDRS compliant) "medical" term, the discussion isn't relevant, and as I stated "affirmatjve model" (or "affirmatve care" if you like) is the default. "Standard" is what would require consensus and TALK. If the editors Maddy from Celese or Saneintherain disagree, they can correct me, but your two reverts without grounds seem out of order. (If I find you are correct I will revert myself).

Also,unless this was also discussed on TALK please otherwise undo your revert of my deletion of "group". That was a language edit, not a semantical or content issue. Please don't revert just for the sake of quibbling - I will try to see if I find that discussion but it would help if you can provide a phrase to search for including the "group" or provide a link. KoenigHall (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons why an edit on Wikipedia may be reverted. Vandalism is only one of them. If I was reverting for vandalism, unless it's an exceptionally obvious case where someone is blanking an article, or inserting various spam words, most editors including myself will say in their edit summaries that the revert was for vandalism reasons. However, I was clear that my revert was because the content had already been challenged by another editor. In that circumstance, even if you are not the first editor to propose the change, you should discuss it on the article talk page first before restoring it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also with regards to the removal of "and group", you have already removed it again in this edit, so there's nothing there I can self revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tranarchist reverted my edit so now you can edit the "and group". I cannot. KoenigHall (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. 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. Please self-revert this edit and open a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that the content you removed was adequate to meet WP:V, as the Vice Media source that supports it clearly states In fact, the Yale School of Medicine published an article in April that calls out the Society of Evidence-Based Gender Medicine as a small group of anti-trans activists “without apparent ties to mainstream scientific of professional organizations” that works to misrepresent science and serve as a basis for lawmakers to criminalize transgender care. The citation to the report itself is currently number 24 in the article, and the content you've removed from the lead was simply repeating content that is present in the third paragraph of the Medical community section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it seems to me your warnings are only intended to intimidate and prevent adequate editing of content, to prevent obtaining adequate content according to WP intent. You have also, yesterday reverted my edit about the founders of Genspect, where you before reverting, should have checked, that the statement in the lead has no reference relevant to the statement (that Stella O'Malley is the sole founder of Genspect). Please do no revert lead content which is neither sourced nor referenced, not in the lead and not in the body text. Please also note, the the lead is not about Genspect, it is a about SEGM. Please therefore, immediately revert your revert and if you wish to pursue this point as relevant to the lead abot SEGM, take it to TALK. KoenigHall (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

where you before reverting, should have checked, that the statement in the lead has no reference relevant to the statement (that Stella O'Malley is the sole founder of Genspect) Actually, you have that a bit backwards. I did check who Genspect listed as their founders prior to reverting. As I said in my edit summary I checked the Genspect website, social media presence, and reliable sources about that organisation. I also checked Genspect's and O'Malley's articles. In doing so I could not find a single source that said there was any founders other than O'Malley. In third party sources in particular, whenever O'Malley is introduced it is almost always as some variation of Genspect's founder Stella O'Malley and not Genspect co-founder Stella O'Malley or Stella O'Malley, one of Genspect's founders. As such, it appeared as though you had introduced unverifiable content, which per policy we are to remove. As self-reverting would reintroduce unverifiable content, I will not be self-reverting in this instance.

If you know of sources that exist that assert there were other founders than O'Malley, please provide them at the Genspect talk page first, so that we can correct that article, before looking at updating related articles like SEGM. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to note that O'Malley being the sole founder of Genspect does seem to be adequately sourced in both Genspect's and O'Malley's respective articles, and as being the founder of an organisation is relatively uncontentious, those articles are sufficient to meet WP:V as long as they are wikilinked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given in the lead does not give the information claimed. Please give a WP:RS reference if available. Your opinion in the edit history is not WP:RS not relevant, neither is what you "can find", as you must be aware this is WP:SYNTH. Please revert. KoenigHall (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sense in continuing this part of the conversation in two places at once. Please keep any future replies on article content to either the SEGM talk page, or the Genspect talk page. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]