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 herethe company is not notable enough to have its own article, so I have again redirected the page. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 16:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I do not find this specific revert covered by the examples given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism . Please file an ordinary 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 editorone of the most experienced new page patrollersof vandalism is nothing short of a personal attack. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 21:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , 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? &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 21:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 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. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Keimzelle making personal attacks. Thank you. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 " ". 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)
 * 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] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org 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)