User talk:Autisticeditor 20/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hi Autisticeditor 20! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 17:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello, I'm Riverbend21. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fingering (sexual act) 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. Riverbend21 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fingering (sexual act). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 22:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear, Davey2010

I apologize for any wrongdoings on my attempt at editing. I was unaware of this disruptive editing rule. So for that, yes, I will stop making such edits like this here. -Autisticeditor 20 Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi AE, No worries we all made mistakes when we were new me included, I would advise that you go to each individual talkpage and explain why you want x,y and z changed as you ma be helped further and it would stop you being reverted, Also you're on a level 2 warning - once this reaches 5 you could be blocked and we dont want that so head to the talkpages and discuss your changes over there :), Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Cunnilingus

Hi! I'm manually reverting one of your recent edits to Cunnilingus (as part of a larger copy edit) due to Wikipedia's guideline on avoiding excessive links (WP:OVERLINK). Please take the time to familiarize yourself with that guideline and the Simplified Manual of Style before making more such edits. Thank you. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Vulva and vagina

Hi there. There are many who'll think the text is only about the external female genitals and not the vagina when you use "vulva". So please don't unnecessarily obfuscate the vagina in text. Technically, only the vaginal entry is part of the vulva. Have a blessed day. ~~~~ Javan009 (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Masturbation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Fingering (sexual act) did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The reason I changed "mutual masturbation" to "manual sex" is because mutual masturbation either means two people watching each other stimulate their own genitals or both partners stimulating each other genitals simultaneously. I don't want to confuse readers when they read the article and click on a somewhat inaccurately labeled link. However, I will leave it alone if you want me too.

Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Autisticeditor 20, please do start using edit summaries to explain why you doing what you are doing to help other editors understand why you are making the changes you are. Otherwise it leads to misunderstandings. S0091 (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Do I have your permission to edit this article now that I explained it to you as long as I put why in the edit summary? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

S0091, Do I have your permission to edit this article now that I explained it to you as long as I put that explanation in the edit summary? I really don't want to mess things up. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, one more thing. May you please explain what it means to prompt you? I'm still quite new here. Thanks! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sure what you mean. There is no prompt for me but there is a prompt to add an edit summary every time you edit an article which other editors will see. S0091 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm StarryNightSky11. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fellatio 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fellatio. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Only men have a penis, its basic biology. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 04:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@StarryNightSky11: No, this edit wasn't vandalism. A person's gender identity does not necessarily correspond to their biological sex or anatomy. Jarble (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't fix working redirects

Please don't fix redirects that are already working and point to the correct location, such as in these edits. The redirect 'mutual masturbation' already pointed to the right location, and didn't need to be changed to a link pointing to the same place. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto these edits at Gay sexual practices. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Warning re edit warring

The rules regarding edit warring are strict: you will be blocked if it continues. WP:BRD applies and you must gain consensus at article talk before repeating your edits. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Rollback at Handjob

I've rolled back these 3 edits of yours from June 13 at Handjob because they were simply a repetition of your earlier attempt to insert the same material previously and which was already reverted once before because they made the article worse. These edits predate the warning in the section above by a week, so they do not constitute a "continuation" of your edit warring; nevertheless, you would be well-advised to keep the warning in mind, as this appears to be a pattern of yours, and it will get you in trouble if you don't stop. If you wish to argue that this content is an improvement to the article, please go to Talk:Handjob, create a new section there, and state your case.

In general, I'm not finding that any of your many edits at Handjob have been an improvement. What is it that you are trying to accomplish there? Your fiddling with piped link text, grammar changes, and wording changes uniformly seem to make the article worse. You need to think about what your goal is at that article, and come up with a rationale; at the very least, each edit you make must improve the article in some way, no matter how small. If there's no improvement intended or achieved, please don't make the edit. As I can see that you've been trying and trying at that article and nothing is really working for you there, I wonder if you would benefit from taking a break from that article for a while, and try some other one? If you want to discuss further, feel free to {{Reply}} to me below, or to pose any question about editing Wikipedia at the WP:Help desk. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason I did that is because for "manual sex" the word manual is already in there so I have to explain what that means by adding that in there. What's so wrong about that? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for any unwanted edits on that article. I will stop doing so. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on All the Way (Growing album)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page All the Way (Growing album), 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)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit summary implying advocacy

Your edit summary at Handjob revision 1162781408‎ was not a valid reason to change the image at that article, and sounded like WP:ADVOCACY, or righting great wrongs. Please make sure that all of your changes improve the article for reasons defined by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not your own personal criteria or favored outcomes. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Castration --> Neutering

Please do not make mass undiscussed changes like that. Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits

You are leaving edit summaries of "Fixed grammar" when you are changing "his" or "her" and "his or hers" and similar, to "their" or "theirs". This is a usage issue, not a grammar issue. Please explain where consensus has been established that these changes are appropriate? I am all in favor of the singular they in cases of ambiguity. But it seems to be that your changes introduce ambiguity and confusion into the prose, instead of improving it, at the expense of clarity. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Goodbye, everyone

I'm gonna be taking a little break from editing Wikipedia since I can't properly edit articles well at the moment. I am glad I was able to fix a few things here, but I don't want to come of as an entitled vandal. Thanks for everybody that helped me when I need it anyway. Ciao. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey

Hi everyone! Honestly I was just a little upset that my well-meant edits were reverted the other day. But now I know they are just trying to help me along the way. So I take back what I said about taking a break, I'm gonna go with my well-intentioned gut and keep on editing! If any of them get reverted, oh well. My heart is always in the right place. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

thank you

thanks for everything you have done for wikipedia Bjc8996 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Aww your welcome! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Perineum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American slang. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SDNONE

Hello there. I see you're newish to wikipedia. Before you change any more "nones" in short descriptions, please have a read here: WP:SDNONE. Thank you and happy editting. Masterhatch (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Apostrophe-"s" use

MOS:POSS instructs that the possessive form of a singular noun ending with "s" is "'s" as for all other singulars, not just "'". I first noticed the mistake in this edit of yours ("Descartes's" is even a specific example in the Manual of Style), but I see you might have made other edits of the same type. Please double-check if there are others that need to be undone. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for editing on the LGBT (Pan) Article!!

	The LGBT Award
	Thanks for editing on the Articles containing LGBT topics. more specifically, the pansexuality page!! Its great to see such good editors. enjoy this special Bisexual skeleton image, and the SPECIAL LGBT AWARD!! :) Babysharkboss2 (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I won't do that again. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Nor will you upload penis pictures. If you do that again, I will block you. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for everything once again. I guess I can't do anything right. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to take the advice of other editors seriously. You are being given good, patient advice in the section below. Please take the time to understand what's being asked of you, and to adjust your approach to editing Wikipedia for the better. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ResolutionsPerMinute. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not add unsourced recording dates. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @ResolutionsPerMinute: in fairness to Autisticeditor 20, I don't know how they can act on this with no indication of what article you are referring to. I see you used Template:uw-unsourced1 for this; did you know that you can specify the article name in param |1= of the template? In any case, can you please link the article in question below? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: They've done this on multiple articles. Check their history. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute:, nevertheless, their history includes 151 unique articles in just the past week (6 – 13 Sept.), usually with multiple edits per article, sometimes dozens, so can you just link three specific edit diffs that you found to be problematic? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'm pretty sure they'll figure it out once they see the seven reversion notices, but if you insist, the first article I caught this on was (How Could This Happen to Me?) . Thank you and goodnight. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Never mind, I think I found them. Autisticeditor, I believe that RPM is talking about the articles listed in the seven reverts performed by RPM in these 7 contributions. RPM, would've been simpler for you to list them at the outset, sigh... Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced edits and other arbitrary or questionable changes

Hello again, Autisticeditor 20, and I hope you're doing well. As you evidently have already noticed with alarm, I have reverted several runs of edits of yours at three articles: Fellatio, Mons pubis, and Glans penis. Your edits at Fellatio were reverted mostly for being unsourced, and partly for removing helpful "See also" links; at Mons pubis and Glans penis, they were undone partly for cluttering the WP:LEADSENTENCE by introducing rare plurals with pronunciation keys into them. I would have reverted more of your edits, such as the ones at Body of penis and 69 (sex position), but @Zefr, EPEAviator, and Charmander45: got there first.

But these appear to be just the tip of the iceberg. As I view more of your contributions, I'm starting to see a pattern of arbitrary changes which I'm hard pressed to see how they are improvements; many appear to be just wording changes with no benefit, others are questionable complications of formerly brief, straightforward, and comprehensible language into something longer or unnecessarily cluttered. Worse, are those cases where you change language right in front of an existing ref, with no appeal to the named source to support new or altered assertions.

Your nine edits at Cunnilingus are not an improvement, and like many of your unsourced changes at Fellatio, do not give the impression that you have read any sources before you made your changes; rather, they just seem to be arbitrary changes to wording of your choice, but also content additions and changes that appear to be unsupported. These nine edits should be rolled back.

Your ten edits at Non-penetrative sex are not an improvement, and should be rolled back. Your use of added bolding in the article is improper, and not based on any content guideline. Your change to a perfectly good sentence on "Manual sex" by adding "is sexual activity involving..." is not an improvement and just makes it more complex. Your change from "digital stimulation" to "manual stimulation" is very minor as these things go, but is it actually supported by Richters-2003, or as I suspect, just another arbitrary, unsourced change? Because as minor as it is, "digital" and "manual" activity are not identical, and if the source supports one of them, that's what we should go with. How is changing a caption fragment from "depiction of mutual masturbation" to "a couple engaging in mutual masturbation by touching each other's genitals" an improvement? That's just increasing clutter with no offsetting benefit in increased precision or clarity.

These three changes of yours at Anilingus seem completely arbitrary and unsourced. You claim "better wording" in your edit summary, but I don't see how "kissing" ⟶ "use of the lips" is "better"—seems like an unwarranted change; and where did "Insertion of the tongue (stiffened or moving)..." come from? It's hard to know whether these should be rolled back or not, as the previous wording was unsourced as well. Maybe the whole paragraph should just be removed. Your addition of one "See also" link in that edit was an improvement, and was perhaps the only thing that was.

I could go on, but the point is, I don't know which of your many edits recently are a clear improvement to an article; rather, it seems like almost all of it is questionable wording changes at best; in many cases, the result is worse, and virtually all of your edits are unsourced, as far as I can see. Furthermore, I'm not seeing an evolution since our earlier discussion from June, even though you have an additional 2,500 edits under your belt since then. Rather, the exact same thing seems to be happening now, as then. This is worrisome.

At this rate, I don't really know if your contributions are a net positive for the encyclopedia or not. I think it's really important for you now, if you want to remain an editor in good standing and continue to contribute here, that you clearly understand that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, that all content involving assertions of fact must be WP:Verifiable, and that this is not the place to add your own general impressions, or even firm knowledge of a topic to articles. If you can contribute within those policies and guidelines, then you're welcome to edit here, but if you feel you cannot, then this might not be the right place for you.

I'm sorry that this comes right on the heels of the discussion above, and I don't think it's true that you can't do anything right. I feel that you can, as I feel your passion for editing here; it just needs to be guided within proper channels, and the proper channels here are those defined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so maybe spend a little time there. I know it's a maze wrapped in a thicket, but just ask for help if you get stuck.

If you have any questions, or if you want me to go into more detail on any of these points, please feel free to respond below. You may also find answers to any of your Wikipedia editing questions at the Tea house, or the Wikipedia:Help desk. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot for taking the time to write the above. I have been watching this page after noticing flurries of edits. Humans have evolved to be interested in sex but it is necessary that we learn to act appropriately. I can see no reason to fiddle with so many sex articles particularly given the nature of the changes as described above. Successful editors focus on a couple of articles at a time and read reliable sources in order to determine whether changes would improve the article. Very significant changes in editing behavior are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well guess what? I think I'm done editing Wikipedia for now. Thanks for making me feel like garbage even more. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I am deeply sorry for the inappropriate response I gave you a few hours earlier. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry about the inappropriate response; it's no fun to get your edits reverted, that's for sure; it's already forgotten. Just concentrate on taking on board some of the major policies and guidelines, and for right now, you could start with just these two, and they're related, so almost just one, really: WP:Verifiability, and WP:No original research. I think if you get a solid handle on those, you'll be in much better shape going forward. I'm still willing to help, so once again, feel free to ask, or try the WP:Help desk if you're not happy with the feedback you're getting here. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll do my best. And regarding past mistakes, I'm deeply sorry about those too. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Better; now please up your game and go for best

You're doing better than previously. So, I had a look at your stuff today, and I can see you've been working hard on adding or clarifying homologous structures in human reproductive anatomy (along with some See also links) so thanks for that. There were quite a few unsourced additions, but they all appeared to be accurate and verifiable, so bravo for that.

In several cases, you updated articles created in the early days, when sourcing was lax or non-existent; this isn't a license to ignore sourcing just because they did; ideally, you should be adding citations to all new assertions of fact, and the name of a homologous structure certainly fits that bill. So the clear majority of your edits were improvements; just try to kick it up one more level, and take the time to add those citations, and then no one will bother you here about your editing.

Here's what I found:

• Appendix of testis (diff) –  Maybe. unsourced; reverted, because: 1. unsourced; and 2. 'fallopian tubes' are never mentioned in the article body. Your unsourced edit about homologous structures was accurate, and verifiable; so in this case, it was merely unsourced. You should have found a source for it, and added a citation (to the body).
• Bulb of penis (diff) –  Maybe. added unsourced homolog vestibular bulbs to this stub. Another poorly sourced 2006 article), but if you add something, you should source it.
• Crus of penis (diff) – Agree. good See also link.
• Diphallia (diff) – okay (alphabetized See also's)
• Elytron (diff) – Not sure. . Maybe; I don't see any difference.
• Epididymis (diff) –  Maybe. you added epoophoron as a homologous remnant in Development section. I don't know enough to know if it's relevant, but it's unsourced.
• Erectile tissue (diff) – N. unsourced; reverted
• Frenulum (diff) – Agree. thank you for the typo fix.
• Gubernaculum testis (diff) –  Maybe. you added the homologous structure 'round ligament of the uterus': accurate, but unsourced. This completely unsourced stub was created in 2006 when sourcing (and enforcement) was more lax; however, that's not an excuse to keep on adding more unsourced material; you are responsible for your edits, regardless of what came before.
• Hypospadias (diff) – Agree. okay; more specific wlink target ('glans' -> 'glans penis')
• List of related male and female reproductive organs (diff) – not worse: adjusting wlinks having redirects at variant spellings (Bulbo-urethral gland > Bulbourethral); testis > testicle;
• Rete testis (diff) – Agree added short desc, and better word.
• Vaginal dilator (diff) – okay (alphabetized See also's)

I think you're already doing better, and I can see you are paying attention and digesting previous messages, so bravo for that. There's still a little ways to go regarding citations, and I know you can do it. This will be my last unsolicited post here for a while, as you'll likely need time to continue working on this stuff. I'm always available for questions, so ping me anytime. Carry on; you're on the right track! Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of related male and female reproductive organs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Running hot and cold

You seemed to be on the right track, but now I'm not so sure. You seem to alternate between excoriating me on my Talk page, and apologizing profusely; and ignoring sourcing requirements, and then paying attention for a bit. You don't need to waste your time berating me or apologizing for it—just source your edits, and all will be well. You recently left me this message on my Talk page:

Mathglot, please for the love of god, leave me alone! I do not have to source everything! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you do. I hear your frustration, resulting presumably from my previous reverts of your unsourced edits, and I'm sorry about that, but that isn't going to change my behavior any as far as continuing to remove unsourced content you add to articles. If anything, it will do the opposite, by attracting increased scrutiny from other editors, including admins who have previously posted on this page.

What you must do, is to avoid WP:Original research (that is non-negotiable), and comply with the requirements of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. In your case, given your previous editing pattern and the previous challenges to your editing on this page, I would say that yes, you do have to source everything. (I should add here that I've just removed unsourced content of yours from Hand job, but your series of edits partially pre-dated earlier warnings above, so you may get a pass there. I didn't look at your edits today to Human sexuality, Vaginal lubrication, Nipple stimulation, Anilingus, and Cunnilingus for lack of time, but I hope any new assertions of fact are all well-sourced by citations that directly support them.)

I think you have a decision to make, about whether you are able and willing to comply with Wikipedia policies on original research and sourcing (WP:Verifiability). If you are not, you will end up having your editing privileges suspended, and I can see from your passion that you don't want that. You know very well what to do to avoid that, so the ball is now in your court, and it's right before the buzzer. As before, you are welcome to respond below, or to add substantive comments on my Talk page. (I'll just ignore or delete pointless outbursts, so save your breath.) Or ask for help from another editor, or at the WP:Help desk. I wish you the best. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm really really trying, Mathglot. I really am. I've followed your orders and cited sources just like you asked. It's just getting really frustrating that I always appear to be doing something wrong. I'm not here to goof off, I'm here to improve. The way you reply to me came off as a bit condescending. Please be easy on me. I've only had this account for almost 4 months, I'm not as experienced as you considering you started your account way back in 2006. I'm doing all that I can. Thanks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

All right, fair enough. For starters: I cannot give orders, only suggestions based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And there are tons of them, so I get why it's difficult for new users, and if my reply seemed condescending, then I apologize; sometimes when you've been here for many years, it's hard to see where the pain points are for newer users, and I can see you are trying.

So let's try a reset: what are the most difficult things about citing sources for you? I don't think it's the mechanics of it, because I can see you using template {{cite book}} and formulating it properly, so that's not it. Is it more about the question, "What do I need to source, and what don't I need to source?" Or, put in other words, is it about "What is an assertion of fact?" Here's what you don't have to source:

• correcting misspellings
• fixes to grammar
• moving words around in a sentence to make it clearer, without changing the meaning at all
• completely obvious stuff cited all over Wikipedia: "Paris is the capital of France." (but be careful: what you consider obvious, others might not; if in doubt, it never hurts to add a citation)
• adding or dropping a wikilink (brackets around a term to link to another page), when that improves the article

Some stuff you do have to source generally includes any new fact you add:

• stuff you know for sure, because you've done it, studied it, participated in it, or wrote the book on it—source it
• stuff you read somewhere, so you know it's true—source it
• anything that is a new assertion of fact—source it
• substituting one word for another, when that changes the meaning, or might change it —source it. E.g.: "digital stimulation" ⟶ "manual stimulation"; possibly okay, but why change it if the book says "digital"; and if there's no book, then you need to find one

And so on. I'm running way over time here, so have to leave this for now, but I hope this is a start, and that I haven't left out anything important. When in doubt, source it! That's never wrong.

If you're not sure which are the "important" policies and need to be mastered first by a new editor, I get that, and that makes total sense. That's something that hits every new editor. I'd say for now, your two most important ones to get on board with, are WP:Verifiability, and WP:No original research. Was this helpful? I hope so. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S., Just received your request on my UTP to check your recent edits and I definitely will, but may take me a day or so. Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: another editor (RPM) removed some past unsourced edits of yours (added by you from June through 23 August) in these seven reverts and notified you about them above. For some reason, they added their comment several discussions earlier, tacking it on to this discussion. These edits pre-date our recent discussions about sourcing, so aren't worrisome at this point, but you should still be aware of them as something that other editors are objecting to as well. I'll still get back to you on the other stuff, but not quite yet. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Alrighty. Please let me know when you seen my recent edits and newly added sources. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I will, but it might take a few days, hope that's okay. I *have* noticed a bunch of new sources you've added, just haven't had time to look at them closely, or respond in more detail right now due to other obligations, including being backlogged on some work that depends on library books that are coming due, but I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, just keep citing your sources, and to help WP:Verifiability, please include the page number(s) showing the exact spot in the book that supports your content wherever possible. You can do that with param 'pages': e.g, {{cite book|author=...|title=...|pages=107–109}} and so on. (You can use |page= instead of the plural 'pages' if it's just one page.) So, carry on with your sourcing, and everything should be all right. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

From History, I can see you've done a lot of sourcing lately, including addition of page numbers; that's great! Haven't had time to check in detail yet as I'm still backed up, but I'm going to try and find someone to help out, who could maybe look over your most recent sourcing efforts, and offer any useful commentary, or assistance needed. Stay tuned... Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stick to doing useful things. If you see dozens of links that you think need to be fixed, stop and think: how come all the dumb editors in the past did not do that? Ask at WP:Teahouse before starting a WP:NOTBROKEN quest. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Labia majora

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Labia majora, 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)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl (bot) 78.18.251.25 (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Foreskin. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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) 14:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I had no clue the source looked like a mess! I added it back in and fixed it. I wasn't trying to start an edit war! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Many species have penises. Please undo your edits that gave an inappropriate focus solely on humans. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Craniofacial. The cited ref is clearly not about a human. Stop. Stop now. Do not add "human" to links for everything. Check every one carefully to make sure this is correct. DMacks (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reverted a couple of your link changes at Dusky hopping mouse, and European rabbit, for pretty much the same reason: rabbits and mice don't have human organs (even when the word "human" is not in the name). Please slow down a bit, or just check your work more carefully before saving. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

At this stage I am beginning to think an ANI report is the only way to resolve this. I reverted your edits to Religion and sexuality just now as I saw you had added "human" to phrases where it clearly isn't needed (animals don't have religions, so it was completely redundant and unnecessary in that article). I'd particularly like to hear DMacks and Mathglot's thoughts on this beforehand, though. Patient Zero^talk 00:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging Bon courage --Patient Zero^talk 00:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No need for ANI--I've taken an admin action myself. No prejudice against further discussion here, modification of this 31h block (continued the same behavior after multiple final-like warnings for it), or migrating to or pinging ANI for addiitonal eyes. DMacks (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DMacks (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Autisticeditor 20, just a friendly word: no need to panic or overreact; this is a very short block, so there's no real point wasting time appealing it, in my opinion; just wait for it to expire. In the meantime, just take a breather for a day, look over the messages that have been placed on this page for you, check recent edits of yours that have been reverted by various editors and try to understand why. This page is still open to you during your block, and it's okay imho to ask about what went wrong so you don't repeat the same pattern after it expires, so ask questions for anything you don't understand. I know you have good intentions and that's great, but understanding is important, too, because if you carry on in the same way as before without understanding what went wrong, your next block will be longer, and you don't want that. So, read up, and ask questions. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You are being very helpful but what is in the best interests of Wikipedia? I watch a lot of sex-related topics due to helping repel nonsense in past years and the degree of fiddling I have seen in the last couple of months is way too much. I reverted a couple of edits at Female genital mutilation and mentioned WP:NOTBROKEN above and in my reverting edit summaries. There might have been a good reason for Autisticeditor 20's edits but, as usual, there did not appear to be any discussion or attempt to engage with the issue. Just find some more links to adjust. Articles, particularly those on human sexuality, need careful development with focus on one or two articles and in-depth reading and understanding of WP:MEDS sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, Johnuniq - my main focus on Wikipedia is counter-vandalism and so I too keep an eye on pages of this type as they are often hotspots for disruptive editing (which typically takes one of two forms - either immature vandalism from schoolchildren, or tendentious agenda-pushing - tonight in particular, anti-transgender sentiment was something I found myself reverting). To be clear, I am not convinced AE's editing falls into the latter category - I note in particular that AE openly identifies as autistic, and so wonder if he is simply being very literal in his approach and therefore have not meant to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia. After all, to a neurotypical person, the fact we are talking about human body parts and sexuality is a given, but it may not be to some autistic people; with that being said, disruption is still disruption, and it does need to be dealt with. (It is probably worth noting I am autistic myself also, but I fully acknowledge the diversity of the spectrum and recognise as a linguist in particular I find it easier to pick up on nuance.) Going back to the point at hand - like you say, some of AE’s contributions have been helpful, and in my opinion, conducive to building an encyclopaedia - but with regard to the topics of sexuality and sexual body parts, it is clear to see that there have been repeat instances of problematic editing in this field despite multiple talk page warnings. My suggestion going forward is an indefinite topic ban (to explain my reasoning, it would be indefinite to reflect the multiple warnings - because if it were vandalism, 4 warnings would lead to an indefinite block), but what do we all think? At the very least, going forward, I think AE would benefit from editing other articles on more neutral topics where he will not have the same issue of repeatedly having to clarify that he is referring to humans. I will also make note here of the fact that AE has very few edits outside of this topic and so would encourage him to broaden his horizons a little bit, lest we end up with a Neelix-esque situation (as the young people would say, if you know, you know). Patient Zero^talk 03:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The only way to require a topic ban would be to have a discussion at WP:ANI. That would require a bunch of evidence and prior careful thought. I was thinking of an indefinite block for general disruption which does not require any discussion but which is easily overturned by an administrator who believes the block was unwarranted. However, I would have to do significant checking before issuing a block to make up my mind whether the difficulties are worthwhile given the beneficial edits (are there any?). Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The beneficial edits that catch my eye are typographic and similar gnome work, like converting contractions to the more formal full words and replacing curvy-apostrophes with straight. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Those edits were the ones I thought were beneficial as well, DMacks. I think AE can contribute positively with edits of this nature, and so I’d be willing to assist with gathering and providing evidence for an ANI report should Johnuniq be OK with that going ahead. I think a TBAN would be preventative rather than punitive (although I will also clarify that I believe a block is also preventative in this case, especially given he has several warnings, so this is no criticism of the block!), and would encourage an otherwise capable editor to contribute in a way that benefits Wikipedia more. Do let me know your thoughts? Patient Zero^talk 05:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: wrt the 'useful gnoming', if you look at an edit like this[1] (the addition of a page number) so far as I can see the page added does not verify the content, so in fact it's a backwards step. I sympathise with admins having to formulate an overall solution here. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had the time/motivation to fully investigate and I certainly have no plans to do anything like an indefinite block in the near future. However, if problems are shown to be evident I would be willing to investigate to see what I thought should occur. Trying short blocks is fine by me. It would be useful if someone with actual knowledge of the topic area were to examine a couple of sample articles and give a brief report on the before/after of AE's edits. If you or anyone would like to draft an ANI report I would be happy to give my opinion on how it might go. However, I think ANI is impossible to predict in a situation like this. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I missed your comment during my (ec) (below), but I would oppose an ANI discussion at this time as unwarranted and a waste of time. Just talk to AE, and say what you'd like to see them do differently, and give them some time to do so. Be prepared to say it a few times in different ways, as they adjust and begin to make changes to accommodate your view of P&G. That's what I did with respect to massive unsourced edits, and that is now no longer a problem. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no question in my mind about the good intentions of this editor, which doesn't mean a block or ban is unwarranted, and I'm hoping this one will have salutary effects, but it does mean that none of their edits qualify as vandalism, or perhaps I should say, "as WP:VANDALISM" just to be clear that I'm talking about the Wikipedia sense of the word. Infrequently there are some problematic edits that might skirt disruption in the eyes of some, but they are definitely not vandalism. To me, they are the mistakes and growing pains that all editors go through, each in their own idiosyncratic manner and time schedule. (Also, it's nothing close to the Neelix situation, with his 80,000 puerile redirects.)

Agree that broadening their perspective would be a good idea for AE, but that said, we're a volunteer organization, and there are editors who edit constructively in a narrow area. Naturally, if a particular area becomes problematic, then a t-ban could be an option, but I don't see any topic-related disruption, just a learning curve going in fits and starts, but definitely trending upwards. I don't have a problem with someone editing articles related narrowly to sexuality and/or body parts, any more than I would someone who edits, say, only Gamergate-related articles, or only Japanese video games; there's one editor who edits "nude"-everything. I wish they would all branch out, but that's just a suggestion. As long as they stick to WP:P&G, and learn from mistakes, then afaic, they're good. Same situation here, I think, unless it becomes specifically problematic, which I think the great majority of the time it isn't.

My main quibble at this time with AE's edits is relatively minor: that AE is making some careless mistakes related to wikilinks, for example. (But note: none related to sourcing issues anymore, which is very much the more important issue, and is no longer a problem after being discussed several times.) The other quibble, is that there are quite a few edits in my opinion that are a net neutral—that is, they are not an improvement, but neither do they make the article worse or violate any P&G; shifting word order around to no great effect, for example. I tend to disfavor edits which do not improve an article in some way, no matter how small, but you'd have to have a very, very long pattern of "net-zero" edits before it could be sanctioned, I think; there are so many more urgent things to monitor than that.

AE is definitely capable of getting on board with suggestions and requirements, because they've done it before with sourcing: that used to be a huge problem (see discussions above) and they totally turned that around 180°. I'm convinced AE will get on board with current issues, so more guidance please, repeated if need be, so don't give up on this very motivated editor. Some hand-holding may be necessary, but I believe they will develop into a better editor.

Autistic editor, you can contribute to this discussion if you wish (but you don't have to). Whether you decide to respond here or not, I'd like to recommend that you take some time to think privately about what others are saying here, and to do a self-check to see if you get why it is that they have concerns about some things (whether or not you agree with the concerns or not—just think about whether you understand their point of view). You've come a long way so far, and you're really on top of sourcing now. There are still some issues to deal with, but don't worry, you can do it. As always, feel free to ask questions. Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is enthusiasm and a demonstrated ability to change certain specific editing behaviors in the past. We just need to see it happen in the present situation. We all make an occasional mistake, no problem. But when someone points out a growing pattern of mistakes, we need to commit to making a change and not keeping making the same mistake. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given what Bon courage has pointed out above, I believe we are looking at a competence issue… Patient Zero^talk 09:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. But we are also looking at a new editor, and one who has made no secret of being autistic. Per WP:BITE we should be giving them help and support to see if they can improve their competence. This is the first major intervention. Let's see if the editor is willing to change their approach as a result. I support Mathglot's approach. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, we’re also looking at an editor that has received several warnings and does not seem to be heeding the advice contained within them. As an autistic editor myself, I also acknowledge it cannot be used as an excuse for disruption. I don’t think the disruption is intentional or malicious (so I will challenge your notion that I have bitten a newcomer - I’ve literally written a large paragraph above in an attempt to explain AE’s actions and have sympathy for him), but it still needs to be dealt with. Patient Zero^talk 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not say you have bitten a newcomer. I think a failure to give the editor a chance to improve, following this ban, would be doing so. I agree the issue needs to be dealt with. I believe that we are not yet at a point where we say CIR is an issue. It may be, thus "possibly", but we are not at that point yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies - I misinterpreted your reply a little, Sirfurboy. I recall being a new editor very well myself, and I did not get everything right back then (mind you, I was a teenager!), so I do understand your concerns re. the potential to be “bitey”. I do also think it’s rather difficult to say what should be done at present - I’m trying to balance out the fact that several warnings have been issued with the fact that this is clearly an editor who has the potential to contribute positively. I must admit I do find it worrying that AE has not responded to any of the concerns raised in light of his block (I’d like some reassurance that he has learnt from this and will not repeat the mistakes), however it could just be that he is waiting out the block and having a cool-off period. In that case, I do hope to hear from him once he is unblocked so we can decide on the best course of action. Patient Zero^talk 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've read everything. It's just I got really upset that I got blocked. From now on, I think I'll just stick to fixing obvious mistakes (typos, extra commas, etc.). I'm really, really, really sorry for everything. I promise I won't disrupt ever again. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, AE. I can understand that it would be upsetting to be blocked. I'd like to reassure you that blocks aren't used as a punishment on Wikipedia, rather as a preventative measure to prevent disruptive editing until we can be sure it will not continue. I am, personally, happy with your response - if you have any questions, I'd like to extend an offer for you to get in touch with me whenever you wish on my talk page. Just a heads-up though - I'm in the UK, so I may respond at unusual times. Patient Zero^talk 00:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have an idea for something you might be good at, and enjoy

Hi there, Autisticeditor 20,

I discovered this great tool called Citation Hunt which I think you would enjoy using, and would be really good at, too. You can find it at https://citationhunt.toolforge.org/ and it's pretty self-explanatory, but in brief, they show you a paragraph or a sentence that is tagged "citation needed", and provide a button for you to go edit the article and add a citation. Don't like the article or the paragraph? Just click the "Next" button, until you get one that you like. It's fun, and it would really be a positive improvement to the encyclopedia if you found it to be something up your alley. Try it out, and let me know how you like it! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert my Edit

@Autisticeditor 20 Why did you revert my edit on these two articles? 69 (sex position) . Lesbian sexual practices Javads 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Because the other illustrations were good enough. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I had designed these images exclusively for this article. Your method of simply deleting all of them and ignores my efforts, makes me not want to participate anymore. Good luck. Javads 18:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Javadst I stumbled across your ANI post, and I want to say I fully support this editor's actions in removing your images, and thank them for doing so! I will be sure to keep an eye out for the introduction of such wildly inappropriate renderings in the future, and will remove them myself if it becomes necessary.

You may be incapable of understanding how inappropriate (and, frankly, misogynistic) your "art" was, but that's exactly what it was. Nudity and sexuality are no problem, and Wikipedia isn't censored. However, why on earth do the women in your "art" need to be wearing stockings and other decorative accoutrements, but not the men? Do you have any capacity to reflect on the prurient nature of this Playboy-esque "design choice"?

You may be shocked to find this out, but what you apparently think lesbian sex consists of is entirely drawn from the pornography industry's theatrical performativity. Your "lesbian sex" characterizations are frankly shameful, and solely represent what voyeuristic males wish to see.

I hope you find something more productive, and less gross towards women, to spend your time on, as you are clearly very skilled at generating art in this manner. However, given how immaturely you have applied this talent to the realm of sexual imagery, I'm confident that for now Wikipedia is much better off if you have, in fact, "rage quit." Do better, as female editors like myself are already a minority on en.wiki, and we do not deserve to be greeted with this thinly veiled sexualization in representation. Chiselinccc (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chiselinccc It would have been better if you had brought up these issues on my discussion page, but it’s fine, I will respond to you right here. First of all, I must say that I have great respect for women and I am a supporter of gender equality, please do not judge me in this manner. In response to your first question, I truly had no other motive than to make these two characters slightly different and look more beautiful. There was no other consideration in my mind. Perhaps I have not even spent a tenth of the time making the male character as I have spent on beautifying the female character. If you notice, in another image where there is a male character present, the female character is not wearing any extra clothing, it is only in that image where both are women that I did this. Also, one of the users had mentioned that the bodies of my characters do not resemble normal human bodies and look like porn stars and this is not good. This was really due to my inexperience and I must confess that this was contrary to what I had imagined; I thought I had to create a flawless body for a woman. I accept all these criticisms and have no guards to editing my art if you provide me with references or guide me according to your opinion, or anyone else you think can guide better, I will create and replace it with the previous image. With respect Javads 21:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Javadst I replied where I wanted to, and it was completely fine to do so here. Frankly I'm not comfortable commenting on the talk page of an editor that thinks these crudely pornographic renderings are necessary or useful contributions to an encyclopedia.

I don't care what your intentions were with these images, I'm giving you the important feedback that as a female editor on en.wiki who already recognizes I'm in the minority, your "art" made ME PERSONALLY feel uncomfortable, disgusted, and outraged. Find something less objectifying to do with your time, I am ashamed on your behalf because you do not have the good sense to feel shame at your "erotic lady models."

If you ping me again, I will not respond, and you are pre-emptively banned from commenting on my talk page, so do not try. I am uncomfortable communicating with you and I genuinely hope I never come across you or your "contributions" again. Chiselinccc (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)