Talk:Aryan race

message: Per WP:BADREVERT and WP:ES, you must have a reason to revert multiple constructive edits to Wiki. I don't need anyone's permission or approval to improve articles here. You are exhibiting WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR by disruptively reverting improvements without a valid reason to justify them. Your revert neither stated the reason nor rationale for removing large, constructive edits. Nothing in my changes needed consensus, and if you have problems with any changes, quote the exact WP:DIFF and the problem HERE. I am a regular editor of this article with a history of constructive discussion about this topic with other editors, so please do not edit war per WP:3RR rule. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that is not the case.  You have made significant changes to the WP:STATUSQUO of the article, and I have disputed that change, for the simple reason that I don't believe they necessarily improve the article, and I also don't believe that they will get WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page.  That is more than enough reason to revert, and by WP:BRD, since your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed.  Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential.  While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached.This is the Wikipedia way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As for OWNBEHAVIOR, it is you who are exhibiting it: "I am a regular editor of this article".  Indeed you are, with  edits beginning in July 2021, and that appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time, which is not the case. Having written 81% of the article, you're certainly entitled to feel STEWARDSHIP in regard to it, but you cannot stop other editors from being involved and expressing their views about the article.Please make your arguments regarding why you feel your changes are justified, so that a consensus discussion can take place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the problem? Quote me the exact WP:DIFF and your problem. You are still not stating the issue here. As I already said, I regularly edit this article and edit the topics whenever I find time and need. You have to have a reason to revert edits; failing to do so is a violation of WP:BITE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said IDONTLIKEIT, I said that they do not improve the article. Please make your arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles evolve over time; they change their size and shape. - You cannot prejudicially revert my edits just because I happen to edit this article regularly. There is no such policy.  If you have read WP:WIP you would have realized that articles evolve over time. And some editors dedicate time and energy to some articles over others.Everything I added is sourced from academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations. If you have a problem with the edits, state your problem.And why exactly do you think those aren't improvements? --WikiLinuz {talk} 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, WP:BRD-NOT says , which is clearly what your doing here. It is your own opinion that the material is not an improvement. It does not apply to good-faith efforts to improve articles.So BRD does not bind here. --WikiLinuz {talk} 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" says  or  is not valid reason to revert good-faith edits. I think mass-reverting with such a reason really discourteous good faith editors and I'm pretty sure this is not the goal of this Project. I will be opening a new topic for explaining changes my edits below. --WikiLinuz {talk} 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts by Beyond My Ken 

message: On a series of diffs, I made the following changes to this article page:
# diff 1 - The paragraph interprets and analyzes a 1920 WP:PRIMARY source, so following advice WP:RESPTAG and policy WP:OLDSOURCES, I added  tag because such an analysis does not abide by WP:OR guideline. A tag was placed because the removal was contested here by .
# diff 2 - I copy-edited the subtopic to include additional context on Volksdeutsche, complementing the previous sentence that introduces Volksdeutsche, added how different racial groups are interpreted in Nazi doctrine and added a citation to a journal article for verifiability.
# diff 3 - I added further context into the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft, compliment both previous sentences on Volksdeutsche and subtopic that talks about Connotation of Aryan in Nazi theories, and added citation to Britannica and peer-reviewed dissertations.
# diff 4 - I modified Britannica citation to  template since templated citations are preferred over raw text citation for consistency.
# diff 5 - I copy-edited and removed "indeed" because it was an unnecessary adverb here.
# diff 6 - I split the paragraph to remove the overcrowded section for ease of readability. 
# diff 7 - I added a bibliography to a peer-reviewed dissertation that will be used in  (and in diff 8)
# diff 8 - I remove duplicate citation and used  to add page numbers on inline citations.
# diff 9 - To remain consistent with other numeric figures, I changed "six" to 6, added figures to "disabled people" data, and added "among others" indicating other Holocaust victims and linked to the respective article.
# diff 10 - I removed redundant links and added a link to another per MOS:SEEALSO.
# diff 11 - I added further context into the role played by ethnic Germans who lived outside the German Reich in the Holocaust, complimenting diff 2 and diff 3.
# diff 12 - I copy-edited the sentence to make it better reflect the cited material (Weikrt 2013) and wrote a better sentence.
All of the above diffs were mass reverted by  in this diff and further by  in this this diff for the same reason, with the edit summary stating to get consensus first; they further cited WP:BRD.  stated in their edit summary (diff) that none of those above 12 diffs are any improvements to the article. However, I made all the above diffs in WP:GOODFAITH and in an effort to further improve the article (the reasons are stated for each diff above). I do not believe any of the improvements/changes to the article through these 12 diffs are contentious or controversial changes. Everything I added and copy-edited is from reliable sources (such as academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations) that meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP policy. None of the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE. This is one of the articles that I regularly edit, gragually trying to improve it over time. But I believe my recent good-faith contributions were mass reverted prejudicially without consideration.
Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" states that . 
Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling states that 
Since the other involved editors cited WP:BRD, this is what WP:BRD-NOT states . This also goes against WP:BADREVERT.
I spend my volunteer hours and try to improve and contribute to the Wikipedia Project sparingly whenever I find time. Given that I have explained myself in detail, this type of behavior creates a hostile environment and is discourteous to good faith editors like myself, which goes against the spirit of this Project.
I hope the involved editors and those who watch this talk page can provide input on whether my good-faith edits warrants mass-revert. If this consensus is stonewalled, I think taking it to dispute resolution is the way to move forward. 
I vote to restore my last revision in lieu of current revision for the reasons stated.
Thank you, --WikiLinuz {talk} 09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus to restore revision 1152101176 

message: Should this version of the proposed changes be adopted into the article in lieu of this current version? --WikiLinuz {talk} 04:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff between the two versions for added ease of comparison by Pincrete. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I must have misread the diff by Pincrete, then.  My point is that the material on Volksgemeinschaft should definitely be included; it is very helpful to the reader to see these confusingly similar non-English terms in sequence and distinguished from each other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The diff provided by Pincrete compared my revision vs. current revision. For convenience, this diff compares current revision vs. my revision.This is the exact revision number that I'm proposing to restore. --WikiLinuz {talk} 20:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I think I'm in agreement with your revisions, then. They seem well-founded and -sourced, and the flow is overall improved, with good material being added (such as the Volksgemeinschaft explanation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on restoring revision content to adopt proposed changes 

message: I'm confused by what you mean . The current version of the articles does not mention the term Volksgemeinschaft at all (you can Ctrl + F and search for "Volksgemeinschaft"). That was added by me in one of those 12 diffs that I am proposing to be adopted into the current article. Mind to elaborate? --WikiLinuz {talk} 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have misread the diff by Pincrete, then.  My point is that the material on Volksgemeinschaft should definitely be included; it is very helpful to the reader to see these confusingly similar non-English terms in sequence and distinguished from each other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The diff provided by Pincrete compared my revision vs. current revision. For convenience, this diff compares current revision vs. my revision.This is the exact revision number that I'm proposing to restore. --WikiLinuz {talk} 20:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I think I'm in agreement with your revisions, then. They seem well-founded and -sourced, and the flow is overall improved, with good material being added (such as the Volksgemeinschaft explanation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion