User talk:Stix1776

Pioneering, or not pioneering

I want to note that 90% of the 50 edits you have made to Wikipedia since registering have been to the articles about author and travel writer Isabella Tree, her husband Charles Burrell or the project that they started Knepp Wildland. The only other articles you have contributed to are to Vietnam War POW/MIA issue (6 edits), Adolph Hitler (1 edit on talk) and Bit (horse) (1 edit). I do find this a bit odd but won't speculate as to why you might be so laser focused on this subject, but I do encourage you to let the current text stand or I will refer the issue to some appropriate form of dispute resolution. Before you ask: Yes, I have visited Knepp Wildland (camping once), and yes I did see Charles Burrell in passing (once) when I was in the shop. However... I have no dealings with them or with Knepp and have no prospective of dealing with them in the future, I am contributing to wilding articles simply because I think it is an important ecological approach and I am getting more involved in WP again after a break of a few years. PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to work with you, but your challenges of the Knepp Wildland project persist and seem very weak. As I explained in the talk page of the article, the word 'pioneering' is not MOS:PUFFERY. I would also note that the project is not 'her project' as you have just suggested in talk:Knepp Wildland, it is a big project with many people involved. I will ask you more directly. Do you have an personal connection to this project or more specifically to Isabella Tree, because if you do you should definitely avoid editing this article. If you don't have any personal reason to be editing the article then I find it very strange that you persist arguing on this small point when there are so many other areas on Wikipedia that need attention. PeterEastern (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The word "pioneering" is literally listed as one of the "words to watch" from MOS:PUFFERY. And Isabella Tree, the original author of much of this, is part owner. I have no personal connection to this person. I've never even been to England. The edits I have made regarding dishonest citations have mostly stuck. Please try not to make this ad hominem. I am sorry if I have done the same. I applaud you for feeling that "wilding... is an important ecological approach". Just make sure that your articles don't break Wikipedia rules on WP:NPOV.

Eating humble pie... yes, indeed it is there and in that case the word should not appear. Thank you for clarifying that you have no relationship past or present with the promoters of the project. To be clear, I only raised the query of why you are focusing so much attention on this one person and project after working with you for some time to resolve the issue without asking the question. Do also note that I raised this issue on your talk page and not in the article itself. Now that this issue is resolved I would be content if you wanted to delete it from your talk page, however I would encourage you to leave it. I make a policy of never removing any interaction from my talk page (other than comments left by bots) to maintain complete transparency.

Can I also encourage you to do two things: Firstly to create some content on you user page – it really doesn't need to be more than 10 words if that is your preference, but a red link to a page contributor doesn't send a great message to other contributors. Secondly, can I would encourage you to widen the the range of articles you contribute to and try improving them as per WP:BOLD rather than simply tagging them. Tagging is better than nothing, but articles can sit with tags on them for a very long time and it is much better to have a go at improving the articles directly. Often you will be left to get on with it, sometimes other people will engage with your work and sometimes you will find any changes are vigorously resisted. I sometimes walk away from articles which seem to be heavily defended and move on to another one simply because it isn't worth the effort. Anyway, nice to meet you, thanks for contributing and see you around from time to time! PeterEastern (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I'll try to contribute more and add to my Talk page. I'm still learning with Wikipedia, so I'm still making mistakes and feeling how things work. No worries about the misunderstanding. Honestly I'm wrong on the internet 19x a day. Stix1776 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am checking and adding references on Holodomor in modern politics

I am checking and adding references on Holodomor in modern politics, there is no need to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  16:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I do believe those countries were added disengenously though, as the source does not support what Wikipedia editors have written. Separate lists seem more honest. Anyhow, I'm logging off for a few days for work. See you later and have a good weekend. Stix1776 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stix1776.  // Timothy :: talk  06:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, lol I have little interest in sticking around this area. TBH, this is not my area of interest or expertise. But thank you for this information.Stix1776 (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Circumcision

According to the WHO (page 2/18) at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978-92-4-000854-0 (you have to download the entire 160 page document): "Risk compensation. There has been no evidence of significant risk compensatory behaviour post-circumcision – that is, more risky sexual behaviour following circumcision driven by perception of lower HIV risk." The WHO is an authoritative source, and should take precedence over the primary source referenced. The link in the article was to the summary of this longer document, but the full document is only available as a download link. Petersmillard (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand now. As I wrote in the Talk, this wasn't the source in the paragraph.Stix1776 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shin Eun-mi has been accepted

Shin Eun-mi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

2pou (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision and HIV. 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. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: Since you're the one making bold edits, doesn't WP:BOLD require you to discuss on the talk page before reverting again. You're literally reverting against two editors. You should be the one using the talk page. Stix1776 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Removing the insertion of rubbish is not WP:BOLD, it's defending the encyclopedia from damage. You're inventing policy. Core policies are WP:V and more importantly WP:NPOV. Tag-teaming with another problem editor does mean you are free to use unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Alexbrn: Do you really not understand how bold, revert, and discuss works (WP:BRD)? Per WP:BRDD "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." I must also point out that you're not following good faith.Stix1776 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Alexbrn: You seem to be the only user that thinks I'm a "problem editor". It is you who has disrupted Wikipedia, not us. Prcc27 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
      • WP:BRD is just an essay, with zero policy weight, and although - yes - it can be a good way to proceed it is sometimes abused to try and lock in bad content. This is a case where I am ignoring it, for that reason. I'm seeing a lot of WP:BURO-type comments and no attempt to focus on the actual content, which is what matters. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
        • @Alexbrn: Wp:Bold is a policy, which strongly recommends talking reverts to the talk page and "do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted" which seems to be what's happening.. If I had the attitude that you had, editing Wikipedia would be miserable. Did you notice that Prcc27 and I stepped away from the edit war, as suggested per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR?Stix1776 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
          • WP:BOLD is a guideline, not a policy. WP:V on the other hand is a core policy, which requires our content to be verified by reliable sources. Again, I'm seeing (faulty) processology and nothing about content. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
            • @Alexbrn:, you're right, it is a guideline. Being on record breaking WP:BOLD still isn't a good look to have. A solution could have been a talk page "oh hey, by letter, I meant...". I think you're abusing WP:V, as the source is debatable but not terrible. I talked about content on the talk page of the article, as I'm supposed to. Anyhow, I find you to be very insulting, and I'm requesting that you step away from this issue. Prcc27 and I have stepped away from edit warring. This is not worth the time you're putting into it. Stix1776 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
              • The source is terrible: an old, non peer-reviewed, letter. Trying to use it to undercut current medical consensus in a top=quality source is obviously very bad. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for Circumcision

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.

MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I do appreciate that circumcision has a discretionary sanctions, finally. Stix1776 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Stix1776. Thank you.

Per the outcome of the discussion, I have implemented an indefinite topic ban from circumcision, broadly construed. You may appeal the sanction after 6 months. Also, though AE is never a pleasant experience, I'm sorry this dragged out as long as it did; sanctions are stressful enough without it being a drawn out experience. If you have any questions about the scope of the ban don't hesitate to ask. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Literally no one responded to the two editors saying that most of this happened before a DS message was received. Nor did anyone look at the diffs or the potential reverse sockpuppetry. I get that you guys are busy, but this was seriously rushed. Stix1776 (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Hello. I also was a little surprised by Stix1776’s permanent topic ban, for incidents that mainly happened before the DS warning message was posted to their talk page. Since this concern was brought up by Stix1776 and me at the noticeboard, but not addressed at all by any of the admins, could you please explain your decision? Did Stix1776’s actions cross a threshold that was too severe for the DS warning timing to matter? I suspect this might be the case, but just want to make sure. Thanks, Prcc27 (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  It has to do with the oversighted material, which attempted to connect an editor with some off-wiki identities. That was my main concern. Getting that worked up over a topic to the point of doing that is a huge red flag, "indefinite" doesn't mean "forever" but at least for now I concluded that distance from the topic at hand is the best idea for everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your explanation! Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion notification: Clarification regarding details of your ban

Hi Stix1776,

If I see correctly, you are currently affected by a ban. In the description of the ban, a restriction is described that appears to prohibit you from appealing the ban earlier than six months.

I have noticed this restriction (six months before appealing) at WP:AELOG/2022. As I'm uncertain about whether such a restriction may be made at all, I have asked for advice at WP:ARCA#Clarification_request:_Appeal_restrictions_as_part_of_discretionary_sanctions.

If you agree with what is being said there, I think you can safely ignore this notification. If the arbitrators decide that the restriction is lifted, you'll be notified separately. You are welcome to provide an own statement too, though.

If you can't edit the page, please have a look at the instruction box at the top of the page for an e-mail option.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)