User talk:Stjoan1

Hello, Stjoan1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Species8473 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Louk.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Louk.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello, I'm BlackFlanker. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Russian patrol boat Vasily Bykov have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. BlackFlanker (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Hello, I'm BlackFlanker. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia, if you will proceed in this behaviour, you will be reported to administrators. BlackFlanker (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We had an Admin approve my revision yesterday under arbitration and now a different admin has approved the previous different revision. Thus, I compromised with my own paragraph. Admins need to be consistent or coordinate with each other. Stjoan1 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, Thank you for the compromise on the admin side. I also read your instructions on link brackets. cc: BlackFlanker, Applodion | Stjoan1 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is BlackFlanker that is overriding an admin and vandalizing the page. This is the second time he has ignored an Admin. | Stjoan1 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlackFlanker, Admin 331dot states they have no power to approve an edit so you can threaten to report to an admin all you want. The problem is you are dominating a page that you have very little actual edits of your own creation. It doesn't matter if you subjectively feel my edit adds no value.

Intersex

Please listen to the other editors. You've gone way over your WP:3RR limit and risk being blocked from editing for some period of time, because you're now 'edit-warring' - Alison ^talk 22:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring. Look closely what I am adding and how many people are fighting over a definition of a word. Notion needs to be defined because the statement is coming off as scientific, which is not the intent. Stjoan1 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely are edit-warring, regardless of how right you feel about what you're adding. Please listen to the others, or take it to the talk page and explain your issues. Do it again without dialogue, and I'll block you for 24 hours myself - Alison ^talk 23:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

... from editing for 24 hours. I warned you repeatedly, actually started a conversation on the talk page for you to work with the community. But no - you even reverted me. I'm trying to work with you here to get your opinions across, but no. 24 hour block. Come back when you're willing to work with others. 5 or 6 reverts with the same thing just won't do - Alison ^talk 23:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. You should know that page is locked down from editing in violation of Wiki rules, values, and mission statement. And you're just as guilty as the rest of the guardians of that page. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and there is only pending changes protection on the page. Anyone can edit it, but it needs approval if you're not an established editor, which you are. What anyone can't do is continuously fight to get their version of the page the way they want it. That's just unilateralism. Work with other people and gain consensus. Maybe you'll shift your opinion in the process. Maybe they will. That's how we work here on Wikipedia. BTW, as an admin here, I'm used to taunts and claims of bias - usually from all sides. 18+ years here. It's water off a duck's back ... - Alison ^talk 20:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see that. Stjoan1 (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here?

Are you even here to build an encyclopedia? Or just to complain that you think it's dumb? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my page. I made my point clear of the conflict of interest going on with the Intersex page. So, just leave it at that. The guardians of the page won't even tolerate dissent on the Talk section. That much is crystal clear. And to think this all started with merely clarifying the definition of notions, which the paragraph needed. I get it, it is a political page and is one sided. I'm moving on. You have your page and a little flag on it. It has nothing to do with Intersex by any scientific standard. Fine. But it makes Wikipedia a joke by any professional encyclopedia standard. You know it, I know it, and now the whole world knows it. It's people like you that give Wikipedia a bad name. You absolutely know it and it is disgusting. Not unprofessional. Disgusting. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, uncivil language and personal attacks aren't helping your case. Stop being disruptive or you may be blocked (again) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Prove my point. I'll die on that sword and threatening isn't going to work. I told you I was moving on but you want to pull the tiger's tail. So, stop provoking me. That is a violation. Stjoan1 (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please both of you move the conversation to the talk page and try fix the article. Or not. But please stop the personal attacks - Alison ^talk 20:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fixing this article. That is why I stated above that I'm moving on. In fact, I keep stating that and I keep getting responses. I'm going on the record that the page is closely guarded and not open for logical interpretation. The page Talk section is full of ingnoring or attacking constructive ideas or criticism that are shut down and ignored. Thank goodness there is at least a record of it that is maintained. Out. Stjoan1 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Saunders edit

I have reverted your addition of an unsourced date of birth to Lori Saunders. In addition to Wikipedia's basic principle of citing sources (Wikipedia:Citing sources), a special need for citations applies with regard to elements of a biography of a living person (WP:BLPPRIVACY). Feel free to add a date of birth when it is accompanied by a citation to a reliable, published, non-primary source. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Beccaynr (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in layman terms what was the problem with my edit. Thanks. If I get a hint that you are discriminate I will edit again. Stjoan1 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Gadsby

In my edit summaries removing your first attempt to add a dictionary definition to the lead of this article, I attempted to note the use of a "they" pronoun is valid according to MOS:GENDERID and the MOS:NEOPRONOUN section. I encourage you remove this disputed edit and instead get consensus on the talk page for the addition of a dictionary defintion to the lead for something that is widely-sourced and appropriate according to the Manual of Style, instead of adding it again after it was removed with an edit summary pointing to the applicable MOS sections, after you were notified of this contentious topic area. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why don't we just leave it alone and let other editors bring it up in the talk section. I shouldn't have to lead the conversation. I just need to do something that is considered valid or not. If the Webster dictionary, which is a Encyclopedia Britannica Company, has a page that can explain the first use of a singular pronoun than what is the harm? It disarms the controversy from the start. Stjoan1 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You first added the dictionary definition [1] with the edit summary "First use of singular pronoun "they" linked to Webster Dictionary to support it's use as valid. I would have linked to the actual definition in Webster but is way down in paragraph D." However, as I noted in my removal (although it took two edit summaries due to mistyping the link) [2] "Rm dictionary ref - use is valid per WP:MOSGENDERID and sources" and [3]" and [4] "dummy edit to correct/expand edit summary - see - MOS:NEOPRONOUN section of MOS:GENDERID"; you then used the minor edit feature to re-add the disputed content [5].

This follows you opening a section below the previous discussion of the use of the they pronoun in this article on the article talk page in a section titled Again pronouns at 18:20, 13 December 2023 [6]; after this, I added the Introduction to contentious topics notice to your talk page, and you changed the post to alter the first line from "They has an issue with this article." to "We have an issue with this article." [7]. Your talk page post did not seem to suggest that you planned to add a dictionary definition to the lead, or other improvements to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? Stjoan1 (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping EvergreenFir and Alison. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stjoan1, your edit was not constructive and your edit summary here was inappropriate. Is there something I'm missing? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one that asked for you. Communicate with that person. Stjoan1 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stjoan1 I am addressing you nonetheless. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless. Stjoan1 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I just got summoned here, can someone summarise why this is controversial? I think at worst, adding the dicdef is a little excessive / unnecessary, but is this something to edit-war about? What am I missing here? - Alison ^talk 19:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So I put everything back the way it was. But we have certain overqualified editors that view themselves as a guard at the gate on contentious pages. To immediately show they are on duty. It may have been excessive but that is a subjective call in of itself. Basically, these sort of pages are on lockdown by certain individuals that give the appearance of a conflict of interest. They don't stand up to the facts even if it agrees with their agenda. Stjoan1 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit summary isn't super great, per WP:AGF and WP:NPA - Alison ^talk 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case as before mentioned. Stjoan1 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, I had been writing a comment on the article talk page when the disputed addition was removed by Stjoan1 (thank you), and posted it shortly after the removal [8]. I have since followed up with further thoughts in another comment on the article talk page [9]. I think discussion can sometimes be helpful for determining the forums best suited to address a particular issue, and in my recent comment, I suggest a forum to broadly address the validity of the singular they in biographical articles could be the Biography Manual of Style talk page. Also, I do not have a conflict of interest with respect to the Hannah Gadsby article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. You have been blocked before and your battleground behavior in relation to Hannah Gadsby is more of the same. You've been advised of contentious topics. If you don't dial it far far back, you will be blocked and it won't be as short of a time. Star Mississippi 16:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I backed off and now it is a pile on. I can care less. This whole thing is a joke now. In fact, just disappear me completely. Stjoan1 (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, sir or ma'am. Stjoan1 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]