Nixrox

Welcome!

Hello, Nixrox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at AfriForum

Your editing at AfriForum is tendentious and promotional, and in this edit you're even using the source (your own source) tendentiously. No, the fact that AfriForum denies that they’re a white nationalist organisation in a reliable source is not significant — certainly not in the sense that they get to deny it on Wikipedia as well — not when the secondary source itself disagrees. Please stop. Your interests on Wikipedia seem rather one-sided. May I ask if you're connected with AfriForum in any way (a member, an employee, or the like)? Bishonen | talk 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

You are over-reacting, and I’d strongly urge you to WP:AGF. My edits are intended to get the article into a state where the NPOV tag can be removed. The article is a mess at the moment, and that serves no one. None of my edits have promoted AfriForum. For the record, my personal opinion of the group is very unfavourable, and I do believe that their track record indicates that they are a white nationalist organisation, denials not withstanding, but, putting my personal feelings aside, the fact that they vehemently deny being a white nationalist group, and that it is covered in a reliable source (and in primary source statements), means that it should be included in the article. The informed reader can look at the sources, and make their own minds up. Your accusation of promotional editing is entirely baseless. Nixrox (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not giving my opinion of your intentions, as I'm not in your head, but of your misunderstanding of how to use sources. Do you mind answering my question above, even though you say you don't like them? You do seem extremely interested in them, and as you can see I don't agree that your edits bring the article closer to NPOV. Do you have any connection with the group? Please see WP:COI. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

I do not have any link to AfriForum, and I find your accusations to be both insulting and unfounded. Almost all my edits have been aimed at dispelling the notionof a white genocide, which makes this entire line of questioning rather baffling.Nixrox (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Nixrox, you have my sympathy. The current editing trend at Wikipedia is that it is considered irrelevant or even "promotional" to mention whether an organisation itself agrees or disagrees with negative labels applied to them, so unfortunately the fact that AfriForum denies that they deny white genocide and the fact that AfriForum denies that they believe any of those things that white nationalists believe, is not considered relevant in the current editing trend at Wikipedia, and any attempt to make it relevant is bound to trigger reversions by editors who currently follow the current editing trend. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to just let sleeping dogs lie and not be seen to oppose the cabal. --leuce (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Your recent editing history at AfriForum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 06:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This has certainly been an eye-opening experience. The fact that my edits have been constructive and not edit warring, but I’ve come up against an admin who has thrown WP:AGF away, and I’ve been repeatedly accused of bad faith edits because the other editor doesn’t agree with my edit. Something badly wrong with a Wikipedia, and how it treats new editors. Nixrox (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you consider many of your edits to be improvements, but others may not see it that way. For example, you often remove dates and specifics from events and then group various events together into a single unit, saying that you're "simplifying and consolidating". Many of your edits reduce specific information to generalistic comments. For example, in such-and-such year AfriForum did such-and-such specific things at such-and-such United Nations events, and you change it to "AfriForum engaged with the United Nations". Sometimes, removing specifics may turn a neutral report into what would appear to future editors as promotional comments. The United Nations "engagement" item is one example; the item about AfriForum assisting black land oners against squatters is another example. Of course, I realise that there is a danger of providing too much specific information when editorialising, but what I see in your edits is overtrim. (FWIW, I was not involved in giving you a 3R warning.) -- leuce (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with the other editor that there have been far too many connected edits (although I am not a connected editor). WP:NOTNEWS is important to bear in mind. The article goes into excruciating detail about AfriForum's exploits (in a style of writing that is quite revealing about the editors who added the content). The citations remain intact for interested editors to expand.09:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Leuce. I'll also add that Drmies is an extremely experienced and respected editor, even elected to the WP:Arbitration Committee/History once. I also agree with your statement above. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

February 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at AfriForum. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. I'm referring to this removal of content and references. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Threatening to suspend an account for a bona fide edit seems to be a violation of the spirit of WP:AGF. Politicsweb is not a reliable source, as it is an opinion site WP:RS. The rest of the edit was unnecessarily verbose and added no value to the article. Nixrox (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)