User talk:Haharris9

Hi Haharris9! 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:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=1290540152 fixed] the formatting, categorization, and neutrality if the RFC you started. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! Haharris9 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Please review WP:BLUDGEON and adjust your behavior at that RFC. a 150-200 word reply to each response is not acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the feedback.I appreciate the reminder about WP:BLUDGEON. I’ll keep it in mind and be more concise moving forward. I've been accused of "trying to be smart" my whole life, so this isn't a new criticism for me. HAHA My intention is to clarify policy and ensure all perspectives are considered respectfully. Keeping the discussion on task isn't easy here. It's almost like they are trying to wear me down, in fact, not the other way around. But again, thank you. Haharris9 (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=

Hi, I’d like to ask for an unblock. I didn’t realize at first that my level of participation in the RFC was becoming a problem. Once you pointed out, I stopped posting long replies and only commented briefly or when I felt it would help move things forward. I even avoiding getting caught up in defending all of the side-rails and accusations. I thought I was just actively engaging in a discussion I started.

Everything I posted reflects what I genuinely think and I tried to say everything clearly and respectfully. I wasn’t trying to overwhelm anyone. The post was finally receiving some helpful comments that weren't trying to demean my request when the block happened.

If I’m unblocked, I’ll be more mindful about how much I post and continue to keep things focused and concise, while remaining mindful of my word count.I really do want to contribute in a way that’s collaborative and helpful.

Thanks for considering. Haharris9 (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)|decline=Your continued refusal to acknowledge that you have used an LLM to write disruptive AI-generated talk page messages on Talk:Acupuncture, despite multiple editors asking you to stop using an LLM, leads me to decline your unblock request. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}} Haharris9 (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not an admin, but are you going to stop your LLM use or nah? Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)