Jump to content

User talk:Altanner1991/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

August 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of conspiracy theories; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Bishonen | tålk 03:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Belated apologies. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Bishonen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Really? An edit warring warning for having undone you once? And signed with her signature rather than yours? Meters (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the signature—I copied the template and forgot to change the signature. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Bishonen, you may be blocked from editing. Do not restore that again. She undid you once. That is not edit warring. Your warning is inappropriate. Meters (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I interpreted edit warring when you contribute in edit warring, so I apologize if that is not the case. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Edit warring. 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. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I now better understand the policy against edit warring. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Information icon Hi Altanner1991! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Wikipedia:Verifiability that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong again! Help:Minor edit clearly says "Spelling, grammatical, and punctuation corrections". Altanner1991 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
"Does not have a source" has different meaning from "needs a source", and "must be removed" has completely different meaning from "may be removed". Don't edit policy pages without explicit consensus on the talk page. Given your false claims about these edits, I think you should let someone else do it. Zerotalk 12:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
How dare you repeat empty information. I'll go ahead and be the one who explains further: The preceding paragraph had just made it clear that *all material needs a source*. What do you have to say against that, Zero? Altanner1991 (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll say that you don't know what you are talking about and are begging to get blocked. Zerotalk 13:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Jerk. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 14:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The level of rudeness by Wikipedia administrators is worthy of public outcry. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
What Admins? You aren’t replying to one. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
What? Zero is an Admin. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Oops, I guess my script didn’t work but I should have remembered. Still, not a good call. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes you are right, I agree. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Altanner1991 I think what you are missing here is that you have escalated tensions in these discussions, rather than helping approach a consensus or collegial sense of interacting with you as a user. Phrasings like "What do you have to say against that..." and "How dare you..." and "Sorry, but you're wrong again!" are not going to make anyone want to work with you. You should strive to de-escalate tensions with those you disagree with, or at the very least, not escalate them.
It has been described to me that Wikipedia is like the most stringent HR-infested corporate cubicle farm workspace. And everything you have ever said on here is recorded in the record of page histories. It's a pretty apt analogy. Overall, it's a bad idea to give others reason to snipe at you, or to believe you are escalating disputes to become worse, because such things will inevitably come back to haunt you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I feel I have been kinder than anyone else on Wikipedia. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I would tell you to read WP:1AM which perfectly encapsulates the feeling of believing everyone else is wrong, or that you are the sole person who is being kind or genial. Everyone can be a dick on here, but if you're being a dick and against consensus, it can be a lot more evident and more likely to get you into trouble. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I have seen that essay and it is perhaps the best summary, I have put something similar on my user page because no other "3RR" rule was as clear as the concepts in the link you gave. Thank you Altanner1991 (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the words. It seems like things just aren't working out with anyone on Wikipedia, but I will keep trying to do what I can. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Human genetics. 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. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

How dare you say I am edit warring when clearly it goes both ways. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 14:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I see now that I was edit warring because it is discretionary and not based on 3RR. Sorry it took me so long to understand that. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_template. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Referring to your words, "And Rsk, your contentious stubbornness is frankly worthy of a sitewide block." Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought your comment was even more of a personal attack... Altanner1991 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Altanner1991 I would tell you that WP:ASPERSIONS applies, and you should not resort immediately to insinuating another user should be blocked upon first discussing a topic in a new section. It's a bad look and adds to an appearance of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Additionally, the phrasing you used your contentious stubbornness probably violates WP:AGF. Wide latitude is given in such discussions, but repeated insinuation that other editors have bad demeanor is a bad idea.
@Jpgordon@Doug Weller@Zero0000
How many disputes must this user engage in on wiki talk before the block is extended to these spaces? The user has been doing quite a bit to dissuade anyone that they understand the nature and intent of their current block. It seems their argumentative style has actually driven other users away from contributing in these areas: And since I had some experience with Altanner1991's way of discussing, I will also add that I'll stand by my view even if I won't take part in this discussion any more - @Rsk6400 — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Rsk's comment against me was uncalled for and was very much a personal attack. I was trying to respond like admins or perhaps experienced editors. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:ASPERSIONS tells us that one should not resort to suggesting others should be blocked when disagreeing on talk pages, especially wiki talk. Rather, if there is a bad pattern of behavior, you should just bring it to the user's talk page or directly to a board like WP:ANI or WP:AE. Talking about other users in this way during a discussion discourages them from participating in a way not conducive to collaboration. If they've done something wrong, do something about it, don't threaten them with interventions. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I will do my best to remember that. Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Best behavior

Altanner1991, I wonder if you aware that you have attracted the attention and comments of five different admins, just in the last two days. Scary. In my opinion, you're at the very edge, and you can't afford a single misstep. I'd be very, very careful, and stay on your best behavior—now, and for the foreseeable future if you want to continue editing here. And I'm pretty sure you do want to, because the best thing you have going for you, is that you are clearly WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia based on what I've seen of your edits at List of monarchs of France. You've had some serious hiccups which I won't belabor here, but if you can manage to avoid a repetition, you just might be able to avoid falling into the abyss. This will require a change in your previous pattern, and it probably won't be easy; I hope you can manage that. If you want to discuss this, feel free to contact me at my talk page, or if you prefer to discuss privately, click the 'Email this user' in the left sidebar of my Talk page. One tip right off: if you're not sure what to say in any given situation, don't say anything; silence will hardly ever get you in trouble. (Including now.) Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the inspiring words. Indeed, it has been a crazy experience. Hopefully it will get better, but unfortunately, it looks like sheer discipline (and occasionally, "hateful" liberalism, as opposed to good liberalism) has replaced "just finding results". Wikipedia was a good place, but it is not a good place anymore. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
See Law of Holes. I'm sure you know about AgF, you don't seem to mind violating it. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Look, we have been dealing with this crap for the whole six years that I've been on Wikipedia. Maybe it's time for the sitewide indef? Altanner1991 (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, maybe, or alternatively you could use our processes. I was disappointed that you completely ignored my suggestions for dispute resolution at List of French monarchs above. Bishonen | tålk 10:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC).
I took the suggestion to step away from that issue, but will consider such means. Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Ouch. Sigh... Regarding, "was a good place", do you know about the parable of the two travelers? Best, Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Right back on you. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

A feller just has to be as relaxed as possible in any 'content' dispute. If things appear to be getting 'too intense'? practice silence or merely walk away from the dispute (since one's already made their stance), entirely. Take for example the List of French monarchs page. IMHO, the coat of arms should be restored, in the top infobox & all maps discarded. If the consensus there, is to do the opposite? Not a problem to me, as no matter what happens, my toes are still tappin'. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed—WP:NODEADLINE Altanner1991 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry for my spontaneous aggression throughout the past. I was concerned about corruption, but I promise that my spontaneous aggression will not happen anymore, because I have the desire to be a good editor, and to be a good person. Best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Your heart is in the right place, and you clearly have the ability to contribute good content, but you sometimes get into the oddest of dust-ups, occasionally comical, like the one you had with EEng recently at Talk:Harvard University, or one you had with me further back that started acrimoniously (at my TP, here and here), went on in the same vein at the article TP for a while (here and here), before ending quite on a friendly basis (diff), which was good to see.
Being a good editor is a good goal, and if you continue to pay attention to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular behavioral ones, and strive to maintain your equanimity when interacting with other editors especially when some kind of content disagreement is involved, you should be fine. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be better to not continue raising disparagements (see: your edit summary). Altanner1991 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

April 2023

Hi Vanished user 96843, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See this as a sort of "welcome back" after having vanished. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your message! Altanner1991 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am adding a section title so that the bot can auto-archive the content. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Omega 6 linoleic acid" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Omega 6 linoleic acid has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 29 § Omega 6 linoleic acid until a consensus is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit-warring in policy space. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This block applies to the Wikipedia main space, where you have edit-warred in two different policy pages. You remain able to edit articles and you remain able to discuss policy issues in the Wikipedia talk space. If you repeat this behavior when the block expires, I will make it indefinite. Zerotalk 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Altanner1991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only made two reverts, per WP:3RR policy. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for 3RR (which does not give an entitlement to three reverts, anyway.) You're blocked for edit warring now for the fourth time; you're lucky it's as short as it is. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor correction: it is not the fourth time that I am blocked for edit warring. It is only the third time; the other block was termed "vandalism". Altanner1991 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were also edit warring (although not violating 3RR) at Template:Human_genetics and at White supremacy. I got the impression that you changed WP:V because you wanted to justify your opinion that mentioning "White Australia" should be removed from the latter article as unsourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:3RR, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." - ZLEA T\C 14:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I guess 3RR is only for newbs, the administrators, and their friends. Fine. But I have advocated on the policy page that this potential for graft be eliminated. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 15:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
You don’t seem to know our policy and are failing to show good faith or be civil. Bad idea. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The solution I will apply is to be friendly with all editors, since I think that is the only solution. That will cement my interpretation of the policy. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment from blocking admin. The number of reverts was not the point. This user made a substantive change to WP:Verifiability while marking it as minor and claiming it was a grammatical fix. On the edit being reverted, s/he reverted back claiming it was someone else's job to get consensus. Then s/he made a second substantive change, again marking it as minor and falsely claiming it was about grammar. Then after being reverted again, s/he reverted again, even though by that time two people had explained on the talk page why it wasn't acceptable. This editor edit-warred at WP:Edit warring only a few days ago. It seems from the responses above that this editor just doesn't get it. I think a more appropriate sanction would be an indefinite ban from editing policy articles. Zerotalk 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    I was making honest edits. The others have never once given an explanation as to why they were being reverted. I feel that behavior is edit warring, and not mine, since I use rationality. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    I now truly understand that 3RR occurs on a friendly basis and so I will be more careful. Thank you and best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • For the sake of posterity, this user has continued to make disruptive edits in wikitalk space which may run afoul of policy, e.g. "American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups" at WT: No Nazis. [1]. This is in the setting of an ongoing discussion about how the "non-endorsers" list on that essay is a great honey pot to locate editors who will likely become disruptive in the near future. This is nothing if not a great example of that phenomenon. @Zero0000@Doug Weller@Jpgordon Do I think the edit I linked is a blockable offense? No, probably not. But do I think it's extremely on-the-nose? Yes.
    If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck...All you need to do is give it a few days before it starts quacking loud enough for anyone in a hundred miles to know what it is. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, it came as too angry so I have retracted the comment. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    There's "too angry", and there's "Implying either that liberals support genocide, or that supporting genocide is comparable to cancelling people on Twitter or whatever other scary thing liberals are doing". Striking the comment doesn't really address the problem that you appear to hold at least one of those two attitudes toward genocide. I was going to come here to suggest (as an involved editor, admin hat off) that the p-block at the very least be extended to WT-space... But, seeing that Shibbolethink has had a similar reaction and that it's not just me, I'll go a step further and suggest that this is siteblockable. To me it conveys an editor who has a profound misunderstanding of what it means to support killing one's fellow humans (and thus one's fellow Wikipedians) on the basis of their ethnicity—a viewpoint that I find is only slightly less disruptive than actually supporting such killings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    The motives of my comment were pure, and only to end hatred. I am so sorry if that was misunderstood. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    You made that comment 42 minutes after saying The solution I will apply is to be friendly with all editors. If you can't see why a comment like that is not going to come off as "friendly", perhaps this isn't the right environment for you to be contributing to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps you misunderstand my comment: I go beyond the normal desire to bring peace. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    I had meant it as even further left, if that makes sense. But I will try to word my comments more carefully. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    First of all, hatred is worse than killing, and I do neither. Second of all, you want to block me for upholding the anti-war principle in outstanding amounts? Liberalism shouldn't become just a way for savvy urbanites to drastically purge socially-awkward 'simple folk'. "Anti-Nazism" was fine but it has recently been going too far, becoming another way of being cool by getting rid of purported "losers". In sociology, disregarding personhood (dehumanization) is the first step that has led to genocide.
    At this point the only sense between the U.S. Democratic Party's history and the 2016–ongoing U.S. Democratic Party is by the undercurrent of hatred. They should all be called "Hateful Democrats". This is the country of people that instituted the most serious forms of White Supremacy and Nordicism besides WWII and some Commonwealth countries. Not to mention, the Civil War was even bloodier, even in total numbers, than either WWI or WWII. I need to speak out against these things. Hate and aggression is never the answer. I would rather repeal the 13th Amendment!
    Disclaimer: I have always been a registered Democrat, and I will continue to be a registered Democrat. My only other political affiliation has been with the French Communist Party, which was for most of 2021 and the early part of 2022. I was likewise in the early 2010s a notably very liberal UC Berkeley undergrad. [I was not aware that people could register for French political parties, and so I had never actually registered for the French Communist Party. I also feel that it is impossible to ascertain exactly when a regular person was "very liberal" or not.] Altanner1991 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC); edited 21:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    Me, I'd be inclined to make the block sitewide just so Altanner1991 could avail themself of the Law of holes. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    I want to make improvement, if that is at all possible. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    Agree to sitewide block. Altanner1991, my script which marks Admins didn’t work again. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a non-endorsement, excluding the mention of American politics & liberalism & the genocide comparisons, would suffice? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
No I changed it to endorse because it's closer to my view. Thanks though, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Altanner1991/Archive_2&oldid=1239309049"