User talk:Amorals

Amorals, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Amorals! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

DS alert: AP2

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Palmer Report. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate. These edits are not coming from registered editors they are coming from disruptive ip adresses. I will request protection for the page.

Hello, Amorals. You should have listened to the warning above. You were the one who started this edit warring, by repeatedly changing the description from the longstanding "liberal" to your own version "far left". That kind of dispute must be resolved by discussion at the talk page, and while it is under discussion, the article must stay at the longstanding previous version. IPs are not "wrong" or "disruptive" just because they are undoing your change to the article. And you are in danger of getting cited for edit warring if you keep reverting them. I have restored the longstanding version, pending discussion and consensus. I am glad to see there is now discussion at the talk page. In order to change the article to your preferred version, it will require agreement and consensus among the editors discussing there. In that discussion, be sure to document your opinion with Reliable Sources rather than simply asserting. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Haven't heard from other editors yet. Amorals (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

In response to this, there is nothing in Wikipedia policies or principles that says editors should keep their personal perspectives/biases to themselves on article talk pages. The article should comply with (the often misunderstood) WP:NPOV and other policies, but editors are not required to pretend to be personally neutral about Trump. I'm far more concerned about editors who claim to be personally unbiased, since that suggests they actually believe they are, and a failure to recognize and acknowledge one's own bias is a dangerous thing.

I personally find Trump offensive and repugnant, most regulars at that article know that, and that says exactly nothing about my qualifications to participate at the article.

Links to sources should play a larger part in these discussions, and I expressed that yesterday. That applies to you too, by the way, and as far as I can see you have yet to post a single RS link on that page. But talk page language like what you criticized is not a problem, and I would also caution editors from using inflammatory wording like "ham-fisted" and "happy meal" that make it very clear you personally dislike Trump as it discredits your POV, not to mention it calls into question the integrity of this entire article if you are playing a significant role in editing it. was completely off base. I also agree with MrX's comment about your lack of standing to make such criticisms of editors with many years of experience.

And your signature for some reason repeats your username at the end, no idea what that's about. I suggest you fix that. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, using inflammatory language like the one I criticized on the talk page does not violate WP policy however it undoubtedly makes consensus even harder to reach and is unproductive and that was the basis of what I was saying.

Your concern about editors who claim to be unbiased I suspect is based on the faulty belief that everyone must have a strong bias such as the one you personally described as having towards Trump. However, I (and others I'm sure) would disagree with the notion that it is impossible to have unbiased editors, therefore, editors who claim to be be unbiased deserve no more suspicion, than those who openly flout their biases.

Wikipedia is not a caste system where we talk about "lack of standing." Years of experience are irrelevant other than your understanding of wikipedia policy and formatting. In terms of the intellectual ability an editor offers to help to maintain the integrity of articles, years of editing are irrelevant and therefore I reject and find your "lack of standing" comment offensive to many other editors. Any editor including you Mandruss, or myself has standing to criticize any editor if they feel such critiques are warranted.

Additionally, I have not offered new RS links but I have interacted and replyed to links offered by other editors. As long as the focus remains on the RS it doesn't matter who copy and pastes the links. Amorals (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't receive a notification because you added the link after the fact.[1] For a notification to be generated, the link or template must be added in the same edit as your valid signature, not later.

I'd say there's a vast difference between it undoubtedly makes consensus even harder to reach and is unproductive and it discredits your POV, not to mention it calls into question the integrity of this entire article. At best, you should work harder to say what you mean. At worst, you are confused about what you mean. As for "caste system", stick around for awhile and take note of the vast amount of time wasted dealing with low-time editors who grossly overestimate their competence, having little comprehension of the magnitude of what they have yet to learn. This wasted time isn't merely annoying, it has a severe negative impact on the editing process. Hit me up around 2024 and tell me if your lofty egalitarian ideas have changed at all. In other contexts, your "caste system" is called "representative government" – you and I are not allowed to directly establish the laws of our countries because we lack the standing to do so.

While I'm here, I'll note that you generally don't indent your comments correctly per WP:THREAD. A minor point, but not insignificant.

Thanks for fixing your sig. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MandrussI have not encountered low-time editors so for now I will remain optimistic but I appreciate your input. Additionally, what you seem to be describing is a far from a representative government, what you seem to be advocating is a blind system of seniority where editors with more years of experience are assumed to have superiority and any valid intellectual points by less experienced editors should be disregarded.

Lastly, if another editor has a problem with my comments I would appreciate if they addressed me directly rather than you acting as a mouth piece for them. I'm not quite sure why it was you leaving these comments on my page anyway, and not the editor who had a problem in the first place. Amorals (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

1. You are distorting my meaning, and I give up on that. 2. I speak for no one but myself, based on over 6 years of heavy editing experience. 3. MrX is not the only editor affected by your misguided comment in a public venue. Likely about a dozen editors will see it. 4. Editors sometimes comment on things that don't directly involve them, and that is a widely-accepted practice. In my view they should do so even more often. To any sensible and reasonable person, uninvolved criticism should have more weight than criticism from someone who has a vested interest in the dispute. The project does not benefit from "I don't want to get involved" attitudes. 5. Clearly little is being accomplished here, so I'm done. You're welcome to the last word if you want it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure as a last word, in the future please refrain from leaving comments on my page if it does not involve you. I am open to having discussion about content or anything between you and I. Just because uninvolved editors inserting themselves is allowed, doesn't mean it's always ideal. If other editors have a problem with something I wrote, let them voice it. We don't need to overcomplicate things with you serving as a spokesperson for all the editors you think may have been affected (even though none have said they are). Cheers. Amorals (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This kind of "get off my talk page" comment invariably undermines the credibility of the editor who says it. I hope you'll try to be more receptive to thoughtful comments from other editors in the future. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Note about talk corrections

Not worth consuming talk page space, but I'll note it here FYI. In such a situation (where the incorrect comment has received a reply) we would generally correct the original comment using strikethrough and/or underscore, so as to preserve context for the reply.

MelanieN you have my 100% approval for “over-exaggerate.”

-or-

MelanieN you have my 100% approval for “over-exaggerate.” "exaggerate."

If there is no reply yet, it's generally accepted to correct to our hearts' content without indicating the change in that manner, since there is no need to preserve context.

The use of underscore for this purpose is why (or one of the reasons why) italics or bolding, rather than underscore, is preferred for emphasis in a talk space comment. Using underscore for both purposes would create unnecessary ambiguity.

I'm certain there is a guideline somewhere about this, although I don't find it at WP:TPG where I would expect to see it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

My apologies thank you for that tip, I will look into those guidelines. Amorals (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump talk page comments

With less than one month's editing experience here, you are not enhancing your credibility with disparagement of other editors or indignant comments about good faith. Please try to focus on responding just to what another editor may have said and not on what else you infer they may believe or why they said it. Please give this a try. This is in response to several recent talk page comments of yours, most recently this one: [2]. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The places for such criticism are user talk pages or WP:AE, and don't bother with the latter unless you can put together a strong case (if you're in law school, you have some concept of what that means). Realistically, anyone doing what you claim is very unlikely to stop doing it because of such comments, so at best you're wasting your time and putting yourself at risk. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Specifico I think what you're really trying to say is I'm not enhancing my "popularity." My credibility is fine. Mere experience is not an automatic indicator of competence in editing every article, so my short time here is irrelevant. In some ways, having less time editing is positive, as you bring less baggage. User talk:Mandruss I only was speaking in general terms, and since I was not specifically calling out any editors by name, (I never directly disparaged any editor) I believed my comments to be within the the normal range and I'm not sure what you mean by putting myself at risk. My aim remains to merely improve articles and if that means I'm not winning any popularity contests with editors who've been around for a decade, that's a small price to pay. Thanks. Amorals (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to soften the comment by acknowledging that there's a lot to learn -- much more than you could be expected to absorb in less than one month and a few dozen edits. BTW making "general comments" about other editors is actually worse than making a specific comment to a single editor in the appropriate page, as Mandruss has explained. Specific concerns can be discussed and resolved. General disparagement or the sentiment that those who disagree with you are corrupt -- that's impossible to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

my short time here is irrelevant. Perhaps it should be irrelevant, but what should be is rarely what is. Political capital (experience, reputation) means as much here as anywhere else, and my hope is that you can accept and internalize that before it's too late for you (I think you have the potential to be a solid editor and an asset to the project). I've seen dozens of editors come, not do so, and go – voluntarily or otherwise. That's my advice, take it or leave it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Your recent editing history at Gretchen Whitmer 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.
You've made four reverts - to avoid a 24-hour block, self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear - you have reverted edits on Gretchen Whitmer four times in the last 24 hours. I'm giving you an opportunity to undo your last revert; otherwise, I will file a report on the 3RR Noticeboard requesting that you be blocked for this violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The reverts in question: 1, 2, 3, 4. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Amorals reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This message is to indicate that there is no violation I merely was restoring established content that had been added w/o consensus if you had an issue you merely could have brought it up on discussion page rather than being so draconian. Amorals (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)