User talk:Moses102

Welcome

Hello Moses102! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

An extended welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* Discretionary sanctions notification */

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.

--Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Generally speaking, WP:PRIMARY sources have to be used a bit cautiously - in particular, they can't really be used for any interpretation or analysis, and we have to be careful to note when we're just repeating eg. someone's self-description, rather than just presenting it as fact. I noticed you were adding / relying on a lot of such sources in Heterodox Academy and your edit summary implied you thought this was a good thing - generally speaking, especially for controversial things, primary sources are not the best. Also, per WP:CSECTION, controversy sections are usually best avoided. Finally, I have to ask (since it seems to be the only focus of your editing) - do you have any connection to Heterodox Academy yourself? --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to Heterodox Academy. I generally relied on primary sources only when no external reference was available. For instance, their Campus Expression Survey does not have external sources to draw on, for instance, with respect to their podcast, the Campus Expression Survey, or when referencing particular articles. But I have concerns that many of the articles being presented as neutral sources -- the articles have an explicitly hostile or critical tone towards Heterodox Academy. It is one thing to rely on secondary sources, it is another to rely exclusively on negative secondary sources. This does not present a neutral or particularly accurate view of the issue in question. --Moses102 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heterodox Academy; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not intending to engage in an edit war. I certainly did not start one. Every revision I make is being immediately undone by user: Aquillon who seems to have some objection tot the organization. I am new to this website, so trying to figure out how to resolve this issue. But it is extremely frustrating. --Moses102 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)--Moses102 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is also a revert, since you changed "advocacy group" back to "Nonprofit organization" again. See WP:3RR for an explanation of the relevant policy; for the most part, to prevent edit-warring, there is a hard limit on three reverts (anything that undoes another edit, in whole or in part) on a particular article. There are a few exceptions, like for unambiguous WP:BLP violations (and a bunch of edits in sequence with no edits by anyone else between them, like some of your edits, just count as one revert), but those don't apply here. You should self-revert and discuss on talk. --Aquillion (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way to resolve it is to engage in discussion at the article's talk page (i.e., Talk:Heterodox Academy). You cannot just keep making the same edits again and again. —C.Fred (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moses102, I just want to reinforce what other editors have stated. It is frustrating to have your edit reverted. But the Wikipedia approach is not to insist upon inserting your edit but to go to the article talk page and discuss your differences of opinion. Decisions are not made based on who is more persistent but upon consensus among editors discussing a subject. This is more time-consuming but it has worked pretty good for 18 years. Please discuss your edits if another editor has an issue with them. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thanks for the reference. I'll check it out. I am happy to discuss good-faith differences of opinion. I am not out to advance any particular narrative of the organization, but I am disturbed that Aquillon seems to have an axe to grind, not just as it relates to this page, but also other pages related to Jon Haidt or related organizations. More disturbingly, the secondary sources he relies upon are explicitly negative in areas that should be relatively neutral and straightforward (such as describing, literally, what the organization is). How do you deal with someone like this, who has a very particular message they are trying to advance, and resist or erase any attempts to add greater context or nuance? (S)he seems to be doggedly set against a neutral or charitable view of the organization (let alone an overtly positive one, which is not something I am trying to create)...--Moses102 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moses102. Thanks for responding.

I'm sorry things escalated so quickly. I again urge you to take your time and learn your way around Wikipedia by editing articles that are not under restrictions.

Editors are expected to work collaboratively with respect and civility. WP:5P4: "Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,892,682 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss." --Ronz (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moses102. I am a member of Heterodox and think it has an important mission. Observing your edits, I think you mean well (as do the more experienced editors who are reverting your edits), but are new to the wikipedia community and need to take it a little slower and learn the local culture. Please take your suggestions to the talk page, and I think you will find that this can be a collaborative and productive place to contribute to. It is sometimes annoying, but there are some very well thought out reasons for some of the policies which your edits are violating. I hope you stick with Wikipedia and continue to contribute. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Moses102 reported by User:Aquillion (Result: ). Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Moses102, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Heterodox Academy

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be continuing the war. If you don't want to be blocked again, I recommend that you undo your last change. Nothing on the talk page suggests that you have received consensus to remove 'advocacy group' from the article. Your personal conviction that you are right isn't the deciding factor. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't edit again after the above. I've reverted you, not just because of the edit warring but because you are simply wrong. We go by what the sources say, not what editors want to be true. 501c3 organisations can be advocacy organisation, eg Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders and many 501c3 organisations push boundaries in any case. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also realise that if you continue to edit war you could be topic banned under the discretionary sanctions mentioned above. This would allow you to edit other articles outside the area of American politics. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]