353:. 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
238:
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. --
406:
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. ―
99:
807:
668:
178:
861:
576:, 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. ―
640:
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
604:
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
427:
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
723:
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
620:
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
405:
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
282:
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
237:
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
385:
I 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
314:
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
552:
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
269:
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
599:
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
318:
Knowledge 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
389:
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.
682:; 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
220:, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Knowledge 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.
466:
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.
836:
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.
319:
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.
428:
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.
311:, 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.
265:, there is nothing in Knowledge 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)
621:
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.
443:
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.
322:
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.
280:. 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
143:
135:
128:
120:
116:
273:
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.
489:
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.
115:
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
819:
811:
970:
26:
25:
954:
234:@NinjaRobotPirate. These edits are not coming from registered editors they are coming from disruptive ip adresses. I will request protection for the page.
285:
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.
500:, rather than underscore, is preferred for emphasis in a talk space comment. Using underscore for both purposes would create unnecessary ambiguity.
201:, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
903:
43:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge and get help from experienced editors like
146:. 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.
691:
605:
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.
216:. 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
641:
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. ―
1009:
946:
979:
894:
553:
they said it. Please give this a try. This is in response to several recent talk page comments of yours, most recently this one:
139:
683:
315:
editors, therefore, editors who claim to be be unbiased deserve no more suspicion, than those who openly flout their biases.
751:
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
827:
791:
760:
737:
288:
And your signature for some reason repeats your username at the end, no idea what that's about. I suggest you fix that. ―
699:
1005:
703:
386:
are assumed to have superiority and any valid intellectual points by less experienced editors should be disregarded.
225:
124:
1001:
962:
869:
711:
213:
921:
823:
820:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Amorals reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )
787:
756:
733:
198:
193:. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Knowledge this is known as "
73:
991:
987:
876:
815:
716:
695:
694:
for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
679:
217:
194:
182:
596:
221:
810:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
888:
687:
627:
562:
450:
202:
351:
it discredits your POV, not to mention it calls into question the integrity of this entire article
651:
601:
586:
517:
416:
371:
298:
243:
206:
161:
57:
40:
1015:
748:
675:
358:
105:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.
50:
1031:
882:
752:
720:
622:
557:
445:
357:.While I'm here, I'll note that you generally don't indent your comments correctly per
266:
186:
98:
1004:. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
642:
577:
508:
504:
407:
382:
362:
308:
289:
239:
190:
152:
986:
that was created to violate
Knowledge policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
838:
606:
573:
531:
503:
I'm certain there is a guideline somewhere about this, although I don't find it at
429:
391:
324:
247:
728:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
690:
among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See
947:
667:
1021:
345:
as your valid signature, not later.I'd say there's a vast difference between
212:
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to
955:
492:
The use of underscore for this purpose is why (or one of the reasons why)
338:
I didn't receive a notification because you added the link after the fact.
530:
My apologies thank you for that tip, I will look into those guidelines.
177:
860:
347:
it undoubtedly makes consensus even harder to reach and is unproductive
276:
Links to sources should play a larger part in these discussions, and I
963:
1036:
846:
831:
795:
764:
741:
656:
632:
614:
591:
567:
539:
522:
455:
437:
421:
399:
376:
361:. A minor point, but not insignificant.Thanks for fixing your sig. ―
332:
303:
255:
229:
166:
912:
246:) 01:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Haven't heard from other editors yet.
731:
You've made four reverts - to avoid a 24-hour block, self-revert.
341:
For a notification to be generated, the link or template must be
111:
imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
719:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
855:
68:
666:
45:
904:
814:
regarding a possible violation of
Knowledge's policy on
1000:, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
938:
930:
783:
779:
775:
771:
554:
339:
277:
262:
710:
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
572:
The places for such criticism are user talk pages or
702:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
755:requesting that you be blocked for this violation.
812:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
895:
686:to work toward making a version that represents
726:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
913:
922:
801:Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
8:
939:
678:shows that you are currently engaged in an
134:For additional information, please see the
119:is in effect. Any administrator may impose
131:, when making edits related to the topic.
747:To be clear - you have reverted edits on
197:" and is usually seen as obstructing the
17:Amorals, you are invited to the Teahouse!
931:
470:MelanieN you have my 100% approval for “
37:! Thanks for contributing to Knowledge.
480:MelanieN you have my 100% approval for
637:
350:
346:
281:
123:on editors who do not strictly follow
7:
136:guidance on discretionary sanctions
14:
638:my short time here is irrelevant.
507:where I would expect to see it. ―
859:
805:
189:other editors' contributions at
176:
97:
24:
715:—especially if you violate the
692:the bold, revert, discuss cycle
674:Your recent editing history at
548:Donald Trump talk page comments
185:. You appear to be repeatedly
1:
355:we lack the standing to do so
214:lose their editing privileges
55:
462:Note about talk corrections
1055:
1037:03:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
1002:may be reverted or deleted
847:00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
832:00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
796:00:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
765:00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
742:00:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
657:22:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
633:22:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
615:22:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
592:21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
568:21:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
540:23:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
523:23:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
456:18:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
438:01:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
422:00:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
400:22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
377:21:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
333:20:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
304:19:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
256:15:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
230:07:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
167:15:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
129:page-specific restrictions
79:16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
63:We hope to see you there!
22:
1010:guide to appealing blocks
770:The reverts in question:
1018:|Your reason here ~~~~}}
842:
610:
535:
433:
395:
328:
278:expressed that yesterday
251:
1012:, then adding the text
852:Blocked as a sockpuppet
140:Arbitration Committee's
117:discretionary sanctions
868:This account has been
671:
343:added in the same edit
199:normal editing process
1008:by first reading the
990:, but using them for
670:
712:blocked from editing
187:reverting or undoing
183:welcome to Knowledge
125:Knowledge's policies
824:NorthBySouthBaranof
788:NorthBySouthBaranof
757:NorthBySouthBaranof
753:the 3RR Noticeboard
734:NorthBySouthBaranof
597:User talk:Specifico
700:dispute resolution
672:
602:User talk:Mandruss
482:“over-exaggerate.”
58:Visit the Teahouse
1042:
1041:
1006:appeal this block
717:three-revert rule
218:three-revert rule
86:
85:
80:
76:
72:on behalf of the
1046:
1034:
1029:
1019:
985:
984:
982:
965:
957:
949:
941:
933:
926:
924:
915:
908:
906:
905:deleted contribs
897:
885:
863:
856:
818:. The thread is
809:
808:
749:Gretchen Whitmer
676:Gretchen Whitmer
654:
649:
589:
584:
520:
515:
419:
414:
374:
369:
301:
296:
222:NinjaRobotPirate
180:
164:
159:
101:
78:
71:
65:
60:
48:
39:Be our guest at
28:
21:
20:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1032:
1022:
1013:
975:
974:
917:
899:
886:
881:
880:
854:
822:. Thank you.
806:
803:
704:page protection
665:
652:
643:
587:
578:
550:
518:
509:
486:
483:
473:
464:
417:
408:
372:
363:
299:
290:
261:In response to
174:
162:
153:
149:
148:
102:
94:
82:
81:
67:
61:
56:
44:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1052:
1050:
1040:
1039:
973:
864:
853:
850:
802:
799:
768:
767:
729:
664:
661:
660:
659:
635:
549:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
484:
481:
474:exaggerate.”
471:
463:
460:
459:
458:
425:
424:
380:
379:
173:
170:
103:
96:
95:
93:
90:
88:
84:
83:
74:Teahouse hosts
62:
38:
31:
29:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1051:
1038:
1035:
1030:
1028:
1027:
1017:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
994:
989:
981:
978:
972:
969:
966:
961:
958:
953:
950:
945:
942:
937:
934:
929:
925:
920:
916:
911:
907:
902:
898:
893:
890:
884:
878:
874:
873:
871:
865:
862:
858:
857:
851:
849:
848:
844:
840:
834:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
800:
798:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
745:
744:
743:
739:
735:
732:
727:
722:
718:
714:
713:
707:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
669:
662:
658:
655:
650:
648:
647:
639:
636:
634:
631:
630:
626:
625:
619:
618:
617:
616:
612:
608:
603:
598:
594:
593:
590:
585:
583:
582:
575:
570:
569:
566:
565:
561:
560:
555:
547:
541:
537:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
516:
514:
513:
506:
501:
499:
495:
490:
487:
485:"exaggerate."
478:
475:
468:
461:
457:
454:
453:
449:
448:
442:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
423:
420:
415:
413:
412:
404:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
387:
384:
383:User:Mandruss
378:
375:
370:
368:
367:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
320:
316:
312:
310:
309:User:Mandruss
306:
305:
302:
297:
295:
294:
286:
284:
279:
274:
271:
268:
264:
259:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
235:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
191:Palmer Report
188:
184:
179:
171:
169:
168:
165:
160:
158:
157:
147:
145:
141:
137:
132:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
112:
110:
100:
92:DS alert: AP2
91:
89:
77:
75:
70:
66:Delivered by
59:
54:
52:
47:
42:
36:
30:
27:
23:
16:
1025:
1023:
997:
993:illegitimate
992:
976:
967:
959:
951:
943:
935:
927:
918:
909:
900:
891:
872:indefinitely
867:
866:
835:
816:edit warring
804:
769:
730:
725:
709:
708:
673:
645:
644:
628:
623:
595:
580:
579:
571:
563:
558:
551:
511:
510:
502:
497:
493:
491:
488:
479:
476:
469:
465:
451:
446:
426:
410:
409:
388:
381:
365:
364:
354:
342:
321:
317:
313:
307:
292:
291:
287:
275:
272:
260:
236:
233:
211:
195:edit warring
175:
155:
154:
150:
133:
114:
108:
106:
104:
87:
64:
41:the Teahouse
34:
32:
877:sock puppet
696:noticeboard
181:Hello, and
923:block user
914:page moves
883:Bsubprime7
663:April 2020
556:. Thanks.
172:March 2020
1020:below. –
940:block log
688:consensus
684:talk page
624:SPECIFICO
600:baggage.
559:SPECIFICO
447:SPECIFICO
359:WP:THREAD
207:talk page
203:consensus
142:decision
127:, or the
121:sanctions
996:reasons
896:contribs
724:warring—
698:or seek
680:edit war
646:Mandruss
581:Mandruss
512:Mandruss
411:Mandruss
366:Mandruss
293:Mandruss
258:Amorals
240:MelanieN
156:Mandruss
138:and the
107:It does
1016:unblock
988:allowed
870:blocked
839:Amorals
721:reverts
607:Amorals
532:Amorals
498:bolding
494:italics
430:Amorals
392:Amorals
325:Amorals
270:thing.
267:WP:NPOV
248:Amorals
205:on the
69:HostBot
35:Amorals
998:is not
980:cuwiki
505:WP:TPG
46:MrClog
875:as a
574:WP:AE
477:-or-
472:over-
1024:brad
932:logs
889:talk
843:talk
828:talk
792:talk
761:talk
738:talk
629:talk
611:talk
564:talk
536:talk
452:talk
434:talk
396:talk
349:and
329:talk
263:this
252:talk
244:talk
226:talk
144:here
51:talk
971:SPI
964:lta
956:rfc
948:arb
879:of
706:.
496:or
283:it.
109:not
53:).
33:Hi
1033:🍁
1014:{{
845:)
830:)
794:)
786:.
782:,
778:,
774:,
763:)
740:)
613:)
538:)
436:)
398:)
331:)
254:)
228:)
209:.
1026:v
983:)
977:·
968:·
960:·
952:·
944:·
936:·
928:·
919:·
910:·
901:·
892:·
887:(
841:(
826:(
790:(
784:4
780:3
776:2
772:1
759:(
736:(
653:☎
609:(
588:☎
534:(
519:☎
432:(
418:☎
394:(
373:☎
327:(
300:☎
250:(
242:(
224:(
163:☎
151:―
49:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
