User talk:M0rphD0g00

If you have other "conservative editors" who disagree with my edits, then they are actually not conservatives.

That's not what I said, I said that we have conservative editors who are willing to abide by our policies. Agreement with your edits is not required to participate here, nor is agreement with article content. An ability to get along with others irrespective of their political views, and a willingness to collaborate, is required. If you are not able or willing to do that, then you will quickly find yourself sanctioned and/or indefinitely blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have "conservative" editors who follow your policy as it stands, they are not conservatives as your policy does not allow truth to be told. I thought Wikipedia was about truth being told but if I misunderstood Wiki's mission, my apologies. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears that's so, see WP:TRUTH. Truth is in the eye of the beholder these days, when rioters on live video trying to execute the Vice President are dismissed as "tourists". 331dot (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. Truth is truth. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As fascinating as this is, I've said too much already. If you prefer to be somewhere where you only see what you want to see, that's what you should do. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But on Wikipedia we have to rely on WP: Reliable Sources because so many people have vastly different ideas about what is Truth. You seem quite certain that you're in the right, but I see folks on the other side of the spectrum who are equally convinced that they're right and you're wrong. So in order for us to get along here on Wikipedia, we have to enforce rules against people doing what you've been doing. You don't have to like it, but if you want to edit here, you need to follow the rules.

If you continue on the course you are currently on, I will block your account indefinitely and remove your ability to edit this page so you will stop wasting administrator time with bad unblock requests. ~Awilley (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to speak truth. And I am convinced I am right because some things are black and white & truth is truth. I did not realize Wikipedia was a liberal, progressive organization & that was my mistake. I thought it was about open ideas & dialogue and not saying that speaking facts was "vandalism". Be honest and call it something else, but calling it "vandalism" is a lie. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond me admitting changing Romney to a Democrat was a lie based off his registration (even though true based off his ideas), no one has given specific examples of my non-truthfulness. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But people on the other side say that what they claim is "true" as well, and with equal conviction. That's why we don't go by the truth. Only you can decide what is true for you.

Wikipedia is not about "open ideas", it is about summarizing the content of independent reliable sources. You did not provide sources for your edits; for example, to label Scouting America as "liberal", you did not provide a single source as to who designates the organization to be liberal. Really, you would need to show that the preponderance of reliable sources do in order to label it so and establish a consensus that it is appropriate.

Wikipedia is open to people of all races, genders, religions, and viewpoints who are willing to work together with other human beings to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge. We don't edit based on what any one individual deems to be the truth, and try to work together. Usually, it works pretty well. If your conservative views prevent you from collaboration and working to achieve a consensus, this isn't the place for you and you should find a conservative bubble to be in. This isn't the place to be a culture warrior. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"That's why we don't go by the truth". That pretty much sums it up. And if I had quoted this article (https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/boy-scouts-of-america-changing-name-and-culture-after-114-years/) and the direct quote from the BSA, would you have left it as liberal in the Wiki...no. If you let me leave it liberal then, then all I have said would be proven wrong. If not, then that is easy, non-biased evidence I was right. I await your answer respectfully. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the word "liberal" used anywhere in that piece. Maybe I missed it. I get that because they now accept any child interested in joining regardless of gender you see them as liberal, but that is original research. What is needed are sources that use that term specifically, not your interpretation of the source, no matter how accurate it may be. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So just to make sure I get this right, I may have a 100% accurate point but because I don't have a link to a news article written by a liberal publication or a research paper by a professor at a liberal college, the edit is not allowed? Which makes no sense, but you know that. And I am guessing an article like this wouldn't count - https://catholicstand.com/the-boy-scouts-succumb-to-liberal-ideology/ M0rphD0g00 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the provenance and reliability of that source, so I can't comment as to its news reporting; as long as they have journalistic standards like editorial control and fact checking, amd don't just make stuff up, they could be a reliable source for news reporting. That would need to be evaluated at WP:RSN. The piece you give, however, is the opinion of the writer, not a piece of journalism.

There are plenty of conservative outlets that are valid to use as sources. Whether they are conservative enough for you only you can say.

Why should your interpretation of a source be given greater weight than anyone else's? Everyone thinks that their viewpoint is the correct one(something which is the source of much pain in human history, but I digress) Not eveyone agrees with you. Not everyone agrees with me. That's why we focus on summarizing independent reliable sources and present those sources to readers so they can decide what they think. Wikipedia is a content aggregator, not a source of truth. Only you can decide what is true for you. You are entitled to read 2020 United States presidential election and think it was stolen from President Trump and that he is the legitimate president. But that doesn't change what sources say about the election. That's the same with the scouts. You can read that article and think it is a pack of lies and should describe them as liberal, but you need sources to put it in the article. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"That's why we focus on summarizing independent reliable sources and present those sources to readers so they can decide what they think". Who determines what is reliable? A group of liberal Wiki editors? So you are not truly letting readers "decide what they think". And it is not a content aggregator. It is content aggregator of ideas accepted by the left. Did someone link to Romney's voter registration or his public government page showing he is a Republican? No. We know he is, but your line of needing an independent reliable source for every fact on Wikipedia is a lie. Certain users setup a profile of public figures and then it is locked. So you are saying every single word of that article before it was locked was 100% verified and 100% sourced? Of course not. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not routinely protected("locked") but are only protected to prevent wide disruptive activity, such as people changing a politican's party affiliation to be different than it actually is, or people putting their personal views as to how pure a member of the party someone is. See the protection policy. Articles are never protected to enforce a particular version of the text. Editors are free to suggest edits on the talk page as edit requests. Some formally designated contentious topic areas(such as recent American politics) do see more disruption than others.

It is true that Wikipedia is only as good as the volunteers who choose to participate- this includes both article content and other community matters(such as determining what sources are generally considered to be reliable, those with a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and other journalistic standards). This is why I am spending so much time on getting you to understand exactly what it is we do here and how we do it. If you want to give Wikipedia a more conservative slant, then you need to be here, involved- but you also need to be willing to be collaborative and abide by community-driven policies and procedures. If you aren't, them I'm just wasting my time.

Primary sources(like government documents) are acceptable in certain situations. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with what you say and the facts support my argument, but I appreciate your response. Thank you. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, M0rphD0g00. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mitt Romney. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bahooka (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalism. It ia factually accurate. Thank you. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mitt Romney, you may be blocked from editing. Bahooka (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

~Awilley (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was report facts. If I am banned from editing due to reporting facts, then so be it. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

M0rphD0g00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was simply reporting factual information. The admin may have not liked it, but it was factual. Please show me evidence where I reported lies. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Easy. [1] is a lie. All of your edits have been highly bias. Please familiarize yourself with our neutral point of view policy before continuing as you have been. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

M0rphD0g00 (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I will refrain from changing RINOs to Democrats, but they are RINOs. Not allowing people to accurately reflect the views of a politician shows said articles are inaccurate. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

M0rphD0g00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will admit changing Romney to Democrat was a lie technically, but all my other edits were not biased and no evidence has been given to support that.M0rphD0g00 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't the place to post your criticism of Senator Romney or of Scouting America or of the Dallas Observer. Since you see nothing wrong with your editing, there are no grounds to remove the block. I think you are fortunate not to haved received an Arbitration Enforcement sanction limiting your ability to edit about recent American politics, or a WP:NOTHERE block. I suggest you consider your next move after the block carefully, because those may be the next steps. We have conservative editors here who are willing to follow our policies, you are welcome to join them, or not. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock

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).

M0rphD0g00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you have other "conservative editors" who disagree with my edits, then they are actually not conservatives but liberals who don't believe in the truth. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a valid unblock request. See the link below for the guide to appealing blocks. ~Awilley (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 special powers 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 practice;
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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi, I have again blocked your account because it appears that it is only being used for drive-by POV pushing rather than productive encyclopedia building. Adding "liberal" to the first sentence of a bunch of high profile articles isn't helpful, collaborative, or encyclopedic, and since this is pretty much the only thing you're doing, you are a net negative to the encyclopedia. I'm happy to consider unblocking your account in exchange for you agreeing not to edit articles about politics or living people. Or if you can convince another administrator that you can edit productively, they can unblock you as well. The procedure for requesting an unblock is still the same as above. ~Awilley (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is humorous that I am a "net negative to the encyclopedia" for posting truth or anything that doesn't fit the liberal Democrat narrative. Nowhere in there did anyone dispute my views in a factual manner. So basically people are only allowed to edit political/living people if they fit Wikipedia's narrative of what the "truth" is? Only allowing certain views that fit one POV - how is that an encyclopedia at all? I would love for a response back based off facts not vague Wiki policy. I await your response. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have no narrative of what the truth is. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not claim that anything presented here is the truth. If you want to be a truth warrior, or just want to read what you want to hear, this is absolutely the wrong place for you. You could always try Conservapedia. 331dot (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

M0rphD0g00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No untruthful information posted. M0rphD0g00 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No one has claimed otherwise. You're here to be a truth warrior, so the reason for the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

M0rphD0g00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nothing is incorrect or unverified.M0rphD0g00 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

M0rphD0g00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No valid reason for the block has been given besides not furthering the liberal agenda. You say all edits have to be verified but if the article sourced is untruthful, what is the point of Wikipedia?M0rphD0g00 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the blocking admin, you are blocked as "it appears that [your account] is only being used for drive-by POV pushing rather than productive encyclopedia building", which, upon review of your edits, appears to be entirely accurate. As your appeals lack substance and stray far from what is expected, I'm revoking your talk page access. WP:UTRS is available for appeals. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.