User talk:BeProper

Welcome!

Hi BeProper! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Valereee (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

Altering sourced content

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Dodge. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello, I'm Departure–. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gulf Coast of the United States have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Departure– (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Florida. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. (Also please use the common name of locations, as gulf of america is not one) Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gulf Coast of the United States 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Edit warring is disruptive. This goes for the Gulf Coast article and any others where you've replaced mentions of the Gulf of Mexico with "Gulf of America". Please respect consensus instead of reverting again. You are free to participate in consensus building at Talk:Gulf of Mexico when another request for comment opens. Departure– (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Elon Musk salute controversy, you may be blocked from editing. GSK (talk • edits) 21:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? BeProper (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are intended for improving and maintaining the article, not for (repeatedly) voicing your opinions about whether or not it is relevant or necessary. GSK (talk • edits) 21:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Valereee,

These edits @ Trumpism by the user continue to appear possibly unconstructive. Any advice how to resolve this? Cheers. DN (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I restored to a previous version. That got rid of all that fringe trolling. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. GSK (talk • edits) 03:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeProper doesn't seem to be here to further the creation of good content based on reliable sources. Most of their comments seem to be fringe trolling that violates WP:NOTFORUM. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to make Wikipedia proper. It's not good to have bias. BeProper (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good, or allowed, for articles to contain unsourced content or editorial bias, but our job requires documenting content from biased reliable sources, including biased opinions and claims. If the source is not reliable, we ignore it.

Whenever you find bias in an article (not necessarily the lead/introduction, as the sources are in the body of the article), check the sources. Do not remove biased content that is properly sourced. If you are in doubt, go to the talk page and ASK, not ACCUSE, about the matter. There may well be an explanation for something you may not yet understand. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if the source is biased? Can we ask them to change it? BeProper (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiased sources are rare and generally uninteresting, yet we use them. We also allow the use of biased sources here. It is only when the bias is so extreme that it affects the source's accuracy that there is a problem. We document facts and opinions, and opinions are by nature biased. We usually attribute the latter to the author. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 2

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Talk:Trumpism and Trumpism) for Bludgeoning and NOTFORUM at a CTOP.

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 ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeProper, going into a talk page and posting off-topic pointy statements is disruptive. Doing it in multiple arguments is simply intentional disruption. I highly recommend you go edit in non-WP:CTOPs while you're still new here. CTOPs are a terrible place to learn how to edit. People have little patience for even well-intentioned newbie errors at CTOPs, and intentional disruption isn't tolerated anywhere. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there were laws. My apologies. BeProper (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not laws, but policies and guidelines. You might be surprised to learn that while there are 7 million articles, there are over 50 million "back of house" pages -- this user talk page is one of them, and all articles have a talk page, too. In addition to those are millions of pages, some covering things like Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which cover behavioral guidelines for article talk pages. One of the reasons we advise new editors to avoid contentious topics -- CTOPs -- is to give you a fair chance to discover important policies and to realize how much there is you need to know before editing at contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:, we need to limit the editing of CTOPs to autopatrolled editors. Really. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. The less limitations, the better, in my opinion. BeProper (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I do see the point. BeProper (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was just trying to fix it. BeProper (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Condescending comments

Hello BeProper. I have full faith that you mean the best with all of your edits to create a factual encyclopedia, but I'd like to note that saying condescending comments against us fellow editors like Stop twisting words and twisting facts or I've been trying to talk sense into these guys for months now could be construed as being WP:UNCIVIL. Tone this down perhaps? We're all trying to make a better Wikipedia like you. Thanks. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. I can get a little carried away with it I know. BeProper (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Welcome back BeProper. It appears to me you have a large interest with articles related to American politics since it's basically the only thing you'll edit about. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but some people might give you extra scrutiny since you follow the definition of a single-purpose-account. The essay page WP:SPA gives some advice about this type of editing. Make sure to keep your cool with other editors avoid non-neutral WP:ADVOCACY in your editing. Cheers! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited Stellantis-related things, too, but I do find more interest in American-related stuff. BeProper (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:United States. Your comment " I get it that you're upset and you're all about taking down America in any way possible," is the reason for this warning. Doug Weller talk 07:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try not to do that. (although it was pretty clear that that's what they were doing).

Also, I challenge the other Wikipedia editors to look at themselves with the same respect. I don't understand why people are allowed to say negative condescending things about America, but I'm not allowed to call them out or even to support America. I just challenge you guys to look at yourselves, too. BeProper (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Maxeto0910. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. I don't know what's up with those people though, but I'll leave them alone. BeProper (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not again propose the wholesale deletion of a well sourced article about a formally designated contentious topic, especially out of process and also based in personal political biases. If you can't leave your political views at the door and do as the contentious topic restrictions(described above) call for, you should stay away from the topic area(an area in which you are already partial blocked from one article and its talk page). If Donald Trump doesn't want there to be an article about his false and misleading statements, perhaps he should stop making false and misleading statements. Since independent sources write about such statements as a distinct topic, it merits an article here. That's not really open for debate- a possibly successful one, anyway. one that isn't just wasting the time of editors.

I flirted with topic banning you right now, but instead consider this a final warning. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you just can't do that. Why can others post discussions about changing United States from "federal republic" to "federal dictatorship" and you guys have no issue with that, but I'm not even allowed to suggest removing a clearly biased article about Trump's "lies", the "facts" of which are mostly made up by the media? And then you tell me not to give "biased" discussion topics by posting an extremely biased message on my talk page. That simply makes no sense. Not at all. Then, to make matters worse, you end your message with a threat to remove me simply for making a helpful suggestion. Not to sound unfriendly or anything, but maybe you should be the one being considered for banning. I urge you to just look at yourself the same way you're looking at me. Please stop this madness. Wikipedia should be an open discussion. BeProper (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. No, see WP:FREESPEECH. You need to follow our policies and guidelines. Note we are a mainstream encyclopaedia. We consider CNN a reliable source and Breitbart is blacklisted. “ Editors noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability.” Doug Weller talk 17:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say I back what @331dot said. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I never knew that. However, I do have to say that this whole thing seems to be biased toward the left, and that is mainly what gets me off the track. I still don't see why others have the right to suggest changes like saying Trump is a "dictator", not a "president", America is a "federal dictatorship", not a "federal republic" and so on. I'm not even allowed to suggest considering removing a biased Wikipedia page. BeProper (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources generally do not use the term "dictator" to refer to Trump, we won't, either. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's why we don't. But really, there's no "reliable sources" out there anymore. You must have seen what happened last year during the presidential election with big news coming up with fake stories. BeProper (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to find a way to keep your cool before contributing to American politics again, 'less you want to be topic banned. You've been warned plenty of times not to treat this place like a WP:BATTLEGROUND (a highlight includes this message full of personal attacks followed by you managing to insult them again right after), so continuing to have a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS pattern of editing is a sign of a big problem. So, for one final time, keep calm for us? Thanks. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a private entity that can have rules about what content can be on its computers, for any reason or even no reason- just as you can do the same within the four walls of your residence. In this case there is a very good reason- the contentious topic restrictions. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Sorry. Maybe I should just leave. BeProper (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, your prerogative. If you only want to read what you want to hear and what fits your worldview, this isn't the place for you and you should return to a comfortable conservative bubble. It's a trope, but reality does have a liberal bias. If you want to collaborate with us to best summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, you are welcome to do so.

As independent sources report on the false and misleading statements of Donald Trump as a distinct topic, that is a valid topic for Wikipedia. If you have independent sources that describe Trump's statements as truthful and accurate, you can offer those on the talk page. You are not absolutely prohibited from proposing the deletion of an article if your reasons are based in Wikipedia policies and follow Wikipedia processes. Also consider if doing so is the best use of your time, as such an effort is likely to be strongly opposed without a strong case based in Wikipedia guidelines. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reality does not lean liberal. Maybe some of society does, and that's why society is failing. However, I see your point. You can take back what you said about me going into a "conservative bubble", though. I don't hide in bubbles. This Wikipedia stuff is a waste, though. BeProper (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally disagree with 331dot's perspective that reality does have a liberal bias.

A personal view of mine is that Wikipedia does have a bias. Not for social liberalism, but for the mainstream media. Wikipedia is an echo chamber for this media in proportion to what it spews out. If Wikipedia seems to prefer these "liberal" values, the proper blame should be placed on the media, not us. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good way to put it. I suppose I thought in my mind that it was my job to stop what was going on here in that regard, but I see that's impossible. Time to move on to better things. BeProper (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is only as good as the people who choose to participate. If you want Wikipedia to have a conservative bent, you need to be here, partipating and abiding by policies, working towards a community consensus. If your views prevent that, that's on you. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the policies. I apologize for breaking them. BeProper (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When rioters directed by the president of the United States to storm the capitol do so, and bring a gallows to execute the vice president while chanting "hang Mike Pence" are dismissed as "tourists" and pardoned by the same president, it's not liberalism that is causing society to fail. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were not "directed by the president". While I agree that that certainly should never have happened, that is in no way why society is falling apart. In truth, society is falling apart because it's running from God, and liberalism is a main fuel for that.

Anyway, while I am in no way trying to make light of that, Jan. 6 was in 2020, this is 2025. Let's focus on the present, not the past. We all make mistakes. BeProper (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rioters themselves say they were directed by the president, but whatever. I've already said too much- which kinda shows why contentious topics are designated so- people tend to do that in them. I'll move on now, no need to answer. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you, anyway. BeProper (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Might Be Leaving Soon

I am considering leaving this place. Any advice or recommendations? If you're confused as to why I'm leaving, just look above. I'm pretty much being forced out just like social media used to or still does kick out people it doesn't like. Thank you to all these people who support this program. I'm not sure if I'll leave just yet, but I might. BeProper (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is forcing you anywhere. If you are unwilling to abide by our policies, that's your decision and your prerogative. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice, but there are millions of other articles out there that you can edit. Wikipedia is fun without the arguing. You seem like a reasonable guy. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Now that I think about it, I came here to fix issues, not debate politics. Thanks for the reminder. BeProper (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually quite right. Now that I've been thinking about it for a while, Wikipedia was much better when I was just calmly fixing issues I found (hence the name "BeProper"), before I started looking at the talk pages (which I actually had no idea existed before I found them one day). Thanks for your help. Have a nice day. BeProper (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to try and participate in talk pages outside contentious topics - or even topics that have heated discussions even if they aren't contentious. For example, I learned how to edit mostly by editing articles related to my field - medications/pharmacology/etc. By contributing to those talk pages and the talk page for the associated WikiProject (WT:MED) I was able to learn how Wikipedia works. That's another recommendation - try and find a couple WikiProjects that are "benign" (i.e. not topics that are officially or unofficially contentious) that you will be able to contribute to - there's a list here. There's projects that work on everything from "gnomish" activities (fixing small problems/etc) to working on a specific field (like the Medicine WikiProject I referenced above). Those are also good talk pages to ask questions on if they're related to articles that are related to the WikiProject. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]