User talk:Moreseter

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 in collaboration.

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.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Moreseter. I noticed your contributions and I thought that I should ask you to think about something before you get into trouble. Please ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish here. So far, all you have done is go on talk pages and try to start arguments based on, shall we say, very little. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. It is not a place for political polemic, unfounded accusations and conspiracy theories. If you want to contribute constructively then you can. Even people with vastly differing political viewpoints can be good Wikipedia editors but we need to work collaboratively, respecting the objectives of the encyclopaedia. Making accusations and picking fights is not going to get you anywhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Silencing free speech. How convenient. Moreseter (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the government not a public forum. WP:FREESPEECH EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

My post simply called out bias in the article and suggested improvements, which is the whole point of talk pages. An indefinite ban for one comment is asinine. It did not violate any of Wikipedia's rules for the following reasons:

No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA): My comment called criticized the mods' bias, but it didn’t target specific editors with insults, threats, or harassment, as defined by WP:NPA. I attacked the article’s content and obvious editorial slant, not individuals. Accusing mods of bias isn’t a personal attack--it’s a critique of their work, which is fair game on a talk page.

Talk Page Guidelines (WP:TALK): WP:TALK states that talk pages are for discussing article improvements, including content, sources, and neutrality. My comment criticized the overuse of “authoritarianism,” provided examples of alternative phrasing (e.g., “closed borders”), and highlighted missing perspectives, like policies under opposing administrations. That’s exactly what talk pages are for—robust debate to fix biased articles.

No Disruption (WP:DISRUPT): WP:DISRUPT covers vandalism, edit warring, or bad-faith edits that hinder collaboration. My posts were a critiques meant to spark discussion, not disrupt. It didn’t edit the article or derail the page. If the tone was sharp, that’s not against the rules—WP:TALK allows strong opinions as long as they’re constructive, which mine was.

Civility Doesn’t Ban Passion (WP:CIVIL): My comment was blunt, calling the article “a joke” and mods’ views an “echo chamber,” but WP:CIVIL only prohibits personal attacks or harassment, not strong language. I didn’t insult or threaten anyone--I challenged the article’s framing and the mods’ approach, which is allowed, especially on a controversial topic like Trumpism.

Disproportionate Ban (WP:BLOCK): WP:BLOCK says blocks prevent harm, not punish opinions. An indefinite ban overkill. WP:GF (Assume Good Faith) requires admins to assume editors aim to improve Wikipedia unless proven otherwise. I was pushing for a more neutral article, yet got slapped with a permanent ban--where’s the good faith in that?

My comment was within Wikipedia’s rules, even if it ruffled feathers. The indefinite ban reeks of mods silencing criticism they didn’t like. Unblock me now, or explain exactly which policy I broke and why one post deserves a lifetime ban. I’m ready to discuss on my talk page or via UTRS. Moreseter (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I see you failed to follow the instructions for requesting unblock, to be found in the block notice. You are not, first of all, WP:BANned. Nor are you WP:BLOCKed for a lifetime. You are blocked until you can describe why you are blocked and what you will do differently and what constructive edits you would make. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

PS:I look forward to seeing you at UTRS as I'm sure your trolling will cost you talk page access. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I'm shocked a junior editor with 14 talk page and no other edited know what UTRS is. They must be super smart or something to know so much about Wikipedia </sarcasm> EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sshh. Actually, you might be surprised who makes it to utrs. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You both must feel so special spending your days culling healthy discussion and curating every single political article and talk page into a one-sided narrative. Surely you’re aware this kind of behavior has preceded the decline of every major civilization throughout history.

Frankly though, the will of the people will ultimately weed out this fringe behavior. Then again, this site (and apparently Reddit) seem to be the final stronghold for activists like you both who have no real interest in publishing the truth, so I won’t be too dismissive. Surely your site's co-founder agrees with me.

Anyways, happy censoring to you two! Thanks for eroding the fabric of real encyclopedic journalism. Moreseter (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)