User talk:Andrewjmoran

Welcome!

Hello Andrewjmoran! 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! XLinkBot (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2021 (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

October 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ditton railway station has been reverted.
Your edit here to Ditton railway station was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Simon_Concerts_1960s) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewjmoran, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Andrewjmoran! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bsoyka (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello, I'm Tim O'Doherty. I noticed that you recently made an edit to 2024 Scottish government crisis in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true AFAIAC. I have changed the inflammatory title for obvious and stated reasons and made a number of corrections due to accuracy, which have been stated. I am not aware of any oversight on my part in not explaining any such and given the poor title and these corrections, I am not inclined to pander or discuss the need to do so, which should be obvious. This conversation ends here. Andrewjmoran (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was misleading. You did not request a move, you did not perform a requested move. You, despite my telling you, moved it unilaterally and to a title that made zero grammatical sense. That is why you have been warned. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true AFAIAC. I have changed the inflammatory title for obvious and stated reasons (including neutrality) and made a number of corrections due to accuracy, which have been stated. I am not aware of any oversight on my part in not explaining any such and given the poor title and these corrections, I am not inclined to pander or discuss the need to do so, which should be obvious. This conversation ends here. I don't need YOUR permission to make CORRECTIONS to accuracy and to maintain NEUTRALITY. Andrewjmoran (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewjmoran However, obtaining community consensus is essential for executing a page move, particularly for an article addressing the current political landscape of an entire nation. Starting a discussion on the proposed page move would have been advisable, in my opinion. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it was clear in the first place that this would not be achieved, so consensus was never on the cards. Whether that's because some are biased or simply do not understand Scottish politics enough to understand the problem, I have offered a solution that is being ignored.

I challenge you all, and some of you for far from the first time (which tells its own story), to find something objectionable about the proposed change of title to "The events leading to the resignation of Humza Yousaf as First Minister", or to something close to that which I would not object to. Then we should have a consensus. Andrewjmoran (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONCISE, WP:THE and MOS:JOB are policies and guidelines which rule out that title, or something close. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I had left a message on your talk page regarding Cameron's article, in case you have overlooked it. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guidelines do not rule out anything. They can have exceptions. That's why they are not called rules (which can also have exceptions, but generally rarer).

Your objections do not hold water. You're just being obstinate. And get off my page. Andrewjmoran (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Andrewjmoran. I advise you to stay WP:CIVIL and treat your other editors with the respect that they give back to you. Your language and tone seems not to be civil and seems to not assume good faith. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty has demonstrated of his own accord that he does not deserve "good faith", and indeed, I read him correctly as never deserving it. I quote him: "Given that the Scottish Parliament is essentially a big, blubbery council, can you explain what makes it so special". Aside from the false premise in his post, this is showing a clear political bias against the Scottish government as an institution. This is the true face behind the title, so pardon me if I am not at all sorry for the "bludgeoning" as you seem to call it. Had I not done so, it would not have been revealed. Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it showing a political bias against the Scottish government? If we can get some input from, @Tim O'Doherty, on his comment that would be fine too. But it was not in all about this specific thread, you have shown to not be civil to other editors especially in the thread about the requested move. You striking and adding comments that can seem snarky and rude is not needed for a discussion thread. You “reveal” the information while assuming good faith and being respectful to other editors. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: Your question is, how is describing The Scottish Government as "a big, blubbery council" showing political bias against the Scottish Government? Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not from Scotland or England, I am from America. I do not understand the terms that you guys use. Every editor deserves good faith, even when they have shown to be in bad faith or be uncivil. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As well intentioned as you might be, your admission confirms that you cannot and do not understand the issue, if you cannot see that comparing a country's national government to a local council (as well as with the chosen wording) is derogatory and demonstrative of personal bias, and that their deeds and words demonstrate their bad faith.

After the first attempt at moving the page (which AFAIAC was about correcting an in-built bias with the title, and after making a few factual corrections to the text), I read through this person's entries and frankly I nailed them for what they are straight away. AFAIAC anyone agreeing with this IS either guilty of naivety or bias, and every second that title stays in place undermines the fundamental principles of Wiki.

Other than with moving this text to be under the Bute House Agreement, which should remove the issue so long as any sub heading repeats the problem, is the only other alternative anyone else has offered. Opponents offer no alternative to placate me.

Remember that Scotland is a small country and we are outnumbered. Calls for "consensus" do not work in a situation like this, where the majority do not even understand that there is a particular bias at work here (like a bunch of white guys trying to understand when a black man says there is bias against him). I have tried neutral wording, as have others, but it keeps getting reverted back to this which is objectionable. The text underneath is fine, but the title is not justifiable. The status quo is not working and waiting is not acceptable, because that plays into the hands of the biased. This is the wikipedia equivalent of a reasonable newspaper article with a terrible, biased headline. And if Wiki editors cannot see this for what it is, then it is lost, because you cannot recognise bad actors when they are right in front of your face. Andrewjmoran (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please read the policy on WP:CONSENSUS. That is our primary method of collaboration here. You can’t just do things unilaterally when others disagree.

2. Whether an editor is biased or not is irrelevant to the task of writing articles. Everyone has biases. Focus on content, not on the person.

3. You urgently need to find a way to express yourself that does not involve personal attacks and accusations against other editors. You’ve had multiple warnings from multiple people. The patience will run out very soon. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: "...so long as any sub heading repeats the problem" should read "doesn't repeat". 51.198.29.236 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some unsolicited advice

Hi @Andrewjmoran, this is a friendly word of advice about the discussion on Talk:2024 Scottish government crisis. Regardless of the merits of your position, you are coming across as uncivil and the accusations of bias and bad faith are disruptive. Please read and internalise Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. If you carry on like this it is likely you will be blocked from editing, which isn't going to help you implement the changes you want. You will have much more success making arguments based on what sources say, and not based on what editors' motivations and opinions (including your own) might be. I am sending you this message in the hope that you can overcome the frustration of editing in a contentious area and become a productive editor. A lot of new/inexperienced editors flame out when hitting that frustration, and that's a loss to the project. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice but frankly the criticisms are valid. The issue with the sources are that they themselves are biased and you can't quote sources about something that didn't happen. If some news sources are crying "crisis" or "Government falls", there simply aren't other sources saying, "No it isn't and hasn't". They just ignore the spurious claim and describe it in a more matter of fact way. Whilst I'm not that new to wiki, to be honest I'm still fairly inexperienced. I've not had an issue like this before and it really needs mediation. Someone needs to take the overall view that Wiki suffers from using sensationalist headlines as titles, especially when they have biased undertones. And it is only the title that remains objectionable. The fact that these people will not budge on issues of pedantry over bias, tells its own story. Andrewjmoran (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewjmoran: I want to add onto this. You need to stop bludgeoning the discussion. You do not need to reply to every single vote in the merge discussion, other editors are perfectly capable of reading the other replies you've made in the discussion and badgering everybody who makes a comment is not helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell that to Tim O'Doherty who keeps repeating the same guff over and over, and has just revealed his political bias.

I quote: "Given that the Scottish Parliament is essentially a big, blubbery council, can you explain what makes it so special". This is the main advocate for this title. His pedantry, false premises and lack of critical thinking are no accident, it's all political bias. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my "bludgeoning" worked in so far as revealing the bias of the main perpetrator. Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at 2024 Scottish government crisis. 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 ~~~~}}. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewjmoran. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Right, first of all, to be upfront, I have asked other people to look at this page concerned and form their own view. And they have and so far they all agree that it is biased too heavily against the Scottish Government. I regard my attempts to change the title purely as an attempt to correct this bias, and I do certainly regard the strenuous efforts to prevent that as either biased or ignorant of the nuances of Scottish politics. Frankly, I was looking for support to demonstrate that I was not alone with this view, and I found it. And now because they are making their own edits, we all stand accused of sockpuppetry. That really takes the biscuit. Brand all opponents to the view that this article has issues as sock puppets. Bravo.

I might add that my so-called sock-puppet did NOT make the same edits as me, because they didn't know how to change the title, but saw issues with the text of the article and tried to change that. I think they cocked-up by putting comments in the article text rather than the talk page, from what I gather, because they were brand new to editing, which I AM NOT. I haven't spoken to them today or since your indefinite ban. I'm not so bothered about the temporary ban, because of the TECHNICAL violation, as you would have it, but I absolutely appeal the indefinite ban because that is outrageous and based on a falsehood, and frankly a bias prevalent to editors watching that page.

And if you have also blocked their account, you should bloody well unblock it. I'm not asking, I'm insisting, because I did bring them into this. That's on me.

I have NEVER had issues with anyone before this over making edits on Wikipedia, and I am appalled that this has happened here. You are fools to yourselves if you are unaware of bad faith actors wanting to slant articles concerning the Scottish Government, SNP or even the SGP, because it happens in the press all the time, and like the BBC, by using their wording to justify your own titles or headlines, you are allowing this bias to creep in.

I stand by the view that this article needs to be altered to remove its bias. That heading absolutely has to go, I'm not that bothered about the text underneath, but they made a good point about Peter Murrell being linked to an article of events that has nothing to do with him and lumps one bad news story in with another.

I've never needed mediation on here before, but more people need to take a look at that page, who have a better understanding of Scottish politics than some of the commentators. I mean, someone comparing the Scottish Government to a "council" isn't blatant and obvious bias against the Scottish Government? Have they been banned? This is, by the way, the main individual responsible for undoing all these attempts at editing. And you wonder why I'm upset enough to try and get other people involved to get this bias removed - and you are aiding and abetting the bias with this sockpuppet stuff. Andrewjmoran (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]