User talk:BeProper

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 @

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]

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

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]

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]