The Banner (talk | contribs) →Margaret Sanger: new section Tag: Reverted |
Total random nerd (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1077929361 by The Banner (talk) Yawn - I've been "warned" this a zillion times. I get the spiel. Tag: Undo |
||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
:You appear to presume that socialists were equatable to progressives in the 1920s, which isn't accurate. — [[User:Total random nerd|<code><span style="background:#0066FF; color:#CCFF00; font-size:120%">'''trn'''</span></code>]] [[User talk:Total random nerd|<sup>(debate me)</sup>]] <sup>•</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Total random nerd|<sup>(my accomplishments)</sup>]] 23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC) |
:You appear to presume that socialists were equatable to progressives in the 1920s, which isn't accurate. — [[User:Total random nerd|<code><span style="background:#0066FF; color:#CCFF00; font-size:120%">'''trn'''</span></code>]] [[User talk:Total random nerd|<sup>(debate me)</sup>]] <sup>•</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Total random nerd|<sup>(my accomplishments)</sup>]] 23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Margaret Sanger == |
|||
I repeat the warning standing above the article when editing: |
|||
You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. |
|||
An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. |
|||
Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm. |
|||
Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision. |
|||
For your info: you reverted twice today. I have also noticed that you have been brought to WP:AN/I for pushing some KKK-issue. Your are doing the same her. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 23:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:57, 18 March 2022
My talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Total random nerd, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}}
on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Total random nerd (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
August 2021
Hello, I'm HandThatFeeds. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Southern strategy that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
Please stop using the blog fascinatingpolitics.com as a source when editing articles on Wikipedia, as you have been doing frequently and consistently over the course of your brief time as an editor here. A quick glance through your contributions shows that you have attempted to insert this source into nearly every article you have edited. If you are not yet aware of our sourcing guidelines, please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. You may also benefit from consulting our guideline on WP:SPAM. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The utter irony is that a typical WP hack like you with no respect for facts that go against your narrative has the gall to accuse me of being too partisan. You vainly reverted my justified removal of certain entries in the Conservative Democrat article and seem to perpetuate the "racist = conservative" narrative. For example, I correctly pointed out that the linked history.house.gov bio for Hattie Caraway CLEARLY SAYS THAT SHE SUPPORTED THE NEW DEAL. As for FascinatingPolitics, I don't see what's wrong with the site, given its accuracy and reliability for good political trivia. The information I have added to the pages I've edited so far is true, yet you revert them for dopey reasons. Also, please see WP:IAR. Total random nerd (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and you're also excessively reverting my edits. For the Eugene Siler article, I did add some other sources, like one from the NY Times. It would do you good to be more cautious and attentive. Total random nerd (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Language like
a typical WP hack like you with no respect for facts
,vainly reverted
,dopey reasons
violates our policy WP:NPA (no personal attacks). You may also benefit from reading the essay WP:TRUTH. In any case further disruptive editing on your part will likely incur sanctions. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines before editing further or risk losing your editing privileges. This will be my final warning to you. Generalrelative (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)- My edits and actions are justified under WP:IAR. 😃 Total random nerd (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:IAR does not mean you can have free reign to add anything you want to the encyclopedia without being contested. @Generalrelative and I may disagree on many things but they are not anything close to a "hack" and to assume they care nothing for facts is faulty and a direct violation of WP:AGF. The encyclopedia relies on what the community has deemed as reliable sources by consensus. If those reliable sources are wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. You are the Bold in WP:BRD by following IAR and making your additions. @Generalrelative is the Revert. Now Discussion must take place and consensus met in your favor before your edits can be re-added. That is a policy that can not be avoided or discarded. It must be followed. --ARoseWolf 13:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- My edits and actions are justified under WP:IAR. 😃 Total random nerd (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Language like
Anyone named 'Total random nerd' must be/become an epic editor. Therefore, if you don't turn out to be an absolutely amazing editor, the universe will implode. Don't let the universe implode. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- 😃 Total random nerd (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 20:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
False Claims section
This section relies entirely on WP:SYNTH. The cited sources don’t actually have anything like the conclusions stated. I understand the point, but this is exactly what WP:OR says we can’t do, especially with a BLP. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Since when is GovTrack not a sufficient source? Total random nerd (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, I meant to put this on the article talk page, but misclicked on my phone. Apologies for that! Dumuzid (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- No worries about that part. I just ask that the section I added can stay on the article because I found sufficient citations. Total random nerd (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your sources are fine, they just don’t draw the conclusions you do. They’re violations of both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. We don’t get to even make obvious syllogisms, as frustrating as that can be. If you disagree, then I may ask for some uninvolved opinions. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes they support my conclusions. The hard data is there on GovTrack and anyone can check the math for themselves, just like how anyone can read a book that's cited in a WP article. Total random nerd (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your sources are fine, they just don’t draw the conclusions you do. They’re violations of both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. We don’t get to even make obvious syllogisms, as frustrating as that can be. If you disagree, then I may ask for some uninvolved opinions. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- They do! Just not in a Wikipedia sense. Again, the keys are the policies of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. But we may have to agree to disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- So hard facts don't always matter enough to be cited to Wikipedia. You kinda just said the quiet part out loud. Total random nerd (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- They do! Just not in a Wikipedia sense. Again, the keys are the policies of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. But we may have to agree to disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given that Dumuzid has brought this issue to BLPN, I'll withdraw the complaint for now pending a result. Generalrelative (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Gavagan-Wagner Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Sources call this the "Anti-Lynching Bill" so it seems like WP:OR to call it the "Gavagan-Wagner Act", which I cannot find used in searches. Not clear what makes this specific bill notable among many proposed bills.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reywas92Talk 20:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
stub tagging
Don't do this, the article is pretty obviously not a stub. Thanks. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Categorization
I noticed that you have been doing a number of edits with categories. When doing so, please make sure that you are not unnecessarily duplicating articles in the category tree. Please refer to WP:CATSPECIFIC. With the exception of eponymous categories and non-diffusing subcategories, "an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." ButlerBlog (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. –
tnr
(debate me) (my accomplishments) 04:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Conservative Republicans (Reconstruction era)
Hallo, I've just stub-sorted Conservative Republicans (Reconstruction era) which you created, and when I see a disambiguated title while stub-sorting I always check the basic title. There's nothing at Conservative Republicans, and normally I'd move the article to the basic name, but I hesitate to tread among US politics. There is a redirect at Conservative Republican, singular, which leads to Conservative Party (United States). I don't know what's best here, but if the disambiguated title exists then there ought to be something at the basic title to point there, whether a dab page, a hatnote, or a redirect. Should it have a mention at Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)#Historical_factions? Over to you. PamD 09:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Conservative Republicans" can refer to a number of different specific topics, thus I specified "Reconstruction era" in the title to refer to the GOP faction of that era. And yes, this should be mentioned in articles like Factions in the Republican Party (United States) if not already. –
tnr
(debate me) (my accomplishments) 20:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)- But Conservative Republicans needs to exist and to link to this article, although also to the "different specific topics" you mention, if they are included in Wikipedia anywhere. PamD 23:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I see what you mean. –
tnr
(debate me) (my accomplishments) 23:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I see what you mean. –
- But Conservative Republicans needs to exist and to link to this article, although also to the "different specific topics" you mention, if they are included in Wikipedia anywhere. PamD 23:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Half-Breeds (politics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Industry and New York. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit on Conservapedia.
Hello there,
I saw that you reverted one of my edits on the article Conservapedia regarding an archived source. In regards to that, I don't think such an inclusion is necessary considering that it links to the site itself, other sources in the lead already include the site's opposition to atheists and feminists, and the fact that it does not add much that is substantial to the already stated encyclopedic take on the topic. This is just my reasoning for the edit, which I will reinstate. If there is a reason as to which I am not aware for your revert, please let me know and I will undo my action. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I believe it's important for an inclusion of the fact that Conservapedia has used dehumanizing rhetoric against atheists and feminists as opposed to generic opposition. This particular detail needs mentioning. –
tnr
(debate me) (my accomplishments) 00:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)- I'll find a better secondary source to use then. A direct source is usually useful, but since a wiki source can be edited anytime it might be unreliable CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I highly doubt a secondary source will be available for this detail. Also, my cited source was an archive, not the original page itself. Such that the original Conservapedia diff is deleted to attempt covering their tracks, the archive will remain as indisputable evidence. –
tnr
(debate me) (my accomplishments) 00:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I highly doubt a secondary source will be available for this detail. Also, my cited source was an archive, not the original page itself. Such that the original Conservapedia diff is deleted to attempt covering their tracks, the archive will remain as indisputable evidence. –
- I'll find a better secondary source to use then. A direct source is usually useful, but since a wiki source can be edited anytime it might be unreliable CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Devon Archer for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Archer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
soibangla (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited B. Carroll Reece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalist.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
March 2022
Hi Total random nerd! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Margaret Sanger several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Margaret Sanger, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. The appropriate action is to start a discussion on the article's talk page and get consensus for the content that you think should be added to the lead.. Schazjmd (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Minor
Your work on John Davis Long left a seemingly substantive sentence at the end of a section without a citation; I imagine you could easily rectify the situation and remove my 'cite needed' template; I wasn't ready to dig through for it. It seemed to be interesting work. Your half-taking full credit for the underlying or earlier work (not done under the Wiki pseudonym one assumes) for me added more question than it supplied insight. I appreciate the work. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Ps (can't just edit above): also reference to work done at an unnamed 'elsewhere' adds not answers questions, for me Swliv (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Swliv: The blocks of text I added to the John Davis Long article is work I originally wrote at another wiki some time back. I no longer wish to be associated with that wiki and have left from it 2 months ago. –
trn
(debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC) - Also, I just adjusted the sentence you placed a "citation needed" tag on and cited it properly. –
trn
(debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks on both. I think I have a sense of it and hope someday to dig into what you added, sounded intriguing. Swliv (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. And yes, the politics of Republican factionalism during the early Gilded Age is indeed fascinating to dig into. The writings of Richard E. Welch, Jr., provide a great overview of the details about that era. —
trn
(debate me) • (my accomplishments) 01:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- William B. Allison
- added links pointing to Confederacy, Democratic Party and Republican Party
- James F. Wilson
- added a link pointing to Reconstruction
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EpicWikiLad (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
How real progressives viewed the KKK
In Milwaukee, Socialist mayor Dan Hoan refused to tolerate its presence. He actively used his office to interfere with Klan organizing activities. In 1922, Hoan declared that if the Klan attempted to build an “invisible empire,” its members were guilty of treason against the United States and should be imprisoned. If they were not trying to take over the country, and the term “invisible empire” was just a meaningless catch phrase, Hoan reasoned, at the very least they were guilty of swindling their members (New York Times 1922). When the Klan sought to use an auditorium in Milwaukee to attract members, Hoan blocked it, stating: “For law and order, this stands first among all the cities of the world. Consequently for you to come here from states where lynching is the most popular outdoor sport, to tell our people that they need this organization … to ensure law and order, is in itself ridiculous” (Associated Press 1922).
Although Governor John J. Blaine refused on constitutional grounds to use his influence to block the Klan's activities in Wisconsin, protests from Milwaukee forced the La Follette disciple to guarantee state support in stamping out the organization if it resorted to violence (New York Times 1921). Hoan (1921) put things more bluntly in a private letter to the governor: “The Ku Klux Klan will find Milwaukee a hotter place to exist in than Hades itself. The people of this community are going to find, as they always have, that the police department will make short work of anyone advocating violence.” When a former Socialist candidate for judge suggested an alliance with the Klan since they were drawing support from the white working class, Hoan called for and got the expulsion of that former comrade.
Hoan's efforts against the Klan were quietly applauded by Milwaukee's small African-American population. The Women's Improvement Club (1922) of Milwaukee and the Universal Negro Improvement Association both wrote letters to Hoan thanking him for his opposition to the Klan and endorsed him over the nonpartisan groups. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- You appear to presume that socialists were equatable to progressives in the 1920s, which isn't accurate. —
trn
(debate me) • (my accomplishments) 23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)