I've never submitted a new article developed from scratch, so I can't really comment on the usual reception. With the caveat that I don't have ready access to the sources you listed, I would say I don't understand the reason given for rejecting the article; it does seem to properly summarize secondary, reliable sources (although with a seeming over-reliance on just two of them). I notice several formatting issues (most noticeably the reference for a section title), and a couple of places I would jiggle the phrasing a bit, but nothing terribly major.
However, my main observation is that the article left me with the question, "why is this a separate article?" Unless the text written so far is merely part of an intended major expansion, it appears that the Report itself doesn't need an article, but the information, to the extent it is not already included, would be useful to incorporate into the First Bank of the United States article.
(Yes, I remember dime calls; particularly – and unfortunately – associated in memory with the Kitty Genovese case, after which there was a movement for people to wear a dime as a pendant around their neck to symbolize a pledge to call for help in similar emergencies.) Fat&Happy ( talk) 01:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear 36hourblock: I am a fairly new editor myself, and have never deleted a page. I have referred your problem to Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is monitored by experts who can surely help you. If you go to that page you should see your text there. I have asked for help there many times; they are great! It's too bad that you went to all that work for nothing. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did you say that mention of the expunging of Jackson's censure is irrelevant? When I took a class on Jacksonian American one night was dedicated to the Bank War, and at the end of class my professor told us how the censure was expunged. The article as written says that censure was the "last hurrah" for pro-bank forces, so shouldn't it be mentioned that their "last hurrah" was taken away too, reflecting the historical fact that their defeat in the Bank War was complete? The article as currently written suggests that the censure of Jackson was successful, which it obviously wasn't, and when the record was expunged it meant that the censure never legally happened. All I ask is that a simple comment that the censure was later expunged be added to the article in as neutral terms as possible, something like a parenthetical note saying, "and the censure was later expunged." Emperor001 ( talk) 00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concern about the size of the section that I added (Economic Conditions Prior to Passage) but please note how the article before I edited it had removed any reference to Section 1 - " . . .and the encouragement and protection of manufactures . . ." This omission I suspect was not by oversight. Historians of the "free trade" bias have consistently throughout U.S. history attempted to portray the founding fathers as being for "free trade" and opposed to "protection" and try to paint the Tariff Act of 1789 as merely a revenue tariff. I see this bias present here. I quote founding fathers and manufacturing groups present at the time that the legislation was drafted to show that more than just revenue was the concern (I didn't even mention the drain of specie from the 13 states due to the trade deficit with England and the impact that had on events such as Shays Rebellion).
This bias also exists in the other articles, i.e. "Tariffs in United States history". There the authors went so far as to ignore the first (Tariff Act of 1789) and only refere to the revised Tariff of 1790. Also note that article also attempted to portray the first tariff as simply a revenue tariff. It also only refered to the U.S. Constitution where it grants Congress power to tax but completely avoided "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations . . ." all of which I just added and am waiting to see how long it takes before they start getting removed.
It took me over 3 years of this kind of biased censoring to get the Smoot-Hawley Tariff article to achieve some small degree of balance (for some specific examples see the Smoot-Hawley talk page). The entire section, "Tariff levels" in the Smoot-Hawley section is mine and has been quoted in debates on U.S. trade policy on the net - with caution - as Wiki has a poor reputation for accuracy - which I personally can attest to.
This pro-free trade bias is dominant here among Wiki editors to the point of slanting articles to include unfounded pro free trade dogma and exclude documented protectionist history.
If you wish for me to cut down the size of the quotes I can agree to that. I'd prefere to leave them as evidence of the true situation that the pro-free trade biased editors would be more than happy to have Wiki users not know anything about.
I personally never remove material. I'm here to inform - not censor. Let the reader decide. Machinehead61 ( talk) 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for kindly sending me answers to my queries on the relevant Talk-page. Curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll put it. I still don't see how he crossed over to his hotel on Martha's Vineyard without walking past reception dripping wet! But the debate continues... Valetude ( talk) 13:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Cutler and Joesten agree with you: Kennedy lied in his report to the Edgartown police and at the inquest.
Kennedy said he walked back to his room from the bay. Only one person, the night manager at the Shiretown Inn, testified that he encountered Kennedy, but did not see him - he recognized the voice of the man he had an exchange with standing at the top of the darkened stairway - when he heard Kennedy's voice on TV the next day. That "everyone knows [where] he slept that night" has not been confirmed beyond that testimony.
According to the "frame-up" hypothesis, Kennedy's testimony provides no useful insights into understanding what happened that night. Cutler and Joesten present Kennedy's statements as primary evidence that something entirely different took place. They offer their own scenario, based on the assumption that Edward Kennedy's two older brothers, JFK and RFK, had thwarted powerful financial and political interests who planned and carried out their assassinations. The theorists I've cited have surmised that a third murder of the only surviving brother by a "lone nut" would provoke a demand among Americans for an independent investigation of these events, and Martin Luther King Jr.'s as well. They settled, rather, to destroy his political career. This is the thesis of the Chappaquiddick Conspiracy Theory.
Whether it's marsh gas and mass hysteria, or the gospel truth, it's a fascinating tale. You decide. 36hourblock ( talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your helpful provision of the Cutler- Joesten material on the Talk Page, which I have found most helpful.
I have added another small section which has popped-up under Cutler-Joesten ‘Cited In Footnotes’, which wasn’t intended. Are you able to re-position this as a separate section? Thanking in advance. Valetude ( talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You might want to change the first pipe ("|") following "Subst" for the GAN template to a colon (":"). I'd do it myself, but discovered last time that going back and fixing things so you show up properly everywhere as the nominator instead of me is more trouble than dropping you this quick note up front...
Fat&Happy (
talk)
22:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
United States presidential election, 1844 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
01:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Texas annexation you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Bryanrutherford0 --
Bryanrutherford0 (
talk)
18:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The article
Texas annexation you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Texas annexation for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Bryanrutherford0 --
Bryanrutherford0 (
talk)
01:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Matty - My thanks! 36hourblock ( talk) 02:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 22 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Texas annexation, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Republic of Texas presented a formal proposal for annexation by the United States to President Martin Van Buren, who rejected it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Texas annexation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The article
United States presidential election, 1844 you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:United States presidential election, 1844 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Crisco 1492 --
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
01:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Bank War you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
BlackJack --
BlackJack (
talk)
18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The article
Bank War you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Bank War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
BlackJack --
BlackJack (
talk)
04:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bank War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I reverted this uncivil edit of yours. If you think socking is going on, take it to SPI. Making groundless threats will result in me taking you to a drama board. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
"You have gone to multiple talk pages making ridiculous and poorly substantiated accusations of sockpuppetry. You might be beginning to realize by now that your claims are probably baseless, which is why you haven't yet mustered up the courage to go and file an actual SPI."An SPI now can't determine if there was socking years ago and I assume you know that, too. So, WP:JUSTDROPIT. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
36hourblock, I am here to defend myself against charges that I am a sockpuppet of Rjensen. I appreciate the fact that you pinged me, thus allowing me to respond to the claims, but I do not approve of your assumption, which seems to have been made almost entirely off of a single pinging of Rjensen on a talk page. While this can certainly indicate sockpuppetry, it does not prove it, and you need to have a lot more evidence than this before you begin making accusations. The fact is, I have at times pinged Rjensen on talk pages because I see him, a retired professor, as one of the greatest authorities in U.S. history, an area on which I focus many of my edits, on Wikipedia, and I value his advice.
A quick search of my revision history, and a reading of the biography of myself that I have on my userpage, should dispel any reasonable doubts on the matter of Rjensen and I being one and the same. The fact that I began editing Wikipedia in middle school (way too early), focused practically all of my edits in the 2011-12 period on topics related to professional football, and not a single one on the social, political, or military history of the United States, and the fact that I was repeatedly blocked for incredibly basic MOS violations should show that I am a totally different person from Rjensen, who has perhaps contributed more to U.S. history articles than anyone else on this site. A large number of my edits are also on the articles of people or things related to the Catholic Church, and to pope biographies in particular. The same pattern cannot be found in Rjensen's revision history, which seems to consist of practically nothing but edits relating to the history of the United States. It would have been best for you to have done this research yourself before making the claim that I am a sockpuppet.
Finally, here is a link which shows a disagreement between me and Rjensen from January 2016.
Having said all this, it is my request that you withdraw your claim that Rjensen and I are the same person. Display name 99 ( talk) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
If you think you have enough evidence that Rjensen is a sock master the correct forum for presenting that evidence is WP:SPI. If you continue to make allegations of sockpuppetry any where else you will be blocked for personal attacks. - GB fan 21:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. -
GB
fan
21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/36hourblock, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
36hourblock ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I never asked to be unblocked; let's be clear on that point, for the record. 36hourblock ( talk) 18:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No reason given. If you wish to request unblock please make succinct and to the point request within the block template. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
On October 10, 2016, User:Display name 99 began to make minor changes to Bank War. I happened to have researched and written the article, and I was familiar with the sources, footnotes. User:Display name 99 changed the link Missouri crisis to Missouri Compromise on the grounds that it was improper not to refer to the controversy by the name "Missouri Compromise".
Historian Elizabeth R. Varon uses the term "Missouri Crisis" in her index to refer to that event. Feel free to check this on p. 444: Varon, Elizabeth R. Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-8078-3232-5
This, and number of other edits by 99, which I reverted on the same sourced grounds, was escalated into an edit war by User:Thomas.W, who accused me of abusing the three-revert rule: Wikipedia:Edit warring.
The record will show that this accusation was a patently false, and amounts to a conscious intervention on behalf of 99. The following exchange points to this conclusion. Thomas W. threatened to block me from the article on the basis of the three-revert rule:
Thomas.W: Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly
36hourblock: On the matter of edit reverts, no rule has been broken, regarding the 3 per 24-hour rule. Have you contacted all parties involved in this edit war on the matter of reverts? --36hourblock (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
(Rather than contacting 99 on the matter, to be even-handed, Thomas.W launched into a tirade which had nothing to do with any violation on my part):
@36hourblock: Last time I looked the other party seemed to be far more interested in discussing it than you, and provided sources supporting their view on the talk page. The slow-mo edit war has been going on for almost a week, and, as the warning says, even edit-warring where people make less than four reverts per 24h is blockable, if editors show that they have no intention of stopping. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Thomas: Perhaps you can locate an accommodating administrator to block me from the article. Otherwise, your comments are one-sided and create a hostile editing environment. Kindly desist. --36hourblock (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thomas W.: You're the one who is creating a hostile environment there by just blindly reverting. It was the other party who started the current discussion, not you. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Thomas: What you've posted is a flagrant falsehood, based on the talk record. The first "blind" revert was made by 99, to wit: "36hourblock, I removed content in this article here because I found it to be very biased against the pro-Bank forces." No source was provided. A non-consensual revert. Period. But you're doing a lovely job as an attack dog. Again, please contact an administrator of your choice if you believe I've violated Wiki Rules. --36hourblock (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, none of my edit qualify as blind reverts; I am very familiar with every aspect of the article, and my edits were well considered.
So, this was the onset of the edit war, started by 99 and Thomas W. BUT THIS WAS NOT AN EDIT WAR: It was, if you read the text of the exchange, a Troll attack by 99 under the pretext of "discussing" the topic, and I suspect, sponsored by his self-acknowledged mentor, Rjensen.
What has occurred here is an assault on an my username and my legitimate activities on Wikipedia. Any objective evaluation of the record will show that Troll and "pseudo"-sockpuppeteering has been the order of the day. Administrators like yourself have stood by allowed this to unfold. Your behavior amounts to collaboration. -- 36hourblock ( talk) 18:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. I was blocked because I exposed PeacePeace as a sockpuppet, and Rjensen as the puppeteer. You can ignore this, and other truths, because you have the backing of biased Administrators. 99 is engaging in Troll behavior. It's not a secret. 36hourblock ( talk) 19:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
-- Darth Mike (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the archive page watchlisted, so (regardless of the appropriateness of editing archives) I was unlikely to notice this if you didn't ping me. I only saw it because I checked your contribs after the message you left me later, to see if something you posted elsewhere would elaborate what you meant.
Anyway, I do not understand your question. What is your "edit count page"? This? "User:Bbb23's case he opened" also doesn't appear to make sense; Bbb23 didn't open a case against you -- he closed it.
I don't know the policy on blanking archived SPIs, if that is what you are asking; if you want to request that Troutman be sanctioned for opening groundless SPIs, you could do that, but I encourage you to drop the stick and just forget about instead. Your recent not-so-subtle edits to your user page talking about "Conservapediots" do not look like a good idea; I think you should just forget about this incident.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the material on your userpage and sandbox as a BLP violation. BLP also applies to the recently dead. Wikipedia does not exist for you to carry out petty harrassment of people you dislike. Even if they have passed away. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. Thank you for your work on The Price Was High: Fifty Uncollected Stories by F. Scott Fitzgerald. ARandomName123, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for your work on this article! I've marked it as reviewed. In the future, you can try using the {{ sfn}} template for the lastname year footnotes, and the various cite templates, like {{ cite book}}, for the full sources. Thanks!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ARandomName123}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 21:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Pastures of Heaven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saturday Review.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Long Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argosy.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
See [1] for all changes. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello 36hourblock. I am responding to your request from my talk page ("
Manipulation of User Page - what gives?").
Check your user page edit history to see relevant changes. I don't see any change by other users in your user page in the last 6 months. But if there had been changes that are not listed, maybe it was an
oversighter action. Or it could be a bug. Can you provide specific
diffs of your concerns? Regards, --
Thinker78
(talk)
22:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:The Wheel of Love, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, " The Wheel of Love".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:I Stand Here Ironing (short story), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 22:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I've never submitted a new article developed from scratch, so I can't really comment on the usual reception. With the caveat that I don't have ready access to the sources you listed, I would say I don't understand the reason given for rejecting the article; it does seem to properly summarize secondary, reliable sources (although with a seeming over-reliance on just two of them). I notice several formatting issues (most noticeably the reference for a section title), and a couple of places I would jiggle the phrasing a bit, but nothing terribly major.
However, my main observation is that the article left me with the question, "why is this a separate article?" Unless the text written so far is merely part of an intended major expansion, it appears that the Report itself doesn't need an article, but the information, to the extent it is not already included, would be useful to incorporate into the First Bank of the United States article.
(Yes, I remember dime calls; particularly – and unfortunately – associated in memory with the Kitty Genovese case, after which there was a movement for people to wear a dime as a pendant around their neck to symbolize a pledge to call for help in similar emergencies.) Fat&Happy ( talk) 01:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear 36hourblock: I am a fairly new editor myself, and have never deleted a page. I have referred your problem to Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is monitored by experts who can surely help you. If you go to that page you should see your text there. I have asked for help there many times; they are great! It's too bad that you went to all that work for nothing. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did you say that mention of the expunging of Jackson's censure is irrelevant? When I took a class on Jacksonian American one night was dedicated to the Bank War, and at the end of class my professor told us how the censure was expunged. The article as written says that censure was the "last hurrah" for pro-bank forces, so shouldn't it be mentioned that their "last hurrah" was taken away too, reflecting the historical fact that their defeat in the Bank War was complete? The article as currently written suggests that the censure of Jackson was successful, which it obviously wasn't, and when the record was expunged it meant that the censure never legally happened. All I ask is that a simple comment that the censure was later expunged be added to the article in as neutral terms as possible, something like a parenthetical note saying, "and the censure was later expunged." Emperor001 ( talk) 00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concern about the size of the section that I added (Economic Conditions Prior to Passage) but please note how the article before I edited it had removed any reference to Section 1 - " . . .and the encouragement and protection of manufactures . . ." This omission I suspect was not by oversight. Historians of the "free trade" bias have consistently throughout U.S. history attempted to portray the founding fathers as being for "free trade" and opposed to "protection" and try to paint the Tariff Act of 1789 as merely a revenue tariff. I see this bias present here. I quote founding fathers and manufacturing groups present at the time that the legislation was drafted to show that more than just revenue was the concern (I didn't even mention the drain of specie from the 13 states due to the trade deficit with England and the impact that had on events such as Shays Rebellion).
This bias also exists in the other articles, i.e. "Tariffs in United States history". There the authors went so far as to ignore the first (Tariff Act of 1789) and only refere to the revised Tariff of 1790. Also note that article also attempted to portray the first tariff as simply a revenue tariff. It also only refered to the U.S. Constitution where it grants Congress power to tax but completely avoided "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations . . ." all of which I just added and am waiting to see how long it takes before they start getting removed.
It took me over 3 years of this kind of biased censoring to get the Smoot-Hawley Tariff article to achieve some small degree of balance (for some specific examples see the Smoot-Hawley talk page). The entire section, "Tariff levels" in the Smoot-Hawley section is mine and has been quoted in debates on U.S. trade policy on the net - with caution - as Wiki has a poor reputation for accuracy - which I personally can attest to.
This pro-free trade bias is dominant here among Wiki editors to the point of slanting articles to include unfounded pro free trade dogma and exclude documented protectionist history.
If you wish for me to cut down the size of the quotes I can agree to that. I'd prefere to leave them as evidence of the true situation that the pro-free trade biased editors would be more than happy to have Wiki users not know anything about.
I personally never remove material. I'm here to inform - not censor. Let the reader decide. Machinehead61 ( talk) 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for kindly sending me answers to my queries on the relevant Talk-page. Curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll put it. I still don't see how he crossed over to his hotel on Martha's Vineyard without walking past reception dripping wet! But the debate continues... Valetude ( talk) 13:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Cutler and Joesten agree with you: Kennedy lied in his report to the Edgartown police and at the inquest.
Kennedy said he walked back to his room from the bay. Only one person, the night manager at the Shiretown Inn, testified that he encountered Kennedy, but did not see him - he recognized the voice of the man he had an exchange with standing at the top of the darkened stairway - when he heard Kennedy's voice on TV the next day. That "everyone knows [where] he slept that night" has not been confirmed beyond that testimony.
According to the "frame-up" hypothesis, Kennedy's testimony provides no useful insights into understanding what happened that night. Cutler and Joesten present Kennedy's statements as primary evidence that something entirely different took place. They offer their own scenario, based on the assumption that Edward Kennedy's two older brothers, JFK and RFK, had thwarted powerful financial and political interests who planned and carried out their assassinations. The theorists I've cited have surmised that a third murder of the only surviving brother by a "lone nut" would provoke a demand among Americans for an independent investigation of these events, and Martin Luther King Jr.'s as well. They settled, rather, to destroy his political career. This is the thesis of the Chappaquiddick Conspiracy Theory.
Whether it's marsh gas and mass hysteria, or the gospel truth, it's a fascinating tale. You decide. 36hourblock ( talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your helpful provision of the Cutler- Joesten material on the Talk Page, which I have found most helpful.
I have added another small section which has popped-up under Cutler-Joesten ‘Cited In Footnotes’, which wasn’t intended. Are you able to re-position this as a separate section? Thanking in advance. Valetude ( talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You might want to change the first pipe ("|") following "Subst" for the GAN template to a colon (":"). I'd do it myself, but discovered last time that going back and fixing things so you show up properly everywhere as the nominator instead of me is more trouble than dropping you this quick note up front...
Fat&Happy (
talk)
22:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
United States presidential election, 1844 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
01:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Texas annexation you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Bryanrutherford0 --
Bryanrutherford0 (
talk)
18:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The article
Texas annexation you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Texas annexation for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Bryanrutherford0 --
Bryanrutherford0 (
talk)
01:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Matty - My thanks! 36hourblock ( talk) 02:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 22 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Texas annexation, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Republic of Texas presented a formal proposal for annexation by the United States to President Martin Van Buren, who rejected it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Texas annexation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The article
United States presidential election, 1844 you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:United States presidential election, 1844 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Crisco 1492 --
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
01:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Bank War you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
BlackJack --
BlackJack (
talk)
18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The article
Bank War you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Bank War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
BlackJack --
BlackJack (
talk)
04:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bank War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I reverted this uncivil edit of yours. If you think socking is going on, take it to SPI. Making groundless threats will result in me taking you to a drama board. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
"You have gone to multiple talk pages making ridiculous and poorly substantiated accusations of sockpuppetry. You might be beginning to realize by now that your claims are probably baseless, which is why you haven't yet mustered up the courage to go and file an actual SPI."An SPI now can't determine if there was socking years ago and I assume you know that, too. So, WP:JUSTDROPIT. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
36hourblock, I am here to defend myself against charges that I am a sockpuppet of Rjensen. I appreciate the fact that you pinged me, thus allowing me to respond to the claims, but I do not approve of your assumption, which seems to have been made almost entirely off of a single pinging of Rjensen on a talk page. While this can certainly indicate sockpuppetry, it does not prove it, and you need to have a lot more evidence than this before you begin making accusations. The fact is, I have at times pinged Rjensen on talk pages because I see him, a retired professor, as one of the greatest authorities in U.S. history, an area on which I focus many of my edits, on Wikipedia, and I value his advice.
A quick search of my revision history, and a reading of the biography of myself that I have on my userpage, should dispel any reasonable doubts on the matter of Rjensen and I being one and the same. The fact that I began editing Wikipedia in middle school (way too early), focused practically all of my edits in the 2011-12 period on topics related to professional football, and not a single one on the social, political, or military history of the United States, and the fact that I was repeatedly blocked for incredibly basic MOS violations should show that I am a totally different person from Rjensen, who has perhaps contributed more to U.S. history articles than anyone else on this site. A large number of my edits are also on the articles of people or things related to the Catholic Church, and to pope biographies in particular. The same pattern cannot be found in Rjensen's revision history, which seems to consist of practically nothing but edits relating to the history of the United States. It would have been best for you to have done this research yourself before making the claim that I am a sockpuppet.
Finally, here is a link which shows a disagreement between me and Rjensen from January 2016.
Having said all this, it is my request that you withdraw your claim that Rjensen and I are the same person. Display name 99 ( talk) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
If you think you have enough evidence that Rjensen is a sock master the correct forum for presenting that evidence is WP:SPI. If you continue to make allegations of sockpuppetry any where else you will be blocked for personal attacks. - GB fan 21:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. -
GB
fan
21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/36hourblock, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
36hourblock ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I never asked to be unblocked; let's be clear on that point, for the record. 36hourblock ( talk) 18:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No reason given. If you wish to request unblock please make succinct and to the point request within the block template. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
On October 10, 2016, User:Display name 99 began to make minor changes to Bank War. I happened to have researched and written the article, and I was familiar with the sources, footnotes. User:Display name 99 changed the link Missouri crisis to Missouri Compromise on the grounds that it was improper not to refer to the controversy by the name "Missouri Compromise".
Historian Elizabeth R. Varon uses the term "Missouri Crisis" in her index to refer to that event. Feel free to check this on p. 444: Varon, Elizabeth R. Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-8078-3232-5
This, and number of other edits by 99, which I reverted on the same sourced grounds, was escalated into an edit war by User:Thomas.W, who accused me of abusing the three-revert rule: Wikipedia:Edit warring.
The record will show that this accusation was a patently false, and amounts to a conscious intervention on behalf of 99. The following exchange points to this conclusion. Thomas W. threatened to block me from the article on the basis of the three-revert rule:
Thomas.W: Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly
36hourblock: On the matter of edit reverts, no rule has been broken, regarding the 3 per 24-hour rule. Have you contacted all parties involved in this edit war on the matter of reverts? --36hourblock (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
(Rather than contacting 99 on the matter, to be even-handed, Thomas.W launched into a tirade which had nothing to do with any violation on my part):
@36hourblock: Last time I looked the other party seemed to be far more interested in discussing it than you, and provided sources supporting their view on the talk page. The slow-mo edit war has been going on for almost a week, and, as the warning says, even edit-warring where people make less than four reverts per 24h is blockable, if editors show that they have no intention of stopping. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Thomas: Perhaps you can locate an accommodating administrator to block me from the article. Otherwise, your comments are one-sided and create a hostile editing environment. Kindly desist. --36hourblock (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thomas W.: You're the one who is creating a hostile environment there by just blindly reverting. It was the other party who started the current discussion, not you. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Thomas: What you've posted is a flagrant falsehood, based on the talk record. The first "blind" revert was made by 99, to wit: "36hourblock, I removed content in this article here because I found it to be very biased against the pro-Bank forces." No source was provided. A non-consensual revert. Period. But you're doing a lovely job as an attack dog. Again, please contact an administrator of your choice if you believe I've violated Wiki Rules. --36hourblock (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, none of my edit qualify as blind reverts; I am very familiar with every aspect of the article, and my edits were well considered.
So, this was the onset of the edit war, started by 99 and Thomas W. BUT THIS WAS NOT AN EDIT WAR: It was, if you read the text of the exchange, a Troll attack by 99 under the pretext of "discussing" the topic, and I suspect, sponsored by his self-acknowledged mentor, Rjensen.
What has occurred here is an assault on an my username and my legitimate activities on Wikipedia. Any objective evaluation of the record will show that Troll and "pseudo"-sockpuppeteering has been the order of the day. Administrators like yourself have stood by allowed this to unfold. Your behavior amounts to collaboration. -- 36hourblock ( talk) 18:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. I was blocked because I exposed PeacePeace as a sockpuppet, and Rjensen as the puppeteer. You can ignore this, and other truths, because you have the backing of biased Administrators. 99 is engaging in Troll behavior. It's not a secret. 36hourblock ( talk) 19:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
-- Darth Mike (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the archive page watchlisted, so (regardless of the appropriateness of editing archives) I was unlikely to notice this if you didn't ping me. I only saw it because I checked your contribs after the message you left me later, to see if something you posted elsewhere would elaborate what you meant.
Anyway, I do not understand your question. What is your "edit count page"? This? "User:Bbb23's case he opened" also doesn't appear to make sense; Bbb23 didn't open a case against you -- he closed it.
I don't know the policy on blanking archived SPIs, if that is what you are asking; if you want to request that Troutman be sanctioned for opening groundless SPIs, you could do that, but I encourage you to drop the stick and just forget about instead. Your recent not-so-subtle edits to your user page talking about "Conservapediots" do not look like a good idea; I think you should just forget about this incident.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the material on your userpage and sandbox as a BLP violation. BLP also applies to the recently dead. Wikipedia does not exist for you to carry out petty harrassment of people you dislike. Even if they have passed away. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. Thank you for your work on The Price Was High: Fifty Uncollected Stories by F. Scott Fitzgerald. ARandomName123, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for your work on this article! I've marked it as reviewed. In the future, you can try using the {{ sfn}} template for the lastname year footnotes, and the various cite templates, like {{ cite book}}, for the full sources. Thanks!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ARandomName123}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 21:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Pastures of Heaven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saturday Review.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Long Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argosy.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
See [1] for all changes. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello 36hourblock. I am responding to your request from my talk page ("
Manipulation of User Page - what gives?").
Check your user page edit history to see relevant changes. I don't see any change by other users in your user page in the last 6 months. But if there had been changes that are not listed, maybe it was an
oversighter action. Or it could be a bug. Can you provide specific
diffs of your concerns? Regards, --
Thinker78
(talk)
22:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:The Wheel of Love, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, " The Wheel of Love".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 36hourblock. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:I Stand Here Ironing (short story), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 22:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)