My talk page.
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:
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)
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)
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)
a typical WP hack like you with no respect for facts,
vainly reverted,
dopey reasonsviolates 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Reywas92
Talk
20:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't do this, the article is pretty obviously not a stub. Thanks. Curbon7 ( talk) 03:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. Pam D 09:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments)
20:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments)
23:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)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)
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)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments)
00:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments)
00:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
00:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)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)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
01:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
00:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)You are in violation of the ArbCom restriction "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" at
Margaret Sanger. The restriction is shown in a great big in-your-face template that comes up when you attempt to edit the article, and you have been warned about it,
[1] but you have still ignored it. I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk
08:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
14:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
15:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Total random nerd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The brief warring ceased hours by the time the block was imposed. Constructive edits to other articles were made.
Decline reason:
Looking at Special:Diff/1077929850, your approach to the edit warring policy has reached a point where warnings are insufficient to prevent further edit warring. Your unblock request appears to say that the block was not necessary at all, which is incorrect. The positive effect of the block is increased by its prevention of any edits for 24 hours especially in cases where the affected user actually intends to edit during this period. 24 hours may not mean much to some users, but they mean something to you, yet it's "just" a 24-hour block. Sounds like an ideal measure I'd like to keep up. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (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.
—
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
15:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems that you have added
Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as
Aime Forand. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia
guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly-licensed sources, including the usage of an
attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Your edit summary says that you wrote the text. If that is true, you should declare where and attribute it accordingly. ––
FormalDude
talk
17:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Jayron
32
12:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)My talk page.
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:
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)
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)
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)
a typical WP hack like you with no respect for facts,
vainly reverted,
dopey reasonsviolates 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Reywas92
Talk
20:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't do this, the article is pretty obviously not a stub. Thanks. Curbon7 ( talk) 03:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. Pam D 09:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments)
20:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments)
23:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)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)
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)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments)
00:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments)
00:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
00:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)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)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
01:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
00:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)You are in violation of the ArbCom restriction "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" at
Margaret Sanger. The restriction is shown in a great big in-your-face template that comes up when you attempt to edit the article, and you have been warned about it,
[1] but you have still ignored it. I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk
08:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
14:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
15:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Total random nerd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The brief warring ceased hours by the time the block was imposed. Constructive edits to other articles were made.
Decline reason:
Looking at Special:Diff/1077929850, your approach to the edit warring policy has reached a point where warnings are insufficient to prevent further edit warring. Your unblock request appears to say that the block was not necessary at all, which is incorrect. The positive effect of the block is increased by its prevention of any edits for 24 hours especially in cases where the affected user actually intends to edit during this period. 24 hours may not mean much to some users, but they mean something to you, yet it's "just" a 24-hour block. Sounds like an ideal measure I'd like to keep up. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (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.
—
trn
(debate me) •
(my accomplishments)
15:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems that you have added
Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as
Aime Forand. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia
guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly-licensed sources, including the usage of an
attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Your edit summary says that you wrote the text. If that is true, you should declare where and attribute it accordingly. ––
FormalDude
talk
17:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Jayron
32
12:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)