User talk:SDSU-Prepper/Archive 1

Welcome to my page

I'm an entrepreneur who enjoys politics and preparedness. I appreciate constructive feedback as I learn the Wikipedia etiquette and procedures. I value the first amendment, historical accuracy, integrity, and diversity. I'm not a college kid. The namesake refers to my alma matter, San Diego State University, where I obtained a bachelor of science and a bachelor of arts. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Block

I have no idea why Drmies issued a block or for which edit or entry. Please advise. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC) This statement from Drmies is unfounded: "Since in your very first edit you made a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South, out to be someone with "radical left-wing ideas", one may well ask what brings you here. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I do not understand why I've been blocked. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a misunderstanding here: Drmies was not calling you "a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South". Drmies was referring to Orval Faubus, and arguing that you misrepresented Faubus as having

"radical left-wing ideas". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please explain "breach of an arbitration enforcement?" It is still not clear as to the reason for my block or lack of consideration for proper procedures. What arbitration procedure did I breach? I arbitrated with Snooganssnoogans and s/he didn't like my source. I explained it was a valid source and there was no proof offered that it was* an invalid source. There was no further response other than repeating the same. As I understand, it was vandalism to undue my research. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely not said that you've "been banned for 'radical left-wing ideas.'" Where have you got this idea from? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for Hearts&Arms: It was previously unclear to me when Drmies wrote "Since in your very first edit you made a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South, out to be someone with "radical left-wing ideas." I interpreted the inflamed commentary on my character, and took offense, but subsequently determined that Drmies was referring to the biography of a segregationist (and not me). Phew! I thought I was being banned for "radical left-wing ideas."

It's still unclear as to why I'm being banned. Snoogansnoogans didn't like my citation (Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit group that's been around since 1985) I didn't think it was valid reason to remove my research and discussed with Snoogansnoogans. Since there was no further commentary, I added the copy back. Was this the wrong procedure? Thanks for your expertise! SDSU-Prepper (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere (this page is very confusing with your multiple sections separated by lines - it's really hard to see what is following what), once you are reverted you must gain a consensus to re-do your change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I'm cleaning up the lines. How does one "gain a consensus" to redo a change if no one will talk about the change?SDSU-Prepper (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa discussions

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. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the above: please explain at Talk:Antifa (United States) what changes you're proposing and why. Many of your edits seem like reasonable (if perhaps unnecessary) changes to wording, but others are more concerning. The edit I just reverted replaced two citations and a section header with a nonsensical sentence. There is no deadline, and errors like these can be avoided by working collaboratively and in the spirit of consensus. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding EDIT WARRING from Antifa editors:

The Antifa activist look generally is a black bloc ^[1] ^[2] characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles ^[3] or black hoodies and sunglasses ^[4] with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.^[5]

There are numerous examples of how Antifa members wear hoods, masks and bandannas to hide their identity:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/internet-vigilantes-destroy-antifa/ <-------- The antifa member editors didn't like this source, but I have plenty more:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/ http://dailyheadlines.com/antifa-website-encourages-violence-against-americans/ https://capitalresearch.org/article/antifa-activist-faces-jail-time-for-nazi-punching/ https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/antifa?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=antifa SDSU-Prepper (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Antifa (United States) 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 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.

I agree that working collaboratively and in the spirit of consensus is ideal. In response to the above:

What do you mean that "I just reverted replaced two citations"? I never took out any citation.
What was a "section header with a nonsensical sentence"?
Why did someone take out my citation regarding hoods, bandanas and masks? This is common knowledge documented with photographic evidence.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/use-term-antifa/ SDSU-Prepper (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the diff I linked above, you removed citations to Jacobin and Grammarist as well as the section header "Terminology". You replaced these with the incoherent sentence "Conflicts are as an umbrella term in English in 2017." Given that you made a change involving the phrase "conflicts are" elsewhere in the same edit, it looks like you pasted some text in the wrong place.

If you're concerned about a change another editor has made, you should contact them directly or via the article talk page. That being said, photographs are very rarely reliable sources for Wikipedia articles – see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research (especially the section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (a photograph is a primary source). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notations to Arms & Hearts:

I did not remove citations to "Jacobin" and "Grammarist"
I did not write "conflicts are an umbrella term in English 2017." I have no idea why you think that was me.

Please explain. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)------------------------------[reply]

1: SDSU-Prepper has NOT removed any citations.
2:"Conflicts are as an umbrella term in English in 2017." <------ not an edit made by SDSU-Prepper.
3: Why does Amrs & Hearts dispute that Antifa members wear dark clothing, hoods, caps and bandanas? SDSU-Prepper has photographic evidence.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa: The copy below is neutral and does not warrant erasure:

"The Antifa activist look may include black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles. [12] The shadowy activists may wear black hoods and sunglasses[13], though not always. Some carry makeshift shields or weapons as well, or flags.[14] The tactic is known as "black bloc" [15] a strategy that may hide their identity or show cohesion."

Do NOT undue the work:

The paragraph has proper citations from reliable newsprint sources.

There is no inflammatory copy.

The words "may" and "some are used appropriately to indicate possibility or probability.

CNN has provided the definition of "black bloc" and proper citation is noted.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) SDSU-Prepper (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: This sentence is ambiguous, requires citation: "Modern antifa politics can be traced to resistance to waves of xenophobia."

Here is the revision of highly charged content: "Modern Antifa politics may stem from the resistance movement and perceived xenophobia."

Your proposed edit makes no sense and introduces its own ambiguity. What is "the resistance movement?" Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response from SDSU-Prepper

1: "Can be traced" <---- this requires citation.
2: "to resistance to waves" <------ this makes no sense

New Proposed change: "The rise of Antifa politics may stem from a perceived uprising in xenophobia."

Resolution: No objections noted. Changes made.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Strategy discussions

You're edit-warring at Southern strategy. Please stop, or you may be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard. Acroterion (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify your concern regarding edit warring. I'm not sure I understand.

Here's what's transpired:

I added the word "allegedly" in three places to clarify ambiguity. Gamaliel reverted the edit.
I added a citation for the word allegedly as a qualifier to the word, since the word allegedly alone was not satisfactory https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
I didn't enter the citation properly, so I fixed it.
I added citations on Socratic questioning that Southern Strategy is a political theorem. Snooganssnoogans reverted the edit.

Regarding use of the word "alleged":

I could not find a Wikipedia ban nor instruction for the word "alleged." The word "alleged" and "allegedly" is not found in the WP:MOSWTW.
According to the AP Style Guide, use of the word "alleged" is necessary to make it clear that an unproved action is not be treated as fact. As such, use of the word "alleged" or "allegedly" is warranted regarding "The Southern Strategy" as it is only well-documented as a political theorem and not a fact.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution:

If an author asserts that the Southern Strategy is a "Republican party" platform, then it will require an appropriate citation to prove that it is a fact.
If an author can not find a citation, it stands that the words "Republican party" should be removed.
In summary: insert the word "allegedly" or remove references to the "Republican party."

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/ https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html Professors: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/southern-strategy/ https://tennesseestar.com/2018/06/14/carol-swain-commentary-facts-myths-and-rewritten-history-of-the-left-as-tweeted-by-princetons-kevin-kruse/

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources (citations)

Wikipedia's criterion for how we should report a topic is how it is described in reliable mainstream published sources, not how you or I or any other Wikipedia editor personally thinks it should be covered. It is not right for an editor to remove sources from an article because he or she personally thinks that what they say is not what should be said. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rest assured that I've not deleted any sources of other editors; however, I have been a victim. What prompted you to write? Are you an Antifa page editor? Would you be so kind as to help me understand why an editor would erase the paragraph below? It has proper citations and is neutral.

The Antifa activist look generally is a black bloc^[6]^[7] characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles ^[8] or black hoodies and sunglasses ^[9]. with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.^[10]

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa Discussions

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Antifa (United States). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose content without labeling other editors as "sympathizers." Please reconsider how you interact with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology. I wasn't singling out anyone in particular for being a sympathizer. It was a general statement If you felt I someone singled you out, please advise. It does appear that my attempts at neutrality on the topic of Antifa have engaged others in edit warring. Another editor felt the same so I chimed in with agreement.

You're making unjustified broad-brush accusations that are unwarranted and inappropriate. Objections to your edits from several other editors center on the use of appropriate sources, basic grammar and composition, and avoidance of original research from photographs. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response.

SDSU-Prepper has not made any "broad-brush accusations.
No one has questioned SDSU-Prepper's basic grammar and composition. SDSU-Prepper has a degree in journalism and understand media bias.
Antifa has a uniform consisting of dark clothing. SDSU-Prepper ahs several news citations for imagery demonstrating Antifa is unified in wearing dark clothing, masks, bandanas, hoods and caps, yet someone removed:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/internet-vigilantes-destroy-antifa/ (Someone removed this citation)

SDSU-PREPPER can source several other examples: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/05/berkeley-bracing-for-alt-right-rally-today-antifa-counter-protest/ https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/demonstrator-gestures-in-front-of-an-antifascist-action-news-photo/605837992 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/03/as-far-right-marchers-and-antifa-prepare-to-face-off-on-saturday-portland-braces-for-violence/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dad2836b0cbd http://www.sfexaminer.com/use-term-antifa/

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Western Journal is an openly partisan source, please stop proposing it. Stick to the others. Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to mercurynews.com, gettyimage.com, washingtonpost.com, sfexaminer.com? If not, the citations will appear. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gamaliel. Your recent edit to the page Southern strategy appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a large number of experienced editors tell you that there is something wrong with your edits, it is wise to assume that there's something wrong with your edits. Your rather curt note to Gamaliel was inappropriate. The southern strategy is well-documented, and one opinion piece doesn't outweigh the scholarship - nor is an op/ed contribution a valid source in most cases. Please stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground - you need to persuade, not bluster. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: The Southern Strategy is only "well-documented" as a political theorem. The word "allegedly" is appropriate in context of a strategy that has no documentation in the Republican Platform. As well, debate still currently exists that it is a myth*, so it stands that it's proper to either insert the word "allegedly" or remove references to the "Republican party."

Case in point:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/southern-strategy/

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to be listening: one op/ed doesn't outweigh every other citation, and "allegedly" is to be avoided except in specific circumstances: see MOS:ALLEGED. So far you have gotten no traction with your edits, and you just keep repeating the arguments other editors have rejected. You're moving into tendentious editing - see WP:TENDENTIOUS for more. It's not a good thing. Acroterion (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response: allegedly Use of the word “alleged” is in this instance used to dispute who participated in the Southern Strategy, since there is scholarly debate and it is a correct use of the word; however the words "apparent," "ostensible," or "reputed" would be an amicable solution. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)SDSU-PrepperSDSU-Prepper (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC) SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a minority position into a defining statement, in violation of WP:NPOV, and you're edit-warring to do it. Stop floating from article to article to repeatedly insert variations on a theme. It's getting disruptive, and you have never come close to getting consensus for your edits. Stop tying to edit-war disputed material into articles. Acroterion (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this [1] doesn't belong on a userpage, it's a talkpage item, and you have no business warning people for reverting your edits when you're the one making multiple reverts: you are the one who may expect sanctions if you don't stop. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify the dispute.

1 Regarding word "allegedly," we are working through our dispute. Please select a word: apparent, ostensible or reputed or come up with another solution. The suggestion on the table is that or to remove the word "Republican Party" in the lead, since it a scholarly debate.

2 Provide a citation that I have a "minority position to a defining statement."

3 Explain the proper etiquette instead of reducing my changes to "disruptive"

Let's come to a productive solution. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC) SDSU-Prepper SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you dig through the talk page history of the article you will see I also questioned some of the article. I would suggest slowing down else people will request a topic ban regardless of how good the information may be. At this point I would suggest figuring out where the information fits in the body of the article and understand that even if much of the conventional telling doesn't make sense, the rules of Wikipedia still govern the process. I'm inclined to support the addition of new, reliable material that calls into question much of this narrative and the oft cited dog whittles that go with it. However, even if I think many of the arguments are crap, no changes will be made without following Wikipedia rules.

So with that said, I would suggest starting a new talk section and discuss how you want to add new sources into the body of the text. Leave the lead alone for now. When new editors change the lead first it just causes fights. Also, just in case, remember this is a political discussion so always be on your best behavior. The rules are less forgiving when discussing politics. Springee (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans, Thank you for proper citations to the footnotes on: "but finds for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate." However this content is still under debate, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime

"New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates."
"The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime."

CIS is not a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is BIASED to negate a credible source: cis.org is a CREDIBLE SOURCE with an Alexa Rank in United States of 34,568

The additional content will read: "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies. "The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime." Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime

NOTATION: Snooganssnoogans has not justified erasure of a valid citation. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans has not shared a valid reason for erasure and so the paragraph shall stand:

The academic literature provides mixed findings for the relationship between immigration and crime worldwide. Some studies find for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate.[17][18] "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies.[19] Other research shows that country of origin matters for speed and depth of immigrant assimilation, but that there is considerable assimilation overall for both first- and second-generation immigrants.[20][21] SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notation: Snooganssnoogans has erased my content and then I get blocked for restoring it after I gave ample time for discussiona nd explained that it was a valid source?

Someone please help me understand Wikipedia protocol here. SDSU-Prepper wrote content Snooganssnoogans deleted content SDSU-Prepper used proper channel to challenge deleted content and restored deleted content Snoogansnoogans may have recruited help from Drmies?

Drmies accused SDSU-prepper of racism, but it's unfounded.

The content dispute is a valid citation on immigration: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime

Help me understand what I did wrong: I want to have faith in the system! I also would like an apology from Drmies for calling me a racist!

01:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Post War Politics

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 recently shown interest in post-1932 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 any 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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the "friendly" warning issued by NeilN. Can someone explain? Someone by the name of Drmies blocked me. I don't understand why, as I don't recall any interaction. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: "but finds for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate." This content is still under debate, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime

Wikipedia should be neutral, subjective, balanced. The highly charged content above (impact of immigration on crime), should reflect other statistical data. How does a contributor nsert this content without risking edit warring?

In the interest of fair and balanced, this content should appear:

"New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies. "The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime." Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulyssess S Grant

Acroterion has been following closely on my additions and edits on other pages making arbitrary edits, unwarranted. Need help. How do I report? Does Acroterion have any relation to Drmies? I've been blocked by Drmies and I have no record of interaction.

This was the last edit I made and it was reverted:

This sentence was ambiguous: "Elected president in 1868, the youngest man in the office to that date, Grant stabilized the post-war national economy, created the Department of Justice, used the military to enforce laws in the former Confederacy and prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan."

Why was the sentence ambiguous:

Ulysses S. Grant did not "enforce laws in the former Confederacy"
Conversely Grant lead the Union Army to victory over the Confederacy in the American Civil War.

So I changed the sentence as follows: "Elected president in 1868, the youngest man in the office to that date, Grant stabilized the post-war national economy, created the Department of Justice, used the military to enforce laws to put an end to the Confederacy, and he prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan."

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Block is unjustified: I have no record of any discord. I've been falsely accused of being a racist when I am anything but a racist. All copy has been with utmost care to be neutral. I've added citations and worked with several other editors on complex issues and thought everything was amicable. I have had my copy vandalized and so I'm surprised that I was blocked when another editor can erase copy without justification and only on a whim. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Ongoing disruption in articles covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, most recently Immigration. Your use of Wikipedia as a forum may lead to an indefinite block, as may continued violations of our injunction to neutrality. Since in your very first edit you made a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South, out to be someone with "radical left-wing ideas", one may well ask what brings you here. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

============

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SDSU-Prepper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

SDSU-Prepper ~ I have never had a conversation about immigration with Drmies.

I added language to this sentence and had discussions with Snooganssnoogan, not Drmies: "The academic literature provides mixed findings for the relationship between immigration and crime worldwide, but finds for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate.[17][18] Research shows that country of origin matters for speed and depth of immigrant assimilation, but that there is considerable assimilation overall for both first- and second-generation immigrants.[19][20]"

I added this sentence with proper citation.

"New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). Other research

Edit warring was done by Snooganssnoogan who did not like my citation, but did not offer valid explanation for not using it. The block is unwarranted. All I did was add a sentence with citation.

Drmies did not like my citation, but made no attempts to contact me with any specifics until the block, which was totally unwarranted. Drmies has fabricated a story that I am a segregationist, which is false and libelous. If anyone should be blocked it is Drmies. I played by the rules and gave plenty of time for change of my proposed additional sentence. The controversy is unwarranted and a salicious attempt to silence me. I want Wikipedia to be a valid source of reference data.

Decline reason:

Blaming everyone else, and evading your block by editing logged out? That's not the way to get yourself unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Drmies: Please explain the reason for the block, where you wrote "Since in your very first edit you made a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South, out to be someone with "radical left-wing ideas", one may well ask what brings you here.'

Zebedee: Please explain decline: "blaming everyone else, and evading your block by editing logged out? That's not the way to get yourself unblocked."

"Blaming everyone else": I don't believe I have blamed anyone. I seek clarification.
"Evading block by editing logged out?" I seek clarification.

Others:

Anthony Bradbury kindly has explained the block as: breaching the arbitration enforcement notice; However I seek clarification.
NeilN: I am unaware of how an "arbitration enforcement notice" is placed on an editor, but apparently NeilN has done so on me? I thought NeilN to be very kind and professional. I will review the notation.
Acroterion is not an uninvolved contributor as noted below.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is an administrator here (as am I). He has blocked you, not because of any conversation you had with him - there was none - but because of your breach of an arbitration enforcement, of which you received advance warning on this page. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is an uninvolved administrator who has blocked you for breaching the arbitration enforcement notice that was placed on this page by NeilN. Although I am an administrator, I have been involved in the discussions, so I could not in good faith place such editing restrictions. Please take warnings seriously, your conduct has not been appropriate and your editing has wasted a lot of other volunteers' time. If this recurs, you may face extended sanctions or an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies has besmirched me when s/he wrote "Since in your very first edit you made a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South, out to be someone with "radical left-wing ideas", one may well ask what brings you here. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC).

This is a highly charged and without merit! What kind of an "uninvolved administrator" tells someone else that they are racist? I've not done anything racist whatsoever. In fact, I value diversity and feel the statement is libelous. Is there an arbitration process that's not biased? 2601:647:200:A396:C07B:6137:1E8D:8388 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said this [2] in which you made a speculation about Orval Faubus's "radical left-wing ideas." Where on earth did that come from? It's utter nonsense, and it calls into question your overall competence to edit Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you're evading your block. Your IP is now blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several misunderstandings:

1 Regarding "Immigration": I never used any inflammatory language, and feel Drmies has besmirched me or confused me by blocking me. Conversely, Drmies wrote the inflammatory content directed at me when s/he wrote: "Ongoing disruption in articles covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, most recently Immigration. Your use of Wikipedia as a forum may lead to an indefinite block, as may continued violations of our injunction to neutrality. Since in your very first edit you made a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South, out to be someone with "radical left-wing ideas", one may well ask what brings you here. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)"

Drmies has blocked me regarding immigration copy. I do not understand how I could be blocked for adding a citation. The only notice I received was "CIS is not a reliable source; your changes water down the peer-reviewed research, and this is undue weight in any case, doubly so in lead section. Please obtain consensus before re-inserting this text)."

I believe it was snooganssnoogans who undid my copy twice and as I understand it that is vandalism. When he undid my copy the first time I discussed that it was a valid source with a high Alexa ranking. Here is the copy in question, which does not have any inflamed content:

"New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies.^[11] Other research

Immigrants are of all nationalities. The content does not say that one ethnicity, country or race was the reason for increased crime, and so I don't deserve to be blocked. I also believe I'm due an apology.

2 Regarding Orval Faubus: No content that I have posted has been challenged and so I think I've been unfairly blocked. I've not lauded Orval Faubus in the slightest. Orval Faubus was a Democrat/Dixiecrat and it is reputedly a leftist ideology, but this is an aside. Let it be known for the record that I am disgusted that Orval Faubus was for segregation (and against integration). Some of the previous content obfuscated integration and segregation. Orval Faubus was a segregationist. It is patently false to say that Orval Faubus wanted integration when he was a segregationist. The conflation even in his bio was of a concern and I felt that it important to clarify that Orval was segregationist who used propaganda. I value historical accuracy. I don't believe anyone has challenged the content and so I question why Arm&Hearts raises this issue. I've only had discussions with Arms&Hearts regarding Antifa.

Is there a conspiracy against me? I have an earnest desire for historical accuracy.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Orval Faubus was a Democrat/Dixiecrat and it is reputedly a leftist ideology." That statement alone disqualifies you from being competent to edit anything to do with 19th and 20th century American politics and history. I'm going to make a suggestion. Your username implies that you're a student at SDSU. This fall, I advise you to run - not walk - to the registrars office and rearrange your class schedule to a slate of classes on 20th century American history and political science, saving a slot for an English comp class. As I noted, I probably am not an uninvolved administrator, sensu stricto, but I would expect a formal topic ban to come your way from somebody else. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue because you had misunderstood another editor's comment and I thought I'd clarify things. I hope you'd do me the same courtesy. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, regarding the following:

"Democrat/Dixiecrat and it is reputedly a leftist ideology." Please explain the factual error? My understanding is that Democrats reputedly are left and that Republicans reputedly are of right-wing ideology. There are of course moderates in each political branch. Is there discussion here? How might this "disqualify me"?
"I am going to make a suggestion." Please clarify as I am open to suggestions! Otherwise, if this is a solicitation for others to vandalize my integrity, I don't think this is a productive.
"Your username implies that you're a student at SDSU. This fall, I advise you to run - not walk - to the registrars office and rearrange your class schedule to a slate of classes on 20th century American history and political science, saving a slot for an English comp class. " Please refrain from making remarks on my age or my education and focus on the topic at hand. Yes, I am a graduate of San Diego State University with two degrees, not a student. I have two degrees. For the record SDSU is a moderately difficult school. The average GPA at SDSU is 3.69, and admissions rate is 34%. More than 75% of freshmen were in the top 50% of their high school class and scored over 1010 on the SAT I or over 18 on the ACT. Might I inquire of your expertise and reason for critique regarding my education?
I would expect a formal topic ban to come your way from somebody else." I don't believe it is in a good nature to solicit a formal topic ban. In the interest of a healthy dialog, please refrain from soliciting others. I would sincerely like productive feedback as I'm new around here.
"As I noted, I probably am not an uninvolved administrator." Thank you for your honesty.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re "I believe it was snooganssnoogans who undid my copy twice and as I understand it that is vandalism", that is not correct - see WP:VANDALISM to learn what vandalism is in Wikipedia's terms. When you add material and it is reverted, the onus is then on you to discuss it at the article talk page and seek a consensus for its inclusion. To just add the same material again is edit warring (see WP:EW) and is prohibited. As you were editing articles under discretionary sanctions, edit warring policy is more strictly enforced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand: material was removed because another editor didn't like the source of the citation. Is that a valid reason? Can anyone just say, I don't like your source then delete content? The organization I chose has been around since 1985, well before the Internet debuted for the masses in the mid 1990s. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can revert an addition if they believe a source does not satisfy WP:RS, or for many other reasons. In fact, short of clear vandalism, there are very few reasons for reverting that are not allowed. It's really the only way an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" can work - someone makes a change, someone else reverts it, and then the person who wants to make the change must seek consensus at the talk page. It's summarized at WP:BRD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re "My understanding is that Democrats reputedly are left and that Republicans reputedly are of right-wing ideology", that has not always been the case and there are also differences between individuals - and describing a historical political figure as "left" purely because they were a Democrat is a mistake. You need to examine the individual's politics, and to describe someone who was an extreme segregationist as having "radical left-wing ideas" is clearly absurd. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me understand a little better. I will look into how use of the word might have inflamed a reaction. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is an administrator here (as am I). He has blocked you, not because of any conversation you had with him - there was none - but because of your breach of an arbitration enforcement, of which you received advance warning on this page. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Would someone please explain "breach of an arbitration enforcement" Still not clear as to the reason for my block or the proper procedures. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archived material SDSU-Prepper (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Black_bloc

[2] ttps://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html

[3] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html

[4] ttps://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/

[5] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a

[6] ttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Black_bloc

[7] ttps://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html

[8] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html

[9] ttps://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/

[10] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a

[11] ttps://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]