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)[reply
]
"why is this a separate article?" - My understanding, based on the sources cited, is that each Report topic (Credit, Bank, Manufacturing) were separately submitted by Alexander Hamilton, and each provoked a distinct set of reactions and controversies, each in an evolving political environment. They are treated, by my sources, in separate chapters, or, if not, certainly under unique sections.
The failure to enumerate them has led to confusion in the Wiki articles. Example: The existing Second Report on Public Credit is not part of the three early reports (1790-1791), but was submitted by Hamilton in 1795. If you look at the existing article, it conflates this late report with the earlier Report on a National Bank, precisely the article I am attempting to have listed.
The availability of separate articles will serve to obviate this confusion. Do you see? 36hourblock (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Deleting your page
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)[reply]
Bank War
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)[reply]
Never mind. I saw your comment on the Bank War's talk page. Sorry for not checking that first. Emperor001 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tariff of 1789
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)[reply]
Chappaquiddick
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)[reply]
The question you ask is relevant. Cutler and Joesten answer it this way: Kennedy never swam across the bay. His abductors transported him via boat to Edgartown from the south shore of Chappaquiddick Island and escorted to his room at the Shiretown Inn. Kopechne was being "groomed" elsewhere for a different fate. According to these revisionists, the story about the heroic swim was concocted by Kennedy and Paul Markham when they wrote up the statement at the Edgartown police headquarters. 36hourblock (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree that Kennedy's version, easily accessible on public-domain video, lacks any credibility. (The guy wasn't even a good liar.) But how did he claim he got back to the hotel, where everyone knows he slept that night? Valetude (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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
mass hysteria, or the gospel truth, it's a fascinating tale. You decide. 36hourblock (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, 36. It is refreshing to receive courteous and well-reasoned replies, in the best traditions of civilized debate. Valetude (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chappaquiddick again (!)
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)[reply]
Talk:United States presidential election, 1844
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)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
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)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
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)[reply
Hi, congratulations on the GA, I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Texas annexation. Thanks, Matty.007 08:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to nominate an alternative hook, but given that you know infinitely more on the subject than I do, would you mind proposing one on the nom page please? Thanks, Matty.007 12:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Texas annexation
nominate
) 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Your
United States presidential election, 1844
The article
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)[reply
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
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)[reply
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)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 16
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)[reply]
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
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)[reply]
ArbCom Elections 2016
: Voting now open!
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
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.
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)[reply]
Your comments are rather dramatic, at least in tone. I'll keep them in mind.
My question for you is this: have you visited the
Lost Cause
crowd to do his dirty work. Just check out the comment on Minority Rights - a provocation, pure and simple.
If you have questions, I'd be glad to enlarge on the topic. 36hourblock (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I give less than a damn about the content dispute. I'm also not here to re-litigate behavior that happened on wiki years before I joined. You seem to believe that we as a community are allowing Rjensen to engage in behavior that anyone else would be punished for; I think you're incorrect. You're trying to get your way and you seem to think you get a free pass to engage in this conduct to get revenge; you're wrong there, too. I think Display name 99 said it best: "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,
Dear Troutman - Thank your for raising the hostility level (the "revenge" comment was a nice touch). I'll be happy to "drop it". Just remember to "drop in" on the provocative deletions that Display name 99 repeatedly makes on the sites I'm re-editing so as to provoke edit wars. This is Troll activity at its worst: it's meant to distract and inhibit research on the topic. Rjensen and his cronies are members of Conservapedia, run by Andrew Schlafly, son of the late arch-conservative activist and lawyer Phyllis Schlafly - a website whose editors have successfully contaminated Wikipedia articles. See the comment on Talk:John C. Calhoun by Rjensen if you don't believe it, and the edit war Display name 99 started at Bank War.
What is really at issue is whether this element is going to control the editing at Wikipedia. Reflect on this, long and hard, then just
WP:JUSTDROPIT. And by the way, a tinker's damn will do! 36hourblock (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please allow me to explain my recent edits at Missouri Compromise. Our exchanges at the Bank War article taught me to be more careful in removing substantial content without talk page discussion. It is my opinion that the captions in the article are far too long, and that the information would be better placed in the article body. Had this discussion ended amicably, I would probably have opened a discussion on the talk page about removing them. Yet, the years in the caption are of no particular relevance to the Missouri Compromise. This looked like a simple MOS issue that could be taken care of without discussion on a talk page. My edits were not designed distract or inhibit research. In fact, they did just the opposite. The years in the captions were a distraction, because they are of no particular significance to the subject of the article, and thus don't belong outside the biographies of the people. There's a reason why you don't see years of birth or death interspersed in captions like that at other articles. So it was more like I was removing distractions in order to help people learning about the Compromise to focus better on their research.
Also, I have never edited at Conservapedia. Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of Sockpuppetry
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)[reply]
Just a humble comment to those who visit this happy talk page. All editors are entirely anonymous here. We do not acknowledge the identities of contributors based on their resumes, or their titles ("Dr.", "Professor", etc.), the number of degrees they may (or may not) possess. To do so would be to degrade the democratic (with a small "d") forum that characterizes this open and free encyclopedia. Here, we enlist mainstream, secondary sources to support our contributions, not titles of distinction.
Honestly, I don't think anyone gives a tinker's damn whether a person is a purportedly "retired professor" or a "retired longshoreman" - and if they do, they don't belong on Wikipedia.36hourblock (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to explain why I have, at times, sought Rjensen's advice. Of course, his professorship does not give him any more authority on Wikipedia than you or I, but the knowledge and ability that come with it can be of use. Experts' opinions have no special authority here, but it's nice to have them. That it was why I pinged him. Also, you may notice (you probably haven't already) that Rjensen did not respond to my ping on the Bank War talk page. If he was a puppet master, why would he not come in to support the argument being made by his alternate account?
Anyway, the point of what I wrote above was to present evidence for why Rjensen and I could not be the same person. Do you have anything to say in response to that, or would you prefer instead to bicker over the small comment that I made about Rjensen's professorship? Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. - GBfan 21:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you think matters if Rjensen is a retired professor? 36hourblock (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you are asking. What his former profession may have been has absolutely no bearing on sockpuppet allegations. - GBfan 21:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. - You're an active Administrator, taking an interest in this case, I take it? First of all, as to your remark that an editor's "profession has no bearing on sock puppet allegations" - you ignored the fact that one of the "defendants", who is acting an a spokesperson for Rjensen, has argued that it does - and you made no comment contradicting that argument (see section above). Your lack of objectivity disqualifies you from further involvement in any fair appraisal of the sock puppet allegations. From this point onward, it's just Admin-thuggery. And that's not very nice, is it? 36hourblock (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"one of the "defendants", who is acting an a spokesperson for Rjensen, has argued that it does"-This is false. I argued that his professorship is the reason for why I pinged him to get advice in a content dispute. I clearly did not say that it should excuse him from implication in a sockpuppet case if evidence suggests that he is guilty. GB fan also said that his professorship would not excuse him. So why would you respond in such a way to GB fan, bordering on a personal attack, when his argument is, in a way, consistent with your own? Even if I did suggest what you say I did, did it occur to you that perhaps GB fan simply did not see it? There is no need for such hostility. You seem to be almost-intentionally misinterpreting people's comments.
Here is the central point of things. 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, or respond to the evidence that I presented against your case. But rather than apologize and quietly back away now, as you should, you try to engage in petty bickering with other editors by attacking and construing their messages in the worst pay possible in the hope of maintaining some sort of credibility. It won't work. It will only make it worse.
This entire thing needs to be shut down right now. GB fan, is there a currently uninvolved admin whom you might be able to defer to in order to put this fiasco to rest? Display name 99 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
December 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - GBfan 21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have not retracted your sock puppet allegations nor initiated a sock puppet investigation. You even seem to imply that you can decide who is "qualified" to edit an article. Everyone is qualified to edit articles you don't get to dictate who gets to edit articles. - GBfan 21:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet investigation
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.
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).
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".
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)[reply]
Since I was pinged: You were blocked for making repeated personal attacks on other editors, not for edit-warring, so I can't see what your wall of text above has to do with this. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did not block you because you exposed any one as a sock puppet or master. You didn't expose any one, you accused editors of being socks but never started an investigation with evidence our withdrew the accusation. That is a personal attack and that is why you were blocked. If you continue the attacks without starting an investigation in the proper place with evidence you will be blocked again for a longer period. - GBfan 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, 36hourblock. You have new messages at Darth Mike's talk page. Message added 13:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
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.
That's not exactly accurate. User: Bbb23 posted a misleading message on my Userpage - informing s/he was "Adding sockpuppetry tag", then moments later "mistaken tag - self-revert". That fact is, an investigation was opened and I was led by Bbb23 that none existed. --36hourblock (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that an investigation was opened for sockpuppeting per my username. I was never alerted an active investigation was underway. What gives? --36hourblock (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that a problem? Notifying a suspected sock or sockmaster is not in any way mandatory, and is in fact hardly ever done. So it's not at all like reporting someone at WP:AN/WP:ANI, where notifying the editor who is being reported is mandatory. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory or not, when I was notified that an investigation was cancelled "mistaken tag - self-revert" in the words of User:Bbb23, that's misleading. As always, Thomas.W is sure to show up with a chip on this shoulder on behalf of the Conservatpediots and User: Rjensen --36hourblock (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a long and detailed response to the above, but it was lost in a system error earlier today. 36hourblock, I sympathize with you regarding what originally started this whole dispute between you and a certain other user (I think), but you really need to drop the stick, and just forget about it and move on with your life. Sarcastic remarks like the one immediately above do no one any good. There is no obligation to inform the subject of an SPI, and in fact (at least last time I checked) it was actually discouraged. The recent investigation was targeted at you; it failed because there was not enough behavioural evidence that the IP was you to merit blocking it, and no amount of behavioural evidence would have warranted a CU to confirm it was you. It was not "cancelled". I'm trying to assume good faith that when you say "Conservapediots" you are not referring to me, but the only two users you could possibly be referring to are me and Chris Troutman, since the only users remotely involved were Bbb23, Rjensen, Troutman and myself. I am not a Conservapediot; I'm not even politically conservative. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hijiri88 - Thank you for your insightful and serious observations. Your balanced and sympathetic analysis of the situation is appreciated. What I found surprising has been the studied indifference to the troll-like assaults on my edits, with respect to early US history. Display name 99 operated in alliance with Rjensen, a known editor and advocate for Conservapedia, Thomas.W and Chris Troutman served as backup. The record is there if you care to read it.
FYI, a recent polemic issued by Conservapedia is entitled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", with a comment identifying Jimmy Wales as an "atheist", that meant to disqualify him from running an encyclopedia. Conservapedia is NOT an encyclopedia. It's a platform for extremist right-wing projects that pose as mainstream. An article on "Liberals" opens with "A liberal is someone who craves an increase in government spending, power, and control, such as ObamaCare. Liberals also support the censorship and denial of Christianity." (emphasis added)
As to your exhortation to "drop the stick, and just forget about it and move on with your life", I'd just say this. If you, and like-minded editors, fail to flag these "Conservapediots" and monitor their behavior, then the same conflicts will arise. If my "behavior" has come under scrutiny, then a similar level of vigilance must be applied to the activities of these provocateurs. That we've been distracted from our work by these individuals is a significant victory for Conservatpedia. --36hourblock (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your userpage and sandbox.
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)[reply]
"Petty harassment" is the stock in trade of the Conservapediot group - and not so petty when it undermines the quality of the articles. But that's not your concern, right? --36hourblock (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis --36hourblock (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Only in death does duty end; that was the right call. 36hourblock, you weren't writing an article. If you want to write satire with pretty pictures, try Encyclopedia Dramatica. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, 36hourblock. Thank you for your work on
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.)
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.
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)[reply]
I think even oversighter actions would show up in the history. They would just be crossed out and unclickable. Perhaps some technical changes somewhere could cause things to shift around without showing up in the page history. Changing HTML or default image sizes somewhere, for example. 36hourblock, can you please elaborate a bit on what changed exactly? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You...
Fat&Happy (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
; 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)
