Total random nerd

My talk page.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Total random nerd, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Total random nerd (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello, I'm HandThatFeeds. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Southern strategy that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Please stop using the blog fascinatingpolitics.com as a source when editing articles on Wikipedia, as you have been doing frequently and consistently over the course of your brief time as an editor here. A quick glance through your contributions shows that you have attempted to insert this source into nearly every article you have edited. If you are not yet aware of our sourcing guidelines, please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. You may also benefit from consulting our guideline on WP:SPAM. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The utter irony is that a typical WP hack like you with no respect for facts that go against your narrative has the gall to accuse me of being too partisan. You vainly reverted my justified removal of certain entries in the Conservative Democrat article and seem to perpetuate the "racist = conservative" narrative. For example, I correctly pointed out that the linked history.house.gov bio for Hattie Caraway CLEARLY SAYS THAT SHE SUPPORTED THE NEW DEAL. As for FascinatingPolitics, I don't see what's wrong with the site, given its accuracy and reliability for good political trivia. The information I have added to the pages I've edited so far is true, yet you revert them for dopey reasons. Also, please see WP:IAR. Total random nerd (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and you're also excessively reverting my edits. For the Eugene Siler article, I did add some other sources, like one from the NY Times. It would do you good to be more cautious and attentive. Total random nerd (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Language like a typical WP hack like you with no respect for facts, vainly reverted, dopey reasons violates our policy WP:NPA (no personal attacks). You may also benefit from reading the essay WP:TRUTH. In any case further disruptive editing on your part will likely incur sanctions. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines before editing further or risk losing your editing privileges. This will be my final warning to you. Generalrelative (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My edits and actions are justified under WP:IAR. 😃 Total random nerd (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:IAR does not mean you can have free reign to add anything you want to the encyclopedia without being contested. @Generalrelative and I may disagree on many things but they are not anything close to a "hack" and to assume they care nothing for facts is faulty and a direct violation of WP:AGF. The encyclopedia relies on what the community has deemed as reliable sources by consensus. If those reliable sources are wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. You are the Bold in WP:BRD by following IAR and making your additions. @Generalrelative is the Revert. Now Discussion must take place and consensus met in your favor before your edits can be re-added. That is a policy that can not be avoided or discarded. It must be followed. --ARoseWolf 13:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone named 'Total random nerd' must be/become an epic editor. Therefore, if you don't turn out to be an absolutely amazing editor, the universe will implode. Don't let the universe implode. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

😃 Total random nerd (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

False Claims section

This section relies entirely on WP:SYNTH. The cited sources don’t actually have anything like the conclusions stated. I understand the point, but this is exactly what WP:OR says we can’t do, especially with a BLP. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Since when is GovTrack not a sufficient source? Total random nerd (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, I meant to put this on the article talk page, but misclicked on my phone. Apologies for that! Dumuzid (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries about that part. I just ask that the section I added can stay on the article because I found sufficient citations. Total random nerd (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your sources are fine, they just don’t draw the conclusions you do. They’re violations of both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. We don’t get to even make obvious syllogisms, as frustrating as that can be. If you disagree, then I may ask for some uninvolved opinions. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes they support my conclusions. The hard data is there on GovTrack and anyone can check the math for themselves, just like how anyone can read a book that's cited in a WP article. Total random nerd (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

They do! Just not in a Wikipedia sense. Again, the keys are the policies of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. But we may have to agree to disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So hard facts don't always matter enough to be cited to Wikipedia. You kinda just said the quiet part out loud. Total random nerd (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That’s actually the policy part that we wear on our sleeves around here, silly as it may seem. Also please be aware of WP:3RR. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that Dumuzid has brought this issue to BLPN, I'll withdraw the complaint for now pending a result. Generalrelative (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gavagan-Wagner Act

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)

stub tagging

Don't do this, the article is pretty obviously not a stub. Thanks. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Categorization

I noticed that you have been doing a number of edits with categories. When doing so, please make sure that you are not unnecessarily duplicating articles in the category tree. Please refer to WP:CATSPECIFIC. With the exception of eponymous categories and non-diffusing subcategories, "an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." ButlerBlog (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. –tnr ^{(debate me) (my accomplishments)} 04:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Conservative Republicans (Reconstruction era)

Hallo, I've just stub-sorted Conservative Republicans (Reconstruction era) which you created, and when I see a disambiguated title while stub-sorting I always check the basic title. There's nothing at Conservative Republicans, and normally I'd move the article to the basic name, but I hesitate to tread among US politics. There is a redirect at Conservative Republican, singular, which leads to Conservative Party (United States). I don't know what's best here, but if the disambiguated title exists then there ought to be something at the basic title to point there, whether a dab page, a hatnote, or a redirect. Should it have a mention at Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)#Historical_factions? Over to you. PamD 09:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Conservative Republicans" can refer to a number of different specific topics, thus I specified "Reconstruction era" in the title to refer to the GOP faction of that era. And yes, this should be mentioned in articles like Factions in the Republican Party (United States) if not already. –tnr ^{(debate me) (my accomplishments)} 20:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

But Conservative Republicans needs to exist and to link to this article, although also to the "different specific topics" you mention, if they are included in Wikipedia anywhere. PamD 23:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. –tnr ^{(debate me) (my accomplishments)} 23:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Half-Breeds (politics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Industry and New York. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit on Conservapedia.

Hello there,

I saw that you reverted one of my edits on the article Conservapedia regarding an archived source. In regards to that, I don't think such an inclusion is necessary considering that it links to the site itself, other sources in the lead already include the site's opposition to atheists and feminists, and the fact that it does not add much that is substantial to the already stated encyclopedic take on the topic. This is just my reasoning for the edit, which I will reinstate. If there is a reason as to which I am not aware for your revert, please let me know and I will undo my action. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's important for an inclusion of the fact that Conservapedia has used dehumanizing rhetoric against atheists and feminists as opposed to generic opposition. This particular detail needs mentioning. –tnr ^{(debate me) (my accomplishments)} 00:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll find a better secondary source to use then. A direct source is usually useful, but since a wiki source can be edited anytime it might be unreliable CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt a secondary source will be available for this detail. Also, my cited source was an archive, not the original page itself. Such that the original Conservapedia diff is deleted to attempt covering their tracks, the archive will remain as indisputable evidence. –tnr ^{(debate me) (my accomplishments)} 00:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Devon Archer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devon Archer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Archer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

soibangla (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited B. Carroll Reece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hi Total random nerd! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Margaret Sanger several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Margaret Sanger, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. The appropriate action is to start a discussion on the article's talk page and get consensus for the content that you think should be added to the lead.. Schazjmd (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor

Your work on John Davis Long left a seemingly substantive sentence at the end of a section without a citation; I imagine you could easily rectify the situation and remove my 'cite needed' template; I wasn't ready to dig through for it. It seemed to be interesting work. Your half-taking full credit for the underlying or earlier work (not done under the Wiki pseudonym one assumes) for me added more question than it supplied insight. I appreciate the work. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ps (can't just edit above): also reference to work done at an unnamed 'elsewhere' adds not answers questions, for me Swliv (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Swliv: The blocks of text I added to the John Davis Long article is work I originally wrote at another wiki some time back. I no longer wish to be associated with that wiki and have left from it 2 months ago. –trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I just adjusted the sentence you placed a "citation needed" tag on and cited it properly. –trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks on both. I think I have a sense of it and hope someday to dig into what you added, sounded intriguing. Swliv (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem. And yes, the politics of Republican factionalism during the early Gilded Age is indeed fascinating to dig into. The writings of Richard E. Welch, Jr., provide a great overview of the details about that era. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 01:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

William B. Allison

added links pointing to Confederacy, Democratic Party and Republican Party

James F. Wilson

added a link pointing to Reconstruction

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EpicWikiLad (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

How real progressives viewed the KKK

In Milwaukee, Socialist mayor Dan Hoan refused to tolerate its presence. He actively used his office to interfere with Klan organizing activities. In 1922, Hoan declared that if the Klan attempted to build an “invisible empire,” its members were guilty of treason against the United States and should be imprisoned. If they were not trying to take over the country, and the term “invisible empire” was just a meaningless catch phrase, Hoan reasoned, at the very least they were guilty of swindling their members (New York Times 1922). When the Klan sought to use an auditorium in Milwaukee to attract members, Hoan blocked it, stating: “For law and order, this stands first among all the cities of the world. Consequently for you to come here from states where lynching is the most popular outdoor sport, to tell our people that they need this organization … to ensure law and order, is in itself ridiculous” (Associated Press 1922).

Although Governor John J. Blaine refused on constitutional grounds to use his influence to block the Klan's activities in Wisconsin, protests from Milwaukee forced the La Follette disciple to guarantee state support in stamping out the organization if it resorted to violence (New York Times 1921). Hoan (1921) put things more bluntly in a private letter to the governor: “The Ku Klux Klan will find Milwaukee a hotter place to exist in than Hades itself. The people of this community are going to find, as they always have, that the police department will make short work of anyone advocating violence.” When a former Socialist candidate for judge suggested an alliance with the Klan since they were drawing support from the white working class, Hoan called for and got the expulsion of that former comrade.

Hoan's efforts against the Klan were quietly applauded by Milwaukee's small African-American population. The Women's Improvement Club (1922) of Milwaukee and the Universal Negro Improvement Association both wrote letters to Hoan thanking him for his opposition to the Klan and endorsed him over the nonpartisan groups. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You appear to presume that socialists were equatable to progressives in the 1920s, which isn't accurate. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edits, on the other hand, seem to be aimed at equating 1920s Progressives and Democrats with 2020s Democrats and small-p progressives, which is ahistorical and absurd. 1920s Socialists were pretty much where 2020s progressives are. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Main aspects of the advocated policies of 1920s-era progressives, with the anti-free market emphasis of using government action to enact economic changes and railing against big businesses which conservatives favored the interests of, carry on into the contemporary progressive aims. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

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).

Bishonen, I am familiar with the rule forbidding over three reverts in an article in a 24-hour time span. I perhaps did not notice the banner prohibiting more than one revert for that article. And at the point the block was imposed, I ceased warring on that article and had made constructive additions to other articles. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 14:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think the excuses you adduce are good, you'd better use the template I've mentioned. It'll automatically call an uninvolved admin here to review the block. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC).

(edit conflict) That explanation might hold more water if you didn't acknowledge some warnings shortly after the edit in question with an edit summary stating 'Yawn - I've been "warned" this a zillion times. I get the spiel.' If you've been warned that often, and if you're editing in areas that are subject to discretionary sanctions, you should well be aware that some articles are subject to the one revert rule—and should be paying attention for which those articles are. (Myself, if I'm going to edit a page that's in a minefield of a topic like that, I always check the talk page for notices before editing and check carefully for edit notices.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I had not been aware that some articles utilized a one-revert rule. I assumed it was the usual three-revert rule warning, which I unwittingly violated some time ago on the Kevin M. Kruse article and made sure not to violate again. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 15:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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).

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)

Copyright issues

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)

Please do not restore the copyrighted text without properly attributing it. ––FormalDude talk 22:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Per community consensus, as described here.

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 ~~~~}}.  Jayron32 12:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello User:Jayron32. I actually know this student outside of Wikipedia. I have advised him in the past many times to stop trying to push political views on Wikipedia and to just contribute constructively, and to avoid political articles that he disagrees with. Could you please reduce this to a topic ban on US politics? I am trying to convince him to come back to Wikipedia to edit constructively on non-controversial topics, and to convince him in general to be more respectful of other viewpoints rather than his fringe viewpoints. Perhaps he could try more "fun" articles such as articles about video games and music, or taking photos and uploading them to Commons and adding them to Wikipedia, but I agree he shouldn't edit US political articles anymore, such as the articles about the KKK which he previously edited, or politically biased content he copied from Conservapedia. Thanks! (Note: I am not TRN. I am just a friend of him. If in doubt, you can CheckUser me, or see this as proof [I don't live in the same country as him].) Félix An (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Félix An: This block is from a year ago based on community consensus, and thus community consensus will be needed to overturn it. Here is the discussion in question. You'll need to raise the issue at WP:AN in a new discussion, and get community consensus to overturn it. You might want to notify the people involved in the original discussion in case they have new opinions on the matter. Also, at minimum, I would expect a direct statement from the blocked user as well for the community to review. They can still edit this talk page, so any statements they have on the matter can be raised here. --Jayron32 12:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)