Jump to content

User talk:71.17.144.182

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2023

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

October 2023

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Liberator (newspaper), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Onorem (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I shall take the sources used on the man's own Wikipedia page which acknowledges that he was very publicly Antisemetic. 71.17.144.182 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came back. Lol. 71.17.144.182 (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

[edit]

Hello, I'm 64andtim. I noticed that you made a change to an article, William Lloyd Garrison, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – 64andtim (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I cite the articles own sources on Garrisons rather public antisemitism? You speak as if you acknowledge that it is common knowledge that the man was practically a Nazi, but you don't want to highlight it at the top of his page. 71.17.144.182 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to William Lloyd Garrison. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand your own references are bad? I literally just copypasted your own references about Garrisons well known anti-semitism.
Please, expand. I can hop on to an alternate IP if that's what you want. The public library is a powerful tool also I drew attention to his known antisemitism a year ago and told you I wouldn't forget ;)
I won't this time either. 71.17.144.182 (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to William Lloyd Garrison, you may be blocked from editing. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused.
[1]
Is that not a valid reference? It's used in the Antisemitism segment of garrisons article. What is the disruption? Why is there an "Antisemitism" section in his article if he wasn't an Antisemite? 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from the section on my talk page: "Regarding your edits to William Lloyd Garrison, the disruptiveness stems from the undue emphasis placed on labeling him as an "antisemite" in the lead sentence. There is already a section of the article discussing his antisemitism; it is not prominent enough to be included in the lead (he is not most widely known for his antisemitic views)." Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that his journalism is what he is most known for, and his journalism frequently involved antisemitism - Source [2] - You must understand my confusion.
Why is it undue emphasis to point out a common theme in his journalism? Should we perhaps remove "Journalism" from his title page? To ensure undue emphasis is not placed upon the antisemitism that peppered his jouranlistic work (Source [3] ) 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not undue emphasis to "point [this] out"; it is undue to say so in the lead sentence. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? He was a journalist, and his hatred of Jews frequently appeared in his journalism (Source [4] ) Why is it "Undue" to acknowledge in the leading sentence that he was an antisemite, but not that he was a jouranlist.
Please, expand in specifics upon the "Bias" you see at play here. 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at William Lloyd Garrison. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused...
[5]
Is this a personal reference? 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied above. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As have I, but you keep ignoring me.
Why is it vandalism to acknowledge references that Wikipedia considers valid [6]
We all know what's going on here. This website just doesn't want "The Liberators" seething hatred of Jewish people to be publicly acknowledged. It was bad enough that his own paper felt the need to address it. Source [7] 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some consensus (see talk) that Garrison's antisemitism is likely not directly relevant to The Liberator, and describing Garrison primarily as an antisemite is undue weight (again, he is not primarily known for antisemitism). We clearly state Garrison's antisemitic views on his own article, so it's not that we don't want them "to be publicly acknowledged" — it's just overemphasis to mention it in the lead sentence. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was published in The Liberator. Please, explain the lack of relevance. He seemed to think "Jewish people are bad and deserve to suffer" relevant enough to put it to print in his broadsheet (Source [8] )
Was Hitler's antisemitism in Mein Kampf less relevant because it was mostly about his hatred of the British? :S 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you linked does not state that Garrison's antisemitic views were published in The Liberator. The content of Mein Kampf, on the other hand, explicitly contains antisemitic themes, and Hitler is primarily known for his leadership of Nazi Germany and perpetration of the Holocaust, so antisemitism is highly relevant to the topic. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now I'm confused. That wasn't the leading sentence. It came after it. Why are you so upset about people realizing that William Lloyd "Jewish people are inherently bad and deserve to suffer because of it [9] " Garrison said that thing? 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly edited the article (see e.g. here) to begin with the sentence "William Lloyd Garrison was an American abolitionist, journalist, antisemite and social reformer." That is the lead sentence. You also don't need to keep adding the same reference to your comments. This is a talk page, not an article; claims do not need to be referenced like they do in articles, and we can already see the source you are referring to. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must understand my confusion. He was an Antisemite. Wasn't he?
[10]
Why are you so upset about this being acknowledged? 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to make this clearer to you. Yes, Garrison held antisemitic views. Wikipedia already explains this quite clearly in § Antisemitism. It is undue weight to add this to the lead sentence, as Garrison is not primarily known for these views. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's not primarily known for his women's suffrage activism either, yet you dedicated an entire paragraph to that. Why are four words so offensive to you? Can't stand to acknowledge that "The Liberator" was an antisemitic paleo-nazi whose children practically took up arms for Hitler?
He. Was. An. Antisemite. [11] 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite clearly agreeing with you that Garrison held antisemitic views. Stating this is not "offensive to [me]". In fact, as I have explained to you multiple times, the article on Garrison already clearly states this (and, in fact, "dedicate[s] an entire paragraph" to it!). On the other hand, calling Garrison "an antisemitic paleo-nazi whose children practically took up arms for Hitler" is clearly not neutral or encyclopedic, and does not belong in any article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you are so upset at the notion it be put on the top of his article. AFter all, it's not what he is best known for. Unlike the fact that he waved at a feminist one time from his death bed.
Sweetums. I already set a reminder in my calendar for a few days after you locked his article. I've waited out mods before, I can wait them out again. This Antisemitic pig deserves to have his article vandalized. 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Garrison's article does not mention his support of women's rights in the lead sentence either, only mentioning it in the last two sentences of the lead. I don't think it would be productive for me to engage with you further, as I have already repeatedly explained why your edits are disruptive. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was mentioning it in the last sentence, not the lead sentence. :S 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I want is an honest telling of William Lloyd Garrisons beliefs and his feelings that Jewish people were inherently bad because Lord Jesus (Hallejulah) and deserved to suffer on account of it. I'm a bit confused as to why you guys think it's not so relevant.
But I've waited you guys out and IP hopped before. I can do it again until you stop trying to shield your precious hero from history's baneful judgement for his petty, vindictive hatreds. 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already cover Garrison's antisemitism (there's even a section devoted to it — see § Antisemitism). Making threats of block evasion and further disruption is most certainly not going to help your case. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Defending an Antisemite doesn't help yours.
Throw up big banner ads pleading for money money money money. I'm not donating a red cent as long as you Nazi thugs keep trying to hide Garrisons notorious Antisemitism (Source [12] ) 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was another moderator I waited out last time, when you locked his article after my trip to my public libray's wifi network. I'll wait you out, too.
The man was antisemitic. I care more about this being acknowledged than you care about fighting me. 71.17.144.182 (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  2. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  3. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  4. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  5. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  6. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  7. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  8. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  9. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  10. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  11. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.
  12. ^ Michael, Robert; Rosen, Philip (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. lanham, Maryland / Toronto / Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0810858626.

Talkback notice

[edit]
Hello, 71.17.144.182. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 04:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Tol

[edit]
Hello, 71.17.144.182. You have new messages at Tol's talk page.
Message added 05:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (William Lloyd Garrison) for a period of 3 months for Disruptive editing.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks to prevent further vandalism.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.17.144.182&oldid=1193706690"