User talk:God Save the South

Archives

Archive 1

An article that might interest you?

An article you might find interesting [1]. It might have a liberal bias, feel free to investigate further. Realist2 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any particular bias in either direction. It is funny you should bring such an article to my attention though, as I was in the middle of experimentally making a Jesus-related userbox --God Save the South (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, i thought you would be interested, media bias interests me. May i suggest brightening up your user page a little, a smiley face or two might help. Realist2 (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stand watching CNN. Fox News is my preferred channel for news etc. They all have one thing in common though, and that is sensationalism of even the most trivial events. For example, I couldn't give a damn about some drug addicted whore dying! Yet it was 24/7 coverage for weeks. --God Save the South (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is good, its biased but in some ways thats ok, if it wasnt for fox we would never have known about obamas paster. Realist2 (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe how well the Democrats have played into our hands. They should have pulled either Hillary or Obama out of the race long ago, they are only damaging the party now, creating a divide within the party which will now be very difficult for either candidate to bridge when he or she is given the nomination.

I look forward to living under President McCain --God Save the South (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not conservative but even i like mccain, hes a top guy, however if they both decide to run together the republicans will lose. Have you tried the conservative alternative to wikipedia? Realist2 (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited on Conservapedia a few times, but not for quite a while. I should actually have a look in and see how it is going, there were very few articles last time I was browsing it. --God Save the South (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im it was ok at first but the lead guy has got a little to controlling, some of it is just lies, its lost some of the credibility it had, maybe thats just the articles i was involved in though. Realist2 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok ill leave you to your business now, dont get yourself into trouble. Realist2 (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I hope to see you round the place. --God Save the South (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and i respect your views, but being conservative does not mean you have to use words like "Jew comedien" and "Negro". You come from the south of the US where that might just be common practice, thats ok, i respect that. However wikipedia isnt for so called "Jesusland" its for everyone. A lot of people here think those words are at the very least outdated. Just as i don't want to see you having a difficult time here, i dont want to see others get upset by your words either. We need people like you on wiki to provide a counter argument, but you can do it gracefully i know. Just turn words like Jew into Jewish and Negro into black and you will get a lot more respect and people will take you more seriously. Realist2 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok if you stop, ive said at the report you shouldn't be banned, just shouldn't edit certain articles, i thing the dispute has moved on to what is or isn't considered racist on wikipedia, lol, you no longer seem to be the main issue. Realist2 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also wrote negro though, this makes people have second thoughts that it was a mistake, im involved with this now, not so much about what you said or didn't say, but more about why its only being looked at from a US viewpoint. Everyone is saying oh this is offensive where i live or oh it isnt offensive over here. Its funny because they are only considering America on this when its been proven that only 50.5 percent of users come from America. Realist2 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry though, there needs to be a strong consensus to block someone, it seems quite mixed. I would advise you to update your terminology while on wiki.Realist2 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You are being discussed here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --God Save the South (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

At the next racist or anti-semitic comment, your editing privileges will be indefinitely revoked. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Please excuse me, and feel free to ignore all of this, if this comes across as arrogant. I'm offering this to you of my own volition; you didn't ask for my input. With that said -- I see that you've been involved with the Ku Klux Klan article, specifically in a debate about "cross lighting" versus "cross burning". I also see a lot of "you're about to be blocked" warnings on this page. I wanted to commend you for persisting in standing up for accuracy. Before I continue, let me make one caveat: I do not support, condone, or endorse vandalism or personal attacks (though I have, in weaker moments in the past, made my fair share of mistakes in that way). I see that there are quite a few Wikipedians seemingly annoyed at you; if their concerns are legitimate or semi-legitimate (i.e. you've been vandalizing articles, being rude or attacking in any way, etc.), then shame on you; however, if they're just taking out their frustrations on you because they're upset that you won't join their group of Klan-denouncers, then kudos to you for standing strong! I am a Klansman myself, and I've run into more than my fair share of dyed-in-the-wool liberals here on Wikipedia who think that while the neutral point-of-view policy matters for almost all articles (and boy do they get mad if someone violates it), they think it's FINE to suspend that when dealing with conservative issues, including racialist issues such as the scientific racism article, the Ku Klux Klan article, and others. I encourage you to stand strong against that type of hypocrisy, and to stand for accuracy and neutrality in all your edits here on Wikipedia. Back yourself up with strong references and every Wikipedia policy you can dredge up. In the interests of not giving liberal admins a reason to block your editing privileges, so that you can stay here and be a voice of reason in a sea of liberals, I want to strongly encourage you to stick by these things...i.e. speak the truth, but do it without personal attacks, weasel words, expressing a point-of-view, or other such things (not that I'm saying you've done those things in the past -- I haven't read through enough of your edits to know one way or the other). Wikipedia has the potential to be something great; unfortunately, when it comes to articles about topics like the Klan, it seems that the majority of editors refuse to give the facts about something without presenting them in a way where they're passing judgment on them, which is the complete antithesis of an encyclopedia (and violates the very core of the neutral point-of-view policy). Perhaps they're scared that if they're white, and a black ("African-American") reader comes along and reads the Klan article and sees that white editors have not denounced racism in it, they'll be thought of as bad, racist people. Who knows. In any case, stand strong and work your hardest to show that a Klansman can write a completely neutral and accurate article where a non-Klansman can't, and that a Klansman can keep calm and remain polite and respectful when he's being attacked from all sides. Vengeance is the Lord's, and He will give us the power to always stand firm. Remember, he who kneels before God can stand before anyone. If you ever want any input from someone who's probably on your side in any future debates, please feel free to let me know. Best to you! Mr. P. S. Phillips † _{Talk to me} 07:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

After having some time to sleep on this, I have blocked you for 72 hours due to your history of WP:POINTy editing on Ku Klux Klan and your inflammatory comments to other users. The community is going to hold you to your previous promises once the block ends, as the next time it will likely be indef. Blueboy 96 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke, I have been continually commended for my conduct on Wikipedia in the face of personal attacks and baiting to the severest of degrees. Perhaps I should have remembered that freedom of speech only applies to those left-of-center these days. The fact that a user can be blocked for opening dicussion on a talkpage leaves this encyclopedia with nill credibility. Why don't you provide diffs to where I have violated policy, since my first block for 3RR? I know why you don't, because there are no instances. You are simply jumping on the liberal bandwagon and blocking any Conservative in sight. --God Save the South (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of Conservatives edit here without incident. That's a red herring. You are blocked because you are trying to push a pro-KKK point of view and because you have made multiple racially-charged comments. That has nothing to do with conservatism - it has to do with bigotry. (By the way, I voted for Mike Huckabee in the 2008 primary, Alan Keyes in the 2000 primary, and I was on Jim Gilmore's campaign when he ran for governor. I'm not a liberal.) --B (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the User:Filll/AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Personal attacks such as calling other editors facists[3] will not be tolerated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet calling me a neo-nazi and a racist many, many times after being repeatedly told not to is perfectly acceptable. What is wrong with this place?? --God Save the South (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a dif, and make it today. If you don't know how to paste a link to a dif, let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4] [5] [6] There are plenty more, which are also much more blatant. When I get a chance I will dig them up --God Save the South (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a flurry of personal attacks rains down upon you, don't make them yourself. Please stick to comments on article content and sources. Calling someone a fascist will almost never make them more open to what you're trying to say, so why bother doing it? Besides, it will get you blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 10th, the 6th, and the 13th, in that order. Haven't looked to see what you are considering personal attacks from each of those, but none are today. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm guessing "Neo-nazi" and "racist", yes? This was during the rather heated period after your "jew comedian" comment. IMO, you should let those slide. Let me know if anything happens after this point in time which you do not feel you instigated. Popping onto OM's talk page to call him a facist for no apparent reason other than to cause hostility, as one of your first actions after coming off a block, is not calculated to do much other than get you blocked again. There are no mitigating circumstances, no rationale, nothing, in short, to persuade me you have anything but name-calling and trouble-causing in mind. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it just boils my blood to have him call me those things whilst crying anti-semitism, then seeing him disparaging Christianity for no good reason. --God Save the South (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen OM disparage Christianity, ever. Are you saying that "racist" is disparaging Christianity? This is nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this blunt KC. GSTS is most definitely a Neo-Nazi. He is a KKK member. If someone can explain the difference, considering he posted pictures to the KKK article with members giving Nazi salutes, and I agree with that difference, I'll apologize to the KKK anti-Semitic racist. And I have never made an anti-Christian comment, other than the fact that I believe JC is a myth, but so do many scholars. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMarlin, stop making personal attacks. Read WP:NPA. GSTS calling you a fascist does not justify you retaliating with more personal attacks. You've had plenty of warnings. Don't keep making mistakes. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the salute the Klan uses is no more 'Nazi' than the Bellamy Salute. Infact, Klansmen have been specifically told to salute with the left arm to further differentiate from the 'Nazi' salute. Furthermore, I have not uploaded photos of any salutes whatsoever! Show me where! --God Save the South (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here. You seem awfully close to be uninvolved. Grsz 11 02:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for harassment of other users. It is appalling that your (2nd) edit after coming off a three-day block was to attack another user.[7] To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mississippi White Knights in Poplarville.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mississippi White Knights in Poplarville.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Mississippi White Knights.jpg

The file File:Mississippi White Knights.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]