User talk:UShistoryanalyzer/Archive1

Welcome
Sorry about your less than ideal start. Having a filter that stops certain usernames from editing but not from creating an account, and adding a word as mild as “anal” to that filter, wasn’t a great idea. Christopher (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take "Whore Ads" for $300, Trebek! It's Who Reads.  Give me "Anal Bum Cover" for $400.  It's An Album Cover!!!  Give me "Le Tits Now" for $200.  That's Let it Snow...  22:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Racism
Define it for me. 02:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The belief that people of one race are superior or inferior to people of another. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good, now explain how someone prosecuting a murder prevents them from being racist. 03:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did I outright say that? I was merely noting a point to provide a less biased perspective on Sessions overall. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Define bias. 03:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a dictionary seeing that you're asking me to define terms for you, Merriam-Webster's online resource is here. I'm on RW to make this site more factual, not to answer pop quiz questions one after another. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're misusing terms. Before I get pissed enough to chew you out I want you define your terms. Define bias. 03:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me put this another way. Do you know what bias is? Do you know what causes it? Do you understand the philosophical underpinnings thereof? Because saying something is "biased" is a rather weak argument if you do know these things. 03:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahem
Your block of me is rather unfair: all I did was point out the facts to you and noted that you can't get around them. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, would’ve unblocked you if I was online at the time. No idea whether you are some crank as I don’t know anything about US history (I’m not American), but an argument on a talk page isn’t grounds for a block. First the edit filter and now this, I’m surprised you’re still here. Christopher (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't worry, I get that most wikis will have some system issues and sysops too eager to block every now and then. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 10:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kevlarstar! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Tip about your edit on the LBJ article
If you don't want to see red links in your edits, just redirect them to Wikipedia. You can see here how to do it. GeeJayK (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Um...
You blocked me for an hour and said in the log details: "Edit warring (take it to the talkpage)". Since I'm blocked, I can't edit on the article's talk page. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't kill ya to wait an hour. Also, The Federalist is not a good source. Plutocow (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Media Bias Fact Check isn't a good source. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe UShistoryanalyzer was not aware of this rule so I think you cold unblock them this time. Not going to do this myself since I'm not the one that did it though and I don't think it's correct to run over the decision of other sysops. GeeJayK (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to use a website that regularly promotes pseudoscience as a source, then I don't think this is the wiki for you. Also, they were edit warring in several pages so an hour-long block is more than warranted. Plutocow (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your call, but as I said I believe they were edit warring because how we do things here and I'm not very keen of this Ignorantia juris non excusat on the Internet. GeeJayK (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They were told multiple times to bring things to the talkpage. Plutocow (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, bear in mind this is not the first incident involving them.-Flandres (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The National Review, the Heritage Foundation, the Fedralist...
...are not typically considered reliable sources around here. Please bear that in mind for future reference because you have been called out for using flawed sources multiple times by now.-Flandres (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try to keep that in mind. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While NPR is a reliable source, the Washington Examiner is not. I'll allow you to make your edit again if you could provide better sourcing. Plutocow (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, you can't just remove good info being added simply because you don't like one of the sources cited. Besides, the Washington Examiner article lists some more specific details that would be harder to find elsewhere. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can only find the info on sources that are known to be not entirely factual, then maybe that info isn't as good as you think it is. Plutocow (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Uh, yes we can. We expect you to cite reliable sources. Maybe you should move to essayspace or draftspace until you can edit better.-Flandres (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So tell me, what part of that specific article isn't factual? Furthermore, my editing is fine, thanks. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, given how often your edits are fairly often removed from articles and how you have been repeatedly called out for using sub-par sources...no, your editing is not "fine." Just cite better sources. This is not that hard.-Flandres (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I hate to have to say this, but you guys are beginning to acting like Conservapedia admins with your partisan intolerance. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, requiring our sources to be factual is totally partisan intolerance. Plutocow (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you tell me already what part of that article from Washington Examiner isn't factual? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The objection is that the Examiner is unreliable as a source. Anything that IS factual can just be cited from overall better sources.-Flandres (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This argument could be easily solved by keeping the NPR source and simply finding a better source for the Washington Examiner's claims. 00:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That has been suggested already, by the third post. He just doubled down on the Examiner article...-Flandres (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because not all articles from Washington Examiner may be reliable doesn't mean that particular article is unreliable. None of you have yet specified anything about that page I cited to be misleading/false. If you guys can't refute that specific article in any way, there's no strong reason to remove it from being cited, period. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's no alternate sources, then the alleged information should not be added. The NPR section should go back in though. 00:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ask, and ye shall receive...-Flandres (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, once upon a time, Bongolian asked me not to use History Channel as a source because it's often full of woo and it looks bad to cite a source that the wiki calls out as stupid. Do you know what I did? I shrugged and took the minute-and-a-half I needed to find an alternate source. Not everything needs to be hard. 00:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Examiner's article is primarily sourced by a Steven F. Hayward book, which is pretty obviously just from the Amazon byline a political hit piece and is not objective in the least. If one does some actual Googling on Carter's Soviet relations, the 1994 nuclear summit with North Korea, Camp David, etc. you'll get the picture from the Amazon summary that Mr. Hayward isn't doing anything except throwing a grade school temper tantrum, yelling "Wah Carter bad liberal!" like a good Rush Limbaugh disciple would. Reviews of the Jonathan Alter book show a *much* better source. I guess the impression I get is more like the CBS News summary where prior to being elected governor in 1970, Carter only was half-hearted / wishy-washy committed to civil rights, and did engage in some Lyndon Johnson style winks and nods to the racists in his early career, as the addition now says. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Writing an essay
Hi, I don't know a lot about American history (though I'm not totally ignorant about the subject), but maybe you also could write an essay about some of your analysis over the Civil Rights, Dixiecrats, etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't add them to the main articles, just that you'll have more freedom if you do this. You can check CD and Essay if you want to know more. Also consider creating your own page at User:UShistoryanalyzer. GeeJayK (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not a bad idea. Writing an essay would certainly take a while, so maybe I'll do that sometime else. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder of this idea. GeeJayK (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and check these websites before making an edit
MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.snopes.com/
 * https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
 * https://www.newsguardtech.com/
 * http://hallofjustice.sunlightfoundation.com/
 * https://www.opensecrets.org/
 * https://www.factcheck.org/
 * https://www.politifact.com/

Instead of edit warring
Just mark the person that reverted your edit on the talk page so you can discuss with them. You can see on Template:Ping how to do it. It worked for you at least two times. If you undo their edit chances are that they'll just revert it again. GeeJayK (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're now telling me not to edit-war rather than telling Summa Atheologica not to be an apologist for racism? Noted. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * First, you don't need to be so acerbic. Second. No, I'm telling you to take it to Talk. Maybe you cannot see it, I'm not sure, but there's a "!" on your edits that means you're not autopatrolled yet. This is usually enough for many users to revert edits on controversial subjects. GeeJayK (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just checked and non-autopatrolled users can't see that they are not autopatrolled. GeeJayK (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't do the revert, but please see the "no busing Joe" section. It seems like most of the points you were making were already covered there. Any additions would probably be more appropriate there than in the header. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you can merge the details I added into that section? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Also, I didn't open the links, but I think everyone will agree that despite having their problems, The Hill, NBC and NYT are reliable enough to back your claim, and since that the fact that Biden was racist for most of his life is a well-known fact I doubt anyone here will have a problem with your original synthesis. GeeJayK (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With the particular reverted links in question, one comment here was that several members of the Congressional Black Caucus pushed back against the criticism at that time. Also one edit detail: I think calling Biden a segregationist is a bridge too far, personally. I have no problem calling out that he worked with segregationists (or his other insensitive actions such as his busing opposition) though. Personally, I didn't see much to add to the existing paragraph except adding maybe a few more of the segregationists he worked with... I personally feel like the 2019 Joe Biden fundraiser drama just isn't that notable. If someone feels otherwise, though, I wouldn't revert personally. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

*Cough*
You seem to have recently been engaged in a pattern of unjustifiable political edits, where if a liberal politician the intent is to poison the well by overemphasizing racism, and if a conservative politician the intent is to. I mean, this edit was ridiculous. Quoting Lee "Willie Horton" Atwater and actually believing his "oh yes, Republicans have moved beyond racism" bullshit (again, tell that to Willie Horton, eh?). It's going to be real hard to take your concern trolling seriously after that one. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think hard, documented facts that go against your narrative are "ridiculous", that says a lot more about you than it does about me. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your account has to be three months old...
...to cast policy or penalty votes.-Flandres (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your coop
Although it does seem you’ve been sometimes treated unfairly, I’d wait until the current one is concluded. I’ve pasted your comments below.

= = Plutocow ==

has exhibited extreme partisan intolerance and a deceitful contempt for facts they merely doesn't like. Take a look at this ridiculous rollback: after I added information addressing Phyllis Schlafly's record on race-related issues to dispute the claim that she's a racist, Plutocow ignorantly says: "This is still whitewashing and irrelevant to her being a racist." If you observe the page history, even Flandres clearly knew that my entry was valid and thus didn't outright revert it.

Plutocow also initially attempted to remove my perfectly valid entry on Jimmy Carter's 1970 racist campaign, as seen here. Why? Because I cited one source he merely didn't like. He said here: "If you can only find the info on sources that are known to be not entirely factual, then maybe that info isn't as good as you think it is." I then replied: "So tell me, what part of that specific article isn't factual? Furthermore, my editing is fine, thanks." He then doubled down without even providing a specific response: "Yeah, requiring our sources to be factual is totally partisan intolerance."

Oh, and he unjustly blocked me at least once. RationalWiki editors, do you really believe that this toxic user is worth keeping around?

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Summa Atheologica
has proven himself to be a bigot who will act as an apologist for racism. He reverted my entry on Biden's racism without explanation and edit-warred. RationalWiki editors, ask yourself: should this site coddle and keep editors who defend racism and bigotry of any sort? If any of you aren't yet convinced, take a gander at my block log:
 * 00:01, 12 March 2021 Summa Atheologica (talk | contribs) blocked UShistoryanalyzer (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3141 seconds (about 1 hour) (autoblock disabled) (Blocked for being a threat to racist bigotry. [sic])

He also reverted my edits here without explanation. At least Flandres is nice enough most of the time to explain his reasons.

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I’d also recommend posting to RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation before escalating to a coop. Christopher (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve moved it to ATiM. Christopher (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

ping
You can’t ping someone by inserting the ping into your comment with a later edit, it needs to be added with the same edit you add a signature. I’ve seen you do it twice now so I thought you should know. Christopher (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Rolling out the unwelcome mat
You may or may not be right about some things, but your endless refusal to learn from mistakes and corrections, even the most basic ones such as not inserting red links, has earned you this. Bongolian (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing: when I create mainspace pages and link to them, the links become red when those pages get moved to the draftspace without a redirect being left. I'm not the one moving my page creations to the draftspace. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair the redlink thing is neither their fault nor is it that big a deal. 15:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, you are giving them an unwelcome template because their revisions add redlinks, but not because of their edit wars? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's repeatedly not listening to advice in general and pushing the Dixiecrat BS. Red links are the least of it. Bongolian (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC) The point that I was trying to make was that UShistoryanalyzer is not even listening to advice with regard to editing style; it is not just a matter of political differences. Bongolian (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Your drafts
The problem with your articles and the reason why they keep having to be sent to draftspace is that they are bereft of information, notably by lacking context. Segregationist politicians are definitely missional, but all your articles communicate is that they were racist and they were politicians. Including information such as specific examples of their racist words and actions and context around that, or how these politicians were significant in the history of segregation as a whole would make them better, as well as some information about their wider careers and any other problematic views they may have held or even Stopped Clocks. I would recommend trying to improve your articles that are currently in draftspace rather than creating any more. Plutocow (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The minor edit button
You’re overusing it a little. It’s only meant for correcting spelling mistakes etc. Christopher (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your first warning
MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to Plutocow
Look buddy boy, I literally left a message on the article's talk page and pinged you regarding an edit you reverted, which you didn't even respond to. If you can't or simply won't explain why my edit should be reverted, then what good reason do you have to do so? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding the information back without a discussion is still edit warring. I reverted the edit because you were reverted multiple times and still haven't made a proper attempt to do things through a talkpage. Leaving a message is a start, yes, but there was still no discussion from other users. I'll respond on that talkpage when I'm less busy, although it seems the main things in contention are your definition of "liberal" and "conservative". Plutocow (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverting additions of information without discussing it on the talk page is edit-warring. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be a smart-ass. Number one, you are the one making a change on that page, and number two, several people have reverted your edits, and number three, that isn't even the only edit war that you're currently involved in. If you continue to not follow advice and edit war again, you will be blocked for longer. Plutocow (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At least I'm not a dumb-ass! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously
I cannot believe that you continue to make the same mistakes over and over again despite blocks and many warnings. I legitimately want you to improve, but as you keep doing the same thing over and over without listening it makes me get tired of you rather quickly. So this is your last warning: if you come back from your block and do the same thing that you just were blocked for, you will immediately be placed in the vandal bin, which will limit your edits to once every thirty minutes, until you can improve your behavior. If you don't want that to happen, I suggest you heed my and everyone else's advice and actually discuss things on the talk page (and no, that does not mean leaving one message and then continuing to make the same edits). Plutocow (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Look moron, you said in the block log: "Come back when you're ready to actually discuss things on talk pages." Just how many irony meters are you trying to burst in a single day? You were the one today who point-blank reverted without directly addressing the subject matters on talk pages. Your naked lies and point-blank reverting of my edits without addressing your concerns, like for the JBS page, demonstrates exactly why you should be banned from this wiki. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rollbacks automatically have no edit summary, and it doesn't excuse your behavior. For that edit, I reverted it because the first source was an opinion piece (couldn't see the rest due to being so paywalled you can't even see it in Incognito), so automatically not the greatest source, and the second amounts to a friend argument. Also, the proper behavior would be to take it to the talkpage rather than revert and insult someone. So far, you can't edit anything without it turning into an edit war, and that's largely due to your attitude rather than because of anything else. If you keep up your attitude, it is almost certain that you will get vandal binned and possibly even more sanctions. Plutocow (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is generally better to use "undo" and leave a reason. Also, The John Birch Society has always been a conspiracist group and hence worthy of ridicule, but, much to my surprise, The Southern Poverty Law Center has an article that doesn't accuse the JBS of anti-Semitism, or racism exactly. This subject I make no claims about. Maybe have a look at article. @ UShistoryanalyzer, don't insult editors, even if you think they are wrong. Life is too short.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandal bin
Can't say I'm surprised. Plutocow (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing this wiki
How long do you expect to edit at this wiki before being banned permanently?Independent (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate you moving the discussion from Talk:Main Page as I requested. Someone (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. BTW, did you get my message? I was just wondering if you'd be interested in taking some of the info I added (and tried to add) here and put it on CP? Maybe some if it would be of use in cp:U.S. "Party-switch" myth? I just thought it might be something you'd like. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic banned
You have been topic banned from all articles relating to U.S. History and Politics. This means you are not allowed to make edits to these articles or edit their talkpages. Violating this sanction may result in escalating blocks or vandal binning of your account. Repeated violations may result in a vote to permanently block your account. Creating alternate accounts to bypass this topic ban is not allowed. If you want to appeal this topic ban, feel free to open a case over on the moderator noticeboard. 20:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Good news and bad news
Good news: ceteris paribus you only need one vote to revert the result; indeed, you'll be able to vote by the end of the month so maybe you'll be able to reverse it by yourself. Bad news, you're also one vote from being vandal binned, which is a harsher sanction. So, if you engage more on talk pages you'll probably be able to revert this this topic ban easily. But if you don't you might get other sanctions. GeeJayK (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A video for you
This video contains some information you misunderstand:

Plutocow (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what Plutocow looks like right now:
 * Wall.gif
 * Unclescrooge (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And this is Plutocow internally when his liberal claptrap gets debunked:
 * Zoff.gif
 * UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for misgendering me again. Really nice. Plutocow (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) It should be a crime to desecrate a complete collection of Will Durant's A Story of Civilization, but there it is on this guy bookshelf, a ruined collection of A Story of Civilization, or at least the dust jackets are ruined.
 * He said some interesting things, but his explanations of why "democrats were conservatives and republicans were liberals" just because the difference between the parties was more nuanced back them was too shallow. In fact he even deny that things were nuanced, saying that "the Republicans were fighting over who's more progressive" and that "Woodrow Wilson was deeply conservative and racist". Apparently he believes that racism is a conservative thing, even if conservatives were fighting slavery since conservativism came to be (see Burke for instance, but there are many others). GeeJayK (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Truth is, he's late for at least for 50 years. It's hard to say when this switch happened, I don't think it happened on 1964, Nixon was a candidate before that, I'd say that it happened during WW, and I think he failed quite bad at explaining why WW wasn't a liberal. GeeJayK (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all of his edits can be summed up as "the party switch never happened, no conservative was ever racist, and liberals are the real racists". There's a reason why he's topic banned. Plutocow (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually talking about the video... I don't follow his edits that closely. GeeJayK (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * By modern standards, the very early Republican Party would be almost synonymous with current Trumpism. The emphasis on supporting free markets, economic nationalism via higher tariffs, traditional marriage, the Second Amendment, and reduced immigration are very similar. After the Civil War, there was a rift between the more conservative Stalwarts (which I believe were the Radical Republicans) that opposed the civil service system, as the spoils system benefited them very politically after the war to help safeguard the rights of blacks what they could. By the 1910s, there was a divide between the more "progressive" Theodore Roosevelt faction and the more "conservative" Taft faction. Keep in mind that the conservatives in the Republican Party consistently supported civil rights just as the more moderate and liberal members did. The utterly ludicrous notion of the pro-civil rights Republicans in general being "liberal" is a heavy fabrication of the truth.
 * People like Republican Everett Dirksen (who ensured the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) supported school prayer, and he introduced a constitutional amendment in the Senate that ultimately got defeated by none other than staunchly segregationist liberal folk hero Sam Ervin. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There you go with the cherrypicking. Also, Radical Republicans were not "conservative" by any means, many of them promoted outright land redistribution. What, do you think the Democrats of the day supported gay rights, gun control, and increased immigration? You call yourself "analyzer" but you completely fail to put things in a historical context. Plutocow (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it cute how you pretend to actually understand U.S. history when all you're good at is being an intolerant hypocrite. Don't you ever get tired of being high on your own sadist behavior? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, analyzer reverts to insults because he can't actually win an argument. Note how he could not rebut anything plutocow said. And GeeJayK is apparently willing to fanatically defend this guy...-Flandres (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At least I can make an argument unlike Plutocow, who point-blank reverts and just mass-deleted my page creations which were fine. Who does he think he is, Karajou? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts much? Plutocow (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I just don't think it's correct to use the spectrum left/right in US until the XXth century. I'd say it's bad political science. At least. That's truth to a considerable part of the world even today. In any case, you'll probably find Sirius section more interesting than this one. I'll stop posting now. GeeJayK (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)"By modern standards, the very early Republican Party would be almost synonymous with current Trumpism" is that why Trump wants to keep all those confederate monuments up?-Flandres (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Confederate statues represent what happened in U.S. history, and they serve as lessons for the public to learn from. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 22:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So where's your actual argument? I don't see it... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lessons? What lessons does the public learn from statues depicting insurrectionists? They were lucky not to have gotten strung up.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You see, I have a college degree in U.S. Civil War history and that's because I pulverized an ankle of Silent Sam and snorted its powder. Without it, I would've never realized how terrible slave-holders were to people. Maybe we should build Nazi statues in Germany so everyone knows about the Holocaust. 22:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, that's a somewhat weak point, seeing that basically no one's currently asking for more Confederate statues to be erected. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't need statues to learn about history. That's why literacy exists. 23:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There was a remarkable spike in statues in the early 1900s, just around the time the former Confederate states were really leaning into their disenfranchisement shenanigans. It's about as clear a case of white supremacist territorial pissing as you're likely to find. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Some Purely Pragmatic Advice
Personally, I think you are here in good faith. But I also think you are biased in a way that leads you to think these politicians are more notable than they actually are. I can also see why people are losing patience. My hope is that this advice will help you to contribute constructively, and show to others that you are here to be constructive. And again, for the time being, I think that means that you should contribute to non-political content. Serene (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First, if your topic ban is ever lifted, the drafts can be restored, as I understand it. Other topics may not be as interesting to you, but why not focus on improving something else for a while, something less political? Remember, the site is run as a mobocracy, and the topic ban vote was fairly close. Your best bet to get the ban lifted is, as I seeit, to prove to the mob that you can make valuable contributions, from the mob's perspective.
 * Second, try to focus more precisely on the content of the criticism facing you. Is racism and segregation missional? Seems to be, but not every detail about it is worth noting. The topics of your drafts need to be notable, not just missional. Here again, the mob rules. We don't, to my knowledge, have a clear and well-defined set of notability criteria for politicians, which means that notability is defined by the mob, and the mob doesn't seem to be convinced that these people are notable.
 * Third, you seem to think that Plutocow is out to get you. If this is actually the case, it should become clear if you start making substantial contributions to non-politics articles, where your alleged biases shouldn't be problematic (obviously, if you turn out to have biases in other areas that are significant, this will be a confounding factor). Accusing Plutocow of being out to get you and having kind-of-conspiratorial motives mostly just comes across as abrasive, and makes you seem more trouble than you're worth. Despite the amount of drama on the wiki, people don't actually like it, or like to deal with it, and you have been involved in more of it than most.


 * Ok, thanks. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW
Thanks for your suggestion and the info you sent me; I added some of it to CP as needed. I should note, however, that the stuff you put here on Phyllis Schlafly leaves out some important context. As I've written in this article using the basic info you put in the RW page, the reason she opposed a civil rights plank in 1960 was all because it was proposed by Rockefeller, and it barely differed from the original plank. Sodium hydroxide (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps I missed that initially. Thanks LT. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

LOL
Who is this? Ken? LT? Rob? Obviously someone with Conservapedia insider intel... TarponFish (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 🙂 UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone mate
--Mercian (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, but are you insinuating that no other person has ever cast doubt on the rationality of this site? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * LT mentions an insider on this site. You mention LT a lot. You have similar mannerisms to him. 2+2 = I believe you are a sock of LT.--Mercian (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mercian, perhaps you're misunderstanding something here. LT has publicly provided his email on his user page for two months now where I have been able to contact him with. After Plutocow wiped out my page creations here, I didn't want the facts I gathered to go to waste, so I asked him if he would be interested in putting it on CP, sending him some blocks of information. LT then trusted me enough to share certain details he had on him. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about giving you sysop rights under a few conditions
1 Be aware you're still topic banned. Being a sysop doesn't change anything about it.

2 Use the talk pages. Do not edit war. That's also truth to pages like ATIM and CC.

3 Of course, being friends with a banned user is not against the rules, but you cannot be that banned user. You know what I'm talking about, right?

If you break any of these conditions, I'll have to ask to a mod or a tech to remove your sysop rights, and it won't probably easy to get them away. So, do you agree? I'll wait 24 hours after your answer to see if any mod or sysop has problems with this demotion nonetheless. GeeJayK (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Small correction: techs don’t have the exclusive technical ability to promote sysops (any sysop can), and in theory at least have no extra authority. You’d have to ask a mod. For what it’s worth I’d also support demotion. Christopher (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Demotion? Isn't it promotion to sysop? --Gale5050 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Our “everyone’s a sysop” policy means the role hasn’t got any prestige associated with it, even more than on most other websites you’re just an internet janitor if you use your new tools at all. Hence promote/demote being used how they are. Christopher (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not give a user with barely any constructive edits who tends to cause drama admin-rights. Who is next? Unclescrooge?-Flandres (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The practice of giving out sysop rights to anybody and everybody is bad and now would be as good a time as any to stop-Hastur! (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I definitely understand your reasons to be skeptic as you were one of the two users that had more problems with him (which is quite a lot), I should remind you that UShistoryanalyzer didn't do anything wrong since his topic ban except in failed a coop case (which unfortunately you were involved), and spent most of his time here reverting vandalism. We gave a chance to Scrooge and he blew it. If this doesn't work, we can remove it right away. I won't have time to come here at least until Sunday, so don’t expect me to do anything right now. GeeJayK (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I have no objections. --RWRW (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I object. I am strongly opposed to this idea. Spud (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I am neutral. On one hand, he has caused disruptive editing, and it will cause scoorage to beg for admin. But he could be a good sysop. While I don’t object, I also cannot support a topic banned editor. ~--Gale5050 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * May I know your reasons? The user haven't done anything wrong for over a month and is already autopatrolled. Since I'm forever indebted with you I might change my mind. Nonetheless UShistoryanalyzer didn't answer this post, so maybe he's not interested into becoming a sysop. It won't be the first time on RW that someone declines the sysop role here, and probably not the last one. GeeJayK (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad for not replying here sooner. I'd be honored to be promoted to sysop on RW and vow to crack down on malicious vandals like the neo-Nazi shithole Mikemikev if given extensive wiki tools like block and delete. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, if he would abuse it, we can still sysoprevoke him. Kevs  Ping!  17:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Against. Check Special:Diff/2330593 - said user expressed support for Unclescrooge, a blatant troll about to face a long term block. Even if it was just a joke. --~Gale5050 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How is asking for Unclescrooge's email expressing support for him? If you lost your brain, now would be a good time to find it before you become even more stupid than Plutocow. And besides, why are you obsessed with my off-site conversations with someone requesting instructions on using paint.net? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Combined with your topic ban, and other disruption, this is really, well, sorry to say it but the last straw. You may not have expressed support for him and sorry for making these accusations, but without it I have enough ground to oppose.Gale5050 (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're losing your patience over something like this, then perhaps you're not mentally qualified to be an administrator on RationalWiki. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Amen! Gale5050 is just another fascist!!!!!!! Unclescrooge (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's going to be a couple good months without you. 主要行事月 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, UShistoryanalyzer, if you really wanna be a mod you should stop picking fights with other users, or offhandedly insult me at every opportunity for no apparent reason. Plutocow (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sysop
07:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This was clearly an error in 's judgment. Bongolian (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wdym? My old sign or that I gave him sysop? 12:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I went on your talk page to complain about your overall sense of judgement earlier. 14:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, he didn‘t abuse it - yet. 15:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do not understand the contempt for me having sysop powers given that I utilize them well to block obvious vandals. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Illnois highest point
Hey how come you reverted my bit on Charles Mound?? User:SixtyNine.
 * It didn't seem worded properly for content on a wiki, and you didn't include any sources. Also, you should consider creating a new account with a better username. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I should put in some sources... and what is wrong with my username, it's just a number. SixtyNine (User talk SixtyNine|talk]])
 * I placed a source. SixtyNine (talk)

You forget I'm an asshole
Big mistake. You'll get your mop back in 3.6 days. Or maybe not. Who knows what horrible leftists like me might do... Oh and if you ban evade I'll make it longer. 03:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a "factual refutation" for you
This big ass hammer. 19:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Request
Can you please unblock me? I did nothing that merited a 3.6 day banhammer. I particularly would like to start a coop case against GrammarCommie and LeftyGreenMario for removing my sysop powers simply because they're mad at my discussion posts. Butthurt feelings aren't grounds for mindlessly removing user rights. Thank you. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't believe in interfering in the decisions of other sysops, as I don't like when they do this to me. I think you should talk to them directly. I haven't read the discussion and I won't have time for RW at least until Sunday, so I don't even know what's going on. But I do know one think. The coop is never a good idea for anyone, including for you. See how much time it took for Scrooge to get cooped if you want a recent example. GeeJayK (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First GrammarCommie removed my "Sysop" tag because he couldn't handle my replies in the Saloon bar, and now LeftyGreenMario repeats for the same reason. Which RationalWiki rule permits the removal of administrator abilities on the grounds that someone's feelings got hurt? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A discussion is taking place to remove your Sysop rights: Bongolian (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongolian, I'm currently blocked. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're such a lying dolt. Not about being blocked, but misrepresenting my reasons for blocking you and being terminally unable to listen to advice and unable to stop sharing sources from your overflowing toilet. 04:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're such a lying dolt. Not about being blocked, but misrepresenting my reasons for blocking you and being terminally unable to listen to advice and unable to stop sharing sources from your overflowing toilet. 04:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Calm down a sec
Can we take it to ATIM first? Coop can always be done later... 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, A coop case is necessary against GrammarCommie. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Oxy
I appreciate you standing up to her, but I don't need help being accused of being a sockpuppet. I know that's coming, the question isn't if, it's who I will be accused of being. Mikey? Morris? Ken? The bird? I know her too well. 71.215.89.215 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the nature of why Oxyaena removed your talk page post, nor who has the valid points in the dispute. What I do know is that she has vainly pressed the rollback button before when it was unnecessary. And your edit here was not helpful nor needed. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. You are correct and Oxy is a horse's ass 2. That edit was intended to add some humorous snark to the article. I dunno, maybe the joke wasn't that funny. I thought it was. 71.215.89.215 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

For trivializing rape
Honestly that alone should be worth a block. Don't do it again. Plutocow (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously, out of all the times you pushed fallacies, tried to annoy me by starting frivolous coop cases, etc., it's this that has me the most legitimately angry at you. I've known people who've been affected by that sort of thing, and you do not get to compare one of the worst things a person could experience in their lifetime to being voted on on a website. If a new user made those kinds of comments, I'd ban them immediately, and the only reason you are not banned right now is because you're too ingratiated in the community, so consider yourself lucky. But if you want to save any face, I would recommend apologizing immediately for those comments, and NEVER making them again. And if you make another comment like that, I will perma you, consequences be damned.


 * Good day. Plutocow (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For context, this was the comment. Christopher (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Civility parole.
You are hereby expected to behave civil in discussions on RationalWiki. Moderators have free range to block you for being incivil, without having to go through the Chicken Coop or ATIM. First block is 12 hours and doubles after each successive block. Techpriest (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is correct, is it? A civility parole is a penalty vote and this vote did not have a 2/3 supermajority-Hastur! (talk)  21:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure non-bans only require 50% + 1 majority. Plutocow (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From CS:

"In policy votes and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option (an option that is not 'nay' or 'none of the above') must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. In all other types of penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass."
 * Civility parole deals with a user’s temporary removal from the site (whenever they’re first “incivil”), so technically it needs a 2/3 majority, whether that fits with the original intent of the rules is up for debate. Christopher (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Topic bans have historically required only 50% + 1, and they can deal with temporary removal if the ban is violated, so I don't see why the civility parole should be different. Regardless, I feel like shorter bans of pi weeks or less should only require simple majority. Plutocow (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop fucking sharing bad sources
I'm keeping track of all the shit you've tried to use to back up your poor arguments, in spite of being told multiple times to fucking vet your sources. You've shared Heritage Foundation, PragerU, Townhall, and now American Thinker. You refuse to understand why people are treating you with complete disrespect as you continue doubling down your arguments as "fact-based" and sneer at people that don't want to engage in your blatant bad-faith posting, but this sourcing is one among many reasons. 03:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to remove the collapse in the bar. Consider the collapse a learning opportunity, maybe for once to vet sources. 03:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll from now on try to refrain from citing American Thinker. The other alternative outlet from which I could have cited an article was Fox News, which I am disgusted with as a whole on the grounds that they are filled with actual pieces of crap. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just American Thinker. You've been told already on the fundamentals of checking your sources multiple times, yet you've failed multiple times with different poor sources, and then responded with more aggression when people get angry. Also being apparently disgusted at Fox News but being more gleeful in sharing those rags doesn't help with your credibility at all. Why do you not like Fox News when your sources are frequently considerably worse than Fox News?? 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * National Review, Washington Examiner, PragerU, Washington Times are mostly fine with me for accurate facts. And the looniness of Fox's Carlson is one reason for my contempt of the outlet, seeing your curiosity. As an educated being in the field of United States history, my contempt for the bumbling spokespersons of populism (be it left-wing or right-wing) is only rational. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * These are all flawed sources. National Review is probably the least worst of the bunch (but still not credible given their track record on pseudoscience especially climate change denial which is a huge red flag) but the rest? They all rely on loaded headlines and poor reporting. I've actually despinned content from both Washington Times and Washington Examiner myself, while arguing with people that share these sources. PragerU is infamously bad; has incredibly poor sourcing (such as sources don't support their claims; sourcing themselves) and has a massive conflict of interest especially in their environment segments. Notice I didn't even evaluate them on their ideology, but what arguments and sources (or lack of) they use to back up their claims. These blatantly don't have "accurate" facts, they have misleading statements at best, or they omitted context, or they cite misleading statistics. And all of them are on par with Fox News, the only difference is that Fox News has a white supremacist apologist, Carlson, but that difference is not a major difference compared to the constant racism your sources espouse. 03:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * National Review, Washington Examiner, and Washington Times are racist? Doubtful. And their countless articles addressing the racism of leftists and the Democratic Party are endless. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not overtly racist, but their stances on immigration is mostly fearmongering, such as this article (which also subtlety plays into tropes of "dirty" immigrants) this article (the link between crime and immigration is shown here, despite being frequently rebuked), which is arguably a form of racism as demonstrated from an extensive history of immigrant fearmongering as well as singling out Mexicans for the immigration rather than illegal immigrants from other countries such as Canada. Also the racism of leftists and Democratic Party is attempt at deflection from their own party. It's extremely dishonest by taking advantage of readers with little understanding of history and party switches. This article from Washington Times, an example that would support you saying that "they have articles critical of "the racist left" is complete garbage by completely disregarding the context of the Constitution (it was written by slave owners; the Founders clearly were opposed to mob rule and wanted restrictions; several states barred voting from nonproperty owners, etc) and miss and outright deny the extent of racism ingrained in the system, which is supported by multiple studies; I can't list them all. They also cite MLK despite MLK being an outspoken socialist (part of "the left" which they decry). They misrepresent critical race theory profoundly by claiming it's just a means to have "white children hate themselves" when that's a complete strawman and such a theory is not even taught at their level. I mean if this article is the kind of example you're thinking about, then I don't know what to say, except you're fed complete lies and you have zero grounds calling yourself a "UShistoryanalyzer". 04:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Undocumented migrants who illegally trespass borders are not equatable to those who immigrate to the United States legally. And the mainstream "party switch" narrative just has too many holes. See my essay addressing Kevin Kruse's errors. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All you have are just right-wing talking points. Do you not understand what it takes to legally immigrate? Do you understand how people become "illegal"? Do you understand the legal hoops people have to jump through and the huge expenses required to immigrate? There are undocumented immigrants, as high as maybe 30%-40% that arrived here legally but had visas expired for many technical and complicated reasons, not because they just don't respect it. Right there, you're wrong, but it's much easier for you to say "trespass illegaly" when that's not "factually" accurate but boy does it sound scary. Boy do you love the word "facts" but all I'm seeing is boring garden variety and addressed points. Also just because you criticize Kruse, one historian, for reasons that might not even be valid, doesn't mean the party switch is not founded in evidence. It's an established historical fact, and parties have actually switched a few times throughout history (more accurately, several factions within parties have gradually shifted), not just during around the FDR-Civil Rights era. 05:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Difficulties in a legal process of immigrating does not provide sufficient justifications for illegal border trespassings, which I'm referring to specifically and not mere visa expirations. And I don't drink the Kool-Aid of mainstream progressive narratives which contort the definitions of ideological terms and furthermore employ sketchy terminology such as "racial liberalism" and "racial conservatism." UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The difficulties are here by design. All it does is make it more difficult for people to immigrate, especially if they're fleeing for their lives or are living in dire economic conditions, as a big chunk of these immigrants are doing. Or sometimes they just don't have the papers. And no, those sources you grab are the ones telling you it's "Kool-Aid". Tell me how exactly "mainstream progressive narratives" are lying to you. I already did my part explaining to you how your sources are cobbled by ideological hacks and aren't supported by studies. I haven't even explained everything I wanted to explain because I'll be here all night, I only scratched the surface of exactly how those accusations of "the Dems are the real racists" are bollocks. Many people have demanded you to share some reputable sources, support your arguments with scholarly articles, etc but you're failing at this and you're still failing here by just repeating the hoary "mainstream progressive narrative" bullshit buzzwords, the same old shit your sources and thousands of other shit right-wing sources that seem to always get fact checkers and Wikipedia busy and tagging them as disreputable. You sound like the buzzword-laden garbage you share, the garbage I've sifted through many times, and the meaningless buzzwords I had to hear from others like you. 05:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, remember that this is a Conservapedian still in highschool. Munroe's law is in play here. 05:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd treat this guy with less respect than most highschoolers or even little kids lol. 05:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The generic "racist segregationist = conservative" talking point is a basis of progressive narratives regarding history. "But the Southern Democrats were conservatives!!!!" Not really. ? Full of errors. Wilson, Bilbo, Caraway, and Ellender were not conservatives. Linked source for Caraway CLEARLY SAYS : "Throughout her 14 years in the Senate, she was a strong supporter of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) and his New Deal reforms, most especially farm relief and flood control." Ellender? New Deal liberal. Bilbo? 100 percent for Roosevelt and the New Deal. And then the "past pro-civil rights Republicans were moderates and liberals!!!!" crap, which is inaccurate.
 * Need more evidence and links? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hours and hours of sufficient actual research later, and the postulates used to craft deceitful left-wing revisionist narratives become increasingly conspicuous. A racist, pro-New Deal, progressive Southern Democrat is labeled "conservative" simply on the "pro-segregationist was pro-status quo, therefore conservative" bullshit. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * its difficult to suss just exactly what your point here is. it seems to be if they were for the new deal, then not conservative? new deal seemed like a very broad church to me, with conservatives of the time for it because of the great depression hitting their constituencies hard. supporting the new deal a pragmatic choice. conservatism is not merely an economic position, and the new deal did not impinge on segrationist views. this is explained in the conservative democrat article you linked to. they were still conservative in that area, and after the new deal was history, and we get into the civil rights era, its that facet of conservsatism that is the relevant part.


 * i guess your problem is you dont like the association of racist and conservative so you do your own twisting of ideological terms to fit your own narrative.


 * i dont much care what you would call the racist fucknuts in the republican party today - conservative or some other label. the actions and their policies is what gives you the measure of such people and that is clearly racist fucknut. conservative and liberal are used as broad generic labels today that encompass positions that used to be one but now the other, or didnt even exist as political positions. they are not rigid and not ticking all the boxes does not disqualify from one or another. using strict unchanging definitions for these labels is merely obfuscation and distractions to avoid the fact conservative really andoes equal racist pretty much these days. deal with it. your 'evidence' above with all the hand waving and deciding yourself what 'conservative' means - obfuscation and distraction to avoid admitting who the racist fucknuts really are today. and applying your definition (itself undefined) to sources that used a broader definition than your own is just plain dishonesty.


 * you can quibble over labels applied to politicians 70 odd years past all you like, its not the label but opinions or actions that are judged. 70 years of opinion and action wont be changed by deciding retroactively whose a lib and whose a con. it doesnt change anyones narrative, that were the point. its still the same poeple involved whatever you want to call. it doesnt even provide the narrative.


 * and thats the best i got from the post you shat out, because i got no clue what fuck you are bitching about otherwise. its really not clear. and btw posting whole wikipedia pages as references doesnt help when its not clear what they are meant to even support. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, what a dilemma: I cannot decide whether your grammar or the veracity of your statements are more atrocious! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, with your support for electric chair executions and your balking at Miranda rights, no one is really concerned about your inability at judgement. 17:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ohnoes poor grammar!!! bet theres typos too. i was so sure of my argument, but my lack of capitalisation has shown my politics and views and whole way of life are a sham i see that now. every time i typed there when i meant their was a cry for help. you've really got to the crux of the matter USHA, its as plain as day what you getting at - ignore anything relevent and piss about with pointless bullshit and it wont matter if everything you say is actual dogshit. genius AMassiveGay (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but actually why do you never capitalize words? I’ve wondered for ages. 00:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * because its a talk page and makes zero difference? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell me why USHA is against you?
Why you guys in a feud? SixtyNine (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He's a disgruntled Conservapedian that has a topic ban of US Politics for inserting inaccurate information. He's allowed to talk about it on talkpages like the saloon bar, but he cites problematic sources and gets uncivil with other editors when we call out his bullshit. 19:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently, blocked, can't respond in essay talk. Thanks to the no-good arsehole Plutocrap. So your subject of focus shifts from the veracity of his implied Dixiecrat membership claim to his voting record. I shouldn't dance to your trolling tunes, but you need education on facts, so:
 * 1) The attribution of Cramer's party switch was the Democrat disenfranchisement of blacks and furthermore at the advocacy of his associate Herman Goldner. Goldner was a pro-civil rights liberal and became a Democrat much later.
 * 2) The major fact pertaining to Cramer's appeal towards minorities should indicate he was not a racist.
 * 3) GOP votes against the 1964 Civil Rights Act alone are terribly unreliable indicators of broader civil rights positions. Libertarianism is not equatable to being anti-civil rights.
 * 4) Law and order is not racist. Opposing communist militants is not racist.

And busing? I challenge you to go to RationalWiki's article on anti-busing Joe Biden and point out his record of racism, from usage of the n-word to the crime bill to praising segregationists years later. I dared point out facts months back, Summa Atheologica smashed rollback and blocked me for "being a threat to racist bigotry." Not even kidding. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You should continue your argument when your block expires. If you abuse talkpage access like this it’ll be revoked. Christopher (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a comparatively constructive dialogue with Buck, and petty fourth-rate snowflake Plutocow with zilch RW editing activity comes along with his attitude of sabotaging just about everything. And I'm threatened with TPA revoked? You may not place an emphasis on thoroughly debating a non-GC type where one can actually address facts, but I do, Christopher. I've studied the facts and value a good discussion. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote quite a bit about the Biden crime bills in his article. 18:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If he keeps whining, I'll extend it. 19:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you read?
"As a final note, if you think this page is a good tactic to apply in gaming the mob into doing your bidding, you may be shocked to see your post archived quite swiftly." (RationalWiki:Chicken coop) You're attempting to coop not one but two moderators. Why not add me to the list, then you can attempt your chicken coup. Bongolian (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I love your pun, Bongolian. 22:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact
The water in a toilet is potable and is the same water you drink from, but it's just that other contaminants get in it. Let that sink in. 21:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Failing at Nazi-hunting

 * First off, we use the collapse templates on posts we don't like. You know that because you just used it for that very purpose.
 * Second...the section was renamed "Nazi shit" and the collapse text says "shit from a Nazi." These are not typically the terms you use when you support the ideas being posted.
 * Third, actually read our article on Holocaust denial. If you think it supports Holocaust denial you are, to put it bluntly, illiterate.
 * I could bring up more but I have already destroyed your "Nazi coddling" claim here and now. You can either walk it back (like mature people do in these situations) or double down on it like a petulant brat because it bruises your ego too much to retract something demonstrably inaccurate.-Flandres (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Re
Currently blocked, can't respond in ATIM. Read this by LT. The obstructions of anti-communist investigations by Eisenhower are well-known. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And please unblock me to allow for participation in the ATIM case. Thank you. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Man, hooeee, we're now getting into Joseph McCarthy apologism. Fuck off, fascist. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * PanGalacticGargleBlaster, since when did you permit Unclescrooge's hijacking of your account? You should know better, pal. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

TPA when blocked
It's used to discuss your block, not to be used to respond to conversations on other talk pages that you are banned from. If you keep using your talkpage to do the latter when you are blocked, I will continue to revoke your TPA. Plutocow (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Obligratory notice
19:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You were blocked prematurely, and unblocked. My advice; now is not the time for rage/insults.  Some users here are on the fence, don't push them off the wrong side of it.  20:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * HBC was one of them. And you blew it. 2804:14C:5B72:83F4:58F0:FAD3:D10D:1477 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The coop result in him being blocked for 3.14 months, but it has not been archived. Andrew5 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It just has. It can be found at RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive130. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is your sig written as Ushit the dipshit?
Are you being bullied? Epic Games (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2022


 * He is not being bullied! He’s being called out for his trollish behavior! I suggest you go read up on what he has said in the past. Also what you just asked him is going to feed his persecution complex! Adam Warlock (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 🍃 "Pro-criminal court rulings from Miranda v. Arizona to Gideon v. Wainwright have generally resulted in great costs to society." 🍃 - UShistoryanalyzer. 06:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The one hour block
Just think of it as one-time vandal bin doubling. 02:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So you like electric chair executions?
What's stopping you from advocating other brutal forms of execution? Guillotine, drowning, firing squad, tying someone on train tracks, water poisoning, throwing someone on a monster truck derby, the list goes on. 03:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, what's this ghost doing here?.. 04:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I remember. Pepperidge farm remembers. 04:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder, LeftyGreenMario. The practice of execution by firing squad is one I indeed long for a return to. But cases involving the most depraved murderers are better served justice by means of electric chairs or hangings, however. I do admire your creativity in the thought of executing convicted mass murderers by tossing onto a monster truck derby. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 05:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But why electric chairs and hanging? 06:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * because they are a disgusting human being and the electric chair is a painful and barbaric means of execution (all means of execution are barbaric btw, though oddly hanging is actually fairly painless by dint of it being pretty instantaneous when performed correctly). it seems like most dogshit people they are happy to hide behind the us constitution when it suits them, eg. right to bare arms, but just as happy to wipe their arse on it when it suits them ie. cruel and unusual punishment is fine with this piece of dogshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Only a disgusting human being like me would contend that despicable murderers deserve to die in the very pain they inflicted on others, in contrast to an exceedingly compassionate and kind soul like yourself who would rather feed their asses off the taxpayer money of the family members of those they slaughtered. (/s) AMassiveGay, your atrocious grammar usage somehow is surpassed by your poor logic.
 * And in response to LeftyGreenMario: the usage of execution by electric chairs and firing squad in the context of the United States appear a more traditional means of capital punishment. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 15:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just going to point out USHA opposes due process. He just wants to murder people, simple as that. 15:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * oh look, dogshit thinks grammar makes any difference at all to informal talk page conversations (any port in a storm i guess), or that blood lust equates to logic or makes them any less of a disgusting dogshit thing. support of torture and murder doesnt make you a traditionalist by the way, it makes you a disgusting dogshit thing. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * One only has to look at the countries that extensively use capital punishment and realize that, in many cases, the death penalty is abused for much more than "despicable murderers". Sometimes, merely being on the opposing side of politics, or having a different sort of sexual orientation, is all it takes. Bloodlust is addictive to politicians (particularly the more thuggish variety), and seems to be quite addictive, too, to many laymen capital punishment advocates, as we can see quite clearly here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * looking at norways murder rate (considering their treatment of a mass murderer is what spurred of torture/murder support) is 0.53 per capita compared to the 5 per capita of the us, one can see clearly who is in support of murderers and murders and doesnt give a shit about the victims of violent crime. with their preference for punishment (of medieval barbarity) over rehabilitation, not only does this dogshit disgrace of a human being support state sponsored murder and torture, they in effect aid and abet murder in general. well done dogshit thing.


 * but we've been through all this before. we can skip the debate and go straight to telling dogshit that they are dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm still surprised that he hasn't pulled off a mask and done something even more ridiculous at this point. 17:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of viewpoints I stridently disagree with, and plenty where I'd concede that they are colorable. Support of capital punishment, on the other hand, demonstrates definitively that the speaker's opinions are utterly worthless and should be disregarded completely. 17:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * oh it goes beyond support for capital punishment. this dogshit thinks lethal injection is too humane and coddles criminals AMassiveGay (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxF5zQ8OEJY 18:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and as gc kindly keeps reminding us, they have no time for due process either. they are dogshit, pure and simple. well more fetid than pure. and simple is being generous. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure you think evil people should have evil punishment but if you're willing to stomach video after video of executions, that's going to afflict a serious mental toll even if you try to toughen yourself and remind yourself these criminals are scum. Maybe you'll think twice before advocating such brutality. I hate seeing anti-vaxxers days before their death in their ventilators, it's something I always feel incredibly sad, seeing their helpless eyes and pained smiles at complete mercy even though I hate antivaxxers and what they've done. I couldn't stand seeing Limbaugh also shriveling up and dying as much as I hate this wretched man. Why can't we be above criminals and work to rehabilitation? 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes though, when I watch videos of executions, I actually feel "Phew. This is a sigh of relief. The criminal can't hurt anyone anymore." Rehibiliation sometimes works, but not always. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * murder rate per capita Norway 0.53, us 5. recidivism rates norway 20% us at least 43% nationally. guesss where rehabilitation is the focus and guess who has the death penalty? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is, in the US it is up to states discretion. The only Republican states to have banned the death penalty is Alaska, New Hampshire, Iowa, and North Dakota and the only Democratic states to have it in full effect is Nevada. There is a clear partisian split. It's not fully reliable, but it does show a correlation. Also, Norway would lean Democratic in American politics. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thats one of the reasons i say at least 43% for recidivism - thats the national figure (curtesy of wikipedia). im sure it varies state to state. but that figure is just for the first year after release. it goes up to 88% over ten years. its crazy how broken us justice is. pining for the electric chair and lamenting that the lethal injection is too 'humane' is a particularly ugly manifestation of that brokeness. the death penalty itself is just one part of it and not the whole story, even if it is an abhorrent part. it should be noted with perverse irony that the land of the free imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation, or at the very least any other liberal democracy.


 * the land of the free. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well it's not like that in every state. Look at what they're doing in Texas, amongst others. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how your initial reaction is relief. It's a rationalization for abject horror. The drug injection chair chills me to the bone. Gives me the creeps. I'd get nightmares if I had to witness a' execution live. A video's unbearable enough. One video might be fine, eh? Try watching them every day like an artist studying references to develop a realistic video game. It'll take a toll. What's the point of you saying that it's up to states, anyway, beyond mere observation? 23:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's like my reaction to - he killed 3 people, so relieved he can't harm society. My only other solution to permanetly solve this is to exile them to an island hundreds of miles from land.--Andrew5 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, a common conception of "evil" is willful malice and cruelty towards one's fellow human beings... While we're on the topic of whether or not to execute "evil" people I just felt that was worth mentioning. 23:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't think you understand how horrible lethal injection is. I remember from watching John Oliver that they use two injections: one to paralyze the body so the person doesn't flail violently, and the other one is actually lethal. As for sending them off to a far-away island ... well the US already does that with Guantanamo Bay and the conditions there are dreadful and unjust. LongStylus (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Executions used to be better. Like, why not bring back firing squad? I really wish the guillotine was legal, that was painless. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just think of the worst murderer you know of and then smugly think to yourself how and bah-boom! No more guilt for the horrible shit you subject inmates to. Pay no attention to any cherrypicking you may be engaged in...  23:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, here me out, we could not engage in executions that waste resources and normalize barbaric mindsets that ironically we execute people for. Or is the moral high ground only something you care about when it's worth fuck all? 23:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article you cite: "Johnson's execution by lethal injection proved controversial, as a 2008 surgery had removed up to 20 percent of his brain tissue, leaving Johnson permanently cognitively disabled." You also notice most of the executed are poor, a minority, and/or have serious issues that could've seriously affected their judgement in life. I don't feel any sort of justice seeing this person get killed. 23:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He's too much of a threat to be alive, even in prison. Disabled people can and do cause crimes. But there are better ways of execution. I think he should have been beheaded, if only the 8th Amendment didn't ban it, as that causes no pain and is an instant death. Andrew5 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, spoken like someone who's never been inside a correctional facility in his life. Fucking yuppy ass dipshits. 23:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "If only there weren't laws preventing me from killing people I don't like". 23:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, treat this person as inherently dispensible. Like he doesn't have friends or family. Also, strawman: no one is arguing disabled people can't (usually the opposite, that they're overly violent folk when that's not true), but that capital punishment also disproportionately kills people with mental health problems, never kills rich people, disproportionately kills African Americans, disproportionately kills men, disproportionately kills poor people. That's not justice, that's a national disgrace. There are no "better ways" of execution, just "terrible" and "slightly less terrible". Your advocacy of beheading also disgusts me. 23:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What also disgusts me is your excusing of the blatant gerrymander in Illinois. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, If the GOP ever gets around to abolishing democracy I'm sure they'll let you kill as many "Bad People" as you like. Authoritarians love giving self righteous goons that sort of job. 23:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's no way equivalent to what you're advocating. All your criticisms for the gerrymandering in Illinois is "I don't like this shape" disregarding every sort of well-thought out analysis or actually looking into how or why districts are drawn this way. I've tried to pepper you with questions earlier, like "what do you think about the district drawn by civil rights to try to advantage a political minority", those weren't answered; same for the video about "going high and going low". Wasn't answered. You weren't worth pursuing the subject matter because you don't have an opinion other than some sort of moralizing about playing by the rules despite the other side blatantly disrespecting rules (see Supreme Court). That you bring it up to try to distract me with a cheap gotcha from your advocacy of capital punishment from centuries ago is also abhorrently petty. 00:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Illinois districts, the 3 Republican districts are clear packing. Packing is more common with Democrats (can cram them in one city), but can happen with Republicans. Next, they cracked other Republican communities across central Illinois to make two seats lean blue, one at D+4, one at D+7. Achieving political minority means nothing when the districts are gerrymandered. Republicans should stop too, however, all gerrymandering does is reduce the say of the citizens of Illinois. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not following your red herring. 00:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Democrats packed Illinois Republicans in 3 districts, and cracked other communities to make them blue. Andrew5 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is about capital punishment, stop trying to change the subject. 00:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I only changed the subject to point out the fact you're statements aren't totally clean. Regardless, about executions, a lot of people think they are treated unjustly. And I see that point. However, remember that what they did to their victims, especially if it's multiple, is also unjust. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We get it, you like the taste of bootleather. 00:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm withdrawing from this conversation. It's not worth my time anymore. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Fucking weaselly coward. You don't believe in jack fucking shit except your own feel good bubble. 01:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's honestly not even worth my time to reply. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet here you are. Just be honest and say your dogshit opinions openly. They'll still be dogshit, and people will mock you, but at least then you'll be honest. 02:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok fine. I have a slight Republican lean. Is that what you wanted me to say? --Andrew5 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well done

 * Thank you. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 14:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing templates in the saloon
You will stop. This is not a request. 12:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I applaud you for demonstrating the desperation shown in the weightlessness of your words that surpasses the shadow of your oversized ego. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 13:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can literally ban your account from this site at will, recognize your editing pattern, and just straight up don't like your petty immaturity. TL;DR, your full of shit and projecting. Stop fucking around with the collapse templates. Learn shit. Become a less shit person. Or, let's be honest, fail to even attempt any of that and exist as a hollow shell of a human being. Your choice. 14:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion involves me (because it was my threads that were collapsed), I thought I’d weigh in. A lot of these collapses are being done prematurely, by IP users which is likely one user, to remove pretty much every single thread I make. It’s getting a bit much because I literally can’t make one singular thread without it getting collapsed for something. It’s been clear which side of the issue you are on, but that doesn’t mean these threads should be collapsed so early. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Since this discussion involves me (because it was my threads that were collapsed), I thought I’d weigh in." It doesn't. Of course you defend your posts. Learn when to stay out of discussions. 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I should defend my posts on the ATIM instead…--Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "your full of shit" One-upping Trump cultists for a demonstration of erroneous grammar usage, eh? 🤣 Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 17:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Focusing on typos instead of actually addressing anything I said? To a guy who has the ability to block you at will? Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you are A), underage and B) live a very sheltered life...  17:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: Civility parole
Would it be correct for me to make the presumption, out of sheer genuine curiosity, that the ATIM case last year which resulted my civility parole was one you did not notice? Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 20:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What? What the fuck are you talking about? Acei9 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 22:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This. 14:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)