In the future, please sign your posts on discussion pages
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Nice to see you're contributing to RationalWiki. I suggest creating a user account is a good idea. FYI, some people are discussing some of your edits here. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 00:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You obviously have a lot of knowledge about the politics and groups active during the 60's and 70's, but you have mixed in a lot of opinion, slant, and bias with the historical stuff you have added. I'm considering going through articles such as the Black Panther Party and revising some of your edits.
In one instance, http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Panther_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1327248, you removed a previous editor's contributions which gave background on a source from which many of the negative allegations against BPP stemmed from, turning a dubious source into a credible one.
The source you go to cite for almost all of these allegations is http://colemantruth.net/kate8.pdf that document, which seems to have published many of the unverifiable allegations you added, on the word of this same source, which you deleted the sentence about his potential lack of credibility.
I'm seeing an agenda here, one which doesn't really fall in line with the RW mission, but instead is about getting as much negative slant into these articles as you can.
- The original author's screed about David Horowitz was kind of a glib distraction from discussion of the Van Patter murder and it degenerated into a series of cheap shots. This is not about Horowitz, reactionary turd that he is. The bare facts of the Van Patter case, to wit: accountant who found discrepancies, reported them to Brown, then turned up dead, don't rely on Horowitz. The New Times article presents evidence of Brown covering her tracks in the Van Patter case. You have absolutely no basis on which to discredit the New Times article and you know it. Maybe you should contact the authors of the New Times article.08:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)08:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)08:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)~
You should really say "HI".
Radical gay groups
Please provide examples of "radical gay groups", or I'm going to can the term again on the SCP page. I'll be replacing "radical lesbian activists" with radical separatist feminist groups, per the specification you made in the talk page of the article. ROPChain (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mention "radical lesbian activists or "radical separatist feminist groups," but I can ad that specification if you think it would be helpful.220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think it would imo, a "radical" gay group that fights to gain the protections granted to heteros isn't really radical. The separatists on the other hand, I can see why a lot of people would consider radical. I don't really give a hoot about the subjects of these articles on ancient, deceased groups, but I do care (somewhat) about accuracy; if the majority of the public in the 70's considered equality for gays radical, leading to this group drifting away from the mainstream, say so, rather than calling a group of people fighting for equal protection radical. I posted a response in the scp talk page that elaborates further on why I think clarification on the nature of said groups is useful. ROPChain (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)ROPChain (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You should make an account
If you plan on sticking around. Your IP will eventually change and then you would have to find your old IP to look at comments or your old revisions, and if you commented on your old IP talk page, or in an article talk page, using your new IP, it would be confusing. ROPChain (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)