Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

User talk:UShistoryanalyzer

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, UShistoryanalyzer!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

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... Correkt (yak) 22:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


Define it for me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


@Flandres 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)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:

Thanks Kevlarstar! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Tip about your edit on the LBJ article[edit]

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)


@Plutocow 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)
@Plutocow 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...[edit]

...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, 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. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 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. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 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. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 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[edit]

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 RW:CD and RW: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[edit]

MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring[edit]

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)


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 whitewashWikipedia. 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)

@PanGalacticGargleBlaster 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...[edit] cast policy or penalty votes.-Flandres (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your coop[edit]

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.

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)


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[edit]

New logo large.png Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, UShistoryanalyzer.

This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble.

We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives.

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you.

If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

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)

@Bongolian 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Warning icon.svg You have been warned for unconstructive edits and for repeatedly ignoring advice from admins. If you continue, you may get blocked. The blocks are incremental, starting off short, but getting longer over repeated offenses.

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

Note to Plutocow[edit]

@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)


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[edit]

Stop hand.png You have been vandal binned because of your recent edits. This means that you can only make one edit per 30 minutes. If you continue to make unwanted edits, you may be blocked without further warning.

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

Editing this wiki[edit]

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


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[edit]

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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Good news and bad news[edit]

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[edit]

This video contains some information you misunderstand:

Plutocow (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is what Plutocow looks like right now:
Unclescrooge (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Good post! And this is Plutocow internally when his liberal claptrap gets debunked:
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)
Serious.gif --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 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. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 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[edit]

  • 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.

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)

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


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)


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[edit]

[1]--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[edit]

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)
@FlandresThough 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)

@Spud 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 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)
Good post! 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)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. — Unsigned, by: Monet / talk / contribs 07:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This was clearly an error in @Monet's judgment. Bongolian (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wdym? My old sign or that I gave him sysop? Monet talk 12:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I went on your talk page to complain about your overall sense of judgement earlier. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 14:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I mean, he didn‘t abuse it - yet. Monet talk 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a "factual refutation" for you[edit]

This big ass hammer. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


@GeeJayK 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: [[:RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation#Hi, I'd like my sysop powers back]. You may wish to participate. Bongolian (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian, I'm currently blocked. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Mario Smacks Luigi.gif
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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Calm down a sec[edit]

Can we take it to ATIM first? Coop can always be done later... Correkt (yak) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, A coop case is necessary against GrammarCommie. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Oxy[edit]

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. (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 [2] 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. (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

For trivializing rape[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

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)