User talk:70.127.17.241

September 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Yamla. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Edward W. Tayler, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Evergreen State College, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

70.127.17.241 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My two edits were not disruptive; they were accurate and sensible improvements. Would you please look into what is going on here? It seems to me that the article is being tone policed perhaps by someone close to the university. Given the amount of the article devoted to it the incident ought to be mentioned in the introduction. And the water should not be muddied on the issue of racism: the incident was that people were barred from attending classes based on their race. A lengthy preamble about what happened in past years attempting to marginalize criticism violates the NPOV and is irrelevant to the fact that the outrage was genuine, widespread, and based on visible, documented racism. Sorry if this is duplicate; I think this requires double brackets! Thanks!70.127.17.241 (talk)

Decline reason:

You posted an unsourced statement about a living person in an article, this is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Please review the policy before the block expires or you request unblock again. You also posted a second unsourced statement; please review WP:CITE. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1. It's not a biography of a living person. How does that policy apply? 2. What are you disputing? All of the claims are evident either in the article as written already, or in already linked sources:

- That this is the main incident for which Evergreen is known. Note the amount of text devoted to it in the article body. 
- That students and faculty were harassed and denied access to education based on their race. Nobody denies this.
- That enrollment is down due to the loss of reputation and general outrage at the university.

The stated reason for this block is incoherent. No living person was even referred to in anything I wrote. Unblock. Malicious usage of irrelevant rule regarding living persons, which is anyway crazy given that the paroxysm of racial hatred was clearly documented in numerous videos. We are talking about an event where armed protesters barred students from entering campus on the basis of their skin color and violently drove them from their classes. That's factually what happened. And we have video tape of it. Attempting to characterize it as an anti-racist manifestation of some sort is racist and patently dishonest, and making up a bunch of trumped up stuff about living individuals when it's about an event and an institution is crazy. Why is this person an administrator? And can they prove they have no interest in the Evergreen campus? Honestly this is bizarre.

It would be helpful to me rather than just pasting links to articles and policies that do not seem to have anything to do with the matter at hand. Thanks[ 70.127.17.241 (talk)

The claim that a college that is 50 years old is known mostly for this one incident is prima facie ridiculous. Your comments aren't particularly clear or well-written (let alone verified), but I *think* you're trying to argue that a single day of protest by students of color should be considered "violent, prolonged anti-white student demonstrations and intimidation". If so, yeah no, never. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! *Prima Facie* is it? (Sounds like you have been watching Ally McBeal. Lol.) Evergreen College has a 97.5% acceptance rate, and is not notable for anything else. Who do you suppose you're fooling? The violent anti-white demonstrations are obviously foremost in the article itself. They went on more than a day nnot a single day as you say (dishonest). And your attempt to uno-reverse here by discussing the mob of violent, racist demonstrators as "protesters" and "students of color" seems pretty ham-fisted to me. You can try to gaslight me all day or call me stupid if you like. I'm not the one defending violence and systematic discrimination on the basis of skin color here.

Also! the idea that violence or intimidation has to be prolonged or pass some invisible bar of yours to be significant is *prima facie* bs. I would say it's prolonged at the point of going on for hours. And in point of fact the intimidation went on for days. Whether or not you want to consider it significant it IS violence, and it IS intimidation. And the court system regards it significant because it stopped a class, forced a teacher to resign, and he won a lawsuit for a half million dollars as a consequence. Nobody would dare to make such an argument if a group of black students were denied entry to a class, or a professor of gender studies were shouted down and forced to stop teaching a class by a mob of radical right wing students. But I don't think any of this needs to be pointed out; you know all of this I'm sure.

70.127.17.241 (talk)

May 2020[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Honky has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. dmartin969 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.