User talk:208.59.160.112

January 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dotson Rader has been reverted. Your edit here to Dotson Rader was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Di10Ng8w8) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Identitarian movement
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. I rather think the rule of three reversions applies, and I believe the burden ought to be on the person arbitrarily deleting facts without providing a reason.


 * This is not a matter of legitimate debate. I highly doubt anybody willing to delete statement of fact like "The SPLC has been forced to apologize and pay millions of dollars for falsely accusing persons and organizations of racism" has any interest in debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.160.112 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nawaz never sued, but the SPLC did the right thing and apologised and paid damages. They made a bad mistake. The only actual lawsuit I know about was dismissed as having no merit. The SPLC has conducted and won a lot of lawsuits of course. But that doesn't belong in the Identitarian article, people can read the link to the SPLC. You need to stop trying to force your prejudice into the article. And of course the SPLC is not left-wing except perhaps from a far-right perspective which puts anything to the left of say Trump into the far-left or leftwing category. Doug Weller  talk 11:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Bad mistake? They conducted a protracted and unjustifiable, long-term harassment campaign for political and ideological purposes. "Mistake" (singular by the way) implies a singular error of judgement and is an obvious misnomer. It does not lead me to suspect good faith on your part! Where have you ever heard of people forking out 3.3 million dollars because they made a some sort of minimal "oopsie daisy"? That is now how First Amendment issues are decided in America. To get sued for millions of dollars like that you have to be stupid, and malevolent. Gawker is the only other organization I've heard of being hit for more, and they weren't lawyers, and they knowingly distributed revenge pornography. And left wingers still seem to think they're a credible organization, who were sorely wronged by big mean bullies.

Ugh. By the way, prejudice means to "pre-judge." Perhaps you could support it in that use. Or is this just a vague insinuation of racism? I judge the SPLC based on their actions, which are quite poor lately. And I speak about the left and the obvious use of the term by the conservative movement as a flat observation of reality. No judgement is required to observe this. The SPLC is not credible on the basis of the fact that it had to pay millions of dollars and apologize for telling lies. Where are you disagreeing with that? And yes, there are identitarian movements on the left. Quite a few. LGBTQ. Black Hebrew Israelites. Trans-exclusionary feminism. All sorts of exclusive, identity based groups. The term is in broad use on the right. And it should not be contentious to seek to define the term using logic rather than positional political terminology identifying it as right-wing. And there are no latin roots in ident-itarian that suggest that is should only apply to one side of the aisle.


 * Once again, they weren't sued. One error, even a big one, doesn't damn it forever. And you clearly haven't a clue about the First Amendment, it has nothing to do with this issue. And it's not that big an amount. 1990: Philadelphia Inquirer paid a judge $6million - that would be $11,527,482.79 in 2018. A year later, a tv station was told to pay $58,000,000 to someone, $106,932,496.33 today. There are a lot more like that. Disney and the pink slime defamation case? $177,000,000. Doug Weller  talk 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that they were definitely actually sued. And it's crazy you keep denying that. It's flatly wrong. The lawsuit was filed. Sued. They were sued. That's not a semantic claim. They admitted wrongdoing and had to apologize and pay millions of dollars. That's not ambiguous. And you clearly don't know your first amendment stuff, because the Disney case you mention led to national plant closures where thousands and thousands of people lost their jobs! Or the Philadelphia case which involved a MURDER. Like seriously? Accusing someone falsely of a murder is more than libel, it's an incitement. That ends in more murder.

But yeah how in the world are you going to compare one person's suit to one brought on behalf of thousands of jobless people and a whole industry that took a hit?

For reference with respect to other single gases, apart from the Hogan tapes which were a really egregious incident of revenge porn, the SPLC's payout is remarkable. They paid twice what Rolling Stone had to all of the families of the Duke lacrosse players combined after it was proven that their report had not a shred of fact in it, and that story wasn't like slightly wrong. Or slightly famous. That caused untold havoc for every one of those kids, all of their families, everybody who they dated, all of their friends... for years! 1.5 million for that. Point of fact: the US is soft on libel.

p.s. I don't know where you're getting your inflation calculated, but it seems off. Low. You have a better point than you're making. But I still don't think it's a good point unless we can compare something reasonably similar. Calling someone a racist vs. calling someone a murderer... calling someone racist versus making thousands of plant workers jobless... you know? Apples to oranges. I really do think it sets a pretty clear signal on the SPLC's character. Looking at it, it looks like they could have recanted at any time and they know they were making abusive claims... they just didn't. Caedmon scop (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Identitarian movement; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I listed clear and coherent reasons for the edit. That IS a discussion. You are arbitrarily removing content without rationale. The article as currently written is pathetically biased and part of why Wikipedia is fast losing credibility among mainstream centrists in the United States. You are refusing to engage. You are vandalizing the article by arbitrarily reverting without explanation. Don't try to gaslight me, thanks. It is not a matter of debate that the article is in mainstream use among the conservatives movement and accurately describes a number of left wing political organizations including, but not limited to the Black Hebrew Israelites who have existed for well over 40 years in the United States and have well over 2000 congregations. And are notable for ethnic and homophobic hatred. Which is not only well documented, discussed in newspapers, on cable news, in courts of law hearing criminal charges against members, and has been witnessed, by me, in person.

Again, do not gaslight me.

Sockpuppetry?
Exactly what did you mean by your last edit summary :

"I'm more than happy to log in to escalate this if you want to try to dominate the discussion."

Do you mean to say that you've been editing while logged out in order to avoid scrutiny of your edits, which is a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry? Or is this a simple statement of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, and your attempt to characterize the use of a guest account for the sake of convenience (now logged in), is ridiculous. Also, I am new to this inquisition nonsense. What's the penalty for intentionally misusing words? I do not have MULTIPLE accounts and I am NOT avoiding scrutiny. You have to have some legitimate complaint about MY behavior to claim I'm avoiding scrutiny. You are a vandal. There is nothing contentious about saying you are a vandal and attempting to dominate, bully me. That's a plain observation. And your account should be reviewed for abuse, politically motivated deletions.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caedmon scop (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That is not what those words mean, and your are continuing to be intentionally abusive.
 * What in the world do you mean by asking me that? Can't you read English? I mean of course that if this were casually observed by anybody with any interest in the facts, and neutrality you would be flagged for vandalism. Caedmon scop (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no legitimate reason to exclude criticism of the left wing in an article about identitarianism. No excuse at all. The term has been in broad use for some time by the right, and it aptly describes many left wing groups including the Black Hebrew Israelites, who number in the thousands of congregations.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this IP for two weeks but will allow them to use their account to legitimize their previous edits...that is, if they use their account and claim the IP as theirs then discussion may continue. The IP is blocked but not the editor.


 * I more or less immediately logged in and claimed this account as mine. Not that makes any sense. Using a guest account on a computer you have never signed in on is NOT intentionally avoiding scrutiny and using multiple accounts.''' Caedmon scop (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

208.59.160.112 (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the correct way to do this is to create an account for public editing as a legitimate alternate account, for example my public editing account is . &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  15:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Caedmon scop (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This review appears to be completely incorrect, I should have been logged in at this time.'''


 * That would be actually creating multiple accounts, and you would still be able to claim the account was being used nefariously for no reason, as here. My defense ought to be the fact that I was improving the article, and someone aggressively came at me complaining about a lack of discussion, refused to discuss, and deleted a whole bunch of information.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caedmon scop (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "I'm more than happy to log in to escalate this if you want to try to dominate the discussion." Logging out to edit-war, gripe about other editors and avoid scrutiny is blockable. Your main account is not blocked, use that, not this IP.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I just blocked the account as well for both metaphorically and literally asking me to do so on my talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it: "left-wing solipsism to me. Perhaps you might at least ban me on some logical ground for the sake of appearances. Wouldn't want the proles to catch wind" is just more of what this IP had to offer.   Acroterion   (talk)   21:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)