User talk:71.244.196.147

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1924 Democratic National Convention
Do not make demands and threats on talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and content disputes are resolved through discussion and WP:CONSENSUS. Your recent comment was unhelpful. Persistent disruptive editing can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you for your cooperation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification
That is not a threat or demand, it is an ultimatum. Just because an echo chamber of millennials with a bad case of cognitive dissonance comes to the consensus it is okay to pretend there was not a huge Klan rally at the 1924 DNC in New York, when historical records indicate there was, include newspapers dubbing the entire convention the "Klanbake", does not make such things true. Furthermore, accepting consensus in an echo chamber undermines the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia as a whole. As a writer, I have to wrestle with the benefit of Wikipedia as a readily accessible source of information for my readers when I reference a historical event, with the numerous inaccuracies and the increasing number of outright falsehoods motivated by self-interest, in this case, the ignorance of the contributors to that particular page as well as their inability to accept their political party of choice catered to the Klan less than a century ago. It shows a certain lack of priorities as well when you pursue an anon leaving an ultimatum to the effect of "Stick with the facts or I will correct it for you" while showing no concern over revisions made by a group making unverified and slanderous claims about the Klans relationship with one party while trying to ignore the very real relationship between the Klan and the subject of the page which happens to be the Democratic Party. Again, as a writer, this sends me a message that I indeed cannot rely on Wikipedia for even the most basic references since you show very little concern for ensuring accuracy, and since you yourselves are also giving me the impression you share some of the same biases as the members of that discussion. So more than just making it a point to come back in 5 weeks now and delete the erroneous section in question repeatedly with the aid of rolling IP addresses, it may fall upon me also to make it a point to find alternate online sources to use for citation of historical events or any other thing that I need a non specific but detailed reference to. You may interpret that however you like. The latter half, however, is neither a threat nor an ultimatum, your actions going forward will not likely be appropriate nor drastic enough to make me reconsider my decision to seek better online sources dedicated to accuracy.