User talk:ClemVegas

Your contributed article, University (Main) Hall


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, University (Main) Hall. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Tillman Hall at Clemson University. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Tillman Hall at Clemson University. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —C.Fred (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

ClemVegas, you are invited to the Teahouse!
This is a very good place to ask questions - Article talk pages are typically only for discussions about the article. After you've spent some time learning the ins and outs, you can come back Southern Strategy to discuss making the changes you wanted. I recommend discussing the changes you want @ SS with the folks at Teahouse as well. They will help you. Thank you for your patience. DN (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Southern Strategy
I have asked you politely to take it to the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_strategy. If you continue to revert without discussion, an administrator will be notified. DN (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are a liberal trying to intimidate me. What did I post that is not accurate? Discuss it.


 * On your edit note, by today's standards at least, Nixon was a racist see here. By the standards of today, most people then were racist.  Actually a lot of them today still are. Trackinfo (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already begun a discussion on the Article Talk Page. Personal talk pages are not the appropriate place to discuss article issues. Take it there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_strategy - I also would suggest you read this WP:FAITH & this WP:CIVIL. DN (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of the article is for liberal Democrat to associate GOP with racism. LBJ was a huge racist, but you don't see Democrats talking about a 'southern strategy' with him and other anti-civil rights Democrats of his era and prior.

ClemVegas, I support DN's concerns. If you review my edit history with the article I think you will find I'm not a liberal trying to intimidate. Springee (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

ClemVegas, I'm going to reiterate my earlier comment supporting DN's concerns. I put a lot of time into finding additional sources because I too think that much of the "evidence" is suspect. I agree that "examples" of racism are often sought out as a way to tar an opponent. This is, in my opinion, especially true when the left wishes to describe the political motives of the right to their base. It's also true when it seems one side talks about the term allot while the other side doesn't give it much credit thus many of the sources might be echo chamber effect. I feel you pain man!

But, and please listen, around here we need verifiable sources. That's just how this place works. I know it can be frustrating when you think an article gets something really wrong (been there, done that) but it's how the place works. We also have something called Bold, Revert and Discuss. You made bold edits. Others disagreed and reverted the edits. Now we can talk about the edits on the talk page. If you can't find sources that say "Prof Liberal's" accusing of racism doesn't make sense then well we can't change it just because we "know" it's wrong. I can think of a few very questionable claims in the article but they are still in there because I can't directly refute them. Springee (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)