User talk:LesLein

If you've been involved in my edits, you must be aware of a dispute regarding this quote from the New Deal article where President Franklin D. Roosevelt defends himself against charges of radicalism, He says that some people:

will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it 'Fascism', sometimes 'Communism', sometimes 'Regimentation', sometimes 'Socialism'. But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.... Plausible self-seekers and theoretical die-hards will tell you of the loss of individual liberty. Answer this question out of the facts of your own life. Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice?[155]

I was blocked 48 hours for edit warring when the Supreme Court's ruled in its Schechter decision that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) violated the Tenth Amendment. The Schechters were prosecuted in part because they sold a chicken with inlaid eggs (the government never proved that the Schechters knew that the chicken was sick). Hence the case was called "Sick Chicken". The Schechter were mainly charged with letting their customers select the chickens they wanted. The government was trying to enforce a "straight killing" rule that required customers to stick their hand in the coop and take the first chicken to approach. The Blue Eagle refers to the National Recovery Administration's (NRA's)logo.

If you scroll down you will see that after I appealed the ruling a second administrator said:

Being "right", and I'm not saying you were, does not grant one a pass to edit war. NPOV does not "[take] precedence over consensus"; a neutral view is determined by consensus.

The administrator doesn't know the rules. The rules for Quotations states:

Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false. See this example ([1]) at Phoenix, Arizona. There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles.

So according to the quotation rules, who is "right" means quite a bit. Since NIRA violated the Bill of Rights, mentioning the Schechter decision is mandatory.

That admin and presumably the admin making the original decision also didn't understand Consensus

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

So an article's talk page can't determine NPOV. NPOV is a generally accepted policy. It takes precedence over Consensus, like Supreme Court rulings.

In the future I will summarize information showing that not only are my facts "right," but the FDR block quote violates many rules. For the time being, I'm stuck rearguing a constitutional issue the Supreme Court resolved almost 80 years ago. LesLein (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere on this page Rjensen said that it was "completely false" for me to claim that the Supreme Court found that the NRA violated the Bill of Rights. Here is what the court said in its Schechter decision:

"Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment

So I was completely right and Rjensen was completely wrong. It's necessary to keep repeating this since Rjensen never acknowledged his mistake and continues like he knows everything. LesLein (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I pointed this out at Rjensen's talk page, Pass3456 responded:

"When Roosevelt asked "Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice?" he obviously talked about United_States_Constitution#Individual_rights"

In the fireside chat Pass is referring to, Roosevelt tells listeners to

"Read each provision of that Bill of Rights ..."

Each provision includes the Bill of Rights. Pass3456 never acknowledged that his factual claim, which he was is "obvious," was wrong. LesLein (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the irritating things about this dispute is that I have to argue what is obvious. The Supreme Court ruled in 1935 that the NIRA violated the Tenth Amendment. It the 80 years since then, it never found otherwise and never will. It's as if an article on the Watergate tapes quoted Richard Nixon's claim of executive privilege without mentioning that the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Another irritating thing is that those who disagree with me never acknowledge the information I provide. I mentioned on Rjensen's talk page that the Schechter decision cited the Tenth Amendment. Shortly after that iIn the New Deal talk page Rjensen wrote:

"whose Constitutional rights were violated by FDR? LesLein thinks there were two such people (the Schechter brothers who were deprived of their right to sell sick chickens) but the Supreme Court did not say that & we need a RS saying this. Rjensen (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)"

It's as if Rjensen didn't read his own talk page. If he had he would have known that I provided a reliable source. It didn't matter when I later added David P. Currie to back me up. Rjensen never provided a reliable source for his claim.

The same goes for Pass3456. I pointed out on Rjensen's talk page that FDR was referring to "each provision" of the Bill of Rights. Pass3456 still wrote on the New Deal talk page that FDR was only referring to individual rights. Pass3456 never acknowledged my proof that the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights. LesLein (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some edits for myself or others:

1. Substituting troops for the Battle of the Crater
2. Why Thaddeus Stevens became a dedicated abolitionist
3. Death of Preston Brooks; Charles Sumner's reaction to his cenotaph
4. More on Sumner
5. More on the Caning article
6. John Brown's raid
7. Suggest subarticle on criticisms of Gandhi
8. Compromise on New Deal subarticle (no earlier than May)

LesLein (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please please do not add POV content, synthesis and sourcing of extremely questionable validity. I came here to leave this request and noted that you are doing much the same thing in the McCarythism article, so I went over there and commented. You really need to stop this POV editing, which you appear to be doing over multiple articles. Also, do not edit talk page comments have you've done above. "Adding emphasis" is a no-no. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the rules and what others do. One user deleted an editor's edits; the rules didn't require its deletion. The guidelines say editors can use strikethroughs on previously published edits. This is all fine, as long as the history isn't tampered with. In writing it is acceptable to add emphasis to a quote as long as the person making the addition makes it clear where the emphasis comes from. LesLein (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Figureofnine, et al,

I thought NPOV meant that all viewpoints can be represented. I have only been trying to add content to balance articles that were biased. (Except for McCarthyism, I thought it needed some other types of examples). For example, another editor before me noted that the Hollywood Blacklist article was biased. It contained no information on why people objected to Communist Party membership, which ought to be a highly relevant matter. On the Talk page one person said that my sources were "professional anti-communists." That this is considered pejorative reveals more about the other editor than it does me. One of my sources, Theodore Draper, was an editor of the Daily Worker. If anything, he was a professional communist. Is Harvey Klehr a reliable source? Is Kenneth Billingsley reliable? He was cited as a source at two other Wikipedia pages at the time I cited him.

Can you identify all of the unreliable sources I used and explain why they are unreliable? In some cases I went back and checked the original material. For example, there are New York Times articles confirming Buckley's statement on Paul Hughes.

I will follow your advice on adding emphasis in the future; I was trying to point out problems with Pass3456's comments. In regard to talk pages and Wiki rules, does criticizing my attitude amount to an accusation of bad faith? Pass3456 also said "I don´t know what your pain is." In this context pain means "Uneasiness of mind; mental distress; disquietude; anxiety; grief; solicitude; anguish." Does alleging mental or emotional problems violate policy on personal attacks?

Pass3456 followed me to the McCarthyism article, possibly with the intent to find something of mine to undo. Is this Wikihounding?

If so, will you point all this out to Pass 3456?

FWIW, I haven't seen one instance where anyone claimed that information I provided was inaccurate.

Thank you for your comments and thank you in advance for your response. LesLein (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Pass3456's conduct is not wikihounding, as he was identifying similar problems in multiple articles, and I don't see any personal attacks here. Adding original research and synthesis to advance a point of view is the problem here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about my other questions? What was the original research? What sources are invalid?

As has been explained to you multiple times, you have been inserting material in these articles that is unrelated to the subject matter, reflecting of political bias, using sources that do not meet Wiki standards. That has also been pointed out to you. This needs to stop. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What information was unrelated? Is an article on controversial communist party membership, is it irrelevant to say anything about why membership was controversial? In an article about McCarthyism, is it irrelevant to mention an incident where McCarthy's opponents hired an informer?

What sources did I use who do not meet Wikipedia standards? Are Buckley, Draper, Applebaum, and Klehr unreliable? LesLein (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question back to you: Haven't these issues been addressed repeatedly by multiple editors in multiple articles? Haven't you been told repeatedly that edits like this are unacceptable? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, the statements you linked to was probably too long, but no one has disputed its truthfulness. I'd rather have the truth on my side than the entire Wikipedia community. My impression is that no one in Wikipedia can decide what is unacceptable and has to stop. Take Theodore Draper's alleged unreliability, for example. If it was possible to survey historians, I'll bet that almost all would agree that Draper's work is reliable. Are you willing to go to Draper's Wikipedia article and say that his work is unreliable? He has won a significant award. He was a pathbreaker in the history of the CPUSA. Harvey Klehr has won multiple awards. His work is often referenced by others. I think it's revealing that you won't answer my earlier questions.

As far as my statement that the First Amendment doesn't provide a right to silence, will you go the the First Amendment article and say otherwise? The Hollywood Ten and a living New York Times reporter would have stayed out of jail if they had followed my statement.

According to Wikipedia policy it is not a valid argument to say:

"It has been discussed already."

"There is a longstanding consensus about how to treat this issue."

It is also unsuitable to say:

"If you do that again, I will report you."

"Don't do that or you will be blocked."

"Anyone changing this will be violating [this] policy."

"Do this and you will lose some privileges."

Your statements include:

"This has to stop" and

"Haven't you been told repeatedly that edits like are unacceptable?"

I've answered your question. Please specifically say if you believe that Draper, Klehr, Buckley, and Applebaum are reliable. LesLein (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Conservopedia? It might be exactly what you are looking for. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, have you? If you do some searches, you can find more opportunities to delete this statement:

"He said that what we were doing in this country were some of the same things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way."

"He" is FDR.

Figureofnine hasn't answered my questions, so maybe you can help. Are Draper, Klehr, Buckley, and Applebaum unreliable sources?

Best regards,

LesLein (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to New Deal. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My latest update to the article, had no original research. It was all taken from Feuer. Have you read his article? Incidentally, there are many prominent historians who noted the similaries between the New Deal and radical government's economic policies. Some politicians did so too, including FDR. If you're referring to an edit in "Charges of Communism," the source was George Kennan's memoirs. The Wikipedia Teahouse said the memoirs are acceptable.

You should read the reply to you by Rjensen regarding original research and the use of primary sources at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 80#George Kennan's Memoirs. RashersTierney (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My original question and its responses were archived, so I resumed the discussion with a new submission. I think the Kennan memoirs are much more reliable than some of the other OR in the article. I have some alternative secondary sources if Kennan's own words can't be used.

David M. Kennedy (historian) has written a pulitzer price winning book on that subject called Freedom From Fear. I would recommend that you search for Charges of communism and Charges of fascism in that book because a pulitzer price winning thick book can usually be considered thoroughly covering on it´s subject. If you might not find any material Wikipedia:Fringe might be intersting too. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a thoroughly astounding response. Can you point to any other article which draws from a Pulitzer prize-winning book on a subject, where something not mentioned in the book was removed from the article on this basis? Granted, there are 4 million articles, and I've looked at only a tiny fraction of the talk pages, but I have never heard this argument expressed before. If you can point me to precedence, please do so, as the argument is false, and should be corrected wherever it occurs.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy's book says nothing about the point Pass3456 is trying to make. Pass3456 is dead set against original research (if it contradicts what he wants readers to think), but has no problem making claims based on absolutely no research.

Pass3456 told me for weeks that Stanley Payne was the expert on fascism. Since he is probably right for once, I got the book. It has a sentence that completely supported me and contradicted him. All of a sudden Payne is now writing "fringe" theory.

What prompted you to come over here? Is the Kangaroo Court against me over? Just answer yes or no please, don't ruin the suspense. I'm not even sure I'm going back. The first editor to respond to Pass3456 was working on my sentence before I had entered the room. Before that, Pass3456's noticeboard complaint was resolved by someone who was involved in the matter. I hope this isn't typical Wikipedia justice, but I'll have some amusing anecdotes for larger and better on-line services. Pass3456's antics are too much. He even complains that I read a book to find some references. LesLein (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pass3456,

Thank you. The Kennedy book must be good since he references the Ickes diaries :-). Kennedy must have missed the entry for October 5, 1933 where Roosevelt says that:.

“what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way.”

Perhaps Roosevelt and Ickes were pushing a fringe theory. Maybe you can edit the Wiki articles on JSTOR, Lewis Feuer, and Johns Hopkins to indicate that they push fringe theories. Better yet, get Johns Hopkins or JSTOR to drop his article.

Kennedy also omits another fringe theory quoted by J.P. Diggins:

“There seems to be no question that [Mussolini] is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy.”

I can provide plenty of other quotes like the above two. In fairness, Kennedy's book is a history of the American people during the Depression and WWII. It's not intended to be in-depth. It's hard to examine through on-line searches but it only mentions fascism at a high level, seven times, and makes no attempt to compare the New Deal's economic programs to radical foreign government policies. A search of Amazon's reviews show no hits for fascism, fascist, communism, or communist.

Unlike Kennedy, John Garraty compared the New Deal and Nazi antidepression policies in-depth. He found "striking similarities" while indicating that in total they were very different. Perhaps colleges should have dropped his fringe textbook. It is certainly odd that a fringe theorist was selected to be vice president of the American Historical Association and President of the Society of American Historians. I'm surprised he was picked to edit the Dictionary of American Biography. I doubt if Kennedy would seriously disagree with Garraty's information or conclusions.

George Kennan won a Pulitizer Prize too, for the first volume of his memoirs. Regarding the State Department's decision to destroy its files on Soviet foreign policy, he writes that it reflected "the smell of Soviet influence ... somewhere in the higher reaches of the government." If the Pulitzer rewards fringe theories, perhaps we should take Kennedy's award with a grain of salt.

Here's a Wiki article for you. LesLein (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at New Deal, you may be blocked from editing. —wing gundam 07:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Please provide some examples. Please read the Wikipedia article on Civility. Examples of uncilil bahavior include accusations and threats.LesLein (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the New Deal article, I haven't even looked at it, but your contributions to Hollywood blacklist have a clear ideological agenda. That article isn't perfect by any means, and I recently edited it to tone down some of its favorable comments on the Communist party that did not really add anything to the article. But your contributions in general have not always been constructive. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing the background on the blacklist. The amazing thing is that you took so long; I never would have edited the background if so much of the article hadn't wasted sympathy on Stalin's little helpers (to be fair quite a few joined because they were naive). I agree with the editor on the talk page who wrote "It is highly relevant, and factual, to say that some of these people were working for Stalin and against the United States." That was a reference to my last edit. I didn't realize that it's ideological or biased to describe the true nature of CPUSA; it's actually mainstream. I'm glad you didn't try to say that Anne Applebaum is unreliable. I think it was ideological and biased for you to remove my earlier citations on the true nature of the CPUSA without clearing out all the laudatory stuff. What stopped you from doing that months ago? When I first read the article I got the impression that CPUSA members then were like the Democrats or Republicans, only more compassionate. I suspect your definition of non-constructive material or an unreliable source means anything you dislike that you can't rebut. Do you think that Draper and Klehr are unreliable? Do you still agree with the editor who said sources who are "professional anti-communists" are unreliable? Do you think the First Amendment ever provided a right to remain silent? Do you think it is ideological for me to point out what the Constitution and courts say? You never answered by earlier questions on these matters. The world waits. LesLein (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are required to maintain a neutral point of view, and there are prohibitions against inserting personal analysis and adding irrelevant material for the purpose of slanting an article. You've consistently done all of that. I generally don't like to waste too much energy in bringing these to your attention, but I see that others are equally concerned and you would do well to pay attention. I'm not going to get into an extended conversation with you on this because you just don't get it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Figureofnine,

NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It doesn't mean excluding points of view you dislike, like the 98 percent of the country who weren't communists during the blacklist. While you ably kept the other 2 percent represented, the rest shouldn't be excluded.

NPOV also says that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." My POV, that the ACP at the time of the blacklist worked for Stalin is a POV in the sense that it is a POV that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris. The problem was that you always wanted to exclude the POV of the 98 percent of the country whose views I tried to represent.

You still haven't said why "professional anti-communists" are unreliable sources, or if Theodore Draper was really one. You never came here to engage in a conversation, just a lecture. It's fine if you don't come back. I can stand it. LesLein (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Your statements at WP:FRINGE/N suggest that you intend to continue your pattern of disruptive editing by inserting WP:FRINGE material to New Deal, and that you have done so even after the discussion at WP:FRINGE/N appeared to support the idea that your material was in fact WP:FRINGE.

Do not test whether it is possible to insert such material anyway, as you claim to have done. Try and work toward WP:CON instead. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 23:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you for your trouble. I think the real problem is that the subarticle reads like something Roosevelt would write and there a lot of resistance to block information that doesn't put him in the best possible light. As I mentioned at the noticeboard, you went along with the alleged fringe quote from Payne's book before it was removed. If you're worried about disruptive behavior maybe you should ask Pass3456 why he said a quote two editors went along with was "fringe." Given that others saw my Payne edits as reasonable, I felt justified in making a few other tries.

At one point Pass3456 expressed doubts that his complaint belonged on the FRINGE noticeboard. If he or she wasn't certain then I'm entitled to my doubts, especially when plenty of outsiders who have studied the matter support the edits. I hate to say this again, but I will never understand how Roosevelt started a fringe theory about himself.

At Pass3456's last New Deal revision he wrote in part "Dear LesLein contrary to you I am not into american politics ..." I don't ever recall saying or implying otherwise. A half hour after Pass3456 reverted my last New Deal edits, he reverted my last edits on Joseph McCarthy without providing a single reason. On the noticeboard Pass3456 said that I fabricated an analogy without any evidence. Maybe you can set others straight on unsubstantiated accusations, civility, or personal attacks.

Wikipedia's help page says to be bold. It also says that NPOV takes precedence over consensus. It says that NPOV means all points of view are represented. An example of bias is the editors reverting my FDR quote while allowing his false denial to remain.

I was thinking about going to a noticeboard (including my own fringe complaint) by the weekend, but to put it kindly some of the other editors there didn't exactly impress me. For example, one said the information from Garraty and Feuer was propaganda that goes back a century. Another wrote a fringe theory on his or her talk page.

I may end up going to an administrator as a last resort, but still have improvements (not tests, they're all reliable and relevant). I would rather continue to give it a try at the article a little while longer. For one thing, it would take me most of a weekend to describe everything wrong with the way the New Deal is handled. I will promise to respect reversions that have a valid reason (which exclude the vast majority of Pass3456's). (Incidentally, the Hollywood Blacklist article is more complete and objective because of my edits.)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over at the noticeboard someone besides me noted that UseTheCommandLine should not have resolved a dispute after getting involved in it.

I haven't checked lately, but a number of people there seem to think the problem wasn't me. One said it was an ownership issue. The consensus seemed to be that it was a content dispute. My edits certainly weren't viewed as fringe. LesLein (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Les.

Welcome to Wikipedia! It doesn't look like anyone bothered to say hello properly and now here you are in the middle of a content fight with an Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents thread and everything. That's not right. So hello, and welcome! Now as for the matter of dispute: don't get mad, don't try to get even, don't make threats, don't storm off — just have patience. There is a real learning curve to picking up the culture here and it does take a little while to really grasp the doctrine of Neutral Point of View. And one does periodically run into editors who think they "own" this page or that, even if they don't, and navigating those shoals is an art. If I can be of any assistance either in explaining things, mediating differences, or helping you learn the technical parts of editing Wikipedia pages, please don't hesitate to ask. You can either leave a message for me on my "talk" page or else feel free to contact me directly by email: MutantPop@aol.com. I haven't had a chance to look at the material in question tonight but will do that tomorrow and will offer advice if you'd like it. It's heading for midnight where I'm at, so signing off for now. Stay calm, no worries. Best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) /// Carrite (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

In quick answer to your question, I'm not an administrator, I'm a content writer.

It's understood by everyone — left, right, and center — that CPUSA was the recipient of Soviet funding throughout almost all of its history (funding attempts were ineffective in 1920 and in 1921-22 there is a case to be made that funds flowed from the USA to Soviet Russia rather than vice versa through the famine aid program; it was close to a wash, at a minimum. Outside of that, yes, obviously.) There is no point in tagging on disclaimers that the CPUSA was Soviet funded on this article or that, unless the article is either on CPUSA or on Comintern or Soviet funding of CPUSA. That doesn't move understanding on the main topic of these other articles forward, it's a digression. Obviously, if the topic is on something like the Daily Worker, which was launched with Comintern funding, it would be absolutely a failure NOT to mention the financial connection.

NPOV is a tricky thing, it takes a little while to get the hang of it. It's not about making sure there are equal portions of tendentious right wing and tendentious left wing sources in a reading list, it's about making sure that the sources on a reading list are all high quality and relevant. It's not about offsetting laudatory lines with condemnatory lines, its about making sure that all lines are written dispassionately. Steer away from topics that "work you up" — don't write angry. There is plenty of work to be done. Try writing a biography from scratch, for example. The key thing is this: Wikipedia is not a food fight between the red team and the blue team. This is not to say that there aren't shenanigans, only that these are against policy and are frequently dealt with very harshly. It is essential for all of us not to take a combative approach, even when we periodically run into things which make us mad. Content is not an ideological tug-o-war, and that applies both to left and right.

You might be interested in getting in touch with the Wikiproject dedicated to improving coverage of the Conservative movement. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism might be a place where you can get in touch with experienced editors that can steer you towards where there is work to be done. There's also a massive amount of improvement that needs to be done on matters of 19th Century American history, as you are no doubt aware. Even articles on Congressmen and business leaders are frequently terrible. Find a niche, borrow or buy some books and go to town. (Also, if you need a copy of this or that journal article, drop me a line — Wikipedia has me set up to access material on several sites (JSTOR, Questia, HighBeam) and I might be able to kick a pdf or two your way for use as source material.

RJensen is a conservative historian and an excellent Wikipedian. You would be advised to listen closely to his comments and advice if he offers it.

Best of luck with your editing, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You may or may not be entertained to learn that the leading American organization claiming that FDR's New Deal was "proto-fascist" during the period in which it was actually launched was the CPUSA. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know one or two people at a different forum who thought that the CPUSA was a normal American political party. In any event, it certainly took some trouble to get people to accept what everyone already knows. LesLein (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring, POV-pushing, and defying consensus, as you did at New Deal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for edit warring, POV-pushing, and defying consensus. I request that an administrator unblock me for reasons provided below. The complaint against me has multiple factual errors. For example, I never solicited help at a noticeboard (called forum shopping). During the 25 minutes between my response and the block notification, no one provided any details showing that my response was wrong. I believe that my response deserves more consideration. I did not believe I was POV-pushing. As I explained in my response, I have been attempting to balance a subarticle that reflects only a single POV. The help for NPOV and a fringe noticeboard discussion permits me to do this without violating NPOV. NPOV takes precedence over consensus. My edits were an attempt to reach a compromise. I repeatedly attempted to make incremental changes (warring, disrputive editing) because my Wiki time is usually limited. Also, in the past my approach eventually led to improvements in articles. In hindsight I would have handled this differently and will do so in the future. Within the next six weeks I will seek consensus for my proposed New Deal article improvements. If they are rejected for reasons I consider invalid, I will take appropriate steps to escalate the matter. Basically, I am a history buff and want to make edits to fill gaps in articles. Thank you for your time. LesLein (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Being "right", and I'm not saying you were, does not grant one a pass to edit war. NPOV does not "[take] precedence over consensus"; a neutral view is determined by consensus. Tiderolls 18:25, 4 August 2013 (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.

While I recalled our interaction on WP:FRINGE/N as being initiated by LesLein, I was wrong. The discussion there was long, and much of it was just between me and him, after others had stopped chiming in, and I suppose this is why I recalled it the way I did. I withdraw, and apologize for, my assertion of FORUMSHOP, though my other comments stand. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin: "Being "right", and I'm not saying you were, does not grant one a pass to edit war."

Who is "right" helps determine if I'm guilty of an edit war. While standing by the complaint, UseTheCommandLine was gracious enough to come back here and say that I was right on some facts and he/she was wrong. Saying that "being 'right'" doesn't matter is to say that facts don't matter.

A point I didn't think to mention earlier: Quotation Guidelines says "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false." FDR's statement that the New Deal wasn't violating anyone's rights was false. The Supreme Court ruled that the NRA violated part of the Bill of Rights. I wasn't edit warring by trying to point this out.

Admin: "NPOV does not '[take] precedence over consensus'; a neutral view is determined by consensus."

Consensus Guidelines state that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

NPOV is on the list of generally accepted policies. The above quote shows that it takes precedence over consensus. Policies are set by consensus of the wide Wiki community, not the talk page of one article. LesLein (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, being right is irrelevant when determining if an edit war is extant. Now, an editor could be "right" that they are removing a WP:BLP violation, a WP:COPYVIO or vandalism; these are exceptions to the WP:3RR rule and may stave off a block. However, in a content dispute being "right" is not such an exemption. Full stop. Tiderolls 21:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutrality", as it applies to each article, is determined by consensus for each article. My decline did not mean to imply that consensus on an article could override the policy of neutrality. Tiderolls 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, LesLein is incorrect about US History. He believes "The Supreme Court ruled that the NRA violated part of the Bill of Rights". That is completely false and one reason he got reverted by other editors. The Supreme Court never mentioned the Bill of Rights... The Court said 1) the law delegated Congressional powers to the NRA & that is not allowed; 2) Congress misread the Commerce clause. see Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States for details. Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen's link proves that I am right. It lists the categories for the Schechter case. One of the categories is "Tenth Amendment Case Law." If this is wrong, Rjensen should change it. The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Tenth Amendment article states:

"In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress' power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government."

Tim McNeese's book The Great Depression was edited by Rjensen. Page 91 provides several reasons the NIRA violated the Constitution. One is that "the Court held that the NIRA provisions had gone beyond the power of Congress itself." The Tenth Amendment makes it unconstitutional for Congress to exceed its power.

Anyone checking the New Deal Revision History will see that neither of the other editors reverted my edit because I got the history wrong. They said the information was not relevant to the subarticle. The New Deal violated the Bill of Rights. The block quote from FDR is false. The quotation guidelines prohibit it from standing unrebutted.

This isn't the first time Rjensen provided inaccurate information about the New Deal and Fascism. One example is from his talk page from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&oldid=531726128#Questions_on_New_Deal. I asked some questions on FDR and Mussolini. Rjensen replied in part "FDR never praised Mussolini and often used him as an evil example. "we do not like Mussolini the dictator" he said in 1926, although he said that should not be a reasion to oppose a debt deal with Italy."

I don't question that, but FDR later praised Mussolini. According to multiple scholars in 1933 FDR privately told reporter John Lawrence that "I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman." The gentleman was Mussolini. In June 1933 Roosevelt wrote to Ambassador Long in Rome that "There seems no question that he is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and seeking to prevent general European trouble." As late as 1939 FDR indicated sympathy and tolerance towards Mussolini. See John P. Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America, pages 279-281.

In the same talk page entry Rjensen stated that "No scholar says Italy had any impact whatever on any New Deal programs." According to an academic journal article by James Q. Whitman,one of President Roosevelt's first acts was to appoint a commission to implement Italian Fascist deurbanization programs in the United States.

If time and space permitted I could provide more examples like this. LesLein (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen wrote earlier that my claim about the New Deal violating the Bill of Rights "is completely false and one reason he got reverted by other editors. The Supreme Court never mentioned the Bill of Rights ..." in the Schechter decision. I wasn't aware of this earlier, but the text of the Schechter decision is available on-line. It says:

"The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the [295 U.S. 495, 529] imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment- 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'"

In other words, I was completely right. It was Rjensen who was completely wrong. LesLein (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following e-mail exchange took place yesterday and today. If you want the actual e-mail forwarded to me, drop off your e-mail address.

Dear Les Leinaweaver,

Many thanks for your interest in my book and for your question. Yes, I mean to say that German and American economic policies shared similarities, and I do find that quite striking. The book is then all about these similarities as well as the crucial differences in how the two countries reacted to the Great Depression.

Best regards,

Kiran Patel

From: "xxxxx@xxxxx.com" <xxxxxxxx@axxx.com> Date: Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:44 AM To: Kiran Patel <k.patel@maastrichtuniversity.nl> Subject: Sentence in Soldiers of Labor

Professor Patel,

I have been enjoying your book on the German Labor Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps.. I have a question regarding a sentence on page five. It reads "In an attempt to achieve that goal, both nations subsequently employed what were often strikingly similar instruments of economic and social policy; on this level , the crisis led to a limited degree of convergence."

Does this mean that economic policies were very similar (though the politics were obviously very different)? Someone told me that the limited convergence also applied to economic policies. If the similarities weren't striking, what is a better characterization?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Les Leinaweaver Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Hello, LesLein. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Would you please add the page number for this? --Pass3456 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Kindle doesn't display the page numbers. Give me a couple of days to look it up online. LesLein (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page 548

Hello, LesLein. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Likes General)

• Fresh air
• Walks
• History
• Good humor
• Dogs
• Scenery
• Life's surprises

Dislikes (General)

• Tailgaiters (rude, stupid, illegal, dangerous)
• Pennies (I was a Navy disbursing officer)
• Stopping at green lights
• Thugs (There are various types. The literal meaning is "deceiver.")
• Human sacrifice (there are also various types)
• Life's surprises

LesLein (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NIRA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During the hearing, the committee presented evidence against members of the Hollywood Ten. This included communist party registration rolls, Daily Worker articles, New Masses bylines, party application forms, and membership card numbers. Lauren Bacall said that when the Committee for the First Amendment flew to Washington “We didn’t realize until much later that we were being used to some degree by the Unfriendly Ten. As a result, Bacall and her fellow committee members were involved in something “we knew nothing about.” Bogart angrily complained to Danny Kaye that members of the Committee for the First Amendment had “sold me out.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.3 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC) LesLein (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the New Deal Article:

"[Some] will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it 'Fascism', sometimes 'Communism', sometimes 'Regimentation', sometimes 'Socialism'. But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.... Plausible self-seekers and theoretical die-hards will tell you of the loss of individual liberty. Answer this question out of the facts of your own life. Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice?"

Reality:

The actual speech transcriptshows that the New Deal article reverses the sentences. The ellipse covers a 10 paragraph gap, which is way too much. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style:

• "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced."
• "Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text."

From Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

"In his diary entry for October 5, 1933, Ickes wrote that 'He said that what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some of the things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way.' Lewis S. Feuer, "American Travelers to the Soviet Union 1917-32: A Component of New Deal Ideology", American Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2, Part I (Summer 1962), pp. 119-149."

"Early in 1933 Roosevelt told a White House correspondent that 'I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.' In June 1933, Roosevelt wrote to Ambassador Breckinridge Long in Italy about Mussolini: 'There seems no question that he is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and to prevent general European trouble.' John P. Diggins. Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America. (Princeton University Press, 1972). , pp. 279-281."

From Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States:

"The court ruled that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. According to Supreme Court historian David P. Currie, the court believed that 'to permit Congress to regulate the wages and hours in a tiny slaughterhouse because of remote effects on interstate commerce would leave nothing for the tenth amendment to reserve.'"

In all of these items the sources confirm that the information in the New Deal article is wrong.

LesLein (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page. It may be a bit premature, but at this point I don't have the energy to deal with this kind of situation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LesLein. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]