User talk:Carmelmount

Hello Carmelmount, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Student7 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Leo Frank, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Leo Frank was changed by Carmelmount (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.963149 on 2011-08-27T19:49:56+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing the material before changing. Normally we encourage new editors to "just go ahead and edit," but this was probably not a good place to start editing. A bit sensitive. And now, thanks to you, a bit more accurate. Please (generally) feel free to edit on your own. Your judgement in discussing this is sound. I'm sure your edits will be as well. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in helping to improve the leo frank entry on wikipedia. Carmelmount (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you please reply to me at the article talk page? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll stop by today and visit the talk page. Carmelmount (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would respond to your question about where you might find Did Six Million Really Die? and other similar revisionist rants. The AAARGH website has it. You won't find it anywhere that does not advocate revisionism (though many, maybe most, revisionists cannot be considered "neo-Nazis"). In 1992 the Supreme Court of Canada found that the book "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities." See R. v. Zundel. This gives at least one answer to your question regarding how one might arrive at a figure such as 1.5 million: one might arrive at such a figure by misrepresentation, misquotation, fabrication, outright lies, and so on. If you think the 1.5 million estimate is bananas, the author of Did Six Million Really Die? concludes that actually less than 300,000 Jews "died" (i.e., they were not intentionally exterminated but died of disease, allied bombing, etc.) under the Nazi Regime. It is really quite pointless to read garbage like Did Six Million Really Die? except to become more familiar with the arguments against revisionism. In other words, although the arguments of a book such as this are terribly false, it is important to understand why they are false, why the figure of six million (or slightly less, say 5.8 to 5.9 million) is correct. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Leo Frank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ADL (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) 12:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was speaking about the Vietnam War. Perhaps the revisionists were being tongue in cheek, and/or trying to make a point by way of analogy ? — 86.123.9.162 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]