User talk:74.192.7.135

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (74.192.7.135) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!  -- WikHead (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Taylor of Caroline[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your message. Being unfamiliar with the subject matter of this article, I may not be the best candidate to ask for assistance... but just because you've asked, I'll leave the page open and give it a good read-through prior to ending my current editing session. Have yourself a great day, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birthright[edit]

Please correct it following that scheme, which avoids the other editor's complaint.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of the foreword on the Liberty Fund site.[1] If we're going to cite Berger then it'd be best to cite him directly rather than quoting another professor saying what he thinks Berger believes. Also, the long quote may be excessive. It'd be better to summarize as much as possible and use quotations only where necessary to convey the meaning or language of the original. I've reworked the summary and removed the quote, but if there are important details missing then please add them.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unreliable, it's just wordy. The author of the foreword was getting readers ready to start on a two hundred page book. OTOH, we're trying to cover the entire amendment in less than 10,000 words, a few pages. Anyway, I suggest that further discussion should be on the article talk page.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Secession in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom {North Shoreman]: If you are correct, and it not clear that you are, a review of the editing will reveal that you have removed my contributions and replaced them with your own. It will also reveal that you have posted material that is not supported by authority and inserted your own words into quotations, among other deceitful tactics. You are editing to exclude content and protect a particular POV and I am not the first to have problems with you. You are the disruption. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secession in US[edit]

I regret family affairs intervened. I have several drafts, but never got to post. I will to you.

You two really run too fast for the old man. About two years ago when I was just starting, NorthShore Tom (Northshore = Ohio on the Erie?) boxed my ears for putting together Locke and the Declaration as "original research". The right of Revolution is only justified by self-defense of liberty, there is no ethical justification for "rebellion" per se by enlightenment philosophy.

Well, I did not remember a passage from a vovlume I read 35 years ago, the year my mother died. I guess from your quickness that you do not suffer from that problem. The scholarly citation is p. 50 from the 1969 Norton paperback edition of Gordon S.Wood's "The Creation of the American Republic".

You will notice that Northshore Tom uses the Lost Cause (UNC) Pierce for a reference, so you must not dispair on the substance of things on your side. More on this later. I've found a ton of stuff on homeboy, St. George Tucker. Including a modern scholarly reference. My family is just home from a road trip with extended family. more later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on St. George Tucker, in a site related to the Library of Virginia LOV, the old Virginia State Library. a few more scholarly references. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Tucker_St_George_1752-1827 TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarized material[edit]

Hi, if there is plagarized material you can simply note where it is plagarized from and let someone else do the cutting. Blaming the SPLC is completely not neutral. Jnast1 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons were noted for each edit--many were plagiarized--yet they are reverted anyway. Others employ fallacious logic, also reverted.


Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Neo-Confederate with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SpencerT♦C 22:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making very big changes and at least some of them are not NPOV. It would be more constructive to start with the most agreeable changes first (no one wants plagarized material) and then see where the conversation goes. Jnast1 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Southern Poverty Law Center. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CIreland (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please note the text above: During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. You seem to be simply deleting text and reverting other editors with little attempt to discuss the disputed matters. You've made false charges against me and other editors. This is unhelpful and uncivil. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please try to work with other editors instead of against them.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling other editors "morons" is a personal attack. You appear to be unaware of that. Please read "no personal attacks".   Will Beback  talk  17:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

editing is like taking the con (navy)[edit]

A couple of things. ‘Edit Wars’ are universally unhappy things for the article. Doesn’t matter who is right. Lots of back and forth on the page itself means the article is controversial, ‘unstable’, so its reliability ranking declines. That hurts everyone who contributed before you, no matter their take on things.

If you try to change too much too soon, even folks who agree with you will not support you. I suggest a little research first. Click up on the ‘archives’ button on the discussion page. You can search these by a topic phrase. It can be something you are trying to say, or something you want off. There you will find other editors who have your same point of view.

You think I’m kidding…in the CSA article, every 2-3 months someone wants to add Danville as a capitol of the Confederacy. If someone wanted to make that stick, the first thing to do would be to find three or four editors who have been shot down, consolidate sources, not just the city promotional brochure and website, and go for a footnote. Me and who was it, Northshore Tom (?) will still object to adding it (though I am all for promoting tourism in Virginia), but it would be hard to keep it off of a footnote, if it were introduced as a ‘local tradition’ sort of thing, or if someone found an historical marker and mentioned it in the text, not in the feature box.

Go to their talk page and see if you can join up references and citations to pull together another shot at amending (change with improvement) the text. Try limiting changes introduced to a few lines until you get a couple-three edits on the page accepted. My intro to CSA was adding flags already in Wikicommons, for instance.

Allow me a story, the way Southerners do. When you are standing ‘officer of the deck’ 8-hour watch onboard a Navy ship. You go up, announce the previous officer is relieved of his responsibility, take control of the ship’s log, and then you do nothing. You get your bearings, you recheck navigational computations. You get a feel for the handling of the ship. Short of the perfect storm, you wait an hour. THEN you can change course, direction or speed. You do not jump up on the bridge and make an immediate change that would reflect badly on the seamanship of the officer before you. You wait until there is enough time passed so that everyone on the bridge can think you are just responding to changing conditions of wind and tide.

The sea is very big and your ship is very small. You are going to go have dinner with that officer in the wardroom next meal. Collaborate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Neo-Confederate‎, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Neo-Confederate. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users, as you did at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.192.7.135&oldid=1072567681"