User talk:68.81.70.80

Your recent edits
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 tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may 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. --SineBot (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring
See WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz 04:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern is less with the content of what you're adding than with the fact that you've been edit-warring. Above you were warned about making more than three reversions, but you went back to the article and made a fourth reversion. I'm sorry, but you chose to ignore the warning. — Malik Shabazz 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was warned by an asshole who called my edits "fringe . . . history," "rhetorical flourish[es]," and "vandalism." "I'm sorry, but" I don't feel any obligation to heed warnings from such douchebags.


 * In any case, maybe it's OK with you for bad-faith reverters to gang up on a good-faith editor, who then gets slammed with a "edit warrior" label. That's not OK with me.


 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg You have been blocked from editing for  for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question.

The incivility above is a bad idea too.

William M. Connolley (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your request for help
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, I did notice your material, scanned it briefly, and formed a basic idea of what you are trying to do. Before I express a personal opinion on the topic, I would like to read some of your references (which sound like they could be important). I believe I was introduced to one of the earlier studies many years ago as a undergraduate. Then I would feel comfortable editing the material you have tried to place in the article. In addition to the Slavery in the United States article, there are many others that might benefit from the material that you are presenting, including Jim Crow laws, 19th century history, and articles dealing with the Civil Rights movement. Placing a summary of their positions in articles on the historians/authors could also be useful.

Please forgive me for being frank, but you probably started off on the wrong foot as a serious new editor. First of all, you accused the article's editors of being judgmental because you edit under an IP number. I'm afraid your criticism has some validity. Regular editors spend so much time reverting vandals or people pushing their personal point of view, that IP numbers raise an alert. But starting off by attacking editors, and their good faith efforts, is not really a good idea. You even suggested on my talk page that I might insult you in the future. So, if possible, you might consider signing in and becoming an registered editor. As you see, it gives you a talk page to discuss issues and a user page to list your interests, perspective and concerns about Wikipedia. It also allows you to create user pages (see my messy User:WBardwin/cheatsheet which I use to store interesting formatting and visual references for future use) for drafting articles, creating lists, tables and reference materials. They become your personal files. This would allow you to take material on your topic and edit it, all the while discussing placement and content with long term editors on various pages. This works particularly well on issues which are controversial, are a minority opinion, or just plain new to the editors working here. It's also great when planning to create a brand new article -- which you cannot do as an IP user. This could be important to you as your several paragraphs strike me, at first glance, as the basis for a potential new article.

But working relationships aside, editing here can be fairly simple and without significant conflict. I've been around several years and can count the incidents that truly angered me on one hand. During that time, I've come up with a few practices I try and follow. So forgive me if I sound like I'm preaching. I generally suggest that new editors: "read the article before doing anything and then reread any relevant material at hand. Edit/tweek/reformat current information and only then add new material. Discuss new sections and potential controversies on the talk page, and be patient with people's schedules and attitudes. Work in relatively small blocks on articles where there are other active editors. Encourage new editors by retaining as much of their material as possible. Accomodate other opinions, however diverse from your own. Keep the amount of detail manageable -- length of individual articles is sometimes a individual editor and computer system concern. Major assertions, additions, opinions or rewrites should be accompanied by sources, usually more than one for each major assertion. List the references in a reference section. And use detailed, with page number, formal footnotes -- there are varied note styles in use here, so look around and take your pick." I also encourage new editors to seek out a friendly administrator to answer questions and help out with misunderstandings. And finally, we all have to try not to get defensive when others start editing, tweeking, and deleting "our" material. Sometimes giving up "ownership" of the written word is the hardest part.

So, if I were you, I would "look" around the system to find the perfect article for your material as it stands. Then take the time to tailor the material to suit the Slavery article and think about creating a stand alone article on the topic. If you can't register, for whatever reason, I'd be happy to set up a temporary blank user page where you can work. In the meantime, I'll add your references to my library list! My, this reply got long.......... Hope to work with your soon. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooooooo! What about Freedmen and the enactment of Black Codes in Reconstruction era of the United States?  That looks like a great place to start.  See the articles in Category:History of African-American civil rights as well.  WBardwin (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Neoslavery began contemporaneously with the enactment of the Black Codes, but survived long after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which invalidated said Codes. Neoslavery continued at least up until World War II, in fact. Thanks for the suggestion, though. I really do recommend you read Blackmon's book, if you're at all interested in the subject matter.  It's not a very long or cumbersome tome, although it could make your blood boil. 68.81.70.80 (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)