User talk:ADOS Pride

September 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Head tie, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I supplied a source for my content. Please stop removing content without a legitimate reason. ADOS Pride (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jollof rice, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of disruptive editing because you are ignorant of US culinary history. Be accepting of perspectives of which you were previously unaware because you will be seeing these perspectives more often. ADOS Pride (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignorant of US culinary history, and that's irrelevant. What is relevant is your editwarring, your misuse (including misrepresentation of sources), and your failure to use reliable sources or at times any sources. Note that I've raised some problems at WP:RSN. Doug Weller  talk 13:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Head tie shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war, and that article clearly discusses the Tignon Law in Louisiana, which required enslaved women to cover their hair. It's a well known fact even if you seem to be unaware of US history. Someone keeps changing material because they don't want the history of my people to be known. ADOS Pride (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You were in an edit war, that's a fact. Tignon Law applied to all women of color. And this source isn't a reliable source by our criteria, there's no evidence the author is an expert. Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Explain how a source from the NY Historical Society is not acceptable, but a cite to a random blog is. You just don't want to accept the fact that you have little to no knowledge of American history. The edit is valid, and it stays. ADOS Pride (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Tignon Laws were not for all "women of color". As the NYHS says, the law applied to enslaved African women. It's part of regional and national history because of concubinage of enslaved African women. Stop trying to erase the history of ADOS people! ADOS Pride (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The source says ""In 1786, the governor of Louisiana proclaimed that all free Black women must wear tignon to make them different from white women." You've misrepresented it and are showing a lack of good faith that will get you blocked again if it continues. Doug Weller  talk 10:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The edits to that page are sloppy and have been made either out of bigotry or vindictiveness or both. There was no need to revert the page except to "win". Shame on your editor culture. ADOS Pride (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * what do you think? Doubling down after a warning is not encouraging. Note that they didn't even comment at RSN, just argued here that the source is reliable despite the fact that the issue was its use. Doug Weller  talk 11:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source.". And, so I changed the source from amplifyafrica to the New York Historical Society. And, that editor reverted the content again. I've used various sources, added and revised content. And, you all keep erasing almost everything referring to Creole women (enslaved and free) wearing tignon in the 18th century. It's cultural erasure. ADOS Pride (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that the article is only be so very heavily policed for MY edit, adding reference to ADOS women. Prior to my edit, the singular reference was to an NPR article with a picture of Lupita Nyongo wearing a head tie. Of course, the edit re Jewish women had its references, but Jewish head ties are not part of this tedious discussion.

I added more cultural and historical nuance and mentioned slavery and all of a sudden the source and how it was used became important, and now all of you are trying to gaslight me into thinking I'm incompetent. ADOS Pride (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
There is a discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard that you're welcome to join. In the meantime, I suggest you refrain from re-adding the contested content to the lead section of the Head tie article. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The NY History Society is definitely as reliable as NPR. ADOS Pride (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about your competence. The discussion linked to above clearly says you have misrepresented the source, so although it's reliable, you can't use it for your text. Doug Weller  talk 10:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the competence of that editor. I did not misrepresent the source. The women affected were not "women of color" as that term includes women across a broad range of races and ethnicities. The Creole women were Afrodescended. Tignon were worn prior to the law by enslaved women and then free women were required by law ALSO to wear them. ADOS Pride (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Head tie
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping the content I added and locking the page. Good night. ADOS Pride (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User:EdJohnston's role was only to block you, editing the page would not have been at all appropriate. The page was not locked, and accusing me of starting an edit war after you'd been reverted by 3 other editors is concerning, as I clearly didn't. I've reverted you, and you need to understand that you can be blocked again if you go back to reverting once unblocked. Doug Weller  talk 08:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop
You've already been asked to join the discussion on []. I'm asking you again not to ignore that discussion if you want others to take your concerns into consideration. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Where? What discussion? I'm discussing this with you ADOS Pride (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Head tie after a prior block for the same
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Edit warring. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Wikipedia is a group project, not a solo venture. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)