User talk:Ezraskid

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Vining and Fusang
Your comments on Vining are what we call original research - ie they are you own opinion and thus don't belong on Wikipedia. If you can find academic sources discussing Vining we might be able to use what those sources say. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---Vining and Fusang --- response by Ezraskid July 28, 2014

Actually my comments are references to a source of the highest merit, as personal inspection of the text in question will show you. Vining's work no more requires substantiation by reference to contemporary pedants than does Seebohm's English Village or Oxford Reformers. He IS an expert. The proof of Vining's expertise is his book. Your questioning of it merely reveals that you are not familiar with it. Your idea that a contemporary pedantic reference would confer on it a status it lacks reveals a fundamental unfamiliarity (or forgetfulness) of basic elements of historiography. Stuff like this makes me think it a waste of time to contribute to Wikipedia.

April 2016
Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Brooks Adams, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to William O. Douglas with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

More original research and editorial comment
Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Your edits at Thor Heyerdahl and Kokopelli were reverted by me as original research. Another editor had to remove some violations of our WP:NPOV policy recently. Doug Weller  talk 15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Hello, I'm Alcherin. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Fortunate Son, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alcherin (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Day of Deceit. ''You've been warned by others besides myself about adding unsourced material, removing sourced material, etc. If you haven't read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR you need to do it before editing again. Personal comment is simply not allowed. I've also removed some original research added by another editor last year. Also see WP:NPOV.'' Doug Weller  talk 10:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Common Sense (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Beard ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Common_Sense_%28magazine%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Common_Sense_%28magazine%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Harry Elmer Barnes. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Harry Elmer Barnes. ''Final warning. See also No Nazis'' Ixocactus (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The article on Harry Elmer Barnes as it stands is a travesty and a disgrace. Instead of addressing its subject even-handedly it has been turned into a venue for propagation of fanatical partisan attack on the basis, principally, of Barnes' association with another scholar and without any admission of the genuinely controversial questions involved in the discussion -- all of which are ruled out of discussion in advance and replaced with slanders and special pleading. This is evident to any competent unbiased open-minded scholarly observer. Efforts to enforce it and prevent correction are what's "Nazi" here.

2000 of the 4500 words in this article on Harry Elmer Barnes are devoted to the attack on him by one partisan author, Lipstadt, who is cited 68 times. Her partisan colleague Dawidowitz is cited 16 times also. All this in relation to a controversy that is, except in the view of partisan fanatics like these, entirely peripheral to Barnes' scholarship and carrer. The grotesque imbalance of this is obvious and damning, and persons such as Ixocactus, who ignore this flagrantly grotesque situation and attack an effort to restore a decent balance as "nazi" are self-condemned as rabid partisan fanatic enforcers of their own hate-filled one-sided dogma. On the face of it, they are enemies of balanced scholarship. The current state of this article proves it. This sort of thing disgraces, demeans, and will ultimately ruin wikipedia -- except as a source of propaganda for the Official Lie, which is plainly what they have in mind.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Historian Klaus Kostermaier, writing on the Vedic History, reminds us: "Tacitus, the classical Roman writer, claimed to have described past events and personalities in his works sine ira et studio, free from hostility and bias. This motto has guided serious historians through the ages, and it became their highest ambition to write history 'objectively', distancing themselves from opinions held by interested parties."

The failure of the wikipedia article on Harry Elmer Barnes (among others) to live up to this basic tenet of reasonable discourse is flagrant. The fundamental disavowal of this tenet by defenders of this (and other) travesty is equally flagrant. A review of the range and quality of my contributions to Wikipedia will amply evidence that blocking me as a contributor is wikipedia's loss, and disgrace. The persondoing this blocking appears in this as an enforcer of political dogma and a defender of behavior that is vicious and an attack on reason. The case is obvious, as I state above. Shame on you. I shake your dust off my feet.