User talk:Ishdarian/Archives/2014/May

PLEASE DONOT DELETE MY BUSINESS PAGE.
WHY DO U WANT MY BUSINESS PAGE TO BE DELETED???

PLEASE DONOT DELETE THE BUSINESS PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traffikon123 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * First, please take a break with the caps lock. Second, your company page is a serious promotion piece. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, I suggest you take a peek at WP:FIRST, WP:PROMO, and WP:COI. Those should help you understand the situation you're in now.  Ish dar  ian  07:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No impersonation
Sir, this message is to inform you that this username is not violating that username TheRedPenOfDoom. Clear and cut statement i have given you. Thanks TheRedpenOfDoom (Talk) 17:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDooom (talk • contribs)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hudson11377
Thanks for your note on my page, and for deleting it when you saw I had reverted his. I've decided to restore both of them, as I think it could be helpful to him, even though he doesn't seem very eager to learn his way around. BMK (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. I hope he gets the message and reads up on relevant policy before proceeding further, as I don't see things ending well for him if he continues down his current path.  Ish dar  ian  10:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For being a wonderful Wikipedian :-)

♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 


 * Many thanks, . :)  Ish dar  ian  14:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No
No I haven't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalkford (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hold on there, Ishdarian, and keep watching.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorely disappointed John Punch (slave) is not one of the articles recommended for you to edit, if not to keep an eye on. I've worked very hard bringing each of my tagged issues to the other editors' attention... and for many weeks.  A quick perusal of the content in the Epilogue section of the talk page reveals it.  The lead is a mess.  You cited only one sentence with problems.  Every sentence in the lead has problems.  I took a great deal of time specifying each and to no avail; so I cited them myself, and someone came along and killed it - erased all my documentation and, along with it, the case. Dr. Matt (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Dear Ishdarian"
[This section is for seeking advice from the Great Ishdarian... he may hide like the Wizard of Oz behind an expansive dark blue velvet curtain, but he's just a human being; one gifted with the answer to every question about WP. I'll go first... :p)]

1. Oh great one. If I wanted to send a message to every contributor listed historically to an article, without having to manually collect and "tag" each one, how could I do it? I am thinking of creating a page showing a couple of templates of the subject article's lead, and lay it all out for all to discuss. Now, THAT would be a real consensus, not to mention quite an accomplishment. I notice the section "Articles you might like to edit," seems to show a method of doing so... the "robot" "SuggestBot." I wouldn't have to do it if you could have someone do it for me. Because, REALLY, it's been two years and the same arguments keep barfing up over and over. To list all the contributing members who comprise the final edit's consensus would be an untouchable statement... the voice of the voices. What say you? Thanks! Dr. Matt (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

John Punch article tagged as "Disputed"

 * I went ahead and deleted 3-V Policy section. I appreciate the fact that you simply collapsed it; obviously respecting another user's written rights to literary license.  The fact that you saw it is good enough for me...  Dr. Matt (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I appreciate your removing the "tag bombing" on the John Punch article. I noticed that you placed an article tag as "disputed" and I do have some problems with this and was hoping you can help me with them. I read the linked article about disputed tags and it says an article is disputed if it contains "information that is verifiably wrong." It also says that before removing such tags, that the editor, instead, provide reliable sources and citations for the information in the article. If you look, the article is well sourced and those sources mostly consist of reliable secondary sources that have been published in a peer reviewed journal or scholarly press. My contention with this tag is that none of the information is verifiably wrong and no reliable sourced have been provided to show that. The objections arise purely from individual editors OR interpretations. I feel adding the "disputed" tag to this article is the same as adding a "disputed" tag to the "evolution" article because some creationists detest the scientific consensus. I'm hoping that you can explain why this article merits such a tag if all of the "objectionable" information is, already, properly sourced. Thanks, and I look forward from hearing from you.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . The guideline lists verifiably wrong information as an example, not the only reason a tag should be applied. It also states Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed should have a warning place at the top (emphasis mine). Since both you and  are engaged in a content dispute on the article, I believe the tag applies. While I don't understand all of what PVB is arguing, I did notice a couple of things in the article that need attention, such as the claim that John Punch may be related to Ralph Bunche. The source provided for this claim makes no metion of the relationship.


 * I think at this point, you may want to try out WP:3O or WP:DRN. It looks like you have the strongest, most solidly supported point, but a one-on-one dispute is always better handled with an outside look from other editors.  Ish dar  ian  15:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your speedy response. Similar to another editor before him, I feel if Presidentist is willing to admit to ignoring reliable sources that he's going to ignore the results of dispute resolution. That being said, I'd rather have the single disputed tag than an entire article filled with tags and I thank you again for cleaning up the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I could not be guilty of ignoring sources if they are the source of the contradictions. My purpose is not to derail the article; it is to make it irrefutably absolute.  There is no doubt that the footnotes were not correctly attributing sources and the quotations were made out of context.  As proof of my sincerity of purpose, and so you may redact your allegations to the contrary, even before nonsenseferret came through, I had emailed Coates. His reply email has been posted.  Its contents effectively make your original research no longer incorporated into the lead content.  I've asked you before to have the authors defend their otherwise ambiguous assertions, because they lead to misinterpretation and misuse.  I have done it, now, twice, despite your ridicule.  You will still need to provide support for the Donoghue quotation or rewrite the sentence to state, "some historians believe this can be interpreted to mean, ..." or something like it. Dr. Matt (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Matt (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also updated the section specific to the disputes. Dr. Matt (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As Scoobydunk knows, since it has been brought to his attention by another user in the past month, there is a long history of contention regarding the content of this article.  I have compiled highlights of the earliest weeks of the article into a pdf, and it shows the usernames of the creators of the article and its related talk page, the thought processes of the early contributors (including construction of text based solely on the Ancestry.com documents) - which indicates some of the words we are still arguing over nearly two years later were apparently "written in stone" by people like Swampyank, Tuckerresearch, et al. without any sources to support Ancestry's claims.  Histories of these users is curious, as are the geolocations of the special contributors.  I am dubious about the sincerity of the contributors.  It is as if at least one has more than one user ID (or has had) on WP.   has told me I cannot use "some historians" because "some" is a weasel word.  That argument, too, has a long history in the annals of this article.  All of it arouses suspicion, going to show the adamant and uncooperative personality of this process.  Happy reading...  - Dr. Matt (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)   Dr. Matt (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)  Re. "f I commented on your talk page, please don't comment back here, just leave me a talkback," can you tell me how to do that?  Thanks.  Dr. Matt (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My problem with Scoobydunk is his total rejection of using "some" as a weasel word. He wants the article to state that one specific view has universal acceptance (by using the word "historians" without any qualifications) and that Punch was the first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery, both claims are a clear violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:UNDUE. It is almost impossible to find sources that break down beliefs for any discipline but there is one source that supports the use of the word "some" by discussing who believes what.
 * History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom Philip Sheldon Foner 1975: "They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians believe that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker."
 * It is also irrefutable that Punch was not the first legal sanctioning as white indentured servants were regularly sentenced to lifelong slavery for crimes before the first black person arrived in the colonies. Most historians also accept evidence that several blacks were already serving for life before Punch but there are no records to indicate why.
 * Scoobydunk is effectively WP:Cherrypicking to exclude any dissenting voice from the article. It should be noted that the consensus for the current version of the article is two Vs two editors with Scoobydunk aggressively reverting to his version and rejecting the inclusion of historians with alternate views. Several attempts to attract other editors to participate have failed. Wayne (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know why Dr. Matt and Wayne are spending their time arguing on your talk page. Neither Wayne or PresidentitstVB have submitted any strong reliable source that claims Punch wasn't a slave, sentenced to slavery, or wasn't enslaved. They've also failed to provide any reliable source to claim there were slaves recognized and officially documented by a legal institution before Punch. Wayne thinks this quote from Foner supports his argument but it doesn't because Foner is specifically talking about the institution of slavery and when historians consider the institution to have originated. I've already supplied a quote from a strong reliable source by Vaughan that further substantiates this point:


 * "On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989.


 * So, even though historians may differ on when the institution of slavery started, Vaughan clarifies that "almost everyone" recognizes the existence of both slaves and free blacks by 1640, if not, from the beginning of the colony. Wayne is trying to use his OR interpretation to pretend what Foner says contradicts what numerous historians have said about Punch, and it doesn't. He's failed to refute this fact and has repeatedly ignored this point made by Vaughan, yet keeps repeating the same tired OR unsubstantiated argument. Notice how he didn't supply any sources to his statement about white slaves? Wayne and I have already gone through 3O and he's since ignored the consensus that was determined by an uninvolved third party. He didn't present sources to support his argument then and he isn't supplying them now. Both of these editors have been ignoring sources or have been trying to deny what current sources say outright. Sorry that this has rolled over to your page, but I thought I'd address, again for the third time, the fallacious claims made against me. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, you are the one who is ignoring sources; so much so, that your lead content lacks them. I've repeatedly asked you to support a number of things you've already committed to content.  You offered, so I will fix them.  Your use of the word "enslaved," is probably fine, considering what Oxford Dictionary views as the meaning when it originated in the 17th C (as anachronistic as the article, itself, incidentally)... and I don't know why you accuse me of making fallacious claims against you.  It is no fallacy that you are asserting personal opinion when you state "historians consider Scoobydunk a reincarnated Swampyank."  I mean, it's like Trident claiming four out of five dentists recommend their gum.  It's BS.  None of us are ever asked.  It's like Obama saying my patients can keep me if they wish.  That's BS, and we knew it when he said it.  We've always been able to refuse to treat.  The trick to those statements is there's no way to prove them wrong...  I mean, every dentist just assumes it's correct and the other 170K must have said they would recommend it.  Of course, it only takes 5 dentists in order to make that claim... only 4 of which, after a very fine all-expenses-paid weekend away, will agree.  Remember... it's all about perception.  And that, my friend, Scoobydunk, is what you are preying on and have been since the summer of 2012. As far as the quote above?  Prove me wrong. (It would require you to find every single historian on earth, save for the two which believe you are Swampyank; otherwise, the quote is accurate.)  Good luck. (The word "some" is not a weasel word in this instance.  It's a qualifier... like saying "five historians," or "roughly 70%," or "4 out of 5.")  Dr. Matt (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

,, : These things happen. It's a content dispute. I completely believe you guys are each acting in good faith, but have different interpretations of the sources. I'd highly suggest taking this over to WP:DRN. You might get a few history buffs who can help you guys out.  Ish dar  ian  20:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Taking this outside: See new section...  Dr. Matt (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to Ishdarian, but...
I feel safe here. People are kinder here. So I like to ask hot button questions here.

Dear, ¶2 of the content section of the webpage I did about Anthony Johnson (a WP article to which you are contributing, which I don't even dare yet to look at!) reveals how objective encyclopedic content should appear when even history cannot resolve an issue. Is there some reason you cannot seem to permit use of the phrase, "[Though] historians disagree,...?" Also, as to your multiple references to my having plagiarized the words of Rodney Coates, you should know he sent me Chapter 3 of the next book he's working on, currently entitled, "Narratives of America - Discovery or Encounter?." You'll know if I am making it all up when it is published. Ahem. Dr. Matt (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have my own talk page if you want to ask me something, asking me on someone else's is ridiculous. Why can't you use "Though historians disagree"? Because you haven't supplied a strong reliable sources showing there is disagreement on the status of Punch. That's why. The article already reflects that historians disagree about when the institution of slavery was started, so no, I'm not opposed to it as long as it's properly sourced and is accurately reflected in the article. To use that language in regards to Punch's status or the significance of his court case is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Like I've been saying from the beginning, find a reliable source and then the article can properly include that source. Like I've told you before, feel free to take this to dispute resolution if you want. I would, but you've made so many numerous red herring arguments that I wouldn't want you to suddenly feign ignorance and pretend that you never argued such a thing. So pick the argument or assertion you want, and take it to the proper noticeboard. Also, I didn't reference plagiarism at all. You're the only one who fallaciously made such an accusation. I've only said that emails are often not verifiable and don't count as a reliable source. Please make a stronger effort in reading comprehension before levying accusations...egregious accusations.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK (with courtesy copies to [ Ish  dar  ian  ] and ): I've had it and am taking this to a page over which you have less sole control. Monkey Two (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Taking this outside: See new section...  Dr. Matt (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Show 'n' Tell
A question for : It may seem an odd question to WP purists, but considering the importance WP places on reliability of secondary sources, why does WP not require a same or similar vetting process of its editors, particularly those who seem to speak only for themselves? The entire concept of requiring contributors to discuss/argue with a username is absurd in its most basic interpretation. For all I know, I could be spinning my wheels fighting for accuracy with a demented, mind game-playing geek living in inner Mongolia. It is imperative, in my mind, that those who demand respect offer up some sort of evidence, as I have, of their actual ability, credibility, reliability, accountability... their authority to control. If it's required of the sources, it should certainly be required of those who quote them and write about them. Similarly, how do I "call for consensus?" Who may be a member and how is each identified? Thanks in advance... Dr. Matt (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. That's the point. You have no more authority than any other editor here, regardless of your credentials. Also, anyone can participate when trying to achieve consensus. Just remember: it's not the number of people, but the strength or the arguments that matter.  Ish dar  ian  01:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)