User talk:Scoobydunk

Welcome!

Hello, Scoobydunk, and

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scoobydunk! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Anthony Johnson (colonist)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bending over backwards to work with you on this article but you ignore everything to have your preferred view. Wikipedia is about collaboration to achieve a NPOV, not for expressing your personal views on a subject to the exclusion of everyone else's. As I said earlier, you can not delete the word "effectively" without supplying a source for the claim "most historians." Contrary to your claim that he didn't, in his book, Toppin does say "in effect" which supports use of the word and it does convey what historians believe. Toppin is clear on what he meant by "in effect" because he says that slavery was likely a custom but not legal. Wayne (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have our roles reversed. I'm the one who's been accommodating you, but you're the one who's trying to pretend that Punch wasn't a slave despite the various sources I've listed that say he was. You've repeatedly tried to insert irrelevant information and framed it to try and support your assertion that Punch was never a slave but remained an indentured servant. You have provided NO SOURCE supporting this position and instead have been violating WP:OR and WP:POV to misrepresent sources and muddle the article. Here's some examples:

[1]

Let's start with "however, slavery was at that time not recognized under common law, indentured servitude was not slavery and laws protected rights that slaves did not have." This addition you made has ZERO relevance to Punch or the point the paragraph is trying to establish. The source you use doesn't even reference Punch. This article is about John Punch, not the difference between indentured servants and slaves. You clearly included this information to try and frame John Punch as an indentured servant and not a slave, which your source doesn't proclaim. It's irrelevant to the fact that John Punch is considered a slave among historians and is a clear violation of WP:POV to include it. You also started the sentence with "however" as if this was a contradiction or clarification to the statement historians made, and it's clearly not, it's not even relevant to whether Punch was considered a slave or not.

Also you added the word "claim" which is discouraged by WP:POV because it's a loaded word and you're trying to inject doubt in something that is presented as fact.

In this same edit you completely deleted a direct quote from Russell because it didn't suite your personal view. The quote didn't misrepresent anything, it was truncated for relevance but still reflected that Russell believes Punch was a limited time servant(indentured servant) that was sentenced to slavery.

Then you added "John Henderson Russell points out that if Punch was not an indentured servant, his punishment was less severe than that "inflicted on the white men." The severity of the punishment has no bearing or relevance to the point of the paragraph. If you wanted to create a separate paragraph to address the severity of the sentencing, then that's fine, but this doesn't belong in this paragraph or the dissenting paragraph because it has no relevance. I also want to add, Russell was saying that it was possible that Punch was already a life long slave before the court case and that's the reason why his punishment would be less harsh than his white counterparts, because it's possible he was already a slave since there was no mention of an indenture. He ultimately says that it's most reasonable that Punch was a limited time servant sentenced to slavery because it wouldn't make sense to sentence a person who's already a slave to life long slavery. In your obsession to instill confusion with irrelevant content, you obviously failed to realize that Russell's sentiment contradicts your opinion on both fronts.

[2]

Here you try and include the word "effectively" which is again, a violation of WP:OR and WP:POV. None of the sources or quotes say "effectively". First, "in effect" does not have the same connotation that "effectively" has. "in effect" has denotative meaning of "as a result of" not that he was almost a slave but not quite which is what "effectively" can infer. On top of that, most historians don't say he was "effectively" a slave. So for you to misrepresent something 1 historian said and pretend that most historians say that is also against WP:POV, despite it being WP:OR to begin with.

Your argument that "most historians agree" has to include "effectively" or else it requires a direct source, is wrong. First, "effectively" has no bearing whatsoever on the condition of the claim "most historians agree." It is simply an adverb for "ceased" and has nothing to do with "most historians agree." Even the most basic understanding of sentence structure would yield that comprehension. Secondly, per WP:OR it is our responsibility to include OR when representing majority and minority points of view. Look it up, under Neutral Point of View on the OR page. It says;

But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research.

So my inclusion of "most historians agree" is the result of my original research and is supported by listing sources as per WP:OR guidelines. Instead of just saying that historians say Punch was the first slave, I phrased to be all inclusive of the existence of minority points of view. It's also important to note that there is only 1 credible dissenting point of view and it's not over whether or not Punch was a slave, but over whether he was an indentured servant before becoming a slave. You've yet to cite any position opposing the view that he became a slave.

[3]

Your next edit to the article was an atrocity for 2 reasons. The first being this inclusion "notes that while it was a "customary practice" by the 1630s for some negroes to have lifetime indentures," Again, this information has no relevance to the paragraph or to John Punch. This is not an article about the history of indentured servants and your adding this only muddles the paragraph and makes it incoherent. This is another attempt to try and imply that Punch was a lifetime indentured servant, though the source doesn't say that in any way shape or form.

The other problem with your edit was again, incoherence, irrelevance, and misinterpreted information. "While John Henderson Russell points out that if Punch was not an indentured servant, his punishment was less severe than that "inflicted on the white men," supporting that it was most likely that Punch was an indentured servant sentenced to slavery," The first problem with your addition is that you now have 2 back to back sentences that start with "While" which makes no sense. "While" is generally used to contradict a previous sentence or statement and it makes no sense to have two sentences both starting with "while". The next problem is relevance, which I already explained. The third problem is that "his punishment was less severe than that 'inflicted on the white men,'" does not support his belief that it was most likely that Punch was a lifetime indentured servant. It is the opposite possibility that he was a limited term servant whose punishment was MORE severe that supports his belief that Punch was an indentured servant sentenced to slavery. What you wrote was a jumbled mess that completely misrepresented what Russell wrote, which is why I paraphrased the entire section for you in the following edit. Russell wasn't refuting anything or "countering" anything. He was just expressing that it was possible Punch might not have been an indentured servant but a life long slave before the court case, but digresses and explains that it's most reasonable that he was an indentured servant that was sentenced to slavery. Regardless of your misunderstanding of what Russell was saying about the court case not distinguishing an indentured contract for Punch, he confirms that Punch was sentenced to slavery in 1640. His book does not contest that Punch was sentenced to slavery.

[4]

I already explained how Russell didn't have a dissenting opinion. Recognizing something as a possibility, doesn't mean you're endorsing it, and he actually verifies that he doesn't endorse that possibility and that his views fall more in line with other historians that punch was a limited time servant(indentured) sentenced to slavery. Your edit is a joke because you noted that your correction was to reduce repetition, but in actuality you copy and pasted the last 3-4 lines of the previous paragraph into the following paragraph, thus adding more repetition. Now, maybe you just forgot to delete the information you copied, but it still shows a disregard for maintaining the integrity of the article and shows a willing haste-fullness to just edit the article to suit your narrative.

[5]

Nope, even in your most recent change you intentionally violated WP:POV by wrongfully paraphrasing what Russell said to fit your own narrative. I directly quoted Russell, and Russell said "slavery for life." You intentionally changed this to "servitude for life," which goes beyond WP:POV and becomes vandalism. It's not a good faith effort when you take an actual quote then change the wording to fit your narrative. Previously you were intentionally deleting this quote, and now you sought to change what Russell said. The purpose of this paragraph is to describe how historians consider John Punch a slave. Russell directly says that Punch was sentenced to "slavery for life" which is why it's included in this paragraph. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not collaborating and being intent on expressing my point of view when you're the one who intentionally changes and misrepresents sources to try and validate yours. I'm not presenting my point of view, I'm presenting facts as directly verified by sources. Something you have not yet been able to do for your claim, going on 3 weeks now.

In fact, my edits have made plenty of accommodations for information you insist on being included, even though it's not relevant to Punch or to the point of the paragraph you tried to include it in. I didn't ignore anything you've tried to include, I directly explained every revision I made, thus recognizing your edits and explaining how they were wrong or unjustified. For you to claim that I'm ignoring everything is fallacious and is a downright lie. You haven't submitted anything...ANYTHING that actually contradicts the information I've included in the article. The only dissenting opinion is Dr. Jeffery and I'm the one that added that information. Still, even he doesn't share your sentiment that Punch wasn't a slave, he just doesn't believe that Punch was an indentured servant before becoming a slave, which again, contradicts your position. Also, your interpretation of what Toppin's "in effect" means is wrong. He does believe that slavery was a custom but then also acknowledges that it was legally sanctioned when Punch was sentenced to slavery. That's the point of his mentioning the case, that as a result of this ruling Punch became a slave. The fact that a court made the determination, means that it was legal and as far as court documents show, this is the first case legally recognizing slavery.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go back to school. They both have almost the same meaning and the word actually adds support to much of your text.
"In Effect" ▸adverb: in actuality or reality or fact.
"Effectively" ▸adverb: in actuality or reality or fact. Used for saying what the situation really is, although its appearance or official description might be different.
"So my inclusion of "most historians agree" is the result of my original research." The WP policy is talking about the OR of the academic source, not your own OR.
"I directly quoted Russell, and Russell said "slavery for life." You intentionally changed this to "servitude for life," which goes beyond WP:POV and becomes vandalism. It's not a good faith effort when you take an actual quote then change the wording to fit your narrative." We have no idea what Russell meant by "slavery for life" so context is required. He was quoting the court case which actually said "serve for life" so the paraphrased sentence is more NPOV by leaving it to the reader to interpret.
"That's the point of his mentioning the case, that as a result of this ruling Punch became a slave. The fact that a court made the determination, means that it was legal and as far as court documents show, this is the first case legally recognizing slavery." The courts determination was legal but it NEVER mentioned slavery so without context it's dishonest to claim that the court determined Punch was a slave or that it recognized slavery. The most you can say is that the court recognized "servitude for life". Wayne (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively still has a connotation associated with it and the opinions of the multiple historians DO NOT reflect that connotation. To pretend that most historians say "effectively" is against WP:POV. On top of that, "effect" "in effect" and "effectively" all have multiple meanings which is why I did additional research to discover what Toppin actually feels. As I've already proved, he says the Punch was sentenced to slavery and that this is the first case we know of including slavery in Virginia. It's also clear you need to work on your reading comprehension.

WP:OR says "But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." This is saying that EDITORS EDITORS EDITORS are the ones who provide context for the "point of view" of the authors they cite. Editors establish this context by identifying and describing how prevalent the position is and whether it's held by the majority or the minority. It is specifically saying that editors get to include OR when describing opinions as a majority view which is what "most historians agree" is, it's providing context for how prevalent the belief is that Punch was sentenced to slavery.

We know exactly what Russell meant and I included the context in the article. I already explained that Russell was describing how John Punch most reasonably was reduced from his limited time servitude to slavery for life. He uses the word "slavery" and defining what "slave" means is not relevant to the article about John Punch. He wasn't quoting the court case because he did that in a previous sentence. This sentence was his opinion on what the court case meant, and he believes it meant that Punch was sentenced to slavery for life. You just admitted to changing or misrepresenting what a historian/source said because you think their opinion is biased. That's you inflicting your own point of view and OR into the article, instead of letting the sources and quotes speak for themselves. That is a violation of WP:POV and WP:OR and now that you've admitted to intentionally doing it, continued behavior would violate wikipedia's policies against vandalism. The reader can interpret the court case however they want but this doesn't explain the importance of the case or the context of the case. That's why we include material from reliable sources to give this context and explain the importance. You are intentionally trying to undermine what historians say because it conflicts with your personal point of view. My entire last post gave specific examples of you doing this.

It would be dishonest if I was interpreting the court decision myself as "slavery" and tried to write the article based on my interpretation. That would be considered a violation of WP:OR. However, I'm not interpreting the decision, historians are the ones who have interpreted the decision and their books on the subject are what give the case context. So you essentially just called all of the authors and historians "dishonest" and your actions have clearly demonstrated a disregard for what reliable sources have said in favor of your own opinion which is a violation of WP:POV. I also want to point out your hypocrisy. Your more than willing to call Casor a slave though his court case doesn't say ANYTHING about slavery. It said "I have thee negro for his life" or something to that effect. So this argument of yours is intellectually dishonest and inherently contradicts your assertion that Casor was a slave. Ultimately, I can say "slave" and "slavery for life" because that's exactly what the sources say. For you to disregard what sources say so you can keep your own narrative is in violation of WP:POV.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you are behaving professionally. Neither of you are objective. That said, I am choosing sides. I always fight, right or wrong, for the underdog. Fortunately, though he's unable even to scratch the surface of the skull encasing a single-minded brain, he is more correct in his assessments, and he is not a hypocrite, like his opponent. (I can cite where I have already proved it to be true elsewhere on this talk page.) PresidentistVB (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of slavery in Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Anthony Johnson and John Punch

Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Punch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Scoobydunk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Though I technically violated 3RR, I don't think it's fair to say I engaged in edit warring. I effectively sought administrative assistance for a conflict resolution regarding another editor instead of engaging in an edit war. The fact that I didn't revert the most recent changes to the article and sought assistance instead shows that I'm genuinely interested in resolving this issue and not just edit warring. Even if this block stays, I'd at least like to know what action an editor is suppose to take when another editor constantly ignores the results of dispute resolution and continues to push disputed content into articles. Scoobydunk (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

Decline reason:

What you are supposed to do is continue to use the talk page and other resources; edit warring (which you were doing) is not an acceptable solution. It's better to have bad or wrong information for a short time than to subject an article to the instability caused by edit warring - at least, that's the community's position here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What I'm asking is what "other resources" am I suppose to use if we've already gone to the Dispute resolution notice board and Third Opinion, both of which the other editor ignored the results yielded by the processes. How can I escalate this issue that doesn't result in me getting blocked for adherring to consensus made during multiple dispute resolution processes?Scoobydunk (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a number of things;

WP:DR explains it pretty well. The one thing you may not do is demand satisfaction on the article page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

As per

WP:DR regarding the section titled "Resolving user conduct disputes" it says "Ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." This is what I did and my request was closed without my concerns about user conduct being addressed or even acknowledged. So does that mean all i have left is arbitration? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "demand satisfaction on the article page," would you please elaborate? Scoobydunk (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Here are a few suggestions:

• Don't edit war. Period.
• Don't post walls of text on ANI. Nobody will read them.
• Try finding a third opinion when you're having a disagreement.

Toddst1 (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a lot of information but it certainly wasn't a "wall of text". I divided it and segmented it using numbers and bullets to make it much easier to digest and I even listed the events and diffs chronologically to reduce confusion. In the request I explained that not only did we seek third opinion dispute resolution but that we also went through the dispute resolution noticeboard. That's besides the point though because my request had nothing to do about the content of the dispute or the dispute in general but with the behavior of the user and his gaming the system and tendentious editing. So again, I'm trying to find out what the next step is since I've now been told that administrators don't read posts on ANI that they consider too long. Scoobydunk (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive about

The topic whose discussion you contributed to here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• original research
  . So, if you have an objection, find reliable sources to support it; if you can do that, we'd be happy to help you make a change.

Also, have you looked at

talk) 01:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

My only other suggestion is for you to familiarize yourself with

reliable sources you'd know that primary sources(or a lack thereof) do not take precedence over strong reliable secondary sources. So a primary source claiming that Punch was a slave is not necessary when there are numerous scholarly articles that do make this claim. Also, in the addition of your source, you said "This should be required reading for all contributors to this Wikipedia article." and this is a subjective opinion that should not be made in Wikipedia's voice. These are just a couple of examples but I'm sure once you read up on some of these policies, you'll realize the veracity of my objection and the reason I "undid" your edit. Please use the John Punch talk page if you want to discuss inclusion of information from your own reliable source or address your proposal about including a paragraph about differentiating between servant and slave.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This is why the community of Wikipedia has established rules to follow. Your interpretation of documents and anecdotal experiences don't take precedence over scholarly articles and peer reviewed journals that have been written and published by historians who specialize in the field or in some related field. Your references to and correspondence with ancestry.com play no role in establishing the historical consensus on such matters. There are numerous articles and journals that have been written before ancestry.com was even founded that address this subject matter in full detail and from a variety of perspectives. Those strong reliable secondary sources are the ones that get to determine the nature of the term "slave" and its not our responsibility as editors to say "they're wrong".Scoobydunk (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, responses should indicate a natural chronological order so people can easily follow the progression of a conversation. So please don't continue making multiple insertions all over the talk page as any information contained in such insertions will likely be missed. Also, you must not edit what another editor says and this includes splitting up a post of an editor by interjecting your own thoughts in the middle of that other person's response. There is now a paragraph left unattributed because you cut one of my responses in half. Anything you need to say can be placed under this response.

Second, I've already told you that user talk pages are not the place to carry on conversation about what should and shouldn't be in the article. There are many people who follow the article talk page and DON'T follow my personal talk page who might be interested in what you have to say about the article. I am not an authority on the article and I don't own the article, I merely suggested that you read up on Wikipedia's policies before making adjustments to the article, since you were in clear violation of many of them.

Third, at this point, you should really just read the table that Neil kindly linked you to. The John Punch article is not a representation of my work and I'm not responsible for the "22 citations". Those sources have been contributed from a variety of editors and are intentionally left in the article because they represent the natural evolution of the article and more reliable sources are not necessarily required. I never made any claims on the sources contained within the Punch article, I've only spoken to the ones I've contributed to the table on the talk page. The sources I contributed in the table DO meet Wikipedia's guidelines as the most reliable sources. Some of them were added to the article, some weren't. Regardless, sources like PBS articles and the wordpress page you wrote, don't take priority over the sources on that table. So for your problems with citations 10 and 11, which are really the same citation as #11 actually refers to #10, there are numerous reliable secondary sources in that table that identify this decision as being the first example of how courts were dealing out different punishments based on race or making racial distinctions. Sources that specifically speak to this in the table are Tom Costa, Philip Schwartz, Paul Finkelman, and John Donoghue.

Fourth, when I told you that we aren't the ones who get to pass judgement on the veracity of what reliable secondary sources say, I was specifically talking to these claims made by yourself:

"It is complexities like these, remembering always to believe only what your eyes have seen, which must be considered before ruling any secondary source reliable."

"So, whatever interpretations await my review in your table - which I am looking forward to reading, incidentally - I cannot imagine they will stand up to the legal rulings..."

Your own interpretations and arguments can not be represented in the article as it's a violation of WP:OR and so whether you disagree with what secondary sources have to say or not, makes no difference. That being said, if you have reliable secondary sources like those in the table that contradict what's represented in the article, feel free to produce them. The NPS site and your wordpress article do not suffice or take priority over those sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 06:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You can see I am doing what needs to be done. You've no idea the volume of material, primary and secondary, which is before me. I have access to more than most. I'll just keep chipping away at these bricks. In the meantime, I'd certainly remove the quote that Punch's was the first to reveal a racial distinction being made in courts, if for no other reason than it wasn't! After all, now it's Costa's rep being put up for auction, and it's because you've put his at the top of your list. Yikes! PresidentistVB (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the most compelling incentive facing Dr. C (and which you two have probably already seen): EV is the publisher of the article you cited. I hope you don't continue to warn me of impending disappointment or attempt to ignore or evade genuine challenges to the assertions you've made. Given the scales-tipping preponderance of highly credible, secondary sources available to you then, just as they are to me now, sources you chose not to include in your list (it wouldn't make sense even if you did). I don't want to believe you've a mind that won't bend, and you hand-picked the sources to support it unto the end,PresidentistVB (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• PresidentistVB, please do not vandalize the format or construction of the table. If you have questions about what authors have said in the table, then they should be discussed outside of the table. The table is a tool for listing information, it is not a medium for debate itself. So I created a new section and moved your queries to that new sections where an actual conversation about the sources supplied in the table can occur. Secondly, yes, tags are for the article, not for the talk page.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not used to being spoken to by anyone who chooses such harsh and condescending words,

I hope, too, you'll realize when you read the first paragraph, below, which category I am in. (I won't surprised if you don't since it seems you didn't even read the WP DNB one I sent.)

Ah well, better too late than not at all, I suppose.

Best regards,... PresidentistVB (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ASKED that you not vandalize the table, which is simply a request and is not an insult or accusation of vandalism as defined by Wikipedia's policies. Also, please don't post entire essays and articles to other peoples' talk pages. You can link to them the same way other editors have been linking policies and articles for you to familiarize yourself with.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the first and only edition of the world according to scoobydunk an autobiography believed to employ such a departure from proper english grammar that even e e cummings would turn over in his grave upon first glance may be on the shelf in the authors own home library but no one else in the world must have seen it or not all english sentences intentioned as questions would end with a question mark PresidentistVB (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC) thank you for the previews[reply]

Wikipedia does not permit

personal attacks so please stick to relevant topics. Also, requests don't have to end with a question mark. For example, "I ask that you stick to the subject and refrain from making personal attacks," is an example of a request that requires no question mark. Feel free to provide those reliable secondary sources that support the information you want to add to the article. It's been a few days now and you still haven't supplied any.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

My response is private and intended only for the eyes of

talk), and Wayne (talk). To protect the privacy of and securely transmit the information, any one or all of the three will be required to email me for a link to the password-protected document. (One email for all three is fine as it may be shared among the three via private transmission not posted publicly.) Please reply below once you have sent your email, advising if you intend to share it with any of the others (identify which). Upon receipt, you will be required to verify your identity before the protected information will be released to you. PresidentistVB (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe requesting personal information from other editors is a serious violation of wikipedia's policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was also in 1619 that blacks first came to Virginia. It is often said that they were slaves, but available evidence seems to indicate otherwise. The term slave was then sometimes used interchangeably with indentured servant. The name was applied to anyone-black or white-who agreed to serve another, or the colony itself, for a stated period in exchange for transportation to Virginia and a gift of tools of a trade, or some other significant desideratum, on comple­tion of indenture. Unfortunately, black slavery did evolve from indenture and was legally recognized in Virginia in the 1630's. It had already been accorded such recognition in Connecticut. The first legally recognized slaveholder in Vir­ginia was Anthony Johnson, himself a black.</i><ref>{{cite book|last=Mapp|first=Alf J., Jr.|title=Three Golden Ages: Discovering the Creative Secrets of Renaissance Florence, Elizabethan England, and America's Founding|date=Nov 13, 1998|publisher=Madison Books|page=262}}</ref>

PresidentistVB (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to spend more time reading the links Neil and I have given you, including the requirements for the table that was created on the John Punch talk page and WP:Reliable, more specifically

WP:Source. The book you've taken that quote from is published by a privately owned company called Madison Books and does not meet the same criteria as the sources in the table which were all published by accredited universities or journals that often use peer review or equivalent professional scrutiny when approving publication. Yes, any private company can publish any wide variety of misinformation and such sources are fine when no other sources are present. However, since there are numerous other more reliable and stronger secondary sources that contradict the information from Alf Mapp Jr., this source does not take priority over and is not given equal consideration over the sources listed in the table. You need sources from a specialized scholarly journal or university press for it to merit equal consideration. The strength and hierarchy of sources is explained on WP:Source, but please consider this information my "gift" to you.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  Angolan American page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

Hello, Scoobydunk. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 15:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello: The

On the Oathkeeper RfC, you wrote, "I suggest just using summaries or information from more reputable sites like the Washington Post or IGN." Have you seen one? If you've run across an IGN or WPost source that supports the proposed text, that would resolve a dispute that's been going on since April. I realize that might just have been an example (my own searches for such material have been relatively thorough; I found eight or nine secondary sources), but if you actually saw one, it would be great if you brought it up on the Oathkeeper talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24I found reviews from WP and IGN on the episode "OathKeeper" but I don't know specifically what information you're looking to preserve. If you could bullet the specific information that you'd like to include, I can check and see if those reviews expressed that information. From the RFC, there was a diff of a very long body of text and I'm not going to check if all of that information is discussed on any article. However, I'm happy to try and find a few key facts you'd like to include into the article, you just have to let me know what I'm suppose to be looking for.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed text is exactly one sentence long (though other formats have been proposed): "Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX)."

That's it. A single sentence telling the reader which chapters match the episode. Hard to believe we've been tussling over it this long, but we have. Everything else in the article is pretty much undisputed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24"Many of the things that happened in “Oathkeeper” happened in "'A Storm of Swords,'" I think you're going to have a hard time finding a reliable source that gets more specific than that in detailing where the incidents on the show originated within the text. So if you're just looking for something general that says that it's based on storm of swords, then you have it. If you're looking for something that specifically denotes the chapters, then you're going to have a rough time finding a reliable source. Another option is to use this quote from Washington Post and since the quote brings up the topic of the book "Storm of Swords" you can then add relevant chapter summaries from a reliable source. So you aren't specifically using original research to connect the show to specific chapters, but are just adding in chapter summaries. So you can say "Chapter 61 deals with XYZ" "In Chapter 69 Person X does ABC", so on and so forth. You should be able to find a reliable site that gives book chapter summaries and then quote it for including information about those chapters. This is a roundabout way to do what you're looking to do that doesn't violate NPOV or OR. You should probably put this under a new section in the article titled "Storm of Swords" so the topic inherently merits the inclusion of summaries from relevant chapters. To merit this topic on the article you should put the quote from the Washington Post in the WP Lead Paragraph.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have a rough time finding a reliable source

It was a bit rough, yes: FiveThirtyEight, AV Club, Slate, GEOS, i09, and i09 again. There was also a page in the Prince Albert Now newspaper that has since gone dead. And those are the ones I remember right now. I counted at one point, and there had been eight or nine sources offered in support of this material, not counting Westeros.org, which is undisputedly a fansite.

There's already a line in the article's writing section that says that the episode is based on Storm of Swords in general. It is not in dispute.

"So you can say "Chapter 61 deals with XYZ" "In Chapter 69 Person X does ABC"

I'd love to. I proposed something very similar to this.[6] Repeatedly. Would be much obliged if you'd post your take on this matter on the Oathkeeper talk page, but it is a hornet's nest and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't want to get involved. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24 - The link you gave me shows you trying to directly tie the plot points of the show to the chapters from the book. This is a violation of WP:OR because you, as an editor, are not allowed to make those connections and/or inferences. I'm suggesting making a completely separate section titled "Storm of Swords" and then using reliable sources to give a summary of the events that happen in Storm of Swords. The argument I used for creating/including such a section is that a reliable source, The Washington Post, confirms that the material from this episode is from Storm of Swords. So, having a summary of Storm of Swords, could be argued as relevant and worth including. However, you can not, in this section, include any personal opinions noting the similarities or the differences between the book and the show, those opinions must come from reliable sources, not from editors. So in the "Storm of Swords" section you can have a brief description of the book, it's the 3rd in the series, written in 1850, blah blah and then give a brief plot summary about parts relating to the episode.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:Primary specifically states that primary sources may be used for information about their own content so long as no comparisons or interpretations are made. You're not alone in your opinion, though. We had an RfC on that over on Oathkeeper. Out of six participants, three argued that using the novel in this way was not OR and the other three argued that it was.

However, while there's no question that the novel is not a secondary source, there's no arguing that it is not reliable. It's the single most reliable source possible.

I have offered no personal opinions whatsoever in this article. "Jaime hands Brienne a sword in chapter X" is a fact, not an opinion. "Jaime looks sadder than in the book" and "Jaime is a less admirable person than in the book" are opinions, and no one has tried to add anything like that.

Regarding the proposed tag-specific-event format, how would you fix it?

I like some of your ideas, though I'm a bit concerned about a full section specifically about differences from the book per WP:FILMDIFF. The section currently dealing with them is marked writing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24 - You're still misconstruing what I'm saying, so instead of dragging this out, I'll just have you reread what I said in my previous posts. I specifically said that the "Storm of Swords" section shouldn't be about noting similarities or differences because that's a violation of WP:OR. So when you say "I'm a bit concerned about a full section specifically about differences" then I know you're not taking the time to read what I'm saying. It's not a section about differences, it's a section about the book "Storm of Swords" that includes who it was written by, when it was published, and gives a brief summary. Furthermore, the "Plot" section is for a summary of the TV episode and the "Storm of Swords" book is not a reliable primary source for a description of what happened in the episode. So trying to include notation in the "Plot" section about which events also took place in the book, is you making a comparison between the episode's plot and the book's plot, which is not allowed. That's why I specifically suggested a separate section dealing only with the book. So, I've already thoroughly explained my suggestion, there's really no point in pursuing this further. If you're still intent on trying to connect what happened in the episode to what chapters they occurred in the book, then you're going to have to find a reliable secondary source that makes that comparison.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't mean to misconstrue you. When you said "Storm of Swords section," I figured you were talking about starting a Storm of Swords section in Oathkeeper.

You and I seem to be finding the same seam as in the previous RfC: I don't see saying "This event also happened in the book" as a comparison. I see it as an observation. It looks like you don't.

So what you would do in this case would be more like, "In the book, Jaime hands Brienne the sword Oathkeeper in chapter X, Sansa does this in chapter Y, and character performs action in chapter Z [source] [source]," but you'd put it in the writing section rather than tagging plot events?

Like I said, I've already found many reliable secondary sources that list the chapters upon which this episode was based. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24 - WP isn't based on your "observations" and semantics isn't going to change the fact that it's considered original research. The "writing" section is about the writing of the screenplay/episode, not the book. I never said anything about the "writing" section. You've again misconstrued what I've been saying this whole time and, at this point, I feel adding more words will cause more confusion.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion - as it is about the article and not personal interaction - should be occurring in the Oathkeeper article discussion page, Darkfrog24. That way, it doesn't look like you are trying to sidestep other input and present a fait accompli without further discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I came here because it looked like Scooby might have a source that would solve our dispute. A conversation happened.

Scooby, an RfC on the use of the novel produced a 3:3 split on whether or not using it in this way was OR. As for observations, WP:Primary specifically permits them. It even uses the word: "straightforward observations of facts." The gray area is that people have different ideas about what is and isn't straightforward.

I'm certainly not trying to misconstrue you, but I am having trouble visualizing exactly what it is that you may or may not be proposing. I'm interested in it because it sounds like it might work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoobydunk, you commented 5 times in the RFC. Accordingly, your comments about Breitbart being QS were read and considered by the closer. You've raised the issue on the closure review. That review did not change the closing. Bringing up the same argument in this third thread (re Shapiro) has not changed the consensus. Until you get consensus that says otherwise, I urge that you leave the article alone. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until you come up with a valid argument that rebuttals the use of WP:QS, then I will still reference. WP policies clearly states that consensus does not override policy. So I suggest you stop ignoring policies relevant to the inclusion of questionable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a stray italic tag above that was messing up a couple of sections - hope that's ok. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize for missing the mandatory notification of the AN discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised to see you disregarding or ignoring even more of WP policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.

The request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scoobydunk, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of slavery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Punch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for actually joining the article that you were warring about in the neutrality section. Your comments justifying your reversal were quite wrong and suggest that you are not being objective in your edits. "Undid edit consisting of unsourced info and a violation WP:OR. Also on par with blanking." Contrary to your claim, I did not add unsourced material. I removed a large section of background material because it simple was too long and didn't add value to the topic of the article. So if all I did was remove a bulk of early background how can you honestly claim it was unsourced? Your claim of original research is equally unjustified. To justify that claim you would have to show that I added, or selectively removed material in a way that changed the overall message of the article. I did neither. Please keep your edits and edit justification honest and on topic. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got nothing to worry about then because i said it was "on par with blanking" which is not an accusation, nor did I levy that accusation at you. Furthermore, you removed a lot of sourced information which is generally unacceptable unless being replaced with a stronger source or is agreed to be removed through dispute resolution, which starts in the talk pages. The amount of information you removed can easily be considered blanking especially without engaging in appropriate discussion first about that specific information. Just because you don't consider something to be of "value" doesn't mean it's not, and truncating an entire section by deleting multiple paragraphs and their sources to suit what you consider value can be example of WP:syn, especially since you took varied information from multiple paragraphs and condensed it into a single paragraph. Another aspect of OR to which I refer is "The only important political role of the South in presidential elections came in the 1912 election" which could have been attributed to the following source, but now since you've removed that source, is purely speculative in WP's voice which is original research. It's possible it might have been a violation of OR before you removed the sources, but without the sources it definitely becomes an OR violation. So my edits are honest and on topic, thanks for stopping by.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say and what it is are not the same thing and you did post that accusation when you undid the edit. Did you forget already? You clearly don't understand that removing sourced information is acceptable if that information is not relevant to the article or, in this case, adds length but no extra understanding or reasonable content. The background section was not part of the dispute that you seem to have found out of the blue. Since you think that information was needed, why isn't a history of slavery in the US also needed. After all slavery was clearly part of the backdrop so using what you are trying to pass as logic we need to add it as well. The rest of your paragraph is simple BS trying to justify your edit war with me. Regardless, it is clear that you are not interested in an honest and forthright discussion. Your last claim seems like a bit of a joke given your history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoverpops (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting one of your edits does not constitute an edit war, so it's clear you need to brush up on WP policies. Furthermore, dismissing my logically valid and policy aligned reason for undoing your edit as "BS" is a sign of bad faith which is also against WP policy. Also, my edit reason in no way, shape, or form, singled you out as a vandal, therefore, I didn't accuse you of anything in that edit explanation. I have been honest and straight forward this entire time, it's not my fault that the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism and was utilized by Republicans.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly how you appear to see it. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how I see it is directly aligned with facts and has been substantiated by multiple sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your most recent complaints against me it is clear that you haven't been following the neutrality discussions. On one hand you say the discussion has gone stale, on the other you claim it's on going. Which is it? You say the issue with my statements is a denial of the existence of the topic yet none of my edits are to that end. What is the issue? The only thing you are consistent on, beyond attempting to harass me, is your claims my sources are not valid. Well they are peer reviewed and views of experts in the field. They are also presented as such. You are welcome to take the dispute to the talk section of the article. If you don't like my BOLD changed to the article I would suggest you try being a contributing editor to the article.Getoverpops (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we don't see eye to eye on the SS article I appreciate that you are working with me on making changes. Even if ultimately I think the article is heavily one sided and biased (currently I still think it reads as too much of a smear job), I think it is better for the work we have put into it. I feel if I can convince you then I'm sure the material is sound for inclusion. I also appreciate that you aren't doing the simple revert. You can call this a grudging apology on my part.Getoverpops (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScoobydunkI really don't understand your edit warring claim? I was under the impression that we were making progress here. You said make small changes and we would go over them as they were made. How am I not doing just that? We have gone back and forth over the intro sentence to a paragraph but each time we have refined it back and forth. It would be helpful if you would provide more details in your answers but other than that I'm not sure how we aren't building to a better article.Getoverpops (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is not going to provide any further explanation of his RfC close. Politely badgering him is just not going to change that reality, but it's almost guaranteed to result in sanctions for you if you persist. Please just post a close review at AN if you believe that the RfC should have been closed otherwise. Trust me, that is the correct process at this point.- MrX 22:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I'm responding to claims being made by others. Badgering would be repeated unwarranted comments, but when someone continues to make baseless claims or false assertions, they deserve rebuttal and there's nothing that prevents me from doing that. It would be nice if other editors would comment on the FACT that he's refusing to answer the question which is a violation of the responsibilities that belong to closers. The issue of changing the closing decision, is a separate issue at this point. Thank you for your advice.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please put same info in the lead of the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a dispute resolution case involving our recent edits. The case is here [7] Springee (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Scoobydunk, As I said, let's put the petty arguments aside. You have reverted my edits

[8]

[9]

[10] - Direct edit reversion

[11] - Direct edit reversion

[12] - Direct edit reversion

[13] - Direct edit reversion

[14]

[15][16]

[17] - Direct edit reversion

We have established that the Frymer source is too old to be used as an indicator of contemporary view yet you added it back in, a violation of consensus and cite overkill. Your edits to the paragraph make it less readable and are less accurate with respect to the original sources. I would suggest that you and I put our differences aside and try to come up with a mutually agreeable paragraph. Springee (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know you're the only one in violation of the 3RR rule right?Scoobydunk (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I am any more in violation of edit warring than you are. I haven't directly reverted your changes more than 3 times. However, I would use a refusal to discuss and work for a solution as justification that you are edit warring. Now can we move past that? Springee (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one who has violated 3RR. On top of that, you're the only one who's explicitly said that he's "done" with discussing things with me. That's about the same time you started to remove reliable sources and information I added to the article. So it would be very easy to show that you're the one who's refused to discuss solutions. Of course, this is on top of your refusal to accept that the DRN has recognized your argument as original research and has disregarded it, accepting that the majority viewpoint is the top-down strategy. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely stating my POV and claiming a decision has been reached in your NORN report can't be seen as good faith.

I have posted my concerns on the talk page. Please reply there so we can move forward. Springee (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As already demonstrated. I have direct quotes and diffs that prove I didn't mistate your POV. And the DRN shows that multiple editors have reached a decision that doesn't favor your POV. Claims to the contrary can't be seen as good faith.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I have other quotes that should have clarified your misunderstandings of my POV. Please joint the discussion on the article talk page regarding the topical paragraph. Let's both assume good faith and move forward. Springee (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we should do that and I take this to mean that you're going to stop making threats on my talk page, stop accusing me of things you've actually done, ignoring what other people are telling you, and ignoring what reliable sources say.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of accusations is not a productive start. You have offered your view, please move forward with me on this. Springee (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After youScoobydunk (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we are agreed. I look forward to working with you. Springee (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your last article edit, the removed two sentences. One had a typo, the other was sound. Those were added here on Oct 26th [18]. That puts you at 4 reverts today. Would you please fix the sentence as a self revert? It should say Lassiter holds those views. Feldmen is the source (Painting Dixie Red, pg 16).

Responded on the talk page. Also, be sure to sign your posts.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it would be a good show of faith if you reverted the change. I will then correct the names. Springee (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's bad faith to argue something that you think is repeated once gets removed while requesting something repeated 4 times gets added back in for a 5th time. You seem to have no perspective on this.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You violated the 3RR rule and have reverted 10 of my edits in the last 4 days, 5 of which are simple undos. Please revert the edit and then we can discuss how to finish fixing the section. Springee (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the 3RR rule. Consecutive edits count as a single revert. The only one here who has made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, is you. It starts on Nov 4th with this revert at 1:51 [19] and ends with this revert at 16:17 [20] <--This was your 4th revert undoing others' edits in whole or in part. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

NORN

I have reverted my close of the

WP:WIAPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I have commented on Springee's behavior and I have tons of evidence that substantiate my criticism as is required by WP policy. I explained, in my post, Springee's dishonesty and I can provide diffs for multiple examples of Springee arguing one thing and then practicing another thing, misrepresenting what others say and what "consensus" is. Also, so I don't have to ping you twice, I appreciate the reopen on NORN, but it didn't necessarily need to be reopened, I believe the consensus of opinion on the matter supports that the majority viewpoint in scholarship supports the top-dwon view. Sorry, but I've learned that RFCs are a place where people ignore arguments and resort to voting, and then people who close RFC's close them based on the number of votes a particular position holds. The NORN is already a form of dispute resolution, opening an RFC in addition to a previous dispute resolution would be forumshopping, since it too is a form of dispute resolution. I'd appreciate it if you'd read the NORN discussion and see that Springee is the only person supporting his view, which his view has shifted throughout the discussion, and see that 2 editors and myself support the other position. Rhoark didn't explicitly support either position, but did comment that OR arguments are allowed to determine weight, which implies that they can't be used to refute what reliable sources say, but that' my interpretation.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Scoobydunk, the above statements are clear personal attacks, "blatantly lying" and "dishonesty". These are statements made after you have been explicitly warned about such behavior. Please retract or strike through. Springee (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are statements asking for clarification of when it is allowable to address user behavior. Besides, I don't know how to strikethrough, so I'll remove the parts you seem to take issue with.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the language in question. I don't know exactly which statements of mine you felt were deliberately inaccurate. I think most of the examples I'm aware of come from mistunderstandings or over emphasizing a small ambiguity. Regardless, I'm happy to address your concerns if you wish and thank you for retracting the provocative language. BTW, strikethrough is done with the < s > then < \s > but without the extra spaces. Springee (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised

here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks

. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See

You and Springee are both banned from my talk page (except for any required notifications). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake and has been restored. I mean to remove warning you added to my talk page (an act I would consider to be an attempt at intimidation).

Don't forget to sign your comments, and that seems like another example of not extending good faith. Sure you want to leave that in there?Scoobydunk (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After several screwed up attempts, your comments are restored to the talk page. If your intent wasn't intimidation then please say as much and I will take it to be a misunderstanding on my part. We both have had those as we have both typed a lot in recent days. Springee (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't an intimidation attempt, nor should i have to clarify as much. However, instead of mutually engaging in what can be considered "bad faith" correspondence, I decided to warn you instead.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Your continued reversions without offering suggestions for integration of my RS material looks like an edit war. It is a violation of civil editing and the BRD cycle you have thrown at others. I'm asking you politely to work with me rather than continue to obstruct what are clearly good faith edits. This will save us from having to take the discussion to 3rd parties. Springee (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly projection and I've already worked with you and have agreed to include information that wasn't a blatant violation of multiple WP policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of hounding another editor yet you show up to a 3RR warning that had nothing to do with you nor an article on which you have previously edited. You did not mention in your posting that the material in question was related to previous material I have been involved with. Springee (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboards aren't the same as wikipedia articles, and I patrol multiple noticeboards.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my edit history isn't an article or notice board yet you were patrolling it as well. Springee (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation doesn't assume good faith and WP:WIKIHOUNDING doesn't say anything about patrolling user's contributions.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if I happened to drop in on a WP:VP discussion that say HughD initiated you would accuse me of following him around. Springee (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if it was accompanied with repeatedly and disruptively reverting his edits, as is defined by WP's wikihounding policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scoobydunk. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scoobydunk. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scoobydunk. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]