User talk:WLRoss/Archive 13

GA review

I wrote you back where you posted, at my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wayne Madsen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• sting-over-prism-and-the-nsa/ The Absolute Joy Of The Guardian's Sting Over PRISM And The NSA] [[Forbes]] June 30, 2013</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Formally added as party to an ArbCom case

Just so you know, you have been formally added to the Tea Party Movement ArbCom case as an involved party.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your comments. If you want them to be considered for the final decision, you need to post them at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision#Notice to parties and response to motion. TFD (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is not relevant to the descision. The problem is an editor who has a grudge against me which has nothing to do with the Tea Party Movement article. He tried to argue stalking some time ago but was advised that a formal complaint could backfire with his own behavior examined so he never proceeded. He likely attached it to the TP case thinking it would not involve scrutiny of his own behaviour. Wayne (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened. The fact is that if you do not reply, and even if you do reply, you may face sanctions. TFD (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every single edit you make. Especially when making possibly-controversial edits: in such cases, it is helpful to justify your edit in the summary. Edit summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Unforgettableid (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

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.

Happy Valley, South Australia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kaurna

Patawalonga River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kaurna

Pooraka, South Australia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kaurna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

P&W

Hi Wayne. Thanks for the message. Don't worry, I have no interest in getting involved in any way with the shenanigans going on over in Teabagistan and if P&W is continuing with his/her personal attacks I think your best options are to retrieve the draft RFC on P&W from wherever you have stored it, or else just disengage and ignore him/her completely. I had a very quick skim read of the page and it looks like P&W is going to go for a bit of a skate (although as it includes and interaction ban, given P&W's reaction the time I suggested to the admins that the two of you not interact, I doubt that will end well) and the danger to you would be that if you don't disengage other than through an official channel such as an RFC you might end up getting dragged down into the mess as well. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wayne. Thanks also for the head's up - I ran into this a bit through DYK, but chose not to get involved. From what I've seen at ArbCom before, it seems that generally they'll end up sanctioning everyone: the sort of close scrutiny they put people under, looking for problems with their edits, is going to be difficult for anyone to get through without at least some mistakes coming to light. And that seems to be where it has ended up again - a topic-ban everyone approach. A very drawn out response, but not at all unexpected.

With P&W, I try to keep from getting involved in the same topics. I think it is best to trust the community - if there is a problem, having me join in isn't going to fix it, (and will probably make things worse), but I can trust the community to handle things in the end. It doesn't always work. but it seems sensible, especially given that there's enough on Wikipedia to satisfy anyone's urge for heated debates without having to go looking. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Johnson

I noticed that you undid changes I made to the Anthony Johnson page. I cited all of my information and it is factually accurate, while the information I removed was not. One of the sources of the misinformation I removed included this link http://books.google.com/books?id=kezflCVnongC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q=john%20casor&f=false and if you search for "Anthony Johnson" or "John Casor" it doesn't say anything about Anthony Johnson being the first slave owner and it doesn't say anything about John Casor being the first slave. I've actually done research on this and John Punch was the first legally recognized lifelong slave owner in Virginia. All of the other misinformation I removed cited the "John Casor" wikipedia page and that page cites itself multiple times as the source for its information. So people are spreading inaccurate information on wikipedia then using that information to cite itself and as the source of more misinformation elsewhere in the site. Anthony Johnson's court case is only significant because it was established that a black man could own a slave. Here is the actually court decision which determined that Parker couldn't take Casor as a slave because Casor was still in service/belonged to Anthony Johnson. That's it. It said nothing about being a slave for life, it just declared that you can't take property that belongs to someone else. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Punch was an indentured servant for life, not a slave despite both positions being the same in practice. Indentured servants, even when indentured for life, had written contracts setting out the terms of servitude with their owners, slaves do not have contracts. That makes Anthony Johnson the first slave owner, and Casor the first slave, in Virginia. Parker did not consider Casor a slave, he claimed in court that Casor was a free man. Please note that wikilinks are not citations. The citations are at end of sentences and show in full in the references section. Wayne (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You made changes again and didn't add a references for the statements you changed. The guy who first inserted the language about Anthony Johnson being the first true slave owner was Arigoldberg and he didn't cite the information either. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)&diff=prev&oldid=476387210 John Casor was an indentured servant and every sources refers to him as such. So that's where you'll need to provide a source because the court didn't say anything about him being a slave. The court established that he still belonged to Anthony Johnson and indentured servants were held for life back then especially if the owner felt they weren't upholding their end of the contract. So where is the historical document officially listing him as a slave instead of an indentured servant? There isn't one. He was an indentured servant for life. Also, where's your source for saying he never had a contract? Every thing I've read confirms that he was an indentured servant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Punch

responded to you on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I did more research on Toppin for you, just to see if there was any validity to your assertion, and of course, there wasn't. In Toppin's "A biographical history of Blacks in America since 1528" Toppin confirms that Punch became a slave and he doesn't say "effectively". He says "Thus, the black man, John Punch, became a slave unlike the two white indentured servants who merely had to serve a longer term. This was the first known case in Virginia involving slavery."

So not only does he confirm that Punch became a "slave" he also says this is the first known case in Virginia involving "slavery". GGScoobydunk (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your "research" was finding an earlier edition of Toppins book where he didn't use the word and adding that to the article. Don't you think it is more honest to use the latest edition of the book where he does use the word? The court never found Punch was a slave and he never lost his rights as a servant, rights no slave ever had. Your tendentious comments are also getting tiresome. Since when is it a violation of WP:POV to use the exact wording of the primary source instead of a personal interpretation by a secondary source of what that source may have meant? Wayne (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not an earlier "edition" it's a different book and it's not dishonest to do additional research to get a better understanding of what the author thinks. It's clear that he believes Punch was sentenced to slavery and that Punch's case was the first case involving slavery in Virginia. The court wasn't making a decision on Punch's status, the court was delivering a sentence as punishment for his crime, and in that punishment he was sentenced to slavery. I've cited multiple historians, authors, and government resources saying that. The court records, what you're calling the primary source, don't say that Punch was an indentured servant, but it days say that he was to serve Hugh Gwyn for the remainder of his life. It's the job of historians to determine the relevance of the ruling in the scope of history and historians recognize that as one of the first legally documented instances recognizing slavery in Virginia. To ignore what they say and substitute your own interpretation of the court ruling is against WP;OR and WP:POV. You also just said a bunch of stuff about Punch never losing his rights, and where's your source for that? Also, Russell contradicts your assertion by saying it's most reasonable that he lost his right to limited term servitude when he was reduced to slavery. I'm also not interpreting what sources may have meant, I'm quoting them directly. You're the one who is intentionally misquoting, deleting relevant quotes, and trying to add in words like "effectively".Scoobydunk (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I made changes to the Punch article to maintain consistency and remove unattributed context. Though I still contend that WP:OR allows editors to provide/give context when identifying majority and minority opinions, I'm fine with removing all unattributed context/content not coming from a reliable source. This includes content and context you and other editors have included. It is unfair and biased to require that I qualify statements like "Historians agree" while you don't bother to qualify statements you made and preserved that said "Historians consider" and "Genealogical research indicates". You made the criticism that not qualifying "historians agree" implied that "all historians agree" and that criticism can be equally applied to saying "Historians consider" and "Genealogical research indicates" as implying that "All historians consider" or "All genealogical research indicates." As per WP:Weasel, words like "some", "most", and "many" violate a neutral point of view and all of them violate WP:OR unless that phrasing is directly attributed to a reliable source. For you to pretend that "some" or "many" are acceptable replacements for "most" is wrong, because they all represent original research and are wrong for the same reasons. I believe WP:Weasel contradicts the fact that WP:OR says editors can provide context for conflicting statements, but I don't really care which way we approach this so long as it's consistent. This is why I didn't hammer down on the usage of "some" in other parts of the article, but if you're obstinate about "most" requiring a source, then I'm going to require a reliable source for instances of "some", "many", and any other statement that uses weasel words or editorializing.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You can use "Genealogical research indicates" because there has been only one genealogical research project with no dissenting view to date. You cant use "Historians agree" or "Most historians agree" where there are contrasting views on the subject among historians so you need a reference in support or you have to use "some historians", "many historians" or "XYZ states" depending on the number of sources available, the sources don't have to use those terms but if they do it's a bonus. WP:OR does not allow editors to provide/give context for identifying majority and minority opinions, it is up to the sources to identify what the mainstream opinion is and both mainstream and minority views must be given. You seem to be confused over this, you cant add context supporting one opinion while deleting context for the opposing opinion. The editor can provide context supporting contrasting opinions as long as they don't violate WP:WEIGHT. Wayne (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Using "some" suggests that it is a only a small or minority portion of historians which is against WP:POV as per WP:Weasel. It's the same with using "many" and they specifically use both words as examples of WP:Weasel. Now suddenly you say "editor can provide context supporting contrasting opinions" when before you said they couldn't. It is a fact, that if you use "Some" to describe the view held by the majority of historians and then you use "Some" to describe the view held by the minority of historians, that you are violating WP:Weight by giving both descriptive context that suggest they are on equal level. This is why it's okay for editors to add "most" and "some" to reflect the amount of the weight they have. You've yet to provide a single reliable source that says Punch was not a slave so there is no contrasting opinion held by historians. If you were able to identify as many sources or more sources arguing that Punch wasn't a slave, then I would no longer be able to describe it as "most". Your explanation of "Genealogical research indicates" still falls flat for the reason I already explained. Not all Genealogical research indicates what you claimed, as there has been genealogical research on a variety of families and subjects. Same with "Historians consider". It is WP:POV to qualify my statements with weasel words while pretending yours don't require them. Also, this article and paragraph isn't about the rights indentured servants had vs. slaves, so stop including that irrelevant information. I allowed it before because I used unattributed context to make it relevant, but now that I'm not, it has no relevance.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It amazes me that a new WP:SPA editor who claims no experience with Wikipedia has so quickly become an expert in WP policies. Punch was a servant sentenced to an extended period of servitude at a time when slavery was illegal. He may have effectively been a slave but he was still not one legally and the majority of historians accept that fact. You cant use historians saying he was effectively a slave to claim he was legally a slave. Wayne (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's called reading comprehension. None of my sources say he was "effectively" a slave. They say he was a slave or he was sentenced to slavery. I've shown the one source that said "in effect" which was referring to the ruling and not to his title as slave, clearly considered him a slave and even said this was the first case involving slavery in virginia. I think you're most mad about the fact that you're the one who provided these sources and they ended up working against you. And here we are, you still don't have A SINGLE SOURCE for your claim, which is clearly nothing more than your biased opinion and a result of your own OR. He was legally a slave, he was legally sentenced to slavery, legally. I've presented numerous sources verifying this fact and you have provided NONE to support your position.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You can make all the false claims and accusations you like, I've been civil with you throughout while you keep reverting to personal attacks but I decline to stoop that low and let the sources talk for me. I've provided around a dozen sources (all books by historians) making the distinction so there is no OR involved. The sources you provide that say "legally a slave" are primarily websites and the books you do quote merely say slave without mentioning the legality. The book by Richard Asaolu is particular clear on the difference: "by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant [John Punch] to slavery. In 1654, John Casor, a black man, became the first legally recognized slave." Present day people calling it slavery does not magically make it legal. I find it particularly interesting that of the handful of books written by African-Americans that I've found, they all support Casor as the first, not Punch. That should carry some weight. Wayne (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't make false claims, I actually directly quote sources that say that Punch was a slave as the result of a court case. That makes it every bit as legal as the Anthony Johnson case. I'll quote you "you need to go back to school." You have been making personal attacks, so it's clear you're blind to your own behavior and you're a hypocrite for it. This is a common theme in your behavior, demanding a higher standard from others while you ignore those standards yourself. Also, none of your sources have made the "distinction" which is why you haven't been able to quote a single one yet claiming that Punch wasn't a slave. All of your sources weren't even books. Many of them were papers or essays and some of them were written by religious pastors. North Shoreman already explained how the majority of your sources don't stand up to WP reliable sources guidelines and I've shown that most of your sources actually work against you because they either confirm that Punch was actually the first slave or that Casor was only the first as a result of a "CIVIL CASE" or a case where "CRIME WAS NOT INVOLVED," meaning that there was a legally recognized slave before him, and that slave was John Punch as my multiple sources have shown. We literally discussed all of this already and you stopped responding to the discussion...in case you didn't remember. The sources don't need to mention the "legality" because court decisions are "legal" unless they are overturned by higher courts. So the fact they recognize it was a court decision means that it was a legal determination, legal sentencing, or legal recognition, thus meaning he was legally made a slave.

Now, let's talk about Richard Asaolu. Who is Richard Asaolu? Oh, it seems that Richard Asaolu is a pastor who runs a religious blog, not a historian or a reliable source. On top of that, his book "slavery" isn't even a real historical book made by a reputable publisher. It was published by pediapress which is a site dedicated to letting people publish their wikipedia entries. That makes a lot of sense because Richard Asaolu plagiarized this entire book from a wikipedia page or another possible source. If you google "by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery." you'll see that this exact quote has been repeatedly spread, either citing wikipedia or not citing any source AT ALL. On top of that, I've already explained why the quote you gave is contradictory. If someone was legally sentenced to slavery by 1640, then how can Casor be the first legally recognized slave? That is a direct contradiction. Punch and Casor both were made slaves as the result of a legal judicial decision. John Punch preceded Casor by 14 years, thus making him the first legally recognized slave that we know of. I'll quote you again "Present day people calling it slavery does not magically make it legal." What made it legal was the fact that it was a court decision, JUST LIKE CASOR, and is therefore every bit as legal, this is what historians say. The handful of books you found that say Casor was the first slave make no mention of Punch at all. So it is highly likely that they were ignorant of the Punch case. On the other hand, just about all of my sources mention both John Punch and John Casor, and the ones that do officially discuss both cases consider Punch to be the first slave. I have found many more reliable sources making this claim than you have for your John Casor claim, which is why your position on Casor is a minority view AT BEST, that is, if you can even find one reliable source and not just a source that plagiarized something that was copy and pasted all over the internet. Notice how my sources actually use their own language to describe Punch as a slave instead of just circulating unaccredited information they found on wikipedia. It's clear your sources don't carry any weight because they are mostly unreliable and don't take precedence over established historians as per wikipedia reliability guidelines and the source you do cite don't argue or contest the fact that Punch was made a slave in 1640. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM ARGUES THAT PUNCH WAS NOT A SLAVE. The real problem is, we've already been through all of this before and your sources have already been thoroughly debunked. I also wanted to add that in many of your sources you intentionally omitted important context like "civil case" to try and prove your argument, showing that you are more interested in distorting facts and sources to fit your narrative than about uncovering and representing the truth, just like when you changed what Russell said from "slavery for life" to "servitude for life" then tried to justify your behavior. LOLOLOLOLOLScoobydunk (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Richard Asaolu example was to illustrate that Casor was the first legal slave despite Punch being called a slave which is the whole basis of our disagreement. Wayne (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Richard Asaolu example doesn't illustrate anything because it was plagiarized from wikipedia and isn't a reliable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'll jump in here and warn you both that you are heading for edit warring blocks. The back-and-forth between the two of you at John Punch (slave) is disruptive. I suggest you take it to some form of dispute resolution. Given that it appears to be just the two of you battling it out, perhaps WP:3O would be a good first step. Finally, @Scoobydunk: what is the reason for putting in "LOLOLOLOLOL" just before your signature above. I can't think of any legitimate basis for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: it was merely to express how I find it humorous that WLRoss says "stoop that low" when he's been intentionally deleting and changing quoted material to suit his narrative, something I personally find to be of low behavior. He's expressed his disposition on my actions, so I was expressing my own. Also, we've already been to dispute resolution regarding Anthony Johnson. An uninvolved 3rd editor joined in the discussion calling WLRoss sources into question. After the other editor and myself thoroughly debunked WLRoss and his sources, WLRoss disengaged from the discussion and the dispute resolution was marked as "unresolved" nearly a week later. The 3rd party editor also noted how WLRoss was disciplined before for edit warring. A few days later I started to add information to the John Punch article. If you notice, I made changes to the John Punch page which WLRoss promptly "undid". He was not currently active on this article and all of his actions have been to undo mine or revert mine. I personally wouldn't describe our interactions on Punch as "edit warring" or "disruptive" since the article has been making continued progress to represent a more accurate and comprehensive truth. I've been adding reliable sources and historian explanations of John Punch and his case. For the most part, we haven't been just "undoing" each others entries, but taking that information and building upon it, which is what I understand is how WP is suppose to work. I explained every revision I did and supported them by citing WP policies which directly applied. So now that we've been through dispute resolution, what are we suppose to do?Scoobydunk (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The LOL stuff is dismissive and uncivil; don't do it. Your previous history on another article is irrelevant to the current disruption on this article; you haven't been through WP:DR on this article. What you're supposed to do is to stop battling in the article and take care of it appropriately. If you can't, then don't edit the article. The same is true for both of you. And WLRoss's block history is of marginal relevance to this dispute, so bringing it up isn't constructive, either by the third editor or now by you obliquely.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23:That's fine, I won't say "lol" in the future. I'm just not sure why you were pointing out uncivil behavior regarding me and not him when he's said "you need to go back to school" and "stoop to that level". As far as the dispute, if you notice, the John Punch article was last edited 2 days ago on the 25th, and since then we've been discussing the dispute on our talk pages which is a necessary step before going through the dispute resolution process. So it's clear that we're taking the appropriate steps towards dispute resolution. WLRoss's block history isn't relevant to this dispute and I didn't say it was. It is relevant to identifying repeat behavior that is against WP policies made by a specific user. So what am I suppose to do if WLRoss continues to follow me onto articles and delete the information I contribute which includes sources and cited materials? How many times does a member have to be blocked for edit warring before more extensive measures are taken? This is part of what I meant when I asked you "what are we suppose to do?".Scoobydunk (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ross's block is almost a year old and was for a violation of WP:1RR in a very controversial area of Wikipedia. Stop focusing on it. We're going in circles. I've recommended a path toward resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This dispute has been brought up several times on other pages and my attempts get third party involvement have failed. We have been stalled at two Vs two editors since 3 Sept. This should really be brought up as a RfC under the legal category on the Slavery in the United States page considering the result, if in favour of Scoobydunk, will alter that, and three other related articles significantly. I suggest the question "Is John Punch or John Casor the first legally recognized slave in Colonial America? The Slavery in the United States page should get significantly more input from editors (243 watchers and 3,200 daily views) than the Punch (<30 watchers and 150 daily views), Casor (<30 watchers and 80 daily views) or Johnson (30 watchers and 2,600 daily views) articles.
Re my "uncivil" behavior. The "back to school" comment was a humorous aside in reply to Scoobydunks claim that two words had completely different meanings. The English dictionary gives the same meaning for both words which he would have found if he had checked, the difference in spelling is a result of grammatical usage. "Stoop so low" I believe is borderline, I consider using incivility to make a point low so I was merely commenting on my own actions. Two marginal examples from the large number of posts I've made in reply is irrelevant when Scoobydunk has been uncivil in a considerable number of his posts beginning with the first he ever made. He has been warned about it several times. Wayne (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This dispute hasn't been 2 vs 2 in any way shape or form. One third party editor did mostly agree with me on the dispute resolution page for Anthony Johnson. The editor WLRoss is trying to give equal status to, commented twice on the ANthony Johnson discussion page about indentured servitude not being the same as slavery and referenced slavery in chicago in the 18th century which was completely irrelevant. That user didn't bother responding after I pointed out the irrelevance of his source and he certainly didn't refute or contradict anything I was arguing. So he certainly wasn't a factor in this discussion where as North Shoreman made many arguments and rebuttals against WLRoss and the validity and reliability of his sources, which WLRoss stopped responding too and ultimately could not contest. Also, the WP article "slavery in the united states" is largely plagiarized. If WLRoss bothered to read my last response to him, he would have known that a lot of the information on that page is copy and pasted all over the internet and is found word for word in the last source he mentioned by Richard Asaolu without using proper citations or attribution. Regardless, I'm working one article at a time and as Bbb23 mentioned, those other arguments have nothing to do with this discussion which is about the status of John Punch after his sentencing/trial. I've provided numerous sources from historians saying that Punch became a slave as a result of his trial, while WLRoss has given ZERO sources saying that he wasn't slave and just had his contract of indenture extended to life. Oh, @WLRoss: I created a new section for a 3rd opinion on the Punch talk page, I'm going to list all of my sources for my argument so other editors won't have to go searching through edits and multiple talk pages. They should be able to easily see our evidence in one place to make a judgement. I encourage you to do the same <-- list your sources that is.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I did contest the validity of your sources and the reason I stopped responding was due to the abusive replies from you and to a lessor extent the length of your replies which are largely irrelevant. For example, who cares if a WP article is copy/pasted all over the internet? Third opinion hasn't worked so why start another one? Why do you want to keep the argument on a little watched sub-article when an RfC on the parent article, which has 243 watchers, would be more definitive? Wayne (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't contest the validity of my sources, you dismissed them for no good reason. I then found sources written by historians and you haven't contested a single on of those. Also, my responses on the dispute resolution page weren't abusive and neither were those from North Shoreman, and you stopped replying to both of us after we thoroughly debunked the sources you tried to list. You also missed the point of my comment on the WP article. The point is that it was largely plagiarized. Also, it doesn't make sense to make this argument on a page about the history of slavery in the colonies since it only pertains to John Punch. Once this article is corrected, then other articles can be corrected for consistency. Also, third opinion hasn't worked because you ignored the third opinion, just like you ignore sources. Also, a court ruling and sentencing are both legal determinations and therefore legal recognition. Some of the sources I've listed already note that this is the "first legal determination". If you want to argue that court rulings are not "legal recognition" then that's another discussion completely<--it would also invalidate your assertion that Casor was the first legally recognized slave. Anyway, just list your quotes from reliable sources/historians that argue John Punch remained an indentured servant and didn't become a slave. If you can't list any sources then we'll have no choice but to consider it a violation of WP:OR.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion attracted only one editor making it two editors v two editors, none of which are historians. You can't "correct" minor articles one at a time and leave the main article for last, that is a violation of WP:gaming. We need to do an Rfc on the main article with the result there determining what ALL the minor articles say.
Yes, a court ruling and sentencing are both legal determinations and in the case of Punch the court NEVER found him to be slave, he was a servant sentenced to serve for life under common law and he wasn't even the first. His notability is in the disparity in sentences. Wayne (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're the only one contesting the information I've presented. I have already explained that the other editor you claim to be on your side only debated the difference between indentured servant and slave, he did not agree with your opinion, debate the information I presented, and only suggested a book about slavery and indentured servitude in Chicago which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. He also refused to comment on the dispute resolution, even though you directly asked him to and notified him of the dispute resolution notice board regarding the subject. This is the second time you've tried to make this point and it's completely dishonest and a misrepresentation of what has transgressed thus far. It is only your opinion which articles are "main" articles. I have done research relevant to John Punch which is the article I'm editing. Therefore, the John Punch article is the main article for the research I've done, at least in terms of most relevance and most appropriate to edit. This is not a violation of WP:gaming and I haven't violated any of the tenants described in WP:Gaming. My sources say he was sentenced to slavery and became a slave, and many of them say this is the first legal determination in Virginia. Again, everything you just asserted is merely your own opinion and is in violation of WP:OR. Please list your sources saying Punch wasn't sentenced to slavery. His notability is in the disparity of the sentences AND that this was the first legal recording of a negro being sentenced to slavery in Virginia. Oh yeah, don't forget to list your sources for your claims.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Finders

Just wondering if you'd be interested in starting an article on this. I'm asking you because I read your comments in the Franklin Scandal TALK page, and you seem to be more experienced with navigating Wikipedia policy. This story was briefly discussed in the opening of Nick Bryant's Franklin Scandal book. It involved a child prostitution cult called "The Finders". It's investigation and ties to child abuse is officially documented and recorded as being taken over by the CIA (after which all investigation abruptly ended). Very disturbing and would be nice if the subject could get more exposure. I had never even heard about it before.

Here are the links if you're interested, thanks.

An overview: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/ciadrugsabusemurder.shtml

PDF containing official documents: https://archive.org/details/ThisIsTheCiafindersFile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.207.123 (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources

There is little well, not really that bothers me more on Wikipedia than folks adding unsourced information to articles like so and not immediately sourcing it. It is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and WP:BLPBAN (among other authority gives administrators special dispensation to deal with such violations as they see fit). Could you please fix this situation ASAP? Thank you, NW (Talk) 19:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I've added the ref. Wayne (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Marys, South Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noarlunga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP/N

I commend Bbb23 and Jclemens as being skilled in BLP discussions -- I do not know whether they will agree or disagree with you, but they are level-=headed. Collect (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

Wayne...please cease violating the BLP policy on such articles as the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Your efforts to circumvent policy by soliciting those unfamilar with the situation may cause difficulties. Though it has been a couple weeks, edits such as these violate WP:BLPCRIME. This has been explained to you on the article talkpage by several editors and two administrators, but you persist in forum/alternative editor shopping to force BLP violations in the article. I urge you to avoid that article unless you are able to abide by our policies completely.--MONGO 02:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no circumvention. I have approached a very experienced BLP editor for assistance due to your failure to cite a violation and I specifically told him I wanted his unbiased advice not his support. Despite frequent requests over more than a month, you have refused to explain how any of my own three edits violate BLP. The edit you posted above was text that had been in the article for more than a year that I replaced with references after you deleted it. Quoting BLP:CRIME for that edit without an explanation of how, is not sufficient as King was clearly found guilty by a court of law as required by the first part of the policy and the paragraph explains why in a neutral tone which complies with the second part of the policy. by several editors and two administrators, all but one of whom have a history of disputes with me and that one is a friend of yours. Unlike you, I have not edit warred, I have remained civil and I have acted in good faith. You should take a leaf out of your own book and abide by WP policies, such as WP:HA. Wayne (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ask yourself why they have a history of disputes with you. The big question at least as far as this article is concerned is why do you care...what is the motivation and why all the effort. The effort is to overtly add insinuation and smear persons for which there is no basis in facts. I am convinced you have allowed the conspiracy theories about this event to cloud your ability to understand the facts.--MONGO 09:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet you still refuse to point out what in my edits is conspiracy theory. And I don't have to ask why, my ARBCOM case exonerated me and found some editors (such as DHeyward) to have a bias in conspiracy articles. According to one editor in that case who also has a history of disputes with me, I was "highly fair-minded about what can be said about conspiracy theories." Wayne (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Tendentious Behavior. The thread is Editor Exhibiting Tendentious Behavior/Editing.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:ANI. Thank you. —Scoobydunk (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I realize that there is a serious problem with Scoobydunk trying to WP:OWN Anthony Johnson (colonist), but please be more careful about edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning taken on board. Cheers. Wayne (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)