User talk:WikiTricky27

John Speed and neutrality

Hello,

I value your criticism with this edit about the juxtaposition about John Speed being a slave owner and an autobiography noting he was against the institution of slavery. However, adding your own editorial about this in the actual article doesn't provide value; the talk page is where we ask users to discuss disagreements and offer consensus on how to resolve. As the editor who added that detail, your words do seem inappropriate and unjust. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to help people learn about a topic, and the detail I added was meant to note others had mentioned his opinion on slavery in their own accounts (it's not my job or any editor's job to agree if those opinions were right/wrong). If someone writes a biography about Speed, this may be a resource they want to consider in their writings. Neutrality is an important part of any article. Signed, --Engineerchange (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Engineerchange, I'm sorry, I just saw this response.

I appreciate your cool and even-handed response. I would simply disagree with one point about neutrality. When one aligns facts in a very particular order, like the way you point out first that Speed was in fact a slaveowner followed by the point made by the Reverend about Speed's feelings on slavery, you create a narrative, that is as opinionated as my own response, if not more so. Ergo, that is not neutrality, just as you are right to argue, I was not being neutral in my response. Neither are neutral. So, I suggest, either you remove the Reverend's attribution or otherwise move on. We clearly will agree to disagree on this point, and I appreciate the lively debate if you care to carry it further. WikiTricky27 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do not re-add your commentary into the article. This is not encyclopediac, and it is opinion. If you feel changes are to be made to the article, you need to discuss this on the article talk page. Also, I will add that you are at risk for being blocked if you re add this in the next 24 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added pure facts now, and I will continue to add facts, and in the totality of those facts, one will see quite clearly, what the Reverend said, was bullocks. WikiTricky27 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your work to add detail to the article. However, you can't simply copy paste material like that from a source. This is copyright infringement; please read WP:COPYRIGHT to learn more. I'd also suggest reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia to learn more about how to get started editing on Wikipedia. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I will gladly reword in my own statements or I will directly quote "" which is NOT copyright infringement. WikiTricky27 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did you delete my latest entries, they were neither opinion, nor were they copy and pasted assertions?

What is your excuse now? WikiTricky27 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@WikiTricky27: What specifically are you referring to? Our edit summaries explain what edits we are making and our justifications for making them. If you go to "View History" at the top of your page, you can read those edit summaries. Some of the content you added was moved to the bottom of the article so it was chronological, but that edit was not mine. Respectfully, we are all working together here. Best, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have just posted a whole lump on slavery and Speed, including direct quotes from Abraham Lincoln. None of it is opinion. All of it is sourced. None of it my opinion. All of it is either written in my own words or directly quoted. If it gets deleted again, with no explanation, I'll have to flag you and others for maliciously removing content that does not violate any rules beyond one's bias. I have nothing against you personally Engineerchange, I am merely trying to add to context to Speed's relationship to slavery. Nothing more. Nothing less. WikiTricky27 (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

sorry for the typos above* WikiTricky27 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, again, the content you just added was already at the bottom of the page. It got moved to the bottom. The comments made in edit history describe why it was moved (as I explained in my last comment). Your last addition repeats content that is already there (that you had already added). There is no bias... I appreciate the additions. There have been some edits made to what you added for readability, but the bulk of what you added is still there... --Engineerchange (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. WikiTricky27 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

thank you for your patience, I deleted my info in the middle but added the block quote by Lincoln at the end. WikiTricky27 (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the last quote isn't quite right for this article; perhaps for Joshua Speed's? Lincoln is writing this to his friend, not the subject of the article (his friend's father), and the quotation is talking about his issues with slavery 15 years after the subject has died. Best, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point, let's start from the beginining.

I challenged the idea posited by the Reverend that Speed senior was against slavery.

You told me I couldn't write editorially. So I went and found facts to disprove the claim made by the Reverend.

Not only did Speed senior NOT emancipate his slaves, not only DID he "will" them to his children, some of his children continued to argue in favor of KEEPING their slaves long after John died. Had I extended the block quotation Lincoln makes, it shows how Joshua was arguing against the idea of emancipation (while he still supposedly had abolitionist sympathies.

Read this quote from the very source (footnote 1) I was initially arguing about:

“Although he was a slaveholder, he was an Emancipationist. He deplored the existence of slavery, but, under the laws regulating the institution, he could not do otherwise than he did, which was treat his slaves humanely and make them comfortable and as contented as possible." (that's from page 9 of "Records and Memorials of the Speed Family."

You know that sentence is complete nonsense. So how does such a biased source get used as confirmation of anything, or at least how does one go about disproving it, minus deleting it?

As to your point about Lincoln's block quote, he WAS the emancipator, but he is writing 6 years before the Civil War, and he is looking back on his time visiting the planation (a year after John Speed died)and remarking on the ugliness of the affair. Does not Lincoln's quote about how the slaves were aligned refute the above quote about benevolent a slaveholder Speed was? WikiTricky27 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you imagine trying to argue today the same point above, just with a different amoral act, take cheating for example.

Let's say hypothetically Speed was a notorious fornicator (which is not illegal in our times)...and rewrite the sentence above...

"Although Speed was a notorious cheat, he was a monogamist through and through. He deplored cheating on his wife, but, under the laws regulating fornication, he could not do otherwise than he did, which was to treat his wife and his side piece as humanely as possible.

It makes NO sense. That is why I introduced the logical fallacy of non-contradiction in the first place.

So tell me Engineer, how do I make this point without editorializing or without removing that stupid sentence about Speed being against slavery? WikiTricky27 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A few points to address here, and I hope you take some time to consider:

• (1) I want to state there's no need to "challenge" the reverend's statements about Speed, as you state. Those statements are written for all time. He wrote it, and that is supported by the citation. Whether his statements are right or wrong is not our place (as editors of an encyclopedia) to say, the words were said (well, written).
• (2) Removing the content (as you did, without consensus) only serves to hide away that detail from a potential researcher who may consider it.
• (3) On the topic of him owning slaves, the slaves being willed to his children, and Abraham Lincoln noting the atrocities of slavery at Speed's plantation, I think there's no question that is all factual given the sources. However, removing a detail that someone suggests he had a differing worldview on slavery, in general (and for the time), doesn't serve the same purpose of providing the reader with all the information available. There's a great quote in George Washington#Slavery: "... [Washington] began to express inner tensions about the problem of slavery more frequently, though always in private..." - Washington was a slave owner, sure, but it still provides value for the reader to understand that he swayed in his feelings about the institution of slavery, as I would hope many did in the 18th/19th century.
• (4) Note that I did make a change to the original statement. I can see how using the transition "but" can make it seem revisionist, so I made both statements stand on their own, independent of each other, to help calm the issue. It is true he was a slave owner. It is true someone said he did not like the institution of slavery. Both points stand.
• (5) My last note on suggesting that Abraham Lincoln's comment to Speed's son 15 years after he died still stands. I do think the addition that Lincoln was upset about it 15 years later adds substance, but including the entire quote seems not relevant to the history of John Speed (especially since it doesn't mention John Speed at all). It does, however, lend some detail to the relationship between Lincoln and his son, which could be considered for Speed's son's article, not Speed himself.
• (6) On editing Wikipedia, please note that removing content without consensus is frowned upon, and there are policies against it (read WP:Consensus). If you disagree with me, that's okay, take it up on the talk page of the article to see if others disagree. If others do, you have consensus, and you can revise whatever wording and move on to editing other pages. The consensus page asks you to consider my disagreement before removing/changing content, however, and you blatantly ignored that. Please, do not delete content that you disagree with without considering the thoughts of others. Wikipedia is a place for all editors and we should consider each others' points before acting rashly.

Respectfully, --Engineerchange (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Engineerchange (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not involved in an edit war, I removed my previous editorial comment, and subsequently added factual context which was still subsequently removed without citing any reason why it was removed. WikiTricky27 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter which is documented in the edit history of the article is that you are the only editor who is not using explanatory edit summaries. The other editors involved in this dispute are all using edit summaries appropriately. As an administrator, I encourage you to be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that all I need to do is add an edit summary? I could have long been doing that? That's very simple! WikiTricky27 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to bowing down before the Wiki editorial gods in the future. I have come to see the error in my ways, and will do everything I can to assuage and sooth the ego's of these internet scions. I will become fully supplicant, and docile, like a beat dog, and every minute request they make, I will follow. Two days until I am free from Wiki jail. Two days to contemplate my missteps. I will use this time wisely to correct and learn from my indignant behavior.

Acroterion is a true wordsmith, and his usage of "problematic" was the antithesis of rote! I bid you all good tidings. Thank you and good night. WikiTricky27 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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).

WikiTricky27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

there were multiple problems that I changed every step of the way for: ::::First problem: I was told I was editorializing. So, I deleted my text and introduced new facts. ::::Second problem: I was told I was copying and pasting facts that violated the copyright infringement policy so I used direct quotes and/or paraphrased. ::::Third problem: then I was told I was not responding to comments from other editors and was in an "edit war" so I responded respectfully to other editors and held a civil dialogue. ::::Fourth problem: Then I saw they had first deleted and then added some of my material to another section, which I thanked the editor for, but continued to ask him how to refute other points made on this Speed page. ::::Fourth problem: Now you are telling me the reason I am blocked is because I was not using edit summaries. I will happily use summaries in the future. ::::My question is, for the next time, how are you all going to move the goal posts again, so that my comments are either taken down or deemed controversial? It appears no matter what I've tried, it is flawed! ::::Moreover, I have no understanding why I was temporarily blocked from editing: I said nothing offensive, I did nothing offensive, I merely listened to the feedback given, followed it, and started over at each impass. The end.WikiTricky27 (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You edit-warred to insert critical commentary of article content, in Wikipedia's voice, ignored explanations of why that was problematic, and continued after I warned you. You crossed a bright line, and have not yet shown an understanding of why your editing was disruptive. You are responsible for your edits, and are obligated to discuss content changes on the article talkpage once your edits are contested. Edit summaries are obligatory, but are not a substitute for respectful discussion, or for listening to and understanding the objections of other editors. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Confirmed to ButterBeanBananas-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)