Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:20, 20 November 2009

Attention:Last edited: Last edited by:00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Ravensfire (talk · contribs) This IP address, 96.237.134.44, is registered to Verizon. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact them to report abuse. Contact information may be available in the WHOIS report. If you are editing from this IP address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account. If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for the owner of the IP to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time. If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (96.237.134.44) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Federal Reserve System. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Three different editors have reverted your addition, disputing that the references provided support the addition. Moreover, WP:BRD requires discussion on Talk:Federal Reserve System to gain WP:CONSENSUS for the addition. The edit(s) are as follows: ,,, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your IP address host name pool-96-237-134-44.bstnma.east.verizon.net, located in Quincy, Massachusetts, does not appear to be shared. You can create an account for yourself if you prefer keep your IP information private. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I inserted well referenced material to the article. It was removed for not being referenced. It was then removed because there was no discussion on the talk page. The material has been on the talk page for a week. I am not the one NOT trying to engage in a discussion.96.237.134.44 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR - there's no excuse for edit warring, even if you think you are (and really are) correct in your addition. Also read WP:DEADLINE - there's no deadlines in Wiki, so no response doesn't mean "you're correct". Regardless, I agree that the other editors need to comment (but I reiterate, per WP:BRD, they have a right to revert you again (as do I, but I don't want to make a WP:POINT). Let's get some discussion on the topic, rather than having an argument. But seriously, please do read WP:3RR - edit wars disrupt the work here. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an excuse for deleting well referenced material as not well referenced? As for a discussion, I placed the material on the talk page about a week ago for comment. It is NOT my fault that nobody commented and I see no reason to wait forever for someone to do so.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several policies that not only allow, but encourage deletions of article materiel. As I said earlier, having reliable sources are not the only thing that governs what can and should be included in an article. Over times, editors become familiar with these policies, and it is not unusual for a new editor to be frustrated.

• WP:RS * WP:V. As noted before, some things are reliable sources (academic books & journals, newspapers), while others are not (Youtube, blogs, OpEd pieces, campaign websites). Another thing to consider is the use of Secondary Sources vs. Primary Sources. The former would include use of academic textbooks, the latter would include looking at original documents (like at least some of the ones you've quoted). WP does not use primary sources. This is important, because WP is not written by experts, but relies on the written opinions of reliable experts. So, interpreting the meaning of original sources is not for WP editors to do. I believe the use of Primary sources is one concern with your addition.
• WP:BRD. When an addition is made that any editors question, perhaps because it is too "Bold" (the B in BRD), it is supposed to be reverted (the R in BRD), then Discussed (the D). It is not supposed to be re-reverted (that's WP:3RR). This is a clear issue for which your actions suggest you do not understand - or you are not listening.
• WP:UNDUE. Even if something has clear, secondary sources, the information may not be relevant for inclusion because it is a minor point that would be given undue weight if included. (I don't think this is an issue here, but you asked about things that justify deletion.)
• WP:CONSENSUS. If the consensus of editors is that a change is unwarranted, the change is reverted, and, again, un-reverting the change can lead to sanctions for WP:3RR. This is another issue that justifies deletion of your addition.
• WP:MOS. There is a manual of style that describes how text should look in an article. Your addition was not written in an encyclopedic style, in my opinion. This was my concern, but I suspect that its poor style contributed to others concerns that it was an inappropriate addition. By the way, it is not my responsibility as an editor to "state how I disagree with your addition, and you'll fix it", as you asserted on the talk page.
• WP:NPOV - Additions must be made from a neutral point of view. I can't say for sure this is an issue or not with your addition, but your behavior (WP:3RR, plus your comments on the talk page) suggest you have an agenda you are pushing.
• WP:FRINGE. WP is built on verifiability, not WP:The Truth. Is this an issue with your addition? I lack the knowledge to say for certain, but, reading between the lines, I wonder if this isn't someone's concern.

There are more policies that justify reverts of sourced materiel, but I tried to mention the big ones.

Finally, it is important in your discussions to assume good faith and not assume that anyone is trying to silence you. They're not. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguable primary material - the minutes of the vote, are used a backup for the material authored by Thomas Jefferson Withers. The conclusion in question is not original research as I am not Thomas Jefferson Withers who died in 1866. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The constitutionality of Congress passing on a power which was "shorn" from Congress, and which Congress therefore does not have, is not a minor point.

• "Arguable primary material." Primary source does not mean you wrote the materiel. See the article talk page. The excellent secondary source you cited directly contradicts your position.
• "The constitutionality of Congress passing on a power which was "shorn" from Congress, and which Congress therefore does not have, is not a minor point." As I said above, regarding WP:UNDUE, "I don't think this is an issue here, but you asked about things that justify deletion".

This belief you are espousing does not seem supported by your citations, and is a point of view you're pushing, to the disruption of the encyclopedia. You are welcome to write whatever you like on blogs, etc., but not here.

I'm not interested in arguing about your beliefs. I've offered lots of policies and explanations, and so far your responses have been less and less based on an understanding of how things work and more and more on non-mainstream thinking. I am uncertain you'll get a result you are looking for, if you insist that your addition must remain. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not Thomas Jefferson Withers who died in 1866 and I did not author HIS conclusions. neither am I James Madison who recorder the minutes of the vote referenced, and neither am I one of the people that took part in that vote. Your objections seem to center around the fact that I am the originator of this material, which can plainly be seen is not supported by fact. Every single one of the people I am referencing is long dead. Last I checked I am still alive. Something I hope to be able to say for quite a few more years.96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL! As I've said, "Primary source does not mean you wrote the materiel". I encourage you to read what I've written, above. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused

The primary material in question is the "minutes of the debate" provided as a supplement to the conclusion reached by Mr. Withers. As to whether Mr. Withers contradicts what I added to the article, I believe that you actually need to read what Mr Withers wrote http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/witherst/witherst.html Please do not confuse what I wrote with what he wrote, despite the similarities

HE wrote ALL the following - pay special attention to the bold sections

Now, observe, according to the "draft" Congress was to be empowered to "coin money" and "emit bills of credit"--i. e., a paper currency, undoubtedly. Were they the same or equivalent things, in the contemplation of the convention? If so, why specify both? That body knew how to use the English language, and were not given to tautology. The States were prohibited to make anything but "specie" a legal tender without the consent of Congress. The scheme is manifest that proceeded from the brain of the Committee of Five. It was this: Congress alone should issue a paper currency, and the States should be confined, as to a legal tender, to specie, and that alone, unless Congress should "emit bills of credit;" and in that case, the States might, had Congress authorized it, not that they should, make the Federal "bills of credit" a legal tender. But not even by this scheme, as it came from the committee, was Congress empowered to declare what should be a legal tender in payment of debts.

But soon afterward Congress was shorn of the power to make a paper currency, or to allow a State to use such a currency, made by any authority whatever, as a legal tender. To the proof:

"August 16.--It was moved and seconded to strike the words'and emit bills,' out of the 8th clause of the first section of the 7th article--which passed in the affirmative"--nine states aye--two (New Jersey and Maryland) nay. Thus the clause read (as it now reads in the Constitution of the United States and in our own) " to borrow money on the credit," etc.96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the WP:OR article. Your material is OR. Simple as that. You must source facts AND the conclusions from those facts. Until you begin to to find even a single viable source, your material will be reverted. It's that simple. Misplaced Pages is not about personal views or essays, it's about information based on secondary sources. Your material is your conclusions based on primary sources. That is unacceptable here. Ravensfire (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. withers is not a primary source as he was born after the Constitution was enacted.96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Misplaced Pages's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Federal Reserve System, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. The problems with your changes have been explained to you several times on the talk page, yet you do not choose to listen to the comments. You hear a few small parts, ignore the main points and continue to see your changes reverted for the same reasons. Please stop adding the material until you are able to get consensus on the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.