User talk:Richey90211

April 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Coolie. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Blackguard 01:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, first of all I did not intend to violate any rules. But my edits are very valid. Being a person who has in depth knowledge of what took place in those islands because I am from there I know that coolie should not be classed as slavery whatsoever. Coolies should be classed as Indentured Labourers. Coolieism took place after Slavery was abolished and that is a fact. Also the word coolie means wages or hireling. I have sources below.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/indian-indentured-labour.htm http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/247166284/a-history-of-indentured-labor-gives-coolie-its-stinghttp:

Discuss or be blocked, your call.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Richey90211. Wikipedia does not tolerate edit-warring - the repeated inclusion or removal of information in an article in conflict with other editors. If you would like the changes that you appear to desire made to the Coolie article, then you will need to discuss this at the article's talkpage, not simply revert the article to your preferred version every time someone disagrees with your amendments. It is also not permissible to log out of your account and make the changes as an anonymous IP, as you did here. If this behaviour continues - i.e. if you make one more revert to the article without first discussing and achieveing consensus for your changes - I will have no choice but to block your account from editing.

This has no bearing on the validity or otherwise of your edits - your assessment of the word's use may be correct, but you need approval from other editors first. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, first of all I did not intend to violate any rules. But my edits are very valid. Being a person who has in depth knowledge of what took place in those islands because I am from there I know that coolie should not be classed as slavery whatsoever. Coolies should be classed as Indentured Labourers. Coolieism took place after Slavery was abolished and that is a fact. Also the word coolie means wages or hireling. I have sources below.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/indian-indentured-labour.htm http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/247166284/a-history-of-indentured-labor-gives-coolie-its-stinghttp:

Hello, first of all I did not intend to violate any rules. But my edits are very alid. Being a person who has in depth knowledge of what took place in those island because I am from there I know that coolie should not be classed as slavery. Coolies should be classed as Indentured Labourers. Coolieism took place after Slavery was abolished and that is a fact. Also the word coolie means wages or hireling.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/indian-indentured-labour.htm http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/247166284/a-history-of-indentured-labor-gives-coolie-its-stinghttp:

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 04:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Coolie

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Coolie article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! MrBill3 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. First of all the Category must be changed from Slavery to Indentured Worker. If a category was not created for Indentured Worker then in should be. Coolie should not be lumped in the category of slavery because it is false. Second the etymology for coolie is hired laborer or wages. And kuli in Turkish means hireling. I am from these islands and the original article so falsely misrepresents coolies. Many people of Indian and Chinese background took exception to this article because they knew that a lot of the subject matter in this article is false and misleading. Indians have land today because of the work that they did; slavery and coolie cannot be compared.

Coolies were given wages, land, and houses for their labor. Generally speaking people today are not even given this. I know this for a fact because I am from these island and the people there were indeed paid. This resulted in a lot of jealousy and anger from African slaves towards coolies and perhaps rightfully so. Indian coolies were paid about $45 dollars a day plus food and clothing.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/indian-indentured-labour.htm http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/247166284/a-history-of-indentured-labor-gives-coolie-its-stinghttp: http://www.sahistory.org.za/politics-and-society/anti-indian-legislation-1800s-1959

80% of the immigrants who came to the Chesapeake Bay colonies were white, European indentured laborers. Indentured laborers were: White Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and other Asian ethnic groups and these people were not slaves. "Coolie" needs to be listed under a category called Indentured Worker or it should not be in a category at all. Coolie should simply not be listed under the category of Slavery because that is very false and is misleading to the public. How do I remove "coolie" from the category Slavery or get a new category created entitled Indentured Laborer? https://sites.google.com/site/rydenonushistory/home/directory-study-guides/southern-english-colonies Also the etymology of coolie is "hired laborer" or an "unskilled Asian Laborer" There are several other etymology used in the present article that is not relevant and they must be removed. Can you please remove this. Thank you for your help. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coolie http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coolie

To me it is obvious that this article was written to degrade peoples whose ancestry goes back to Asia. Coolies and Europeans were both indentured laborers. They were majority unskilled workers and a minority of skilled workers that were paid.

The "Coolie" article is a result of people not trying to degrade Asians, but allow people to remember past crimes committed against Asians. You can double check the article's sources to see if they're academic sources. Most of them looked pretty scholarly to me, so unless you can demonstrate that those sources are being mis-cited or something, you're probably arguing against mainstream history. You also need to make sure that the sources you cite directly support your claims -- a source that doesn't bother contradicting your claims is not the same as a source supporting your claims.

Also, if you take a better look at the articles Coolie, Slavery, and Indentured servant, you'll see that they all link to each other, with Coolies being described as a form of indentured servitude, and indentured servitude being a form of slavery. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Coolie) Indentured servitude can not possibly be a form of slavery because they were paid and it took place after slavery was abolished. Coolies were given wages and land; that can not possibly be slavery. First and Foremost Indentured Servitude and Slavery should not be linked together... and that is a fact. Indentured Servitude should be its own category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs)

Being paid does not preclude slavery. Making slavery illegal has not eliminated it, either. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If being paid does not preclude slavery... what does? Coolies were paid and given land in exchange for work. How could this possibly be classed as slavery? Most WHITE Europeans that came to the United States when this country first started were indentured servants. 80-90% of all white Europeans that came to the Chesapeake Region of the United States were Indentured Servants. 80%-90%... that's a large number right... Over 60% of all white colonial immigrants were indentured servants... are you saying that all these white people were slaves?

Check out the source from encyclopedia... http://www.answers.com/topic/indentured-servant

Coolie / Indentured Servitude should not be classed as slavery and that is a fact. This must be edited. I would like to be contacted by an editor who can remove "Coolie" and "Indentured Servitude" from the Slavery Category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs)

Yes, indentured servitude of Europeans in North America is a subcategory of slavery, and our article indentured servant is classified as such (and discusses this contemporary classification). The convention in much of that article is to reserve the word "slave" for reference to chattel slavery, for clarity. VQuakr (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person in the world who thinks that indentured servitude is slavery. Read this source by PBS, where it states very clearly that indentured servitude is NOT slavery. http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/

This is outrageous I will edit this article everyday if I have to in order to get results. This is why Wikipedia is not deemed credible by American Universities. You are trying to re-write history falsely.

Read the source http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/.

I will not let you win this. Your opinion is not the ONLY opinion that will be heard. I have given you VERY credible sources yet you refuse to change this article. This "Coolie" article is straight up racist and I will see to it that it is written correctly. Again please read the source. http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/.

A summary of site guidelines and policies you need to be aware of

Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility.
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
Wikipedia is not censored, and grievous crimes committed against people are discussed to remember the victims.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Talk:Coolie

I replied to you on the article talk page. The edits you are requesting are not likely to be accepted by the community, because they are at odds with the reliable sources already in the article. If you need my to try to provide additional explanation as to why, I can provide that; if you want someone uninvolved, you could try the WP:TEAHOUSE. Other means of dispute resolution are available to you, if you wish. And in any case, again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are from Encyclopedia sir; that is as reliable as it gets. Read my source the link and bibliography is below; you will see that it is from Encyclopedia. You are redefining slavery and re-writing history. You are saying that the GREATER MAJORITY of White Europeans that came to this country and the Western Hemisphere were slaves. And you still have not addressed this. Guess What most Asians(Coolies) and Whites came to this country as indentured servants and that is a fact. And you are classing indentured servants as slaves and that is historically false. Indentured Servitude should should be classed by itself.

You also say that "being paid does not preclude slavery".... Tell me if being paid does not preclude slavery then I guess we must all be in slavery now. And btw... you still have not removed "coolie" from the category slavery.

Here is my source.

http://www.answers.com/topic/indentured-servant

Bibliography Galenson, David W. White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. New York: Norton, 1975. Salinger, Sharon. "To Serve Well and Faithfully": Labor and Indentured Servants in Pennsylvania, 1682–1800. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

You are the only person in the world who thinks that indentured servitude is slavery. Read this source by PBS, where it states very clearly that indentured servitude is NOT slavery. http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/

This is outrageous I will edit this article everyday if I have to in order to get results. This is why Wikipedia is not deemed credible by American Universities. You are trying to re-write history falsely.

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Richey90211 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 19:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed reports at WP:AN3

Hello Richey90211. Your reports are not in the proper form for this noticeboard. Please don't keep refiling a complaint about the Coolie article with admins. The issue has been reviewed twice already at the admin boards:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#I am requesting that the article "Coolie" to be profoundly edited. The current article is not accurate and racist.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive247#User:Richey90211 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No action)

Administrative action was declined both times. You need to try to persuade the other editors at Talk:Coolie. If you can't get them to agree you will probably need to give up the issue. If you keep ignoring all advice there is a risk you will be blocked. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 04:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per your promise on my talk page to continue the edit war and to recruit like-minded individuals off line. Others have provided good advice to you above but you don't seem to be listening. In a section above, I gave you links to two previous admin discussions. If you disagree with this block, see WP:GAB for your options. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried over and over again to have this article written accurately and I have provided credible sources to have this article changed yet my sources are being ignored. Please see the article talkpage. Also yes people must see how racist this article was written. The Asian public deserves to know how their heritage is being denigrated by a false Wikipedia article. No offense to you Edjohnston I am not calling you racist but this article is. Coolies were indentured laborers not slaves and indentured laborers are not slaves

Ed, coolies were indentured laborers and indentured laborers were not slaves. The category for coolie must be changed to indentured laborer. Ed, most European Whites who came to the United States during colonial time and in the 1800's were indentured laborer and they are being classed slavery. Please look at my sources below.

80% of the immigrants who came to the Chesapeake Bay colonies were white, European indentured laborers. Indentured laborers were: White Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and other Asian ethnic groups and these people were not slaves. "Coolie" needs to be listed under a category called Indentured Worker or it should not be in a category at all. Coolie should simply not be listed under the category of Slavery because that is very false and is misleading to the public. How do I remove "coolie" from the category Slavery or get a new category created entitled Indentured Laborer? https://sites.google.com/site/rydenonushistory/home/directory-study-guides/southern-english-colonies

Ed, also the article calls coolies "Asian Slaves" and there isn't even a source to back that up. Honestly I would not be so passionate about this unless I knew it was wrong. I am from these islands and I know how coolies were treated and they benefited so much from being coolies because they were given land and they were paid. Coolies were free immigrants not slaves. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie

Coolies and Slavery can not be compared they are fundamentally different. Look at this source below.

http://www.academia.edu/2316489/INDENTURE_AND_SLAVERY_CAN_NOT_BE_COMPARED._THEY_ARE_FUNDAMENTALLY_DIFFERENT._DISCUSS

29th June 2014

Your changes to Coolie have been reverted before, and you are repeating them. Would you like to self-revert? Because you have been already told that not all coolies were slave, but if some of them were, the template would still make sense.

Somethings can be only removed if you have reached to consensus, there are considerable amount of sources that support the content that you are removing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occultzone, I just wanted to say thanks and I will get back to you later on this issue.