User talk:Thesouthernhistorian45

Welcome!

Hello, Thesouthernhistorian45! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Lee

Lee is a very english name is not very strong reason for your desired change, consider finding a WP:RS and starting a discussion on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E Lee is descended from Richard Lee I, who came to Virginia from England. Therefor he is of English descent. Why should this fact be withheld or omitted from his "Early Life" section? --Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a citation, WP:RS thats all I am interested in. Can I help you to add the citation? WP:CITINGSOURCES Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very helpful, thankyou.--Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its an online source I do it like this

<ref>{{cite web|url= add http address here |title= add title here |publisher= add publisher here |accessdate= add the date you read the webpage}}</ref>

Just find a quality link that supports your claim and fill in the details and cutt and copy it to the article to support your desired additions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use a wikipedia article as a source? Because there's articles about everyone of Lee's paternal ancestors and if you just follow them on wikipedia, it takes you back to England in like six generations or so. How would I go about citing this? If need be I can cite other texts, but if its possible to do it this way that would be easier. --User:Thesouthernhistorian45Thesouthernhistorian45 (istorian45#top|talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No we can't use a website that anyone can add content to as a reliable source, this wikpedia is not a reliable source of information, but you may fine a citation on one of those articles that may suffice. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me there is one article about one of his great grandparents, Henry_Lee_I born 330 years ago, says he was a colonist of English decent but there are no real details of who his mother and father were. So that makes him a little bit English, imo a very distant claim to assert much at all. At the end of the day we all walked out of Africa. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we all did walk out of Africa, but our ancestral origins since then are still interesting, and in many cases historically relevant. That being as it may, there's lots written about General Lee's ancestry, virtually all of which goes back to early English Virginia history, and I think, it therefor is significant. I've heard it claimed he is also part Scots-Irish but I can't find anything credible saying so, but I'm in the process of searching for it. --Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, try to be accurate as possible, broad assertions are detrimental. Distant relatives and minor association are pretty irrelevant imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, though I respectfully disagree about the level of relevancy in Lee's ancestral Virginian origins. Take care sir. --Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Tennessee. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. not in cite given CutOffTies (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, the information I added about Tennessee's orthodox community can be found by following the source already provided for the rest of the sentence, just click on it. Why didn't you even bother checking this before nonchalantly throwing away my contribution? Does the eastern Orthodox community not warrant being included when listing the religions of the people of Tennessee in your eyes? --Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the information, before you claim unverified http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/47_2000.asp --Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was looking below that figure. Since it's such a small amount compared to the others, I don't see why it should be added. Perhaps you should bring it to the article's talk page.--CutOffTies (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so at a later date as I have to leave at the moment. But I think it should be added because firstly they are a unique, historical and interesting denomination and therefor important, and furthermore from a Christian perspective many Protestants feel like those in the Orthodox community share their doctrinal disagreements with Catholicism, and can identify with them on that level. Either way, I feel they are a denomination worthy of mention, even though they are so few and far between in the great state of Tennessee. --Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale of including content because you "find it interesting" makes me believe you need to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You may also want to read wp:consensus. Perhaps after reading, understanding, and applying these principles of the project, you will stop having so many of your edits reverted.--CutOffTies (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir your tone is very aggressive, and mildly insulting. I gave many more reasons than "finding it interesting". I used the word interesting once in three sentences and it's all you took away from it because you've now made a habit out of harassing me by reverting or trashing everything I have to say, even when I provide sources. --Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

69.233.246.254

Are you forgetting to login? --CutOffTies (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here 156.3.62.116 as well. JNW (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

Look at the links. Seems like a big coincidence that both of these IPs are adding the same exact content to the same exact articles that you were. --CutOffTies (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring at lee

You are edit warring against multiple editors, your insistence in claiming his whole family are English is opinionated and uncited, please stop adding it and attempt to find a solution through discussion, please take this as an edit warring warning and if you continue I will report you and your editing privileges can be restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet

Based on similarity in edit history and and edit warring, I've noted this account [1] as a possible sockpuppet. Please be familiar with WP:SOCKPUPPET, and understand that numerous accounts may be blocked for edit warring and account abuse. JNW (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping over the IP addresses this editor uses, Thelastgopher also appears to be another sockpuppet, due to focused reuse of the same non-reliable sources TEDickey (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

epodunk

Why use a commercial site as a source when you can get similar information from the Census bureau? I.e. this link instead of this link? I've also posted my concerns here as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm going to just half to flat out refute the accusations of sock puppetry, I don't have an explanation for any similarities and since my word on an anonymous site understandably isn't good enough, do whatever you feel you have to do. However, epodunk is more reliable than the census because the census takes dodgy claims at face value whereas the people at epodunk actually make sure those claims and statistics are verifiable before using them, is therefor more authoritative. Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the epodunk pages you're using it states that it's getting it's data from the US Census, so I don't understand how you can say that epodunk is a superior source. Until we have more input on the use of epodunk on so many articles, I'm going to ask you to stop adding it, please. (I'm not involved with the dispute involving sockpuppetry; your replies to that should be above in that section). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll cease immediately, however the reason I argue it's superior is there is some data from the census which is questionable which epodunk throws out and that's really where the differences in the data come in. Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per [this ANI thread about Internet Brands, please do not add this link in the future. All instances of it will be removed and it will be added to the blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've now said both that the information is reliable and based on the census, and that it can't be used but the census can? Why? If that's really so than you need to go delete the ancestral demographics for every single state. New Hampshire and Vermont's are sourced as being from Community Survey's, are they equally as despicable as you've now decided Epodunk is? What you're doing is unfair. There is currently unreliable information on Maine's ancestral demographics which seems to indicate the state is mostly French, which it's not, and anyone who lives there will tell you it's not. If you add up the county for county statistics in Maine, it's clear the state is not mostly French, but that information is up there. Frankly I am using reliable sources and other people aren't and I'm being penalized for it. This isn't fair. This site is supposed to use accurate information. Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning for adding epodunk links instead of census links

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, how on earth are they "spam", it's a reliable source, and I'm using information you yourself said is legit. What's the damned problem?

As I noted earlier, Internet Brands has systematically spammed Wikipedia in the past. Also as noted above, epodunk get's all their data from the Census Bureau. This isn't secret information available only to certain entities like epodunk. If you want to source these edits, use the census website. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I find the same data in the census and then post that, would that be kosher? Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be absolutely fine. We've had a lot of problems with aggregator site spam before (i.e., sites that collect data from government, academic, non-profit sources, do some search engine opt, then try to make some $$ on ad revenue). It's always better to use the original source of the material, rather than a commercial aggregator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring on Robert E. Lee. Use the talk page to discuss and attempt to build consensus, please...and avoid violating the three revert rule.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has begun on the talk page. You will need to discuss your ideas there. Do not revert again. This is a 2nd warning. If you persist, you may be blocked for disruptive editing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Williams

Please provide a page number when citing a book. Thank you. Also, it helps other editors if you could leave an edit summary. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Thesouthernhistorian45 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

requested user name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I am on a shared IP address, I was informed someone with the name "scrubadoo" had used the same ip address to make edits which constitute vandalism. I am not this person and would like my name to be unblocked if that's possible. You can look at my post history and you will see I do not engage in vandalism. Thankyou kindly.

Accept reason:

I've undone the autoblock on your account. If you have any questions, just let us know. TN X Man 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a block on either your username or your IP. Your IP may be dynamic. Please post here, if you are still blocked, the exact message you are seeing; I cannot find a user "scrubadoo". --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresented sources

If you find a source which supports the particular wording you're trying to convey, that would be useful. Lacking that, your edits are nonconstructive TEDickey (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you specifically referring to? I provide sources? You deleted one of my edits even though I provided detailed sources and then just declared the information wasn't in the source when it was? What gives? Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third time - your source says something different from what you're claiming it does. There might possibly be a reliable source expressing your POV, however you've never provided one. TEDickey (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No the source I provided contains exactly the information I cited, look where it says "South" and where it says "English" and that information is what I cited. And it's also accurate and from the governent. Why do you insist it isn't so? Which part of this is inaccurate? Please tell me Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.[reply]

I DID give a valid reason for deleting it, Tedickey is making unsubstantiated claims about the source I provided. The source is the 1980 census and is provided by the United States government. He claims this is "dubious", it is not. He's provided no explanation as to why that is so other than a blatant lie on the articles discussion page in which Tedickey claims that the source says "American" where I say "English". It doesn't, the source reads "English" and then is followed by the information I provided. Tedickey is lying, and is vandalizing my posts to harass me. Why? I don't know, ask him. Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are uncivil. By the way, your recent edits lack sources. Lacking a source, they'll be reverted TEDickey (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talladega County, Alabama

Care to explain why you removed a citation tag without providing a citation. Mo ainm~Talk 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talladega County, Alabama, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Mo ainm~Talk 00:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where your coming from, but the fact remains the Ulster Banner is used in common practice for wiki articles on the Scots-Irish. Why you've decided to take issue with this I don't know, also, could you find another more appropriate flag for the Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish Americans to use instead then? Because it seems inappropriate that they should be left without one. Any constructive advice on this issue would be appreciated. Thankyou.Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flag on the article now is not the Ulster Banner it is the flag of Ulster one of the four provinces of Ireland and nothing to do with Scotland. And to be honest we can't just make up a flag to fit the section. Mo ainm~Talk 00:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me I misspoke when I said the Ulster Banner I meant the Ulster Flag, but that flag, the Ulster Flag IS indeed the one most commonly used for the Scots-Irish, you can replace it if you find a more appropriate one, but it is my understanding, which I acknowledge you disagree with, that it IS in fact the appropriate flag, it is not one that I have just "made up" to fit the section. Thankyou for understanding.Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it commonly used? Surely if it is common then finding a source will be easy enough, but having said that I couldn't find one with a reliable source. Mo ainm~Talk 00:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every page on demographics that uses flag icons uses it. There's too many to list all of them. As you say, that doesn't count as a valid source, but you can feel free to check that it is indeed very common. Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it had some uptake here doesn't mean anything, if it is challenged the a source must be provided. I'll get more eyes on the matter. Mo ainm~Talk 00:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, do what you gotta do.Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't accuse people of vandalism when there's a good-faith content dispute going on. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation: There is no "Scotch-Irish" flag. The flag of Ulster does not reflect Scotch-Irish ethnicity in any way; it is a geographical flag belonging to a province, and does not represent one particular group of people or another. Most histories of the Scotch-Irish indicate they quickly became "American" and any ties they once had with Ireland were lost and forgotten in a few generations. Some historians even see them as the American pioneer "archetype". Perhaps the American flag is more appropriate if you just have to have a flag. Eastcote (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to William Darke, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 08:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Benjamin Harvey Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Irish

Howell Cobb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Welsh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of my change to Adam Carolla

You recently reverted a change I made to the article on Adam Carolla. As I explained in my edit summary, the listed reference is way too vague (just a date and a show name) to be used as a reliable source. Unless you can turn up a link to a copy or transcript of the show being referenced, it cannot be used, particularly to support such a potentially defamatory statement. This statement cannot be allowed on WP (per WP:BLP) without being properly sourced. Because of this, I am reverting your reversion — please do not add this material back to the article without proper, verifiable sourcing. If you'd like to discuss this matter further, please do so on the article's talk page. Thanks — DeeJayK (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of Florida

The last four edits to Florida have been from you, and the net result of them has been to remove a line of whitespace. You have added and removed a demographic map twice. If you had been a new editor, I would have thrown up a template asking you to use the sandbox for test editing. Without trying to sound like a jerk here, what is it you are trying to do? I've been around long enough that I might be able to help you, without clogging up the edit history of the article. Horologium (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]