User talk:Allamrcn

Welcome

Hello Allamrcn and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Historical negationism, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 17:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 18:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Historical negationism, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, sir, but I can only most heartily disagree with your assessment of my post edit.

I can appreciate you can not know me in any personal capacity, so perhaps if I can explain, that may assist clearing up the ongoing ordeal.

I am a historian and gained my B.A. at UFV in Canada and my Graduate Diploma at the University of Melbourne in Australia. I declined to do my Masters, purely that I did not want to be an Academic. I am nevertheless a highly published historian and am affiliated with the Echoes Through Time Museum our of Buffalo, New York.

In short, it was a good thing the LC school of historical thought was challenged. However, the nascent Historiography of examining the Civil War/War Between The States offers even less viability re. examining and understanding the war. I have termed this, ‘The False Story’, taking the term from a pun on, ‘The National Narrative’. This school engages in some of the most dishonest manipulation of history by only presenting very certain pieces of evidence to examine, engaging in only a very limited scope of questions put to it, and relying on ‘appeal to popularity’ to seemingly, convincingly, convince the audience.

The BEST historical arguments/theses’/schools of thought can prove they have looked at the widest possible scope of evidence and asked the higher number of questions.

Allow me to demonstrate with a few examples-

If one makes the argument that at the start of the CW/WBTS, that the South desired to expand the institution of slavery, this, to save any historical credibility, necessitates a full admission that the North was willing to reconvene all the rights to the institution which had already been granted, eternally. To be blunt, the North was 100% willing to keep alive forever all the rights to the barns, fields, whips, chains, bills of sale and bedrooms that had already been given. Not to mention, the Union had done under the Stars and Stripes, by men in blue, exactly what the worst can be attacked for during the 1846-48 Mexican American War: America forcibly conquered land to expand and sanction American slavery into, as the primary records overwhelmingly prove.

Where, in our times, is an open and honest admission of this and a willingness to critically reflect on it? It is either not admitted or aggressively attacked by historians of the FS school. Would admitting this in full force a perspective change? It certainly would. So why is such an examination not allowed to occur freely, as history should?

For one more example, just one I can show, it is true that Frederick Douglass had an acidic view of General Robert E. Lee. There is no debate upon this and it should rightly be openly looked at. But!, to view the General from the perspective of one single, Black American contemporary’s view, Douglass or whomever, is ahistorical and would only be done to attempt historical manipulation by further withholding pertinent evidence.

Why is not the view of Thomas Morris Chester also openly engaged? Chester’s column in the 16 April 1865 ‘Philadelphia Press’ stands out, in my opinion, as the greatest attestment to the heroism of the General written by any of their contemporaries. Chester was the only Black American war reporter for a major newspaper.

Why would this be ‘hidden away’ if current criticisms of Lee are so accurate that this evidence could not challenge them? The answer is, the tenets and points of the FS school of historical thought are only cogent, PROVIDED, huge swaths of highly pertinent evidence are never examined and key questions are never raised.

So, sir, as the matter stands, I can not abide by the outline you have set. If this is not historical manipulation, then the matter doesn’t exist. Allamrcn (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Historical negationism 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, with all due respect for yourselves and other editors herein, I can not accept your respective statement.

Remove me as an editor. I respectfully want nothing further to be involved with the stance of the page when I have put the matter as plainly as I can to you.

Remove me as an editor and block me from further edits. I will apply my arguments to a more scholarly forum. Allamrcn (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you haven't bothered to respect what Wikipedia is, or to try to find out what the issues are. It's simple. We don't allow editors' conclusions, that is what we call original research. Our articles are meant to be built on what reliable sources say following our policy at WP:NPOV. As I have the software privileges, I will block you at your request, but accounts cannot be removed. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, if this is how Wikipedia is compiling research, and you can not see how mine is built in reliable, exhaustive critical reflection of both primary and secondary research, and of which I have more than proven, I can only conclude such rules have been deliberately crafted to convey the effects I described above and which Patricia Grimshaw defined as, ‘the circle in the sand’; the promulgation of deceit by deliberately withholding pertinent evidence and limiting of questions.

Best wishes in all your future endeavours. I will continue to advocate my historical arguments in other avenues. Allamrcn (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]