User talk:StephanieTree

Melungeon is a Racist Term that is haughtily disputed

Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC) keeps taking away 2 valid citations and resources regarding the origins of the word Melungeon, from a Will Alen Dromgoole sketch of Calloway Collins in 1890 and a letter from Walter Ashby Plecker written in 1943 that is mentioned throughout the article.[reply]

Edit warring is not the best way to handle this. In fact, you'll be very unsuccessful by edit warring. Go to the article talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS for any change. And don't use an IP and registered account to edit war. That will get you blocked very quickly. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Letter

January 1943

Local Registrars, Physicians, Health

Officers, Nurses, School Superintendents,

and Clerks of the Courts

Dear Co-workers:

Our December 1942 letter to local registrars, also mailed to the clerks,

set forth the determined effort to escape from the negro race of groups of "free

issues," or descendants of the "free mulattoes" of early days, so listed prior to

1865 in the United States census and various types of State records, as distin-

guished from slave negroes.

Now that these people are playing up the advantages gained by being

permitted to give "Indian" as the race of the child's parents on birth certifi-

cates, we see the great mistake made in not stopping earlier the organized pro-

pagation of this racial falsehood. They have been using the advantage thus gained

as an aid to intermarriage into the white race and to attend white schools, and

now for some time they have been refusing to register with war draft boards as

negroes, as required by the boards which are faithfully performing their duties.

Three of these negroes from Caroline County were sentenced to prison on January 12

in the United States Court at Richmond for refusing to obey the draft law unless

permitted to classify themselves as "Indian."

Some of these mongrels, finding that they have been able to sneak in

their birth certificates unchallenged as Indians are now making a rush to register

as white. Upon investigation we find that a few local registrars have been per-

mitting such certificates to pass through their hands unquestioned and without

warning our office of the fraud. Those attempting this fraud should be warned

that they are liable to a penalty of one year in the penitentiary (Section 5099a

of the Code). Several clerks have likewise been actually granting them licenses

to marry whites, or at least to marry amongst themselves as Indian or white. The

danger of this error always confronts the clerk who does not inquire carefully as

to the residence of the woman when he does not have positive information. The

law is explicit that the license be issued by the clerk of the county or city in

which the woman resides.

To aid all of you in determining just which are the mixed families, we

have made a list of their surnames by counties and cities, as complete as possible

at this time. This list should be preserved by all, even by those in counties and

cities not included, as these people are moving around over the State and changing

race at the new place. A family has just been investigated which was always

recorded as negro around Glade Springs, Washington County, but which changed to

white and married as such in Roanoke County. This is going on constantly and can

be prevented only by care on the part of local registrars, clerks, doctors, health

workers, and school authorities.

Please report all known or suspicious cases to the Bureau of Vital

Statistics, giving names, ages, parents, and as much other information as possible.

All certificates of these people showing "Indian" or "white" are now being rejected

and returned to the physician or midwife, but local registrars hereafter must not

permit them to pass their hands uncorrected or unchallenged and without a note of

warning to us. One hundred and fifty thousand other mulattoes in Virginia are

watching eagerly the attempt of their pseudo-Indian brethren, ready to follow in

a rush when the first have made a break in the dike.

Very truly yours,

W. A. Plecker, M.D.

State Registrar of Vital Statistics

Page 2

SURNAMES, BY COUNTIES AND CITIES, OF MIXED NEGROID VIRGINIA

FAMILIES STRIVING TO PASS AS "INDIAN" OR WHITE.

Albemarle: Moon, Powell, Kidd, Pumphrey.

Amherst (Migrants to Alleghany and Campbell): Adcock (Adcox), Beverly (this family is now trying to evade the situation by adopting the name of Burch or Birch, which was the name of the white mother of the present adult generation), Branham, Duff, Floyd, Hamilton, Hartless, Hicks, Johns, Lawless, Nuckles (Knuckles), Painter, Ramsey, Redcross, Roberts, Southards (Suthards, Southerds, Southers), Sorrells, Terry, Tyree, Willis, Clark, Cash, Wood.

Bedford: McVey, Maxey, Branham, Burley. (See Amherst County)

Rockbridge (Migrants to Augusta): Cash, Clark, Coleman, Duff, Floyd, Hartless, Hicks, Mason, Mayse (Mays), Painters, Pultz, Ramsey, Southerds (Southers, Southards, Suthards), Sorrells, Terry, Tyree, Wood, Johns.

Charles City: Collins, Dennis, Bradby, Howell, Langston, Stewart, Wynn, Adkins.

King William: Collins, Dennis, Bradby, Howell, Langston, Stewart, Wynn, Custalow (Custaloe), Dungoe, Holmes, Miles, Page, Allmond, Adams, Hawkes, Suprlock, Doggett.

New Kent: Collins, Bradby, Stewart, Wynn, Adkins, Langston.

Henrico and Richmond City: See Charles City, New Kent, and King William.

Caroline: Byrd, Fortune, Nelson. (See Essex)

Essex and King and Queen: Nelson, Fortune, Byrd, Cooper, Tate, Hammond, Brooks, Boughton, Prince, Mitchell, Robinson.

Elizabeth City & Newport News: Stewart (descendants of the Charles City families).

Halifax: Epps (Eppes), Stewart (Stuart), Coleman, Johnson, Martin, Talley, Sheppard (Shepard), Young.

Norfolk County & Portsmouth: Sawyer, Bass, Weaver, Locklear (Locklair), King, Bright, Porter, Ingram.

Westmoreland: Sorrells, Worlds (or Worrell), Atwells, Gutridge, Oliff.

Greene: Shifflett, Shiflet.

Prince William: Tyson, Segar. (See Fauquier)

Fauquier: Hoffman (Huffman), Riley, Colvin, Phillips. (See Prince William)

Lancaster: Dorsey (Dawson).

Washington: Beverly, Barlow, Thomas, Hughes, Lethcoe, Worley.

Roanoke County: Beverly. (See Washington)

Lee and Smyth: Collins, Gibson (Gipson), Moore, Goins, Ramsey, Delph, Bunch, Freeman, Mise, Barlow, Bolden (Bolin), Mullins, Hawkins. -- Chiefly Tennessee "Melungeons."

Scott: Dingus. (See Lee County)

Russell: Keith, Castell, Stillwell, Meade, Proffitt. (See Lee & Tazewell)

Tazewell: Hammed, Duncan. (See Russell)

Wise: See Lee, Smyth, Scott, and Russell Counties StephanieTree (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the reason for your changes; This letter is reference multiple times and the Calloway Collins citation was bogus; I went and found the actual references and included them on the page. StephanieTree (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not the place to make your case. Discuss at Talk:Melungeon and wait for WP:CONSENSUS before making any changes. Sundayclose (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying to you since you put all those things on my personal page, which you erased on yours all the same... why are you doing this? StephanieTree (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I deleting information my talk page? Read WP:OWNTALK. Why am I telling you to get consensus on the talk page? If you'll read WP:CONSENSUS, which I have already linked, it explains why you can't unilaterally decide to make a change on an article without discussion. You're accomplishing nothing by arguing with me except wasting your time and my time. Go to the article talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all this, what I don't understand is why you decided to go to my talk page rather than the Talk:Melungeon page yourself? Why are you telling me not to erase things of my page when you didn't like what you put on mine on your own? That is just dubious. Your citation to the Walter Plecker letter is a test page. StephanieTree (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is responsibility of the editor who is trying to make a change to get consensus. For the final time, read WP:CONSENSUS, and read WP:BRD while you're at it. Unless you have something new to say, I'm finished here. Sundayclose (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Also review, WP:ONUS - FlightTime (open channel) 18:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I took it there but wow you are very defensive for no good reason. Peace. StephanieTree (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defensive. I simply am trying to send you to the correct place so that you can stop wasting my time and your time. If you prefer to wander around to the wrong place without any advice and/or lose your editing privileges for policy violations, that's entirely up to you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that has come from you thus far to me has been unnecessarily defensive and it borderlines on haughty threats:

If you prefer to wander around to the wrong place without any advice and/or lose your editing privileges for policy violations, that's entirely up to you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

17:53, 13 June 2023‎ Sundayclose talk contribs‎ 38,749 bytes −7,147‎ Reverted 2 edits by StephanieTree (talk): Take this to the article talk page and get consensus. Revert again and you will lose your editing privileges.

17:39, 13 June 2023‎ Sundayclose talk contribs‎ 38,749 bytes −7,200‎ Reverted 1 edit by 98.150.110.57 (talk): AGAIN, source has nothing about Melungeons.

16:30, 13 June 2023‎ Sundayclose talk contribs‎ 38,749 bytes −7,200‎ Sources have nothing about Melungeons. undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

Time wasted is your perception alone... the Walter Plecker 1943 letter and reference has everything to do with what you reverted it to, a misquotation with a broken link. Who do you think are you trying to convince with scare tactics about losing editing privileges? I did nothing but fix a couple of broken links, which you just as well reverted back to broken ones presently... the only ones who threaten others about "losing privileges" are the ones those who treat others like you have, misusing privileges meant for all, equally. StephanieTree (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm finished here. Wait for consensus before making the change to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really have a bad habit of saying one thing and doing another while telling people what they should do while being extremely haughty. You didn't have to "start" or "finish" anything on my page, but since you have done so, why not be a bit cordial and polite? What is that "I'm finished here" business about? Your chosen words are very impolite. Good Day! StephanieTree (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Consensus for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Your recent editing history at Melungeon 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. Sundayclose (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this all about @Sundayclose ? I am in not in an edit war at all nor did I revise anything so I'm not sure why you have put this on my talk page. What is the issue? StephanieTree (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You returned after a few months and continued your edit warring. Get consensus for your changes, including challenging sources. Take it to the article's talk page and wait for consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took this conversation to the wikipedia Talk:Melungeon page if you want to make your arguments there; but it would appear that there is consensus to edit some of the opinion references that could be better cited with original sources. In the mean time, you should take your own advice and take it to Talk:Melungeon prior to reverting everyone's well meaning and good faith edits rather then reverting them without notice and within seconds of other members making edits. Thank you. StephanieTree (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CON before declaring consensus. You declaring consensus doesn't mean there is consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Please refrain from using talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Consensus for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information." (See the original message above and again, please take your comments to Talk:Melungeon) StephanieTree (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes absolutely no sense. I have never used WT:CON for discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well in either case I have no interest in having this discussion on my talk page. Please take your comments to the appropriate page for consensus instead of reverting changes and coming on my page and attempting to get consensus with me personally only after making your own edits and reverts immediately. Why not talk to me on my page before you edit if you believe we are "warring" ? I would much prefer to have a reasonable conversation about the actual page and resources and citations then whatever this is. StephanieTree (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussion of Melungeon should be on that talk page, but discussion of any policies you might violate go here, not the Melungeon talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading WP:HARASS before repeatedly making the same warning on my talk page after I remove it (which I can do, per WP:OWNTALK). Stop, or we'll be discussing at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose You should read WP:HARASS

WP:HA#NOT

This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings. Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations – from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct – and must be used judiciously and with respect to these connotations.

However, some editors seem to give "harassment" a much broader, and inappropriate, meaning encompassing normal and appropriate editing practices such as merely editing the same page as another user, or warning another user for disruption or incivility. Such activities are not harassment if done civilly and in good faith.

It is also not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); that is part of what editor contribution histories are for. Editors do not own article content, or their own edits, and any other editor has the right to revert edits as appropriate. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.

Unfounded accusations of harassment are a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.

Stop repeatedly writing on my page as well. StephanieTree (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ctrl+x, ctrl+v the secret code to using the internet

Normally I would never violate WP:REFACTOR but you copied my warning to you from above and stupidly pasted in my signature, giving the impression it was my comment. Do not do that. If you want to copy from Wikipedia's boilerplate warnings, policies, or guidelines, that's fine. Do not paste my signature for your use. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]