User talk:ValueOurHistory

Welcome!

Hello, ValueOurHistory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Pioneer Village (Salem, Massachusetts) does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm Antandrus. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely fact based with sources cited. You are wrong. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the fact that how it's actually written is intended to gin up outrage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No…it is meant to document what is happening right now. You are wrong. I suggest you change your tone as this issue will be escalated. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan:, note that, based on some of the most WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doubling down I have seen in a very long while, I've modified your block to indefinite. There was no way that we weren't just going to end with the same issue after 31 hours.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have escalated the issue. The bullying, tone and actions are unacceptable. ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Information

Factual information with sources cited was published on the Pioneer Village Salem, Massachusetts page. It was neutral and only stated facts. The information was targeted for removal by those with a political intent and personal attacks were made in the talk. The appropriate accounts should be blocked and not mine. The impartial, factual information should be returned to the page. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that multiple editors in good standing are trying to explain the issues with your edits - at least two of which (myself and AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)) have been here for a while - suggests this isn't some grand political conspiracy; you're just disregarding valid criticism because you don't want to hear it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No….the information was factual and neutral. The criticism is not valid. Facts are facts and support material has been clearly cited. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks were made in the talk CLEARLY demonstrating that the information and myself personally were targeted by bullies. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple of facts for you: firstly, Wikipedia requires material to be directly sourced to published reliable sources, and secondly, attempting to cite 'the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties' (even with a link that worked) and claiming that it applies constitutes original research, since the document in question makes no mention of the Pioneer Village. We do not publish original research. I suggest you drop the nonsense about 'political attacks' and 'bullies', and take the trouble to find out how Wikipedia actually works, if you wish to pursue this further (which would require published sources directly addressing the issue in question - this is not open to negotiation). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That document is the national standard for preservation. If you were trained in the field as I am you would know that. Your tone is unacceptable. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t realize how absolutely biased the platform is. I thought this was supposed to be a place for facts….not feelings. Facts matter ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is biased against contributors adding their own unsourced soapboxing into articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Material is directly sourced and the fact that people are fighting a violation of national preservation standards is not a soapbox or opinion. You are wrong. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cite no source discussing the Village. Such a source would be an absolute requirement for inclusion of content on this issue. This is not open to negotiation. Wikipedia policies apply whether you understand them or not, and whether you agree with them or not. If you want content on this issue incleded in the article, find the required sources, directly discussing the Village. There is no other option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National standards apply to ALL historic properties. That’s why they are STANDARDS. this is a simple concept to understand. ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, you are likely to find yourself blocked indefinitely, since you seem incapable of understanding the policies and purpose of Wikipedia. We aren't the slightest bit interested in your personal opinions regarding 'standards', or anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not personal opinions! They are national standards! How do you not understand that? ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Factual Information Was Written

Decline reason:

As per my rationale in the below comment made by me. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I contributed factual information with cited sources on an article for Pioneer Village in Salem, MA. that information was targeted and removed for political reasons. I then received personal attacks in the talk section. The facts presented were neutral but I was accused of soap boxing. Those who removed content for political reasons should be blocked and the content restored. My account should be unblocked and those responsible should be held accountable for bias. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your block was for edit warring. Continuing to argue over article content will not assist you in a block review for this. Please consider your next edits. If you continue to make demands that your clearly originally researched, uncited, and not neutral content be retained amidst unfounded accusations of political editing you may find yourself blocked as not being here to build an encyclopaedia. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lie. National standards are not original research. I have specifically citing facts. The content was absolutely neutral. Receiving personal attacks in the talk section, as I have received is CLEARLY bullying. Removing factual content is CLEARLY political especially in the context of the personal attack previously mentioned. You are wrong. ValueOurHistory (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your source for began a project that would destroy the Camp Naumkeag cultural landscape located in another part of Salem (which I should note would also require ironclad sourcing)? Where's your source for The reasons and justifications for the project are disputed and some Salem residents are resisting the project? Where's your source for The city has not indicated that it would consider a demolition delay for the Pioneer Village cultural landscape and the future of America's first living history museum is uncertain? And where's your sources for this screed you wrote on the article about Kim Driscoll (which, again, require ironclad sourcing)? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the city of Salems own website! https://www.salemma.gov/pioneer-villagecamp-naumkeag ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The local newspaper. https://www.salemnews.com/news/commission-pledges-to-advocate-for-historical-camp-sites-as-demo-delay-expires/article_8ca940ca-272f-11ee-8e18-e374630bba62.html ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again….the local newspaper: https://www.salemnews.com/news/pioneer-village-move-complicated-by-history/article_4356c30c-1728-11ec-ad49-474941f24b93.html ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about the local resident group on Facebook fighting the project: https://www.facebook.com/groups/802591343782480 ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re just plain WRONG ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve gone mighty quiet when presented with facts and specific sources. Cat got your tongue? ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t seem like you’re interested in building an encyclopedia with facts. ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More like "I can't assess two of those sources", Facebook is not acceptable (no editorial oversight), and providing receipts to your claim of "no soapbox screeds or personal attacks". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously….you can’t assess community pushback from a Facebook group rooted in community action by the members of that group? That is your serious assertion? This is a joke right? You have got to be kidding me. ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're dead serious. A news article about community opposition would be better (and if one of the Salem News articles covers it, that would work). We don't cite social media in general except for verifying someone said something specific on it or in similar WP:ABOUTSELF fashion, and certainly not for something as controversial as you're painting this as. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit…a community group organized on Facebook has a clearly defined membership with clearly observable posts. ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll just point out at this point I have refuted EVERY ASSERTION made against me with clear facts and it ions. You’re just being argumentative because you are wrong over and over again. ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

citations

ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If those were the only qualifications, then yes, we could use them. But we're looking for editorial oversight - i.e. articles going through a fact-checking process that includes correcting or retracting articles that have errors. Social media doesn't have that - in fact, the concept is antithetical to the entire idea of social media in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the Salem governmental source? That article states that it is a proposal very clearly, whereas your edits constantly say the project has already begun, citing no sources. Unless one of the two paywalled Salem News sources says it's begun - and given their titles I'm doubtful that is the case - we can't have that in the article as it would fail verification. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s gone through demolition delay in the historical commission. Of course it’s begun! You clearly have no idea what the process is and you’re making decision based on pure ignorance even when given CLEAR sources! Wow! Is this how you function because it’s deplorable! ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should absolutely be removed from reviewing articles and accounts. ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't. And neither does the 99.8% of Wikipedia's audience that lives outside the Salem, Massachusetts area. This is why we insist on summarising sources as they are written, not as how a local would interpret them. Which means you need to come up with a source that explicitly and unambiguously states that the process has begun. After all, if this is as controversial as you make it out to be, then the demolition would have made at least local, if not state or county, news. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It did and the sources were provided. Including the city’s own webpage. WHICH I CLEARLY PROVIDED ABOVE. So there’s that! Really just deplorable! ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The competence level here is astoundingly low. I doubt very highly that all contributors are scrutinized to this level when they provide clear sources but get interrogated by low effort reviewers. ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the city's own webpage, again, explicitly states it is a proposal, and the titles of the Salem News sources don't suggest the demolition has taken place yet. But I repeat myself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is still invalid ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"no u" isn't a winning argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve presented facts and sources. None of your arguments have been valid and I have provided materials addressing every single one of them. Your low effort is not an arguement ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone but you holds that position. The only sources they might differ from me on are the Salem News sources, and that's because I can't read them due to the paywall (and I'm not paying for a local news subscription that isn't in my neck of the woods). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic-ban/indef block ValueOurHistory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should at least be able to respond but it appears that I am blocked from doing so. How utterly ridiculous. ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors sometimes make mistakes when they are unaware of how Wikipedia works; it's understandable, there are a lot of policies and guidelines. Many of these editors who find themselves blocked review the policies and guidelines that they had (often inadvertently) breached and modify their behaviour to avoid similar issues going forward. You have made it clear that aren't willing to even review the policies that are being provided here or to listen at all to what other editors are trying to explain to you. That is battleground, uncollaborative behaviour that demonstrates that you are here to push a specific point of view as opposed to working civilly with others. This is not how we build this encyclopedia.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. I provided factual information and was falsely accused in a manner and tone that is unacceptable. ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked indefinitely is absolute bullshit. You are the ones that don’t want to build a truthful and factual encyclopedia ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does it sink in that you're the only one who's trying to defend a hyperbolic soapbox speech and personal attacks against everyone trying to rationally explain things to you? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there were no hyperbolic soapbox speech or personal attack…you are lying ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*koff* —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? ValueOurHistory (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added hyperbolic soapbox screed.
Added hyperbolic soapbox screed that blatantly violates our biographical policies.
Accused editor removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons. (This is indeed a personal attack.)
Accused editor removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons.
Accused editor removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons.
Accused editor removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons.
Accused editor removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons.
Accused editors removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons.
Accused editor removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons. (I don't live anywhere near the region, let alone state or town, and don't give a rat's ass about this fight either way.)
Accused editors removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons.
Accused editors removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons.
In re this edit and all others alleging personal attacks I will note that I did see the personal attacks in question and actually contacted suppressors privately to hide anything that could be construed as an attempt to identify you off-Wikipedia.
Threatening to escalate the issue in response to a measured, calm explanation.
Accused editors removing soapbox screed of doing so for political reasons.
Accusing me of lying, prompting me to go over your contributions with a fine toothed comb.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good…now you should be quite clear how WRONG you are. Facts matter. ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how about those sources that confirmed EVERYTHING I added to the article? Every last thing. Facts matter. ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to bait me into juvenile personal attacks, I'm not going to indulge you. Your quite public contribution history speaks volumes more than all the ranting here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not baiting you at all. Just point out facts. And documenting your behavior. ValueOurHistory (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]