Wikipedia Admins, and other users, please read first
Black people did not leave Africa historically to the middle east, the far east, and elsewhere, as just a few slaves running around with no ingenuity of their own. You are looking at history from the prism of American colonialism. That's not the world, that's not the world's history. Not Egypt, not Asia, not beyond. Slavery did occur and that does account for some groups, but not all groups comprised of extra-african black people. Please stop running to the defesnse of this anti-black racist concept of history. It's not neutral and is filled with preconceived bias. --Panehesy (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The rule regarding the enforcement of Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy is as follows:
Enforcement by block 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone demonstrate how Ice_Cold_Beer administered this against me, or four others who were banned beforehand? --Panehesy (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Normally this should go on your talk page, and you might want to move it there. You are, as you've been told, confusing a ban with a block. A ban means you must not edit whatever you were banned from, a block stops you from editing anything but your talk page. You were given a six month ban, you broke it and you could have been blocked for a week, but instead you were only blocked for 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Black Ancient Egypt... fringe view?
The theory that the Ancient Egyptians were black is indeed a fringe view. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not a fringe view and is not even considered resolved. Fringe views are like the Dynastic Race Theory. Black Egyptians are based on an understanding of what black means and can vary based on that understanding. And for the most part, if you go anywhere, whether it's a forum, or yahoo answers, or anywhere for that matter, a sizeable chunk of people believe they were black. For it to be fringe, there could not be this much belief that they were. Also, for it to be fringe, you would have to show how the original archaeologists, concluding without a doubt that they were black, were overruled. To say "they aren't black, because our definition of race is not clear on the issue" is invalid. You're basing that on a definition of blackness that has no bearing on the belief by many others that they are black. --Panehesy (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
How to stop contributors from demonstrating that the ancient Egyptians were black
- Call the Afrocentric view about the Ancient Egyptians being black "fringe", then
- over regulate Through the most stringent enforcement of citations and copyrighted pictures.
- When cited, by contributors describing this view, unilaterally remove contributions based on POV calls for relevance.
- Then call multiple contributors to the article sockpuppets. This eliminates the accurate understanding that the view is not fringe. #Antagonize the black supporting contributors by violating Wikipedia policy and engaging in disruptive dialogue on the talk page, when they engage you, rely on the admins to block them... you will be safe because they will of course be biased and ignore your own violations.
- When all else fails, place the article itself under an enforcement and recruit an administrator who will support your purpose and will block all contributors, leaving the article without one side and allowing you to push your view that the Egyptians were not black, and that it wasn't even a controversy.
--Panehesy (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but it doesn't matter, let it go. We contributed in a way that made the issue known. You knew they were going to do that, so just move on to the next topic. Send your arguements to the next contributor and work though them till this blows over. We got the rest of it covered. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)