User talk:Taharqa

Welcome

Hello, Taharqa, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! NeoFreak 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

It's nice to see a new username looking at the articles on Race and intelligence (they need a lot of work!) If you have the change could you look at this new article I created today: Race and health? futurebird 04:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

^Cool, I'll check it out..Taharqa 05:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

PS you should think about joining WP:AFRO futurebird 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

^Oooh! That's a great idea! I'll see what I can do, I'll definitely try and see if I can..

Race and intelligence (explanations)‎

I really need some help with this article. I've added a ton of evidence against the genetic explanation, but now WRN is trying to frame the whole thing in terms of "well you never know it might be genetics!" --It's the idea that no matter what you do, I mean, even if there was no test score gap, until you have proven there is NO genetic link you ought to assume that there is one. He's invoking Occam's razor and I think that's ABSURD. Occam's razor says choose the obvious cause: RACISM. duh duh duh. I've just about had it with this article. How many years will it be before people simply realise that (a) Jensen is a nut (b) we ought to have been spending all this time and research money trying to help people live better lives rather than trying to prove that people are inferior because of some 19th century vendetta in some circles of the academic community against africa.

I'm just really angry and sick of going in circles. I need some help. I don't want to just give up and watch as all of my hard work is slowly obliterated. futurebird 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Taharqa I'm not trying to cause any trouble editing the pages, with that info I found so I was hoping you could do it for me since you're more active on this page Louisvillian 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

^I don't know, I'm sure sure how to present it. I'll see if I can.Taharqa 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Great work so far from what I've seen. I don't understand why you deleted the section on the Indo-European expansion in the 2nd millenium BC. It was POV, but needs to be rewritten, not deleted. Anyway, keep up the good work. BTW, do you happen to post at Egyptsearch.com? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

^Sup.. The indo-european crap was flat out Aryanistic propoganda with out source, that's why I deleted it. And yea, I pass through Egyptsearch from time to time, very informative site. - Taharqa

Invitation

Belovedfreak 09:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the invite!Taharqa 09:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Sphinx

Taharqa, can you find informations in English about the commentaries of D. Vivant Denon on the Sphinx of Guizeh to be added to the article "Egypt and race"? He was an artist. He took part in the expedition of Bonaparte to Egypt and, once there, made a design of the Sphinx. Here are some informations in French http://www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=155. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Black origin of the Greecs

Taharqa, find the full article about the Black African origin of the Greecs here http://www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=914&artsuite=1 or here http://www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=157&artsuite=1. Thank you for the links you suggested to me earlier. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The links

Thank you Taharqa for the links on the work of Basil Davidson. I find this man quite objective about Africa. Because of his commitment to truth, Eurocentric scholarship qualifies him as a leftist. Yes, truth is bitter! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the sources. I swear some of the crap these ignorant racist post is just sickening to read, again thanks for shutting them up! 74.128.200.135 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem...

Okay I'm sick of this crap they are posting on Stormfront [1] Taharqa this debate needs to enter in it. These racist pricks have the habit relentless debating BS without a source to back it, yet more and more just keep eating it up. Please join in this debate as you are much more qualified than myself to argue with them. I will help you in way I can in this debate, just please enter it as soon as possible. I've already presented the info you gave, it's just now they are attempting to twist it with their own logic Louisvillian 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Taharqa for the additional info! I can kind of understand where your coming from, But me just being me I don't like to let ignorant shit like that spread even if it's within their own forum, But again Thanks. Louisvillian 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt and race

I have blocked you from editing for 36 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Ancient Egypt and race. [2] [3] [4] [5] You have broken the three revert rule, but even if you had not, the rule is not a license to make three reverts every day. Your recent edits to the article have been nothing but revert after revert after revert, and this is extremely disruptive to the other editors who are involved with the article, as well as to readers. In the future, please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. I strongly suggest a request for comment. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ··coelacan 22:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Welcome back

Taharqa, things stoped since you have been stoped. Myself I wanted to be honest with you and Urthogie. I did not want to profit from your absence to make edits. So welcome back! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I archived the material you wanted removed for you. To archive, in case you ever want to create a second archive (I have two myself; the first got full]] just create somthing that says [[/archive 2|archive 2]] on the top of your page, then click the red link, and put the old material in there. Thanatosimii 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Ancient Egypt and Race

It's already on my watchlist, but I'm a little busy right now, so I can't really help out for about a week. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

^Ok - Taharqa

• Wikipedia:Third opinion might help.--Urthogie 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race

Hello Urthogie,

I am writing to you because, as a party to this case, your input is required before mediation can begin, to do with an offer by an experienced non-Committee member to mediate. Please see the Parties' agreement to Eagle 101's offer section and provide your input, so that this case can progress. Voting will remain open for seven days, and further elaboration is provided at that link.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Before I revert Dynastic Race again...

I want to know if you have actually read Redford's book. Thanatosimii 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you, because you keep asserting what redford does and does not say, and since you just recently asked, "Who's redford?" I have to wonder if you have read it in the interceeding hours since you discovered he existed, such that you have authority to state what he says and does not say. Thanatosimii 22:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, by the way, I provided the wording for Dynastic Race. I am the author of that article in virtually its totality. If you read the book and wish to contest my summary, we can discuss it, but don't take a vendetta against Urthogie to other pages. Thanatosimii 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning

With regards to your comments on Talk:Ancient Egypt and race#remove out of context quote: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. NeoFreak 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, as you've noted you don't agree with the appropriateness of my warning. That's fine, as long as you do not remove the warning you don't have to like it. I've received warnings that I didn't agree with either, I just take it on the chin and move on. I understand that Urthogie has insulted you in the past, there is a long history of unacceptable behavior on both your parts. I'm not going to go back and archive it all and count out warnings, that't not the point. From this moment on, until you two resolve this issue or an Admin or the ArbComm decides otherwise I'm going to continue to give out warnings to every editor that violates clear policy. If either of you contine with the sort of behaivor that is causing the problems I will have that person blocked. So please, calm down and try to be cool. NeoFreak 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the warning in specific reference to your insinuation that Urthogie's actions were "incompetent". I understand the point you could make that it was "the edit" and not "the editor" that was incompetent but such semantics largely loose their weight in the context of your tone. I'm not trying to flex any muscles here, the distribution of warning templates is within every editors "power" and I would argue it is also their responsibility. I'm not following up on all of this because I want to send the impression that I'm a "powerful guy" as you've suggested, I'm doing so because I've seen what this conflict with Urthogie is doing to an already fragile article. Don't ever be afraid to hit me up on my talk page, as a matter of fact don't be afraid to seek a third opinion or even request administrator assitance. Also, please sign your comments on my page with four tildes. Thanks.NeoFreak 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My short answer is no. To declare someone or their actions "incompetent" is clear ad hominum and you failed to address the issue at hand, instead going after the editor wit scorn. Again, please sign your posts on my talk page. NeoFreak 18:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeoFreak 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and citations

I am sorry, but I am not wrong. I do not know how to deal with you if you simply reject outrightly the most basic statements of Egyptolgical fact without any basis. I have examined the Berlin Dictionary and Faulkner's dictionary and found no such definition or root off of which your definition of pwn.t can be derived.

If you want to contest that the statements I make are baseless, find a reputable citation for your own statements first.

(Oh, "personal attack" covers a lot of bad behavior on wikipedia, and both your friend and you have perpetrated numerous said attacks. Read WP:CIVL and Wikipedia:No personal attacks) Thanatosimii 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sphinx

Taharqa, look at this information about the testimony of D. Vivant Denon on the Sphinx. Can you put it in good english and bring it to the article. Let go off the letter to the editor. Somebody removed it again. Thank you for the link you provided me. I am going to look into it. "Le Témoignage de D. Vivant Denon à propos du Sphinx de Guizeh.

UN CÉLÈBRE DESSINATEUR FRANÇAIS, MEMBRE DE L’EXPÉDITION D’EGYPTE DE BONAPARTE, NOUS LÈGUE SES IMPRESSIONS SUR LE SPHINX DE GUIZEH.

L’Egyptologie doit au français Dominique Vivant Denon, un formidable dessin du Sphinx de Guizeh intitulé : "Le Sphinx près des Pyramides".

D. VIVANT DENON (1747 - 1825) Toile de Pierre-Paul Prud’hon

1 -Un artiste français renommé pour son talent :

Dessinateur, graveur et artiste de talent, Dominique Vivant DENON était aussi très apprécié en France pour son érudition. C’est donc en raison de toutes ces qualités artistiques, que Napoléon Bonaparte fit appel à lui dans le cadre de son expédition en Égypte (1798-1799).

Sa mission fut de recueillir par le biais de nombreux croquis et dessins, tout le patrimoine (faune, flore, objets, stèles, statuts, monuments, barques, etc...) de l’Egypte ancienne afin de mieux faire connaître cette civilisation dans l’hexagone. La photographie n’existant pas à l’époque, c’est dire le caractère précieux des dessins de V. Denon.

Pour ses bons et loyaux services, il devint officiellement membre de "l’Institut d’Égypte" créé par BONAPARTE et fut même nommé directeur du Musée du Louvre dont l’une des entrées porte encore aujourd’hui son nom.

2- Un témoignage précieux pour l’histoire africaine :

Naturellement, Denon ne pouvait manquer l’occasion de dessiner le célèbre Sphinx de Guizeh, dans le cadre de l’expédition de Bonaparte. Son dessin du visage du Sphinx, il l’a lui-meme commenté. Voici textuellement ses propos :

"Je n’eus que le temps d’observer le Sphinx qui mérite d’être dessiné avec le soin le plus scrupuleux, et qui ne l’a jamais été de cette manière. Quoique ses proportions soient colossales, les contours qui en sont conservés sont aussi souples que purs : l’expression de la tête est douce, grâcieuse et tranquille ; le caractère en est africain : mais la bouche, dont les lèvres sont épaisses, a une mollesse dans le mouvement et une finesse d’exécution vraiment admirables ; c’est de la chair et de la vie."

DESSIN DU SPHINX REALISE PAR D. VIVANT DENON Plus loin commentant l’art égyptien, il écrit :

"Quant au caractère de leur figure humaine, n’empruntant rien des autres nations, ils ont copié leur propre nature, qui était plus gracieuse que belle. ... en tout, le caractère africain, dont le Nègre est la charge, et peut-être le principe". [1]

Références bibliographiques:

[1] Vivant DENON, Voyage dans la Basse et le Haute Égypte pendant les campagnes du Général BONAPARTE, Paris, 1ere édition Didot l’Aîné, 1802 ; réédition, Pygmalion/Gérard Watelet, 1990, p. 109." Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

dangerous edit

hi, bruh. thnx for keepin an eye on the Mali Empire page. I think I'm gonna request protection on it. what was the dangerous edit rv, by the way? Scott Free 14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

egypt and race talk page

I think we've come to a stand still on that talk page. How about we agree to devote sorting out our disagreements to the mediation page, which is a lot more organized/distracting, until the page is renamed? Thanks, --Urthogie 01:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

Hey, you're blocked and I don't see any reason to halt mediation for 5 days because of this. Tell me what you think of my most recent suggestion on mediation:

""Sociological topics of ancient Egypt" refers to every social phenomenon that occurred in ancient Egypt. "Biogeography of ancient Egypt" or "Biogeographical relationships of ancient Egypt" don't seem to be sensical titles, either-- are we to discuss the biogeography of the lizards and the ants and the bacteria? Perhaps Taharqa means to suggest we call the article Human biogeography of ancient Egypt. This would be a nice big article, yes, but it would still not have any discussion of the appearance of the ancient Egyptians. So, Taharqa, in an effort to make a compromise, here is my new suggested split:

• Human biogeography of ancient Egypt (Taharqa's suggestion, basically... we would have the current title we have now redirect to it)

This would include all of section 3 (Research) with the exception of section 3.4 (Appearence) and all of section 6 (discarded hypotheses)

• Appearance of the ancient Egyptians

This would include all of section 2 (ancient writers), section 3.4 (appearence), section 4 (mummy reconstructions), and section 5 (art and architecture)

• Afrocentrism and ancient Egypt

This would include the content we currently have in section 1 (defining race) and section 7 (Afrocentrism)

• Myths about ancient Egypt

This would include not only section 8 (myths) but also tons of myths about ancient Egypt that don't relate to race. It would follow HIV and AIDS misconceptions in style.

This is a nice concise list, and we could merge the remaining stuff to existing articles. What do you think of this, Taharqa?--Urthogie 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please do not drastically change anything until I'm able to edit, your edits tend to misrepresent the data and undermine it to fit your POV imo. As I've stated before, you're obscuring the main objective of the article imo with all of these extra titles that are either trivial, or express the same thing. The peopling and biogegraphic relationships of ancient Egypt, or something similar to that will due imo.. - Taharqa

Bagnall in Walker

Hey, a few days ago, you added some info that was very close to the Britannica article's summary on the portraits and attributed to Bagnall in Walker (2000). See here. There was no page number associated, however. Did you mean to attribute this to Britannica or part of the sentence to Bagnall, and other parts to Britannica? Please clear this up so that I can re-insert the citation where it belongs (I've removed it for now, since it didn't have a page number). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the entire book elaborates on this and clearly identifies these portraits as Roman Egyptian Fayyum representatives. I simply used the source to support the assertion made by Britannica. - Taharqa

Okay, well, be sure to bring it up and elaborate on the talk page when your block expires tomorrow. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hullo Taharqa

I hope you will be back soon. Truth, nobody can block it anyway! People know well on which side do you stand. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

^Fasho. Thanx Luka.. - Taharqa

Taharqa

I saw your message. My goodness I was so upset, I wasn't finished so reverted as I was trying to find you the proof that I did not write those rotten words. Thank you for your messsage and apology. :) Sheesh, I got so flustered I'm shaking. Please fix your signature because I couldn't click on a link to get here quickly enough. - Jeeny ^Talk 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) My stomach has been in knots the last couple of days and I've been unable to eat (unrelated to any of this). But, I think your last message to me made me well again. Now I'm having hunger pangs! LOL. :) Ummm, now what should I eat? - Jeeny ^Talk 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^Haha, I'm glad to here that.. I don't know what time it is where you are but I recommend a round table, pepperoni Pizza.. LOL.. - Taharqa

WP:NPA

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making personal attacks. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ··coelacan 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What is this?! No no no no, that was the most hasty and unfair block in the world, what is this? It was a misunderstanding and I responded to the wrong person, I only replied to this and was mocking the individual whom you neglected to block.. No one even reported anyone and it was settled, what is this?!! Please unblock me now, this was the most unwarranted block ever imo, what is this?! Nor was a warning issued, just a hasty block out of nowhere!

Decline reason:

I'm afraid that there is indeed a systematic bias against calling other editors "low-life racist Nazi[s]" -- I would like to assume good faith, but having read the exchanges below, I do not get any impression that you regret having said this, only that you regret having been blocked for it. There really are better ways to handle disruptive users. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Block is still unjustified however due to you mis-quoting me as no one called any one a "low-life racist nazi", I hate it when people put too much on it and and twist words around to make their case stronger, and make you seem wrong.. This is deception(unless that was unintentional.. So be it though, what can I do about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taharqa (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 June 2007.

You are an established user, you are aware of the WP:NPA policy. No warning is necessary, when you're trying to get another user blocked with an AIV report and at the same time making personal attacks against them. Your block log should be warning enough to you. You cannot go around calling other users "low-life racist Nazis". ··coelacan 17:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption" (WP:NPA)

^Was this truly an "extreme" case? What happened?

Still! That is extremely hasty, can you please give me a break? I was responding to this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taharqa&diff=135312550&oldid=135255337

Quote: "Even though this is not an exhaustive list, if a situation is not listed below, then a block is more likely to be controversial than otherwise." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Protection

^The situation was not listed below no matter how anybody flips that isolated situation, how is this block truly justified? I'm only asking for a reconsideration, maybe it was just a harsh block..

So I'm a "Black Afrocentric", even though I never declared my ethnicity or ideology?

I'm so sick and tired of dealing with racism! Can you please give me a break, please don't fight me.. That was the most insulting message I've ever received and it seems I never get the benefit of the doubt for the simple fact that I've been blocked a few times, you guys won't even give me a chance to recover! Can you please reconsider as I didn't initiate that and a warning would of held me off fine, please reconsider because this is truly unjust imo.. I feel very strongly about that.. I'm not giving an excuse for the PA, but the block was uncalled for imo given the circumstances. Am I just not liked, what is it?! I can't do anything with out getting bumrushed.. And you still haven't even warned or blocked him for PA and he was the agitator, what is going on?! Also no one called him a Nazi, I said that in response to his message to me, he was "coming off" like one. Again, what is going on with the selective blocks/warnings, and lack of warnings on my behalf? The only reason is because I've been blocked before?(not for personal attacks).. These petty blocks due to petty disputes make me look much worse than I am!!! Maybe I just shouldn't edit anymore, I've gotten off on the wrong foot and now admins(who check my block log) to personal attackers almost seem bias against me and wait on any little thing to block me from wikipedia.. Will an apology not suffice?- Taharqa

There's nothing selective going on. The other user was blocked as well, for the same amount of time as you. I will make sure to leave a warning about future personal attacks for that user, just in case they aren't aware of the policy (I doubt that, but I will leave the warning). ··coelacan 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^Now yo do it at my request, but at first it wasn't selective?

Again..

Quote: "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption" (WP:NPA)

^Was this truly an "extreme" case? What happened?

Quote: "Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact."

^I have never been blocked and have been only warned once(unjustly by an editor) for personal attacks, so for the life of me I can't understand why this shouldn't be taken into consideration and why I'm blocked. The guy was obviously being a vandal, sent me hate messages, I respond, and you instantly block me for 48 hours(before you blocked him) accusing me of personal attacks and mis-quoting me(saying I called him a lowlife Nazi). It was a personal response, tit for tat of what he said. But giving us both 48 hours is fair? Based on what? My block log, so it has nothing to do with what happened but the fact that I'm a wiki 'criminal', I get no lee way? This is harsh and simply a slap in my face imo, again, can you reconsider? Please let me knoe ASAP(decline/accept? or you'll think about it)- Taharqa

That's right, I'm not being selective. The other user was blocked at 17:04, and you were blocked at 17:07. I didn't wait for you to complain; I blocked the other user first and when I was doing so, I saw the "Nazi" attack you made. ··coelacan 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As to your request, I am not unblocking. I see no distinction between "you are acting like a lowlife Nazi" and "you are a lowlife Nazi". I believe such words constitute an extreme case. I will leave your unblock request in place; the point of it is for another admin to review it, who may disagree with me. ··coelacan 18:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^Yes, but you didn't address most of my concerns above, and the fact still stands that you only warned him after I complained even though I was obviously quoting and responding to him. He initiated it, yet I get the brunt of responsibility for it, and he only gets a warning and gets blocked for something else? Why am I being punked like this? Did that isolated incident really warrant a block and is it too hard to simply give me a break on that(despite my edit dispute history, even though none of my blocks consisted of personal attacks)? How is that an extreme case just because you personally misinterpret what I wrote?.. I said that he was coming off like a low-life racist, which was in direct response to what he sent me.. There are other ways to deal with this other than hastily blocking me imo, I'm not a monster and I consider myself very reasonable. Can you yourself please save time and compromise with me as you're the one who gave me the block, for whatever reason.. I am not a threat nor was I intending on being disruptive to wikipedia, it was simply an isolated, reactionary response that wasn't even prejudice, it was a general response to a particular kind of message. How extreme was it, does the word "Nazi" carry that much baggage that any use of the word results in a block? I have no freedom whatsoever(again, not excusing PA on anyone's part but I personally am almost dead as it concerns wikipedia, since I got off on the wrong foot over petty disputes, and now any edit I make is under intense scrutiny), not fair imo at all and I'm powerless here as my reasoning seems worthless to you.. Whatever, I'll just leave this up in the air and come back later, but I feel more strongly than ever before that this block is 100% unjust..- Taharqa

Your personal attack was more egregious, and blocked is blocked. I felt the other user's pattern of edit warring was their worst action, whereas your personal attack was your worst. That's how the blocks came down. You pointed out that the other user should be warned for personal attacks as well, and I did so. I don't believe there's anything unfair in that. First you said that I didn't block the other user until you complained; when I pointed out that this is false, you complain that it's unfair that I didn't warn them sooner. I think you are grasping at straws, and it hardly reflects on why you should not be blocked. Yes, calling someone a Nazi is absolutely unacceptable and it should result in an immediate block. To claim that a person approves of the murder of millions of people is effectively the worst thing anyone can say, imho. ··coelacan 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To say that I'm grasping at straws based on that one technicality is horrendously false and only seeks to undermine my reasoning and potentially saving face for your over enthusiastic blockage. I noticed my block before it was on his page, but maybe I never refreshed. It also still holds true that you only decided to give him a warning due to my complaints but not at your own discretion. To say that my "personal attack" was egregious is so much of a broad overstatement that I can't even defend against that, because this is simply your stated opinion, but there's no way to confirm this claim. Again, you're simply not assuming good faith and I'm painted as some guy who went out of his way to abuse someone's feelings, when I simply overreacted in response to a personal attack towards me! Also, your insistence that I actually called him a Nazi when I didn't will only lead to circular arguments and will get nowhere as this is all that you have to say, but no one called him a Nazi and that wasn't my intention to call him one, but I guess in my particular individual personal case, assuming good faith or giving me a break(not even a 'break', the block was harsh!) is out of the question. It isn't why I should not be blocked as far as I'm concerned, but why I should be blocked. But apparently more often than not the editor is just flat out wrong while the admin is always right.. I feel as if there is a lack of reason and balance here and this type of selective and harsh blockage shouldn't be accepted by any editor... - Taharqa

Well, you're currently in Category:Requests for unblock. If someone else thinks the block was too harsh, they can unblock you. I'll defer to another admin's judgment, lest I fall into the trap of trying to "save face". ··coelacan 19:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^Obviously you can't be too sure if you're leaving it open for review instead of declining me as fast as you blocked me. If they don't get around to it, at least at the very least can you shorten the time at least by a day (24 hours instead of 48)? There is no way in the world that I'll ever feel justified in being blocked for 48 just for one isolated incident where I overreacted, even though the way I 'feel' may not matter(no one called anyone "a Nazi" either). - Taharqa

As an admin previously wholly uninvolved in this debate, but having found it in Category:Requests for unblock, I have reviewed the interchange in question. In my opinion telling an editor that they are behaving like a racist Nazi is wholly unacceptable, and I agree with user:coelacan in his blocking decision.--Anthony.bradbury 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^I'd only expect admins to back their fellow admins, but this is vague and is not a reason for a blockage imo, how was this isolated incident an extreme case and why is it so hard to give me a break on it given the circumstances of him attacking me after vandalizing an article I was watching?. I honestly don't need different admins coming in and out stating who they agree with, I need a decline or accept decision, with a reason. All personal attacks are 'unacceptable' and I would never claim other wise, but I don't see how this hasty block will solve anything given that this was an isolated situation and being that I've been trying to plead to get this unblocked or shortened for over an hour is punishment enough imo.. Someone calls me a "Black Afrocentric", I mock them and say that they're acting like a "low-life Nazi", and I'm blocked? I don't know, I smell something strange but won't make any ill-informed accusations. I no longer can assume good faith as it concerns some people on here, seems like there's some type of systematic bias against certain types of people all over wikipedia, but we are always advised to 'assume good faith' no matter what? That isn't realistic, there are real people on here with real agendas, these are not unfallable robots who lack prejudice. Just please decline, accept(my unblock request), or shorten my block so I can move on. At this point, it's whatever.. - Taharqa

Any "Systematic bias" indeed has nothing to do with me or any one person. Declined with out a reason, just a response to something I said, which further reinforces my point. So be it, thanx for your time. - Taharqa

In other words, you adamantly believe that what you said was entirely acceptable behavior for a Wikipedian, and refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that someone might believe otherwise? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Black Afrocentric" is not in itself an insult. The only reason it ends up counted under WP:NPA is because it was used to argue that your views should not be afforded due consideration. I'll use myself as an example since I'm a safe target. If someone said, "Coelacan, you're a black Afrocentric", this would be at worst a myopic appraisal of my biases. If they said "Coelacan, you're a black Afrocentric so you can be ignored", then that would be a personal attack. On the other hand, calling someone a Nazi is, all by itself and in any context, pretty much the worst insult known to modern humans. I blocked you because of that. I have declined to unblock because you seem primarily concerned with minimizing the importance of what you said, rather than simply owning up to it and moving on. I can't see how you stretch this into a systemic bias. ··coelacan 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^If you want to keep insisting that I called him a Nazi then go ahead if that makes you feel better about your hasty and totally unreasonable/uncompromising, harsh 48 hour decision, go right ahead..

He called me a "Black Afrocentric"(given the tone, it was an insult and you undermining it is suspect), I said that he's acting like something that he's probably not. Again, this is unjust and I'll leave it at that, don't even worry about me, just know that this particular block was seen as controversial and that my view on the situation is inadequate compared to the admins who obviously realized my intentions much better than I did and felt that I was that much of a threat to wiki editors that I had to be blocked for 48 hours in order to stop my endless attack on people who all sent me messages, that I in turn accused of acting like a nationalist group from Germany. - Taharqa

I'm not undermining what the other user said; I'm saying that "black Afrocentric" is only an insult if it is used to claim that the person should not be respected or given due consideration. Which, in this case, it was. So yes, it was a personal attack. And I have warned the user for it, and the user is currently blocked, and if they do it again you can drop me a message on my talk page or by email and I will block them again. I will not play your game in which "X is acting like a Y" would be different than "X is a Y". Who acts like a duck, except a duck? I regard any claim of difference as equivocation. And even by your own rules, you called the editor a racist. There were many ways you could have handled this; claiming that your remark wasn't really so bad was not one of the wiser choices available to you. Unless you are trying to tell me that you were until this very moment unaware of The Holocaust, then I really don't see how you can downplay it. ··coelacan 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^Again, all you're doing is accusing me of being a liar and insulting my intelligence right now, seriously.. The "If it looks and acts like a duck, what is it" phrase doesn't apply here and those broad analogies used in reference to this particular case only downplays the variability of expression and intention to their most downgraded form. I did not call the editor a racist, one only needs to go over the semantics of what was said to see that I was mocking him!(not yelling at you, only emphasizing).. It was in direct response to what he said so I accused him of "coming off like"(synonymous with "acting like") a Nazi, then I asked him to stop the personal attacks. Given that one would take this at face value would clearly see that at that moment I didn't take that as a personal attack. Though I realize it now, I still disagree with how it is being twisted, what I'm being accused of actually doing, and that I should be blocked with out being warned(regardless of how long I've been here, the incident was isolated). The Holocaust shouldn't be a measuring stick used to judge my intent as in its most Layman form, Nazi simply carries the connotation of racist, the history behind it is the underlying detail. If you're not considering on unblocking me or productively debating this with me in light of you coming to grips on rather or not the Block was truly justified, I don't see the discussion progressing any further, given that you're set it your decision(not being rude). - Taharqa

You did in fact call them a racist, outright, even by your own semantics, when you said: "From your reply to me it seems that you are a white Eurocentric racist." But anyway no, I'm not planning to unblock you. My replies here have been to clarify my reasoning and respond to charges of bias. I'm not sure whether the discussion is otherwise productive, but I don't intend to ignore you either. ··coelacan 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, sometimes I feel I have to pay you a visit to see if everything is OK with you! Please cool down and stop this endless discourse. Our fight for truth about African History is more important. Don't respond anymore. You are very intelligent. You can understand. I will be wainting for your coming back. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)