Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:26, 14 July 2007

Misplaced Pages Policy This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned. User:Akrabbim/UBX/Lines This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive. This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks. This user finds edit/revert wars disruptive. This user has a ton of edits. This user is banned from editing the English Misplaced Pages. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. (block log · contributions)

Archive #

Zaphnathpaaneah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MODERATORS and WIKI-ADMINS READ

Although i will moderate comments on here, I will not take out the essential points. I just want to limit the distracting dialogue. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note to the moderators. You guys have acted with the kind of ignorance that I had wasted my time trying to deny.

• Who is Black was changed to Definitions of Black people without following the rules. The change back was never respected.

• the Black people article, as we all know because we are all intelligent, is an article that forms a backbone for other articles related to it (articles discussing black people certainly would have to be consistent with black people). All of these red-tape and attempts at policy excuses have only led to you contradicting yourselves. Lets see

1. 1 you retained the changed title "definitions" despite the obvious offense. Defining black people is a subtle but noticable prejudice against black people. And if you are still to stupid to get this, let me ask you the obvious question: WHO is doing the defining? In this Misplaced Pages, and in the context of the POVs accepted by the moderators, Black people are certainly not doing the defining... that is unless, they parrot the articulations of racist and ignorant white "deciders".

1. 2 One of your admins Jossi had come in to moderate. He requested reputable sources to back up my claims that some asian groups were identified as black. Jossi ignored the references I brought, even saying that they were not called black in the articles. (I quoted from the article where they clearly are called black).

1. Although my first request for arbitration was handled fairly, subsequent attempts to resolve the dispute were not met with honest deliberation of the evidence I presented. Instead, attempts to curtail the content thorugh elaborate copywright and citational red tape was used to remove content. No moderator took the time to really read the content I presented or at least scan for it. No, instead all attempts were made to make black people "only africans except for the slaves that were brought out."

1. 3 You allowed a foolish use of Black-Irish to be used as a counterbalance against the Aeta as a group of black people. Even though Black-Irish have never been called or identified as "black people" and even though the Aeta have been identified as "black people".

1. 4 Time and time again, when people are presented that support the position I hold, you call them fringe afrocentricists (despite the fact that the conversation must occur between the groups in question, not from outsiders). Users who support my positions are not respected.

1. 5 Admin warnings are used one sidedly. So a Eurocentric contributor who breaks rules is not warned, where-as I and others are warned.

1. 6 The differing viewpoints are viewpoints of inclusion not of substitution. The NPOV is lost when one side unilaterally rewords the article to reflect their viewpoint "although" is used as a weasel word in the black people articles.

1. 7 The viewpoints of millions of black people are treated as fringe. Even when they have a more logical POV than the "mainstream", they are not even allowed to be articulated fairly in the article.

So you guys keep on showing your prejudice in here. I have no problem with the ban. You actually took a little longer than I expected, but I could see two of your moderators stumbling over yourselves with the "definitions of black people". Which way were you gonna go? Delete the article for "copywright violations" or neutralize the reversion to it's original title? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this once more. You are an intelligent person. Drop the hate for just a moment, OK? I told you why I deleted the article: It came back as a copyright violation. Copyright violations are "shot on sight." No questions asked. All I did was to suggest that you change the copyrighted text. Ryulong moved the text to a title keeping within this site's conventions and you went completely unhinged. Get that chip off your shoulder, man. That's a damned heavy load. - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah

Hello Zaphnathpaaneah,

I noticed your recent contribution to Halaqah's talk page. While I may agree with your criticism that his edits are POV and need reevaluation, I would like to point out that your comment is walking the line between critique and personal attack. You may wish to chose wording which clearly critique the user's edits and not the user. I don't feel that you violated WP:NPA, I'd just like to make sure that it doesn't come to that. Otherwise, I find your comments insightful. Thanks. --Strothra 03:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a risk I have to take. This guy is on the Arabic-Islam-Africa slant and I am so tired of that. Never do those Arabo-Afrikans (whether the Nation of Islam based nor the Arabic-Islamic based) ever address the atrocitities done by Arabs against my people. You never hear them stand up against the atrocities in Sudan and Mauritania, nor do you hear them stand up against the abuses by Islamic sharia Law throughout Africa. No, instead, they merely pretend that Christians have been practicing anti-black slavery since before the 14th century. As if the only Christians have been historically in Europe. So yes, I have to call them/him out. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah

I am not part of halaqah media i am called halaqah it is a name blah blah blah. "we" means "we" like "we" black people, or in my case "we" the progressive Africans. Maybe you woke up in an alternate universe Why would an Arab be promoting African identity? I woud think you worshipping Jesus would be a little more careful, if your accusations are true for me then they must be more true for you. The African Holocaust section is balanced, it is naturally for Christians to say these things, so i wouldn’t even go into it. Its like lets attack Islam, i heard it was a new trend. If you cannot define who you are don’t attack who i am, i have stated an opinion and backed it up time and time again. The site i refer you to is not Halaqah Media but African Holocaust. If lazy people would get with the program they would be a standardization of African history, but when the Islamic Africans do something guess who complains--funny that. Sit on your tail and get hooked up on black. We got scholars like Diop, Mazrui out there doing ground breaking research and what do people like you come back with the old Islam and Arab thing. WAS MALCOLM ARABIZED? you need to watch it because you attack Islam you attack yourself! And you adhere to what religion again? lets no go there. I starting getting attacks by Misplaced Pages members the Negroes dont come and support me no they sell me down river, they would betray a fellow brother to the white man, sounds familiar? No one went and voted on Anti-African, but all the whites from the black article did, guess how they voted? The tradition of Islamic scholarship on Africa is why there is an African history, 1/2 the documents are in Arabic, so excuses me for knowing what i know. The most sicken thing about this is the denial Christians "blacks" have for the efforts of Islam in Africa. They try to write Islam out of Africa, but when Christianity went there Islam was already there. But thats not my point, the point is about religion as a divide among oppressed people. Only a fool would keep attacking African Muslims trying to do the work, and only a fool would discredit Christians trying to do the work. People in chains are one village. Work with the facts, Yes Arabs, Africans and white people messed up Africa. Human beings seem to like to do that to each other. But dont pretend via your faith that you are something better, their is absolutely no secret about Christianity as a precursor for Holocaust; Jewish Holocaust, African Holocaust, Native American Holocaust, all these came with the Bible. I have the intelligence to divide Christianity from these acts but i cannot ignore the Bible and gun dilemma. or should i say the problems with religion in the hands of man (man kind). Everyone’s got a POV. And that You debate with “Muslims” (are there a problem now?), whats that about one way thinking, I debate with everybody and trust me most Muslims don’t like what I have to say.!--Halaqah 03:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Am Zaph have you seen my contributions about Arab slave trade? Do you think Arabs like me for doing that? I have been on Muslim forums getting greif, I ask all people to be honest. Christains and muslims have the same disease, they sometimes serve religion before God. So they defend the undefendable to protect religion. This is why slavery lasted so long, this is why it hasnt stopped! re:Middle East, Israel and USA, yes USA--Halaqah 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And you know your comments are wild and all over the place, notice i didnt accuse you of anything. You see Halaqah and you come with a pre-packaged anti-terror agenda. WHat is that you said about light skin rulling dark skin, how can that apply to me? that is so not relevant. I am the one that was most vocal about that Ethiopians are white people crap. I am also the one that backed the need for a diverse defn inclusiive of what the rest of them called "Afrocentric". you start personalizing it it goes elsewhere, 4 the benfit of none.--Halaqah 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, whatever the case may be, your identity is not that important, but I still think you are Shahadah. The African Holocaust section at a site (which you are not a part of), is linked directly from Halaqah Media, as is Shahadah’s own site. I don’t have a problem with Islamic Africans doing exactly what you say, but on the same token, most of the African history has been established by Christian Africans and Christian African-Americans. Do not forget that. I do not have a problem with Muslim Africans (I have Muslim African relatives), but I do not like the “turn a blind eye” attitude in regards to Islamization. I do not recognize Islam as being a foundational aspect of my being, nor of my faith in God. I recognize Islam as being one man’s interpretation of Jewish and Christian beliefs and Catholic apocryphal beliefs. So you go there as much as you’d like. Muhammad has a black slave named Bilal, while the Christian Jesus had no slaves. The Hadith calls black people “raisin heads” and implies that black women are temptations of satan, and identifies Muhammad as a white man. And there is more and more, so you feel free to go there, I will gladly go there with you anytime. You continue to do your work, but don’t absolve the Arabs and Arabic racism from the overall impact on the African people. If you truly take ownership of the Islamic African contributions to black history or African history, then do so, but don’t play the guard-dog role for Arabs, and so far that’s what you are doing. I can always remind you, Christianity existed outside of Europe before Europeans used it to oppress Africans. I strictly and exclusively recognize the Biblical and non-European POV of Christianity (whether Coptic, Ethiopian, Thomasite, or Assyrian). The thing about Christianity and Islam that sets the two apart regards to Holocausts is this:

Muhammad’s Qu’ran instructs believers to oppress the unbelievers. Christianity Biblical Jesus instructs us NOT to do that.

African Christians have a history that predates any British, French or Spanish use of the religion to control black people.

I personally have issues with Islam because of the racism and the misinterpretation of Christianity in the Quran and the strawman attacks on it by Muhammad. I also find it ignorant that Muslims allege that the Quranic philosophy/religion predated Christianity and that Jesus was a Quranic preacher. (It’s absurd to assume that Jesus whole ministry centered around prophecizing about Muhammad, when most of Muhammad’s Quran simply talks about those before him, a circular reasoning!)

As far as personal attacks go, I have to stand up to the abuse on the black people article. I cannot stand to hear someone talk about how “black” is wrong yet you only speak against it to further divide black people in Asia from the black people in Africa. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. We appreciate your contributions to the Who is Black article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. - Lucky 6.9 06:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This information was not copywrighted. You cannot copywright an article title. It's a title of an article and is not found anywhere else. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't copyright a title, but you can copyright text. I sampled a sentence and Googled it. It came back nearly word for word from another source. You can certainly write about the subject in your own words and use the external sources as references, but you can't cut and paste text directly. No need to get upset. - Lucky 6.9 06:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence came back from www.homestead.com/wysinger/ptahhotep.html but other sections did not. I'd suggest cleaning up the opener to avoid another misunderstanding. Good luck. - Lucky 6.9 06:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is Black/Definitions of black people

Stop, please. This is getting disruptive. Just leave it all alone, and DISCUSS IT. If you make Who is Black the article, again, you will be blocked. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats what it was in its ORIGINAL STATE! Why are you supporting a change. Dammit block me. I am so tired of you fake anti-black racists trying to pidgeon hole black people into something you can control. You are so out of line it's rediculous. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Then take the TEXT out. I didn't write that text in there. Look. When are you guys gooing to quit with the black contributor attack routine. Four of you have coordinated yourselves in various ways to block the independant and worthwhile attempt to participate. That article has been up for over a week and at no period did you or anyone else cite the content (which has not changed). You only changed the TITLE (back to Definitions), and your excuse (copywright) is nonsense. I am upset, because your timing is so obviously inappropriate. Will you guys stop this endless attempt to keep us negroes from having a decisive say in how this content is published on here? Or is it absolutely necessary that all the white administrators paternalistically keep the status-quo black stereotypes going? ENOUGH!!! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't pull the race card. I didn't even know you were black until you started complaining about being discriminated against, so please stop being childish. And people can change the names of articles if they feel it is a better name. That's what moving a page does.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I pull the race card becuase no one applied this process when they changed the name the first place. All of these excuses are so fake. You want to change it because it "sounds better", even though it was originally "who is" and no one used the moving a page to change it. Then this other guy wants to change it for "copywrighting" reasons, even though the content has been there for weeks! Two others want to do it for no reason at all. DEFINING is CONDESCENDING. How can you not see that. You don't DEFINE a person, you ASK. "WHO is a JEW"... that's the name of the article. How does 'define' sound so much better with 'black' but not with 'a jew'? EXPLAIN HOW THATS NOT RACIST! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I happen to be of Italian ancestry. If my grandfather were alive, he could tell you horror stories about the blatant and vicious racism he endured when he first hit these shores almost 100 years ago. I just deleted the article for the copyvio. If anything, it's beautifully formatted and researched. Clean up the partial copyvios and IMO we have a winner. Relax, deep breaths...there. - Lucky 6.9 06:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Who is a Jew?" is a common Jewish phrase, as is explained when you brought that question up on Talk:Who is a Jew?. Misplaced Pages has White people and Black people as articles. There's probably several other articles like that for other races. It was originally stated that "Who is Black" and all of its alterations is not an encyclopedic title. Just go digging through Category:Ethnicity to see other examples of encyclopedic titles of similar articles. If you want to move Definitions of black people to Who is Black, go discuss it at length on the talk page of where the article is currently.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you really so dense that you cannot get that I do not care what your ancestry is? Are you really so "republican conservative reactionary" that you cannot get that the whole POINT is that you should not relate to one group with any less respect than another? The article Who is a Jew is respected. The title Definitions of Black People is disrespectful. The obvious comparision is plain for you to see. I do not care that you are of any ancestry, I am not trying to delete the article, I am trying to restore the original title of the article. How can you miss that? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryu! Where is the link that shows the title was changed from its original Who is Black to Definitions of Black People. It is so irrelevant that the Jewish one is from a popular phrase. I could have titled the article "Are you really Black" (a VERY popular phrase among black Americans). There is no other example in Misplaced Pages of any other Ethnicity that uses the word "Definitions of this Ethinicity". You know WHY? Because it's ignorant and disrespectful. Imagine an article Definition of an Arab or Definition of an Indian. Offensive. How can you not see that? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, a title must be "encyclopedic" and "who is a Jew" is encyclopedic because it's a popular jewish phrase (this is an English version of Misplaced Pages, fascinating that the rule is broken to accomodate a non english euphanism). In addition, most of the contributors who are not Jewish aren't familiar with this phrase.. however "are you really black" a very common black phrase... I doubt you would accept that because again, "If a tree falls and a white man does not hear it, it never really fell" right? When do you guys actually look at your own selves and stop with the hedging of black autonomy in participating here? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite. The gloves are off: If you write one more disparaging word to any user on this site, you will be blocked from further editing. Is that clear, sir? - Lucky 6.9 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what. I am going to go through the entire Misplaced Pages moderator list and go as high as I can go. You offended me with your ignorance and you made no effort to acknowledge it. BLOCK ME. Take the gloves off. Here is your disparaging comment: You acted in haste and without looking at the article history. You acted simultaneously with another user Ryu who was also modifying the article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And you, sir, are blocked for the next 24 hours due to multiple violations of WP:CIVIL. I caught a copyright violation, tried to help you and you saw fit to insult me instead. This talk page may still be editied, but if you continue your screed, you are gone for good. Take the time and relax. - Lucky 6.9 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You can block me for 24 YEARS. You merited the insult when you failed to respect the information i provided. I do not come into this alone and as I stated in the discussion pages, it doesn't matter. What sets me off is your lack of consistent application of policy and line of reasonsing. You do not care that this contentious debate is spawned by prejudiced elements, and you pretend to naively moderate without regard for the impression you leave. How often do you delete a whole article that's been hanging around over a copywright violation? Be honest, that article was sitting around for weeks, and was part of the black people article for a month before that. Only when I wanted to revert the title, and of course all previous excuses to prevent it were logically refuted, did we then go to a double team with Ryu. My goal is to present accurately and fairly the black identity from the POV of black people mainly, not from the POV of whites and other non-blacks who seek to keep a status-quo assumption based on biased and very inaccurate stereotypes. Now I deal with policy and fine print with the Wikirules. Look at my edit history. I have been prepared for a BAN. You guys are doing a good service for my work by blocking and banning me. I mean heck, EditingOprah has continued despite being found guilty of sock-puppeting. This black people issue has gone through all the stages. This is the latest stage, and I am counting on all of this to attract attention of many many people. So do your thing. In the end the Black People article WILL reflect the following:

• Black people existed as a group or collection of groups prior to any white man's "defining them"

• Black people historically inhabited Asia and established civilizations and other areas outside of Africa without the help or force of non-black people.

• Blackness is a unique humanwide trait that has nothing to do with race, nor is bound by branches of DNA variables.

• People in Asia recognize themselves as Black and only due to colonialism has that been mitigated. Now that the hegemony of whites has eroded, the black identity outside of Africa has become respected again among non-Africans.

So you do your thing. Watch the white and ignorant contributors on the Black People article cheer for you and thank you for blocking me. I will, in another screen name, at another time partcipte again, with an entirely different writing style. Others will, from Australia, to Asia, to Africa participate more, and this issue will be resolved. This, along with Palestine (which I have monitored to see the way things are handled, how the political bias impacts the moderators' ability to act neutrally) have been two issues on here that have defied the rules. I do not know why Black people is such an issue that people feel the overwhelming need to regulate to death. But it's too late. i called so much attention to this article, you have no hope of keeping the POV. Have fun blocking me. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I will. You'll have a lot more time to get that chip off of your shoulder now. Blocked for one month. - Lucky 6.9 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)