User talk:Big-dynamo

Welcome!

Hello, Big-dynamo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Phgao 12:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get this message and would like help or just say hello post here [1] Enjoy your time at Wikipedia! Phgao 12:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

race egyptians

please make your edits more short and to the point you are making the article to long--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race of ancient Egyptians

You said "Don't waste my time." Well, if I may respond in kind, don't waste the time of others without even referencing the explicitly stated subject of the article, as stated in the first sentence, which indicates that the page in question is a description of the current dispute regarding the race of the ancient Egyptians. In fact, that is made very clear by the opening sentence of the article. Didn't you read that? It is missing information regarding facts and evidence because that isn't what the article is about in the first place. You are, in effect, trying to introduce material in the article which does not fit within the stated scope of material of the article, and getting annoyed at the other editors on the very contentious article in question for not allowing you to change the subject of the article. It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. In fact, if you note the probation tag at the top of the talk page, you'll see that any editor found to engage in disruptive edits can be banned from the article and related pages, which means any material they added to it can be removed without question. That's about the most serious penalty we've got. Please don't waste the time of yourself or others by attempting to unilaterally redefine the scope of the article in question, without consensus from others to do so, which would be required. It might be possible that the editors primarily interested in the subject would be willing to make such changes, frankly, I don't know. But such pronounced additions to the article as you have made, particularly if restored again, could lead to the page being completely protected, meaning only admins can edit it. In fact, the article has been completely protected before.

The article is about an extremely contentious topic. Using the judgmental, perjorative tone you have used hardly helps alleviate the controversy regarding the material you seek to add, and makes it, unfortunately, slightly more likely that you yourself could be made subject to a ban from the subject. Please seek and get consensus to have the material you seek to add on the talk page before unilaterally adding it again. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within the bounds of wikipedia phrasing, the article basically does say that the article is basically exclusively about the current controversy. I can and do understand your frustration with the idea. It wasn't particularly warmly received by me when others agreed to it in the first place. Like I said on the talk page, the title seems to have been taken as a way of presenting the subject as concisely as possible. And we do have articles discussing, or "rehashing", academic and cultural debates, in fact, in religious subjects, many such articles. You could probably say the same thing about them as well, and about many articles we have relating to other specific ideological disagreements. The reason the material was removed was because, whether you knew it at the time or not (and I'm not faulting you if you didn't), they were off-topic relevant to the subject of the article, the recent debate in the media and elsewhere. I personally don't doubt that the material you added, which was verifiable and notabile as per wikipedia guidelines, has a place in wikipedia. Just not in an article about a recent controversy regarding the ethnic makeup of an ancient people. If I were you, what I would personally do is copy the material you added to the article, move it into userspace, and then try to add it to some other articles on the subject. I note we don't have anything regarding artistic representations of Ancient Egyptians yet, and that is a potentially useful article which much of it could be added to. There are any number of other articles relating to ancient Eypt, in fact a whole WikiProject, devoted to the subject as well. If it were me, I'd start the article on artistic representations of ancient Egyptians and/or cultural depictions of ancient Egyptians and any other articles which you think the content might more directly relate to. You have my apologies that the useful material was removed from the article. However, given that the article is and has always been the cause of significant controversy, as indicated by the ArbCom ruling, everyone does try to ensure that any potential problems with the article are resolved as quickly as possible, to ensure that things don't get out of hand again, like they have in the past. Like I said, I think most of the content you added is relevant to wikipedia, just maybe not to that specific article. If you were to want any help in recovering the text you added, or maybe locating existing or new pages to place it, I and the AE Project would probably both be willing to offer what help we can. I'm sorry you basically innocently wandered into a minefield, which is basically what happened here, and got some damage as a result. I am however willing to offer what help I can, to the degree time and circumstances permit, to help you relocate the content elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Race of the Ancient Egyptians are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Woland (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for Race of Ancient Egyptians

An RfC has begun for this article and I noticed that you may have some interest in this topic so I thought that I'd let you know. Thanks.--Woland (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alert- certain users are attempting to delete a scholar you referenced on a recent edit by stealth- Dr. S.O.Y Keita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shomarka_Keita This notice is for your information. Zarahan10 (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility on Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Hi, due to this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Dbachmann, I am asking you to refrain from editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy or commenting further at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy for the next 48 hours. I also ask you to not take this dispute to other pages. If you do not put this on ice for a while you will be permanently banned from that topical area (i.e. all related articles), as you were warned would happen, and if your civility does not improve you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia until you consent to work in a collegial manner. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy

You may not edit the above article nor its talk page for a period of six months, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann. Please do not bring this dispute to other areas of the project, and do not copy your preferred version into your userspace (see [2]). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Cold Beer beat me to this. I think this is a very lenient sanction, your tendentious editing is wearing others out quite unacceptably. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned from this topic. That is not a license to take your arguments elsewhere. Please be aware that if you continue to pursue this dispute in defiance of the topic ban, you may be blocked from editing to restrict the locus of your disruption. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Dynamo. I am very sorry for you! Your comments, according to me, were made in good knowlegde of the subject. Moreschi just made the article look as if it belongs to him. I have read on ancient Egypt and I agree with you that the subject concerning the race of the ancient Egyptians goes beyond Afrocentrism. It is already treated by Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology, in his book: Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens. Martin Bernal also wrote about it in his book Black Athena. To say the truth, the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians is at the core of Egyptology. Egyptology has developed against the idea that Egyptians are Black people. An idea boldly defended by Jean-François Champollion, but suppressed later on. I wrote to Moreschi for being unfair with you. Anyway, nobody can lock the truth. It will come back sooner or later. Let, for the moment at least, ignorance and bad will rejoice and have the upper hand! It is doomed to failure.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

You are banned, per [3], for eighteen months from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page. After review of the article and its talk page and after taking into account your past bans from this subject, I see a pattern of POV-pushing a fringe theory which has led to this ban. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're banned from t:AErc. You've chosen to break that ban; I've chosen to block you for 24h. Please don't do this again William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Please, go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big-dynamo, your statement is powerful. What you wrote is really what the article AERC has to be. I am so happy to see that there are people who can express it so clearly. The way the article is being handled now reflects a fight against Afrocentrism from a certain group of people for obsure reasons (?). But those who know the literature about ancient Egypt understand that the issue is as old as Egyptology. I hope that your statement-summary will be taken as the framework of the article. Many thanks!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constellation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Black Egyptian hypothesis page

New DNA content that states Egyptians were from Western Asia. Consensus says to move it to the population article. It's still there, but DNA tribes is removed.

Some are seeking to ban me here: User talk:EdJohnston#User Dailey78 has broken his restriction again Rod (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Concentric castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persians. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]