User talk:Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Saving the article "Appearance of the ancient Egyptians"

^^If it is possible to do such a thing(save the article), then I can agree with that, however, I believe that wiki articles are supposed to be left open so that they may be updated if new information happens to surface.Taharqa 19:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luka, I recommend if possible, that we save the page because there is a bit of trolling going on now on Population history of ancient Egypt and especially Appearance of the ancient Egyptians, as you can see in the "history".. In the meantime, please protect them (by reverting) from vandalism whenever you can, I know you can't always be around.. I've already sent you an e-mail.. Thanx..Taharqa 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is back up and I merged it while the other one is put up for speedy deletion. Tell us what you think and be sure to look out for it. It is only one page now. Peace..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_ancient_Egypt Taharqa 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found out about this and I'm keeping an eye on what is going on with this one. I need to do some reading first, but I want to help. JJJamal 00:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)

Please don't blindly revert all other improvements to the article, it is considered vandalism. If you want to add something, don't revert other people's changes. Egyegy 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still doing blanket revisions. We can't have a reasonable discussion if you keep reverting every single edit to the article. The blind revisions are very harmful. Egyegy 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Luka has all the right in the world to revert, you have no business reverting at all, no stake whatsoever and merely pop up out of nowhere to undermine my edit. This can be considered wikistalking and vandalism, so by all means, please revert his irrational edits Luka until we can have a civil discussion. You keep reverting him for no reason Egyegy, why?Taharqa 19:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Ancient Egypt and race

Just a heads up that I have responded to your message on my talk page. — Zerida 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lusala! I think the best thing to do is to keep the information in its respective section. It doesn't really make sense to have two separate sections for information about the same topic, like ancient writers for example. That's rather confusing. Separating them into subsections, however, is ideal and a good comprise I believe. BTW, I am at the commencement of a new academic year, so I won't be as active, but will check every now and then on its progress. Best, — Zerida 02:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luka.. We have a pov-pushing and sockpuppet problem here. Someone logged on with a different name and created another page called "Race and ancient Egyptians", in an effort to undermine discussions and avoid responsibility. It is called WP:CFORK and is in direct violation of wiki policy. People are on here being dirty Luka, I suggest you watch out for it.. And Luka, I see that you caught this the very day it happened, what gives? Why didn't you tell anyone? You're supposed to put up a tag for speedy deletion since it is content forking, it is in direct violation of wiki policy, people can't make other articles of the same topic just because they don't like the content in another. Oh, and I left a comment on the talk page, let us know what you think.[1] It would also be great if you can respond to Dbachmann's concerns on the talk page.. Thanx for everything Luka..Taharqa 17:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is back up. Me and Muntuwandi made a few inclusions concerning some of the cultural aspects. Visit the page and see what you think. Peace.Taharqa 07:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look out. There are people seriously trying to pov push and put some white nationalist crap into the article from authur kemp, basically an white nationalist, non-specialist who is cited by all white supremacists. I bring attention to why his fringe theories are unaccepted in mainstream egyptology, and I get reverted. Some issues are being settled, but just look out for blatant pov stuff like that.. We need you on the talk page aswell in concern to Basil Davidson.. peaceTaharqa 17:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a drawn out discussion which turned into a long debate, that I was having with some newly involved editor and I wanted to know what you think. From my perspective, it seems that he is incapable of proving his case by way of citation and the only thing for him to do is continue to manipulate quotes and attack the credibility of sources. He's resilient I must say, but extremely misguided.[2]Taharqa 02:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC) ^Luckily that nonsense is over.. Egyegy is also back to edit warring on the draft by trying to distort any of my inclusions, and I've even started a thread concerning Mostafa Hefny on the AE and Race talk page. He's also going off on a tangent about west africans not being related and how I have no consensus about this and that, even from my own so-called pals. See if you have any input on the situation and see if you can help balance, because my patience is running thin with such childish and antagonistic antics. See here[3] and here[4]Taharqa 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Race and ancient Egypt (controversies). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. - Philippe | Talk 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Hi Lusala! Do you mind not restoring the material back to the article until this is settled? Taharqa has agreed to keep everything to the discussion page until we come to a better agreement. Thanks, — Zerida 09:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Lusala, it was me who initially deleted the sections because Taharqa kept deleting my additions, even though earlier it seemed there was agreement across the board not to delete any citation. However, he has now agreed to remove all the material in question until we reach a broader agreement. Let's continue discussing before we add anything back. — Zerida 09:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lusala, I have never been particularly happy myself with the way the editors on that article handled disagreements before. As far as the actual discussion goes, as I have explained numerous times, I have deleted the questionable material after Taharqa agreed to it and after my additions were repeatedly reverted. That didn't seem to bother you very much though. What's important now is that we have pretty much come to an agreement, so no more diatribes on my talk page please. Thanks. — Zerida 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mbanza Kongo

Thanks Luka for the information about the photo, I've been trying to find the original source. Do you know which Manikongo was in the photo. I will try to see whether I can find the books you mentioned. I have found Manikongos to be very interesting personalities in African history. Muntuwandi 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus of a possibly POV group of editors is not sufficient cause to revert an edit

Your recent edit to the Race of ancient Egyptians article may be in accord with existing consensus. However, that consensus position itself has been argued to be potentially violating several policies and guidelines. Those policies and guidelines are themselves more important than the extant consensus which includes several clearly biased editors. Consensus POV is still POV, and is not an acceptable reason to change content. John Carter 13:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race of ancient Egyptians

You need to stop edit warring on the Race of ancient Egyptians page. Regardless of the justification of your edits, edit warring won't accomplish anything. If your edits are truly justified and those you are reverting violate guidelines or policy, then Start a RFC on the users adding them, Add a notice to the admin notice board asking for help, etc. These are the methods for resolving these sorts of disputes, not simply reverting over and over. If the edit warring continues I'll be forced to request that the entire page be sanctioned a 1 revert per week rule with the exception of obvious vandalism or self reverts. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, the article is finally unprotected. Good luck for this time!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC procedure

Hello, an RfC procedure has been opened regarding the behavior of User:Dbachmann, here: [5]. Please feel free to contribute if you wish. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 23:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I noted your signature in this matter may be in the wrong place. I may be mistaken, but it's my understanding that if you weren't actually involved in the precipitating incident in an attempt to resolve it, then you must weigh in under the "Other users who support this...." subhead. I could be mistaken.... Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you feel is best. I simply wanted to make sure you understood that the space where you signed was for people involved in that particular dispute -- not the one at Race of ancient Egyptians -- and that if you wished to weigh in -- whatever your opinion of the matter -- you should do so in the appropriate place. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I see the RfC specifically also addresses the {Race of ancient Egyptians]] article. Sorry about that. Deadlines have me crazy, and I'm probably not terribly capable at the moment. :/ deeceevoice (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd make a return visit and request that you reinstate your signature under the certification section, since it would show that you actually did take the time to engage DBachmann with regard to your disagreement/difficulty with him. Thanks much. And, again, sorry for the confusion. :/ deeceevoice (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm so glad to see you here. :D

I'm sorry about never responding to the lengthy French post, but I asked a friend of mine from Mali to translate it for me, and he never did! :(

When you say you were banned, presumably it was at the French edition?

Yes, I know what you mean. I just did some work with a film team filming something in a New York City public school, and I was struck by the young men with closely cropped hair -- how much their heads were identical in shape in every way to that of Tut. Every once in a while I think that, perhaps, 30, 40, 50 years hence the truth about dynastic Egypt finally will be acknowledged, and many of the editors here, having grown old and gray, will have to eat crow/concede that we were correct and marvel at how we knew. (I myself have known the truth since the late '50s.) And I read the words of Zahi Hawass, and I laugh at the lies and how he can speak about Tut's "wonderful buckteeth" and talk about his beautiful face. He has to know Tut was a gracile, Nilotic blackman. Yet he persists in his posturing before the public.

Just amazing. But time and knowlege are continuums, and the space in time that we inhabit is a mere blink of an eyelid. The truth will out, my friend. All things in time. ;) Peace back. deeceevoice (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Africa

Thanx for that Luka. The problem with the Eurocentric view of history though, is that it begins with writing. Indeed, Southern Kemet and Northern Sudan are home to the first instances of proto-hieroglyphs, while its ancestor can be found on ancient Saharan rock art in the form of symbols. Though we know that agriculture and animal domestication, as well as megaliths, indicating astronomical knowledge was all found in the early Nile valley preceding unification of the various kingdoms. History goes back far in Africa, and actually its farthest.

Appreciate that chronology from Asante, which can be used as somewhat of an outline, or at least elements of it since it's so elaborate.Taharqa (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melanin in AE remains

Hey Luka. I came across this reent study that you find interesting. I've also showed it to Muntuwandi and it basically confirms Diop's earlier work.

Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2

Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin." -- Biotech Histochem. 2005 Jan-Feb;80(1):7-13

Taharqa (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Luka. Been away for a while, but I definitely haven't been blind to recent revelations and have indeed been keeping my eyes open. One other such revelation now concerns the pre-dynastic/early Dynastic Lower Egyptians in the North. Opponents have made a habit out of trying to create a dichotomy between them and the "obviously" more identifiable African southern Egyptians. This persists regardless of reports indicating that they've always been related, yet people seem to like to insist that Lower Egyptians in the north somehow had more Eurasian ancestry. This can also now be put to rest.

Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54

"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"

^^So much for non-African Northern Egyptians. I've always put much emphasis on limb-ratios, even though this is something the Eurocentrics would like to ignore, but can't do so objectively.Taharqa (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Sorry I'm late. Honestly I've been having issues. Moved out of my previous house and making the transition has been hard. Haven't had access to a computer really.

In response to the article, I've just made some small corrections/edits, but they don't seem to have distorted much. I'll try and keep my eye out. Nice seeing you, Luka.Taharqa (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race of Ancient Egyptians

Dude, please stop accusing people of racism and of POV pushing. It is seriously detrimental to the article. What we should be focusing on is verifiability, not truth. In the future please assume good faith. Thank you.--Woland (talk) 16:07, 14 May 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) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

If I see any more disruption from you on this talk page (or its corresponding article, or any of the other articles placed on probation by this) I will be handing out a topic ban. Consider this to be a formal warning. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reusing a section header, February 2009

The comment that I've redacted here was unacceptable. Please do not again made disparaging remarks about other editors. Please consider this a formal warning.
brenneman 11:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a new lead

Hey, Luka. :) (I hope you don't mind me using that name.)

I've suggested a new lead that I think is far preferable to the one that currently exists. Sorry I didn't get back to it sooner, but I had/have to make a living. ;) Anyway, please give it a look-see and let me/us know what you think. Regards, deeceevoice (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't aware

Just making sure you know.[6] It won't last, but at least we have the opportunity to actually write an article now without the constant obstruction and disruption. deeceevoice (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley

I'm starting to doubt that William has any intention of coming to a resolution that will get this article unlocked. I've considered reporting him for Admin abuse but the Admins tend to stick their neck out for each other so that's probably not worth the effort. AncientObserver (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, old friend.

I hope the new year finds you and yours happy, well -- and strong.

Like you, I've been pretty much MIA here -- you, judging from your "contributions" page, more so than I. But the same, old articles are on my "watch" list, which I visit from time to time. It looks like, in my absence, editors like Dbachmann have had their way at Afrocentrism. And I noted that editors are/were preparing to close out the discussion of the ethnicity of the Great Spinx of Giza and Tutankhamun. I spoke up with a one-word response at the sphinx article and have become further involved in the discussion at Tut. You may wish to, if not respond, drop by and check out what's being discussed and written.

It's nothing new. But you know how we have to keep repeating ourselves. ;) Though my entry at Tut is probably the first time I've completely delineated the argument for Tut's Blackness, with sources/links.

Frankly, I don't know how involved I'm going to get. Like you, I have a life outside this place, and I don't have much patience/tolerance for the ignorance, obtuseness and flat-out hostility. Still, I do what I do, and your reasoned, knowledgeable voice would be appreciated.

All good things to you and yours this year and always.

Blessings, my brother. Stay up! deeceevoice (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just visited the "Race of the Ancient Egyptians" article. What a piece of crap! I slapped a "balance" tag on it straight off. Wapondaponda seems very measured in his remarks from what I can see on the article talk page, so I don't know what the banning was all about. Perhaps you can direct me to the location of the proceeding wherein such a determination was made. I'd like to take a look at it. Don't let these people scare you off. They've tried topic bans with me before several times, but they haven't succeeded. Such a "remedy" all too often is attempted/used to silence differing viewpoints, rather than for the purpose of improving the project. I've been away -- and really still am, pretty much, so I wasn't aware of either Wapondaponda or the controversy. Whenever stuff like this kicks off, please let me know. Anytime one of us is being hounded merely because we bring a differing viewpoint to the table, then we should act together to prevent it. I'd like to take a look at Wapondaponda's banning from the article to see if it was justified. If not, then it needs to be overturned.

I had no clue of Moreschi's involvement in the "Race of Egyptians" article, but stopped by his page to ask for comments on my Tut talk page entry because of his crusade against "nationalism" and all that implies. I wanted to see what he would write in response. (Giving him some credit, at least he admitted it was "possible" that Tut was Black. Still, that's precious little, considering the weight of the evidence I presented.) But did you notice how full of full of holes his response was? It made no sense whatsoever. And when I pointed out the flaws in his argument, he didn't even bother to return to defend his parroting of the same, old lame, baseless pap/crap. Very telling, that. deeceevoice (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

HELP!! The article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is about to get squashed, just like all the other attempts to air these issues. We need your vote – please take part in the debate!! Wdford (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the group save its work? I certainly hope so! deeceevoice (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

This is for you, Lusala, and all the folks who worked on the (now defunct) Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?.

:( deeceevoice (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic references from muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/

QUOTE: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.

"But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them." (S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)

"Recall that the Horn–Nile Valley crania show, as a group, the largest overlap with other regions. A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004). This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions.." (S.O.Y Keita. Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: A comparative study using principal component analysis. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 16:679–689, 2004.) http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/keita2004neanalysis.htm

"Africa contains tremendous cultural, linguistic and genetic diversity, and has more than 2,000 distinct ethnic groups and languages.. Studies using mitochondrial (mt)DNA and nuclear DNA markers consistently indicate that Africa is the most genetically diverse region of the world." (Tishkoff SA, Williams SM., Genetic analysis of African populations: human evolution and complex disease. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2002 Aug (8):611-21.)

"The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." (Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.)

QUOTE(s): "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)

"Individuals from different geographical regions frequently plotted near each other, revealing aspects of variation at the level of individuals that is obscured by concentrating on the most distinctive facial traits once used to construct ‘‘types.’’The high level of African interindividual variation in craniometric pattern is reminiscent of the great level of molecular diversity found in Africa." (S.O.Y Keita. Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: A comparative study using principal component analysis. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 16:679–689, 2004.)

"The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that ‘bones and molecules’ are in perfect agreement for humans." (Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans. (2008) by: Lia Betti, François Balloux, William Amos, Tsunehiko Hanihara, Andrea Manica, Proceedings B: Biological Sciences, 2008/12/02)

QUOTE(s): S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54

"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Kebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." (Keita 1993)

"When the unlikely relationships [Indian matches] and eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar 'overall' to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series." (Keita 1993)

"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )

"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans." (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

"The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4). The clustering with the Bushman can be understood as an artifact of grouping algorithms; it is well known that a series may group into a cluster that does not contain the series to which it is most similar (has the lowest distance value). An additional 20 dendrograms were generated using the minimum evolution algorithm provided by MEGA (not shown). In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series. In additional analysis, the Bushman series was left out; the results were the same." (S.O.Y. Keita, A. J. Boyce, "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246)

"Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans... There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times.Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less native are not supported by archaeology... In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. (Kieta, S. (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)"

QUOTE(s): ".. all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions.. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia..." [Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (1975), pgs 42-43, 62-63)

"....inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question include some of the blackest people in the world with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height.... The relatively long noses of East Africa become explicable then when one realizes that much of the area is extremely dry for parts of the year." (C. Loring Brace, "Nonracial Approach Towards Human Diversity," cited in The Concept of Race, Edited by Ashley Montagu, The Free Press, 1980, pp. 135-136, 138)

"The role of tall, linearly built populations in eastern Africa's prehistory has always been debated. Traditionally, they are viewed as late migrants into the area. But as there is better palaeoanthropological and linguistic documentation for the earlier presence of these populations than for any other group in eastern Africa, it is far more likely that they are indigenous eastern Africans. ... prehistoric linear populations show resemblances to both Upper Pleistocene eastern African fossils and present-day, non-Bantu-speaking groups in eastern Africa, with minor differences stemming from changes in overall robusticity of the dentition and skeleton. This suggests a longstanding tradition of linear populations in eastern Africa, contributing to the indigenous development of cultural and biological diversity from the Pleistocene up to the present." (L . A . SCHEPARTZ, "Who were the later Pleistocene eastern Africans?" The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57- 72)

QUOTE(s): "We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55

"Africa contains tremendous cultural, linguistic and genetic diversity, and has more than 2,000 distinct ethnic groups and languages.. Studies using mitochondrial (mt)DNA and nuclear DNA markers consistently indicate that Africa is the most genetically diverse region of the world." (Tishkoff SA, Williams SM., Genetic analysis of African populations: human evolution and complex disease. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2002 Aug (8):611-21.)

" In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man." (Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis, Wiley-Blackwell: 2006, pg 108)

QUOTE(s): "However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

QUOTE(s): "Some have argued that various early Egyptians like the Badarians probably migrated northward from Nubia, while others see a wide-ranging movement of peoples across the breadth of the Sahara before the onset of desiccation. Whatever may be the origins of any particular people or civilization, however, it seems reasonably certain that the predynastic communities of the Nile valley were essentially indigenous in culture, drawing little inspiration from sources outside the continent during the several centuries directly preceding the onset of historical times..." (Robert July, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, p. 60-61)

"overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2007). "Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132 (4): 501-509)

"the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. They included peoples from the Afro-Asiastic linguistic group and the second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). Thus the earliest domestic cattle may have come to Egypt from these southern neighbors, circa 6000 B.C., and not from the Middle East.[148] Pottery, another significant advance in material cultural may also have followed this pattern, initiatied "as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East." (Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 25-27)

QUOTE(s): Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 6: "Egyptian Religion" , pg 506-508 "A large number of gods go back to prehistoric times. The images of a cow and star goddess (Hathor), the falcon (Horus), and the human-shaped figures of the fertility god (Min) can be traced back to that period. Some rites, such as the "running of the Apil-bull," the "hoeing of the ground," and other fertility and hunting rites (e.g., the hippopotamus hunt) presumably date from early times.. Connections with the religions in southwest Asia cannot be traced with certainty." "It is doubtful whether Osiris can be regarded as equal to Tammuz or Adonis, or whether Hathor is related to the "Great Mother." There are closer relations with northeast African religions. The numerous animal cults (especially bovine cults and panther gods) and details of ritual dresses (animal tails, masks, grass aprons, etc) probably are of African origin. The kinship in particular shows some African elements, such as the king as the head ritualist (i.e., medicine man), the limitations and renewal of the reign (jubilees, regicide), and the position of the king's mother (a matriarchal element). Some of them can be found among the Ethiopians in Napata and Meroe, others among the Prenilotic tribes (Shilluk)." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 6: "Egyptian Religion" , pg 506-508)

QUOTE(s): "While not attempting to underestimate the contribution that Deltaic political and religious institutions made to those of a united Egypt, many Egyptologists now discount the idea that a united prehistoric kingdom of Lower Egypt ever existed."

"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south.": The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 1, From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC, (Cambridge University Press: 1982), Edited by J. Desmond Clark pp. 500-509

"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." (Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in AfricanArchaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)

Specific central African tool designs found at the well known Naqada, Badari and Fayum archaeological sites in Egypt (de Heinzelin 1962, Arkell and Ucko, 1956 et al). Shaw (1976) states that "the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life."

Pottery evidence first seen in the Saharan Highlands then spreading to the Nile Valley (Flight 1973). Art motifs of Saharan rock paintings showing similarities to those in pharaonic art. A number of scholars suggest that these earlier artistic styles influenced later pharaonic art via Saharans leaving drier areas and moving into the Nile Valley taking their art styles with them (Mori 1964, Blanc 1964, et al)

Earlier pioneering mummification outside Egypt. The oldest mummy in Africa is of a black Saharan child (Donadoni 1964, Blanc 1964) Frankfort (1956) suggests that it is thus possible to understand the pharaonic worldview by reference to the religious beliefs of these earlier African precursors. Attempts to suggest the root of such practices are due to Caucasoid civilizers from elsewhere are thus contradicted by the data on the ground.

Several cultural practices of Egypt show strong similarities to an African totemic clan base. Childe (1969, 1978), Aldred (1978) and Strouhal (1971) demonstrate linkages with several African practices such as divine kingship and the king as divine rainmaker.

Physical similarities of the early Nile valley populations with that of tropical Africans. Such connections are demonstrated in the work of numerous scholars such as Thompson and Randall Mclver 1905, Falkenburger 1947, and Strouhal 1971. The distance diagrams of Mukherjee, Rao and Trevor (1955) place the ancient Badarians genetically near 'black' tribes such as the Ashanti and the Taita. See also the "Issues of lumping under Mediterranean clusters" section above for similar older analyses.

Serological (blood) evidence of genetic linkages. Paoli 1972 for example found a significant resemblance between ABO frequencies of dynastic Egyptians and the black northern Haratin who are held to be the probable descendants of the original Saharans (Hiernaux, 1975).

Language similarities which include several hundred roots ascribable to African elements (UNESCO 1974)

Ancient Egyptian origin stories ascribing origins of the gods and their ancestors to African locations to the south and west of Egypt (Davidson 1959)

Advanced state building and political unity in Nubia, including writing, administrative apparatus and insignia some 300 years before dynastic Egypt, and the long demonstrated interchange between Nubia and Egypt (Williams 1980)

Newer studies (Wendorf 2001, Wilkinson 1999, et al.) confirm these older analyses. Excavations from Nabta Playa, located about 100km west of Abu Simbel for example, suggest that the Neolithic inhabitants of the region were migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, based on cultural similarities and social complexity which is thought to be reflective of Egypt's Old Kingdom

Other scholars (Wilkinson 1999) present similar material and cultural evidence- including similarities between predynastic Egypt and traditional African cattle-culture, typical of Southern Sudanese and East African pastoralists of today, and various cultural and artistic data such as iconography on rock art found in both Egypt and in the Sudan.

"Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."

Source: The Origins of Afroasiatic Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680

"Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells?s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans." (S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)

QUOTE(s): "a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 1988). If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (1998), "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.

"Over the last two decades, numerous contemporary (Khartoum Neolithic) sites and cemeteries have been excavated in the Central Sudan.. The most striking point to emerge is the overall similarity of early neolithic developments inhabitation, exchange, material culture and mortuary customs in the Khartoum region to those underway at the same time in the Egyptian Nile Valley, far to the north." (Wengrow, David (2003) "Landscapes of Knowledge, Idioms of Power: The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization Reconsidered," in Ancient Egypt in Africa, David O'Connor and Andrew Reid, eds. Ancient Egypt in Africa. London: University College London Press, 2003, pp. 119-137)

QUOTE(s):

"Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press)

"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afro-Asiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 10)

Calvadosbrandy (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the cynical tactics being used against you. Be aware. Don't be played.

[removed copy/paste of a whole page --Enric Naval (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)][reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/How_to_win_a_revert_war — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukePCP (talk • contribs) 05:03, 2 March 2009

Panehesy

You're welcome. It's important to understand how subtle the changes have to be made where they are accurate. I notice that when appropriate changes are made to support the fact that Egyptians were black, some "afrocentricists" will come in and make such outlandish claims, or make claims that are obviously impossible to sustain as provable on Wikipedia. In doing so, they invite the backlash and of course those who are Eurocentric and who have the clout (or credibility) to unilaterally remove edits or submerge them, will do so to all, including the well thought and well proven evidence. I am starting to wonder if some Afrocentricists in here are actually trolls designed to cause this to be a hopeless endeavor. Thanks for your support though and be the first to challenge any claim on either side that is hopelessly false or unsustainable. --Panehesy (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with you man?? We need your input on the discussion page..Taharqa (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann

You drew my attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3 with the assertion that they demonstrate that dab is known for his role in creating flame wars. I think these ended as:

Inconclusive; nothing proved.
Dab's one of our best and most conscientious admins, and Wikipedia is in his debt for giving time and energy to keeping these inveterate POV warriors at bay summarises it
More interesting. Lots of attacks, lots of support, suggestions for more politeness from serious editors.

In conclusion: I reject your summary of these RFC's. If you want to take this further you need to think about arbcomm or somesuch (not that I would recommend that, since I think your case would fail). In the meantime, please don't clutter the article talk pages with this stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on Dbachmann, Luka. Such incidents/behavior as those in the above-referenced case can be useful in pursuing action against him in the future. Clearly, his conduct hasn't changed. deeceevoice (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Thank you.--Caspian blue 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

You are banned, per [7], for six months from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page. After review of the article and its talk page, I see a pattern of POV-pushing a fringe theory which has led to this ban. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will review your case. In general I believe that blocking people should be a last resort. I know you must feel pretty lousy right now, and if I were in your position I would not want anyone to try to tell me thee is a silver-lining. But you contacted me, so you are going to get my opinion:

there is a world of difference between a block, even a 6 month block, and a ban. A block, of any duration, is never punative. It is meant to provide time to cool off and reconsider what it is that got you into trouble. This is actually a good thing, because by its nature the block is expressing confidence that in six months you can return and be an efective editor.
please focus on my word, "effective." I call attention to this word as an alternative to using words like"right" and "wrong." You my feel you have been wronged, and maybe you were, but my point is, focusing on right and wrong is NOT going to help you come back and edit articles. My advice to you is to think strategically and pragmatically. Something you did, or some things you did, got you blocked. When blocked you cannot influence articles. The question is, can you make th edits you wish, without getting blocked? I am asking you to look at this question tactically. I believe that you can isolate certain actions or behaviors that led to your bing blocked. And I am certain you are intelligent enough to find a different way to edit and interact with people on the talk page so that your edits will stick. By being pragmatic, I mean this: what do you care more about, proving someone else wrong, or making an edit that sticks? If you care more about making an edit that sticks, you have to learn to play the game and beat people at their own game. I urge you to use the six months (if it remains six months) figuring out how to accomplish this. Being practical means acknowledging that you do not have a choice in this, many different people edit at Wikipedia, it looks like your views will be in the minority for some time, and I honestly believe that you CAN edit and have your edits stick but only if you learn to play the game that people in the majority are playing. You know, it is not like I am some sheriff who can reverse community decisions. i just have a lot of experience here and am trying to share with you what I have learned fom experience.
A confession: I thought that this comment was very constructive and I was very disappointed that everyone ignored me, everyone including you. I was sincerely trying to help. Do you eally think mine was a bad suggestion? If you think my suggestion has merit, perhaps you can use the six months to work on rough drafts of the two articles i am proposing. Then beak down each one to a series of separate edits, each of which you feel you can achieve consensus for (i.e. even people who disagreed with youin the past would agree). If you think mine is a bad suggestion I sure wish you would tell me why.
The argumnts on this page are very complicated and you know, it is not my fild. So I am easily confused and frankly easily tire of the debates. I will follow the links you set up for me, i appreciate that. But this is what you can do that would really help me. First, explain what you perceive to be the main points of contention in editing this article (I assume there are more than one, and they may be over different types of edits e.g. style, sources, views, etc.). For each point of contention, tell me what the different sides (I assume that in some cases there are more than two) there are, and who takes which side. I bet in some cases, people who oppose you see things differently. it would help me if you also provided me with a list of situations where your opponents see the conflict n diferent terms than you. I know this is a lot to ask of you, but frankly I need this kind of help if I am to be of any help.
a couple of final remarks - if they are inappropriate or irrelevant I apologize ahead of time. I know that some editors have been accused of being sock-puppets. I am not different from the average Wikipedian in believing that sock puppets constitute a real danger to Wikipedia. If you are editing and a sock puppet of a banned user stats supporting you, just stop editing. The support of a sock puppet is the kiss of death. Now, if a banned user wants to come back and believes s/he can now make positive contributions to Wikipedia, that is one thing - the person can appeal the ban. But anyone who tries to evade a ban through a sock-puppet is either deliberately trying to subvert his or her own views, or is delusional, because nothing does more damage to a set of edits at Wikipedia than a sock puppet. My advice to you (when you start editing again) is, if you know someone is a sock puppet, delete any edit they make even if you think they are right or it is a good edit because any association between you and a sock puppet will only hurt you.
What constitutes a fringe view, as opposed to a view that most Wikipedians are simply ignorant of, is a tricky matter. When you are allowed to edit again, IF you want to be effective, you will need a more effective strategy for helping people see the difference. I know in some cases you really tried to do this, but obviously you were not effective. What would be a more efective approach? I do not know! But please consider the duration of the block (whether it be six hours, six days, or six months) to be time to figure out a more effective way to explain it.
I can understand why comments by dab, like this one: "The "Race of the ancient Egyptians" is a not a subject that attracts controversy within mainstream academia. It is an ideological topic within Afrocentrism" would driv you or anyone up the wall. What can i say? You have to bend over backwards to deal with such remarks with patience and a clear head. Do not be baited into making personal attacks. It is screwed up but again the point is, you do hat you have to do to be effective, not just to prove that you are right or that you are not an asshole.

I will look into this a bit and see what i can do. I am going to proceed with small steps so please be patient and like I said above, it would help a lot if you could break it all down for me a particular way. I also welcome your reactions to anything/eveerything I wrote here except please do not get defensive and please believe me everything was written in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today (14th) I left a lengthy comment on the talk page for ncient Egyptian Race Controversy, in which I attempt to articulate how I would approach the subject matter. Right now it is at the bottom of the talk page. I would like to know whether you find my comments constructive, agree with them, if not, why not...? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell you are not blocked. Still, I hope you will heed my advice. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me in the loop

This is, of course, absolute bullsh*t. And, as near as I can tell, ditto for the other banned/blocked editors. I've weighed in at the Request for Clarification page, for what it's worth. Please let me know what I can do. I'm not here much these days, so if you need to contact me, hit the link on my user page to contact me via e-mail. IMO, just more collusive shenanigans by certain admins to censor/silence voices with which they disagree, while twisting the truth. Same ol' same ol'.

I haven't been back to the article in any substantive way for months. But it may be useful to take a look at Bachmann's edit history to see if he's been engaging in any of the same disruptive conduct noted here.[8] Another action involving him may be in order. deeceevoice (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy - fresh approach?

This article has long since been poisoned, and there are too many ego's involved now that can't allow it to progress properly. Fresh approach - let's request that the article be officially renamed as "History of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy", and then edit it further as such. Once that is done we can create a separate article/s to deal with other aspects that are ommited here, or build that content into other existing articles if more appropriate. What do you think? Wdford (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know that ArbCom has formed a new council to devise new forms of Wikipedia governance(Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development)? I thought you might be interested in looking over who has been made a member of this council. They were not selected through any kind of transparent process. I have strong doubts about at least one of them, based on this comment, which I believe would be of interest to you. You and I know Wikipedia has problems that need to be addressed. Is a council with this member going to address them? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this provides more context and discussion of the issue at hand.... if we are going to have a real conversation about race at Wikipedia, this might be the place to have it (or to use it as a spring board into a discussion of how the policy council should investigate raceialized conflicts). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 18 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]

AE on AE

Do you mind our having a personal conversation about these kinds of problems? I do not mind doing it on our talk pages, or we could create a special user sub-page, or I could give you my e-mail ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marimba Ani

A tag has been placed on Marimba Ani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I looked at the deleted article, and I have to agree that the subject does not meet WP:N or WP:PROF, and thus should have been deleted. I did a google search. That mostly comes up with her own website, a page selling her DVD, and some blog entries, none of which meet WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even get the article of blackwashing to be put into this, and I have no ability to bring individual pages about users into the mix. I expect myself to be censored some way or another sooner or later. Perhaps we should write an article about the emerging "Afropedia" website. I think that this site will take off in a good time once we get a lot of contributiors to participate. Best of all, we can directly respond to the tactics and justifications here to misrepresent black history. Till then we have to work hard here, but I can't be helpful on this particular page. --Panehesy (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for stopping by with the note about Marimba Ali. I'm just seeing it. I'm really no longer actively contributing to Wikipedia. I drop by once in a while, but I'm not really writing anything. Honestly, I have better ways to spend my time. This website is a sh*t hill -- you must know that (lol!). Still, if you need ever need my assistance in the future, please don't hesitate to use the "contact user" (or whatever it says) link on my page, and send me an e-mail. Peace to you my dear brother. If you're ever in D.C., definitely look me up. deeceevoice (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would love your collaboration

www.afropedea.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.48.62 (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka. You have new messages at Talk:Marimba Ani.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marimba Ani

Hey, Luka. :) Long time. Just saw your note to me re the above. I've been aware of Marimba Ani for some time, but never have read her work. (So far, I simply haven't had the patience/willingness to learn a whole new vocabulary in order to wade through her stuff. It drives me effin' nuts -- especially since I'm an impatient reader anyway.) Thus, I'm afraid I have nothing to contribute to the article. In the future, should you need to contact me, please do so at deeceevoice@aol.com. It's not my primary email addy, and I very rarely check it, but once you do that and bona fides are established, I can provide a more direct means to contact me. I want to stay in touch. (Are you on Facebook?) I congratulate you for hanging in. Peace and blessings, dear brother. deeceevoice (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]