Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 2

The sphinx's ethnicity an "alternative theory"? Not!
Again, there is absolutely NO REASON to place this section under that subheading; it properly belongs under "Description," because it deals with descriptions of the physical likeness.

If this is a so-called "alternative theory," then someone please kindly state for me the corollary theory -- with citations. Otherwise, it's going back under "Description." Deeceevoice 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As you well know, because you have participated, there are many variations of theories at Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians, the Talk there as well as the talk archives [1] and [2]. There are many citations there for the differing views that you can review.
 * &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-03-28 18:18Z 


 * Excuse me. Discernment.  This article is about a single monument.  It doesn't have jack to do with the race of the ancient Egyptians -- any more than an article about, say, statues of flying pigs in Cincinatti automatically says that Cincinnati (or the U.S. at large) is a nation populated by flying swine.  What about that is so hard for you to grasp?  Now if people (correctly) want to on their own extrapolate from the existence of a huge, honking statue in North Africa glorifying an obviously very Africoid person that ancient Egypt was black, hey, I'm certainly not going to stop them.  Because it's true. :p But nowhere -- nowhere -- does the article make that assertion.  So much for that "alternative theories" nonsense. Deeceevoice 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed a couple of equal signs and now the Ethnicity section is a SEPERATE section than the Alternative Theories. If someone else wants to force the Sphinx's ethnicity to be itself an "alternate" theory, they will have to bring a compelling reason to do so first. We all know that the racial issue regarding the Egyptians is not "alternative".... this isn't about Aliens, or Atlantis. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't push it because it is splitting the difference, is a good compromise with Deeceevoice, and not a major issue to me because I actually don't have anything specifically against that theory.


 * Hopefully we can now move on and improve the article in general.
 * &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-03-28 18:28Z 

And how is it a compromise? Your insistence -- and that of others -- on placing it under an "alternative theory" as if it's some crackpot notion, designed to discredit the fundamental and obvious blackness of the image was the central issue. And you were flat-out wrong. As I stated before, there was absolutely no justification for it being placed under that subhead -- except, IMO, those with a problem with what its existence implies: a black Egypt. And you persist in calling it a "theory" -- when it is no such thing. The bottom line is that the information I introduced -- along with a link to a very Africoid photographic image -- is well-documented, and it stands. *x* And you haven't produced a scintilla of evidence to support your previous position. "Compromise"? Hardly. Deeceevoice 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling me racist is bad enough. Making things up to support that serious accusation is much much more bothersome to me.  To top it off, I've been attempting to work with you, not against.


 * I have made 9 edits to this article. 2 of them were general clean-up edits without content change.  1 was a vandalism revert.  1 was a revert of your change in the picture size at the top of the article.  1 was a revert where I was then reverted by someone else and then you switched the article back to my last version.  1 revert was my removal of the Black African section with the comment rm section, it should not be seperate, belongs in the parent section because I felt that it needed to be worked into the main section as well as be written less negatively.  2 other reverts were were the ones I did today where all I asked is that you come here to talk about this issue. 1 edit was removing = from the Missing Nose to move it into the main body of the article.


 * In summary, instead of discussing the issue about your wish to move that section to the top of the article, you instead attack me by trying to use false information to make it look like I've been purposely doing racist edits in this article.
 * &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-03-28 20:08Z 

And who the hell called you "racist"? Exactly where have I used that word in this piece? And where have I used it to describe you? Further, you earlier charged me with purposefully inserting POV material into articles related to ancient Egypt here on this page -- and then proceeded to go along with a highly POV categorization of the information about the sphinx's ethnicity as an "alternative theory." And who is engaging in POV edits here? Certainly not me. You make up a charge I did not level -- and still you haven't even tried to produce any justification for sticking the info about the Sphinx's clearly Africoid appearance (which I had to fight to include at all) at the bottom of the page under some b.s. title that essentially labels it a crackpot theory. No. You will not use some trumped-up label of your own making to distract from that central issue. Your edit in this regard was POV here and totally without merit. Not mine. There was no compromise here -- because your position was grossly incorrect and decidedly POV. Deeceevoice 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And who started off on the wrong foot here with the catty/b*tchy allusions to the Arb Com, etc? Certainly not I. And you're the one making the POV edits here -- again, not I. You wanna complain that you've somehow been wronged? Tell it to someone who cares. "Racist"? Ha! You didn't read it from me. But POV? Hell, yeah. And "... written less negatively"? What? Further, you reverted my edits, claiming some sort of bogus "consensus" which was never reached; it was simply two separate editors with an agenda -- and, like you, absolutely no justification -- ganging up/tag teaming to revert my edits to avoid a 3RR violation. You should know better. Deeceevoice 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Your only response is to complain that I interrupted your comments? ROTFLMAO. Deeceevoice 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My friend, the discussion ABOUT his ethnicity is not a theory. A theory is something that is presented that has no precedent before it (hence it is THEORIZED). There is no theoretical position to take in regards to whether or not his face looks like a black man's face. We can all see the sloping cheeks, the forehead and what not. I don't care either WHERE in the article it is, I care that it is not considered a "theory" because, the discussion of his ethnicity... well it's not a theory. It is a sub-topic all in itself. In fact, you just made me realize. This issue of his ethnicity is far more appropriate under the section regarding his origin. Obviously that relates much more than about some wacky theories. Deeceevoice isn't being unreasonable. Please don't move it back. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In light of Deeceevoices racial accusations vs my actual edits in this article, do you really believe that Deeceevoice is being reasonable?


 * Is is possible that what you wrote above was in any way effected by the belief that I have been acting in a racist manner here?
 * &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-03-28 20:20Z 


 * My "racial accusations"? Another falsehood.  Stop attributing words to me I clearly did not write, Guy.  I wrote no such thing.  Crying wolf to distract from your utterly unjustified POV editing of this piece won't work.  You were in the wrong in the way you approached my edits here from the git-go.  And you were wrong in putting the material on the sphinx's blackness under "Alternative theories."  You haven't offered any credible justification for it -- because you can't. Period.  Deeceevoice 21:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"This issue of his ethnicity is far more appropriate under the section regarding his origin."
 * I agree with your view on this matter regarding placing it under the origin. The article flows  well and more coherently with this overall ordering of the sections.
 * Thanks, &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-03-28 20:48Z 

I am pasting my comments here as well. There is no consensus if the claims are based on detective Domingo, who also thinks Khafra is "proto-European"!!! Find a mainstream Egyptologist who corroborates this stuff. It shouldn't be hard if true, since several Pharaohs are known to have both Egyptian-Nubian origins &mdash; Zerida 22:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The opinions of Domingo and Peck qualify as expert opinions, as their findings deal with skull morphology and racial/ethnic identification -- and nothing else. If the sphinx were located in France, their conclusions regarding the faciocranial characteristics of the sphinx would be the same, so your insistence that the expert opinion come from an Egyptologist doesn't hold water. Domingo and Peck's opinions and their qualifications are documented in the piece.  Again, if theirs is an "alternative theory," as the subhead alleges, then you must state convincingly, and utilizing also expert opinion, why this is so.  Unless and until you do, the information is correctly placed separate and apart from that subhead.  So far, there are three contributors who agree on the matter:  Zaph, Guy, and me.  That leaves you clearly outvoted -- and with no legitimate basis for your objection.  Unless and until you have additional information to bring to bear on the matter, the passage should remain where it has been agreed it should remain.


 * Further, I would argue that even in the highly unlikely event you are able to find a credible source that refutes the findings of several observers throughout history, some utilizing modern scientific knowledge and technology to come to their conclusions, such information still would not place this information under "alternative theories." This is about the appearance of the monument and is a matter of objective observation.  It doesn't theorize anything -- not about age, or origin, or identity, etc.  You cannot dismiss expert opinion simply because you disagree with it.  Again, bluntly put, "put up or shut up."  Deeceevoice 22:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that I am not part of any group against *whoever* and am not voting. My edit history here and in the article back up that assertion. My wish is to get this article at least somewhat stable compared to how it has been.

My view is that we need to work from a basic layout agreement and then work on the details of each section. Going back and forth from the details to the Big Picture is only making this article a much more problematic mess than it needs to be.

It's just my opinion, but IMO it's at least a planned strategy instead of reverts of details as well as major layout revisions, rinse, lather, repeat over and over again.

We are '' close to getting a basic layout settled. Let's get that done and then deal with separate section details that might be disputed.
 * &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-29 00:11Z </i>


 * That Guy: "I'd just like to mention that I am not part of any group against *whoever* and am not voting.  My edit history here and in the article back up that assertion."


 * Excuse me? Check just a few lines up and you will see:


 * "'This issue of his ethnicity is far more appropriate under the section regarding his origin.'"
 * "I agree with your view on this matter regarding placing it under the origin. The article flows well and more coherently with this overall ordering of the sections."
 * Thanks, <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-28 20:48Z </i>


 * What the hay-o? Deeceevoice 20:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the sphinx, or anybody for that matter is not something to be considered as an "alternative theory". I will hold vigil on the article and restore the position indefinitely and report the three revert rule to the moderators. His ethnicity is a part of his origin and background, it is not a part of an unrelated "theory". I do not care if the user reverting is a modern day Egyptian or not. Being a white american does not make one an expert on Native American history. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "... close to getting a basic layout settled"? And you accomplish that aim by sneaking off to administrators to request that the page be protected while pretending here to be satisfied with a "compromise"?  So much for reasoned discourse and "work[ing] together and get[ting] back to improving" the project. *x*  Deeceevoice 08:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Administrators do not take page protection lightly and even requests for the much lesser semi-protection are regularly denied.


 * Editors can use this time to calm down and try work together in a much more productive manner.
 * <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-29 09:28Z </i>


 * Still nothing from you of substance about your actions, huh? I expected as much.  Further, there has been absolutely nothing in the way of substantive information added to the discussion -- and certainly nothing by you -- central to this issue since well before the page was locked down.  Absolutely nothing has changed.  You haven't offered any credible explanation for your earlier POV revert, nor has the edit warrior Zerida done so.  You haven't explained, or had the integrity to recant, your utterly false accusation that I called you a racist.  You entered this discussion with catty/b*tchy comments about me and the ArbCom and groundless charges of "Afrocentrism."  Your deliberate use on the Request for Protection page of a word I immediately edited out of my own earlier comments, because you wanted something to whine about was a cheap shot, because you're grasping at straws.  Your action, which was to ask for page protection after feigning "compromise" has done nothing but inflame the situation.  So much for productivity.  IMO, you've got zero credibility in that regard.  Deeceevoice 09:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't said anything about Afrocentrism except for that word in this sentence. A simple text search shows that you are making that up.


 * Fact: you are the one who has been deceitful about wanting to work out a consensus.
 * Fact: You want to shove your specific version of the article down the throat of every editor here.
 * This article has major problems primarily because of you actions. That is a Fact.
 * <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-30 19:29Z </i>


 * Facts:
 * If you will check the edit history, I have repeatedly worked with editors here to improve the article.
 * YOU are the one who started out with the the veiled, catty, b*tchy personal attacks on this page, referring to the Arb Com and charging me with making " mischievous edits in this and other ancient Egypt related articles."
 * YOU are the one who flat-out lied about me calling you a "racist."
 * I introduced the extremely interesting information about the ethnic identity of the sphinx -- which adds immeasurably to the information and interest of the article -- and I have withstood constant attacks about it, because it is important and noteworthy. And I have provided expert opinion, as well as historical observations to back up that information.  All the detractors have done, on the other hand, is carp and whine and point fingers.
 * YOU agreed to a change (stating, "This issue of his ethnicity is far more appropriate under the section regarding his origin.") and then not only backed away from it, ran to have the page locked and then claimed you weren't "voting". What?  Are you now trying to pretend you never agreed to the relocation of the "ethnicity" information at all?
 * This article has been vastly improved by my additions. The problem is the obstructionist behavior of a few edit warriors who seem to have major objections to the mention of a massive, ancient monument to a blackman in an African nation.  Hey, not my problem.  All I can do is present the facts and documentation and, when confronted, challenge the critics and POV edit warriors to do the same.  That they haven't risen to the challenge says volumes. :p Deeceevoice 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I had previously tried to work on getting a consensus going by agreeing to two different versions of the page. Now, I realize that you intentions oppose a consensus and I am considering some other page version options to enable the article to get it back on track.
 * You are edit-warring to force your version of the article. That is a fact.  You have been deceptive about wanting consensus.  That is another fact.
 * You can dispute those facts until the cows come home but they are absolutely true.
 * <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-30 21:17Z </i>
 * Contrary to your bogus assertions, I have been perfectly fine with any reasonable changes. Have at it, and let's see what you come up with. :p  But this page will not go into a debate about the ethnicity of ancient Egypt (there's already a full article devoted to that subject), nor will the "ethnicity" section be put into "alternative theories" with other notions considered crackpot theories.  Deeceevoice 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not bogus, they are facts.
 * <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-30 21:46Z </i>
 * Like you lying about me calling you a racist? :p LOL I'm still waiting for someone to contribute something constructive:  documentation that it's an "alternative theory," that it's fiction -- anything.  Let's have it.  Deeceevoice 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You want to dodge around the facts about you trying to force your own version of the article on everyone by edit-warring as well as being incredibly ingenuous about wanting to work on a consensus.


 * I cannot force you to deal with these serious issues and the facts that support them. It's your choice to keep diverting attention away from them.  But, the facts are there for everyone to see no matter how much you dance around them.  In fact, the evidence here supporting that is overwhelming and it reflects on you very badly.
 * <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-30 22:25Z </i>


 * (*sigh*) Still waiting for something constructive from you, Guy.... :p  Deeceevoice 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have but it's useless to wait for you to address the hard cold facts about the serious problems you are causing (mentioned above) but it seems that's not likely :)
 * <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-30 22:40Z </i>


 * "I am considering some other page version options to enable the article to get it back on track [sic]." Seems you're the one who's sidetracked -- in a rut of personal attacks.  I'm still waiting for something constructive. Deeceevoice 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring · Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 01:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Afrocentrism/anti-Afrocentrism argument is utterly irrelevant here
Neither Afrocentrism nor Eurocentrism has anything to do with the ethnicity of the sphinx itself. Where the hell in this article has anything been said about Afrocentrism? And who are the "Afrocentric" historians being quoted?" This is utter bull -- and a classic example of the way Wikipedia works to reinforce the lies perpetrated by Eurocentrists.  And the usual, throwaway disclaimer about how the page protection doesn't "endorse" one view or another is just pro forma.  The fact is the page is frozen in the version that is unencyclopedic, POV and decidedly not the consensus of the current editors.  Deeceevoice 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll repost here a few comments I made earlier in this regard:

"I find it amusing that even Eurocentrists readily will admit that dynastic Egypt was black in its beginnings, but some become positively apoplectic when a monument of a black man dated, at the latest, to the Old Kingdom (and possibly earlier) is accurately described as 'Negroid.' Why is that -- when any respected scholar these days understands that dynastic Egypt certainly at least in its beginnings was, indeed, black African? And, hell. Not even Afrocentric scholars contend that dynastic Egypt was an all-black civilization all the time.  But assuming the perfectly logical and evident presence of black people in an African nation, what's the big deal about describing a single monument/structure accurately as that of a black man?  Somebody please 'splain dat 2 me.  deeceevoice 15:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"

"Excuse me. Discernment. This article is about a single monument.  [In this context, i]t doesn't have jack to do with the race of the ancient Egyptians -- any more than an article about, say, statues of flying pigs in Cincinatti automatically says that Cincinnati (or the U.S. at large) is a nation populated by flying swine.  What about that is so hard for you to grasp?  Now if people (correctly) want to on their own extrapolate from the existence of a huge, honking statue in North Africa glorifying an obviously very Africoid person that ancient Egypt was black, hey, I'm certainly not going to stop them.  Because it's true. :p But nowhere -- nowhere -- does the article make that assertion.  So much for that 'alternative theories' nonsense. Deeceevoice 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)"

The implication is there, the elephant is in the room. You can't just say the Sphinx is Black without addressing the implications, at the very minimum but pointing to the controversy article. The only reason you don't want the controversy article linked too in this article is so you can say the sphinx's ethnicity is non-controversial and move it out of the theories section. -- Stbalbach 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the Giza sphinx is not a subject of controversy. Again, there is no credible authority I know of -- have you found any? -- that states it is anything other than a representation of a black man. The controversy is about the ethnicity of ancient Egyptians. This article is about the sphinx -- again, a subject about the ethnicity of which there is no credible, informed controversy. It's black. Readers who wish to read about the controversy of the race of ancient Egyptians and Afrocentrism easily can go to those articles, where such matters are dealt with. Deeceevoice 23:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that the Giza sphinx represents anything other than an ancient ethnic Egyptian - as even the most cursory observation reveals. The amount of space devoted to alternative/conspiracy/alien theories already takes up far to much space in this article, and is in need of some drastic surgery. --Gene_poole 04:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism, systemic bias and where we stand
The information presented about the ethnicity of the image itself is that it has been described as decidedly "Negroid" throughout history. Some of those accounts are presented in the article and cited. The image also has been analyzed by one of the most well-known (at the time) forensics artists in the U.S., utilizing his professional expertise and computer graphics to reconstruct the head. Further, a noted and well-published Harvard professor in orthodontics has concurred in the forensic artist's findings, as well as supported the means by which those findings were reached. Both accounts were printed in the New York Times. These things are not disputed. This information has been presented in a perfectly dispassionate manner and sourced.

The information about the appearance of the Giza sphinx belongs with other, similar information about the sphinx's appearance. It is not a "theory," and certainly not an "alternative theory," such as are the matters of water erosion, "lost civilizations," et cetera. The information, again, springs from objective observation and careful, even scientific, analysis and deduction.

Those who have sought to place the information under the subhead "Alternative theories" have done so with clearly POV motivations and have advanced absolutely no credible rationale for their position. The arguments about Afrocentrism are merely a smokescreen. There is nothing Afrocentric about the information presented in the article; it is objective and indisputable. From a purely journalistic point of view, the information clearly belongs elsewhere. It's a no-brainer. Again, even if those who have opposed the inclusion of this information from the beginning manage to produce credible, sourced, scientific information which says the Giza sphinx is not the image of a black man, that information still would not belong under "Alternative theories." This matter, again, is all about what the monument looks like -- its description.

'''IMO, the request for page protection was utterly disingenuous. It was made by User:That Guy, From That Show! -- after he agreed to what he termed a "compromise" here, on this very page -- and with absolutely no indication that such was his intent. Such an action was clearly, IMO, in bad faith. User:Zerida's subsequent arbitrary and disruptive revert easily could have been dealt with without resorting to such a measure.'''

The fact that the article has been frozen in its current unencyclopedic and POV state is, IMO, emblematic of the anti-black bias of this website when it comes to such matters. I have not used this term on this page before, but I will use it now. Wikipedia is racist to the core. This is a perfect object lesson in how its systemic bias works. When obstructionist elements cannot refute objective information, they work to label it, mischaracterize it, smear it. "Afrocentrism" is one of those red herrings that gets tossed around a lot here. This is unmitigated bull -- and emblematic of the racist dysfunctionality of this website. And this is supposed to be an encyclopedia -- and one that Jimbo Wales wrote in his funds appeal that he wants to make available to children in Africa? ROTFLMAO. *x* Deeceevoice 06:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the The Wrong Version. &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Deeceevoice, do not alter the above post again. The link is a concise and appropriate rebuttal to your assertion that the protection of this page was somehow, *cough*, "emblamatic of the racist disfunctionality of this site", or that it shows how Wikipedia is "racist". Furrfu. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your post isn't "[sneer] emblamatic [sic]" of anything -- except, IMO, poor judgment on your part. It's just a smart-aleck remark that wasn't appreciated. Let me quote editor Yom's edite note when he removed the image: "I'm going to be bold here and remove the 'Wrong Version' image to minimize the antagonism between the disputing parties." I notice you didn't reinsert it. Did you? Why? Because it was inappropriate and inflammatory. Let me give you some advice: if it's not constructive, adds nothing to the discussion and inflames tensions, then keep it to yourself. And that applies to sysops, admins, etc. And that means you, too, Crypto. And, yes. What happened with the lockdown of the page in the POV version demonstrates precisely how racist and dysfunctional this site is. Deeceevoice 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good grief, Deeceevoice, how can you have posted the grandparent comment and then have the audacity to tell me that: "if it's not constructive, adds nothing to the discussion and inflames tensions, then keep it to yourself"? Did you ever considering following your own advice? You made the very grave &mdash; and extremely inflammatory &mdash; accusation that the page protection was a racist act, and therefore the entire website is "racist". As usual with such charges about page protection, it's obvious nonsense: the protecting admin just protected whatever page he or she came across, and nothing more sinister. You typically make implausible leaps of reasoning that suit your worldview: e.g. "admin protects page at a version I don't like" = "Wikipedia is racist", "people file RfCs and RfArs when I don't follow Wikiquette" = "Wikipedia is racist" or "Jimbo deletes my obscene and offensive userpage = "Wikipedia is unable to answer my charge of racist bias", etc etc. It's very sad that you view Wikipedia through the lens of racism. I'm sure Wikipedia does have much work to do to become NPOV in the area of race, but you see bogeymen in the wrong places. &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, Crypto! :p I did not say the person who locked down the page, even that they had ulterior motives. You should learn to read what a post says -- not what you think it says, or want it to say in order to confirm certain assumptions. "You typically make implausible leaps of reasoning that suit your worldview: e.g." What? Like that the Shinx is black? ROTFLMAO. What? Try again.

And your "so you're another one" is your only explanation for deliberately inserting that stupid, inflammatory tag? (So inappropriate, by the way, that you didn't contest it when another editor removed it.)

Finally, you're some white guy half my age. You treat a "grave" charge of systemic bias flippantly, mockingly and dismissively. It's inflammatory -- so much so that another editor removes your post. It showed exceedingly poor judgment, Crypto. And you really think you're qualified to tell me what I should or should not find racist? In your dreams. Based on your conduct here, you clearly don't have a clue in such matters. Deeceevoice 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "You're a white adolescent": I don't see what my age or skin colour has to do with this. Don't make racist attacks; I've blocked you for a week. (I see you've changed your comment slightly; still, my skin colour has nothing to do with anything. Nor does my age or gender, of course). Imagine if I'd said to some editor, "you're just some old black guy, what do you know?". This is unacceptable. (My renewed adolescence is happy news to me, of course: I'm 26, as is stated my user page). &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection talk page
The WP:RFP page is not to be used to discuss users, etc... so I will reply here instead.


 * "I just read Guy's allusion to "serious ArbCom incidents." Let me say that it is GUY who has taken the tacky tone in the talk page discussions and introduced the unfounded challenge of "Afrocentrism", and so far, to my knowledge, no one has reverted violated the 3RR.  Deeceevoice 13:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I never introduced "Afrocentrism" here (cite, good luck).

Second, it's not exactly a big secret that you are the one who violated 3RR to edit-war your view of what the page should be as well as pretending to want a consensus about this article.

The first is easy to prove by editors doing a text search on this discussion page. The second is also easy to prove. You did violate 3RR and is what started what turned into the situation we are in now. Claiming that you don't know about 3RR violations when you are the one guilty of it is very deceitful and doesn't help the situation.

Those are facts that can't be avoided.
 * <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-30 23:28Z </i>


 * If you want to waste your time nattering on and on endlessly about my purported conduct, when yours has been immeasurably worse from the very start, then be my guest. It's a shame you'd rather whine than stick to your agreement, or lift a finger to try to improve the article.  I'm not going to continue to respond.  We both know what you wrote -- and, yes, it's here to read for anyone who wishes to do so.  Deeceevoice 04:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You have now claimed that it is "purported conduct". Yes, I can refute your claim and will be responding shortly.
 * <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">&mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! <i> (talk) 2006-03-31 04:51Z </i>

Evidence requested of That Guy, From That Show! by Deeceevoice
'Please do not chop my post into pieces and obfuscate this time-line. It needs to remain intact for clarity. Quote and reply below this post like any other comment'.

Deeceevoice has denied that there is evidence regarding my declaration that Deeceevoice has violated 3RR. This 3RR is a part of her attempt to edit-war her own version of the article and she has been deceptive about wanting a consensus as well. This conduct sparked a revert/edit war that escalated and was eventually stopped by article protection.

I have kept the editorializing to a minimum and have provided a cite for every comment so that no one must take "my word for it". Readers can directly view the events.