User talk:68.92.204.87

Vandalism
Pointless It gets reverted every time. I don't even understand the point of this revert. Post on talk like a civilized human being or just stop; it's an utter waste. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is simply not pointless although a project such as wikipedia is obviously pointless as it is run by illiterate, uneducated drones such as yourself. Sudan has never been and will never be a part of North Africa. The Statistical UN maps that certain propagandistic individuals tried to impose have been rejected on most articles, except this one, as this one covers a mostly French-speaking region. Imposing your imaginary interpretations of history and geography is absurd but also damaging and inimical to enlightenment. The only uncivilized human being is yourself, who refuses to accept civilizations as they are and wishes to embellish a sort of nightmarish vision of the world where your countries of choice suddenly become Asiatic or North Africa or Mediterranean or European. Why don't you read a real encyclopedia or book, and grasp the fact that Sudan is NOT a North African country. I am sorry if you cannot accept your place in the world, but there is no point in hallucination collectively online, although this is certainly the place for it- as most Wikipedians are unknowing robots who work free of charge.


 * Sure Offer an argument that Sudan is not a part of North Africa, and give a source for that. Your perspective can be incorporated if it is verifiable and credible. If not, then it will always be reverted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I already did. Why don't you look it up on Britannica and accept the fact. Of course, Afrocentrists such as yourself reject facts. Thankfully, however, in the real world, Sudan is not considered a part of North Africa. Funnily enough, on the ground, if ever a Sudanese person were to be referred to as a North Africa, violence would surely ensue. Even in Sudan itself, a genocide is being perpetuated by the Arabs against the Blacks, and yet here you sit, ignorant Westerner, imposing your imaginary fictitious lies upon (a meaningless project) Wikipedia. Of course, only comic-strip readers still refer to wiki, but one must persist in one's efforts. Do yourself a favor and accept the fact- As you can see, Sudan is not a part of North Africa, except perhaps in your Afrocentrist imagination, which is undoubtedly a bit wild in its conception of the truth.
 * What? Provide that source. Clearly, there are sources that contradict you, so we could weigh the relative merits of either. If you go about vandalizing and slandering others, what do you honestly hope to accomplish? Do you think anyone will be persuaded by being called white trash or ignorant? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How would you feel if I, as a Mediterranean person, were perpetually rewriting your history? and including Panama in definitions of the USA? What if I were to insist that Indiana were actually a part of Asiatic India, and that the original inhabitants were a Hindu peasantry? This is precisely what you are doing. And what are your sources? Afrocentrist links and explanations, the same Afrocentrists who claim that Blacks built the Pyramids by flying magically, the same people who claim that Bach was a Black man and that the earth is flat. Give me a break! Stop being dishonest and accept the truth= Sudan is not a part of North Africa, nor has it ever been. Indeed, even Mauritania is not a part of North AFrica, though economically it is part of the New "Maghreb" But in a region that is run by uncultured madmen and dictators, everything is to be questioned . Maybe the fact that these two countries are members of the Arab League is confusing Westerners.
 * Re-writing history You can include Panama as a part of the US if you want, but you are not a credible and verifiable source. The UN is on matters of geography and international politics. If you don't like that, it's too bad. You can mention that there is controversy, but you can't delete everything you don't like. If someone used an Afrocentric source in an article, and it was not credible, then it should be removed. The UN subregion map is not Afrocnetric, nor are the interwiki links you keep on deleting. Your reversion is nonsense and it's not even thoughtful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you unfamiliar with BRITANNICA? You know, the REAL encyclopedia? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/418538/North-Africa
 * Britannica As they say "The geographic entity North Africa has no single accepted definition." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you an Afrocentrist? Because you reason like one, that is to say, you do not reason at all. No established definition vis-a-vis Egypt and Libya. No where in that official, knowledgeable definition is there mention of the Sub-Saharan, Black country Sudan. The exact explanation is as follows:

The geographic entity North Africa has no single accepted definition. It has been regarded by some as stretching from the Atlantic shores of Morocco in the west to the Suez Canal and the Red Sea in the east, though this designation is more commonly referred to as northern Africa. Others have limited it to the countries of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, a region known by the French during colonial times as Afrique du Nord and by the Arabs as the Maghrib (“West”). The most commonly accepted definition, and the one used here, includes the three above-mentioned countries as well as Libya but excludes Egypt.

Now, if you are not logical or smart enough to grasp the meaning of this, then I suppose it is no wonder that no one regards wikipedia as a project of merit. IT has become a sort of comic strip, and it is no wonder.


 * Afrocentrism No, I am not. And you are right there is no "official" definition of North Africa. That is the point. Since there is no single definition, you cannot blithely delete ones that include Sudan. Sudan has a black population; it also has an Arab (non-black) population. Calling it black doesn't change that. Nor does it change the common features and political and economic ties of Arab African states - including Sudan. Mauritania is much more black than Sudan is, and you're willing to include that in the Maghreb, so I really don't understand the argument you're even trying to pose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no single definition and here is what we mean by that- that Egypt is sometimes included and sometimes not. That Libya is sometimes included and sometimes left out. WHAT IT DOES NOT MEAN: That India can be included is certain Indians are ashamed of their Indian roots, or that Germans can be included if they are in the mood for some Mediterranean sun, or that Sudanese can be included if they wish to align themselves with a people that have no relation to. Furthermore, the economic and political ties that of European and Sub-Saharan African states-including Sudan, are even stronger than Arab- Sun-Saharan African ties. This does not make South Africa, a country where many British and Dutch settled, part of Western Europe, though I suppose some Afrocentrists may argue this absurdity, and some have. The fact that Bach is considered Black by some people also does not make him Black, and if one were to study Black music, one would readily discern this. But I guess you'd argue that it would depend upon one's interpretation of whether or not they could provide sources that appealed to you, since clearly Britannica and the UN's own warning do not. God help you, but let's hope your brand of dishonesty and distortion doesn't lead to more violence and death in the real world, which it has in the Arab region where certain ignorant criminals continue to impose their own interpretation of a world they will never understand.


 * No, the point was that the lack of a definition revolves around whether or not Egypt should be included in the definition, NOT whether or not Germany, Spain (which one could argue is a part of North Africa and vice versa) or India are part of North Africa. You are deliberately manipulating a simple notion, which is anti-intellectual and would not hold water on a legitimate source of information, which this source is not. It is more like a comic strip. Now, I do not believe that Maurtiania is a part of the Maghreb, and it is not considered a part of the Maghreb in the Mediterranean region, but the region is run by dictators who basically toady to certain powers. As to the UN maps, you are correct, the UN is legitimate, which is why it is important to heed their own warning: namely, that those maps are STATISTICAL maps that are NOT to be used in a political, cultural, or historical context. This is a warning that was issues by the UN itself. This leads us to my first point- the fact that SUdan is not a part of North Africa, has never been a part of North Africa and will never be a part of North Africa. Once the southern Mediterranean democratizes, I assure you that Mauritania will also become what it has always been- a West Africa, and NOT a North African state. For now, the intellectually dishonest may take advantage and perpetuate ignorance, but hopefully in the near future, knowledge and facts will reign once again.


 * Britannica and the world Yes, the matter was contentious for Britannica; clearly, there are other sources with other definitions and other methods. No one is suggesting that Germany be in North Africa, since it is not in Africa at all, nor is it an Arab or Muslim society. I'm not going to keep on having this lame argument with you and you're not addressing the simple fact that you reverted out interwiki links for no reason. And the more germane fact remains: if you keep on reverting, you will be reverted. Furthermore, if you keep on resorting to slander and being an ass, no one is going to do anything you say. Would you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is because today Egypt is considered a part of North Africa, though traditionally it was not. Another term for North Africa is L'Afrique Blanche.

August 2008
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Chexmix53 (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Quit blanking that talk page. If you want the link removed, then remove the link, not the entire argument. Also, deleting your talk page warning is a blockable offense all by itself. Chexmix53 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.-- JForget  00:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)