User talk:Ezeu/Archive10

Discrimination WikiProject
I've created the project page. Welcome. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Open proxy" problem
Just wanted to let you know that I'm no longer blocked (perhaps my IP changed) so you can stop tossing and turning at night worrying about my predicament...

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It has been a tough few days :) Glad it worked out. --Ezeu 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wailers
The reason is genitive case. In English you will say eg. "Robert Plant's guitar". We will say "gitara Robert a Plant a ". That's all. Yarl talk &bull; PL 13:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. --Ezeu 15:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Respect
Please treat me with a little respect. I am here to improve Wikipedia. Is this because Im a newbie? I don't know your rules. Why do you expect me to know what they are? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Science Solider (talk • contribs).
 * This notice was not particularly respectful to other editers, so I removed it. --Ezeu 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your problem
I realize that as a black person, and one who believes in afro-centric anti-intellectual absurdism, you dislike it when people like me disillusion you, but you need to remember that wikipedia aims to be encyclopedic. The fact is, sub-saharan africa or black africa is black, sub-saharan and that countries like Sudan and mauritania are not North African. The use of a strategic, political UN map is absurd, which is probably why it is not used in articles discussing Europe or Asia, as the demarcation lines make very little sense and do not conform to reality. Besides which, the UN is a political organization, and not a scholarly ones. The definition that wikipedia ought to use is one that conforms to scholarly definitions, which is why I have used the Encylopedia BRitannica as a guide. I do not think that you, as admin, should "personalize" your wikipedian experience. I think we would have very little problems if editors like halaqah who believe the koran and bible are historical guides were not protected like admins like yourself, and if the content were objective. As of now, you are only compromising wikipedia's content. I will involve others in this but I simply do not have the time to deal with such nonsense at the moment. Please, remember, your role as admin is to not get involved in a childish manner but rather to guarantee that the content in the end is accurate and objective. Mariam83 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My role is to prevent bigots from using Wikipedia as a soapbox. --Ezeu 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you are using wikipedia as a soapbox, muddling lines, definitions and content. Mariam83 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * my personal views are of little concern here. The fact is, those articles are inaccurate and have been hijacked by lunatics. I have been trying to correct them and render them more accurate. I noticed that a tactic here is to attack people's personal traits in order to avoid the main ISSUE: content. You are obviously not I suppose qualified to edit articles, which is why you would never qualify to edit a REAL encyclopedia or even scholarly source of lesser pedigree, and can only play games online, on a foolish project like this. However, you surely must admit that UN strategic-political maps cannot be used in good conscience though it must be fun to present make-belief as fact when one obviously feels so very anti-one's own roots. Mariam83 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

map
Again, Sudan and mauritania are NOT north African countries, they are sub-saharan black countries and a UN geopolitical map that is useful politically as the two are part of the Arab league would be useful in a political context but not in an encyclopedic context, topographical one or cultural one. Mariam83 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Note
Thank you for your courteous message. As I am sure you're aware, I have been pointing to the content and facts the entire time, in an attempt to avoid any personal attacks, as I am very much aware that these issues are topics of intense diagreement, fraught as they are with all sorts of social, historical and cultural woes and concerns. Users keep alluding to personal behavior etc., I feel in an attempt to bypass the material, content and authority of the text, which is very poor and inaccurate. Many editors seem to do this in order to provoke people who are interested in accuracy with the view of abusing the much limiting "etiquette" facet of wiki, which has set up an editing system that in essence is anti-encylopedic. This is often the case with people who abhor facts and reality, as reality and facts disillusion them. So far, it has been my experience that you have aided these editors and waged a "personal" war against me, by removing accurate information, info that only rendered the articles I have been editing more objective. Recall that I left alot of what I feel is blatantly unscholarly as I did not wish to altogether anger editors whom I knew to be seriously misinformed and unscholarly, and hoped that compromises could be reached in time. However, my corrections are obviously a threat to people who have hijacked these articles and who believe they own these articles, whom absolutely anyone is encouraged to edit. In any case, I very much appreciate your good will and will refrain from any sort of personal behavior, anything that might hurt other editors. While I maintain that these articles are very unencylopedic, and in order for them to become even slightly authentic, much heretical information must be expunged and passages rewritten, I recognize that this is an open, "democratic" project and as such, bound to be seriously flawed, limited and inauthentic. Moreover, I feel that even people who believe the word of God to be a source of historical accuracy can change. Hopefully, you and your friends will look to reliable sources such as Britanicca, Oxford etc. for guidance and focus on that, rather than on little insignificant Mariam. Our SOLE concern should be the accuracy of the content. I hope that in future, we will attain an acceptable and ACCURATE version and reach agreements in a reasoned and impartial manner. It also doesn't help to "gang up" against a new comer who disagrees with questionable material and sources and who is against the manipulation of language. Again, thank you very much, Ezeu, for your suggestion. Kind regard Mariam83 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. Refrain from the provocative attitude and you may find that some people agree even with some of your edits. --Ezeu 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cold Creek Manor
Hello! I know you have written an article about "Cold Creek Manor" movie. There is a phrase by some of the characters of the movie there about "black hammer" or something like that. I watched the movie in Russian, but I want to learn how this phrase sounds in English. It must be something like "The black hammer seeks for the weak ones, he will crush all the skulls". Please, tell me the original variant of this phrase. Thanx. --Andysoft 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only edit I made to that article was add a link to Christopher Plummer. I googled it, and the phrase you refer to should be "Hammerhead will bash your skull and send you to devils throat". --Ezeu 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. --Ezeu 08:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I added some info to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83. Feel free to add/change/delete as you see fit. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Talk:Sub-Sahara Africa
There is no so it's likely non-logged-in editors that see the RFCs will be confused that they cannot edit the talk page unless they log in. For what it's worth, the article has non-content/mechanical problems as well. I've already fixed a few. I'm only starting to read the discussion but it looks like it's been brewing for some time, the RFC is well warranted. davidwr (talk)/ (track)  22:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is set to auto-expire today, so its not really a major issue. --Ezeu 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

NgaBantu
Well, they're not exactly original research, but Mzaca really IS being a nuisance. I know that you are, in your own words, "a Bantu" but the rest of us really don't like that term a lot.

I guess that addressing him in (broken) isiZulu didn't disarm him like I thought it would...

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that the term is desliked by some. It would be better if Mzaca discussed the issue in the talk page, and perhaps provided some references. That information could be inserted into the article in a NPOV manner. Better still, a discussion of the percieved pejorative connotations of "Bantu" should be in Bantu peoples of South Africa. --Ezeu 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but are you not the one who edited Bantu peoples in South Africa to use term as a valid ethnic label? I dealt with that a few days ago, since it doesn't make sense for an article stating that "Bantu" was used perjoratively to then turn around and use it to describe the people without qualifying it... Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 11:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The first edit of that article was content split from the main Bantu article after a proposal and discussion at Talk:Bantu. I did not write it, I merely moved it from the other article. Give me the diff to the edit in which I "edited Bantu peoples in South Africa to use term as a valid ethnic label". --Ezeu 12:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean stuff like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bantu_peoples_of_South_Africa&diff=92626500&oldid=92626008 and this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bantu_peoples_of_South_Africa&diff=92060734&oldid=86752581 among several others. Do you recognise the handwriting? Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are entirely bonafide NPOVing edits. --Ezeu 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the quotes around "Bantu", making "Bantu speaking peoples" a link to Bantu, etc.? Yeah, keep telling yourself that and everything will be alright... Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 13:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm through with this. Goodbye. --Ezeu 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

semi protection requests
Hi,

User:Mariam83 seems rather good at evading blocks, so could I request semi-protection for Tunisia, Demographics of Tunisia, Africa Province. There are probably others worth protecting as well. Bouha 11:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given my history with Mariam83, I think it is better if a third-party semi-protected those articles. Please raise the issue at Requests for page protection. --Ezeu 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83 back again
as 66.141.23.186 Bouha 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83 socks
We need a temp. block on User:68.89.185.223. Caknuck 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Ezeu 13:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

nordic crusader
Nordic crusader has uploaded this image Image:Negroid Caucasoid Gorilla Comparison.jpg.Muntuwandi 03:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Troublesome Muntuwandi
Hi, Ezeu. I have posted thumbs of both the pictures on the Negroid talkpage with explanations for each but once again, in the face of a meaningful discussion, Muntuwandi seems to have again fled. Perhaps blocking him for a week or two, and unprotecting the Negroid article would allow for some decent edits and contruction of the article without Muntuwandi reverting every time. He constantly blanks his talkpage also, making it even harder to enter into a dialogue. Looking through his edit history, also, I see a similar pattern of reversions and deletions from other articles. Thanks, --Nordic Crusader 04:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocking anyone at this point will not accomplish anything, and besides, I do not see any blockable offences. You are both accusing each other of vandalism, whereas this is a bonafinde content dispute. It is perhaps time to get some input from other editors. I suggest you file a request for comment. Also, have some patience as Muntuwandi may still reply.--Ezeu 06:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)