Panehesy

Race of the ancient Egyptians

Panehesy, I want to thank you very much for your contributions to the article on the race of the ancient Egyptians. You always go to what is essential. It is nice to see that you understand the way Eurocentrism fonctions: with distorted arguments.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Panehesy.. I was wondering your motivation for those recent edits in the DNA section of the ancient egypt/race article? What is the significance of separating genetic lineage from phenotype? It seems sort of "redundant" since even discarding race, there are certain clades found among these peoples that can be identified to geographical areas, where notions of "race" have been dependent. Don't get me wrong as it is very important to emphasize this distinction, it just seems to defeat the purpose when there no elaboration. For instance, Keita writes:

"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 based on current data (Underhill, 2001). "

^^There needs to be more emphasis of what this involves before we insert such data as it leads people to believe that DNA evidence is not reliable in determining origins. The entire "race" thing to me (the fact that "race" keeps being injected) is a huge straw man in my opinion. It obscures who the Egyptians were as to make them ambiguous every time a caveat like this is thrown in there. I wish there was more room to simply focus on population relationships, notions of Africanity, and biogeographic origin based on numerous data.Taharqa (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where you may be going with this, but respectfully, I think that it's misguided and I will explain the significance of the above quotation. You seem to be harping on a very different issue while basing what you say on Eurocentric fallacy.

Phenotype isn't in question. Yes, people often labeled as "Black" varies, but we must destroy the notion of a "black race" and stick with the notion of Africanity. For instance, Kittles and others cite that Australians and Melanasians whom are supposedly "phenotypically" Black, are the most distant of relatives to Africans. Africans are more related to European Swedes than they are to "phenotypically Black" populations from Asia and Australia. We must point this out. There are studies by Sforza, Bowcock, Kittles, and Keita that show Europeans as intermediates, between that of ancestral African and Asian populations. DNA shows that all humans come from Africa and that the Egyptians descend from a group who never left. It narrows the field my friend. Yes, you will have people who cite papers suggesting Asian influences and then I agree it would be necessary to point out that these lineages do not come from contemporary "Asians" even if the findings are valid. Or you can point out like I would via Nebel (2002), Kittles and Norton, and Keita(2005), that a lot of the said variation is attributable to recent mirgrations associated with Islam. There is also no mention of Paabo and DiRenzo who tested for mummy DNA and found "sub-Saharan" lineages, but couldn't identify anything beyond that. These imply origins, not "race" and we can simply say that ("this however, has no bearing on racial identity"...or something). DNA in my opinion though, brings a lot to the debate. To associate it with phenotype I believe is its own straw man since scientists know this and don't normally argue for it outright.

There are more less misleading ways to make the same case against distortion on either side is what I mean basically. I'll be back later, I don't want to burden you with an endless debate on genetics but I respect your opinion. Just trying to get a feel for what was going on when you added that.Taharqa (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't believe the ancient Egyptians were black, purely because I don't have the same definition of "black" as you do. I don't for one second believe the ancient Egyptians were European either, but I don't believe they were black by our standards. In my country (South Africa) the average African-American would not be classified as black. Blacks and whites in my country happily accept the existence of a growing population group which is officially called "Coloured", and it encompasses all mixed-race people, but black people do not consider these mixed-race people to be black. Barak Obama and Tiger Woods would not be considered black in my country if they were not rich or famous or powerful. I sympathise greatly with your comments that mixed race people get pulled back and forth as expedient, and I originally had a whole section on that point that got deleted for "irrelevance", but those folks have maybe moved on, so maybe we can reinsert it. Please stop stressing about the pictures - just put them in, and let the cookie crumble. Wdford (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the defintion of "Coloured" is a social construct - but so are all racial labels. It does indeed mean "not white and not black", as you say. If we can all agree on a definition of the race of the ancient Egyptians that is "not black and not white either" then I think the controversy will disappear. PS:the Chinese people are not considered black in South Africa, they are considered to fall alongside black people and others who were disadvantaged by apartheid laws, purely for the purposes of accessing affirmative action benefits. Wdford (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. My Afro-Asiatic origin image comes from the book Egypt in Africa, edited by Theodore Celenko which contains essays from notable African historians. It doesn't imply that Afroasiatic was introduced to the East Africa coast from the Red Sea, it indicates that it originated somewhere between Nubia and northern Somalia (in Africa). Please read Christopher Ehret's Essay for more detail:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005906

As for the ethnicity question that was directed at Wdford since he kept talking about being from Africa, visiting Egypt etc. Perhaps it was inappropriate to ask him but I felt that since he was giving details about himself I would ask for specifics.AncientObserver (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Panhesy, have you seen the draft page we are all working on? Here it is:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Draft AncientObserver (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, have a look to Ancient Egyptian race controversy. The article has been radically changed by User:Dbachmann and friends.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

POV-Pushing Admins and the Banning of regular editors

Hello Panehesy,

Check out the latest drama that has transpired over the Ancient Egypt race article. I and several other users have been banned on bogus charges and a flood of Admins are trying to take control of the article in order to suppress information and restrict its scope. You don't have to stand for this. If you like you can edit the page in order to restore the contact we worked so hard on. It will probably be reverted but someone needs to stand up to these bullies and let them know they aren't going to get aware with this. Meanwhile I'm going to try to report these Admins for abuse. AncientObserver (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

yes and it seems that a technique of calling everyone of a particular view a sockpuppet is in effect. I didn't notice until after I paid cloer attention that AnwarSadatFan placed me on my user page as a sockpuppet to Mutuwandi. I contribute on average once a month. I don't have more than one user name but I am seeing how their technique has worked. I didn't realize until just now how afraid I was to edit because I was afraid i'd be administered! Very clever and I am very upset about that. --Panehesy (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be scared to edit the page. However, stay away from statements trying to "prove" or "show" the ancient Egyptians were black. That is not the point of the article. The point of the article is that race, race-science and racism are the basis of the controversy. The fact is that white racists in Europe and America always thought the idea that ancient Egypt was black was controversial. It was controversial because in their minds blacks were monkeys and sub humans and therefore unable to create such a civilization. That is the controversy and it is purely racist. Everything else stems from those origins. White people invented anthropology and racist pseudo-science in order to prove the Egyptians were white and that black Africans (negroes) were monkeys and sub human. White people created the concept of "race" as a form of biological determinism. They invented the study of skulls as a way of identifying "races". White people invented the terms black, white, caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid and so on as "racial" labels. All of these "sciences" were intended to prove the superiority of whites and separate them from everyone else. This is documented fact and that is the root of the controversy. That is all this article needs to focus on. As long as you try to add comments about "grudgingly accept Egyptians as blacks" and any other sort of insinuation that the Egyptians were black it becomes an article that is about the Egyptians being black or not and it lets them hide behind wikipedia to push nonsense. Stick to the facts of history and that whites always viewed the ethnic origins of the ancient Egyptians as controversial because of racism and nothing else. From there you can proceed to point out all the arguments for and against the issue, but you must point out the fundamental racist nature of the controversy in the minds of whites and the fact that Africans and many whites were vehemently opposed to such racist distortions of history as a reason for the ongoing arguments and that it did not start in the 1960s. The point being that modern Egyptology and Anthropology have their roots in the racist works of the 19th century and were FOUNDED on the very idea that whites and white "science" could never accept or support the idea that the ancient Egyptians were black. That is the controversy. Their own documented history incriminates them and all you have to do is reference the numerous works from the last 200 years that make this clear.

References: Negromania, Crania Aegyptica, Types of Mankind, Samuel George Morton, Thomas Gliddon, Josiah C. Nott and so on. Big-dynamo (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Panehesy! I have been banned with other fellows from editing the article on AERC, as you know. From time to time I go reading the article. I agree with what Big-dynamo wrote to you just above about the point of the article. Otherwise, I am impressed with your arguments. You are very well informed. I don't understand why people can't be objective while dealing with facts! Actually there is no doubt that Jean-François Champollion, in his letters from Egypt and Nubia was speaking about the origin and the race of the ancient Egyptians, not only the first inhabitants, but all the ancient Egyptians. The word ancient Egyptians is in the quote. Agriculture is not the point. In his book, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens, at pages 455-459, he gives reasons why he considers the ancient Egyptians to be Indigenous of Africa and why he thinks that they followed the Nile from south to north in order to settle in what is called Egypt. Champollion states clearly that ancient Egyptians differ in their body, their language, their costoms from the people of West Asia, their immediate neighbours. Champollion, even being the father of Egyptology, is not often quoted in Egyptology because he represents a powerful wapom against the dynastic theory, a Caucasian Egypt. Egyptolgists are now recognizing that Egypt was seen as a Caucasian civilization for racist reasons. We can read this from Maurizio Damiano-Appia in his book Egitto e Nubia, Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1995, p. 8: Si è molto discusso circa il popolo egizio e la sua civiltà, ma in generale nella mentalità comune, ed anche in quella di molti egittologi sino a pochi anni fa (e spesso ancor oggi) è data per scontata l'idea di un popolo de razza bianca, che creò una cultura mediterranea che poco aveva a che fare con l'Africa se non una quasi casuale collocazione geografica. A la base di tali edee si poneva la cultura occidentale, di orientamento prevalentemente anglosassone, che vedeva il Vecchio Continente al centro, o meglio ancora alla guida, della cultura mondiale. Ancor più precisamente, con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. Apparently this has been an ongoing thing here for Wikipedia for a few years now. As I went through the history of some of the articles, I notice a pattern of banning black people who contribute based on inconsistently administered provocations. I was actually recruited to contribute by someone else who was recruited to contribute by another who experienced the same thing. What you and others should do is to get others interested in contributing. They can only blame sockpuppets so many times before they cause an uproar by this tactic. --Panehesy (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this article is to talk about the controversy not to solve it and not to argue the points of the controversy. Therefore there are a couple points that should be focused on:

1) Race is a construct of Europeans since the 18th and 19th century and nobody else.

2) The race of the ancient Egyptians has been a subject of European study since the European "discovery" of ancient Egypt in the 18th century. In fact the first mention of the ancient Egyptians and their black African features was Count Volney and he specifically mentioned why this was controversial:(The Ruins by Volney: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/3/9/1397/1397-h/1397-h.htm)

3) The controversy of the race of the ancient Egyptians has been a subject of debate in America and elsewhere since that time. And it has always revolved around racists rejecting any notion that the Egyptians were negro as the basis of the debate. Negromania and Crania Aegypticana were two books written in the 19th century specifically to address the race of the ancient Egyptians with a desire to refute any notion that the Egyptians were black. In the case of Crania Aegypticana it was the first work to ever try to systematically analyze cranium from Egypt and elsewhere and is one of the forerunners of modern anthropology and cranial analysis. This work was intensively racist and based on European attempts to identify races based on cranial measurements which became the standard approach for most anthropology throughout the 18th and 19th century. Therefore, it is a given that based on these evidences and others, that American whites have considered the idea of ancient Egyptians as black Africans as "controversial" since that time. The reasons for the debates have always been due to the ideas espoused by the racists, namely that African blacks were closer to monkeys and therefore savage and deserved to be enslaved. Hence the debate as mentioned in the book Negro mania has been fundamentally due to the issue of slavery and racism in America. This is 100 years before any Afrocentrics even existed and the arguments in Negro mania are fundamentally the same as today. Not only that but many other similar books were also written in this same time frame specifically attempting to address, based on racist logic, the idea that the ancient Egyptians were black.

Crania Aegyptaica:

http://books.google.com/books?id=852cAkr93L4C&dq=crania+aegyptiaca&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=HLh9pyphrN&sig=V8TctI1TM1_elCdMgJa-j-QTq4E&hl=en&ei=OIRaSqGhA4moMcju6EI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

An historical sketch of slavery (which reinforces the idea that blacks were always slaves):

http://books.google.com/books?id=FaxBAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PR260&lpg=RA1-PR260&dq=negromania+egypt&source=bl&ots=RBLgv4RZo5&sig=mxxEt-MrZS5QtAW36BC7YIK547k&hl=en&ei=h2laSuCqOobyMZDX7UI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

However note that all European writers of this same time were not racists and you have works like the one below which state clearly the idea that the Egyptians were black (see pg 82).

Egypt under the Pharaohs (1852):

http://books.google.com/books?id=uuFdjS9MNdMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=crania+aegyptiaca&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1

Bottom line, this controversy over the "race" of the ancient Egyptians is one that came about due to the race science and racism of some Europeans in the 18th and 19th century.

Beyond that the number of African and European scholars who have been fighting against this view is also numerous and the number of books written in support of this idea also go back to the 18th and 19th century as well. However, this is not a "afrocentrism" versus "eurocentrism" issue, it is an argument against racism primarily and many of the writers in support of a black ancient Egypt were and are white Europeans who are not Afrocentric. This is also a very important point as from the 17th century and the writings of Volney to the book Egypt under the Pharaohs by Kenrick, and in the modern day writings of Richard Poe and Martin Bernal, it is obvious that many Europeans did not have the same views as some others. Afrocentrism is not the same as Eurocentrism because Afrocentrism was a term created by African scholars in reference to a curriculum of study for black Studies departments in the 80s and 90s. Eurocentrism is a term created in reference to the works of racist Europeans or the European historians who attempt to make Europe and Europeans as the center of world history. One is an affirmative notion of ones own history the other is a rejection of ethnocentric projections and propaganda. Those are two totally separate and different things.

Big-dynamo (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned

You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per [1], for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Panhesy we'll get this matter cleared up some time next week. The more people you ban Ice Cold Beer the more signatures I'll have on my complain against you. AncientObserver (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm already on it. Apparently there is an editor/administrator hierarchy and process that I have to go through to get dbachmann and ice-cold-beer removed from involvement in the article. You and others may need to get a well drawn list/chronology for them to view in order for them to take action. I am still learning this and so I may be slow in responding. But, the rationale for the banning is certainly being done lopsidedly and that in itself is a violation of Wikipedia's policy for administrators. I think he went to far by banning an editor without discussion first. There are five admins higher than him that I think have the ability to resolve. But you MUST articulate the request very clearly. --Panehesy (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted a request for arbitration to have User:Ice_Cold_Beer removed from administrating the article and to rescind the bans placed. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification--Panehesy (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. I will get involved when I have familiarized myself with the correct way to settle matters like this. AncientObserver (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Banning black people claim

How does anyone know if an editor is black? No one gets banned because of the color of their skin. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously not the race of the editor I am speaking of, and this kind of response from you is consistent with my own frustration. YOu think I am referring to the race of the editor? Come on. Seriously, I am referring to the position on the issue. --Panehesy (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

also, if you could get yourself to behave properly, you would not be given grief over being a sock of a banned user who showed the same kind of misbehaviour. we cannot forensically determine the identity of each troll on Wikipedia, see WP:DUCK. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to be clearer. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

Good job in starting the thread. However, I would advise you to take it easy. The folks who patrol the page aren't interested in content. They are only interested in policy. So I suggest you focus your comments on policy issues. Furthermore, the particular noticeboard isn't the place to complain about racism. I think a good case has been made to unban you and everyone else. But we should not create the impression, that if everyone is unbanned, we will spend our time bickering on the talk page about racism. If the administrators think that we will be bickering about alleged racism, they will be inclined not to lift the ban. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right. On the other hand, we have to generate a method for dealing with weasel tactics. I have been reading up on Wikipedia policy and honestly it's not clear. And as I can see the admins can't even figure out what to do. I understand that the issue itself is about the ban and not our concerns. But there has to be a method. And I found it.

Use MY USER (not talk) page to cut and paste infractions made by POV pushers whether it be uncivil behavior, edit warring, or unilateral action on the article. There we will cut and paste that page to be used as evidence later, when the next wave of nonsense comes. --Panehesy (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The good thing about Wikipedia is every edit is saved in history, so if there are any infractions it is fairly easy to retrieve them using diffs. On the noticeboard, you have two threads. It is recommended to only have one. This what the noticeboard says

1)Comment only in your own section please. If you wish to respond to a statement or remark by another editor, add to the bottom of your own section the code,

Response to Example : Your response here. ~~~~

2)Remain civil in your interactions with others. The Committee does not look favourably upon comments that are intended to provoke reactions in others, and being incivil or provocative is counter-productive. In the event that a thread becomes heated, take a brief keyboard break and step away.

3)Be succinct in your comments. Long, rambling additions are less effective.

Wapondaponda (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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 10:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. At this point, I have no way to address this. I am, however, hopeful that seeing the example I left in escalating the issue will give us all more hope that yes we can impact Wikipedia by taking a stand and taking the issue directly to the administrators higher up. --Panehesy (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's your call, but you can leave a comment here:[2]. My view is that there are people here who want to centralize power to control the project, when they do not understand that the biggest weakness of the project is our systematic failure to attract and increasingly diverse group of editors. ny time there is some discussion of what is wrong with Wikipedia this simple point gets marginalized. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

this provides more context and discussion of the issue at hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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) 00:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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) 00:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note about User:Wikiscribe's AN report on you

Hello, Panehesy. You're reported by User:Wikiscribe to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. Since he did not notify the matter to you, this is a courtesy note from me. Take care.--Caspian blue 20:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating your article ban, imposed at [3], from Ancient Egyptian race controversy while the appeal against the ban at WP:AE is ongoing and the ban is still in effect. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  21:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Panehesy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the block enforcement period is clearly stated 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC). One week has passed since my block was initiated.

Decline reason:

See other request below - it explains the matter clearly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are mistaken. The remedy under which you were blocked, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation, states: "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator. Any editor that continues to edit in violation of such a ban may be blocked as specified in the enforcement ruling below." Under this authority, you were banned for six months at [4]. Since you have now violated this editing restriction, I am blocking you in enforcement of it under the authority of the remedy that you cite.  Sandstein  21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein appears to be correct: as I read it, the "one week" figure you're quoting refers not to article bans, but to blocks set on editors violating those bans. Even if you had felt that the clearly stated "six months" was an inappropriate ban length, I have to say that you might have done better to either appeal the ban or seek clarification before risking a block by editing in violation of the stated restriction. If you wish to be unblocked to appeal your article ban, I might support that, but on purely procedural grounds this block appears sound. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Panehesy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The ban is authorized by the enforcement rule is for one week. There is nothing indicating the rule for the first offense can exceed one week. You say that the block is specified in the enforcement ruling below. The ruling says "up to one week" not six months. I was blocked over one week ago. The remedy I cited does not allow exceptions to it's own rule. There is nothing indicating the rule for the first offense can exceed one week. Request unban be lifted, and unblock be lifted. When you see my block log, you see one block. Not five. Please release ban and block. --Panehesy (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are confusing bans from articles with blocks from editing. Under the "Article Probation" remedy, it clearly says " Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator." and gives no maximum timeframe for such a topic ban. This is the section of the remedy under which you were topic-banned for six months from this particular article. However, the "Enforcement by Block" section equally clearly says "Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be blocked (for) up to a week" Your block (which is only 24 hours) comes under that section. If you continue to edit that article after your block expires, then you will inevitably be blocked again. Black Kite 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your comments about Y Haplogroup E1b1b

Panehesy, you've posted into conversations about E1b1b twice on the weekend, making some sort of connection to Egyptian race controversies. I'm sorry but I can't follow this, and I'd ask you to keep subjects a little more clear. E1b1b has nothing obvious to do with race, and to be honest race is not a word used in any simple way in genetics. When the word race is used in genetics it is used to describe statistically significant cluster, implying long term interbreeding communities with some level of isolation. This is not really what most people mean by "race". For example such clustering studies are able to discover race like clusters WITHIN Iceland, but no one would call those races. The word race as it is normally used implies that there is a fixed levels on cladistic hierarchies, but modern biology specifically denies this (theory of evolution). E1b1b has been used to speculate about very ancient pre historic movements of people (not necessarily large migrations, maybe just a single man moving), but these have nothing to do with the discussion you are appending your message to, and I can not really see any link with the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article. I do not know if it is helpful but E1b1b has been common in the area of Egypt a long time, maybe even back 20,000 years ago. So the migrations it might help you discuss are either very ancient indeed, or else in a direction going OUT of Egypt.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll tell you what, if no one uses this study or this haplogroup to make a claim against the Ancient Egyptians being black, then I will acknowledge what you are saying. But if an editor, lets say Wikiscribe , comes to the Ancient Egypt debate and brings up E1b1b haplotypes, will you do the honor and tell him what you just told me and refute him? --Panehesy (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your user page with a section "How to stop contributors from demonstrating that the ancient Egyptians were black"

We don't want editors 'demonstrating that the ancient Egyptians were not black" either. Articles should be encyclopedic, "representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." That's our WP:NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

UNfortunately that's is what they are doing. The notion that the egyptians were black is considered a fringe theory by the administrators here at Wikipedia. And evidence presented otherwise is labeled POV even though it meets NPOV standards. It's just called "Afrocentric". So it's circular. Anything presenting black egyptians is afrocentric because afrocentricism is also unfairly characterised as pseudo-science (instead of distinguishing the pseudoscience from the real science in it). --Panehesy (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blackwashing

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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. ArcAngel (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Marimba Ani

Panehesy, I hope you have heard about Dr Marimba Ani, an African American Anthropologist, well known for her contributions in the Afrocentric School. I have created an article on her, but in less than twelve hours, somebody came to delete it. I need your help to resume this article, which was just in creation, with much more and encyclopedic informations. Actually it is really astonishing that there isn't an article on such an important figure in Wikipedia. I left an almost similar message in the talk pages of Muntuwandi and Deeceevoice, but up to now I have not heard from them yet. If you have time, please listen to Dr Marimba Ani Marimba Ani - European Quest for World Dominance--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Panehesy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Auntie E. 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)