User talk:194.176.105.35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, 194.176.105.35, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: Bidha Nagar edit on 26 December, how's it spam?

Hi! Where's the message that you are talking about? I find none of mine here in your talk page. --Victor 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson sales

you have recently made amendments to the MJ album sales with inclusion of soundscan sales. Can you please provide a reference to these figures? If true, they need referencing, otherwise, they are speculation and will have to be deleted. 60.234.242.196 09:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Galician language, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] answers to your questions

1.If the mainstream view of the ancient egyptians isnt biased towards a eurocentric view, then why is it mainstream egyptology still say the only black pharoahs there were, was in the 26th dynasty totally ignoring the bust of pharoahs like menes,djoser,senwosret1 etc.

I thought that those busts were made during the 26th (or was it 25th?) dynasty... too long after menes for them to know what menes looked like. Correct me if I'm wrong. I may be on this point. Provide sources and dates, please.--Urthogie 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

2.why do most seem to think the ancient egyptians were a semetic looking people even though the book of races show semetic people different then egyptians

Because most people are ignorant, and don't know that the Egyptians looked unique and were a mixed-race society.--Urthogie 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

3.if egypt was this mixed race society you seem to be supporting what did the non black africans bring to the culture?

Several things. Domestication is a big one. There wouldn't have been a sizable population if domestication wasn't introduced first from the Fertile Crescent (cirac 6000 BC). There's more stuff, but you should read up on your history if you want to know.--Urthogie 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

4.the oldest traces of civilization in africa is the khartoum mesolithic. the civilization of egypt came from the south. mainstream opinion is the badarians looked no different then the egyptians in your opinion what did these people the badarians look like?.

I honestly don't know much about them. From the little I have read I would say they were of mixed-race, most of their ancestors were likely from the Western Desert. How does that relate to this exactly?--Urthogie 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Who said they were made in the 25 or 26 dynasty? who questions the time frame they are supposed to be found in? i think its your turn to get sources for this claim. as far as i know they are authentic from the first 3 dynastys.
What do you mean, "my turn"? That implies that you've sourced anything thus far. You haven't. You initiated this conversation-- you even chose the points we'd discuss-- its your liability to present evidence for your points, and me for mine. This is your point. Defend it.--Urthogie 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • so professional egyptologist are ignorant and dont know the difference between a mixed race person and a semetic looking one? its got nothing to do with them being biased right?
You asked me about "most people", not "most Egyptologists". Please don't switch around your questions. Most Egyptologists are accurate if they're published in peer reviewed respected scientific journals.--Urthogie 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "domestication wasnt introduced from elsewhere, The Nilo-Saharans had granaries By 7200 or 7300 BCE, and sedentary sediments. didnt you know that"
First off, you can have granaries without domestication, and you can have sedentary settlements without domestication. Second off, the only Nilo-Saharans who there is any evidence of them having developed domestication independently were the Ethiopians and some parts of Sahel (most of Sahel was not Nilo-Saharan, only a small portion of it was). Third off, even if these two places independently developed domestication (the proof is shaky-- their crops may have been domesticated in Southwest Asia first), but I know of no proof whatsoever of either of these two places transfering domesticates to Egypt.--Urthogie 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • it relates to things because everything advanced in africa seems to be according to you and a lot of other people interested in ancient history mixed race, never black african. the badarians are from the south the same culture and colur of the nubians. check out ian shaw- the oxford history of egypt.
A study in 1972 of their remains found them to be mixed-race. They are not the same culture as the nubians. Every culture of people is different-- respect human diversity. The reason science says Egyptians were mixed race is because that's what the evidence shows. Egyptologists today sometimes even go out of their way to avoid bias-- Tut's image for National Geographic was created by researchers who were not told who it was or where he was from.--Urthogie 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued discussion

  • er you are the one who said they may of been made in the 25 or 26 dynasty so it is up to you to prove it, is there any egyptologist who questions the age of the busts if not we have to assume they were made when the pharoah who they were made after were alive. the only people who i know said they were made in the 26 dynasty is the people who moderate stormfront.
I said I thought that because I read it on a forum-- perhaps the person on the forum was actually a stormfront member. Maybe its a myth propogated by racists, then. But you can't deny that science isn't innocent til proven guilty. I'll admit I have no proof on this point, but then I'd like to see your proof for the era you gave. I disagree with your sentiment that the date can be assumed. Science isn't based on assuming anything-- especially that art is from the time that it portrays. Haven't you ever seen a modern artist portray someone from the distant past? Why couldn't the Egyptians have done this?--Urthogie 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • i ask a simple question about bias. if the mainstream beleive in a mixed society then the programme should reflct this and not just put semetic people as the egyptians.
Mainstream programmes don't represent mainstream science. Have you watched aladdin? Even modern arabs aren't portrayed right! Science isn't the issue, as you can clearly see. It's the unscientific prejudices of society at large. Please stick to the science, rather than the criticism of the unscientific culture.--Urthogie 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ok mainstream like keita say it was a cultural transfer of crops from asia to egypt. the other things that made the culture of egypt was totally african from the south.
I'm not denying the influence of the South. But I did answer your question partially, did I not? Do you want more examples? What was your original question supposed to lead to/prove? It seems to me like domestication was what allowed Egypt to become the world's first nation-state... so I don't see what factor could be more important to that as far as cultural exchange... Also, I think Egypt gave more to its neighbors than it received, the larger it grew.--Urthogie 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • cranial studies like the one stroahl did are hard because the masai may be thought of as mixed race or white is seeing a skull.the king tut looks nothing like the guy from his staues busts and funeral masks. i do respect human diversity. but the badarian and naqada are located in the south. there is no proof what so ever except wishful thinking that they would of been anything but black african. http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/metropolitan/index_1.htm
Ok, aside from a continued discussion on the issue of the early dynasty art, can we agree to just focus our discussion on the Badarians and Naqada, and ignore the secondary points you brought up besides them? It seems like we've worn out discussion of the secondary points. If you'll reply to me with agreement I can study the subjects of the badarians, naqada, and the early egyptian art and get back to you. (to be honest, I have to thank you for allowing me to learn about the Badarians...it will take a couple days :)). Sound good?--Urthogie 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: blocking

Hi - in response to your message on my talk page, there is fortunately a new blocking method that, when enabled, only blocks edits made from users not logged into an account. Thus, if a gateway/proxy with many users must be blocked due to massive vandalism, one of these "soft-blocks" should be requesting, which can allow users from that IP to create an account. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The above was a response to this message: [1], which was posted on my talk page from someone on this IP. Sounds like the IP is shared, so someone else probably wrote it. I recommend getting an account to avoid confusion like this in the future. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Gravity

Hey there, 194.176.105.35, would you like to create an account? See all the benefits here!!! Try to make one soon!!! --GravityTalk 09:15, 30 March 2007

[edit] Free Church of Scotland (post 1900)

Please do not remove material from Wikipedia without explanation. It may be considered vandalism.--Docg 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Penguin

Please don't submit vandalism to Wikipedia.Alan 07:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 2007

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Everton F.C. page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 15:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Calcot, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 16:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to net present value, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You all realise that you are talking to an IP. For some reason I have just been allocated this IP (I'm at work) and I can assure you I have not perpetrated any of the acts of vandalism you describe. This is the trouble with not requiring people to be signed in to edit... 194.176.105.35 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/4/User_talk%7E194.176.105.35.html"