User talk:702310448

You will *not* use that word on my talk page, you racist ****. If I *ever* see you use that word on Wikipedia as a racial slur again, I will do everything in my power to ensure that you NEVER edit here again.

Is that clear?

Do not make any more edits to Malcolm X. It is blindingly obvious that you cannot maintain a neutral point of view on this subject. For any admins looking for evidence of this, please see this diff: [1].

I will also take the time to remind you that Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Your reasoning for why your edits should be kept is that you did original research that supports this point of view in college. Not only does this violate WP:NOR, but it violates WP:NPOV as well.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Now you are being really ridiculous. Are you meaning to tell me that you would rather see wikis on nuclear physics written by people who have never done original research in that area? And just so you know -- I do work with very advanced research. I can tell you that the people who do research are HIGHLY opinionated. It doesn't mean that they can't present objective research, as mine is.

What is meant by originial research is something that is completely different than what you are talking about. Original research in this context means like going out and doing a poll about what people think about Malcom X, and then posting that without references.

Everything I post is with valid references. As far as Wikipedia making me never edit again, don't hold your breath. In the unlikely event they pay attention to you, I have other means of getting my message on here. And believe it or not -- I am not a racist. I probably voted Democrat far many more times than you ever have.

Malcolm X

I hope you don't mind if we continue our email discussion here — it isn't really a private matter, so is probably best discussed on Wikipedia itself.

Dear editor,

I have not taken action against you for telling the truth. I have, however, taken action against you for violating wikipedia editing rules after having been warned on your talk page.

Please make no mistake - I am not in anyway involved with the Malcolm X page, and, apart from having had to write a couple essays on him way back in high school, know next to nothing about any controversies. However, editing in Wikipedia must progress in some rational manner. Repeatedly inserting the same paragraph into an article, when the paragraph in question is disputed by some of the other editors, will not succeed in changing the article. The other editors will remove the paragraph just as many times as you insert in, and may well have greater stamina and persistence. If you really want to change the article, therefore, you won't succeed in doing so by continuing in this method.

A far better way of changing an article is to discuss the article in its Talk Page. This way you can have an in-depth, hopefully rational discussion with the other editors. You can cite your references, and discuss how the article ought to be changed. If they don't listen, or are not swayed by your arguments, you could step up the discussion and make a request for comments ('Wikipedia:Request for comments' in the search box). You can then list the article, and ask that other editors look at the discussion and make suggestions.

Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia is structured, the burden of proof is usually on the person who wants to change the article, and especially on minority points of view. This may not be the best way for an encyclopedia to work, but is unfortunately the reality of the matter. Thus you have to be prepared to discuss your suggestions with the other editors if you want to substantially change an article.

I'm sorry you had to get blocked, but unfortunately rules like having a maximum of three reverts in 24 hours are a vital way of preventing pointless and harmful edit wars in Wikipedia. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)

One of the big problems about Malcom X is that much of what people know about him comes from a book entitled "Autobiography of Malcom X", by Alex Haley. Most high schools have it. Unfortunately, more recent research into Alex Haley's work has show that he has taken significant liberties with the truth on at least several occasions. The existing Wikipedia article specifically states this. If you are at all interested, get on any search engine and search for Alex Haley and plagiarism. You will find many other sources, as well.

Interestingly, BBC did an investigative report on Alex Haley, and found in addition to plagiarism, major fabrications in his book "Roots". PBS here in the United States refuses to run this program. To do so would be political blasphemy. Unfortunately, this is the same attitude that I am running into with Wikipedia.

What I am saying on Wikipedia does not represent a 'minority view'. Nobody can question that Alex Haley was successfully sued for plagiarism, in open court, and it does tarnish his credibility. I believe that there is a very vocal minority on Wikipedia that would like to supress this truth simply because they don't like the truth. Accepting this truth would force them to have to reevaluate some of their own rigidly held opinions. Your Wikipedia adminstrator jgordon seems to work from the premise that anybody who attempts to modify that wiki has some kind of ultra right wing racist agenda. It's not true. Personally, I have voted 75% Democrat for the past 25 years.

One Wikipedia user - clawson, decided to push me past your 3 revision policy simply because he doesn't like the sound of the truth. I wonder if you cut him off for 24 hours as well? I would say he also violated the policy. - 702310448

"Unfortunately, this is the same attitude that I am running into with Wikipedia."

So use the talk page and discuss your edits! I can promise you point blank that, in the current environment, the other editors on that page simply aren't going to let your edits through until you start using the talk page. In terms of the point you want to make on that page, I actually agree with you. I think it would be extremely doubful that anyone could write a perfectly acurate and unbiased biography on themselves, and Alex Haley certainly had points of his own he wished to make. But you must have realized by now that your current tactic is getting you nowhere.

"What I am saying on Wikipedia does not represent a 'minority view'."

But it is — on Wikipedia. You are pushing the point, and two or three editors are reverting it. That's all I meant. In such situations in Wikipedia, it happens that it's the minority point of view that usually bears the burden of proof, and of convincing the other editors. It's unfortunate, but that's simply how it is.

"Your Wikipedia adminstrator jgordon seems to work from the premise that anybody who attempts to modify that wiki has some kind of ultra right wing racist agenda."

Huh?

"I wonder if you cut him off for 24 hours as well? I would say he also violated the policy."

Yes, and you have already seen the discussion I had on his Talk page, so you know what we concluded. He wasn't warned to stop, and was acting under the good-faith belief that he was within the Wikipedia rules by reverting your repeated reversions. The point of these rules is not to block people on technicallities, but on the spirit of the rules. You were clearly warned, and yet continued with your revert war.

Now I can assure you that, if you start a discussion on the Malolm X talk page, start pointing to some unanbiguous references, and keep such a discussion civil, the other editors of that page will start to listen to you. They may not agree with what you want to insert, but they will listen and continue a rational discussion.

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 09:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, references to "fucking niggers" are hardly going to make people respect what you're saying. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 10:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of like Malcom X calling my people "White Devils", as he did on many occasions. Obviously there are a lot of people who respect Malcom for that kind of talk. So I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that there aren't people who respect me for saying "fucking nigger". Although, taken out of it's original context, I admit, it might sound bad.

Maybe something you don't understand -- I paid a lot of money to go to that university, and that black professor should have given me a good grade. Little did I know that the teacher would discriminate against me the way he did. I have every right to be angry.

Wow.

Just, wow.

You're amazingly arrogant. And amazingly wrong. The world doesn't owe you good grades because you paid a lot of money. Money has absolutely nothing to do with academic performance, and for you to imply that it should completely undermines the idea that you've ever even been to college, much less that you supposedly teach at one. I suppose you allow your so-called "students" to buy grades from you?—chris.lawson (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)