User talk:Jgreene999

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jgreene999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Frances Cress Welsing does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Seloloving (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also failed to reflect the sources. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Frances Cress Welsing. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. The body of the article sufficiently supports the statement. If you can find a better term than Black supremacist, you may propose that as a substitute. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of Black supremist, you can say Black psychiatrist because that is what she was. If she was a Black supremist she would have been stripped of her medical license. Jgreene999 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your source for "Black psychiatrist" being a widespread term for those who espouse melanin theory? —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26174212 Jgreene999 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That only mentions Welsing, not others associated with the theory. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Frances Cress Welsing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"genetically defective" only means that white people can not produce any other hue but white. That makes them genetically speaking, defective. This statement does not make a respected medical doctor of psychiatry a Black supremist. If you want to deny that genetically speaking she is wrong, try to make that argument. Genetically speaking, white people can't produce any other hue but themselves no matter who they conceive with. This genetic fact does not make the person who is stating this fact, a Black supremacist, as you say Jgreene999 (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then please reconcile this statement: "According to Welsing, the genocide of people of color is caused by white people's inability to produce melanin.". —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pathology behind white supremacy is that white supremacist have a fear of genetic annihilation. They don't have a superiority complex. They have an inferiority complex. This is an analysis from a licensed medical doctor who is a trained psychiatrist. Just because that makes you uncomfortable and just because you don't understand the analysis doesn't mean that the person who is explaining that to you is a Black supremacist as you claim. The genocide of people of color is because the white supremacist who practice genocide are afraid that if people of color remain on earth they will one day annihilate them genetically. This is where your replacement theory stems from. White supremacist fear that they will one day be replaced by people of color. If you are not a white supremacist, you probably don't have that fear. However, a black person explaining this truth to you is not a Black supremacist but rather a licensed and trained psychiatrist. Give me your argument as to why it isn't true that white people can not produce any hue other than white. Jgreene999 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about social constructs of race. There is no genetic definition of "White" and if you mean European, skin color differs dramatically. Just as it does with people called "black". In any case no one is white except perhaps Albinism in humans and they can be from any ethnic background.

And edit warring will get you blocked. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any genetic definition of "Black" either, right. So let's talk about melanin. So called white people suffer from a melanin deficiency. They can not produce any off spring other than themselves. All other people of color can produce an off spring with melanin. Again, The pathology behind white supremacy is that white supremacist have a fear of genetic annihilation. They don't have a superiority complex. They have an inferiority complex. If you face the facts and stop denying the facts they may help you to understand your white supremacy condition. Just because I'm presenting these genetic facts to you, does not make me a Black supremacist, nor does it make Dr. Francis Cress Welsing a Black supremacist. Again, give me your argument as to why it isn't true that white people can not produce any hue other than white. Don't look at it as a social construct of race, look at it as a scientific law. Just because a black person presents this argument to you, doesn't make a black person a Black supremacist. That is where you are wrong and not facing the facts. Jgreene999 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, now a personal attack. Everyone has melanin.[1]https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/518826 Find a scientific source that says they don't, except of course for albinos in some cases. What you call "white people" have a wide range of color - produced by their melanin. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So called white people have a melanin deficiency, like I said. I didn't say they didn't have any. There melanin deficiency does not allow them to produce an off spring of color if they try with each other. What is your argument to disprove that scientific fact? Just because I'm presenting this fact to you, doesn't make me a Black supremacist and that is the basis for calling Dr. Francis Cress Welsing a Black supremacist. What is the personal attack? I don't intend to attack you. I intend to educate you. If you are not a white supremacist than I might have a chance to educate you. Jgreene999 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is going nowhere. Virtually everyone has melanin and the skin color of their children is not always exactly the same as their parents. That is not a "white supremacy condition" which is what you've accused me of. "Of color" is a different issue. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning about personal attacks[edit]

Such as you made above. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the personal attack? I feel personally attacked because you are calling Dr. Francis Cress Welsing a black supremacist and she's not. I'm not a Black supremacist but I agree with Dr. Welsing's analysis of White Supremacy. Jgreene999 (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, the reliable sources. That's how we work. Your agreement with Welsing is immaterial on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Not me" I'm beginning to understand Wikipedia a lot better now. Thank you. This is a dangerous medium. Who gets to determine the reliable sources? I get a formal warning for offending so called reliable sources, interesting. You still haven't given me a valid argument as to the fact that so called white people can not produce off spring of color with each other. "White people" are not considered people of color because of their melanin deficiency. Please make your argument that they are considered people of color. Here are a few articles that support the fact that Dr. Francis Cress Welsing was a respected, trained psychiatrist, and educator, not a Black supremacist. I'm sure they won't pass your reliable sources test.

https://www.ebony.com/news/dr-frances-cress-welsing-looking-back-at-her-call-to-uproot-racism-333/

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/welsing-frances-cress-1935-2016/

https://lasentinel.net/frances-cress-welsing-isis-ascendant-teaching-self-respect-reasoning-and-resistance.html

https://moguldom.com/247104/10-things-to-know-about-scholar-dr-frances-cress-welsing/ Jgreene999 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one has disputed that Welsing was a trained psychiatrist. The point of contention is that one the theories she is associated with has been linked to Black supremacy and/or described as Black supremacist. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has linked her psychiatric analysis or theories to people who are accused of being Black supremacist doesn't make her a Black supremacist. You have the burden to prove that she is a Black supremacist. All you have is so called links she is associated to. Can you prove that she belonged to any of these groups you associate her with? Black supremacist needs to be removed from her Wikipedia page. She was not a Black supremacist. It's a fact that the black gene or people of so called African decent have a gene that is dominate to all other genes, in terms of producing melanin or skin color. That is a scientific fact. Just because someone teachers that fact doesn't make the person a Black supremacist. Prove where she is wrong? Jgreene999 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not, because we do not call her one. We describe her theory that way, not her. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact that the black gene or people of so called African decent have a gene that is dominate to all other genes, in terms of producing melanin or skin color. It's not a black supremacist "theory", it is a fact. Can you prove that fact wrong. Jgreene999 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What we're talking about is melanin theory, a "pseudoscientific claim" "that higher levels of melanin give black people inherently superior qualities to white people, including supernatural abilities such as extrasensory perception". —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Direct me specifically to this pseudoscientific claim by Dr. Francis Cress Welsing. Show me where she says this or writes about this in her own words, IN HER OWN WORDS. Also, prove to me that high levels of melanin doesn't give a person who has it extrasensory qualities that are not found in people who has less melanin. The burden of proof is on you. I take it that you concede on the fact that the black gene or people of so called African decent have a gene that is dominate to all other genes, in terms of producing melanin or skin color. Jgreene999 (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. Like Doug Weller above, I see nothing further to be gained from this conversation. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have proved my point. That is not how Wikipedia work. You see nothing to gain from this conversation because you're not interested in the truth. You're interested in what fits your narrative, what makes you feel safe, and what allows you to control the information. You have not heard the last of me. The family of Dr. Welsing should file a deformation of charter lawsuit against Wikipedia. Jgreene999 (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Jgreene999, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]