Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Nation of Gods and Earths with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  23:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  23:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Ihear what your saying and in full disclosure i told you that i am the cultural representative of the NOGE as we are not an organization. i am published as i produce a monthly newspaper claeed the five percenter for national and international consumption. Wikipedias policy that if someone is part of a living breathing entity that is alive now and finds content on wikipedia that is diametrically opposed to the truth of that entity that representative is in conflict with making coreections. Iask you who else would know the difference between the truth and a lie if not a person who actually is the entity being discussed. Everyone in America has the right to the God of thier understanding. The NOGE is all about God,i wrote a clear defintion of who and what the NOGE is and was actually denied and refuted by you. but in the meantime wikipedia allows those who can refer to a book written by someone who disavows and denies that very same entity's existence and then produces a slanderous view of that entity's history as acceptable? they have not presented a NPOV they have made sure to denigrate and assualt the very integrity of the NOGE's God centered culture as evidenced by your telling me that i am a part of the "organization". Again where is the objectivity sir. This policy is paramount to you telling the jewish people that if a german objectivly tells the story of the holocaust and has some books cited that he the jewish man is disqualified from correcting the lies because he is a jew. i am appalled and greatly disappointed. then you send me to this room to what agrue with the people who have submitted the slanderous material to you? i am really trying to understand where you are coming from we are talking about the NOGE not as a past long gone entity but a nation of people involved in defining ourselves to the world right now and wikipedia is doing us a great disservice. you are attached to google and when you google the NOGE that disinformation you have posted as objective comes up and it is just wrong.````Born King Allah May 13 2011.[reply]

(This section moved from WT:CITE as it's not appropriate there.  —SMALLJIM  13:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have attempted to revise the definition given in Wikipedia for the Nation Of God and Earths. In doing so i was being objective,corrective as well as being unbiased. i understand that if this site is to serve as some sort of refernce point on any given subject it would stand to reason that the information within be truthful. As you can see from the radical difference in what wikipedia has allowed to stay and my revision that someone has removed that thier is a huge discrepancy about who and what is the Nation of Gods and Earths. That does a disservice not only to the site but the Nation of Gods and Earths incorrectly defined by your site. I am only asking for the opportunity to prove that what i have written is the reality of the NOGE as oppossed to what wikipedia has declared to be definitive. --Bornking7 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornking7 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your edits mainly because they destroyed some of the work of the many editors who have been working on the article since 2003. In addition, what you changed was the lead section of the article which is intended to act as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects - your changes damaged this aspect too. When an article is as well-developed and well-referenced as The Nation of Gods and Earths, anyone who has concerns about its accuracy will need to discuss their changes on its talk page first.  —SMALLJIM  13:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the introduction to the Nation of Gods and Earths I can only say that the NOGE does not want to be introduced to the world so unjustly. The fact of the matter is, that the NOGE has been under literary attack by those who would seek to mis define the NOGE for thier own reasons. If the NOGE did not have someone aware that others were seeking to for reference and defining purposes submit unfounded statements about them, when this was originally submitted to you before; we do now. The NOGE should not continue to be defamed or character assassinated via wikipedia because some editors submitted these defaming submissions in 2003. The NOGE is objective and like any other human being, nation, people, religion, culture has the right to be self defined. At the moment wikipedia is denying us that right, in favor of a most hurtful and incorrect alternative. My submission was an actual definiton of who and what the NOGE is. The introduction you support is clearly not. As a young Nation 46 years old the NOGE has finnaly come to terms with the fact that if we dont speak for ourselves others will attempt to speak for us. I only sought to correct the incorrect statements that people globally will mistakenly accept as fact because wikipedia said so. This is fundamentally unfair to the NOGE and to wikipedia. Perhaps you did not know that the definition of the NOGE you currently support is actually slanderous before but you do now. I can prove everything I am saying to you. It is my job to objectivly and truthfully define the NOGE--Bornking7 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)````[reply]

I have replied on the article's talk page - please continue any discussions about the article there. Also, 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 could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when.  —SMALLJIM  23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what your saying and in full disclosure I told you that i am the GCCultural representative of the NOGE, as we are not an organization. I am published as I produce a monthly newspaper called the Five Percenter Newspaper for national and international consumption. Wikipedias policy that if someone is part of entity that is alive now; and finds content on wikipedia that is diametrically opposed to the truth of that entity; for the representative of the entity is in conflict with wikipedia for making corrections does not make sense. I ask you who else would know the difference between the truth and a lie if not a person who actually is part of the entity being discussed? Everyone in America has the right to the God of thier understanding. The NOGE is all about God, I wrote a clear defintion of who and what the NOGE is and was actually denied and refuted by you. But in the meantime wikipedia allows those who can refer to a book written by someone who disavows and denies that very same entity's existence and then produces a slanderous view of that entity's history, to be acceptable to wikipedia? They have not presented a neutral POV they have made sure to denigrate and assualt the very integrity of the NOGE's God Centered Culture. The evidence is found in your telling me that I am a part of the "organization". For you thier lies have become your truth about me and the NOGE that I represent. That in and of itself is unacceptable. Again where is the objectivity sir. This policy is paramount to you telling the Jewish people that if a German objectivly tells the story of the holocaust and has cited some books, the Jewish man is disqualified from correcting the lies because he is a Jew. I am appalled and greatly disappointed. Then you send me to this room to what, agrue with the people who have submitted the slanderous material to you? I am really trying to understand where you are coming from. We are talking about the NOGE, not a long gone entity but a Nation of people involved in defining ourselves to the world right now! Wikipedia is doing us a great disservice! You are attached to google and when you google the NOGE that disinformation you have posted as objective comes up and it is just wrong.--Bornking7 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)````Born King Allah May 13 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornking7 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC) The fact of the matter is the NOGE publically began the battle to define itself in the Supreme Court of the US starting in 2003. The landmark decision found in the Marria Vs Broaddus case 2003 WL 21782633 (S.D.N.Y.)or NO 97 Civ.8297 nrb set the stage for the world to hear who we are from our own mouths. Prior to this case we had not entered the literary arena and basicaly were content to just live our own lives not caring what others were saying. We finnally realized how dangerous it is when you as an entity become the business of others who would attempt to misdefine you to the world. During this court hearing I became aware that it was my responsibility to publically correct the dangerous misstatements of those who were attempting to defame the NOGE. The gang, group and organization code words are used in the department of corrections to describe the NOGE for nefarious purposes. Namely to criminalize an entire peoples (the NOGE) concept of the Divine. During the trial prison officials claimed that the NOGE was a security threat group, a gang, and an unauthorized organization in violation of rule 105.12 of the NYSDOC inmate handbook. Because of that claim they asked the Honorable Judge Naomi Buchwald to sanction the punitive measures they had been inflicting on anyone who was NOGE. The NOGE was forbidden to read thier national newspaper The Five Percenter, study thier 120 degrees, wear thier universal flag or speak to another human being about thier concept of the Divine. If they did they were immediatly taken to the hole, box or punitive section of the prison and isolated. In some cases people were held in isolation for years. If they would however rebuke the God of thier understanding they would be put back into general population. this was clearly a case of theological discrimination. Mr Marria who I counseled personally and worked with his attorneys filed a 1983 class action law suit claiming violation of his first amendentment rights. Using the Freedom of Expression Clause of the constitution and RLUIPA" a federal statute written by Ted kennedy and Orin Hatch won his case and the NOGE was legally defined to the world as a GOD CENTERED CULTURE. As the senior administrator for the National Office Of Cultural Affairs (NOCA) iI am responsible for serving the NOGE in my professional capacity. I worked with lawyers and people all over the country and have continued to prove the legitmacy of The NOGE God Centered Culture ever since. I have never lost a case. In a 2011 victory that took place earlier this year in Michigan Dion Haradaway v James Haggerty, both US magistrate Judge Steven Whalen and District Court Judge Avery cohn ruled in favor of the NOGE over the false asserations of the state of Michigan. In the online magazine called FIRST AMENDMENT CENTER the plight of the NOGE was compared to the plight of the Jews in Queen Isabellas Spain by Judge Whalen. The most ironic part of the case is when the states witness G Corbiscello attempted to use Wikipedia's definition of the NOGE as evidence that we are in his words a gang.Dion Haradaway v james Haggerty Case No. 05-70362 will show you how the defamatory misstatments found in wikipedia negativly effect the NOGE. We won our case despite that attempted use by G Corbiscello however it still needs to be corrected--Bornking7 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)--Hobit (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Nation_of_Gods_and_Earths" Categories The fact of the matter is the NOGE publically began the battle to define itself in the supreme court of the US starting in 2003. the landmark decision found in the Marria Vs Broaddus case 2003 WL 21782633 (S.D.N.Y.)or NO 97 Civ.8297 nrb set the stage for the world to hear who we are from our own mouths. prior to this case we had not entered the literary arena and basicaly were content to just live our own lives not caring what others were saying. we finnally realized how dangerous it is when you as an entity become the business of others who would attempt to misdefine you to the world. during this court hearing i became aware that it was my responsibility to publically correct the dangerous misstatements of those who made the attempts to defame the NOGE. The gang, group and organization code words are used inthe department of coreections to describe the NOGE for nefarious purposes. Namely to criminalize an entire peoples (the NOGE) concept of the divine. during the trial prison officials claimed that the NOGE was a security threat group, a gang,and an unauthorized organization in violation of rule 105.12 of the NYSDOC. because of that claim they asked the honorable judge Naomi Buchwald to sanction the punitive measures they had been inflicting on anyone who was NOGE. the NOGE was forbidden to read thier national newspaper the five percenter, study thier 120 degrees wear thier universal flag or speak to another human being about thier concept of the divine. if they did they were immediatly taken to the hole, box or punitive section of the prison and isolated. in some cases people were held in isolation for years. if they would however rebuke the God of thier understanding they would be put back into general population. Mr Marria who i counseled and worked with his attorneys filed a 1983 class action law suit claiming violation of his first amendentment rights. using the freedom of expression clause of the constitution and RLUIPA a federal statute written by Ted kennedy and Orin Hatch won his case and the NOGE was legally defined to the world as a GOD CENTERED CULTURE. As the senior administrator for the national office of cultural affairs (NOCA) I worked with lawyers and people all over the country and have continued to prove the legitmacy of The NOGE God centered culture ever since. i have never lost a case. in a 2011 victory that took place earlier this year in Michigan Dion Haradaway v James Haggerty, both US magistrate Judge Steven Whalen and District court Judge Avery cohn ruled in favor of the NOGE over the false asserations of the state of MIchigan. in the online magazine called FIRST AMENDMENT CENTER the plight of the NOGE was compared to the plight of the jews in queen isabellas spain by judge Whalen. The most ironic part of the case is when the states witness G Corbiscello< attempted to use Wikipedia's definition of the NOGE as evidence that we are in his words a gang.Dion Haradaway v james Haggerty Case No. 05-70362 will show you how the defamatory misstatments found in wikipedia negativly effect the noge. we won our case despite that attempted use by G Corbiscello however it still needs to be corrected.

Hello Bornking7, this is just a note letting you know there is a discussion that should include you at [1]. Please feel free to contribute to that discussion. Before you do though, I'd ask that you read a few guidelines and policies about Wikipedia. WP:COI discusses how to work in subject areas you are involved in. WP:NPOV talks about the "voice" one should have in articles and how to generally write for Wikipedia in an unbiased way. WP:RS discusses what makes for an acceptable source. I realize that's a lot of stuff to look at first. Further let me say I understand your frustration and given how others generally handle similar situations you are doing well so far. Working within the system here will, with time and effort, yield an article will address at least some of the issues you've raised. Wikipedia will always cover a topic from the point-of-view of those acceptable sources WP:RS mentioned above. You'll need to work within those boundaries. Let me know if you have any questions. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also I've changed your "ref" tags to italics as they prevented this message from getting to you. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm in no way involved with editing the article on NOGE, I'm just a passer by that wanted to drop a suggestion or two. I came across the report on the administrator's noticeboard. It is generally preferable to keep posts on a talk page as short and succinct as possible. Posting "walls of text" as it is called makes it difficult for others to understand the discussion.

Secondly, Wikipedia's policy requires that anything that is written here is backed up by sources even if the source reflects negatively on the subject of the article. as editors here we are required not to take sides with respect to the subject and to ensure that neutrality is preserved at all times. Declaring your conflict of interest is an excellent step towards gaining consensus civilly. It is obvious from your talk page discussion that you feel passionately about the NOGE and aim to have it represented fairly. However, repeating that being a representative of the NOGE you are able to provide the truth is not something that can be used in the article, which I hope that you have come to understand.

My suggestion is to provide links to sources that support what you hope to have written into the article. Please remember that they must be reliable secondary sources.

Here are some links that might help you.

Wp:rs Wp:cite Wp:npov

Regards Blackmane (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issues of the article on this noticeboard: [2]. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get in contact with you if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i want to know on who's authoritY? Who are you citing to even have a racist ideology section for NOGE? Is it Michael Muhammed Knight? the quotes from him are not objective neither do they have probative value. Your one sided characterization is both untrue, dangerous, and harmful. all scholars do not agree with MMK where is the objectivity? (Bornking7 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

I HAVE MADE EDITS THAT ARE CITED, OBJECTIVE AND CURRENT. PAUL B NEEDS TO STOP REVERTING BACK TO THE INCORRECT INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT MATTER. (Bornking7 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I have commented on the talk page. There is no point in writing your complaints here. They should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]