JuneteenthDOC

Who deleted the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" section from the Juneteenth Wikipedia page?

Thank you for your response. I really appreciate your comments.

However, yopu still are missing my point about black "grass roots" movements that even established black academic writers and historians ignore for years. Case in point, Dr. Henry Louis Gates wrote a recent 2013 article for Roots and did not mention the "Modern Juneteenth Movement", the 42 states that recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday or state holiday obervance, or the legislation passed by the U.S. Congress since 1997. The 2013 U.S. Senate legislation documents everything that has been deleted about the "Modern Juneteenth Movemenbt" from the Juneteenth Wikepedia page.

Why delete historic information upheld by the U.S. Senate?

I guess the "white controlled and dominated media" and the "established black academics (like Professor Dr. Henry Louis Gates - Harvard University) don't write about or confirm our historic black "grass roots" movement, just delete, delete and delete it from the Juneteenth Wikipedia page!

BTW, what editor deleted the information on the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" and the "Juneteenth Flag" on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page? Why don't you, as a fellow Wikipedia editor, forward my messages instead telling me, the historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, that "I am my own worse enemy"?

I suppose, like you suggested, I need to find someone from our "Modern Juneteenth Movement" that knows all about Wikipedia. I checked and found no one! I suppose our "grass root" black movement folks are just not respected black academics.

So, how is it we are changing American history through the recognition of Juneteenth Independence Day by the U.S. Congress and 42 states? I guess we need permission from established black academic folks to be real and not be deleted from thw Wikipedia Juneteenth page.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern Juneteenth Movement leader responds to most recent Juneteenth wikipedia page -(citation needed)-

Why don't you just delete the information about the 42 state off the Juneteenth wikipedia page like you have done in the recent past to the Juneteenth wikipedia page? (citation needed)

Just go ahead and delete our true African American history and heritage because it doesn't fit into your standards. I have tried to explain to you that a black grass roots movement like the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" does not have the public awareness that non black advocacy efforts might have priviledge to access.

You already have: http://www.nationaljuneteenth.com as reference information.

For the -(citation needed)- 42nd state to recognize Juneteenth as a state holidsy or state holiday observance: http://www.nationaljuneteenth.com/Rhode_Island.html

If that's not good enough, than you can use the official state of Rhode Island legislature web site with the actual legislation concerning Juneteenth: http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext13/senatetext13/s0169.htm

So, as living reference and historic figure, founder, leader, advocate, etc., for the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, I suppose I need a -(citation needed)- because I am "too close to the subject material" and you don't have to believe a word I write.

So, go ahead and delete the 42nd state, like you have done to so much of our rich Juneteenth history and legacy from the Juneteenth wikipedia page in the recent past. Just go ahead and delete, delete, delete, delete, etc.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"I am "too close to the subject material" and you don't have to believe a word I write."

As a matter of fact, that is Wikipedia policy. You don't have to believe anything I write, other editors don't have to believe anything someone else writes, and they don't have to believe anything you write. We're all equally questioned, because anyone can write anything. It's why Wikipedia depends on verifiability. If the project allowed any one person to add material without a way for it be independently verified, it wouldn't have any credibility. It would be a joke like Conservapedia, or worse. Some racist asshole could set up web sites full of bullshit, and link to them to "prove" that Juneteenth is celebrated by pagan sex parties, or that the date is a coded reference to when African Americans will violently overthrow the US government, or any other nonsense. It's not that anyone here considers you an untrustworthy sources, it's because we can't trust any individual. Instead we rely on verification thru independent sources. Apparently you don't care. Wikipedia's overall goals of neutrality and credibility aren't important to you, and that's your right. But if you want to contribute, and to help Wikipedia improve its coverage of things like Juneteenth, you'll have to do the same thing that every other contributor has to do: take some time to understand Wikipedia policies and why the community consider them important. And work within them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you completely miss my point. When it comes to true grass roots black movements in America, it may take years before the white controlled media and academic community catches up with what has been accomplished. Use a little wisdom when the historic leader of a black grass roots movement tells the story about the movement.

The U.S. Congress is a case in point. The following recent resolutions document everything you deleted about the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" that I put on the Juneteenth Wikepedia page:

http://www.juneteenth.us/sr145.html

http://www.Juneteenth.us/hr268.html

As the Chairman of the Bosrd of the NAJL. I worked hand in hand with the late Lula Briggs Galloway that is well documented by Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins:

http://nationaljuneteenth.com/House_of_Representatives.html

So, I'm not surprised about your deletions about the information posted on the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" (http://nationaljuneteenth.com/Juneteenth_Movement.html) on the Juneteenth wikipedia page. I guess you consider the U.S. Congress documentation needs deleting. Delete, delete and delete! The "Modern Juneteenth Movement" is taking the word of a person "too close to the subject matter", etc.

Delete, delete and delete!

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

National Juneteenth leader responds to the question - "What happened to all the historical information on the wikipedia Juneteenth page?" (May 2013)

It's quite amazing how our hard work and efforts to get our accurate and true black history concerning Juneteenth just disappeared on wikipeadia. My advice is for everyone concerned about what happenned to the Juneteenth page (and many of you have e-mailed and called) is to work with the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" to get Juneteenth a National Day of Observance legislation passed in the U.S. Congress. We now have 42 states, the District of Columbia and eight resolutions recognizing Juneteenth passed by the U.S. Congress. Last year we had 30 U.S. Senate co-sponsors.

Wikipeadia editors responsible for taking down so much rich and important Juneteenth historical information are just ignorant. A lot of times you are just wasting your time as a "grass roots" movement with folks my mother called "educated fools" because they don't know what the real historical deal is all about.

If you want to take up your hard earned time to deal with wikipedia editorial garbage, knock yourself out. I got better things to do.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 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! --SineBot (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, JuneteenthDOC. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ronald Myers, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you calling spam?

I read the information you mentioned about the Wikipedia spam policy. The National Day of Reconciliation and Healing from the Legacy of Enslavement and the National Day of Remembrance of the Maafa in America (http://www.NationalDayofReconciliation.com) sponsored by the National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC) (http://www.njclc.com) is not spam! Would the listing of the National Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust in April be considered spam?

2013 marks the 14th year of the National Day of Reconciliation and Healing from the Legacy of Enslavement and the WASHINGTON JUNETEENTH National Holiday Observance (http://www.NationalJuneteenth.com).

So, please explain to me what are you calling spam? (JuneteenthDOC (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

Response to omission on National Day of Remembrance of the Maafa in America

I don't agree with your removing the National Day of Remembrance of the Maafa in America from the Maafa Wikipedia site.

The significance of the 2013 14th annual National Day of Reconciliation and Healing from the Legacy of Enslavement with the annual National Day of Remembrance of the Maafa, as a part of the historic "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America goes without question. Just review the Wikipedia pages for "Juneteenth" and "Ronald Myers", as well as the web sites www.NationalJuneteenth.com and www.NationalDayofReconciliation.com has numerous newspaper articles as well as congressional and state legislation.

How can you call the most significance grass roots movement in modern black America of little significance?

Thank you for your response! JuneteenthDOC (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

SPAMMING WIKIPEDIA

Please read WP:ADVERT and reflect on your insertions here promotional agenda it is not productive, and against Wikipedia policy, although it looks like a very very good cause. --Inayity (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Self published accusations and attacks by wiki editor

Wiki editor, what is your problem? Of course I am close to the subject matter of Juneteenth as well as the National Day of Remembrance of the Maafa in America. Do you even have any understanding what a "grass roots" black movement leader is? I am the history of Juneteenth in modern times. Several of our leaders have died and only a few remain who were instrumental in what we have accomplished to gain greater recognition of Juneteenth in America. You are insulting and your attacks on the information in the article on the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" as "self publishing" is ridiculous.

The history of 41 states and 8 unanimous resolutions passed by the U.S. congress because of our movement is credibility enough. I am only trying to leave the accurate history of our grass roots black movement in America. I am growing tired of attacks on the facts of our movement as "self publishing". (JuneteenthDOC (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

National Juneteenth leader responds to December 2012

Thank you for your comments and policy statement about conflict of interest, etc.

However, if you are a part of a black grass roots movement in America that statert with very, very humble beginnings and raises up to great accomplishments over time, and you attempt to get the history of the movement correctly deocumented, as the leader of thet movement, not only are you the best source, YOU ARE THE ONLY HISTORIC SOURCE STILL ALIVE!

Several key leaders of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" have died. I will try to get others to write something. There is only one leader still alive from our historic 1994 meeting in New Orleans.

Some folks don't have computers. However, I will work on it.

There are many creditable published articles and television reports about the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America. However, there is always room for improvement as Juneteenth becomes a National Holiday. (JuneteenthDOC (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

You are a proud activist for a good cause, I can see that. Wikipedia has guidelines regarding people who want to promote a good cause, and volunteer editors such as myself are helping the online encyclopedia to meet those guidelines.

The basic issue is that the websites of various organizations are being used to say what is true about the movement. Such websites may not be reliable for facts, according the Wikipedia guideline at WP:Reliable sources. Instead, the Juneteenth movement should be reported by newspapers, magazines, books, and similar publications. If everything you write on Wikipedia is supported by a published third-party source then your contributions are much stronger and will usually remain in place. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It's not so much that we want to promote a good cause. Getting the facts about our historic black grass roots "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America correctly documented is of much more greater importance.

Thank you for your offer of assistance with complying to wikipedia standards. Let's take it one fact, claim or need for documentation at a time. (JuneteenthDOC (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

The first thing on the list is to replace all the activist organization website links which are used as references. These should go to the bottom of the article as "External links". They should be replaced with newspaper articles and such as references. An example would be like the following:

• <ref>Reporter's name (date of news item). "Title of article in newspaper", ''Name of Newspaper''</ref>

Doing this will help a lot. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. link to page--Inayity (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Juneteenth. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:JuneteenthDOC reported by User:Inayity (Result: 3 days). EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here JuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - this is an empty request. Please review the guide to appealing blocks for assistance in formatting a request. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 8 July 2013 (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.

What self published information are you taliking about?

Again, what self published information are you taliking about? Clearly, I listed the comments by Congresswoman Barabra Rose Collins from the U.S. Congression Record from 1996, the 104th Congress. Again, this is the first hand source of my additions. What is wronmg with the U.S. Congressional Record as a primary source? Is it becuase my name, Ronald Myers, is what she mentioned?

How is this self publishing? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC!!!!

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How is listed the U.S. Congresional Record self publishing?

The 1996 introduction of H.J.R. 145 including a state from the floor of the U.S. Congress by Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins was Juneteenth history in the making.. In her comment, just like with the recent U.S. Senate Resolution, the names Lula Briggs Galloway and Ronald Myers is listed as leaders of the National Association of Juneteenth Lineage. What is wrong with that? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC!!!!

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the reason why a progressive African American voice is being silenced on Wikipedia?

Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) in 1996. Why are her comments being silenced on the Wikipedia Juneteenth Page? She is the country's first member of the U.S. Congress to introduce legislation to recvognoze Juneteenth in U.S. history.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. is the unquestional founder & leader of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation and the former Chairman of the Board of the National Association of Juneteenth Lineage.

Why are these voices being silenced on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page? Why are his comments being silenced on the Wikipedia Juneteenth Page?

Why? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC!!!!

WARNING - Wikipedia editing of progressive black voices on the Wikipeadis Juneteenth page will not likely be viewed favorably by the progressive African American community! Thus, so far, I have not made this situiation a seious ponit of contention with the proressive black community because I felt like progress was being made. I was on a learning curve and followed the Wikipedia rules for posting primary sources over "self published" sources (A false accusation against Rev. Ronald V. Myers, sr., M.D., indeed!).

However, the blocking of my editing for listing information mentioning my name as a first hand source from the U.S. Congressional Record could cross the line.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to play the race card. Plenty of fine, upstanding people here on Wikipedia are ready and willing to help a "progressive African American voice" be heard. The issue is not one of racism; instead it is one of following Wikipedia's guidelines. You have been blocked because you have consistently worked toward Juneteenth activism and promotion with an over-reliance on primary sources written by yourself. Wikipedia greatly prefers WP:Secondary sources such as newspaper and magazine articles, as well as books and documentaries. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincere comments. We really appreciate all good meaning Wikipedia editors who are truly committed to the standards and rules of a great public input web resource. Wikipedia allows everyone to post information and create pages according to these standards. However, Wikipedia, in our experience, is not a good fit for progessive African American leadership who lead grass roots movements and attempt, with all sincerity, to try to document the early history of black movements in America (previously stated and concerns posted).

We will be accussed of being on an ego trip, full of vanity, trying to promote our cause, pushing our activism for selfish reasons, playing the race card (whatever that is), etc. If my actions and postings about the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" have offended anyone, I truly apologize.

Please honor our request and remove all postings from JuneteenthDOC on the Juneteenth and Ronald Myers Wikipedia pages. It has not been a problenm for Wikipedia editors to delete information from these web pages(s) that they do not agree with (especially if the name Ronald Myers is included). Information, like the 42 states recognizing Juneteenth, U.S Congressional legislation passed recognizing Juneteenth, the Juneteenth Flag, etc., from the same "self publishing" pages from the "ego and vain maniac" in question are allowed to remain.

Other folks have started and contributed to these pages and we do not want to offend their attempts to post information on Wikipedia about Juneteenth and Ronald Myers.

Perhaps, several years from now, when everyone catches up with what the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" has accomplished, with plenty of articles, recordings, videos, books, from "white controlled major media outlets" (sorry if this term offends anyone)and the black intellectuals accepted by those in control, information can be added to the Juneteenth Wikipedia page by someone else. One thing for sure, I won't be adding anything as JuneteenthDOC. It will be interesting how the truth about the history of our grass roots "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America will be documented.

Just like the S.C.L.C., our movement bagan at a church in New Orleans, LA. It will be interesting to see if that inportant historic fact will be truthfully told in the future.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution - The leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" would like to remove any and all information contributed to the Juneteenth Wikipedia page and the Ronald Myers page

Sir, with all due respect, gratituide and appreciation for Wikipedia, and your efforts to have historic information posted and updated by everyone, after discussion with the leadership of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement", which is a progressive African American leadership group in America, we would like to remove any information on the Juneteenth page that has been contributed to you by "JuneteenthDOC".

Also, please remove from the Wikipedia "Ronald Myers" page any and all information contributed by JuneteenthDOC from your site.

We are not attempting to cause any problems for Wikipedia. We do not feel that Wikipedia is showing the proper respect and appreciation for what has been contributed and attempted to be contributed to your pages. We do not feel that Wikipedia rules and standards are a confortable fit for grass roots African American progressive intellectuals or leaders.

We did strongly consider working with Wikipedia to introduce more grass roots African American progressive leaders to what you have to offer, but, with the blocking of JuneteenthDOC, without first answering several clear and appropriate questions in response to accusations of Wikipedia editors concerning "self publishing", without clear creditable primary sources, we feel other progressive black leadership would be even more greatly offended.

However, please show us the proper respect and remove ALL information thar has been have contributed to on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page including:

- All states beside Texas that celebrate Juneteenth - All historical references on Juneteenth legislation in the U.S. Congress and 42 states that now recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday or special day of observance - All references about Juneteenth Independence Day - All references to the Juneteenth Flag

Thank you Wikipedia for your assistance, and we trust, you will honor our sincere request.

In 3 days, I will only use my editing priviledges to make sure information is properly removed that has been contributed by JuneteenthDOC.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please honor our request concerning the Juneteenth web page

Again, no one is trying to pronote their web sites. We would appreciate it if you would stop making the accusation the we are "promoting our own web sites" and being on an "ego" trip. I thought it was made perfectly clear that we were very concerned about getting our Africsan American grass roots history posted correctly.

Again, most of the updated information posted on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page is from our web site(s). It is quite obvious that the Wikipedia editors are cherry picking information to allow to be posted on the Juneteenth page. Certain information about Juneteenth (an African American freedom celebration) is alright. Other information, especially with the name Ronald Myers on it, is not.

So, as previously stated, please take down all information on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page refering to any other information except Texas. If you check, all opther information came from our web page(s). This should leave it as a Texas holiday only.

Please honor our request and remove all the information contributed by JuneteenthDOC.

Thank you.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please honor our request to have information removed from the Ronald Myers page

Again, no one is trying to "promote their own web page(s)" or are on an "ego" trip. As JuneteenthDOC, I did not post the initial Ronald Myers Wikipedia page when I found out about it. However, I added many more contributions to this page.

As an African American, I don't expect people to get our history right and accurate. However, I was foolish enough to believe that Wikipedia would finally provide our folks that opportunity. Man was I wrong!

Thank you for honoring our request.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Wikipedia editors will not take down all JuneteenthDOC postings on Juneteenth & Ronald Myers pages?

It was with great respect and courtesy that this request was made. Why has it not been honored?

Wikipedia is just not a good fit, in my opinion, for African American grass roots movement leadership to post current information.

For example, information on the Juneteenth and Ronald Myers pages come from what Wikipedia editors call "self published" web sites. According to my understanding (my learning curve with posting information for over a year, updating information, reposting information on the 1996 U.S. Congressional record which mentions the name "Ronald Myers" several times, etc., all from "self published" web pages, leading to a 3 day block), all information from "self published" web sites should be deleted. Yet, Wikipedia editors will not delete information posted from JuneteenthDOC on Wikipedia pages initiated by postings from "self published" web sites.

A simple review on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page will reveal the initial and some still existing information on the 42 states that recognize Juneteenth, the Juneteenth Flag, the American Flags of Freedom, the term "Juneteenth independence Day", etc. were all posted by JuneteenthDOC from "self published" web sites. The updated information on Ronald Myers were made from "self published" web sites.

So, if Wikipedia editors are going to be consistant, please honor our request and remove all the contributions by JuneteenthDOC (again, on what Wikipedia editors call "self published" web sites) on Juneteenth and Ronald Myers pages. The appearance of cherry picking by Wikipedia editors by allowing certain information from "self published" web pages to remain and deleting other information (especially if it has the name Ronald Myers on it) would be avoided by removing all information from "seld published" web sites contributed by JuneteenthDOC.

If not, when JuneteenthDOC editing privileges are returned, to the best of my ability, honoring whatever information that was posted by other people, all information posted from "self published" web sites by JuneteenthDOC will be removed.

I will try to do the best job I can at deleted this information. If I make any mistakes <and most likely, I will :)>, please do not call me a "ego", "vanity" inspired "self promoting", etc., person. The deleting of all information posted by JuneteenthDOC should easily prove these accusations not to be true.

We have excepted the fact that our grass roots African American "Modern Juneteenth Movement" history and accomplishments, like a lot of black history, may take many years after the fact to be published through, print media, videos, news reports, etc., by those in control of the majority culture.

Again, if mistakes are made deleting information, your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Juneteenth, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Juneteenth, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here JuneteenthDOC (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Rev, if (as you have stated) Wikipedia is not for you, then simply stop editing. You made several edits to Wikipedia which you AGREED to the terms of use - you GAVE them to Wikipedia to do with what they desired. Some may have been accepted by the community. Others might have been rejected. However, as you freely gave them as per the terms of use, why in the world would you try and "take them back"? This block is to prevent you from trying to undo what you gave to the world freely. I acknowledge that you seem to have no desire to contribute any further - your best bet is to simply walk away, knowing that you tried to give something to this community, and that some aspects of it might still remain ad infinitum (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:25, 12 July 2013 (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.

Comment: I think he was attempting in good faith to remove the material that others had complained was improperly sourced, rather than trying to revoke his contributions to WP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you sending me a warning and blocking me again? What did I do wrong? I only removed JuneteenthDOC self publishing postings! I did seek Wikipedia editors for discussion, consensus and input!

I just don't understand your warning and blocking Wikipedia editor. I only removed JuneteenthDOC self publishing postings on the Juneteenth page. I have previously discussed this with Wikipedia editors before my editing priviledges were returned today. After several attempts to get feedback and build "consenses", I am blocked again! This is an unwarrented blocking.

It should be clear that I meant no harm!

Wikipedia editors made it clear that JuneteenthDOC was using Wikipedia pages to promote Ronald Myers "ego", "activist causes", "self promotion", etc. In all fairness, Wikipedia editors attacked the character, credibity, motives, etc., of Ronald Myers and the "Modern Juneteenth Movement".

However, we should not be surprised. It is obvious, the only problem Wikipedia editors have with the Juneteenth page is the name "Ronald Myers".

Again, it is clear, no harm or offense was intended.

If the "self published" postings of JuneteenthDOC are not deleted from the Juneteenth and Ronald Myers pages (the reason given by Wikipedia editors for the deleting of other postings, leading to a 3 day blocking of editing priviledges, etc.), the historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, the Founder & Chairman of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF), the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign, the National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC), the National Association of Juneteenth Jazz Presenters (NAJJP), host of the WASHINGTON JUNETEENTH National Holiday Observance, the National & World Day of Reconciliation and Healing from the Legacy of Enslavement, the National Day of Remembrance of the Maafa in America, the National Juneteenth Jazz artist, etc. (according to Wikipedia editors, a person who does all this activity, this Ronald Myers, must be on an "ego" trip) and a "self promoting" maniac, etc.), then Wikipedia editors attacks on the charactor of progressive, African American "grass roots" movement leadership, of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" is not justified.

An apology is in order.

The motivation behind the undisputable historic contributions of the leadership of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" (bringing the official recognition of Juneteenth to 42 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Congress, the President of the United States, the establishment of the Juneteenth Flag as the symbol of the movement, spearheading June is "Juneteenth African American Jazz Legacy Month" & "June is Black Music Month!" - CELEBRATING JUNETEENTH JAZZ - "Preserving Our African American Jazz Legacy!", reconciliation and healing from the scars of enslavement, the first African American church medical missionary serving in the nation's poorest counties in the Mississippi Delta, etc.,) is not from being on an "ego" trip, but those of a seriously committed community servants.

It is understood that Wikipedia editors may not agree.

Due to your warning and blocking, I will not remove any "self published" postings from the Ronald Myers page made by JuneteenthDOC. If Wikipedia editors do not honor our request to remove JuneteenthDOC postings from the Juneteenth and Ronald Myers pages (see previous postings), so be it.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong with this editor. And I suggest nothing said or done will stop him POV and self-promoting. There is a total failure to GET IT. As evident from the behavior 2sec after the block was released. It limits the options. Inayity (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a very simple solution that's been suggested repeatedly. Stop editing articles about you and "your" movement. Don't add things. Don't remove things. Make suggestions on the Talk page if you see a serious error of fact. Wikipedia doesn't have a absolute ban on people editing articles they're closely related to, because some people can handle that responsibility, with respect for others' independent judgment. You have not, and each time you demonstrate that, you get closer to having a specific restriction placed on you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your solution about "adding" information. Now, you have given me feedback about "removing" information. Why didn't you say so when I requested, on more than one occassion, on the Juneteenth talk page, to "remove all postings for JuneteenthDOC from the Juneteenth and Ronald Myers pages" before I was blocked again? I was only trying to resolve a situation that lead to my character being attacked (an honest, sincere, courteous and respectful effort).

I have a simple solution to the problem. Please refrain from attacking my character, the historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, on the Juneteenth talk page. It only reveals your prejudice.

If I made the sincere and courteous request to have all my "self promoting" postings removed (clearly identified as the source of the problem with postings by Wikipedia editors), how can your accusations about "promoting myself" amd "my movement", etc. ("ego" and "vanity", etc.) ring true? Believe me, WHY POST ANYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA WHEN WIKIPEDIA EDITORS MAKE GROUNDLESS ATTACKS ON THE CHARACTER AND MOTIVATION OF THIS AFRICAN AMERICAN GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT LEADER! At this stage, over at least one year relationship posting on Wikipedia, your character attacks continue. Remember, everything was fine until Wikipedia editors removed so much rich historical material, which had been up for over a year (Read the "Who deleted the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" section from the Juneteenth Wikipedia page?").

Again, I have a simple solution to the problem. Please refrain from attacking my character, the historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, on the Juneteenth talk page. It only reveals your prejudice.

"Stop editing articles about you and "your movement".

Again, fine with me. However, it is not "you and your movement" but includes, as the U.S. Congress states (representatives of the American people through the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representeives), the late Lula Briggs Galloway and the "steadfast leadership of the National Juneteenth Obsrvance Foundation must also to be included in "your movement" comment.

Once again, I have a simple solution to the problem. Please refrain from attacking my character, the historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, on the Juneteenth talk page. It only reveals your prejudice.

"Wikipedia does not have an absolute ban on people editing articles they're closely related to.."

I appreciate you telling me this because I was given the impression that it was a practice Wikipedia completely frowned upon. This is one of the reasons why I requested all JuneteenthDOC postings be removed in response to your attacks on my character.

"...because some people can handle that responsibility, with respect for others' independent judgment. You have not, and each time you demonstrate that, you get closer to having a specific restriction placed on you."

I did handle my responsibility and put my requeat for Wikipedia editors to remove all "self promotong" postings by JuneteenthDOC off the Juneteenth and Ronald Myers pages. I also clearly explained to you that once my block was removed that I was going to remove any and all postings by JuneteenthDOC. IT WAS THE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS THAT DID NOT ACT RESPONSIVELY BY NOT RESPONDING TO WHAT I POSTED ON THE TALK PAGE! Please refrain disrespectful attacks on my character when you shoulder part of the resposibility for the problem. You only reveal your prejudices.

"There is something seriously wrong with this editor. And I suggest nothing said or done will stop him POV and self-promoting."

I agree that there is something "wrong" with me, according to the dominant culture in America. As previously stated, I am a progressive African American leader of the black grass roots "Modern Juneteenth Movement" and I voiced my opinions about what I perceived as unfair removal of inportant historical information about Juneteenth in a style of "telling like it is" cmmmunications that offends most folks that are of the majority culture. I am a part of the black activist traditions of Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, etc. A tradition that speaks out boldly about the injustice of a young black man wearng a hoody being killed, etc. It is very unfortunate that Wikipedia editors find the POV of the historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America offensive and "self promoting" beacuse he is on an "ego", "vanity", etc., trip. It is not uncommon for a bold African American grass roots leader to experiece character assassination by those of the majority culture. Wikipedia editors are only revealing their prejudices.

The way Wikipedia editors have handled "Ronald Myers", especially with the blockings and lack of response on the Juneteenth talk page (when instructed to do eactly what was done to reach consesus and discusson, etc.) after the blocking until today, the request to have all JuneteenthDOC "self promoting" postings removed (postings reflected on the updating of current information posted on the Juneteenth page initiated from "self promoting" Juneteenth web pages over a year ago), any resonable individual can easily see that Wikipedia editors charges of "ego", "vanity", "self promoting", etc. by Wikipedia editors are baseless and character assasination. Wikipedia editors are on revealing their prejudice.

Again, an apology is in order! I recently did nothing wrong.

Whenever you return my editing privileges (which were recently removed unfairly), I will not use them to post or remove anything without seeking discussion, consensus, etc. on the talk page (which is exactly what was done). However, lets be real, WIKIPEDIA EDITORS THAT COMPLAIN ABOUT THESE MATTERS, ATTACK FOLKS CHARACTER, TELL FOLKS TO UTILIZE THE TALK PAGE FIRST BEFORE EDITING PAGES, AND THEN NOT RESPOND TO THE TALK PAGE DISCUSSIONS, ARE NOW THE BIGGEST PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Again, an apology is in order!

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.70.166.138.8 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's clear that we're not going to get one from you. Attend to the log in your eye, sir. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To all Wikipedia editors, who try, with good faith and the greatest intentions to uphold the standards and practices of Wikipedia editing and postings, to correct the errors of JuneteenthDOC when editing, whether intentional or from my own human misgivings, I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR ANY PROBLEMS I HAVE CAUSED TO ANYONE CONCERNING THIS MATTER.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.70.166.138.8 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipedia editors, the current Juneteenth web page looks great!

Thank you for editing the current Juneteenth web page in a way that does not allow anyone to come to any wrong conclusions as to the motivation and reasons updated postings were made. We appreciate the current information contributed by JuneteenthDOC on "self promoting" web pages durung the intial postings over a year ago and also recently, have been referenced by other sources.

We clearly understand that when it comes to grass roots black movements in America, no matter what has been boldly initiated and accomplished in the cause of getting our black history accurately and clearly written from our pespective, especially when so many things have been accomplished by black folks for the cause of black, those in control of the majority culture may takes years to catch up with what has occurred (especially the majority culture controlled media and "academic" institutions, writings, teachings, etc.).

Again, we appreciate Wikipedia for allowing the "Modern Juneteenth Movement", for over a year, to update what has been accomplished historcally accomplished by our movement on the Juneteenth page.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.70.166.138.8 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't know how much I really appreciate your respectful and courteous comments! Thank you so very, very much! :) I really mean it! You have restored my faith in the fairness, justice and humanity of Wikipedia.

I will be more than happy to refrain from any more postings or editing on the Juneteenth page for quite a while. Whenever you give back my posting privileges (I just feel that they were most recently unfairly removed), trust me, I will not use them in anyway on the Juneteenth page to offend anyone. If I want to post anything (I very much doubt it unless there is a very serious problem), I will again use the talk page first. If I get no response from the talk page, in the future, I agree not edit anything on the Juneteenth page because Wikipedia editors won't respond. That's just the reality of utilizing Wikipedia.

Believe me (I speak as an historic authority on Juneteenth :) - LOL), the present web site looks great! It has definely been worth the turmoil! Other folks in the future can add to the page, not me. You got the main information updated and down pat.

I just do not want any more attacks on my character. THANK YOU AGAIN!!

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.70.166.138.8 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here 70.166.138.8 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have no idea why you using an IP to have conversations with yourself here, however your use of your talk page while blocked is both inappropriate and disruptive so I have removed your ability to edit it. You will need to make any unblock requests via UTRS, though I warn you that if they are as rambling and incomprehensible as the ones posted here they will be declined. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 12 July 2013 (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.

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Ron Myers playing a trumpet in a Mississippi corn field.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Ron Myers playing a trumpet in a Mississippi corn field.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The source of this file indicates that it was taken by one Bill Johnson of Greenville, MS. To be used on Wikipedia, it needs his permission to be licensed for use on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). Also, if you're going to submit a photo, Mr. Myers, make it a simple portrait, not a staged promotional photo. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Horn in the Corn Photo" is owned by Ronald Myers. Photographer Bill Johnson of Greenville, MS was a work for hire when photo was taken. The photo has been published on numerous web sites, concert promotions, newspapers, magazines, etc., for many years. Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not the kind of photo that Wikipedia uses for biographical articles, which calls for photos that simply show what the subject looks like. If you wish to upload a portrait of yourself, and upload it under a license that allows anyone to use it for any purpose (which is what Wikipedia requires), I will add it to the article about you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why some of my fellow jazz musicians (some of whom I met and performed with) have pictures on their wikipedia pages that are not "profile" photos? Is there a reason why their pictures have not been deleted? I'm not trying to be difficult, but it appears to be a problem with Ronald Myers again (exp. Mulgreww Miller, Lee Morgan, John Coltrane, Dizzy Gillespie, Sonny Stitt, Ray Nance, Woody Shaw, Freddie Hubbard, etc.). Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted because it wasn't a portrait, but because of the licensing question discussed above. Yes, there are photos on some other articles that are not portraits either; we use the pictures that are available to us. (Freely licensed photos of people who've been dead a long time can be difficult to find.) I'm simply asking you to give us a better one than that look-at-me-wrapped-in-a-flag-and-playing-in-a-cornfield photo. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue to keep it positive! :) I have another photo that I own (http://www.juneteenthjazz.com/images/myers5.jpg). It is not a "stagged" photo (i.e. Lee Morgan) but, taken while performing (i.e. John Coltrane, Freddie Hubbard, etc.). Is this photo OK? If OK, post it. (caption: Ron Myers). Rev. Ronald V. Myers, sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I thought I did send you the information establishing my copyright of the infamous "Horn in the Corn" photograph taken by Bill Johnson as a work for hire. It may have gotten to you late because I was blocked from communicating with you concerning the copyright by the Wikipedia editor until July 19, 2013. Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a better photo, as it shows your face somewhat clearly, which is the purpose of including photos on Wikipedia articles about people. I can't upload it because it isn't mine. Upload it with an appropriate license, and I'll add it to the article.

You're right, I do have a problem with Ronald Myers, a problem I haven't had with any other subject I've worked on in my years of working on Wikipedia articles. Ponder that ... and try not to just blame it on me. In fact, I've had enough problem with Ronald Myers that beyond helping sort out this photo situation, I don't feel I can contribute further to the article about you, or Juneteenth. (Others will have to watch for disruptive edits.) I can't be objective about someone who's caused me so much aggravation. You know, I enjoyed the neighborhood Juneteenth potluck this year (being invited was why I looked at the article, and wanted to improve it), but "thanks" to you, I don't think it'll be as much fun for me in the future. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment "something wrong with Ronald Myers" was intended to be a light hearted humerous "plug" at you. I really wasn't trying to offend. I think you are a great wikieditor because you have taught me a lot of stuff. Please continue to be my guide and I will not make any more "plugs" that might be misunderstood. Look at the positive side. You didn't say my new photograph was "too ugly for Wikipedia standards" :) Let's keep making progress! Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ron Myers plays the flugelhorn.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ron Myers plays the flugelhorn.jpg, which you've attributed to http://www.juneteenthjazz.com/news1.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what the problem was with File:Ron Myers plays the pocket trumpet.jpg?

I am interested as to why File:Ron Myers plays the pocket trumpet.jpg was problematic? I definitely own this photograph, taken by my wife. I placed it after learning that the owner of File:Ron Myers plays the flugelhorn.jpg had copyright problems. Why was the photograph removed? There certainly was not a copyright problem involved with the new photograph.

JuneteenthDOC (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC) JuneteenthDOC

Why was the external link to "National Juneteenth" removed?

Thank you for informing me about your complete elimination of "National Juneteenth" from the External Links section of Juneteenth wikipedia.

The only reason why I corrected www.NationalJuneteenth.com on "National Juneteenth" was because the reference it was linked to has nothing to do with "National Juneteenth". I apologize if you felt the need to completely get rid of "National Juneteenth" as an External Link because of an honest attempt to correct an inappropriate link to the subject matter.

What is wrong with the continuation of the External Link "National Juneteenth" on the wikipedia Juneteenth page? Originally, "National Juneteenth" was always linked to www.nationaljuneteenth.com. Why was it changed?

The web page www.nationaljuneteenth.com is the only web site on the web with complete information on the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign, National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF), National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC) and the National Association of Juneteenth Jazz Presenters (NAJJP), all historic "Modern Juneteenth Movement" accomplished organizations.

Where do you think the 43 state references for states and the District of Columbia recognizing Juneteenth, as well as legislation passed in the U.S. Congress came from?

So, why would you completely removed "National Juneteenth" from External Links on the Juneteenth wikipedia page?

National Juneteenth Holiday Chairman Ron Myers JuneteenthDOC (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

PLease read WP:EL and do not remove notable EL to put up yours.--Inayity (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why am I being accused of removing "notable EL to put up yours" when you are the one who removed "National Juneteenth" from "External links" on the Juneteenth wikipedia page? I just corrected an inappropriate link to "National Juneteenth" becuae it was linked to a web site that has no information about "National Juneteenth" on its' site! (www.Juneteenth.com, has no information about "National Juneteeth", the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" or any organiztions that are part of the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign on its' web site).

I don't understnd why you took "National Juneteenth" totally off the Juneteenth wikipedia site and replaced it with "Juneteenth History" and then falsely accuse me of removing "notble EL to put up yours." What can be more notable to the accurate and current historic facts and accomplishments of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" on the Juneteenth wikipedia site than "National Juneteenth", the African Ameican grass roots movement that is responsible for 43 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Congress recognizing Juneteenth as a state holiday or special day of observance and National Day of Observnce in America?

Do you have a problem with the leadership of "National Juneteenth" or have ojections to the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America? You have removed all "External links" or "References" that connect with any informtion about "www.NationalJuneteenth.com" but have allow direct links to "Juneteenth World Wide Celebration" (www.Juneteenth.com) totally void of information about "National Juneteenth".

I don't believe any of you actions have been done by accident but demonstrate a deliberte effort to delete any and all historic links to "National Juneteenth" and the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" (www.NationalJuneteenth.com) on the Juneteenth wikipedia page. If you are going to attack the truth about modern American Juneteenth history and advocacy on the Juneteenth wikipedia page, stop blaming me for it. A review of the facts demonstrate that you are the one removing "notable EL to put up yours" as a deleberate attack against the leadership of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" and our historic modern day accomplishments to get American history correct when it come to the legacy of enslavement in America.

Why don't you go to the "4th of July" - Independence Day (United States) wikipedia site, that does not mention the fact that Americans of African descent were trapped in chains of enslavement on July 4, 1776 for over 88 years until Juneteenth, "19th of June", June 19, 1865, and remove "External links" or "References" that omit these facts? It appears you would rather spend you time attacking a modern day movement of African American grass roots folks under the banner of "National Juneteenth" who are trying to get US history on wikipedia correct concerning America's history of enslavemet to freedom instead.

Frederick Douglass, in his great historic speech on July, 1852, "What to the American Slave is you 4th of July?," states, "The 4th of July is yours not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn!"

After so many years of contibuting important moden day historic content to the Juneteenth wkipedia page and continuing to being insulted and prejudicially edited from the Juneteenth wilipedia site by some wikipeia editors, as the historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, my statement concerning the Juneteenth wikipedia page is as follows:

"The Juneteenth wikipedia page is yours, not mine. You may rejoice in what is written, I must mourn!"

National Juneteenth Chairman Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

These kinds of accusations of foul play are a violation of Wikipedia policy (to say nothing of libel).

You've ignored every previous request to go look at Wikipedia's policies, especially those about editors working on articles about themselves and the organizations they are a part of, so I'll summarize them here for you: Don't do it. This isn't a special policy for National Juneteenth Chairman Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. It applies to everyone. Sarah Palin is not welcome to edit Sarah Palin. Barack Obama is not welcome to edit Barack Obama. Timothy McVeigh is not welcome to edit Timothy McVeigh. Rupert Murdoch is not welcome to edit Rupert Murdoch. Or Fox News or The Wall Street Journal or The Times or any other article that he's closely associated with.

(Despite years of contributing to Wikipedia, at no point have I ever created or edited an article about myself, or about anything I was personally involved in. It's not out of Christian humility; I don't go for that nonsense (any more than you do). It's out of respect. Respect for the neutrality of Wikipedia. Respect for the judgment of others. Respect for myself: I don't need Wikipedia to write me up to know that I matter.)

The only rights these people have over "their" articles are: 1) To demand that things that are untrue be removed. 2) To ask that things that are misleading be rephrased. 3) To suggest that new material be added. That's it. Because that's how we prevent people from bullying Wikipedia editors into making the subject look better. But you have repeatedly gone way above and beyond those rights, demonstrating a remarkable sense of entitlement. You've repeatedly blundered into violations about ownership, conflict of interest, and independent sources. Furthermore, you've done that with the subtlety of a drunken bull in a china shop. You don't care about Wikipedia policies; I get that. You don't care if you offend other people; you even seem to take pride in that. You mostly just care about your legacy. If that's the case, stop trying to "manage" it on Wikipedia, because the more you try, the worse you look. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate all that you have contributed to my historic learning curve on wikipeadia. However, your character assassination is not appreciated.

Thank you allowing my recent comments to viewed on the Juneteenth talk page. I was shocked to see them censored until recently. What is a "talk" page about anyway? This is why I have some dublicated comments.

I do respect and follow wikipedia policies once I learn them. My growth in this area is clearly evident. Again, I do not appreciate your character assassination.

You know full well that I did not remove "National Juneteenth" from the Juneteenth wikipedia page. Since you brought up the term "libel" to attack me, I don't see you using the same term to defend me. I did communicate on the talk page of the most recent wikipedia editor about the inappropriate link to "National Juneteenth", changing it and requesting that offensive material be removed from the Juneteenth wikipedia page (when instructed to do eactly what was done to reach consesus and discusson, etc.). It appears that you have ignored these facts and preceded on to your character assassination.

Thank you for allowing the addition of "Maryland" and "43 states" to the Juneteenth wkipedia page, as how the other states have been allowed to be updated by what you have dedcribed as a "vanity" and "egotistical" source.

Despite it all, my goal is the most accurate and up to date information on the Juneteenth wikipedia page concerning our legacy of enslavement. I hope everyone involved has the same goal. The historic accomplishments of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" through the "leadership of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation" has been recognized by congress on more than one occasion (even though you have a serious problem with allowing the name "Ronald Myers" to be included on the Juneteenth wikipedia page despite being a part of the official congressional record with the introduction of historic Juneteenth legislation).

Again, thank for no longer censoring my recent comments on the Juneteenth wikipedia talk page. Other new progressive African American Juneteenth wikipedia page contributors will learn about wikipedia policies as they read the history of our exchanges (as long as you do not allow censorship of comments on the talk page). We understand that things have not changed much in America when African Americans boldly stand up for the true documentation of our enslavement legacy and the reaction of folks who are not from our racial experience or community.

National Juneteenth Holiday Chairman, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Give these "character assassination" accusations a rest, Ron. I'm not asking you again.

You keep claiming that you're learning and trying to understand, then launch into another round of nonsense about how you're being victimized here. In the end, it all comes back to being about YOU. I've bent over backwards trying to show you that Wikipedia is not persecuting you (just treating you like any other disruptive and abusive editor), but I've reached the point that I am convinced that nothing could ever convince you. You are welcome to rant and rave (to anyone who will still listen to you) about how we're nothing but a bunch of vile racists and whatever other imaginary nonsense feeds that belief. But not here. I won't be held hostage by your manipulative behavior, so if you don't refrain from doing so willingly (i.e. walk away from Wikipedia, and stay away), I'm going to request that you be formally and permanently banned from editing on these topics due to your obvious conflict of interest and repeated violations of Wikipedia policies. If you want input into what information is included in Wikipedia, you need to channel that through someone else: someone who can edit Wikipedia without making a trainwreck out of it all. You are not capable of that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

EDITOR: Please remove from Wikipedia Juneteenth page

"Paul Herring Chairman of The Juneteenth Committee credits Mrs. E. Hill Deloney (Community Matriarch) for starting the celebration in Flint, Michigan in the late 1980s; as he said, "… It's a time to Reflect & Rejoice, because we are the children of those who chose to survive."

This statement has no relevance or documentation to belong in this section concerning the 1994 meeting of Juneteenth leaders in New Orleans.

Thank you.

JuneteenthDOCJuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)