User talk:Justforasecond

Welcome!

Hi Justforasecond! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Private Butcher 18:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Move

Do not move pages without requesting a move at requests for page moves. "Flatulence" is the correct term, while "fart" is colloquial. In any case, moves should be done with the move function and not by copying and pasting the text of the article. JFW | T@lk 05:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not move pages manually. I will comment on Talk:Flatulence. JFW | T@lk 05:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

What edits has User:PHenry performed that you consider vandalism? A diff would be helpful. Thanks! I left this message at User talk:155.91.28.231 but I thought I'd drop a note here too in case you miss it there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

Please don't visit my talk page w/inane messages. Afrocentrism has been flagged for a very long time -- mostly because people object to the subject matter itself. My contributions to this piece have been NPOV and factual. I haven't had anything to do with the piece for a very long time. And don't bother to respond. I won't read it. *x* deeceevoice 14:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith when the blatant ignorance and racism stop. Further, the edit record shows I did NOT edit yesterday. The last edits I made on this article were done 11/27 -- and it was clean-up stuff at that, aimed at toning down some of the POV and general fix-up. Get your story straight -- and don't post to my talk page in the future.*x* deeceevoice 23:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. DO NOT tamper with my talk page. What I choose to keep or delete is strictly my prerogative. Per my earlier warning, I've deleted your changes -- your last contribution without reading it. (Poof!) Don't waste your time. deeceevoice 06:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Flatulence

You already get to flatulence by entering "fart" in a search box. Please read the other comments on the talk page. The consensus is to keep the name of the article the same. --malber 19:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you also propose that we change the article titled "Sexual intercourse" to "Fucking"?--malber 04:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice rfc

Would you take part in an rfc about deeceevoice's conduct? I found your comment below on his talk page (which has now been removed). As far as I can tell deeceevoice has attacked many users, but to file an rfc there need to be at least 2 users that have tried to resolve the same issue.

[1]

-Justforasecond 15:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I think an RfC is probably warranted (sigh). Would you mind if I authored it? I posted a note to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but nobody has commented. Wikipedia needs more users like Deeceevoice (i.e., competent editors that reduce systematic bias), but she needs to tone down the aggression a notch. — Matt Crypto 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Matt. How do you post things on two talk pages at once?

Go ahead and author the RFC. I'm not sure how to phrase those things -- I can add diffs later if you need help digging through the archives.

I'm not sure we need more like deeceevoice. She can write well enough, contributes voluminously, and definitely makes the place a more diverse, but the aggression and also the disregard of other policies (NOR and cite sources) are pretty over the top. She also appears not to care about NPOV, but that's more subtle. Unfortunately she turns off a lot of editors and, it looks like, draws the few others that are African-American into conflicts they wouldn't otherwise care to be in. -Justforasecond 20:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I usually just copy conversations so that the context is kept, but I have to do it manually ;-). I've posted an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice. — Matt Crypto 08:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Spamming

Please do not spam talk pages with information not related to the article. There was no reason to post links to the deeceevoice RfC on any pages but user talk pages. I thought about removing the comments from Talk:Blackface, but then I checked your contributions and saw how many pages you'd posted that message to, and frankly, I don't feel like cleaning up the mess you've made. Article talk pages are not for settling personal disputes. —BrianSmithson 16:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice has been very active on the blackface article. anyone there would know her by name and could provide valuable comments.

in case you're not familiar, the rfc is a way for all editors to provide comments, not a personal dispute. i'd welcome your opinion!

thanks,

-Justforasecond 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[Moving discussion back here to avoid fragmenting] I know what an RfC is. My point is that this dispute is about deeceevoice's behavior toward other editors, not her contributions on articles. Your multi-post to articles she has worked on could easily be interpreted as campaigning on your part or even as a personal attack. Campaigning, whether for adminship, featured article status, or requests for comment, is generally frowned upon here. In summation: Please keep this dispute relegated to the appropriate Request for Comment. If you want to inform others about the RfC, do so on their talk pages, not on the talk pages of individual articles. Posting to article talk pages would of course be acceptable if this were an RfC about her contributions to those articles. However, for a behavioral RfC, it is not.

I've considered reverting all of your recent posts to article talk pages regarding the RfC, but it's borderline whether this is a personal attack. Perhaps you can do the cleanup for me before deeceevoice or someone else decides to interpret your postings as such.—BrianSmithson 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Brian, if you could point out the policy I'll go and remove/alter those edits to the talk pages. The rfc is relevant to all of those articles because of pov, nor, and cite sources violations on all of those articles. No one would file an rfc for pov violations on a single article. I've tried to describe things in a neutral manner in the posts -- either simply mentioning the rfc, or requesting positive and negative comments, etc, but I did point out example violations as well. -Justforasecond 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgive the instrusion--I've just been poking around Deecee's RfC and following related links. There is a very explicit, relevant policy here: Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Article talk pages are for discussing the articles, not the personalities and behaviors of editors, no matter how concerned you may be about them.

As for the RfC itself, I'm torn--I've also had conversations with Deecee about civility (though to other editors--she's always been very friendly to me), but I'm not sure that this RfC is going to do any good besides alienating a dedicated editor. I'll see if I can find something more cogent to add later today. Take care! --Dvyost 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking over your comments again, I thought I'd add that this obviously shouldn't stop you from dealing with POV, NOR, or CITE violations individually--and kudos to you to watching out for them! --Dvyost 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave beat me to it. In addition, someone might easily take multiple posts about his or her behavior as taunting, or, as I stated earlier, a personal attack (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). And please don't take my comments as an allegation that your multiposts were personal attacks; I just think it's something of a low blow to have users advertise about your interpersonal behavior on articles you've spent a lot of time on.

As for campaigning being frowned upon, there is no official policy here. In my experience here, it seems to be a no-no, though. Just consider a piece of friendly advice. —BrianSmithson 17:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll second these remarks. There's no policy, but it's usually seen as poor form to advertise something like this in this way. — Matt Crypto 17:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just saw your comment over at the RfC talk page. Yes, Justforasecond, we "still" think that those comments are inappropriate, given the Wikipedia policy cited above, and I'm not sure why you've asked us to reiterate. Please take them down, or I'll do so myself later on.

None of this should stop you from addressing individual edits of Deecee's that you disagree with; however, it's not really fair to leave blanket notices on all of her major articles. --Dvyost 04:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As Matt said, these do not violate wiki policy. I've taken them down for now anyway. -Justforasecond 21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to call your attention to the few lines: "The purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. If you have opinions about the contributions others have made, feel free to discuss those contributions on any relevant talk page. If you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there."

I can see how multiple interpretations are possible here, but I've always read this to mean that article talk pages are for, well, discussing the articles. If this RfC was related to content Deecee had added to these pages, I'd absolutely agree that noting it on their article talk pages would be appropriate. I'd also encourage you still to discuss any edits you feel Deecee made in error on the talk pages of their individual articles.

However, spamming articles with links citing WP:CIVIL violations on Deecee's own talk page strikes me as another thing entirely. I realize you meant well, but I hope you do understand how it looked. Thanks for taking them down, and I'm sorry I snapped at you last night; it's finals time here and I'm certainly feeling the heat. =) Best, --Dvyost 21:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: User talk:JCarriker

I do not find the comments to be racist, as a native of the South I know racism when I see it. Further more Jmabel is not the subject of the RFC and I find it in poor taste to attack him. You are behaving in the exact same manner that you deplore in others. I don not appreciate the implication in your comment that I am endorsing hate speech, I excpect you to reword your statement or I will remove it. -JCarriker 21:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your revision, however my endorsement stands. The phrase could be racist under ceratin cicumstances, but not in the anecdote offered by Jmabel. I say this because the empahsis is not on the phrase "white boy" but on "cry me a river". For example the phrase "Come here, boy" or "Boy, pick 'at up" would be considered patronizing by a white person and racist by a black person. I think you are overacting to this, and this is not abnormal at wikipedia we all do it from time to time. I could consider your comment about the South to be predjudice by implying that the South was not as adept at identifying racism when my point was just the opposite; but I did not and assumed good faith. Please just ask yourself one simple question: Do you really think that Jmabel is rascist? -JCarriker 22:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry your offend but I really don't think you no what racism is. Have you ever seen someone clutch their purse tighter when a black person sat down next to them? Have you ever gotten dirty lloks for showing up somewhere with a black friend? Have you ever heard the "n word" blurted out in polite company? On the other hand have you ever been excluded from a conversation becasue you "aren't one of us?" Have you ever not been hired for a job because you are white? I can answer yes to all of those questions. Your right that racism can be a two way street, but I'm not convinced you really know what it is. Racism is the brutal murder of a good and innocent man, please don't trivialize it. Thanks. -JCarriker 07:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For the last time in the context that the phrase is used it is not a slur, its an acerbic remark—nothign more. I don't no how many more ways I can tell you that the way it's used in Jmabel's anecdote it is not an slur. I have been around black people my entire life and if you don't want to take the word of someone whose familiar with the dialect, then fine. I will not be bullied into agreeing with something that I know to be factually incorrect. Please do not waste both of our time by asking questions you already have the answers to. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Personal attacks

"Put that in your cornpipe and smoke it" is merely an expression, it is not an attack. Sorry if you feel that way, have a Merry Christmas. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the text as it accused me of attacking someone, I did not mean that as an attack it is a Southern expression. Just thought I'd let you know. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Harrassment

1. Thank you for your input, but I am obligated to ignore it.
2. I did not endorse a racist comment.
3. Your vendetta against a solid editor is far worse of a violation than anything she did.
4. What contribution have you made to building an encyclopaedia? Your vendetta is disruptive and builds bad feeling. When you have made a positive contribution to the project I may be inclined to take you seriously. As is, I have no reason to believe that you have any interest here beyond stirring things up. Guettarda 22:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I second Guettarda comments. You are a new user and over half of your edits have been related to this Deevoice RfC. You also need to bone up on Wikipedia policies. You have accused everyone who disagreed with your belief that the statement "Cry me a river, whiteboy" is a racist comment. One of the main policies of Wikipedia is to "assume good faith" in others. By accusing those who disagreed with you of racism and saying they are violating policy, you are missing one of the main guidelines of Wikipedia.--Alabamaboy 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I know that emotions are running high, but let's assume good faith out of Justforasecond as well. Thanks. -JCarriker

I endorse D'Juan's comments. I find your actions disruptive and offensive. Is it your aim to attack every non-white editor in Wikipedia, or just the ones who disagree with you? Before you call others racists, you should take a careful look at your own actions. Guettarda 07:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so I mixed up who it was who made the comment - I thought it was D'Juan not Joe who made the comment. As for the rest of it - I simply asked a question based on your actions. If you don't want to be asked questions like that, you should modify your actions. If you were just asking people about their statements, then you would have asked Dave (Chameleon) about his obvious personal attacks or Peter for reinserting them. But you had nothing to say about actions which actually violate policy. Instead you attack people who endorse a comment which you claim to be a racist attack - which is neither racist, nor an attack. Instead you spam talk pages trying to draw people into your vendetta against dcv. Instead you start your career here by attacking dcv. You started off with a few real contributions, but you seem to have no interest here beyond attacking dcv and the editors who disagreed with the vendetta against her. Maybe it's coincidental that your attacks are all against non-white and Jewish editors. But that they are. So, it's a perfectly valid question to ask. Lay off on the attacks and the harrassment. The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopaedia. If you have something to contribute to the project, then I'm happy to have you here. This isn't a place to pursue vendettas or to try to push people around who dare to disagree with you. Guettarda 17:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What is going on here (maybe I don't want to know). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be best to chalk this one up to a misunderstanding. I don't think Justforasecond has malicious or racist intent here; I've also had a minor exchange with him on this, and I'm white as white gets, so I don't think he's intending to single out any particular race.

But Justforasecond, I would encourage you to end the "disendorsement" campaign; while it's understandable that you may have read this as a slur, I think that it's also clear that there are multiple possible interpretations here--Guettarda, Alabamaboy, JMabel, etc. are all good editors that I've run into before and that I know have the best intentions. While it's important for people to respect WP:CIVIL, etc., violations are also inevitable, and to try to run each one down so forcefully is likely to only lead to further illwill. I think you've had excellent intentions here, and I applaud you for trying to make the WP community a better place. At the same time, I also think it might be time for us all to move away from this fight and get back to writing an encyclopedia; Deecee hasn't been here for days now, anyway. Good luck and happy editing--wikilove all around! --Dvyost 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

response on Guettarda's page. I have had enough of this. Now I'm a racist for asking others not to endorse comments like "cry me a river, white boy" -- a statement with zero positive value. Thanks Dyvost for helping to defuse things. -Justforasecond 23:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I am only judging your actions. Having been called "nigger", "honkey", "whiteboy", "coolie", "half-breed" and God knows what else, it's easy enough for me to affirm that race-based statements only have sting in the context of power-disparities. In my experience, the people who take offense when the power disparities do not exist are the people who say "well if I can't say nigger then they can't say whiteboy". Couple the framing with your all-out vendetta against deecee, and your insistence on attacking and harrassing other editors (yes, you are harrassing me, even if you want to declare your actions otherwise by fiat) and I see no reason to re-evaluate my prior opinion. I sure hope I am wrong. But you still need to lay off the harrassment. Your vendetta is doing nothing but breeding ill will and damaging community spirit. So if that was your aim, well, congratulations, it looks like you have driven away two solid editors. It's quite an achievement for a newcomer. Guettarda 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

RE:thanks

You're welcome. -JCarriker 18:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV violations

I could provide the diffs, but the RfC is closed, isn't it? CoYep 12:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed comment

Hi Justforasecond,

I've restored the comment you pulled from Deecee's user talk page. Removing comments from talk pages is very much frowned upon here; even if you consider the comment to be racist or a personal attack, that doesn't give you the right to pull it from somebody else's talk page. (Check out WP:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not). I realize that you probably did this in good faith, but you also need to understand that you've been leaning very, very hard on everybody's good faith by pursuing these issues so aggressively. I hope you'll consider giving this situation a break for a while and getting back to editing--there's lots of articles out there that could use the help! Be well, and much wikilove,

--Dvyost 04:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll chalk this one up to another honest mistake then. You have to understand how it looks, though, for you to remove a supportive note from Deecee's page at this time and label it vandalism (regardless of how much you may disagree with its contents). I've been largely standing up for you until now, and I think rightly so, but I should warn you that I'm not prepared to assume good faith any farther than this. Guettarda mentioned that your account doesn't seem to have any edits not related to Deecee's RfC yet, and while this isn't quite true, I can see where (s)he's coming from. It's definitely time for you to decide: do you really want to devote your time on Wikipedia to arguing the finer points of policy with other users, or do you want to write articles? Taking a break from Deecee-related editing would enhance your credibility with everyone right now, and probably be a lot more relaxing for you besides. It'd also give you a chance to learn the community norms in a less tense situation.

Like I said before, your concern for Wikipedia is much appreciated, and I think could turn you into a fine editor here; why not unleash it on some of our articles? --Dvyost 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Point well-taken; still, as it always could be a semi-literate supporter, probably best that we take it in good faith for now. Thanks for explaining. Happy editing! --Dvyost 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFAr

FYI - there's a 500-word limit on statements - yours is about twice that length. Guettarda 16:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

YOU

Can you leave DCV alone? And get a life and something better to do? Not to be rude, but just, really...this is getting ridiculous. I believe racism is at the bottom of a lot of this, call me crazy...Please, stop. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

RFAr

I think you should let this go. It doesn't phase Deeceevoice, and it only hurts other contributors, including you. Please drop the subject and edit other topics, branch out- edit topics that aren't of mutual interest between Deeceevoice and yourself. If you have another altrication with her you'll be more experienced and in a better position to deal with it. -JCarriker 05:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think an RfAr is appropriate right now. I do think that there are some civility issues, but none to the extent that arbritation would be necessary. I'm not interested in becoming a party to this case. Thank you for the notification, though. Carbonite | Talk 18:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)