::::Uh, huh. And where did I ''anywhere'' call him a racist or anything like "subhuman racist slime," "wikiscum," "subhuman racist slime," etc.? Answer: ''nowhere''. Yet, we receive the same punishment? Bullsh*t. Under the circumstances, I thought my response was pretty cool-headed. That and fact that RobChurch not only did ''not'' say anything to Chameleon, but then lied about me -- and then was nominated for adminship -- by the same user who brought the RfC against me and ''then'', I just found out, proposed that I be barred from editing any African-American related article in the RfA (anyone sense an agenda here?) -- within ''weeks'' of having (only partly) admitted his utter fabrication (I never sent him a ''single word'' about his blocking me; in fact, I only just discovered the additional 36 hour block), and that he got ''several'' votes, speaks, I think, volumes about the climate and sensibilities of this crappy, b.s. -- and racist -- website. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Uh, huh. And where did I ''anywhere'' call him a racist or anything like "subhuman racist slime," "wikiscum," "subhuman racist slime," etc.? Answer: ''nowhere''. Yet, we receive the same punishment? Bullsh*t. Under the circumstances, I thought my response was pretty cool-headed. That and fact that RobChurch not only did ''not'' say anything to Chameleon, but then lied about me -- and then was nominated for adminship -- by the same user who brought the RfC against me and ''then'', I just found out, proposed that I be barred from editing any African-American related article in the RfA (anyone sense an agenda here?) -- within ''weeks'' of having (only partly) admitted his utter fabrication (I never sent him a ''single word'' about his blocking me; in fact, I only just discovered the additional 36 hour block), and that he got ''several'' votes, speaks, I think, volumes about the climate and sensibilities of this crappy, b.s. -- and racist -- website. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, I understand your frustration and anger. I was pretty shocked by the length of block he gave you and by the fact that he hadn't given Chameleon so much as a slap on the wrist, which is why I decided to step in. (The fact that neither of you noticed is irrelevant!) I'm not at all happy with Rob's behavior, nor was I particularly impressed by his retraction and apology at [[User:Robchurch/deeceevoice]], especially since it came only 15 hours after deleting your response and calling it "garbage". The fact that his second RfA didn't succeed can be some slight consolation, even though it was very close. As for Chameleon, he just seems to be generally sociopathic, as evidenced not only by his vitriol towards you but even the disrespectful message on his user page and the fact that he considers it "vandalism" when someone posts a message to him on his talk page. I frankly can't understand why someone like that would ever want to be part of WP. All that being said, I for one wish you wouldn't leave. As you know all too well, Wikipedia's already too dominated by white guys like me, and if one of the few black woman editors we have leaves--especially one who's a very good and very profilic editor--that's just going to compound what some people like to call WP's "systemic bias", not make it better. --[[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|<span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">tɔk</span>]]) 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
A kindly Wikipedian restored the page -- but also deleted the love note. I prefer to keep these kinds of things. I find them instructive, emblematic, even. So, I've restored it. Presumably, people actually think this kind of thing intimidates, or insults, or somehow wounds. (Beats me.) But, hey, it makes me chuckle. I must be doin' somethin' right. Peace. :) deeceevoice20:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just returned to this after leaving a thank-you note for the Wikipedian who performed the revert. Hm-m-m. I was looking at this image in isolation and thinking about how some of my Native American cousins and others use the symbol. Among the more evolved of the human species, it's a beautiful, spiritual thing.[1] I accept this image in that empowering sense. (So, thank you to the half-wit a**hole who left it in hatred, intolerance and stupidity.) You kinda wonder why the swastika is BLACK -- not white -- doncha? Because BLACK IS STRONG AND BOLD AND BEAUTIFUL. That's why. (Yeah. Like dat. :D) Peace. deeceevoice21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disapprove of this as a response to the above agitation (as in feeding the trolls), but it's your talk page. Best, El_C21:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely appreciate your intent, but I disagree. The impulse to tidy up things like this and make them "nice" is precisely what gives creeps like this the notion that what they do has power, consequence. Hiding crap like this is Wikipedia's dirty, little secret -- when it's present, in and off the Internet. I acknowledge it and call it for what it is. And I leave it. So people can see the sickness and stupidity and cowardice. This symbol means about as much to me as a gnat in the wind. I really don't care whether you agree with it or not. After all, as you pointed out, it is my talk page -- isn't it? Please do not ever edit my comments again without first discussing it with me. Regards, my friend. deeceevoice21:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Race and Intelligence
If you want to vote "support" (and I'm guessing you don't) then all you have to do is vote. As for voting "oppose", the article and the people behind it (Rushton et al, not the editors) make me uncomfortable, but I also don't see myself having the time to weigh in on it. The article has been there a while, and there are several oppose votes - I would be surprised if it went through, but I would ask Raul, since he handles the promotions and removals. There has been a lot of controversy on the talk page too. Guettarda23:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having a load of work to do, I've managed to somehow spend most of my time today on Wikipedia. (I'mma be in trouble tomorrow! :p) I took some time to scan the article, and it has the usual problems. Any article on the subject should at least minimally address the following -- even though there may be articles on the site devoted to these issues: What is intelligence and how is it measured? Are the metrics and instruments used to determine numeric equivalents unbiased? How were the sample populations arrived at, and were there biases inherent in that process? The article mentions group disparities when factors like education (graduation from high school, I believe) are taken into consideration -- but anyone involved in education policy knows that's bogus, given the huge disparities in quality of education where the majority of blacks in this nation reside. Have there been any credible cross-ethnic studies of "intelligence" where socioeconomic status and family background/history have been equalized? (Clearly, disparities are the result of such environmental factors.) It's the same "arrogant/racist white-boy club" stuff -- just rehashed. It's all utterly meaningless drivel, because -- no -- such studies have not been done. And if they have been, they haven't been cited. SOS. I'm thinking I won't even bother to weigh in. Articles like this will exist likely here and in other venues, regardless. And those who consult them do so with already preconceived notions of black inferiority. (No one I know in their right mind even questions that "intelligence" -- whatever that means, and to whom -- is a combination of environmental and hereditary factors. They know it has nothing whatsoever to do with race/ethnicity, except insofar as overarching environmental factors are affected by race/ethnicity. Peace. deeceevoice23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another love note?
Beautiful.
File:Lynching-1889.jpg (restored vandalism entered 20:35, 18 July 2005 with the edit note "beautiful," by some anonymous, inbred, mental cretin-coward at 129.2.18.173)
I came here to just quickly mention (since I blathered without end on the discussion page and it's hard to see now) that I eventually came to realize that the Southern "redneck games" and watermelon humor about Southerners is self-parody and doesn't rise to the level of hurtful humor like racist humor or some of the insults said about the Greens. It looks like the Southerners may have done most of the "redneck Southerner humor" about themselves that I currently find, so I decided to be less sensitive about it and move it out of the discussion on derogatory uses of the watermelon symbol. If the word "derogatory" weren't starting the paragraph, it would be different, but it was not right of me to originally equate the two types of humor. The racist humor is a different category of humor, nasty and mean-spirited. The stupid "redneck games" humor is nothing for me to regard as attacking Southerners (though sometimes Southerners are equated with rednecks in meanspirited ways in other situations, but that is a different thing than the watermelon humor about Southerners). Maybe there's some negative humor towards southern whites and melons but I haven't found it yet; I can't say I've done an extensive survey though.
I am horrified to find racial harassment being done to you on your discussion page. I keep forgetting that racism lives, including in some organized groups. :-( Awful. It makes me want to go find the cowards who did that. Bebop01:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just here again to explain what I wrote in an edit description just now. I said the watermelon racism wasn't specific to the South (didn't have room to say it better), but what I meant was that the Southern self-parody thing doesn't have to be jammed into the sentence on African American racism because it's not just African Americans from the South who were attacked with watermelon emblem racism but any African American in the U.S. The main reason I separated the sentences just now is that the "19th and 20th centuries" stuff was getting mixed up tense-wise with the second part of the sentence. It did not flow and you were trying to force the two things together in one sentence without regard to flow and tense. Plus, the humor I was talking about after I investigated it was about white rednecks eating watermelon (which is gentle self lampooning) and you are referring to hate stuff. I decided to put "of both races" in there because I started to see that you are referring to how some Southerners are lampooned in a nasty way, and Southerners are of many heritages. I hope I have altered it now in a way that suits what you have in mind. I get really ticky on grammar sometimes because of one of my particular past academic fields of study. Bebop02:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I only now realized that I had left that original U.S. history "cite our sources" discussion on the watermelon the talk page looking like you didn't have much reason to think slaves brought watermelons over when I later saw two good sources showing they clearly did participate, so I have updated my original article talk page comments with the new info I had previously found & added to the story a few days ago and which I should have indicated in the talk page at the time. Sorry about that; I should not have left the talk page reading that way but got distracted on another issue. Bebop06:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Blackface
I saw your comments, and I do intend to re-read the article, I just haven't had a chance to sit down and give it the thorough read that it deserves. I was hoping to get to it tonight after work. As a fan of jazz from the 1920s and 1930s, this is one subject that really does interest me and I'd like to see an intelligent treatment of the subject get promoted. slambo 19:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I see that this article is currently scheduled to appear on the front page next Tuesday. I enjoyed rereading it again this week and I'm glad to see it featured. I suspect that it will gather quite a few vandalism attempts then, as I saw when my own Pioneer Zephyr article was on the front page earlier this year. slambo 18:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hey deeceevoice. I wanted to let you know that there is currently a vote for deletion (instigated by me) on the article List of White supremacists Thought you might want to glance at the article and then vote on the Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists page. Be warned though; if you do vote, be prepared to have your blood pressure raised; the discussion is not especially edifying.
And congratulations on getting Blackface listed as a featured article. It's nice to see that all the work you and other editors have done has been rewarded. Take care.NoahB17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you overwikify blackface. Concepts related to the subjects or that are relatively unknown should be wikified once. It is overdoing it to wikify e.g. chocolate. I can't find the guidelines or policy so quickly but I believe that is how it should be. I do not doubt that you are doing your utmost to create a great article, but this is the wrong way, I believe. Thanks. Andries21:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it already is a quality article :p. But I don't think I'm "over wikifying" the piece. The example you give of "chocolate" is repeated in numerous articles on the site, where the word has been wikified in much the same context. I believe I have been selective in giving the piece a final once-over, removing duplicates and wikifying others. However, if you feel it is excessive -- as with all other kinds of edits -- then, of course, you are perfectly free to make changes. deeceevoice22:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll completely understand if you don't want to get drawn into this one, but at African_American#Nomenclature there is an awfully strong assertion of this particular expression owing its wide usage to Jesse Jackson, and especially to his 1988 campaign. I don't remember the turn toward the use of this term being either sudden or particularly associated with that campaign. Do you? My own memory it that Negro as a predominant term gave way to Black and Afro-American roughly in 1964-1966, with Afro-American slowly giving way to African American from about the mid-1970s until circa 1990, and Black also continuing in very common usage. I can't say this has been a major conscious focus of mine though; I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you have some you are interested in sharing. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Zwarte Piet
Dear DeeCeevoice,
Please contact me, as I requested before you reverted my edits to Blackface. You seem to be living in the US. Therefore, you bluntly reverting (largely factual) changes about Dutch culture made by a Dutch person could be considered rather presumptuous. - ovvldc09:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (just leave a message on my Talk page)[reply]
Never Mind, you reverted something else. I jumped the gun after looking at the history page. My apologies. - ovvldc09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your edit note and about my being "presumptuous": why would I accuse you of racism? Don't insult my intelligence. Further, regarding your change of "many" to "some": I wrote the passage as "some" but another contributor -- from the Netherlands -- changed that passage to read "many." Why don't you leave him a note instead? deeceevoice09:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am always worried to tread on someone's toes here. I spent a year on Berkeley, CA and got on people's bad side there with no intention whatsoever. Cultural barriers and subtle inflections and so on... I was not trying to insult you, but I thought you edited something you had less experience with. Again, my apologies. As for the passage, I have no clue and I don't want to waste time to track down the author. I dropped it with you because you did a lot of edits in that article you had a hefty debate going on in the talk page. - ovvldc10:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deeceevoice, could you please look at the Zwarte Piet article as it is now? I'm not entirely sure what controversy you are talking about, well I have an idea, but I think you have to see the entire picture and you seem to focus on a little aspect of the topic. Leaving out for instance that WHITES played the character in Surinam in the colonial days.
I see you changed the Sinterklaas date back to 5 december. The wiki calendar coorectly states that Saint Nicolas has his "birthday" on 6 december. 5 december is Sint Nicolas Eve ("Sinterklaasavond"), increasingly popular as the celebration day in the Netherlands. It is all nicely written in the article about Saint Nicolas / Sinterklaas.
Hopping on the bandwagon, I just saw this and the article is great. :) --Golbez 13:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Front page
Isn't a front page article fun? :) You might consider putting your comment right in the article, use the comment tags <!-- The word is AFFECT, not EFFECT --> or something to that effect - people won't see it until the try to edit the text. Other than that, just habg in there - a front page article is as much punishment as it is reward. Guettarda14:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip -- but don't you mean "or something to that Affect?" :p Yes, it's nice to see it on the front page. So far, there hasn't been nearly as much racist vandalism as I expected. The skinheads must be on holiday. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Border Morris
I should have added that Border Morris is also referred to as Blackface Morris, and it's possible that it was influenced by travelling blackface minstrel troupes in the early 20th century. Maybe it should just be a "See also" link. — PhilHibbs | talk17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Because there doesn't seem to be any allusion whatsoever to black culture in this instance -- just a blackening of the face -- I wouldn't consider it to be true blackface. Whether you choose to make it a "Related topics" link or not, I couldn't/wouldn't support any attempt to return the text I excised to the body of the article. Interesting phenomenon, though. :) Peace. deeceevoice18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good mornin'. :) Well, I'm thinking the article could use a bit of a punch -- besides, an interesting photo might inspire/intrigue someone and inspire a bit more research. They're certainly a curious-looking bunch. deeceevoice09:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to update you - I asked about permission for that photo but didn't get a response. Border Morris has a decent picture now anyway, and the article has come a long way since the featuring of Blackface drew attention to the subject. — PhilHibbs | talk18:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Phil (waving). Yes, I know. I revisited the article to read it in its entirety and noticed the changes, including the photo. "Gone niggering"? (shaking head) Good Lord! That's worse than the Auckland City Dukes. What a shame the webmaster no longer had the photo I saw online of the Dukes. It was quite something. Anyway, I'm glad for the recent improvements in Border Morris. Synergy. Sometimes I do love Wikipedia. Cheers. :D deeceevoice20:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, but note the phrase "early 20th century", that was like a hundred years ago, we don't say things like that now! (well, most of us don't, but my hundred-and-two-year-old great-aunt occasionally has her moments...) — PhilHibbs | talk14:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Affect versus effect
Regarding your edit war with 69.106.186.77 about "affect" versus "effect" in the wonderful Blackface article, the correct word in this case is absolutely, positively, definitely "effect". The sentence is:
Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup from the United States used to effect the countenance of an iconic, racist, American archetype...
In other words, "Blackface is used to create the picture of an archetype", more or less, which is a very reasonable thing to say. Here you must use the word "effect", as per this definition from Dictionary.com:
tr.v.effect: To bring into existence, produce as a result, bring about.
There's even a usage note there that will clarify it further; put simply, "affect" cannot convey that meaning. You presumably do not intend that sentence to mean, "Blackface is used to influence the picture of an archetype." This just doesn't really seem to make sense to me. If this is the sense you intend, you should probably consider rewriting the sentence, since it would be very confusing with "affect". —HorsePunchKid→龜00:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even read your note. The word is "affect." Period. Per Roget's Thesaurus, various appropriate synonyms are: "ASSUME 4, act, bluff, counterfeit, fake, feign, pretend, put on, sham, simulate." GOT THAT? deeceevoice 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
This is not a good attitude to have, and you are simply wrong! Please, please read the dictionary entry! I don't have access to Roget's at the moment, but I can only assume you're misreading something in it. I have my own personal experience, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and the OED that I've looked it up in now. Also, please do not revert other changes I've made just to make your change to "effect". I'm going to reapply my changes to the references and "related articles" sections since you made no comment on why you reverted them. If you would prefer to talk about these changes on the Blackface talk page, please let me know (here or on the talk page itself). Thanks for listening... —HorsePunchKid→龜01:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume to lecture me about my attitude. I've quoted Roget's Thesaurus, and you assume I've somehow "misread" it? Please. Don't insult my intelligence. I could say the same thing with regard to your reading of the online dictionary. Presumably, if you can access an online dictionary, then you can also access Roget's online. Why not take a moment and do so -- before you ASS-ume I'm too simple-minded to read it correctly? When I need an English lesson from you, I'll let you know. deeceevoice01:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Calm down there, deeceevoice. You can have it your way, though if you'd read my notes instead of intentionally ignoring them, you'd see I've got a pile of references, too, so that tack will get you nowhere. :( Fortunately, I've got better things to do than quibble semantics with people who don't know how to have a polite conversation. I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I hope the rest of my edits to the Blackface article were not amiss. —HorsePunchKid→龜01:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a war of wills, nor is it a pissing match; this is not about 'having it my way.' This is about what is appropriate syntax and what is not. "Effect" is clearly incorrect. Now, if I had written, "White blackface performers in the past used burnt cork and, later, greasepaint to affect jet-black skin and exaggerated lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tails, or ragged clothes to effect (rather than "complete") the transformation," that would have been correct. "Affect" would have been incorrect in the second instance (not to mention redundant). If you fail to understand the difference, there is little I can say to educate you. Next time, I suggest you do your homework a little more thoroughly before assuming someone incapable of understanding a simple list of synonyms and then writing them a lengthy, didactic and incorrect missive about what you incorrectly understand to be proper syntax. You will note that the other wholly unnecessary, niggling -- and in one case, obviously inappropriate -- changes you made in the body of the article also have been reverted. If it's not an improvement to a piece, then just leave it be. Changing something simply because it gives you something to do is just plain silly -- not to mention annoying. Next time, you might consider sticking to cleaning up the references, which, presumably, you've done adequately. I haven't checked them because, frankly, that sort of thing doesn't interest me in the least. But it's a necessary contribution, and I thank you for that. deeceevoice07:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey (waving) :). Thanks for your very kind offer, but I'm not really interested in becoming an administrator. Over the last few months, you're the third person who's approached me about it -- and I, frankly, don't see the benefit. I sometimes lose my patience and get nasty with people, and I freely speak my mind. Since administrators, I believe, should endeavor to be tolerant and patient, I think I'd be a poor candidate for the position. I have no patience for a lot of the nonsense on this website -- and I don't think I should! And I'm not terribly crazy about cops, so being a Wikicop doesn't particularly appeal to me, either. Whacking someone across the knuckles for this or that infraction just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather remain a lowly, relatively anonymous editor -- one of the great unwashed. :p But, again, thanks, anyway. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice21:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While your habit of speaking your mind might cause your nom to go down in flames, I don't think it should, and I don't really agree with your picture of an admin. While an admin can be "a cop", fundamentally an admin is just someone whom the community trusts to not abuse the extra powers - and the only ones that cannot be undone by other admins are image deletion and page history merging. That said, I suspect you would face a tough fight in an adminship vote - but that really only goes to show how badly the RFA system is broken. (This is just my way of saying I would have no problem voting for you). Guettarda00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote for you in a minute -- but I'd also try to talk you out of doing it. I think you're right about speaking your mind; your sometimes sharp tongue would cause more hassle than it could possibly be worth to you, were you to put on an admin hat. I don't think you'd abuse your powers -- but you'd get accused of it anyway, and, well, you don't have much patience with idiots. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆00:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
I am here and I saw your page. I hope you can contribute more to the Blacks article, I kind of took it over. We should tell them who we are. But you have a reputation that preceeds you and I consider you a leader in the moral stand for true freedom and justice. If you were a social leader, I would follow you, if you were a writer, I would read your books. As corny as it sounds, I believe that Wikipedia has the potential to make some changes in the minds of our youth, so we should make sure that the questions that childresn and teenagers ask, (esp. those that are never answered) are clearly articulated and answered here as best as we can. Lead, because that's what you were sent to do. - User:Zaphnathpaaneah August 9th, 2005
Eureka! On finding one another :)
Hey, blood! :D I appreciate the fact that you took the time to hunt me up, read my page and leave such kind remarks on my talk page. I'm humbled. I've been thinking black contributors to Wikipedia should start an informal group to alert one another to racism and anti-black bias on the site, and to articles and issues of general mutual interest. I've been planning to return to Black people for some time now, but right now I'm in the middle of one hellified busy period. Will drop by, though, probably sometime after the middle of the month, after things slow down a bit and see what's what. In the meantime, you might want to drop by cultural appropriation if/when you have a moment -- if you're so inclined. It's been listed on the articles for improvement list or some such thing, and I have a feeling the knee-jerk defensiveness of certain white folks (which has already emerged) will try to turn the piece into a criticism of the term, rather than an explication of it. It's a stupid, exceedingly tiresome aspect of far too many whites when it comes to subject matter related to black folks. They feel they must comment on/criticize everything -- as if their opinion on what we choose to call ourselves, on how we speak, etc., etc., has any merit/weight whatsoever in the broad scheme of things. I guess that's one more thing to chalk up under the seemingly endless category of "white arrogance/sense of entitlement," 'eh? :p See you around the site -- and please keep in touch. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice21:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, I read your comments, and you believe that wikipedia is a racist site? I suppose I would have to agree (grudgingly) to a point, because I see the Eurocentricity in it but well, I think that just comes down to who is participating. BY the way, with this new Wikipedia policy on locking down articles... if a Black person wants to edit, and there are no black admins, was he really there? (unsigned post)
You caught us. The only reason Jimbo was misquoted about the locking down articles is because Reuters knows we secretly want the black voice banned from Wikipedia. That's the only reason. --Golbez 18:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
What's this about locking down articles? My only (remembered) experience with this was when User:Quadell locked me out of blackface while he monkeyed with it while it was up for featured article status. It pissed me off. What's the deal? deeceevoice20:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quadell couldn't lock you out. He could lock everyone out (well, every non-admin), or no one. There are two stories the anon could be speaking of; one, the proposal to add the ability to lock an article so that only users (i.e. not anon IPs) can edit it; this is currently being discussed by the developers. Then there was Reuters and other news sources quoting Jimbo, claiming he said that Wikipedia would work towards locking "completed" articles. He said they misrepresented him. But ya know, I think the IP might be on to something... after all, Jimbo's white! :O And he said these words... IN GERMANY! --Golbez 21:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
All I know is when blackface was up for featured article status, Quadell blocked an IP address (which wasn't even mine) because of an "imposter," who apparently had assumed a user name similar to his. As a result, I was also blocked (collateral damage, which occurs fairly frequently in my case, with different IP addresses) from editing -- but only that particular article. Now, tell me, Golbez, is it true there are no black administrators? deeceevoice21:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No clue, race is advertised even less than gender here. There's probably some. --Golbez 21:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
As for the first half of your para (I type way too quickly :D), that sucks. You once emailed me about that; I've still no clue how that happened. So far as I know, blocking an IP address isn't supposed to impact logged-in users, but I could be wrong. As for blocking you from editing that particular article, that's not [yet] possible. It may have appeared that way, but honestly, there's no way (at present) to ban someone from a specific article. --Golbez 21:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
All I know is that I tried to edit blackface and repeatedly got the message "User is blocked." But I also was able to successfully edit something else at the same time -- so, what does that tell you? deeceevoice21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It tells me that something was screwy with Wikipedia. That's all. Caching issues maybe. I hope you're not thinking of some conspiracy theory. --Golbez 21:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not one inclined to believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe I'm being targeted, if that's what you mean. But it's certainly annoying as hell, and whatever the problem is, it needs to be fixed. deeceevoice21:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't socialized much with African-Americans, but as far as I know, uncouth, pseudo-degrading jargon is something that is heavily over-represented among males, and even especially so among youth and the working class. My experience of hearing "nigger" used is limited to popular culture, and the impression I've gotten that if not exlusively male, then it is at least quite over-represented in this group.
Are you sure that you're not exaggerating the meaning of my addition to the article? The key word here is "mostly", rather than "only". Are you saying that the usage is more or less equally distributed among both sexes and that there is no prevelance of young people who use this term?
You make and addition to an article with an edit comment in the form of a question, clearly indicating you're uncertain of the factuality of your addition. I revert it as being inaccurate. You then revert it -- again, when you clearly don't know what you're writing about. Why on earth would you deliberately include a passage of which you are admittedly unsure in any article, and dealing with a culture about which you admittedly know very little? What the hell kind of arrogance is that? And now here you come to my space and ask me -- like I'm some dim wit -- if I'm certain I'm not exaggerating the meaning your words, while at the same time telling me you pretty much don't know any black folks (and likely don't know jack) and then proceed to denigrate/criticize a traditional/historical appropriation (reread the passage) and equate it with something that is a phenomenon roughly two decades old. You'd do well to follow your own advice: "don't mess with what you don't know well." Get a clue.deeceevoice21:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let's try to keep the discussion to one place. I'd prefer replying here than splitting the discussion up. Also, I think I've kept the discussion at a very civil level, so I would appreciate if you returned the favor.
As for the matter at hand, the point I was trying to make is that the usage of otherwise derogatory language in an endearing fashion is not exclusive to black culture as far as I know. I suspect that using pseudo-insults among friends might be near-universal to human culture, but that's just speculation. Furthermore, this is as far as I know often a quite specific male tendency (macho bonding and all that), even if not exclusive to this group. Would you care to comment this in a more enlightening fashion? Has the usage of "nigger" indeed been just as prevalent among females as with males, and without any overrepresentation among youth even historically? Is there really reason to believe that only modern usage is fairly male-specific? Since you are yourself saying that this is a matter of historical usage, it would also be helpful if you used other types of argumentation than simply insisting that you are black and I am not. Is there anything about this in Kennedy's book? Are there perhaps other sources worth referencing? PeterIsotalo22:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this exchange on point. Again, the sentence in which you inserted your erroneous information -- which you, yourself, questioned -- is in a historical context. You are incorrect. Furthermore I'm not "saying that this is a matter of historical usage." The sentence you altered clearly begins: "Historically...." Whatever your present-day anecdotal observations may be, they have nothing to do with this sentence. Neither does your "speculation" about what others may or may not do in other cultures have anything to do with the article, as the piece treats a term used by (primarily) a specific ethnic group.
Again, why on earth would you not only insert erroneous information of which you are admittedly uncertain in an article -- instead of asking your questions on the talk page -- but then twice revert a correction, requesting proof? You're kidding -- right? That's not how it works. You are the one who inserted the erroneous information; it's your responsibility to find the corroborating evidence.
And you're gonna cite Wiki etiquette about "civility"? ROTFLMBAO. How about the particular brand of Wiki "incivility" of ignorant and often arrogant white people presuming and assuming things about African American culture and inserting erroneous, ridiculous, even slanderous and outrageous things in articles as fact when they haven't a clue? I would not presume to write an article on astrophysics; yet every other freakin' Bob, Dick and whitebread Harry on this website fancies himself an expert on African American culture and has no compunction about writing all kinds of often opinionated and thoroughly misguided drivel about my culture, my people and my people's history, presenting it as fact. It's been my experience that on Wikipedia, "civility" is the last refuge of clueless hacks. Again, you would do well to heed your own advice: "Don't mess with what you don't know well." *x*deeceevoice04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making double posts at my talkpage or I'll keep removing them. I really dislike split discussions and your posts so far have been far from worth keeping.
I did however not revert twice. I made one edit and one revert with two polite edit summaries and you reverted me twice with two equally subjective and tart motivations and an instant assumption that you have the right to be belligerent because I try to bring up the discussion at your talkpage (you have no disclaimers against it of any kind). And, yes, I understand what you mean by "historically", but you're not showing any sign of understanding that I'm questioning whether this really changes anything and that what I'm claiming would still be relevant whether you like it or not. I find it hard to believe that a) male bonding was so radically different 50, 100 or even 150 years ago and b) that it would be radically different among black males. At the absolute worst a completely non-inflammatory false assumption and at best a different perspective on the article. (You'd have to really want it to be insulting if you interpret it as a provocation.) Neither would give you any justification to address me though I was just another one of those genuinly racist or uncouth users you successfully combat from time to time and it doesn't improve your reputation of being a convincing or constructive participant.
Now, I don't mind a trip to the library and I don't mind learning more about something I don't know that much about (nor have I come even close to claiming in word or action to be an expert). However, I don't care to hear any of it if you're just going to claim that I'm wrong, not make any attempt to explain why you're right and at the same time mocking and lambasting me for asking you to stay on topic and not associate me with every genuine asshole of the same skin color as myself you've ever had wikiproblems with. (Assume good faith, damnit.) I've asked direct questions about sources once already. Just confirm that you have more than very strong opinions with which to back your claims up and I will do my best to check it up. Deal?
On a less serious side note, the allegdly Chinese proverb on your user page is most likely not Chinese. Proverbs in Chinese always have a "if A then B"-like structure and don't really make more than one statement. And I found the quote attributed to someone by the name of Bill Purkey (whoever that is) on two separate webpages after some light googling. PeterIsotalo08:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No deal. It doesn't work that way. FYI, I have a tendency not to read about certain subject matter. I wouldn't spend 40 cents on a book devoted to the use of "nigger" and likely wouldn't read it if it were given to me. If you're asking for scholarly proof, you won't get it here. I can write intelligently and authoritatively on subjects like motherfucker and nigger, but I'll be damned if I'll spend time researching either. As I said, you made the assertion. You do the search. Much of what I've written on this website has been a compilation of knowledge/information I've somehow managed to accumulate over time -- like blackface. I know of the connection between blackface minstrelsy and darky iconography because I am a student of African American history, and I actively used to collect the stuff; I didn't read up for the piece. The same can be said as far as my contributions to nigger.
I will say this much: historical appropriation of the term had nothing to do with "male bonding"; it was about psychic survival -- a felt need in hostile territory and perilous times which crossed gender lines. I don't need to back up my "claims," because I haven't made any in this piece that aren't pretty much common knowledge. You, on the other hand, have made an erroneous assertion -- twice. I'm not going to spend time trying to disprove something you shouldn't have included in the article in the first place.
You still haven't addressed the problem of you, an uninformed party, stubbornly and arrogantly inserting and then reinserting something which you simply assume to factual, but really don't -- by your own admission -- know anything about. (What's that about, anyway? From my perspective, it looks like typical white arrogance/ignorance. When it comes to white folks and the things African-Americans do, say, think and how and why we do it, say it and think it, opinions are like a**holes; everybody has one.) If that's how you approach your contributions to articles on this website, then I suggest you take a visit to wherever it is good Wikipedians go to learn proper Wiki comportment -- and I'm not talking about civility; I'm talking about fundamental accuracy. And you'd better do it fast. The fact that you're still demanding that I produce "proof" to refute your inaccurate addition is a sure sign that, in this instance, African-American culture isn't the only thing you're clueless about. "Don't mess with what you don't know well."
Was I "mocking" you? Nope. If you find my plain-speak mocking, perhaps the situation being discussed reflects more on your hardheadedness than my "incivility." Did I say your obvious ignorance and apparent arrogance (or stubborness) make you a racist? Nope. But does the latter make you an "asshole"? Hey, if the shoe fits.... :p
Finally, with regard to the "Chinese" proverb on my page, you will note also the presence of "putative." Precisely because of its syntax -- and also, perhaps more importantly, its sentiment -- I was immediately skeptical of the accuracy of its alleged origin and added the qualifier. It neither reads like, nor has the resonance of, something with Chinese cultural origins. But I like it. deeceevoice12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not understood the point of my edit. This is not a matter of race, but of gender roles, which whether you like it or not, is quite applicapable even to an article which mainly concerning African-Americans. While you might personally dislike having this perspective on an article, it is completely contrary to the very core policy of Wikipdia, namely NPOV. It is also wholly undemocratic and very undynamic. While I tried to ignore your quite irrelevant quoting of my own "don't mess with what you don't know well", I'll just point out that I am neither messing nor lacking in knowledge of what I was trying to add; namely the issue of gender roles.
As for your claim of my incivility, it is downright surreal to read. Again, making one edit and one revert with friendly, non-aggressive edit summaries is about as far from incivility as one can get (unless you're trying to pick a fight). Verbally thrashing me for trying to discuss the matter in a civilized fashion at your talkpage is just ridiculous and certainly reflects a lot worse on you than it does on me. If you have problems with this, you should suggest we change our policies concerning user conduct or, frankly, give it a rest. It's pretty ironic that you write long-winded rants about the ignorance and prejudices of white people when responding to me rather than making any kind of honest attempt to grasp my additions to the article or my motivations for them, all the while clearly stating that "Wikipedia is not a venue for mindless rants".
While you might find it challanging and perhaps even amusing to hand out verbal abuse, I don't find it constructive or enlightening. Personally, I don't think even vandals or clearly unconstructive users should suffer abuse since it lowers the discussion standard of the community as a whole. The first people to leave at the sight of mindless abuse contests and prestige fights are not the people you hate the most, but usually unrelated editors who stumble upon a collection of assorted insults and are simply frightened away by a seemingly harsh and unfriendly discussion environment. The ignorant or racist usually just get terribly excited and amused at receiving attention, no matter in what form and you're doing them quite a favor by not ignoring them. Those who merely make well-meaning minor mistakes or whom you simply misunderstand, you mock and/or insult for no good reason. This damages the credibility of the community as a whole and frightens the newbies. PeterIsotalo16:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should tell you I really don't have a lot of patience -- and that's why I haven't bothered to read much of the above. I skimmed it, though. And it changes nothing. Your edit was incorrect and -- you've already admitted -- ill-informed. And that's the point. Wikipedia is not a site for the inclusion of speculative "information" (mis)information.
If you don't bother to read what other people are saying, you're hardly a useful contributor in the long run. Your impatience is your problem to deal with, not an excuse to lash out whenever you think you feel insulted. It might might as well be considered trolling.
Gawd. What a monumental waste of time and space. Again, what this all boils down to is you were in error. You violated Wiki policy and included erroneous information in an article because you thought it might be correct -- when you, by your own admission, don't know jack about the subject matter. No matter how many times you post here, trying to deflect attention from that central point, or try mistakenly to make the responsibility of debunking your misinformation mine, that fact remains clear. When all is said and done, it matters little who likes whom, who's made whom feel all warm and fuzzy. The important point here is the accuracy of information provided to readers. I grew tired of your whining, pedantic drivel long ago. Please don't bother to post here again. Any subsequent posts to this page you may leave simply will be deleted without being read. The door is now closed. *SLAM!* deeceevoice18:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
I see no reason to stay on this, I thank you for all of your guidance in support, but this dude has called me "nigger," my work goes unappreciated, and frankly, I take more crap of people here than I would on a paying job. I am Dbraceyrules, but can't sign on (or just won't sign on). I know that you'll say I am getting upset to easily, but my line has been crossed now. Dbraceyrules23:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On being called "nigger"
Sh*t. Take a number and get in line. You wanna see some examples of blatant racism on this website? Check my dispute with User:Wareware -- or the images on my talk page.
So, some racist asswipe called you the n-word. Boo-hoo. Well, if that's all it takes for you to give up and take your marbles and go home, get ready for a lifetime of quitting.
If you're on Wikipedia to be recognized, flattered, liked, rewarded you should ask yourself why it's so important to you. What does it really matter? Isn't imparting information enough? Why are you so eager/hungry for the approval of others?
Some advice: Don't ever, ever, EVER look for validation in the eyes of the enemy. Don't ever let someone else's problem become your own. "Allow no evil to pass through you."
Self-love is all that matters. It's how we got ovuh. It's called "mental toughness," youngblood.
No, that is not the only reason I have stopped editing here. First of all, its a waste of time. I have definitely wasted too much time on this site to receive such little recognition. Secondly, that wasn't the first time that some one called me some sh*t like that, but I refuse to be called something like that, and take crap from some craptastic encyclopedia I edit for free. Third, I need to use this extra time for college, and now, I have books, classes, registration etc. to worry about. I am not asking for anyone's sympathy...I just feel it is a lost cause here. There are plenty of other reasons why I left, mostly because it took much way more time than I thought it would, and it has lead to disaster. I happily cussed that asshole out. Wikipedia hasn't been all that important to me, hopefully it'll fill out a slot on my resume Thanks, deeceevoice, D. J. Bracey23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(chuckling) Well, youngblood, I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I don't "take" anything. If some inbred, half-wit, racist mental cretin wants to sling insults, I have no control over that. Besides, it does nothing but reflect on him (or her). I am not harmed by it. Hell, I'm not even personally fazed by it. I'm old-school, and I've seen all kinds of sh*t in my life, heard it, been exposed to it. I don't "take"/accept it; it's not about me. A "nigger" ain't nothin' but a figment of some soul-sick being's imagination, a projection, a phantasm. It's got nothin' to do with me or my people; I know who I am and where I come from. I've been black all my life, and I've never met a nigger yet.
I protest such usage because I regard it as an affront to my people, my noble ancestors. But do I accept it as a personal insult? Do I let it wound me? Affect my equilibrium? Do I internalize it? Do I even respond, as you have, stooping to their level and return it with a racial slur? Hell, naw!
That is weakness -- and stooping to their level betrays the legacy of humanity, spirituality, struggle and overcoming bequeathed to us by our Ancestors.
I'm here, as my user page says, to do what I do. And no one and no thing is gonna change that. I'm here until EYE decide to leave; no one's gonna run me off or piss me off to the point that I lose my focus.
Our people got through slavery, for God's sake. They were whipped 'til the flesh fell from their bodies; had their families sold away from them; survived the cruelest and most barbaric treatment imaginable; lived wretched, dehumanizing existences. And what? So, you let some sh*t like the n-word take you over the edge? Nigguh, pleeze! (No, I don't use that word usually -- but it's entirely appropriate here. You know how I mean it. Ironic -- isn't it? :p)
Thanks again, I had decided to leave before this anyway. It has been taking up some time, and no, I didn't let that one idiot get me off the site, its been plenty of crap since, well, I've been here. And still, its mostly becuase it took up too much time.D. J. Bracey23:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you feel moved to do. But if you ever decide to leave, know that a few people will miss you -- for about that long. And then they'll forget you. Stick around, and your contributions and your influence may outlast your years on this plane. That's the power of words, my friend.
Take a breather. Tend to your studies; they're important. (You gotta handle ya bizness.) Do whatever internal work you need to do to find your Center (SPIRIT is one bad-ass muthafucka. :p). When you're ready, whenever you have time, come back, roll up your sleeves and begin again. 'S what we do. We keep on keepin' on. Bruh, let's do this thang! :D Peace 2 u. deeceevoice00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We don't know each other, as far as I can recall (I was gone for a while and I've just come back to editing), but I saw your comments above and on Dbraceyrules's Talk page, and I'm shocked at the things that were said to him by that idiot Xizer. I am, however, curious about your comment -- Don't ever, ever, EVER look for validation in the eyes of the enemy. I hope you don't feel like all of us are your enemy. Zoe 23:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
What? U want me 2 hold your little, white hand and sing "Kumbaya"? What the hell kinda comment is that? Don't insult my intelligence. I sincerely appreciate your support of my brother D.J. -- but day-um. deeceevoice08:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I would have appreciated civility, but as that seems to be beyond you, I won't pollute your Talk page any more with attempts at civil discussion. Zoe 19:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
No rational person would conclude from my statements that I feel "all of (you -- meaning white folks) are (my) enemy." Assuming that you are a rational individual, I can only conclude you wanted to read some reassuring warm-and-fuzzy expression of brotherhood/sisterhood. No offense intended, but I got no time, no patience to stroke your psyche. Get a teddy bear. deeceevoice21:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A rational person might also conclude that you're needlessly rude and combatative. You might feel that Wikipedia is a hostile place for you, but it's clear from the above random antagonism that you don't go out of your way to get along with others. You might have felt Zoe's comments were patronising, but you could have least ignored them, rather than flaming. Crikey. — Matt Crypto22:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lookahere. When you've been subjected to half the shyt (check my page; the vandalism you see here is just a taste) that I have on this website, when you've walked in my shoes, then and only then should you ever dare to presume to come to my place and school me on comportment. When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell. *x* deeceevoice05:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, whatever. Your argument about what you have to put up with might hold water, apart from the fact when someone comes and is actually nice to you, you go and bite their head off. You don't do nice? Fine, but be aware that Wikipedia has policies on No personal attacks and Civility. I have every right to "dare to presume" to tell you about those. — Matt Crypto10:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Waste your time if that's what does it fuyyah. Do you really think some little twit instructing me in "civility" is going to change me? I find that mildly amusing. Thanks for the comic relief. Okay, I'm done w/you. Now go home. (yawn) *x* deeceevoice10:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, don't make personal attacks. Secondly, it's not just some "little twit" instructing you, those links are to Wikipedia policies and guidelines accepted by the community. You seem to be here to do battle; just make sure it's with actual enemies, rather than people you antagonise for no actual reason, OK? — Matt Crypto10:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, yassuh! Ah'll be sho' in duh future tuh be jinyoouwinely t'ankful fo' any spreshun o' symp'fy an' common cause whutsumevvuh f'om de waht mens (o' dey wimminses) -- ne'er mahn hah simppuhmahnid it iyyuh -- an' behave mahse'f lack a real good knee-grow f'om nah own. ... Whut? You say 'Mancipayshun Day dun come? You sh*ttin' me, aincha, bwoi? ... Well, peel me a grape, shine my shoes and crown me Queen of Illbgottdamned! LMBAO. :p deeceevoice17:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER...(etc. -just several lines of more of the same -- limited intellect, limited vocabulary, presumably. Just a waste of space by some anonymous fool deeceevoice02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC))....[reply]
Oh, but not nearly half as much as your daddy loves your teeny, weenie weenie ( =D ) (No-ball, gutless coward :p ) On summer nights, the slugs come out.... *x* Just ... boring. (yawn) deeceevoice02:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And the same goes for (now reverted by thoughtful Wikipedians) the repeat images of the skewered weenie[2],[3] on my user page. Boring. And really, really -- erlch -- pink. (Crakkkah, puh-leeze!) Just 'cuz yo' daddy loves yo' lil' pierced pink pr*ck don't mean you gotta show it to evvuhbody. Cover up, bwoi -- an' show sum pride. Yo' slow-witted momma been tellin' all two uh her friends she duh only one been gittin' it, an' she gonna beat yo' flat a** good wit' a 'lectric cord when u git home. Oh. I fuhgot. You likes dat, doncha? 'Specially when she make u go git it yuhse'f. Dang, bwoi. Mah bad! :p).*x*
I grew up with this shit in Alabama, then moved up north and found out its everywhere. Even been overseas and found it (the first time I was in Japan and saw Sambo cartoons everywhere I was floored). This may sound weird, but I'm glad you're keeping the vandalism. I keep encountering people on Wiki who act like this stuff never happens here. Next time they say this, I'm going to point them to exhibit A.--Alabamaboy00:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We think alike. People need to see this shyt -- instead of sweeping it under the rug. And despite clear instructions on my user page, they still keep removing it. The latest: [5]. Same photo, same "fucking nigger" edit note. Not very creative, are they? Sleazoid morons. deeceevoice10:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, saw your comment while browsing through "my contributions". When admins pick up on any vandalism to a user space it is normal to revert on sight: we don't stop to check the user page first. After that it is your choice whether you restore the comment or not: I normally do (see this revert, you will find that comment restored on my talk page). Hope this helps. -- Francs2000 | TalkFile:Uk flag large.png13:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, Lenny Bruce, way ahead of his time as an observational humorist and philosopher, once said that there is way too much power in words, and that President John F. Kennedy (that should date it for you) should go on TV and just say the "N-word" over and over again until it becomes too silly to have any power. It might have worked, but neither of them lived long enough to try it and find out. Wahkeenah02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lenny Bruce was a Jew who talked about "nigger-lipping" cigarettes. (IMO, somebody shoulda busted his azz, beat the crap out of him for it.) What the hell did he know about being black? And no. No amount of overuse will ever change the fundamental offensiveness of the term. And "might have worked"? The overuse of the term today hasn't changed a thing. See Nigger, the section on the new revisionism. (I pretty much wrote that section -- and a good deal of the article itself.) deeceevoice02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't know much about being black, true. He knew something about being a non-Christian in a "Christian" country (i.e. a country that thinks it is). He was also a politically incorrect satirist, who did get metaphorically "busted" many times for "obscenity", and got permanently (i.e. fatally) "busted" due to his weakness for dangerous drugs, so obviously he didn't have a total corner on good sense. I think the point he was after is that making a word forbidden endows it with even more power. However, it would appear that his idea was naive at the very least. Wahkeenah03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No I can assure you it is a genuine picture of a genuine place. The whole town doesn't look like that, just a small part of it, but it is a very beautiful, peaceful part of town that is a joy to visit. I wholly recommend it. -- Francs2000 | TalkFile:Uk flag large.png13:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions
I probably would have thanked you earlier if I hadn't been working as a substitute teacher in the Oakland Public Schools, which made me just a little bit grumpy about the decision to merge Ebonics into African American Vernacular English. While the history of the well-intended fiasco remains dear to my heart, I usually try to pronounce "African American Vernacular English" in ordinary conversation when referring to this controversial subject, now. This is something that white folks need to, and ought to, talk about more often with one another, and Ebonics is a lot easier to say (although I agree that it more readily draws ridicule from people who are not prepared to take part in such conversations). But this is Wikipedia, and I know coming correct at a cocktail party is not the same thing as coming correct on Wikipedia. --arkuat(talk)05:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, I wasn't just thanking you for your work on the AAVE article.
I've also particularly enjoyed cultural appropriation, and I think it was blackface that drew my attention to Spike's film Bamboozled on the subject (which is now a must-see on my never-been-seen-yet movie list).
Most recently, I've been enjoying reading your user page, which rocks (and you and I know who invented rock-and-roll, don't we?). --arkuat(talk)04:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
African Grove
One of the things I've been trying to do lately is to lay down some background of real African American performance in the U.S. in the years before the rage for blackface. I found out about the African Grove Theater Eric Lott's Love and Theft; found more in a few places on the web. Given your interests you may know something about it that I didn't find, so I thought I'd ping you on this. Oh, and thank you very much for sticking around here despite having apparently become the favorite target of the Hitler Youth verbal (and visual) drive-by squad. The shit they are doing to you is a good reminder to me that I get off relatively easy on that count. Let me know if there is anything I can do on your behalf with respect to these gutter-rats besides wish you well and them ill. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've known of the African Grove theater company since, I suppose, the early '70s (I attended Howard University, and there's a theater there named after Ira Aldridge), but that's about it. I seem to also recall a play by, perhaps, August Wilson that dealt with the company and its trevails and its eventual destruction by a rival white theater owner. I'm pretty sure it was an August Wilson play, because he later -- or about the same time -- founded an institute or foundation named after the Grove in New York, or Philly, or Newark (somewhere). I don't know what happened to it, though. I haven't read the article yet -- I'm really pressed for time this week -- but I'll get to it. I'm glad you're on it.
And, no. There's really nothing that can be done about the intermittent vandalism. It's annoying, sometimes lewd and disgusting, but I'm not going to waste my time with it. (I thought I was done with the dumb white-boy gross-out pranks when I left high school, but, alas, "contributors" like Scatboy and the pink pr*ck exhibitionist have proven me wrong.) Wikipedia has proven itself utterly useless in such matters, even when the users are registered. (These vandals are just morons with too much time on their hands and precious few active brain cells.) But thanks for asking. Peace. :) deeceevoice11:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again
I sincerely thank you for all of your support since I have been here on Wikipedia, I hereby give you a Working (Wo)man's Barnstar as you surely desere this.
i just read your comments on the article of Memin and was puzzled by your reference of black people called "monos". in my 50 years of life i have never heard that, in fact the word Mono , in Mexico is ussualy used as "cute", when someone tell me: "Tus hijas son muy monas" (your daugthers are very monkey), I feel like a proud father. The other use of the word, is to refere to anyone that looks out of place, for example, if a rich looking guy goes to a poor place, every body would ask ¿quien es ese mono?. (who is that monkey?). The word "mono", has not a derogatory sense, nor is used to refer to black people, a least on central, and south parts of Mexico, where i live..
Anyway, your opinions would be apreciated, currently i am working on the afro mexican article. But it will take time and it would require that native english speakers correct my english. (see [aztecs]) :) Nanahuatzin08:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kids record
Since you've worked so hard on blackface and related articles, I thought you might be interested in this: in 1939, RCA put out a children's record called "Little Black Sambo's Jungle Band". Oddly enough, "Little Black Sambo" is described as being from India. I hadn't known the terms "Sambo" and "Black" were used to describe Indians back then - or perhaps they assumed their audience was not knowledgeable enough to know the difference between Africans and Indians - I don't know. Anyway, it was re-released in 1950 with a different album cover.
The 1939 version depicts Sambo as a Golliwogg-style black stereotype. The 1950 version shows him more like a stereotypical Chinaman. The 1939 version is here. The 1950 version is here.
Just thought you'd be interested. – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 20:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I guess and hope that you will be satisfied to hear that blackface is in the top 100 (nr.96) of most visited articles of the English Wikipedia. [6]Andries19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikistalking guideline proposal
Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude19:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks
Hi - Wikipedia blocks are certainly a pain sometimes. Anyway, I've unblocked 2 IP addresses associated with that user, so you should be OK now. One thing:
And virtually ALWAYS, the I.P. address cited isn't even CLOSE to my own.
I don't understand this comment. It shouldn't be possible for you to be affected unless you're coming in from the banned IP address... Evercat17:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a second, could you check out a discussion I'm involved in at Talk:African American literature. This German guy has an issue with how African American literature is structured b/c the article describes Black literature while following the history and politics of African Americans. To him, bringing history and politics into a literature article is wrong b/c the article should totally focus on art, form, aesthetics. I've already pointed out that Black lit is tied in with the history and experiences of Black people in this country. I also showed that Literature of the United States, English literature, Tamil literature and so on follows the basic sociological and historical framework that this article uses. However, I don't think any of this is going to convince him. I get the feeling that he would rather discuss Black literature without actually having to mention Black people at all. Any support or comments you can give on this would be appreciated.--Alabamaboy13:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deeceevoice
I need your advice about the article Al Sharpton. Are the allegations in the article (in the "bigotry" section) true? The sources listed are mainly right-wing opinion sites, so I think it's very likely the allegations are false. --Revolución(talk)21:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These folks done lost they minds.
They're over at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality trying to convince each other that we "shouldn't categorize people by race." One of them wants qualifiers for each person inluded in an African-American category for why and how they are important to the culture. I don't know what to do anymore; I'm ready to up and leave right about now.
I saw what happened to your "cool (aesthetic)" article; I really didn't have anything helpful to suggest or add (and still really don't), but it looks like you don't really need me anyway :). It's a great job. Between this, and white kids spamming all of the R&B related articles with Mariah Carey fancruft, I've just about had it. The Jackson 5 is the last featured article I'm gonna push (I felt it was a good choice, especially since many people don't realize Michael's roots and origins.
Until I came here, I never realized just how badly some people want ot just whitewash everthing and smother it with a blanket of sameness. Now I know, and it's highly upsetting.
PS. Hurricane Katrina - one of the worst things I've seen people in this country have to go through. But..why are they depicting people like they're from another country ("that part of the world", "refugees", etc.)? And then there's Kanye West--what did you think of his comments? --FuriousFreddy15:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya, Freddy. Wikipedia is an ignorant/arrogant-white-male-dominated microcosm. They know what they think they know, and we, of course, couldn't possibly know jack -- not even about our own culture/history. I had some 20-something-year-old white boy put a "disputed" tag on the fact that black folks commonly substituted "(jive) Maryland farmer" for "muthafucka" back in the day. And he (or someone else) removed an account of an incident that actually happened. Says I need to provide "documentation." Like I'm gonna collar Julian Bond the next time I run into him and ask him to publish something on some stupid misunderstanding he had with some clueless group of Maryland hayseeds.
Uh-huh. I'm sure gonna waste my time researchin' that. Schoolin' ignunt wyffolks on what we do and how we do it is my raison d'etre.
And my stuff in Afrocentrism -- cain't nobody touch it 'cuz that shyt is tight. :p Yet, they continue to bytch and label me a "rabid afrocentrist extremist" and such because the information I present -- long known by black folks and old, long-dead, white scholars (whom they curiously discount) -- doesn't jive with the lies they've been taught and their presumptions about their own history and heritage and/or their deep-seated antipathy toward/hatred of/contempt for black people. (They so confused.) :p Like they think a label is gonna make the truth disappear. Sum funny shyt.
But, unlike you seem to be, I'm not surprised. I'm a lo-oong-time activist and student of history, and I don't know about you, but I went to school with these people. I know/understand the mentality/pathology all too well; that a lot of them don't know jack. And when we, as black people, don't conform to their preconceived notions about what -- not who -- we are (dirty, smelly, stupid, ignorant, depraved, less than), many react with venom and viciousness. How dare we challenge their comfy, little notions of white privilege, power and intelligence and black inferiority? How dare we know something they don't. Their reactions run the gamut from bein' b*tchy/peevish to bein' positively beside themselves.
It ain't a pretty sight. But, hey, I expect that kinda ugly from them. It's all too many of them know.
I've been writing strictly in terms of white folks, but that goes for Asians, too. :p
The trick (for me, anyway) is not to give a shyt. And I don't. Even many of the ones who seem all right are sick. They can't help themselves. Mother's milk.
I've scaled wa-aaay down when it comes to this place -- for the same reason I limit my contact with the everyday, garden variety white assholes in the real word. It ain't healthy for the spirit, and they're simply freakin' annoying -- a complete waste of time.
Need a break? Take one. Runagate. Escape from enemy territory and feed your soul/spirit. Go hear some phat, chocolate-brown sistah with wide, baby-holding hips sang her heart out. Listen from a corner table as some bruthaman in a blue mood blows his truths into the sweat and smoky haze of a quiet club off the tourist track. Spend some time with our people and listen to the deep resonance of our voices, our laughter, our stories, our music; feel that wisdom and heart and heat and vibrancy and well-of-Spirit that has sustained us and drink it all in. Breathe. :D Shoot. Life is good. (Works fuh me. :p)
You do great work, Freddy. Mad love and respect. :D
File:Kanye.jpgKanye West got it right. Go, Kanye! Go, Kanye! Go, Kanye! (You da man.)Kanye West? Got respect for him, too. He was uneasy and nervous and not exactly eloquent, but he said what was heavy on his heart. He was humble and even admitted his own failure to donate in a timely fashion. He spoke his truth, even though he knew he'd catch some heat for it. You gotta love dat. He made me a fan that night. Bush is an ignorant, incompetent f***, and the people he's appointed (Brown of FEMA and Chertoff of Homeland Security among them) are duplicitous/lying, incompetent f***s.[7] I'm from Louisiana, and a lot of my people are still there (not in New Orleans, thank God). Those people look like my people; they coulda been blood. But they really ARE my people, and I am disgusted, hurt, outraged, enraged. Seething. If I had been stuck in that city in some hell hole and I had a rifle, I think you'd be hearing about me on the evening news. No empty bravado there. I'm serious. Bush's people were right in not sending his flat, pasty ass anywhere near the dome or the convention center. He'd probably have been one dead, dumb Texas sumbytch. People were at their breaking point.
And the tragedy is there are still hundreds of people needing rescue. And how many bodies? The latest guess is 10,000 gone.
One thing I gotta say, though: I became a Harry Connick, Jr., fan, too. That white bwoi's blacker than a lotta black folks I know. He's got a beautiful spirit and great heart -- and he does a fair job of, yes, copying Satchmo's phrasing; but he makes it his own. He really doesn't (like most wyffolks) see black folks as the "other." Whatever his parents did with him, they should adopt as many white folks as they can and raise 'em up right.
Foreign nations are getting a real good look at how race and class play out in this nation -- how the poor and black get left behind. And clueless (or deliberately obtuse/disingenuous) white folks here are still yammering inanely about how race doesn't matter, about some mythological "level playing field." I'm pissed at the mayor, pissed at the governor, pissed at FEMA, pissed at the president all of them. They failed. And innocent men, women, children, elderly, infants and the unborn -- even people's household pets -- have died, and continue to die, when they could still be alive -- laughing, loving, living and moving among us. We will never know what gifts the incompetence, indifference, classism and racism of the people and institutions which were supposed to protect the good, decent, hardworking people of New Orleans squandered in the despair, squalor, filth and carnage of that city.
I'm rambling, and I've got work to do. I've spent way to much time glued to CNN and such. And I need to go feed my spirit as well. I'm weary of the stink of death.
Keep on keepin' on, Freddy. "Your heart is a muscle the size of your fist. Keep loving! Keep fighting!" Stay centered; stay furious. The rage inside us means we ain't crazy yet.
"If I had been stuck in that city in some hell hole and I had a rifle, I think you'd be hearing about me on the evening news." Who in particular would you have shot? Bush? National guardsmen? Jim Apple03:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I'm stoopid enuf to answer that in this forum, then you really don't think black people have any sense. And one more thing. Stay the f*ck off my talk page. U ain't welcome here.deeceevoice08:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno...I think this place is really getting to me. I've been seriously depressed for the last couple of months or so. I probably do need ot get out of here. And my only non-supportive thought about Kanye West is that I'd bet Aaron McGruder is somewhere pissed, and wished that West had waited one more month so he coulda said it instead. But I don't know....somewhere between my home life, the disappointments of all of my friends, my job, and this place....everything is really getting to me and I'm sort of becoming unwound. I might just need to get out of here all together. --FuriousFreddy17:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, darlin', I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you've got a lot on your plate. It might be time to consider what's most important to you and do triage -- like cleaning a cluttered room. Take it one corner at a time and get your house in order. Just doing something to change your circumstances for the better -- even if you don't see the benefit right away --can be enough to improve your mood. Tend to yourself, Freddy, and what's important to you. If you need to/can, take a few days off, hit the road and hole up in an out-of-the-way hotel or inn in the country somewhere and do only what you want to do, eat what you want to eat, listen to the music you love most. And if it's a relationship that needs attention, consider taking your significant other with you -- if that works. Do something, go somewhere you don't ordinarily go. Sounds like you're in a funk/rut. So, change it. After all, it couldn't hurt. :p And if Wikipedia is adding to your foul mood, then kick it to the curb. It's a hostile website. If you're simply sick of the crap, you know what to do: flush and wash your hands of it. Peace 2 u, ((((Freddy)))) (that's a strong, black hug :D) deeceevoice17:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sista. I'm gonna take some of that advice and run with it...see what happens. And, yeah, I'm out out, for serious. I do need my life back...or rather, a new one. Peace and blessings. --FuriousFreddy04:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the page and will remain, as required by policy, a neutral observer. Please remember that while frankness is a treasured value it can needlessly isolate potential friends who misinterpret it and worse yet be easily twisted and used against you by your enemenies. :) Peace. -JCarriker 20:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
So, what are they gonna do? Shoot me? LOL I appreciate the spirit in which your advice is offered, but you don't really expect me to change. Do you? Love ya, darlin'. :D deeceevoice21:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tutankhamun
I'm not going to edit the article for the moment as it's heated enough, but I note (a) your version again includes the disputed see also, and again it's a broken link. (b) you broke the WP:3RR rule today. Please be more careful about your edits, and let's have more discussion and less edit-warring. Rd23219:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What's a "broken link"? Further, I find it curious that you've warned me about an edit war, but there's no record of you leaving anything on the talk page of User:Petrograd, who has been extremely antagonistic, intemperate and utterly irrational in his/her reverts of my perfectly reasonable edits. Further, I have provided substantial justification for my edits on the talk page -- which cannot be said for Petrograd, who has done nothing but complain about "Afrocentrism." (See the talk page "Grow up.") deeceevoice19:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I object to your implicit characterization of my behaviour and views on User talk:JCarriker. User:Petrograd may have got shrill and upset, but I'm quite calm and just don't want excessive detail on a topic covered appropriately elsewhere. See also my comment on Talk:Tutankhamun. For the record, I don't care whether Tutankhamun was black, white, or blue with yellow polka dots. I just want the article limited to facts, not speculation and political activism. The position of African-Americans in modern America (sad reminder in Hurrican Katrina about the real situation there), needs to be addressed there, not by projecting back onto Ancient Egypt. Rd23220:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm really confused. What "implicit characterization of [your] behaviour and views"? I was writing about User:Petrograd. Have you been involved in the article? Further, I actually deleted that information, if you'll check the edit history. Someone got ahold of material from an earlier permutation of Afrocentrism and kept inserting the stuff into Tutankhamun -- some whom User:Petrograd has -- characteristically -- rashly and shrilly accused me of using as a "sockpuppet." Furthermore, my "political activism" hasn't got one gottdamned thing to do with the article under discussion. deeceevoice20:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You said "They obviously object..." etc. I left a comment on your page first because you'd broken 3RR, not Petrograd. The more general points applied largely to the anon contributions - which you however several times partially accepted (by not deleting when you made other edits). Never mind - bygones. Rd23220:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Bygones"? You're totally off-base. And, yes, I deleted the additions wholesale. Take another look. And, hell, I'll break the three-revert rule again if faced with that kind of vandalism by an asshole like Petrograd. There's no call for it. Okay. Bygones. deeceevoice20:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've about reached my quota on this dispute; I'm unwatching the article. Sort it out one way or another (you seem fairly sorted, though understandably narked by Petrograd) - I hope the RFC call helps. See you around. Rd23220:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising. I'd bet money User:Petrograd is User:Pharlap. 'S got the same kinda bytchy attitude, engages in the same insanely shrill, ad hominem attacks. When it comes to me, he's totally unbalanced, utterly irrational. Watch that one. He's hilarious. Makes a fool of himself every time. If I gave a damn, I'd say he was a pretty sad case, actually. Tsk, tsk. But I don't. :p deeceevoice21:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He deleted my comments also -- and never once challenged my assertion that he was Pharlap -- because he is. He totally embarrassed himself in a VfD for an article I was working on and hasn't posted under "Pharlap" since. Guess he thought he'd try stalking/attacking me again under a different user name. Must be terribly unhappy in his personal life. A pathetic case. (And, no. I still don't give a damn. LOL) deeceevoice07:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A non-free image
deeceevoice, I will stay off your talk page, as you have asked, but Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images asks me to notify you as follows:
The image Image:King_Tut_Death_Mask.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.
Have you seen the craziness in the Black People and White People pages? I have been editing the black article, and have gotten the complaints that were inevitable.
Egyptians are not Black
Don't steal our history (Egyptian complaint)
do not capitalize B in Black because that's racist (you should see how I cross posted that in the white article)
The article is POV bordering on prejudice (they don't like the accusations of white supremacy impacting the identity of black people over the past few centuries)
No references (book based)
They are threatening to ban me to some degree because my points are nonsense and vandalism. Especially the one where I point out that the appearance of the Egyptians is more like mixed (black/white) people than Caucasians. Basically they are tripping because I am including various people besides the "West African derived negro" as Black. All in all, the hypocricy was revealed because the white people article had only one link, no references, and of course "white" had a capital "W" all over it. The talk page is much more interesting than the article. --Zaphnathpaaneah20:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I'm going to be more or less lurking around periodically, to reverse vandalism, poor edits, etc. But I feel a lot better lately--got a new job and a new plan for life. --FuriousFreddy16:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, darlin'! :DDDD Glad you're back -- even if periodically. Missed u. I'm glad you've made some changes to your liking. Life's too short not 2 love it. Hope you don't mind me "vandalizing" your page in your absence. See ya 'round the site. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice19:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm afraid I've just blocked you for a three-revert-rule violation on Afrocentrism. I know you were simply restoring a tag, but it is wrong to revert, no matter who is right. I've also blocked User:DreamGuy for 24 hours, so you can both chill for a while. -Splashtalk22:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Gone again.
No point in trying to write half-way decent articles on music when children will come in and write acres of text on Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, etc.; making seperate articles for covers of the same song, and generally getting away with spreading fancruft everywhere because htey run in packs. I'm going to email you so we can keep in touch. --FuriousFreddy05:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused
[8]: are you objecting to my noting that this is the only edit by the user? I intended to make it clear that this named account was created specifically for the purpose of leaving this load of crap. Do you think I shouldn't have done that? Or what? -- Jmabel | Talk07:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Blackpower is a sockpuppet for User:G.C.RTW. I am going to revert the more POV, unsourced, or racist edits, but I'm sure I may not be able to catch up. Since you have specific knowledge of some of the areas these users are editing, I hope you'll lend me a hand. Jim Apple15:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, this user is a troll; I don't think he's a Wikipedia vandal though, even if he's a vandal by most other definitions. (At least, some of his stuff isn't, like completely unsourced articles.) If it keeps up, maybe we can lock some pages until he gets tired and leaves. Jim Apple02:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you that gcrtw is my roomate (to jim apple) and asked you how to change the password. And why on earth would you call me a racist troll? I make edits relating to the african and african american experience. They may not fall in with your line, but there's nothing racist about this crap. This is getting really weird. Blackpower18:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not a troll, you're an ignorant s.o.b. "Race traitor"? You: "When I see that all the inventions, technology, philosophies, or accomplishments are made by whites, I feel powerless." Either way, coming from the likes of you "race traitor" is a compliment. My money is on troll. KMBA, fool. *x* deeceevoice02:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New to Wikipedia
Im new to "Tha Wik", and I have been using it to look up different types of information, mostly while I've been bored at work. Anyway I was reading the latest issue of National Geographic and wanted to look up something about Subsahara Africa and came across your submission. Not knowing fully how to navigate "Tha Wik" I basically read most of your talk page. I just wanted to say, youre thorough Ms. DeeCee, keep doing what choo do. Your brother in the struggle. Kingofdagodz.
Slight backpedal - I noticed you got a 3RR block a few weeks ago. I think you were in the right, but there are a lot of regular RfA voters for whom such a thing is basically an automatic "oppose". I'd still be glad to nominate you now, but I doubt it would go well. You'll have an excellent chance if you can go a month or so without running afoul of the 3RR again - if you run into a situation where an article needs repeated reverting, drop me a line and I'll check out the situation . And remember, no one ever died from leaving BS on wikipedia for 24 hours. Cheers! BDAbramsontalk04:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just glanced at some previous entries up the list and saw that you've already declined adminship noms. For what it's worth, I think you'd make a good one. Cheers! BDAbramsontalk19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
I'll keep an eye out for the program tomorrow after I get home from work.
Don't know how much Wikipedia editing I'm going to be doing anymore. The stress level hasn't subsided in relation to this place, and it doesn't appear to be getting any better. --FuriousFreddy02:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite sources
In a recent edit to you said:
"Introduction of info which gave rise to this debate in the first place the whitewashing of Egypt. I'll find some photos or hunt up some links later."
This is well known and generally known information. If I don't get around to it soon enough, I'm sure someone else can easily find some. It's certainly not something to be contested! It's what gave rise to the debate in the first place. deeceevoice19:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can see this article to understand better the fork of the Spanish Wikipedia & Enciclopedia Libre wikibooks:Wikimania05/Paper-AS1 , I give you this link, because I don't know if you know it, but you ask Why the fork...? in the talk of Enciclopedia Libre and can be useful for you Regards AlexanMy talk page 21:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded, image:Sphinx at Giza.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information. Thank you.
An image that you uploaded, Image:Punt Royalty Aty and Parakhu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information. Thank you.
Hey Deecee, always good to bump into your edits. In working with those 1st paras in Sub-Saharan Africa, I clicked on that link to Dark Africa, and noticed that the "Darkness" article gives a rundown of standard Western dark=evil/ignorant schema; while accurate, it's still missing is a good note on the implied racism of that approach. I thought about adding this note myself but don't have any good sources for it. You got any? --Dvyost06:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little embarrassed because I only quickly read over the talk page and didn't completely read your comments which were quite similar to mine. Anyways, I appreciate your point about not wanting to track down a picture of a man in a similar position: but someone should if there are to be pictures at all, in my opinion. I think that pictures are a powerful part of the overall tone of an article and I often find that the pictures included say a lot about the unconscious POV of the writers involves. Like the pictures on Infant, which are only of white children. Anyways, I think it would be interesting to have a broader look at what kind of pictures are included in articles, some kind of wikiproject, do you know of any? (Maybe more specific than Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias).
I am sorry you were accidentally blocked as result of the block on User:64.12.116.136. Once in a while your randomly chosen IP would land on a blocked one; a few minutes later it may pick a different one, which is why you were suddenly able to edit again 4 hours ago. You seem to be OK now, so I'll leave things as they are for the time being. Let me know if this happens again, or just log out of AOL and back in—that often does the trick. My apologies for the inconvenience. Owen×☎13:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know. I appreciated your edit summaries in Kumbaya today. Although technically as an admin I shouldn't encourage such exclamations and WRITING IN CAPITALS in edit summaries, they did make me laugh... -- Francs200014:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Came to rollback the vandal...
...stayed for the nice tribute to Parks. Then I remembered your policies on vandalism anyway. Well, it's another one for the gallery. =) Have a fine Wednesday, --Dvyost20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very interested in hearing from you at [9]. I'm really inclined to delete these "online communities" from the article, but it worries me that it's entirely a bunch of white people (myself included) trying to decide whether to remove a chunk of borderline but imaginably useful material from the article African American. If you agree that this material doesn't belong, I'd be a lot more comfortable removing it than I am right now. On the other hand, if you think not, I will certainly respect that. -- Jmabel | Talk06:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[copied to maintain continuity]
Hey, I don't know. You've been here longer than I. I guess it depends. I did a quick search of other articles devoted to various ethnic groups, and I don't see similar links included. But, then again, for Dreadlocks, there are all sorts of links included there that, IMO, are questionable/superfluous/redundant. In checking out the links in "AA," I ended up deleting one, because it directs to a page that will grant access only if one is a member. But one of the links -- the poetry one -- I included in the article on African American literature (I can't believe that made featured article; it has some huge holes!), because I thought it useful. deeceevoice18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with it at African American literature, just at African American. Very few ethnic group pages have links like this, a few do, but usually they are relatively small and dispersed ethnicities where there really is an issue of people ever finding each other, and where the Internet looms large in keeping them connected. I think I'm going to get rid of some of these from that article. -- Jmabel | Talk20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nat Turner
Hi DeeCee! Can you take a look at Victims of Nat Turner's Rebellion? I think it is racist and one-sided. Details of deaths of all white women and children, but there are not any single word about hundreds of killed African American slaves, who were killed after Nat Turner's capture. Whaddaya think? Peace man! - Darwinek09:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your input
Hi Deeceevoice, you've had your hands in some of the Israel/Palestine articles before and know how contentious they can be. I invite you to check out this RFA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite and offer your input. Ramallite is an editor who has broad support from across the spectrum of POVs on these topics, though the RFA has encountered some opposition. I'm hoping you might take a look, judge for yourself his merits and consider voting. Thanks, --MPerel ( talk | contrib)08:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the edit summary of this edit, I'm afraid that that kind of behaviour is not at all acceptable on Wikipedia. Your block is extended for another 24 hours, to 60 hours. Rob ChurchTalk16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Day-um. I'm only just now seeing this. This guy blocked me for 60 hours (I didn't even know! :p) for that after this edit note? [10] And probably not a mumblin' word to User: Chameleon.) I'm almost sorry I didn't send him that fictionalized, nasty, "screaming" e-mail. lol deeceevoice14:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, huh. And where did I anywhere call him a racist or anything like "subhuman racist slime," "wikiscum," "subhuman racist slime," etc.? Answer: nowhere. Yet, we receive the same punishment? Bullsh*t. Under the circumstances, I thought my response was pretty cool-headed. That and fact that RobChurch not only did not say anything to Chameleon, but then lied about me -- and then was nominated for adminship -- by the same user who brought the RfC against me and then, I just found out, proposed that I be barred from editing any African-American related article in the RfA (anyone sense an agenda here?) -- within weeks of having (only partly) admitted his utter fabrication (I never sent him a single word about his blocking me; in fact, I only just discovered the additional 36 hour block), and that he got several votes, speaks, I think, volumes about the climate and sensibilities of this crappy, b.s. -- and racist -- website. deeceevoice12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I understand your frustration and anger. I was pretty shocked by the length of block he gave you and by the fact that he hadn't given Chameleon so much as a slap on the wrist, which is why I decided to step in. (The fact that neither of you noticed is irrelevant!) I'm not at all happy with Rob's behavior, nor was I particularly impressed by his retraction and apology at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice, especially since it came only 15 hours after deleting your response and calling it "garbage". The fact that his second RfA didn't succeed can be some slight consolation, even though it was very close. As for Chameleon, he just seems to be generally sociopathic, as evidenced not only by his vitriol towards you but even the disrespectful message on his user page and the fact that he considers it "vandalism" when someone posts a message to him on his talk page. I frankly can't understand why someone like that would ever want to be part of WP. All that being said, I for one wish you wouldn't leave. As you know all too well, Wikipedia's already too dominated by white guys like me, and if one of the few black woman editors we have leaves--especially one who's a very good and very profilic editor--that's just going to compound what some people like to call WP's "systemic bias", not make it better. --Angr (tɔk) 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation request
Hi. There has been a request for mediation involving you made at WP:RFM. If you are willing to take part in the mediation, please add your name there or email me at sam DOT korn AT gmail DOT com. Cheers, Sam Korn 17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Cultural appropriation
I'm rather inactive right now due to health concerns. It seems that the picture issues has been resolved, so I haven't posted on its talk page . I dropped a note on Chameleon's talk page reminding him of WP:Civility. If you need me you'll be able to get a hold of me more easily throught the e-mail this user option than by posting on my talk page fot the next few days. -JCarriker03:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural appropriation
Deeceevoice, I've seen the talk page, and what you are proposing is using POV to illustrate a certain POV. We simply cannot do that, I will have to revert the image comment. Please try to understand that Wikipedia takes no POV, and the matter of fact is that racial segregation is seen different by different cultures. --Dejan Čabrilo10:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The caption is not POV. You obviously jumped the gun, because I was still writing my explanation of the revert when you sent me a note. Read my comments in the discusion. deeceevoice10:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of notes
Hi. I notice that you moved The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, presumably to disambiguate from the movie. There's no need to devote an entire page to disambiguating between the two -- a disambiguation header will do the job and not break hundreds of wikilinks. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more information. If you would like to help out, there is always work to be done at Disambiguation link repair.
The second thing is that I notice that you have Image:Kanye.jpg on your User talk page. We can't use copyrighted images to decorate our userspace, I am afraid. See Wikipedia:Fair use to explain why not. Parkstoday.jpg, which is on your main user page doesn't seem to have any copyright information at all, and is now a candidate for speedy deletion. Wikipedia as a whole is in the process of trying to minimize our use of unfree images, and there's been a lot of concern about the legal consequences of copyright violations recently. Sorry, and thanks for understanding. If you would like to help out, you can see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Thanks. Jkelly18:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote most of that page. Racism wasn't Bob Clampett's actual intent when he made the cartoon; he did it becasue he was facinated with Black jazz culture. The cartoon does show a lot of the ignorances and bigoted attitudes of Clampett and his team, but I think it would be better to re-word it just a bit, so that it doesn't read like they made the film specifically to thumb their noses at Black people. --FuriousFreddy19:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there wasn't intentional racism, except inasmuch that using even well-established cultural tropes is racist if the tropes themselves are. However, Deeceevoice's edits are spot on; the cartoon, though a truly great cartoon if one sets the stereotyping aside -- great art, great music, great piece of history, but racist as all shit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆19:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I always saw racism as a concious action, and labeled similar unconscious actions as "ignorance" or "insensitivity". But, you're saying that that's not correct, and, as I think about it, you're probably right. --FuriousFreddy23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Deeceevoice and Jpgordon. In fact, I think the article's Controversy section is too short and needs more info. Are there any comments from critics on the film's racism? I mean, if the article is going to go into how so many people place this cartoon on the list of all-time greats, then there needs to be info on why the cartoon is considered so racist that it has almost disappeared. I'd also change the section head from Controvery to Racist Themes or something like that.--Alabamaboy21:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my Gawd! That's not just an analysis, there's a link at the bottom of the page to the short itself. I don't see how any self-respecting blackman (or woman) could make excuses for this crap. It's hideously racist as hell. deeceevoice21:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it's relatively mild compared to a lot of the cartoons of the earlier decades, many of which seemed to have an unbroken lineage to minstrel shows. This was among the last of the overtly stereotypical racist cartoons. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆22:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up watching that crap on television, and the caricatures in this are on par with that same racist junk. I watched no more than the first couple of minutes. I don't have a lot of patience for it. The rationalizing/excuse making that accompanies this cartoon reminds me somewhat of the treatment of Birth of a Nation because of its technical aspects. And no one -- and certainly no one black -- has dared to suggest that it's not racist. Just unbelievable. deeceevoice22:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's racist. How could anyone suggest otherwise? Other than the excuse of the pre-existing milieu, what other excuses and rationalizations are available? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The cartoon is racist and offensive, without a doubt, but it's far from being as bad as Birth of a Nation (which I successfully lobbied against having to watch in school). There are worse Hollywood cartoons with such imagery (Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat, a Walter Lantz cartoon from 1941, immediately comes to mind), and even worse Warner Bros. cartoons (Jungle Jitters from 1938). I admit that I might be (a) desensitized, since I've seen Jungle Jitters and similar cartoons dozens of times as a kid on $2 public domain tapes from Wal-mart and (2) because Coal Black is rather well-animated with a musical score above the quality of that of a regular Looney Tune or Merrie Melodie. As a Black animator, it's frustrating to do research and studying, because you see cartoon after cartoon like this, and you don't know how to feel about it. A Black film scholar, Henry T. Sampson, wrote a book on the subject called That's Enough Folks: Black Images In Animated Cartoons, 1900-1960. [11]
As far as the article goes, during my week break, I realized that Cal Black could make a good featured article. The primary thing it needs is analysis of its stereotyping, compared with other similar Wanrers cartoons. It also could use more info on its plot and gag structures, and I can add a few more screengrabs. --FuriousFreddy23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the information on the stereotyping present in the film (wow...I never realized just how detached I was in watching it until I had to go back and write that analysis). Let me know what you all think of the addition. --FuriousFreddy05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Since its obvious that you used a number of references in the article, is it possible to use an inline notes system to document the particulars of the references. I say this b/c if you eventually try to reach FA status you'll need the notes. If you need help with these notes, I'd be glad to pitch in.--Alabamaboy13:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much, much better. Well done :D. But one more thing: it seems that the Snow White character is the classic black "sexual siren"/"wanton woman" stereotype/archetype (as opposed to the asexual "mammy" archetype). I don't know if the other black woman caricatures are mammy types, but if they are, you might want to mention these things -- also also if there are other black streotypes/archetypes in the film. deeceevoice11:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that So White is depicted as the "exotic sexual Black woman" stereotype, and compared her to a similar character in Walt Lantz' Scrub Me Mama. Now that cartoon is even more flagrantly racist and unfunny -- clips of it appear in Bamboozled (the two Stepin Fetchit types slapping each other upside the head in slow-motion..."I'll buss yo' haid" and such). --FuriousFreddy03:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologise if my edits on the Joplin article caused you any offence and I thank you for the changes of emphasis that you have made -- I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Had I thought my contribution out carefully -- rather than editing it on the fly, in the wee small hours, as I actually did -- I would have made explicit reference to Janis being a *white* singer and her influence on other *white* performers. It saddens me too, but the fact is that popular music was (and remains) a racist industry. I am well aware that the issue of cultural appropriation is a very sensitive one and that most of the great black originators of American music have never been properly acknowledged.
Basically, I was coming at it from the gender angle, and I hadn't really thought through the racial issues surrounding her work. Janis clearly appropriated a black music genre, but she was in my view one of the first white female performers to do so at all convincingly. However, I didn't explicitly say "white" and I really should have, so I am grateful that you have made that clear.
Also, whilst there has inevitably been a lot of cultural revisionism concerning her work, my understanding is that Janis herself always openly acknowledged the people who had influenced her, like Bessie Smith and Big Mama Thornton, and I do believe this had some effect in extending the awareness of their work among white audiences.
I have a few small comments about your criticism section. I think it's a fair to say that her popularity was and is mainly among white audiences. However, I think you need to insert a reference to support what I consider a fairly sweeping generalisation:
"Her designation as blues royalty also has raised vehement objections about "cultural appropriation"."
Clearly you share this view, but if you based your comment on some published critique, then you should refer to it, otherwise it's little more than a personal opinion.
Also, I think your comments about the nature and quality of her voice reflect a personal point of view. Clearly not everyone likes her voice, but judgements of that kind are by definition subjective. I have no problem with critical quotes in context, but your personal comments make it pretty clear that you don't like her voice, and with respect, I don't think that adds anything to the argument, so I have taken the liberty of replacing your comments with a less pejorative expression.
BTW I am always open to constructive criticism, and your comments have made me realise that I need to be more explicit about some of these issues regarding music. But next time you disagree with something I write, just point it out. You don't need to rail at me -- I totally agree with you! As Frank Zappa said, "I may not be black, but there are a lot of times I wish I wasn't white."
Actually, my opinion of Joplin isn't the issue here. The adjectives "screaming" and "yowling" are common ones when applied to blues and r&b expression. They are neither negative or positive; they are what they are. And there's absolutely no doubt that either term adequately characterizes Joplin's style of delivery. Just google "Joplin screaming" and see what you come up with. The commentary is both positive and negative. "Yowl" is, of course, an onomatopoeic term. Listen to Joplin, and you hear it. Google "yowl funk" -- same thing. IMO, Joplin was a disaster. She simply didn't have the pipes to do what she wanted to do. She had a terrible voice and couldn't sing worth a damn. But even if I were a fan, I wouldn't have a problem with the adjectives. They've been used to describe Cameo, Sly Stone, Wilson Pickett, Aretha Franklin, Patti LaBelle, Howlin' Wolf, Etta James -- and on and on -- people of enormous and authentic talent.
And I italicize "authentic," because it's something Joplin's delivery completely lacked. It seemed forced and utterly unnatural (and, IMO, sounded even worse).
I realize your error may have been inadvertent, but I took particular exception to your mention of Diana Ross -- when anyone who knows anything about the African American music tradition knows that the stage persona of Supremes was among the exceptions to the general rule. IMO, there is no way anyone could possibly see Ross as typical of black, female vocalists of the time, when especially prominent then were also artists like Tina Turner, Etta James, Gladys Knight, Mavis Staples, Irma Thomas, Carla Thomas, Fontella Bass, Esther Phillips, etc. Your apparent carelessness is precisely how the historical record becomes distorted time and again in matters such as this. And over time, one loses patience for such gaffs that attribute black innovations to whites. It is annoying as hell.
I loved D.C., I hated that I had to come back to Florida in all honesty. Most people come to Florida from there and up North to think that we live in paradise (yeah, right : ) ). I HATE hurricanes... so the thing about snow up there really isn't so bad to me. Hey, there was a blizzard on are way up there on Wednesday (and I know snow is nothing to you, but that was the fifth time seeing snow in my entire life!) I swear, I lived in Southern California and Mississippi...now Florida, so how much snow could I see in those hot azz places. Anyway, I was ready to stay in D.C., once you get aroung all those hurricanes, you want to be there less and less. Thank you for always being a good friend. I hope you get this message. And hey, I couldn't imagine 26F in November, so what is it like in January? : ). See ya' I changed my user name by the way. Happy Holidays, (Christmas, Kwanzaa and all the rest of those days).
(I am giving out barnstars for each message I send for the Holidays). Alright!
Hey, darlin'. :D How is it that I'm only just now seeing your message? Guess I haven't been paying much attention to my page. (Though I remember engaging (and then deleting) a pointless exchange about my "uncivil" [sic] behavior earlier today. (Amazing that people will actually read/follow my talk page and discussion page comments and then return to lecture me on how I should comport myself! I mean don't these people have lives? And like I give a damn. I just don't get that hall monitor mentality.) Anyway, I hope your holiday was a fine one -- with all the fixin's. What's with the new name, my multilingual friend? Though my twin sister studied Russian, I'm completely unfamiliar with the cryllic alphabet. So, how the hell does one pronounce it? As far as I'm concerned, it could just as well be Mr. Mxyzptlk. deeceevoice06:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your comment on this. Again, I apologize for what I did it was stupid and I didn't intend for the lists to be deleted, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Jewish lists were being picked on and people were just deleting them because they thought they were anti semitic or something. I'm not Jewish, I just wanted people to treat the lists fairly. Really I don't think any of these lists should really be deleted unless they are something really stupid like xxx-American tapdancers who live in yyy street or something. Arniep17:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
List of African Americans (again)
Hey, Deeceevoice. Will you kindly check out List of African Americans? Grcampbell is adding in white folks and Arab folks who happen to have African parents. This totally ignores the definition of "African American" given at the African American article, of course. I've reverted him once, but judging by his talk page comments, he's trying to make a point. I think you would do a better job of convincing this guy to stop than I, a well-intentioned white boy. Thanks . . . . —BrianSmithson20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Revert on the "motherfucker" article
deeceevoice, it is not too much to ask you to provide a source for the "maryland farmer" euphemism. I see from your above coments that you do not think that you should have to provide sources for things that you know. I respectfully disagree, and WP:CITE policy agrees with me. I do not doubt that the phrase was used in such a way, but as it stands, it is unverified. Your saying it is so does not make it so. If you can not provide a source, please do not revert the deletion as an uncited fact.Brian Schlosser4203:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo deeceevoice. I wonder if you would be able to add something useful to this article. Specifically, I thought you might know something about labor history and African/African American history (as subjects of academic enquiry) in the US. I have added C. L. R. James as an example of someone who dealt with both race and class in his work (in far too subtle a manner for me to try to describe it shorthand). I imagine though that work on African American history must have been something of a challenge to labor history in the US back in the day and would have posed difficult issues of the meaning of class and labor history. Hope you understand what I'm getting at! All the best, Mattley11:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. Hopefully I'll have a chance to research this over christmas. Thought it was worth asking around though. As for squirrels, yeah they're persistent, but we make a big fuss of ours so we bring it on ourselves really. Your story about the dead baby squirrels was a bit upsetting. We've got a big momma squirrel on our block churning out two litters a year, so we have baby squirrels around most of the year. Anyway, cheers! Mattley(Chattley)13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
One wonders if you'd have better luck with User:Justforasecond posting repeatedly here if you didn't just delete his comments saying "deleted without reading" or "deleted vandalism". Your talk page is a point where people can contact you; it is not vandalism to do so. Moreover, I find it perplexing that you make a point of keeping the various nasty racist trolling attacks above, yet delete good faith genuine criticism "unread". Anyway, I should also let you know that I've posted an RfC on this issue: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice. — Matt Crypto08:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JFAS's first visit contained a groundless charge regarding my editing Afrocentrism -- which I hadn't touched in days -- and then, only to do clean-up, tone down the POV and flag for the need for citations. I gave ample notice to JFAS that he was NOT to post to my talk page, and he continued/es to do so. I consider that vandalism. He was totally off-base. Further, I have little use for people who arrive at Wikipedia and make sweepingly inaccurate generalizations regarding the nature of my contributions without knowing what the hell they're talking about. JFAS's ridiculous comments on your discussion page about me are a case in point. (I have some control over other black editors on this site, and I draw them into conflicts? What a huge, steaming load of bullcrap.) He has absolutely nothing further to say to me or about me that is of any interest to me whatsoever. Why? Because as far as I'm concerned, he's stepped over the line with his snap judgments and petty whining. I'm done with him.
I may choose to delete from my talk page, and my personal page as well, whatever suits me, without comment, so please don't concern yourself with what I choose to keep and choose to delete. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your obsevations in that regard. (Others do it constantly without so much as a sneeze.) It's my prerogative, and I will not comment on such trivia further.
With regard to your RfC, I never much saw the usefulness of that process. It certainly was utterly useless when I tried it for a truly serious matter. Doubtless, yours will come to a similar end. IMO, yours is fairly trivial by comparison. All that time and effort to smack my hands and say "play nice with the other kids" (who are often offensive and annoying themselves) when there are far more serious verbal altercations and conflicts and seriously disruptive behavior going on all the time on this website? Gee, good luck with that. And what will they do? Block me? It happens all the time -- mostly as collateral damage. Suspend me? Even ban me? For being impatient or snippy? Well, now. And Ed Poor, still an administrator, gets off with what he pulled recently? Now, ain't that a blip.
My God. We are pretty much all adults here. Far more serious stuff happens in church cafeterias than what I do. You want us all to put up our pinkies and have tea together and play nicey-nice and tolerate people who want to tell me that me calling something "pathetic" is a "verbal attack"? Sorry, buddy. I'm no lobotomized, white-bread Stepford wife. You may not be totally comfortable with who I am, and, gee, that's too bad. I come from a culture of verbal confrontation, and my nature is to be direct. And, more to the point, my tolerance for such drivel is really, really low. Frankly, IMO, this sort of thing is an abuse of the RfC process; it just trivializes it. And it amazes me that people have nothing better to do on this website than play Miss Manners with other adults like prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats.
And, no. I'm not saying that to get your back up; it's simply what I honestly think.
I have better ways than to spend my time than with such matters. But if this is what does it fuyyah, my friend, then have at it. Do your worst. And don't expect a response to whatever you may enter here. I'm done with this. The holidays are approaching, and my time is particularly short -- shorter, even, than my patience. Have a happy. Peace on earth and all that crap. But take your RfC and -- well ... I think you get the idea. deeceevoice08:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DeeCee, I got threatened with imminent citation for... well heck, I really don't know what the complaint is. I allegedly "attributed a racial membership to someone publicly" (I think that means, I called someone black, or white, or something, and that is allegedly a no-no?). This complaint came right after you also were RFCd in the Black people article. Seems kind of suspicious, the timing. anyway, I helped my "victim" by filing the complaint myself here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Remove_personal_attacks#WHere_is_the_Wikipedia_governing_body.3F. --Zaphnathpaaneah10:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you already know, having apparently been blocked before, but incivility is a blockable offense. I strongly encourage you to be less abrasive in your interactions with others. Friday(talk)16:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blues
Dear Deeceevoice, would you like to help me addressing the reviewer's comments on blues. Some are asking for copyedit. Since English is not my mother tongue, that's a bit difficult. Thanks, Vb10:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deeceevoice, I'd like to start by asking how familiar you are with dispute resolution? I've looked at talk page and contributions, but that tells me little about what you know and are not typing. You should consider approaching a member's advocate. They who can tell you what the outcomes from the dispute resolution process can be. The talk page of your request for comment has discussion of moving to the next stage, based upon your perceived unwillingness to participate. brenneman(t)(c)14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RfC
Hey Deecee,
Saw your RfC and thought I'd swing by and say hi, and keep up the good work. Even though you and I have briefly talked about civility stuff before too, this RfC seems ill-conceived and already turning into a gratuitious racial pile-on. Well, sorry it's happening; I've no doubt you'll keep up the good editing regardless! See you on the articles... --Dvyost17:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me stick my nose in here too. Though we've rarely communicated, or even edited together, your edits keep popping up on my watchlist and they're always good. I haven't always felt quite the same way about your talk page participations. Your contributions are valued! Hang in there. Cheers, -Willmcw09:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't, as far as I'm aware, edited any articles you've worked on. I came across your name for the first time today on Talk:Dreadlocks, which led me to the RfC and then to your user/talk pages where I was horrified to see the attacks people have made on you. I think it's a very good idea you had to keep those attacks visible rather than sweep them under the carpet. I haven't actually seen your comment that you may be leaving Wikipedia, but I've seen others refer to it. I hope you don't leave, though having seen the attacks I certainly wouldn't blame you. I wish you well whatever you decide. --bodnotbod00:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ragdoll cats
Sorry for the delay; I haven't experienced any furball problems at all with my Ragdoll; in fact, she's never even shown any signs of a problem related to ingesting her hair ever. I have a couple of other domestic short-hair tabby strays that I'm fostering [and probably stuck with at this point] which do have continuing problems with their fur and I have to comb them frequently and even administer a "catlax" type of emulstion to alleviate their problems when they show up. My Ragdoll's fur never seems to shed much at all [at least in comparison with the others] and again she's not at all tolerable of my attempts at combing or brushing her, no matter how gentle I am. Oddly, I can pet her all day long. I did get a combing glove a few years back, and all that it did for me was protect me from her inevitable swats when I tried to use it on her. It removed the least amount of hair of anything that I had tried.
please stay and edit more articles about black american experience. Wikipedia is being taken over by a bunch of racist whities and we need more touch biatches like you to stand up to them.
I would like to see you in a real, INTELLIGENT debate, why don't you go to the opposing views section of stormfront and post some of your gripes with Russians//Italians//Scots//Scandinavians//French//etc. Tell us all about the evil "social construct" that is the white race, and how despite all the Liberal ass kissing, affirmitave action, hate crime laws, media bias, excuses, welfare and other aid we give you that we are still as a race oppressing you? You want to belittle, bash, and ultimately commit genocide against the white race, thats all you Afrocentrists are about. If I'm walking down the street, and I get my ass kicked by 5 blacks (I love that tribal mentality of yours) then is it my fault because my Ancestors (which didn't arrive until AFTER the civil war) "oppressesd" yours, because I'm part of the evil "social construct" that is the white race? Well, I hope to see you at stormfront, I want to see you get destroyed.
Best wishes, EE33
P.S.
Note to EE33: I hate to be incivil, but I am going to say it: you sound like a complete ass. Please READ SOMETHING aside from the Turner Diaries and know that the world is not out to get you, you are out to get the world. So instead of your Sieg Heil chants, how about you open your eyes to common sense. ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk)06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found that story about the art dealer that you posted in the black supremecy section to be somewhat funny, if I were him I wouldn't have commited that evil sin of saying "I'm going to get some black art, good black art of course". That's because I'm not a douchebag liberal who goes out of my way to kiss black's asses. Despite my racist views, I still try and treat individual blacks with respect if they treat me the same way.
"Intelligent debate"? On Stormfront with a bunch of inbred, sleazoid, mental-cretin, hatemongers. ROTFLMBAO. If I won't bother with an RfC, do you really think I'd waste my time?
And "tribal mentality"? I suppose you should know. After all, to quote one of my favorite poems, "They don't come by ones, they don't come by twos...."[12] Mob violence wearin' yo' mama's bedsheets for anonymity -- kinda like your cowardly post here. That's more your style, you racist azzwipe. KMBA. deeceevoice18:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, Brian. And thanks, Alabama and Dv. And, Friday, kindly refrain from leaving messages on my talk page from here on out. Is that polite enuff fuyyah? If you don't like the way I express myself, here's a tip: DON'T READ MY TALK PAGE! Now, that's an idea. Last I checked, it's not required reading for anyone here. Vote with your web browser and simply stay away. deeceevoice22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you want it, sure. However, I feel it's only fair to leave you with one last message: if I see you make such remarks to another editor again, there's a good chance I'll block you without further comment or warning. Civility is essential. Friday(talk)22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Friday, it is against Wikipedia policy to block someone as you are threatening to do. The Blocking policy is explicit in stating that only personal attacks which threaten someone can lead to a block. If you attempt to block Deeceevoice over something like this, especially when she was responding to a threateningly racist post on her talk page, I will report you for abuse of admin powers. As an admin myself, I guess I could respond to your threat by threatening to also block you back but that, as I said, is not what blocks are supposed to be used for. Anyway, I'm getting involved in this because there appears to be an organized drive to force Deeceevoice out of Wikipedia. I'm not saying you are taking part in this, but this is the perception in regards to recent actions against her. Anyway, you seem like a good editor and I appreciate your concern for civility, but there is a lot of history going on with regards to how Deeceevoice has been treated.--Alabamaboy00:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you do you, and I do me. Don't post here again. What? No similar admonition to the racist mental cretin? No comment to him? Ha! So-oo-oo typical. And you think you have any credibility here? Yeah. Right.deeceevoice22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. I just took a week-long break from the madness (need/ed centering), and I was (still am) busy trying to clear my desk for the holidays. I don't get it. Where'd the idea come from that I was leaving? Yes, I am bored/annoyed with this place and so will be spending considerably less time here. It's about restoring harmony/balance within and preferences w/regard to how I spend my time. I appreciate all the good wishes and such, but I haven't bothered to read the RfC page(s?) at all (and won't; I said I didn't have time for such nonsense, and I meant it), so I don't get it/have no idea of its status or any of it. (And I don't care.) Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is a toxic enough atmosphere without dealing with that rubbish, and I've resolved that feeding/nurturing my spirit is a hell of a lot more important than this place overall. Time for me to resume meditation, maybe do a little tai chi, take care of me.
Kinda sad, though, Mxyzptlk -- doncha think -- that the potential departure of one, measly editor would cause such a ruckus? I guess that speaks volumes about the need to attract more competent black editors to the project (assuming they're willing to deal with the abject nonsense of people like Justforasecond, the cowardly scum above, and a seemingly utterly incompetent administrator like Friday). Funny. I'm currently affected by a user block and can't edit your talk page (for a moment I thought the RfC had resulted in action against me) -- which is why I'm responding to your post here. (Because such collateral damage happens all the time to AOL users like me, I don't see how or why anyone thinks blocking someone is an effective solution to anything. Reminds me of another poem: "Let a revolution come. Cain't be like nothin' I done already seen....") deeceevoice06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my fault for think you were leaving. Something in the back of my head said that you weren't. AOL? Ugh, I hated while I had, hate since it is gone ; ). Anyway, I am glad to see you and I am glad that you weren't letting people with petty threats of blocking you get in the way - I think, no I know, that Friday's little block threat for incivility is REALLY IGNORANT when some vandal was floating on your page. See ya, I'll post this to my page. Take care, ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk)06:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wondered where the idea you were leaving came from. Didn't make much sense, and besides which, you appear to have a life outside Wikipedia, and regularly disappear for days or weeks. I'm relieved the rumor is true, because I couldn't blame you a bit if you reacted to the RfC by finding something better to do with your life. Hey, have a good holiday, or whatever it is you're doing this season. Signed, former Alexandria boy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆06:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
pleae go to stormfront and show those bastards. I've been posting stuff over their opposing views and I kick their ass, but those losers sometimes just close the thread if they can't win the argument, those cowards. (unsigned post)
You're wasting your time. Show them what? I've got better things to do with my time than try to prove something to people so hate-filled they won't/can't listen. Besides, many of those sites get funding/ad revenues based on the number of hits they get. Ask yourself this: what/whom did you change? Surely, with all those in need, there must be a more productive use of your talents and energies. The time you spend preaching to the enemy could be used in the upliftment of others. Perhaps you get off on the combat. I don't. I don't need to prove to myself or them that I can best thm in debate. They're mental cretins, slime. My suggestion? Live your life, look for opportunities to be of true service to those in need -- and keep gettin' up. Feed your spirit with more uplifting pursuits. Rise. deeceevoice00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS
Thanks, all, for the support you've shown here. I'll be relatively scarce for a while, so I want to wish my friends and allies happy holidays and a new year of righteous purpose, rewarding work, joy, beloved community, health, success (however you meaningfully choose to define that) and inner peace (imagine that!). Everyone else? Coal, dammit. BLACK Coal. :p deeceevoice06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe so, though it's possible you mentioned it (creeping Alzheimer's :p) -- but, yes. We do agree. But don't post to me here anymore. I won't respond. Contact me by e-mail. (I suppose I'll still respond to messages here for a time -- until the RfA nonsense winds down.) deeceevoice04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, as oppose to one of the "tweaks" in isolation, and to echo this section title, I agree on that point, though our explanation of why that is may vary highly (then again, maybe not). A broader point I draw on, is that Wikipedia vis.a.vis. the world outside it cannot get rid of chauvinism under this system (imperialism), I never entertain that it could be otherwise "fixed" (a dangarous delusion). El_C04:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that ethnic slur still in use? I would think it's as passé as "23 skidoo". I reckon it's dangerous to assume that any kind of "language virus" has been exterminated. Wahkeenah04:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather certain it's still in use; my emphasis, of course, is on the relation between language, attitudes, and so on, and the material reality (not viewing either in isolation), but I don't wish to impose myself via further polemics on this talk page. El_C04:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Church
I've undeleted Rob Church's user subpage, as I believe it should stick around as long as the Arbitration case is filed. It certainly looks suspect to me, and I imagine to the ArbComm too. — Matt Crypto17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.
Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.
There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:
The copyright holder gets the best protection of their work by licencing it under an open content license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another option. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag {{GFDL}}.
The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.
Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.
Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.
If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.
It was my understanding that all such images that predate a certain time (1920s or '30s -- I don't exactly recall, but I think the '20s) are public domain. Further, this was a handbill. It wasn't ever copyrighted. What's the deal? deeceevoice23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the image, though I don't understand copyright law, or whether, as a "Reproduction of a handbill", this image would be covered by some law covering reproductions.
You're correct. A straight copy of a 2D image/drawing/painting is covered by the same copyright as the original - so if the original is public domain, the copy is public domain also (as in this case). Photos of 3D objects (e.g. sculptures) and copies of 2D works where some modification has been made (e.g. the image has been processed, added to, or whatever) is usually covered by a seperate, new copyright. David Johnson [T|C] 00:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the nature of this reproduction, by the way? Was it a picture or a photocopy? Was it a copy by hand with pen? What I'm asking is, if this was created by hand after 1923, is it Template:Il? Jim Apple00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Someone has removed your notice. The cut-off date is apparently 1920. (Previous comment was delayed due to edit conflict.) Well, if you're not sure, don't you think you should be before flagging images for deletion? Just a thought. :p deeceevoice23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't flag it for deletion, I flagged it as "No license". After it has been flagged that way for 7 days, someone else is allowed to flag it for deletion with {{ifd}}. Jim Apple23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your comment on my talk page: there is more to consider than age when deciding whether a work is public domain or not. It can also depend on the type of work, how long the author lived and the country in which it originated. The images concerned are probably public domain, you just needed to add the appropriate tag. I removed the 'no license' tags from both since someone had added {{PD}} tags. As for your complaint that I'm cluttering your talk page: that's a standard message which is to be used in these situations - I didn't write it, I just dropped it in. It is intended to give you full details to help you understand why images need to be tagged and help you choose the right tag. To be fair, your talk page was pretty cluttered anyway ;-) David Johnson [T|C] 00:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An apology; fuelled by shame and disgust
Please read this prior to removing it. Thanks.
I've withdrawn from the witch hunt, as I have recognised that in fact, what you've said about me, and about the process as a whole, is correct. I should appreciate it if you could read the full explanation and full apology at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice.
I shall be sending this same message in an email, in case you don't get it. You don't have to accept my apology; and in your shoes, I admit I probably wouldn't - but I'm going to make it anyway. I've acted as badly as I claimed you had, and I am therefore sorry. Shame, shock, and disgust - to name but a few of the things I'm feeling as I re-read all the comments I made. I let myself type without thinking, and I let myself think without thinking.
I admire your resilience, your bouncebackability, and above all, your ability to wade through shit with your head held high. It's something I know I couldn't do in your shoes.
In the US, material published prior to 1923 is now in the public domain (see Public_domain#United_States_law); copyright newer material hasn't been allowed to expire, iirc, because Disney lobbies Congress to protect Mickey Mouse. If they are believed to be in the public domain, they need to be tagged with {{PD}} or some related tag. Guettarda23:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought -- sometime in the 1920's -- and that's why I used the
This file is in the public domain, because (no reason given!)
PDPublic domainfalsefalse
Please verify that the reason given above is valid! Note: if there is a specific licence tag for the reason supplied here, please use it.
notation. So, it's {{PD}}. Okay, thanks for the clarification. (Not that I'll ever be using it again. :p Just looking through my collection of images before I sign off for good.) deeceevoice00:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of your user page
Dear Deeceevoice: Regretfully, I have had to delete your user page, since it consisted only of attack material designed to cause offense, and I figured reverting to an earlier version would not be appropriate since it may not reflect your present desire of its contents on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you wish me to resurrect an earlier version of it. Many thanks, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take strong exception to your decision. It would seem to me that users are free on their user pages to express their opinions about the project. Not only is your action precipitous and completely without warning, giving me no opportunity to salvage anything, it as a high-handed, gross abuse of your authority. It appears to be a unilateral decision taken by solely you that is, to my way of thinking, appallingly inappropriate. deeceevoice00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While it mightn't hurt to tone down your user page, Nicholas was out of line to delete it - especially without talking to you about it. Guettarda01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems retaliatory to me, possibly for the apparent de-sysopping of RobChurch -- which he brought upon himself. Typical Wikish*t. I really amall too ready to leave this stinking cesspool. And who disciplines Turnbull? No one! deeceevoice01:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Deeceevoice: I observe your user page has been restored - I shall leave it like that; I did not realise you would take such issue with its removal, judging from its content. I would, however, like to point you to WP:NOT:
"Personal homepages. Wikipedians have their own personal pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia."
"Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech."
"Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point."
I do believe this provides sufficient backing for my decision, and I do not feel I acted improperly. I would however like to ask you to please tone down your user page. As for retaliation, I had no such interest; I was merely trying to maintain an amicable state of affairs surrounding this matter. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)01:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept your explanation -- all couched in neat, little nicey-nice language ("Regretfully" and "best regards" and such. Reminds me of the words RobChurch used as a prelude to his now retracted statement.) Common courtesy would have been to give me some warning. IMO, you acted improperly and precipitously. You abused your authority, plain and simple. And it was malicious. At least Church had the decency to admit it. The citations are garbage. Wikipedians use their user pages for all sorts of information which is often wholly unrelated to the project. Further, I would argue my comments treat this project directly -- perhaps a little too directly for your taste. But, hey, different strokes for different folks. And "modify[ing] an article"? How does that apply? WHAT article? And don't come to my page and tell me you "did not realize [I] would take such issue with its removal." It's been a long time since I've read such complete and utter bull****. If it were left up to me, you'd be gone before Church. deeceevoice01:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] It would have been reasonable for Nicholas to ask you to tone things down - after all, it amount to using Wikipedia space to attack Wikipedia. If he had asked, you could have said no, and he could have taken it up at WP:AN/I or wherever else and asked for input from others. What is out of line is for him to delete the page preemptively. This mess just get s worse and worse - this an so many other messes... Rob was volutarily desysopped. I don't want to assume that it was relatiation for anything - he could have just followed the links from Rob's message to your page. It's possible that he acted without knowing context, that he took your page as literally a pro-racist page. Guettarda01:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my somewhat bull-in-a-china shop manner, yes, I assumed it was pro-racist - or rather, consisting solely of such material as to get a rise, and I can hardly see reasonable call for that to be on a user page. My judgement is, however, terrible lately, and I admit it; I'm not mentally stable. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna argue with you, even though you clearly appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I won't press it. But, seriously, I have a commonsense solution. If, as you say, you're not up to snuff, then ... STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER ... and give the rest of us a break. deeceevoice01:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just read your contribution to the RfC. You're, as usual, a lot nicer about Pharlap's deliberate misrepresentation of your stance on the Wareware RfC than I would've been. He continues to twist and misrepresent without conscience, without compunction. What a tragically emotionally crippled, uh ... human being (and if you ask me, I'm being pretty generous in using that term). deeceevoice06:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the least I could do. Indeed, I'm not sure what he was thinking. That quote of myself dosen't make you look bad, it makes me look bad(!). El_C06:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He was trying to represent you as endorsing his assertion that I attacked Wareware with racist slurs. Keep in mind that he's presented (again) his Bowdlerized version of events, so someone reading his hack job on my comments (completely out of context) might agree with his contention that I'm some racist nutcase. It's highly unlikely that readers of this RfC would go back and actually read the reactions to his highly deceptive, roundly criticized and thoroughly misleading editing -- a fact he's banking on in presenting the same old garbage again. His objective was to make me look bad -- clearly (and, unfortunately) at your expense. deeceevoice06:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he thought that I would just go along. And speaking of which, I should have just went with it! ;D Heh. Anyway, when it comes to the RfAr evidence section, he will have to provide diffs, merely copy and pasting out-of-context passages will not do. Should be interesting. Yours, El_C07:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He must have missed my "WTF" question. But I should note that I haven't read much of any of the latest yet. I'll try to catch up soon. Yours, El_C07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As did I. Well, I don't know if you know about the RobChurch mess. Dang. But you gotta give him credit for doing what must have been some serious soul searching and admitting it. (For a moment there, I kinda wanted to put my arms around him and console him -- but just for a moment. :p) Trouble is there are lots more like him who hide their biases and nefarious conduct. And how many are sysops and administrators? You can bet he's not nearly the only one. deeceevoice09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[And to think that I asked it a total of three times!] No, I mean, I have just now. Wow. Truly shocking. Yes, I see what you mean. Also, the earlier Crypto-led efforts are quite the spectacle, to use an understatement. Btw, I also had an issue with him intruding on my talk page and returning immediately after being explictly told not to. Still reading and trying to piece everything. Let me know if I could be of help in any way. Yours, El_C04:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
Saw a big removal on your page, reverted and was somewhat confused by the results, reverted again to let you sort it out... --pgk(talk)20:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted -- but next time, please check the diffs and it'll be clear. If someone other than the individual whose name is on the user page makes a change, chances are it's vandalism. Most people -- probably yourself included -- don't want people changing what they put on their own user page. Peace. deeceevoice20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dream of editing your user page and leaving didactic notes. Kindly refrain from doing so to mine. You have neither the right nor the authority to do so. Consider this a friendly warning. deeceevoice20:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, apparently you've kept them to maintain a victim complex. Wow. Do you really think the Jewish editors quit wikipedia if our pages our set to say stuff like that? You aren't being oppressed, i get so much bullshit on the internet as well for my culture.--Urthogie20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Added after seeing above note: If your intentions were well-meaning at first, then thanks.) Whatever my motives may be, what do you care? Don't touch my user page. Since under this identity, at least, you're a newcomer, I'll say it once more in case you didn't understand me the first time: don't do it. You have neither the right nor the authority. Besides, after our interaction at Talk:Cool (African philosophy), your actions might be taken the wrong way -- if you get my meaning. Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia. :) deeceevoice21:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that fazes me? At all? I've faced down dogs in Mississippi worse than anything you could dream up. Puerile/infantile. deeceevoice22:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The anon who posted the attack has been blocked. I also nominated the template for deletion, which was speedily granted. The creator apparently thought it would be a good joke to leave it on people's talk pages. Not being too conspiratorially minded, I'm not sure how an anon found the thing so quickly and used it here. — BrianSmithson23:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia
Deeceevoice you should have no qualms with soliciting my support, as I certainly solicit yours without reservation. I got your comments on my talk page, and I am encouraging you to collaborate with me to make some effective and positive changes on the wikipedia pages. I cannot stress this any better. We cannot be effective working as some loose individuals. Those who are against our position, and the racists, you think they work in isolation? Trust me, these people who have been educated work in alignment, often sending each other messages for collaborating the articles. I can give you a good breakdown on how we can succeed here, especially considering the impending lockdown policies that will take effect. --Zaphnathpaaneah22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add to that. You fight or stuggle on here in isolation, ultimately deciding it's a futile exercise. Had or if we collaborated on here as the whites have done, we would be far more effective. There is another aspect to this that you may be overlooking and you have garnered much of the blunt of attention from those who oppose objectivity regarding black people. Yet you leave before considering realistically all of the options. The vandalism you face is something you should incorporate as part of the struggle. Had Sojourner Truth walked with the same end result, women, and black women especially would be further back than you may realize. So you are a small yet relatively powerfyl country fighting against the invading and occupying British Empire, and there are other small countries who are in the same region who want to coordinate a good counter attack so we can all have freedom, and liberty. Even though Africa still has a long way to go to independance, the decolonization movement was done with coordinated effort (why do you think most of the countries were liberated within the same decade). YOu have to know your strengths, and solicit to others to work with you in areas where you are weakest, as those weaknesses are their strengths. Please read my ENTIRE user page, and give me a serious response to it before you decide to leave permanently. Justice is not about making injustice dissappear. Justice is about consistent vigilance whenever injustice rears its ugly head. --Zaphnathpaaneah23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zaph, I don't have any qualms about soliciting your support, my brutha. :) I don't feel it's necessary. You will do what you're moved to do. But I'm not fighting the RfC; I'm fighting the lies and misrepresentations therein.
Now, about your comments here: while I sincerely appreciate your good intentions, I really don't need a lengthy missive on Sojourner Truth, Africa and the British Empire. :p For me, it's all about choosing one's battlefield, as well as one's battles -- and, put simply, yours may not be mine. One thing I've become exceedingly good at over the years is coping/managing stress and not internalizing the ignorance and racist vitriol of others; it really doesn't faze me. I consider myself exceedingly blessed in that regard. Sometimes I don't know how I do it, just that I do. :) *smiling* Sometimes extreme annoyance/impatience is about as far as I go -- but nowhere near the edge. Chalk it up, I suppose, to my deep love for our people, my spiritual groundedness -- oh, and practice. I've had lots and lots of practice with soul-sick, racist azzholes. :p
So, my decision to leave is not about difficulties, opposition, or problems, but preferences and deciding how to be most effective. And it is about a dedication to maintaining my psychic and spiritual equilibrium. I am at peace, and I long ago resolved to stay that way -- which, as my talk page states, I, as a matter of course, limit my exposure to certain toxins -- Wikipedia among them.
These last few days, I've been visiting the site regularly to keep an eye on the b.s. in the RfC process and my user page and, in the meantime, doing some minor clean-up and working to prevent entities from hijacking articles like Cool (African philosophy). I'm really trying to get out of town, and my work load is horrendous, so I'm not likely to get to your page soon. I'll check it out, out of respect, but I really have no intention of staying here. And it's not about being driven off, or even being bitter or disillusioned. I am an activist and organizer, and I have civic and social responsibilities as well as a busy professional and intellectual life. This is about making what is, for me, a reasoned choice about how best to make use of what precious down time I have. And as far as my list of priorities, given the host of problems with this site that I've chronicled on my user page, Wikipedia is nowhere near the top. Peace. deeceevoice23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I seriously hope you are not as dismissive of working together in the physical world as you are here in the virtual world. Surely with all of your work outside you do not out of habit reject the collaborative efforts of other activists and organizers, although i can understand being very scrutinizing of their motivations and commitment. I'm dissappointed by some of your response, but not offended in any way. We do see things differently. Oh and I wasn't really talking about the RFC, i think the whole RFC process is bogus for situations like yours, but I was referring to the managment of the sensitive articles. Anyway I am not going to say more even after you reply, because I do not want to hold you up. --Zaphnathpaaneah04:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an experienced organizer, mobilizer, coalition builder, press wrangler, rabble rouser, strategist, etc. Don't worry. I know how to handle my s***. :p We simply don't agree here that Wikipedia is important/critical. It's the flavor of the month with lots of buzz and exposure, but in the end, it's wholly unreliable and riddled with fatal flaws. I simply choose not to work with you (or anyone else) to try to improve it. I'm done with all that. Never was much a fan of the "little Dutch boy" sticking his finger in the dike. And bein' here is like bein' in the gottdam Ninth Ward. F*** dat! :p This signifyin' monkey is "a strokin' MF. Ya cain't out swim me." And as soon as that ugly RfA process is locked down, I'mma roll over and backstroke on outta here. :p Peace. deeceevoice11:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that acronym must stand for "Royal Frying Corps". Someone threated to recommend me for "censure" recently. Being threatened to be kicked off this so-called encyclopedia is about 1/100th as terrifying as some 9-year-old ringing my doorbell and running away. Wahkeenah04:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification requested
I'm not going to ask you to tone down anything, but I'd appreciate it if you would clarify something. "REGARD RECRUITMENT EFFORTS TARGETING BLACKS AIMED AT CORRECTING SYSTEMIC BIAS WITH EXTREME SKEPTICISM," can be interpreted as regard not only the effort but the people behind it, with skepticism, rather than—what I hope is your intent—that from your experience you don't think such efforts can succeed and are misguided. Thanks. -JCarriker00:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, I respectfully disagee. After all, the statement is immediately followed by my assertion that I dont think the project can be fixed. It doesn't at all call into question the motives or integrity of those involved in the recruitment effort. I think you're being overly sensitive because of your involvement. Read it again -- from an outsider's perspective -- and tell me if you still have the same reservations. deeceevoice02:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed it and I still think that the sentence could be interpreted as regard the effort itself with skepticism rather than its potential for success—especially if that what someone wanted it to say. I am concerned that the comment, as is, could easily be taken out of context, and used against me in local politics. I'm asking you to dull your skepticism of the HBCU outreach, just leave no room for doubt that it is its ability to succeed and not the people making the effort that should be viewed with skepticism. I really don't want to go into too much detail (e-mail me on the off chance you want to know more), but I do know that there are people actively combing wikipedia for something that they can use. You had the forsight to maintain anonymity here, I did not, and it is no longer pragmatic and most likely impossible to assert anonymity now. I'd appreciated it if you could just rephrase it to say something like "DON'T KID YOURSELF. MY EXPERIENCE HERE TELLS ME THIS PROJECT CANNOT BE FIXED. REGARD THE ABILITY OF RECRUITMENT EFFORTS TARGETING BLACKS AIMED AT CORRECTING SYSTEMIC BIAS TO CHANGE ANYTHING WITH EXTREME SKEPTICISM." Thanks. -JCarriker
Jay, when I saw your edit note, I knew immediately what I had done without even referring to this page. I've been obsessing over a deadline for a client, Jim C. Sorry. I need sleep. I hope my alteration of the passage satisfies your concern. deeceevoice05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I gather that you are not totally gone, I figure you will probably see this.
I respect your reasons for deciding to leave, but urge you to reconsider; I hope (but don't really expect) that a few months from now you change your mind and come back. You have been a very valuable contributor here, and I'll miss you and what you bring to this undertaking. -- Jmabel | Talk00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere thanks, but I seriously doubt that I'll be back. I really don't think the project is worth my time. And it damn sure doesn't deserve me. :p deeceevoice03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow
And I thought I was critical of wikipedia. I called it a pretentious bulletin board. Looks like I was understating it a tad. Well, since Rush Limbaugh says there is no more racism in American, I must assume the slanderous stuff was sent to you by racist foreigners, from hotbeds of bigotry such as Estonia. :( P.S. Your usage of "affect" in the Blackface article is right on the money. You may quote me. :) Wahkeenah02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I don't need to quote you. What I'd appreciate, though, is if you'd watch the piece and revert any such changes. I'll be gone, and won't be watching it any longer. Further, you're, of course, welcome to weigh in on the article's talk page, should you feel so moved. Peace. deeceevoice02:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have found that getting into edit wars with both registered yahoos and a-nones, over stupid tabloid topics like whether we went to the Moon or not, for example, does little more than make my blood boil, to no good effect, but I stick with it because I like to write about stuff. I just try to stay away from the more controversial stuff. Like "Political correctness", where I got into a tussle by insisting on pointing out that "Winter Holiday" preceded Christmas, and that most of these right-wingers who get so upset about it don't even know why Christmas was assigned to December 25th. Nobody ever sent me any swastikas, though. You've had to deal with mega-larger issues. Anyway, Tom Lehrer once said, "The reason 'folk songs' are so atrocious is that they were written by 'the people'." Likewise, wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" written by "the people". I gather you were the author of the Blackface piece. I didn't know much about it, but I read and then started watching the article because I was kind of curious about it after seeing an anniversary showing of the Boston Pops, one clip featuring Ben Vereen doing a very dynamic impression of Bert Williams in blackface, after having apparently talked to the audience about what blackface was all about and how significant it was as an art form, even if it turns us modern-day palefaced liberals redfaced to see it presented. Anyway, if someone else clearly messes with that article, I'll see what I can do about de-toxing it. Wahkeenah03:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i like your new edits to the main article paragraph. however, i think the body paragraph approaches african philosophy as if this is the only way of looking at cool in africa. perhaps have some alternative viewpoints?
--Urthogie11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, why does the article rely on secondary sources. You don't even quote a single African. That's why people don't like the article. (sorry bout saying rapping, i was working on that article and requesting peer reviews, but yeah i meant to say the cool page)--Urthogie12:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to point out that any scholarly research has many points of view. It's not even intellectual if you only allow one view point. You really are mixing up ontology and whatnot with objective truth. The page is a way of interpreting cool in african philosophy, from a SECONDARY SOURCE. It is what it is? then show it with primary sources.--Urthogie12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been blocked from the article talk page (typical collateral damage crap), which is why I haven't responded sooner. Here's what I have to say about your comments.
Your yardstick for what constitutes authoritative sources is arbitrary and inappropriate for a topic such as this and is based on a European cultural model which is does not easily lend itself to the study of traditional West African culture. Scholarly secondary sources are perfectly legitimate, and there are certainly other articles where there are subheads left open for further development. To do so in this case does not mean that future contributions necessarily will include only information by Thompson. (Again, see Internet sources.) And as I've already stated, there are certainly other monographs also available which treat cool which also can be used to flesh out the subheads. If your arbitrary requirement were applied universally to all subjects treated on Wikipedia, a lot of articles would be gutted. Robert Farris Thompson is a respected scholar in the field and, to my knowledge, his research on this subject has never been called into question by his peers.
I'm no longer actively involved in the writing of this piece. My latest contributions are merely to keep people like you, who are obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter, from screwing with it, perverting it into something it should not be -- some sort of catch-all piece for this and that culture. I've provided links to possible online references on the discussion page. I'll leave further development of the piece to those who are seriously interested in the subject matter and who are willing to do the necessary research to flesh out the article in an accurate manner. Again, the scholarship is there. But the fact is West African culture historically and typically does not do the sort of navel gazing and academic examination of itself to which Europeans are prone. I have a few books on African spirituality/religion written by a well known West African author (whose name escapes me at the moment), but they are not written in an academic fashion, but from an experiential standpoint. There's nothing out there of which I am aware written by Africans specifically on the subject of cool. If other interested parties know of such information, then perhaps they'll contribute it.
Your user page is offensive to many people, a fact of which you're probably aware. As such, please clean it up and remove the spurious references to racism and nazism. I believe that you didn't write any of those comments and that the point you're trying to make is that vandalism frequently gets ugly, but note that vandalism is also swiftly reverted in almost all cases, and the offenders blocked. You shouldn't let a few shouting trolls ruin your week, and letting their comments stand is kind of a victory for them. Finally, note that this kind of vandalism isn't limited to users of any particular ethnic background - the exact insults used vary by ethnicity, but each group has some ugly nicknames that trolls and vandals can call them. Yours, Radiant_>|<15:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so now I'm not lying, huh? (I saw your unfortunate entry on the admin page.) You're missing the point -- deliberately, I think. I've explained my user page -- on my user page and on the board. Perhaps you need to read it again, because it's got nothing to do with anyone or any thing "ruin[ing my] week." Peace. deeceevoice15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You state your point is that most vandalism is quickly reverted and unseen, and some isn't. And you make that point by letting a bunch of blatant ugly vandalism stand, and reinstating it whenever somebody in good faith cleans it up. Have you read WP:POINT? Seems to me that you should be finding and removing the 'hidden' vandalism, rather than putting back the found-and-removed vandalism, otherwise you're just making the problems worse. Radiant_>|<15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are not me, and your life experiences are not mine. I do not presume to tell you how to spend your time on this website, so please extend me the same courtesy. Again, I've stated my reasons, which are perfectly valid ones. You disagree. And that's what makes life ... interesting. Consider yourself fortunate that I've chosen not to respond nastily to your obviously calling my veracity into question (essentially, calling me a liar) -- and then not having the good manners to apologize. I really don't have anything else to say to you. You're dismissed. deeceevoice15:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of my favorite quotations of all time is from Alan King, who observed that, "The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." Nannyism is rampant in America now (not that it ever wasn't) and here this moron is telling you to change because he/she/it doesn't like it. A good response to them could be, "If you're offended, what's keeping you here?" I found your page funny. Wearing others' taunts proudly and defiantly is a powerful weapon. But I actually have some perspective, and more than a double-digit IQ. These nanny-types have no sense of humor or irony, and nothing resembling upper-brained intelligence, thus they don't get the point at all. Either that, or the imagery hits a little too close to what they are, and that fact is what they truly find offensive about it. Wahkeenah01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not funny in the normal sense, for sure. Funny to me, in a way that's hard to explain. I just find the taunts oozing from the limited gray matter of the Great Unwashed to be hilarious. Meanwhile, I don't know everything... such as how to get to the Admin Board Page. :( Wahkeenah05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Maybe they'll start posting the swastika on my page now. It could use some illustrations, it's kind of bland, nowhere close to being "immoral", so it clearly needs work. I sign off now. Thank you for your kind indulgence. 0:) Wahkeenah05:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ANYONE WISHING TO COMMENT ON MY USER PAGE IS INVITED TO DO SO -- ON THE ADMIN BOARD PAGE[14] -- NOT HERE.
I noticed that yesterday as well, and I agree that he seems to have acted in very bad faith on this; if this gets to the evidentiary phase I'll be sure to add a note to that effect on the RfAr. If you'd like to have those removed sooner, I'd suggest appealing to a neutral admin--I've involved myself in this a little too much to feel comfortable pulling comments from article talk pages now. They still strike me as really inappropriate.
Sorry I haven't involved myself much lately; I've been following your advice and trying to do some regular editing to clear my palate. It's a shame that somebody like Justforasecond (who's hardly touched an article in weeks) can tie up so many other editors like this. --Dvyost16:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand completely. I sent you the message not because I expected any action on your part. I just noticed the exchange involving you on another page about it, and he gave the distinct impression (if memory serves) that he was removing, or had removed, the RfC (or RfA) spamming from the article talk pages. (Truly tacky.) And near as I can tell, he hasn't. Peace. Enjoy the holidays. :) deeceevoice22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and goodbye
No, you don't know me, and our paths have not crossed as editors, but I have followed your career more as a microscope on the vexing issues of POV and bias than for any real interest in the subjects of the articles you worked on. My own time here has drawn to a close because of disillusionments similar to those you so scathingly recite on your user page; and while I quite sure you nether need (or even care for) the approval of some old white man, I couldn't leave without at least the tip of a hat to you. DV8 2XL17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I'm another old white man (as it happens) and I find the upper part of your user page nauseating -- and worthwhile in just the way you claim it to be. I don't agree with all that you say, but I certainly agree with much of it. I came to respect your name as one of the most tireless adult defenders of African American from the most obnoxious (drunkest?) of cracker fools back when that was on my watchlist. (Since that time, I've become a lot busier and I've also come to think that any WP article of wide interest is doomed to edit warring or worse -- often, much, much worse.) WP will be a lot worse without you, that's for sure. I just wish someone like Doc glasgow were in charge: then I wouldn't have twinges of conscience if I implored you to stick around. Anyway, enjoy your vacation! -- Hoary09:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deecee, although I don't agree with many of the things you've written, and have been offended as a white person by some of your words, I won't use this post to criticize you in anyway but instead must express sympathy for you in your being subjected to such violence and abomination as has appeared on your user page. I'm sorry. You're a remarkably bright person as evidenced by the lucidity of your writing, and I commend you for your courage in expressing your views and thus exposing yourself to such hostility. Stay strong. --Jugbo00:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Sidaway, her userpage is composed, in part, of material "contributed" by others in an effort to intimidate. That she organizes it to demonstrate the abuse to which she is subjected is her perogative, don't you think? Xoloz17:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea of your feelings regarding these little things, but I thought you deserved one. I, Xoloz, award this Tireless Contributor Barnstar to Deeceevoice for her myriad high-quality contributions, given despite being subject to abuse. Xoloz17:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
when are you leaving wikipedia? you've said you're leaving but you just come back for more. Kick their racist mouph on wikipedia is what you should do. Stay fighting!
LOL. Yeah, I'm leaving. As I said, I'm keeping a slander watch over the RfA lynching process. And when I do check in, I watch over a couple of pieces. What? Can't wait for me to leave, huh? :p (Interesting that they dug up some guy who didn't even comment in the original RfA and deleted a bunch of bogus sh*t, but somehow they've accepted the RfA supposedly based solely upon this guy's complaint. Yet, it appears nowhere in the original RfA. Seem a trifle irregular to you? :p deeceevoice23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well damn, and here I came to say hi and express happiness that it seemed you were staying - evidenced by the fact that your edits seemed to be going back to articles and away from making your user page a piece of modern art. ;) I do hope you'll stay. Good luck. --Golbez08:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deeceevoice
May I introduce myself, I am User:Revolución and am very interested in African and African American related topics. Do you know about the African Collaboration of the Week I started? I thought you might be interested.
I would also like to offer my solidarity to you. Racism is a terrible and disgusting problem in our society, and I am outraged that cowards would use their position as an anonymous user to slander you , to throw racial slurs against you and vandalize your talk page with offensive images.
I think your idea for an online 'Encyclopedia Africana' is great. I would love to contribute to that enyclopedia.
If you have left, and don't wish to use your talk page any more, you can reply at my email: revolucion1@gmail.com
Greetings, Madam and Happy New Year. I was listening to Nina'sPirate Jenny and Nobody's fault but mine, and your username flashed into my brain, so, I thought I'd come over and say hi and wish you a merry new year and ask you
I'm sorry you decided to leave - for what it's worth i get a lot of shit for being white and crippled - being told by people "it's all you've known - get used to it" - doesn't cut it at all with me. Rage against the dying of the light as they say. Best Wishes and take care. PMA20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
03:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
14:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
21:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
(I am giving out barnstars for each message I send for the Holidays). Alright!
