User talk:Deeceevoice

User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 1 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 2

Golly. I've got a secret admirer

The following was left, along with the edit note "nigger bitch," by some inbred mental cretin who also blanked the rest of the page:

SIEG HEIL MOTHERFUCKER

== NOI Sniper item == + File:Naziswastika.png

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. :) deeceevoice 20:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I disapprove of this as a response to the above agitation (as in feeding the trolls), but it's your talk page. Best, El_C 21:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 21:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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. Guettarda 23:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

By Raul I mean User:Raul654, just to clarify. Guettarda 23:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the note.

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. deeceevoice 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

And we're the animals. Yeah. Right. This daughter of Africa is stronger, badder, BLACKER. You still lose. *x* deeceevoice 21:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Quick note

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. Bebop 01:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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. Bebop 02:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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. Bebop 06:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

African American contemporary issues

Hi Deeceevoice,

I have raised concerns that the African American contemporary issues may not be NPOV. Please see its talk page for more details. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

list of White supremacists vote

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.NoahB 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Drat. That link is Wikipedia: Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists. Sorry bout that. NoahB 18:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop overwikifying blackface

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. Andries 21:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 22:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Afrophobia among Blacks

Hi! I finally got around to writing Afrophobia#Afrophobia_among_Blacks. It's little more than a rough draft, but I think it's a decent start. Tell me what you think of it when you get a chance. Binadot 00:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"African American"

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. - ovvldc 09:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (just leave a message on my Talk page)

Never Mind, you reverted something else. I jumped the gun after looking at the history page. My apologies. - ovvldc 09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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? deeceevoice 09:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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. - ovvldc 10:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Not a problem. Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 10:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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.

Theodore W. 17:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on Blackface

(: Project2501a 12:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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. Guettarda 14:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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 | talk 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

A Border Morris "side" (group) — PhilHibbs | talk 18:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Damnedest (weirdest) lookin' buncha black folks I've ever seen. Yikes! :p deeceevoice 18:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's a great photo. Why doesn't it appear in the Border Morris article? deeceevoice 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I will try to secure permission. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 09:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. deeceevoice 01:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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. deeceevoice 07:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Administration

I would really like to see you become an administrator. I'll nominate you if you say I can on my talk page. Please at least consider this. Take care, Dbraceyrules 03:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 21:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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). Guettarda 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for the response. Sorry to hear your decision, but, I do agree that an admn. is a WikiCop. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A Black folk found you

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. deeceevoice 21:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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? deeceevoice 20:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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? deeceevoice 21:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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? deeceevoice 21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 21:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Male youth usage of nigger

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?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 21:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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? Peter ^Isotalo 22:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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*deeceevoice 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Peter ^Isotalo 08:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Dbraceyrules 23:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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.

Get some. Otherwise, you're lost. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 23:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Bracey 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a question, deeceevoice, why do you take crap from people on this site D. J. Bracey 67.79.157.50 23:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

On "taking" sh*t on Wikipedia

(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 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)

Peace 2 u, my bright, beautiful, young black brother. deeceevoice 23:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Bracey 23:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll come back, as soon as this crap cools off. .D. J. Bracey 23:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 08:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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. deeceevoice 21:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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 Crypto 22:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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 stroking some white girl's delicate feelings, I'll be sure to look you up. In the meantime, kindly go to hell. *x* deeceevoice 05:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

YOU LIKE COCK 8==========D --- - - - -

File:Naziswastika.png (downsized from 400 px deeceevoice 02:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC))

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 deeceevoice 02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC))....

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) deeceevoice 02:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

And the same goes for (now reverted by thoughtful Wikipedians) the skewered weenies 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*

Nuffa that. Splittin' sides.[2] Gawd, I do love me some black folks. :D deeceevoice 07:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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.--Alabamaboy 00:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Above vandalism

Sorry, didn't realise you wanted it kept. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 02:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

'S okay. I appreciate your intentions. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 02:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 13:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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)