User talk:Deeceevoice

User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 1

NOI Sniper item

I have deleted the sniper item from the NOI article. I went to NOI's website, and they also seem to have also chosen to let the old, bad press die rather than giving it ongoing debate. I hope other aspects of this article can find a consensus. As you would say, Peace! <gr> Vaoverland 16:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just to touch base. I am watching both the NOI and Black Supremacy articles and their talk pages. Both articles are well outside the areas of Wikipedia where I usualy work. I will probably stay quiet unless things get out of hand and there is a need (or potential benefit) from some mediation from me as a more objective writer (or least someone who is trying to be one). Vaoverland 10:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

More NOI

The conflict between Firebug and RK seems to still be underway. RK left me a request to advise action on my talk page. Any thoughts? Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 17:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I asked another admin who is also not involved in this article to look in on the conflict. The advice is that noth Firebug and RK shoudl atke a Wikibreak from editing the article for at least a week (or month) and see if cooler heads can get the article better. I suspect that advice will please neither of them, but... Any thoughts? Vaoverland 21:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Marsalis quote

"Jazz is the musical expression of the nobility of the race." -- Wynton Marsalis

Good lord, if any white person said, "Classical music is the musical expression of the nobility of the [white] race." they'd immediately be branded a racist.

But, note, Marsalis does not specify a race (as if such a thing exists within the human species) in his quote!

Selective Neologisms

DeeCeeVoice, you are truly "eagle-eyed" to have come across the "The New anti-Semitism". It will be interesting to see if it raises, as a 'neologism', the same amount of discussion as 'aphrophobia'. Karhu 16:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding your remark on neologisms at Aphrophobia -- the thing is that Wikipedia is not the place to coin a new word or phrase. It happens quite often that somebody conceives a new word or phrase and puts it on WP as if it were widely accepted, possibly in the hopes that it will become widely accepted. That is generally frowned upon, so neologisms are often deleted - via VfD, giving people the chance to prove that it is not a neologism. Which was done in that case. If you feel that new anti-Semitism shouldn't be on WP, feel free to nominate it for deletion and we'll discuss it. HTH! Yours, Radiant_* 20:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that Afrophobia has been proven useful. The votes lean to keep now, don't they? Ah, I'll just add mine. Regarding neologisms, I think that established neologisms (e.g. fnord) should be on WP, and new neologisms (e.g. spruklther, which I just made up) should not. That does mean that the word 'neologism' itself is used ambiguously, though. Radiant_* 10:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Uploading images

Saw yoiur comments on the Golliwog Talk page - I have never uploaded images to Wikipedia before, but AFAIK the prefered way is through the Wikimedia Commons. Go here. You'll have to register a name there - Wikpedia names don't transfer automatically. It looks easy enough (though not having tried I can't say for certain). Guettarda 22:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for editing Western New Guinea

I appreciate it. Articles related to West Papua are a priority for me, but I've mostly been editing Western Saharan and Taiwanese articles lately. It's good to know that someone else out there hasn't forgotten the Morning Star! Justin (koavf) 18:36, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Knecht Ruprecht

Please see Talk:Knecht Ruprecht. Also, I thought you might be interested in: Talk:Redneck#America.27s_Black_Rednecks. Cheers,

Sam Spade 05:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia meet-up

Hey Deecee, I just wanted to make sure you knew about this: Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip. Hope all is well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to find out about these things. I just happened to stumble across this one and wanted you to know about it. I think we're meant to intuit these things like Platonic forms. Bear in mind you could just pop into the restaurant and say hi; no need to do the full meal deal. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

African-American culture

Hey, I thought you might be interested in fixing this page up.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_culture

Right now it is beyond stereotypical. Basically says that black culture is nothing but what the media shows you and what they have learned from rap videos, and that riots, crime, and poverty are POSITIVE cultural aspects if you look at it in the wrong mindset. The kind of page you love to fix up.. I will see what I can do in the meantime, but being mixed, I only know a small bit and you are the guru of black pride here :) Take care friend. --Aika 19:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

(To User:Beland)

If you think something is offensive, then there's a good chance it is. Let me pull your coat: so, don't write it.!!!! Click the following link: Talk:African-American culture. You'll find my comments. Please. Do the race a favor and steer clear of such topics in the future. deeceevoice 15:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing out the non-hyphenated version...I must have missed it when I created the hyphenated version. Now we have a redirect, so that won't happen to other folks. I was alarmed that the subject had absolutely no coverage, and I'm relieved to see that it actually has considerable treatment. I was also hoping someone would find this seed and grow it properly, and I guess it has been found, so, yay. Thanks! -- Beland 18:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

(Reply to User:Beland)

Don't come to my page actin' all cutesy after what you wrote. Fact is the "seed" you planted was a poisonous one. It was insulting to the race and utterly irresponsible. If you don't have enough information to do a topic justice, if your ignorance is so considerable that you are unable to provide a balanced picture of a subject, then leave it the hell alone. *x* deeceevoice 21:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Images

Florence Kate Upton's Golliwogg and friends in The Adventures of two Dutch Dolls And A Golliwogg, published in 1895.

I fiddled with the image a little - if you remove the word "frame" you can change the size. As it stands the line is [[Image:Golliwogg1.jpg|right|thumb|175px|frame|Florence Kate Upton's Golliwogg and friends in ''The Adventures of two Dutch Dolls And A Golliwogg'', published in 1895.]]

That produces the image that's on the Golliwog page.

I tried changing it to [[Image:Golliwogg1.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Florence Kate Upton's Golliwogg and friends in ''The Adventures of two Dutch Dolls And A Golliwogg'', published in 1895.]] and got this image.

You can adjust the size of the image by changing the 175px to a larger or smaller number of pixels. Guettarda 22:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The request for arbitration you made has officially been accepted. Please bring formal evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wareware/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Evidence request re Wareware RfA case

If that clearly sets out the problems, in a way that makes it as easy as possible for the arbitrators to understand the issues, then that will be fine. The most important part is to provide us with good, relevant diffs - rather than "he did this", we need to know "he did this, on this page, and here is the diff as evidence of that". Just try to make it as clear and concise as possible. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Should be easy, DC, it just needs to be organized in accordance with the specified chronology format, with some minor modification perhaps, your corresponding descriptions on the RFC should more than do. Yours, El_C 08:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Deeceevoice!

I, Dbraceyrules, hereby grant you this barnstar. I've been looking at all these contributions of yours, especially the ones on sites like "negrophobia" etc. and I really admire your work on Wikipedia. So I decided to give you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar.

I do like the way you added color to the site, please look at my contributions at William Lynch Speech and some that are listed from under my user page. Dbraceyrules 15:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool

In Cool (aesthetic) you write that ""Arrogant self-awareness" seems precisetly what the writer intended -- and it is accurate." Though I don't see how merely being self-aware [1] can be arrogant. Conversely if someone is self-absorbed or self-centered it is usually described as being nearly synonymous with arrogance. As is stated a couple sentences later "Likewise, outsiders may often deride the "cool" group as merely self-centered or conceited." Maybe you could explain what exactly MacAdams meant?--Deglr6328 17:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Race riots

Hi. I read your thoughts in the Talk:Race riots page. I was wondering: If i wanted to look deeper into race relations in the US, where should I start looking and/or reading? I would like to re-write/expand Race riots, but I don't think I currently qualify. I need to assimilate information but I am confused: I don't know if I should start reading about US History from the early 1900s, or start reading from 1950s. Any suggestions? Thank you in advance.

Project2501a 15:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: How is it that Malcom X. is being evangelised as a modern US black intellectual in high schools during black history month? i mean, the man was a solid rock of logic and intellectuallity, but he was not the only one. How come nobody mentions Claude McKay, for example? Or any other off-beat/less heard of intellectuals? Or, is it just me and my ignorance? I was raised in Patras, Greece but I grew up in ppNewark, NJ.

Hi. :) I appreciate your interest in improving the article. Frankly, I think the civil disturbances (modern day "race riots" -- which are no longer called that) should be referred to briefly, but put in a separate article civil disturbance. Race riot should be reserved for the real deal. Your guess is as good as mine insofar as readings about race riots beyond what I've mentioned specifically in my comments in the discussion: Ida B. Wells' writings, the Kerner Commission report. What I know/can recall is based on living through the modern civil disturbances and an assimilation of all that I've read in the past, seen in documentaries, etc., etc., etc. I would suspect there is ample information on the www on this subject also.

With regard to your question about Malcolm X and Claude McKay -- how should I know? I don't make education policy. I'm not involved in curriculum decisions (though, as an education advocate/activist, I wish I were). However, I agree with the emphasis on Malcolm. It's a refreshing change from the seemingly once singular emphasis on George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Dubois and MLK. They were all great men, but it doesn't hurt to broaden the focus a bit to include Bro. Malcom. All of these others, were either somewhat accommodationist or nonthreatening to the status quo of white domination on some level. Malcolm was a different blackman -- someone with whom youth can identify. With all this blah, blah, blah about thug culture and with the appeal of crap-rap, he's an example of a strong blackman who lived the thug life and turned it around. And he made no apologies for what he believed. With so many young, black men alienated from and ill-served by the public education system, I think the life of Malcolm X --a strong, intelligent blackman; father; husband; leader; teacher; seeker of truth -- is an excellent subject for study. Malcolm was intelligent without being an intellectual. The brother was real. deeceevoice 19:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've been busy and I didn't want to give you a rushed responce. First, I was asking you not as a black man, which would be stupid), I was asking someone who I was suspecting was older than me, who lived through those troubled times and has more experience than me in the matter. I've been out of the country for three years now or so, and i'm and i'm starting to lose my grip of the English language. So, let me rephrase my question into a statement: I would like to see more modern black intellectuals and noted figures, in addition to Malcom X. I was tuttoring computer science for a year in Irvington High, and I kinda grew tired of hearing malcom this, mlk that... I agree. I mean, yeah, when I have to compare Malcom as a figure, as a stature, I can only compare him to Che. In my opinion, those two had the same gift of being able to attract people around them, they were charismatic. I get the same emotion reading Che's speeches as I read Malcom's: Passion and dedicated to a greater cause. But, where's everybody else? That's my point. Che didn't start the cuban revoltion all by himself, thought he did become the posterboy for it. I guess I'm looking for more breadth, if that makes any sence to you. I guess i'm looking not looking for Cris Rock called "Martina Luther King." (end mildly obscure reference). For the record i'm here to talk not pick a fight and hopefuly, I will not shove my foot in my mouth. ok, so, *gives you a copy of Us3's Hand on the Torch*, race riots. any suggested course of action? Project2501a 13:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't develop curriculae; I don't make education policy. Americans are not only ill-educated, miseducated; they're just plain stupid. This nation's public education system, for the most part, produces mediocrity and worse -- particularly in the inner city. Inequities based on socioeconomic status and ethnicity are a come-with. Poor and minority children generally succeed in spite of the system and not because of it. This nation has a long way to go in education, generally. It has even longer to go when it comes to effectively including the contributions of nonwhite, non-male actors in this nation's history. All too often, educators do the quick-and-dirty, the pat, the cliché stuff -- out of ignorance, laziness, stupidity, lack of imagination -- you name it. Tokenism is de rigueur. If you think the curriculum in your local schools needs changing, then I'll tell you what I tell the folks in my community: "Do something about it." And that means, in part, asking your questions of and pressing your concerns with policy-making people and institutions -- not anonymous schmucks on the Internet. Or get involved more directly and volunteer.

Nothin' wrong with your English. Don't mistake my plain-speak for hostility. You haven't put your foot in your mouth; you just did what white folks usually do: come upon a black person you connect with on some level and then treat them like some kind of freakin' Mr. Wizard. ("How come?" this and, "How come?" that. What on earth do riots/civil disturbances have to do with education policy, anyway? Dang. I mean I understand the impulse, but it's still off-the-wall.) But I'm used to it. You (collectively) do what you do; the sun comes up in the morning. No offense meant. No offense taken -- and certainly no payback intended. You cool wit' me.

Hadn't been aware of Us3, so I checked out the music video with the low rider. Interesting. :) Peace 2 u. P.S. FYI. (Not that it matters) I'm a blackwoman. deeceevoice 03:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

I don't think I did block you, at least not intentionally. According to the Block log, the only people I blocked were User:Jayyg, for impersonation and vandalism, and User:Bancroftian747, an account used for nothing but vandalism. Plus, you were able to use my talk page. Are you sure that it was me, and that you were blocked? Meelar (talk) 12:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

What might have happened is that you were logged out, either through human error on your part or (more likely) a database fluke, and saw a message I left for an anon. It's strange, since I hadn't blocked any anons in the preceding 24 hours, AFAIK. Not sure why this would be happening--you could try taking it to the technical section of village pump, although I don't know how much help they'd be either. Anyway, sorry about all the confusion--I certainly haven't intended to block you. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 19:15, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Re: The Temptations.

Thank. I'm not doing anything this holiday weekend but sitting at home and recovering from illness :(. --FuriousFreddy 02:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Dreadlocks Page

Hey Deeceevoice-- I added a couple of lines regarding the term trustafarian to the dreadlocks page. Please feel welcome to revert or improve at will...

I also put in a few lines for cultural appropriation, but it needs SERIOUS help. (I wasn't logged in when I made the contribs, so they show up as an anon user.)

Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia!! It is much appreciated... Djbaniel 09:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

concentration camps

Interesting tidbit -- one I'd not stumbled upon before -- regarding black folks in concentration camps. How many? I don't usually picture Germany as having much of a black population; would this have been, for example, Africans from Vichy France? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

I want to complement you on the rewrite you did on this page. It's been a while since I've seen a newer article of its size that well written. - JCarriker 05:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

hey deeceevoice-- thank you so much for the response on my page and the effort and improvement you have made on cultural appropriation. would you be interested in elaborating on the aggressive and pervasive forms of cultural appropiation that have targeted African American culture, compared, for example, to that which has targeted Native_American/First Nations culture? Of course all of this is from a very American perspective. it would also be very valuable to gain a more international perspective on cultural appropraition. in any case, you have clearly made a significant improvement to the few lines that i put up. thank you again-- sincerely. Djbaniel 09:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

hey deecee-- thanks for noticin' about the night owl thing... i AM fond of night people. sorry about the delayed response. things been crazy with me. i'm going to copy and paste your note to me here as a reminder-- please delete if you like: Hey, early riser/night owl. :) Your suggestion sounds intriguing. While I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to contribute, though, from an "American perspective," I'd be more than pleased to contribute what I can from an African-American perspective :p -- the two are quite different. I need a better sense, though, of what you have in mind. Drop me another note, and I'll ponder it over the weekend. Meanwhile, this night owl is off to bed to catch a few z-z-z-z-zzzz's. Forgot to mention that your comment about "trustlocks" in Dreadlocks made me chuckle. Hadn't heard that one. Peace. deeceevoice 09:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) so-- thank you for pointing out "American perspective" vs. African-American perspective-- very different indeed! and i'm glad you liked the "trust-blank" terminology. not only has it caught on, but it seems to be a pretty useful term especially when the 'trust' part is interpreted as some form of privledge, rather than just a trust fund. i suppose we will need a TON of additional perspectives to hope for an article with a (close to) NPOV perspective on cultural appropriation. but that's what's great about wikipedia, eh? plant a seed and it grows... hopefully (usually so far!). once again, thank you very much for all of your contributions. i for one value them immensly. about your question, "I need a better sense, though, of what you have in mind." The last sentance of the Cultural Appropriation article reads, "Arguably, the most pervasive and aggressive forms of cultural appropriation have targeted African American culture, elements of its music, dance, language, dress and demeanor." I was inquiring as to whether you would be interested in going into the argument. What are your thoughts on this? Djbaniel 00:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

The first major rewrite I've done here has been on Afrocentrism. It was reverted sometime ago, but to be honest I think it is much better than even the current edition. Read the substantive re-edit I wrote, and let me know what you think. What I will probably have to do is simply write an "Afrocentricity" entry. kspence 14:45, 5 June 2005

Sally Hemings

The evidence you presented in Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr. will make a good addition to the Sally Hemings article. Samboy 20:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racism in the Southern United States

Please look at Racism in the Southern United States. I recently moved it from the incorrect title its current location. Its well intended, but falls drastically short of doing the topic justice. It also has the type of naîvité and politcal correctness you like to correct, using N word in place of Nigger for the pejorative for example in the article. I have some ideas, but I'll let you take the lead. -JCarriker 03:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

This article is terrible! (I mean it really sux -- content-wise, copy edit-wise, grammatically, etc.) Besides, what's the point of it? Why single out a particular geographic area of the U.S. instead of dealing with the nation as a whole? It's not like the South is the only region with a time-honored tradition of racism, discrimination and race-based violence. deeceevoice 12:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to turn it into a redirect, that'd proabably be the best improvement, possibly to Racism or History of the Southern United States. My enegries are directed toward merging another bad article, American West, with the article it should have been in the first place. I guess you could vfd, though as an inclusionist I believe, more extreme inclusionists might try to save it. Whatever you do I won't miss it, most of what's been said has been said better elesewhere. -JCarriker 08:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Berbers

In case you want to get a wider range of perspectives on the Berbers, I thought you might be interested to know that there are several Berbers on Wikipedia. The most active of them is Agurzil, a Kabyle. Akzennay, with whom I've had protracted arguments (mainly over Ibn Khaldun), is Moroccan, but not very active on en; and Ameno is Tuareg, but hasn't edited for a few months. - Mustafaa 21:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I missed that

What? El_C 11:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: hey

Yeah, I'm feeling better. Trying a change of pace, adn going back to working on animation and comic book-related articles. I've nominated the article on the super hero Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for featured status (can you believe that, during the 1940s, Captain Marvel was the best-selling superhero on the shevles, even outselling Superman)? --FuriousFreddy 15:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hush harbor

Deeceevoice, just wrote up a stub on the above topic. I think it'd be great to have it fleshed out a bit, but I don't know much more on it than I've written and wasn't able to find any more on the internet. Since you seem to have something of an interest in African-American history and culture, I thought you have more knowledge of hush harbors, or know of another Wikipedian who might. If you can help add to the article, that'd be great. Please don't pour any haterade on me. Babajobu 01:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Haterade"? That's an overused (street) term I do not use. (I don't know anyone who does.) And, no. I don't just go off on people, unless I'm provoked -- and sometimes not even then. :p

I don't know that hush harbors, except in the context of religious practice (and not necessarily Christian religious practice, as your article states), merit a separate article. As a separate phenomenon -- often, the crudest of clearings in a wooded area -- hush harbors can be most effectively treated in an article treating African-American syncretic religious practice -- which, I think, merits fuller treatment in African American culture; or, as has been suggested earlier, in a separate article on the African American church. Then "hush harbor" could simply redirect to those pieces. However, praisehouses/meetinghouses have a very particular history, and I think they might deserve separate treatment. deeceevoice 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the street can be a pretty fertile place, and haterade is a great term. Thanks for the feedback on hush harbor. Your comments confirm for me that I'm really not up to the job of expanding it or placing it in a more appropriate context. I just don't know enough. However, I think it's very notable, very interesting, an important part of American cultural history, and very much merits some form of treatment in Wikipedia, perhaps--as you suggest--as part of an article on African-American religious practice. For now, I'll just leave it there hope it attracts some work from contributors more knowledgeable in this area. Thanks. Babajobu 16:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wareware arbitration case

The case was closed because Wareware left Wikipedia. I'm sorry, you should have been notified of that by the closing arbitrator - it seems he forgot that bit. -- sannse (talk) 13:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HBCU recruitment

Jmabel and I are begining a project for HBCU recruitment. I thought you might be interested. Also your page is getting rather long have you considered your archiving preference yet? Personally I prefer creating archives to blanking the page, as achives makes the material more accessable. -JCarriker 17:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. :) I skimmed the page, and it looks pretty good. Great idea, guys. I'm not signing on because I'm not sure I have much time to devote to the effort. I make my contribution of "color" to the project by editing Cool (aesthetic) and Afrocentrism are the latest among several. It's something I can do (with regard to black subject matter) that not many others on Wikipedia can (for reasons you've and Jmabel already have so thoughtfully noted.) I'll pretty much leave this effort to enlightened people who have the time to devote to it. Besides I'm not using my real name on this site anywhere, anytime. I choose to remain anonymous in cyberspace -- especially on a site like this. This isn't a hard-and-fast, flat-out refusal to become involved in this effort. After all, it's really needed. So, if you need my help with something in particular related to this endeavor, please don't hesitate to contact me again. Peace. :) deeceevoice 13:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, what is up with the "please sign your real name" request on the HBCU page??? What's the logic? Plenty of us would rather take a hot poker up the arse than start throwing our real names around cyberspace. You can be sure that plenty of people at HBCUs feel the same way. For the good of this very worthwhile project, I think the bizarro request for real names should be dropped. Babajobu 20:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bizarro request, participants will be seeking out school officals and thus will be in a professional enviroment where anonymity would not be will recieved. The page exist so that the officials and subequntently the students we want them to recruit have a page to refer to that explains the projects goals and validates that the representative they met with is involved with the project, its sort of a portal. Ultimatley no one recruited is obligated to join the outreach, and therefore they do not have to remain anonymous. However, if you are interesred in participating in the project but not being a representative I suppose the representatives and the notice in question could be moved to their own section. - JCarriker 04:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

martinlutherking.org

looks like scheissfront (sorry, stormfront) has been getting a bit more active and simultaneously a bit more subtle recently; I've zapped a half dozen new martinlutherking.org insertions in the last week. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Traffic impact during Montgomery Bus Boycott

Do you have reliable info on traffic impact during Montgomery Bus Boycott?--Jusjih 07:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't. I've never read anything about traffic snarls, nor have I seen any evidence of it in the footage of the boycott over the years. Keep in mind that Montgomery was still a fairly sleepy southern city back in the 1950s. Traffic congestion wasn't that much of an issue. That doesn't mean there wasn't any impact on traffic patterns, but I deleted your language because it was vague and obviously purely speculative. Peace. deeceevoice 13:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I thought that car use increased very fast after World War II in the USA, so I wonder if not riding buses caused traffic problems, but I only said "likely" while I did not thought that Montgomery would be sleepy. As hitchhiking is not necessarily non-motoized, I just changed with: "There were also hitchhikers, although it is unclear how risky doing so was. Nor is it clear whether the boycott caused considerable traffic problems." As "although it is unclear to what extent this was based on sympathy with the boycott, versus the simple desire to have their staff present and working" is already in the article (I did not write that), it is okay to say it unclear whether hitchhiking was risky or traffic problem arose, isn't it?

Discussions can avoid editing wars. As an administrator in Chinese Wikipedia (but not here), I have seen users there, including a very active administrator, who have made total deletion of a paragraph without explaining why in "edit summary".--Jusjih 05:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree saying unclear about something, how about deleting the later part of "Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work, although it is unclear to what extent this was based on sympathy with the boycott, versus the simple desire to have their staff present and working." after "although it is unclear ....." Your deletion looks too far and destructive. If I were an administration here, I could have possibly taken actions such as temporarily protecting the page. Note well that I am a traffic researcher. If you do not sufficiently care of traffic, you may not be very suitable to have a driver license.--Jusjih 28 June 2005 06:54 (UTC)

What is with your fixation with the freakin' traffic and whether or not I have a driver's license? Get over it! The speculation with regard to the motivations of white housewives picking up their black domestics is a matter of historical record. There is no way of legitimately knowing exactly how many were in sympathy with the boycott or just wanted their dirty drawzzz washed and meals cooked because they were too damned lazy to do it themselves. They were not polled, so it is impossible to know. However, finding out if there were traffic problems can fairly easily be ascertained. Read the historic record. If there were traffic snarls, presumably, they would be mentioned in reports of the period. There would be records on police blotters, reports in the press, ample documentary evidence in the footage shot of street scenes of people walking, empty buses passing, of private drivers. Speculation on something that can be verified or debunked with a little effort makes an article look sloppy and downright amateurish. If you're so wed to inserting language into the article about traffic patterns, then do your research. It's deleted. deeceevoice 28 June 2005 11:51 (UTC)

I understand that the comment "Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work" is the subject of an edit war about the reason these whites drove their servant to work. I would suggest that this entire comment be deleted b/c there is a high chance this is merely an urban legend. I grew up in Montgomery and I repeatedly heard this statement presented as fact by white people who were embarrassed by their city's history and wanted to make it seem that the city's whites had not been so set against the boycott. Despite these statements, though, I never saw any documentation of this occuring. In addition, even if some whites did this, it was on a small, individual basis. UNLESS someone can produce a reference that "Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work" the entire statement should be removed.--Alabamaboy 7 July 2005 13:30 (UTC) Note: I also posted this comment on the article's discussion page.

Sorry, Alabamaboy, but you don't know your state's history. That white women drove their black domestic servants to work is a well-documented historical fact. Just a quick google, and there are ample examples of documentation. Here's just one: [2]. Further, the so-called "edit war" -- not! -- was about some silly, hazy statement inserted by someone with a fixation on traffic that served no useful purpose because it imparted absolutely no information whatsoever. Go back and read the exchange. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Then the answer is to insert that reference into the article. I couldn't find one but since you did insert it (and if you have additional references on this fact, insert them too). As I said, I hadn't seen documentation of this fact. Since you have references of the fact then insert them and I will support you on the issue.--Alabamaboy 7 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of support, but the subject under discussion is a widely known historical fact. I've provided the link. If you think it needs to be inserted in the article, then you're welcome to do so. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

White supremacy

If it won't turn your stomach too much, I suspect you might have substantive material to contribute at White_supremacy#White_supremacy_through_history, where I have finally gotten people to acknowledge that white supremacy is not so much a matter of a few loonies in white hoods still running around rural Mississippi and was, within living memory, a dominant ideology. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I briefly visited the article and made some fairly superficial changes -- mostly copy editing kinds of things -- through only a portion of the piece. (The pathologies of white people bore me.) But the article is deeply flawed. I made some notes on the discussion page. Further, most black people I know wouldn't refer to white supremacy in the past tense; it still is a dominant ideology. Peace. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

About User:Wareware

I saw one of your earlier comments about User:Wareware on User talk:FuriousFreddy. I wanted to say I couldn't believe such a thing could happen, but then I'd be lying. Seen too much of it in the world. Just curious: How'd the arbitration process you went through on that work out? Were you satisfied with it? I'm still somewhat new here and haven't had to file any complaints or anything, but thought it'd be good to know what the deal is if someone ever does that crap to me. --Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

This might interest you

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_3#Category:Mulattos. Guettarda 3 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

Lincoln and white supremacy

Hey Deeceevoice. Don't really think my response is likely to be of use or interest on white supremacy, but thought I'd reply here. Didn't mean to say that Douglass idolized Lincoln; my apologies -- I've seen some evidence that other blacks (and white for that matter) of the time did, but not Douglass in particular. What Lincoln would or would not have done is, of course, impossible to know. He was a white supremacist, at least at some points in his life, and the scenario you describe is certainly conceivable. On the other hand, Lincoln also at points managed to live up to the egalitarian ideals he (occasionally) espoused. So did Jefferson, and so did Washington for that matter. Refusing to recognize their flaws can be duplicitous, self-serving, and racist, as you point out. Nonetheless, I think that calling Lincoln a white supremacist without qualification is like calling Malcolm X a black supremacist without qualification -- both statements are true as far as they go, but what's left out is perhaps the most important bit. (Which isn't meant to morally equate black supremacy (an ideology that has done little harm, relatively, as far as I can tell) with white supremacy (responsible for numerous genocides)).

Probably more than you want to know about my POV, so I'll stop. Take care. NoahB 8 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

You're dead wrong about Haj Malik El Shabaaz. Calling Malcolm X a black supremacist would be an error, period. At no point in his life was he ever one. And there is nothing the man ever said or did that would lead any rational individual to believe such a thing. There is absolutely no comparison between Malcolm and Lincoln. (Damn. White people!) The same, of course, cannot be said of Lincoln, and there is no evidence he ever changed fundamentally in that regard. I don't feel there is any need whatsoever to qualify the categorization of Lincoln as a white supremacist; he clearly was one -- and, as far as the historic record indicates, remained so until his death. deeceevoice 8 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)

Well, that was not my impression from reading Malcolm X's autobiography, but I guess there's room for disagreement. I agree that there's no comparison between Lincoln and Malcolm in terms of their actual accomplishments re: black liberation, but that's no reason to condemn Malcolm, who was still a great thinker and a great man, whatever his flaws.

There is some evidence that Lincoln's position on white supremacy did shift fundamentally, as did that of many Northerners over the course of the civil war. The successes of black troops in the northern army changed a lot of people's opinions. NoahB 8 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)

Then, perhaps you should read Malcolm's autobiography again, because -- again -- there is nothing he ever said that reasonably could be construed as supremacist. Your remarks represent a complete misreading of the man's life and work. Lincoln, on the other hand, is a different story. The change in his position on the role of black troops did in no way indicate that Lincoln ever changed his basic assumptions about blacks -- that we were inherently inferior and, as a result, deserved to occupy an inferior station relative to whites. He never even hinted at such. Giving black troops their due in light of their record of exemplary military service was a no-brainer. Besides, why not use blacks as cannon fodder? According to the historical record, Lincoln was and remained, in no uncertain terms, a white supremacist. To suggest otherwise is pure wishful thinking/speculation. deeceevoice 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

I've read it several times, but it's always worth looking at again. You, for your part, might check out Lincoln's Second Inaugural again. But I guess we'll probably just have to agree to disagree about who is engaging in wishful thinking and about what. Take care. NoahB 8 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

"White People!"

Deeceevoice, on behalf of non-racialists everywhere, please stop exclaiming "White people!," or "Only a white person would say that!" or any of your many other variants, everytime someone says something with which you disagree. Thank you so much. Babajobu 8 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

And who the hell made you the thought police? lol Further, my response is no more over the top (and certainly more accurate) than your "everytime [sic] someone says something with which you disagree." Further, what I say to someone else on my talk page (or theirs) is none of your business. Thank you so much. deeceevoice 8 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I failed to put a space between "every" and "time". Alas, no one has yet appointed me thought police. This is why I said "please" rather than simply demanding that you stop making gratuitous racialist remarks. All of us at Wikipedia are free to make crude racial remarks so long as they aren't simply racist. Still, I don't think we should. Cheers. Babajobu 8 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The italicizing of "everytime" was about your hyperbolic mischaracterization (both in frequency of ocurrence and nature) of my responses on this web site. The "sic" was a reflexive, noncritical one (being a writer/editor) which I chose not to inhibit in light of the circumstances. You're flat-out wrong in this regard. Additionally, because your experience is not mine, you cannot school me on when and when not to make "racialist" remarks. Again, you are neither the thought nor the etiquette police, so stop frontin' like one -- at least on my talk page. Peace. (You know I love you, darlin'. :) Stop buggin'.) deeceevoice 8 July 2005 09:24 (UTC)

Archiving

Mrs. Deeceevoice,

Ma'm, I noticed that your page reached 101 messages. I just want to let you know you that you can archive your talk page like this: User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 1 or User talk:Deeceevoice/2005-July. Long pages take long to load for people not on broadband :). If you need help, drop me a note. I'd be glad to help.

Respectfuly, George Marselis 8 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

PS, you might enjoy this: [3]

Anti-racism

Hey deeceevoice. I'm sure you're busy enough as it is, but if you get a moment and feel like doing so, you might check out anti-racism which I have extensively rewritten. The old version suggested that anti-racism originated with white anthropologists in the 1920s. I think it's (somewhat) better now, but would be interested in your perspective. Take care, NoahB 15:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

insults

I'm originally from the South, Spade. It is common for people to use "cracker" and "redneck" in nonpejorative ways -- even "peckerwood." Get a clue. And listen to the nameless contributor. Since when the hell did presidents, dead or alive, become sacrosanct? Get off your high horse, Spade. You're 'bout the last person on this web site to preach about this sort of thing. Ya buggin', bwoi, and it's just plain laughable. *x* You come to the aid of a foul-mouthed, racist mental cretin/coward like Wareware and then want to chastise me for criticizing a foaming-at-the-mouth, rabidly racist dead prez? What are you doing -- testing some comedy shtick/routine for the road? Fine an' dandy. Just don't quit your day job. :p deeceevoice 8 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

I don't care where you are from, if you are signifyin / frontin' or playin', this is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself here. I am not a "bwoi", and I would prefer not to have to waste my time gathering instances of you being rude in order to make a formal complaint.

I would have done that long before now, but your edits to articles has been of a professional nature. I would not disrespect any other user in this manner, nor will I tolerate such disrespect from anyone, regardless of race, sex, or religion. Please, be more considerate towards your fellow volunteers. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, Spade, you are not the etiquette police -- nor are you qualified to be. Your admonition that I must show "respect" to a racist, segregationist, crakkka dead prez who showed my people only disdain and intolerance is about as ridiculous as it is pointless. Sorry to break it to you, but people are free to speak their minds here. If that offends you, then it appears the problem is yours -- not mine. Stop buggin', bwoi. Go preach to someone who gives a damn. You're boring me. *yawn* Kindly refrain from responding; I'll simply delete any entry from you before reading it. You are not welcome here. deeceevoice 20:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikimediation

Someone has started a page at Wikipedia:Wikimediation in an attempt to amicably resolve some disputes with you. I encourage you to have a look at the Wikimediation page to get a feel for what we're trying to do there, and then to read the page and see if you can come to an understanding with the people who you seem to be in conflict with. I've left a few comments there already, and I hope you'll take them to heart, and understand the spirit in which they're meant. Snowspinner 21:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I see you're giving up on the Wikimediation process - that's fine and your right, but I encourage you to rethink it. Sam may be being a bit gruff, but he does have some good points - I think you could be less inflammatory in your conduct. At least think about it. Just because Sam suggested it doesn't mean it has to be wrong. Snowspinner 02:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in any Wikimediation. I went that route with Wareware, and it got me absolutely nowhere. Besides, there is nothing to be mediated. And, no. I will not play nicey-nice with someone the likes of what's-his-face (I honestly can't think of his name at the moment) who prides himself on being "politically incorrect" and then presumes to tell me what I can and cannot say. I appreciate your well-meaning input, but it means nothing to me. (Since when is being "gruff" a crime? You think you're going to change me?) I hold my tongue on this racist web site more times than anyone knows; this matter never should have gone up for mediation in the first place. The complainant's points are flimsy and totally ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. deeceevoice 10:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well said, DC. And I challenge that much more evidence could be added to support your argument. That said, I also agree that Snowspinner's efforts are inherently well-meaning. Best, El_C 22:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Cool (aesthetic), and random comments on Berbers, Jews and skin color

No problem. The article has already improved a great deal. Because so few Wikipedia contributors have any knowledge of the subject matter, and because it's a social science-ish article, people are going to want a lot more source references than they would for articles on, say, baseball or molecule or whatever. But it's a good, interesting article, and a VfD is way out of line.

On a completely unrelated topic: I noticed you had a very interesting discussion with mustafaa about the most appropriate racial categorization of Berbers. I can vouch for Mustafaa's description of Algerian Berbers, having spent some time in Tizi Ouzou, a predominantly Berber community in that country. The Berbers there are very caucasian-looking, even more so than the mixed-ancestry (Arab/French) Francophone elite in Algiers. But I don't know what Berbers look like outside Algeria. Maybe darker. Also from that conversation: you mentioned that older Jews from pre-war Europe often refer to African-Americans as "Yemenites". Your point here was completely valid (the darkness of many people native to the Nilotic area), but a small tweak: from my experience it's usually Sephardic Jews or Israelis who associate African-Americans with Yemenite Jews, because of the similar skin color. Old country Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to refer to African-Americans as "Kushim", or "Kushites", because in Hebrew people of dark skin are associated with Kush. However, this is changing with the influx of Ethiopian Jews into Israel, since Ethiopian Jews generally dislike being referred to as "from Kush", when, of course, they're not. Take care. Babajobu 09:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Institutional racism

I just wanted to say thanks for your lengthy reply to my question about "functional integration". Any chance you could put a bit of that into the article? -- The Anome 12:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Watermelon and Racism

You raise some interesting points, deecee. I think your solution is one of the better ones; but I also think you are rather off on the whole reason for the image's inclusion. African Americans have a very DIFFERENT history than lationos, italians, asians, etc, and there is a far greater history of stereotypical associations and images in the US than any of these other groups; it is not simply a fair or direct comparison to ask why there are no stereotypical images of other minorities when they are not direct equivalents to the historic racist assumptions our ancestors had to endure. Just some thoughts. Nice meeting you, by the way =). It's interesting to be multiracial on wikipedia; it comes with its own sets of assumptions and stereotypes to break. =) Elefuntboy 17:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Deeceevoice. You and I are having a spirited, though fruitful, disagreement over at Talk:Watermelon. I've been looking through your contributions, and I'm quite impressed. You've done a lot of great work, and you focus on important subjects (such as race relations) that other editors are reluctant to work with. I have renominated blackface as a featured article candidate.

That said, I worry that you're rubbing some people the wrong way and making too many enemies. Our debate has been mostly mutually-respectful, but it looks like some other debates you've been in have not. There have been editors eventually blocked from Wikipedia for personal attacks (like the spat with Sam Spade above), and I don't want to see that happen to such a great editor as yourself. Stay cool, friend. Wikipedia needs you, and it needs you to keep a level head. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

You said Wrong, Quadell. Actually, they are. Review choices three and four -- again.

See, it's snide comments like that that turn your potential friends into enemies. What do you gain by talking down to other people? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. :) Thanks for stopping by my talk page.

I think you're being oversensitive, Quadell. In reading my response, I don't see anything whatsoever "snide" about my response. You were incorrect in your observation that no one was pressing for the removal of the text. Should I have said you were "mistaken" instead? Would that have been more palatable? Certainly, no offense was intended -- and I don't think my language was offensive in any way. Sorry if you feel that way -- and thanks for your earlier kind words. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Dixie" sheetmusic image

Hello. You didn't like the Dixie sheetmusic image? I'm surprised. I thought it was one of the better examples. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 11:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation and "Sixteen Tons"

You know, I'm going to chime in here too. I made some changes to the entry on Cultural Appropriation, and perhaps they were poorly written, perhaps not, but they did not reflect irrelevant information or some sort of tantiential blithering. The fact that you reverted them because you fail to recognize the clear ties between class and culture shows to me that you seem to want to just ignore that and pretend that white and black is the only line along which cultures divide. Maybe you're just living in the past, but class is just one of many other ways that culture divides, and one of many boundaries across which a majority or power-holding group can react in an act of cultural appropriation. I'm not going to try to fix the entry, it seems to me like you're intent on making things out to be exactly how you think they are, rather than allowing for a dynamic, trans-racial approach to this kind of thinking. I'm glad people like you exist, because you always remind me of how far we've come, and yet how far we have to go. Feel free to delete this comment, and likewise, go right ahead and accuse me of being a racist, white, thought police, or whatever else. Pretend that my perspective on "primarily black" cultures, or whatever you would call them, is automatically excluded, while you sit and posit your own theories on why white people are so arrogant as to question your infinte wisdom as a member of this special class of oppressed peoples. But for the record, I'm not white (not that that should matter in the least, with regard to the issue at hand or the culture you pidgeonhole me into), I'm not rich or even well off, and yet unlike you, I recognize that the struggles of our white comrades-in-arms, especially the poor or otherwise so obviously oppressed, can be the same as our own, if we discontinue utilizing the ridiculously outmoded notions that race defines ethnicity, or that white people are automatically part of the oppressive monolith of mainstream American culture. But feel free to continue to disregard the appropriation of poor "white culture" in America, or any other "white culture" for that matter. But don't forget about bands like The Bad Brains, the usual target of this kind of thing, who instead stole away a poor "white culture" and its music, despite being completely opposed to the ideals of that culture like acceptance and tolerance for gays, or even for white people. Don't forget that white people have contributed to indpenendent/underground music, in both "white music" and "black music." And next time you cut out somebody's points in an article you claim as your turf, consider instead rewriting them. Maybe my points weren't exemplary, maybe they were poorly written or poorly incorporated into your precious article, but they bring up an entire side of this issue that you apparently choose not to acknowledge. -IP 149.43.x.x 15 July 2005 22:19:28 (UTC)

Awful self-righteous -- aren't you? Could it be that I deleted your text (not because it was poorly written or because of some "turf'-war mentality) because I thought it didn't belong in the article for other reasons? Get off your high horse. If my reason for deleting your text was as you state, then why on earth would I leave the text about Native Americans alone? Before you come to someone's talk page, write an anonymous note and ASS-ume something about their motives, try asking a simple question first. *x* deeceevoice 23:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Though the bitchy manner in which you've approached me on this matter doesn't warrent a second approach, I've decided to return to the subject because it seems really important to you. This is the text I deleted:

Another example would be the use of songs or music in general in manners that wholly contradict the original meaning, intent, or origin; e.g. the commercial use of songs like the grim coal mining tune Sixteen Tons and the anti-war song Fortunate Son to promote General Electric and flippantly-patriotic clothing, respectively.

The difficulty I had with the example you gave is that the song was released as a pop song for mass consumption. The rights to that song were then, presumably, sold to the company which used it in its commercial. The song was already distanced from the culture about which it was written. The thing being appropriated has to have, in the eyes of the originating culture, a particular and special, perhaps even iconic, value. And, frankly, I can't see that either of these things do. They're just songs which already were commercial products before they were sold again as jingles of sorts. Is it, perhaps, corporate co-optation? Yes. But, presumably, the producers of the product received monetary compensation and cooperated with the process. Is it off-the-wall? You betcha. But does it rise to the level of cultural approriation? I wouldn't say so. At least it's not clear cut. Perhaps you can come up with a better example to make your point?

Now, go to hell with your snide comments/ASS-umptions. (Just kidding.) :p

Look, you haven't signed your contributions, so I have no idea how long you've been around Wikipedia. I, myself, have been here for only a year or so. But if you disagree with an edit, then that's what the discussion/talk page is for. State your case, argue your point. If it's important enough for you to stew about and leave a bitchy note on someone's talk page weeks after the fact, then it must be important enough to you to take a few moments and explain your opinions to someone who you think doesn't get the point you're trying to make. I suggest you try this tack -- rather than simply assume bad faith on the part of the person who's deleted or otherwise changed your contribution and being sh*tty/self-righteous. Don't give up so easily -- and fight for what you think is important. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 00:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

My "bitchiness" aside, I attempted here to make my complaint to you as strongly and assertively as possible. I may not be as involved with internet encyclopedias as you are, so don't fault me for not commenting back until a few weeks later. And don't tell me I should make up a username, as if that lends me some sort of weight. I don't see how that's at all relevant or even true - you're just as anonymous as me, it is the internet, after all. I use Wikipedia often, and have contributed a few small things to a couple entries. I've never had to deal with someone deleting my revisions like this. And my "ASS-umptions" were not without basis - it's clear that many people do not lend any legitimacy to the existence of non-mainstream "white cultures" or even cultures that do not have a racial basis. Judging by your actions and the comments/incidents associated with your user provile, it seemd quite possible that you were among this group of people. I have no cause to lend you any credit, I'm not one to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I suppose I will offer my appologies if that's a problem. And the Native American bit is not a counter-example to anything I said, that cultural division is clearly one based on race. Unless I misunderstand what you're saying there. (Anonymous contributor)

Funny. You say "'bitchiness' aside" -- but you still haven't put it aside. Who said anything about your anonymity having anything to do with credibility? I mentioned the fact that you don't have a user name/page to say that, by virtue of that fact, it's hard to say how familiar you are with Wikipedia -- hence my suggestion about using the article talk pages to argue a point (not personal talk pages). And, yes, the Native American point is a counter, since you charged me with framing and accepting things in only a white-black framework. (Information about cultural appropriation and Hindu and Polynesian culture also was added to the article, information which I later helped edit.) And, last I checked, Native Americans, Hindus (narrowly speaking) and Polynesians were neither black (strictly speaking, anyway, in the case of Hindus and Polynesians) nor white. And who the hell said anything about giving someone the "benefit of the doubt"? I wrote about not jumping to asinine conclusions -- something entirely different.

Note: Remainder deleted without reading. This rude poster can post his comments to the article talk page, per my suggestion. deeceevoice 10:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You are, by far, the least courteous person I have encountered.... (Remainder of this post from the same anonymuos contributor deleted without reading). deeceevoice 20:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL You don't learn, do you? Actually, I've been quite patient, even indulgent with you. When you write me, you're imposing on my space, my time. I have the option of receiving you as a visitor -- or not. Do not come to my talk page with insults; I'll simply ignore you. I will, effectively, close the door in your face. It's really easy to do. I read the first few words, determine it's another b*tchy tirade, and I simply select the text and click "delete." SLAM! The door is closed. Now go away. deeceevoice 20:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad we agree about Zwarte Piet in Blackface

I see no serious content related issues anymore. With some hard work on formatting and references, this article can become a featured article, as far as I am concerned. Andries 20:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember any serious content-related disputes in the past related to this article. As far as I can remember, the writing of it went quite quickly and fairly smoothly. The only reason it was denied featured-article status before its the lack of references. But, as with any article, a little tweaking never hurts. Peace. deeceevoice 22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You may be happy to learn that I retracted my objection to blackface as a featured article candidate. Andries 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Only my English in the article may need some correction, but I guess you can fix this in a trice. Andries 21:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for lifting my spirits

You've gotta be kidding! Don't make other people's problems your own. We need you here. Cases in point: Talk:watermelon (the vote on inclusion of the racist image in the article) and the recent, wholly bullsh*t move to delete the article on Cool (aesthetic).[4] To quote a poem (the name and author of which escape me; maybe Gwendolyn Brooks) "Let a revolution come. Cain't be like nothin' I done already seen." "Stress"? What's stress? :p Peace 2 u, youngblood. deeceevoice 15:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have returned to Wikipedia, the reason I was so mad because I had been provoked by User:DreamGuy in his constant rudeness to other users, and to being somewhere where no credit is given for hard work. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 00:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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.[5] 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)

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

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?