User talk:Deeceevoice

savedarfur.org[1]

humanitarian aid to Lebanon[2]

User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 1 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 2 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 3 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 4 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 5 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 6

Reply

No problem. Except now I'm old and grey/gray. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cut down on reverting

You're doing a lot of reverting at Thomas Jefferson. This is counterproductive. Please cut down. Friday (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion? There is clearly substantial sentiment that the information should is not only valid, but that it is appropriate and should remain. I wonder if you've considered counseling the editors involved that censorship is not acceptable simply because they object to sourced, cited, factual information about of their sacred cows being included in an article. If you're concerned about "counterproductivity," then perhaps you might consider doing so. deeceevoice 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote there, you'll see that I have no wish to censor anything. What I specifically objected to what you putting the "Criticisms" section back in the way it'd been, when I'd already merged it into the "Jefferson and slavery" section as discussed on talk. I did not remove any content whatsoever, I merely reorganized. If you'd read the talk page before reverting, you'd have known that. Reverts are a brute-force type of edit to be used only in unusual circumstances. Friday (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not suggesting you are one of those involved. In fact, I frankly don't remember your participation on the article until you raised the matter of your "merge." Actually, I found your edit note somewhat disingenuous, when your "merge" consisted of deleting a huge chunk of the text involved. That's hardly simply "merging," now -- is it? deeceevoice 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Would you mind moving the chip that's on your shoulder? It must be blocking your eyes. Here's the edit I'm talking about, where anyone can see exactly what I did: here. As you can see, everything I deleted was moved to another section. You seem very overly-quick to accused others of wrongdoing. Also, if you'd noticed, several other people agreed on the talk page that this section should be combined with the already-existant "Jefferson and slavery" section, since that's what it's about. Friday (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just clicked the link, and I see what you're referring to. When I saw your edit, I did not see that the second section had been moved up. I think those particular changes are just fine and would not have reverted the edit had I seen the entire thing. And, no. Your assumption is incorrect. I don't have a "chip on my shoulder." I'm merely impatient with the entire silly business of those who do want to censor the historical record, treating Jefferson like some idol to be worshipped while churning out George-Washington-and-the-cherry-tree pap for a second-grade comprehension level. Too, I'm working on a couple of deadlines and probably not being as attentive as I should. My apologies. deeceevoice 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, my apologies too- I was annoyed but that's no reason for me to be snippy. Friday (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if for some reason you're concerned about me advising other editors to not revert very much, here's a place where I did just that: User_talk:Welsh4ever76#Lots of reverts, a few days ago. Friday (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've restored your edits including the criticisms of Jefferson in the "slavery" section. We'll see how long it lasts. User:Welsh4ever76 seems intent on edit-warring any and all critism of TJ into oblivion. deeceevoice 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully with enough eyes on the article, it can be relatively stable. If Welsh4ever76 doesn't change his approach he may find himself blocked for excessive reverting- I'd much rather do that than have to protect an article. Friday (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bike

So did you buy the bike? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO. :D Can you imagine the messages the seller must've gotten? Obviously someone pulled his coat, because (if you noticed) the item has been relisted with a tastefully cropped photo of just the bike. And, no-oo-oo! I wouldn't go near that thing! deeceevoice 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This time I looked at the write up just above the large picture and the following stand out "SOME ATTENTION REQUIRED", "ADJUSTABLE REAR" & "NOTHING TO HIDE". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Funny stuff. :) I check eBay for crap I don't need and find it a fairly reliable source of amusement. People are simply hilarious -- most often when they're being dead serious. deeceevoice 00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to compliment you on some nice work over Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians, and other articles recently. I admire your scholarship and tenacity -- please keep up the good work! Best wishes, — Catherine\^talk 06:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say Wikipedia is hopeless -- we're so clearly improving in breadth, depth, and well-referenced authoritativeness in so many areas that I think it will always be useful, in one form or another. It might help you to take a stroll through some of the less combative areas from time to time, to remind yourself of all the good, cooperative work going on -- music, science, medicine, pre-20th centuray history -- for the most part, it's pretty friendly out there.

However, controversial areas are always going to be our bane, and perhaps eventually our downfall. Those areas certainly continue to take the biggest toll on editor longevity and peace of mind. It's shameful that the areas you work on most attract so many contrary, stupid, hateful edits -- but then, it's shameful that people in the real world hold so many contrary, stupid and hateful views. It sometimes helps me to take the long view: little by hard-fought little, the articles will get better and remain better, and someday social scientists are going to be able to look at the histories of these pages as a primary source in their discussions about "racism in the 21st century." It doesn't make the day to day battles any easier, but it reminds me that eventually truth and NPOV will win out over idiocy -- even if it takes ten, twenty, or a hundred years, and even if Wikipedia itself has failed and some other organization has taken over our GFDL content and its histories. In the meantime, all these people are doing is leaving indelible evidence of their narrow-mindedness in place for all time. — Catherine\^talk 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Question

Deeceevoice, would you mind if I asked specifically what is POV and unscholarly about this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_Ancient_Egyptians&oldid=69010038

Also: thanks for answering my other question about your edits.Altarbo 13:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is to an entire page. Exactly to what edit did you have in mind? deeceevoice 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You wanna help us out here at the Black People article?

Sure could use your help. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked.. where have i been "there"... as in there in the Sphinx article. DeeCeeVoice, being confrontational is fine... but being confrontational as a default way to communicate is not.

Here is the answer to your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#ETHNICITY_IS_PART_OF_THE_DESCRIPTION

You have offended me. Seriously. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Get over yourself, Zaph. Don't play wounded with me. I'm not the one who made the seriously uptight "temple harlot" crack, which was totally uncalled for. Furthermore, your last edit to that article was well over three months ago, and I dropped a note on your page asking for your input in a straw poll a few days ago. Nada. And then you have the nerve to ask me to come to an article you're working on? Well, I could counter with the same sort of response. If you'll check the edit history of the "Black people" article, you'll certainly find me somewhere. A lot. You? "...offended.... Seriously"?

Seriously, my brutha, don't even try it. deeceevoice 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're escalating the situation. I am already tied up with the Afrocentric/Eurocentric nuts on the Black People article. You want to throw down fine. I dont know what temple harlot crack you are talking about and whatever it may be is ancient history. Secondly, I stopped editing that article because the root cause of the issue is in the Black People article. While you argue for arguments sake, I am trying to tackle the source of the contention, thereby elimating its effects in other articles. I do not question your presence there, I ask you to participate now, as the article itself has come to a grinding halt. But yes SERIOUSLY and you want to assume you are in charge here, let go. We can insult each other and escalte this all the way to the fucking moon. Try me. Go ahead, pretend you're the default queen of the attitude. I am at my end of bullshit. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So I am trying it and accomplishing it. Shall we continue or just let the thing go. Your call. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your amnesia is so very convenient. Don't play dumb. And what is important to you is the only thing worth editing here, so much so that there's no time to vote a simple yea or nay on another matter. You presume to dictate to me what subject matter is worth my time and attention, my interest? Gotcha. And you are seriously deluded if you think the "root cause of the issue is in the Black People article." The root cause of the problem is the pervasive racism of this website, and it must be countered wherever it presents itself. What you do in Black people will have no effect whatsoever on a cabal of dedicated, racist edit warriors operating elsewhere. Don't kid yourself. deeceevoice 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify for you. I am so sick and tired of americans, black and white, acting like they are the fucking Gods of the earth. Everything that comes out of someones mouth has to be an ego driven posturing attitude. Now DeeCeeVoice, you come in arguing on a whim. At this point I am unwilling to even begin to tolerate it. You and I both can deface each others pages, insult each other. i will do this all night, I will out do you, I swear to God. ([Deleted abusive language ] deeceevoice 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)) --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And what the hell does my legal citizenship status have to do with anything? I don't know what yours is, and I don't give a flying f***. "... you want to assume you are in charge here...." Hey, I'm not the trying to tell someone else how and where to spend their time because my current project is more important than anyone else's. "You and I can deface each others pages..."? What? "... I will out do you..."? What? And who's on an ego trip here? LMBAO. U betta check yaself. deeceevoice 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[Deleted abusive post]. deeceevoice 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn editing conflict. READ THE ARTICLE. My last comment on that article dealt with the ambiguity of the identity. YOU YOURSELF reply later asking me to address the identity in another section. HELLO! I dont care about this temple harlot nonsense, and no one has amnesia. HELLO DEECEEVOICE THINK THINK THINK! We are in an INTERNET FORUM. That means historical postings remain available. I have not denied it. YOu see you continue to argue and fight, and today... You have found yourself in a situation where your entire talk page will be edited until your fingers bleed on your keyboard trying to keep up. No one is dictating anything. YOU CANT SEE A QUESTIONMARK AT THE END OF THE SENTANCE? GOD! The root cause of the problem is obviously the racism on the website, however the LOGICAL SOLUTION IS TO ADDRESS THE SOURCES OF NOUN IDENTITIES. THINK! IF UP is UP and someone calls it DOWN, you must clarify what UP IS! Dont kid YOURSLEF. Using the 1987 afro-defeatist routine is old and tired. I am not here to argue, but you are inciting me and I am not backing down one iota, one single instant. There will be editing conflicts, there will be a lot of text and you will have to revert your talk page throughout the night until you stop distorting my intentions my responses and my comments. I have had enough. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How naive can you be? What you do in Black people will have absolutely no bearing on what happens in other articles. The project simply doesn't work that way; it's not a Rube Goldberg device. It's this article and this one and this one and this one, another one and another one over there. "... the sources of noun identities..."? Important, yes, which is why I was involved in the article in the past. But as the key to solving the problem of systemic racism in the articles on Wikipedia? Pardon me if I laugh.

And you: "I dont know what temple harlot crack you are talking about...." You: "I dont care about this temple harlot nonsense, and no one has amnesia. HELLO DEECEEVOICE THINK THINK THINK! We are in an INTERNET FORUM. That means historical postings remain available. I have not denied it."

Uh, 'scuse me?

I put an end to that nonsense when I realized you were too uptight on the subject of Jeezus, religion and sex to engage in a little levity on the subject and squelched the "discussion." But here you come up in my space, actin' a fool and pretending to be so offended because I dared to tell you this is a reciprocal thing and that you have absolutely no say in what is, or is not, a worthwhile enterprise on this website with regard to how I spend my time. The two hardly bear comparison. Just man up and own up to your own words instead of claiming you "don't know" what you said -- and, again, get ovuh urself, blackman. deeceevoice 00:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I wil tell you what im uptight about. I am uptight about everyone claiming that the real Jesus was what they say he is, but showing no proof. All of you cant all be right, because none of you agree with each other, but somehow you all use the SAAAME tactics to 'prove' yourselves. Jesus was a white, jesus was from deep within Africa, the Jesus was a femininist< Jesus was a cheuvanist, et cetra. And I am not acting. You are doing your argumentative tactic. You start off saing "dont pretend to be this" and then go on and on as if I am in some secret lie. I dont compare what is a worthwhile enterprise. I asked you to particpate, but obvioulsy you are so ultra arrogant, a mere request you interpret to be some sign of self-centeredness. Hey DeeCeeVoice can you turn the light on? "No brotha, dont tell me what do do, you think you are so important to determine if the room needs light or not, who are you"? That shit is beyond annoying. I didnt tell you what you were doing is not worthwhile, heck I dont know all of what you do on here. Do you undrestand? You make up your idea of what I think of you and what you do and then you argue that idea, has nothing to do with what I think. So you stop pretending that I am saying smoething I am not saying and get real. Saying "get real" and really "Getting Real" are two different things. Look at the reality of whats going on and stop being on auto-smart-ass mode! --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I don't care what you think about Jeezus. What I insist on, however, is that you come down off your high horse, stop posturing like some injured, foul-mouthed 1970s blackman whose male ego has been offended and speak to me like an intelligent adult. When you're ready to do so, then, as always, I'm here. But until then ... I don't think I have to spell that out. You can't bully me, name-call or insult me into seeing things your way. And I'm a blackwoman. We made you. Ya day-um sure cain't Mau-Mau me. I don't play that s***. :p I'm not some naive, little white girl you can send crying to her room. What? U dun loss ur damn mine? Actin' a fool in public -- and we both in enemy territory? Like I said b4, check yasself. deeceevoice 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OH but I see you still want to be the big dog, rooot rooot rroooooo. Fine, let us continue. Round Two. You yourself have been banned and censored beyond count. You cannot even start a conversation with people without inciting anger among the listners. You yourself cannot speak as an intelligent adult when you take a question and reinterpret it to be a command. Children do that. You ask a child to do something and they get offended as if you are trying to attack them. That is YOUR bullying tactic. "Dont such and such brotha". You get a taste of your own tongue and you dont like it. Now what? I'm Blackman and guess what I made you first. No one in here is from a lesbian egg-egg union, so get real black woman. We can go all the way back to the protozoa, or the atom, or adam and eve, whichever you prefer. Every child, male AND female has a mother AND a father. And if you dont want me to bully you or insult you, then STOP INSULTING ME! You cant even be original, you say 70s after I said 80s. You caught me on the day hon. You forget, you came to me with attitude first. Oh wait I forget, you re so conceited, that your attitude is a given, its a default, doesent even count does it??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)