November 4, 2005 to January 30, 2006=[edit]

Three-revert rule violation[edit]

You are reported for violating the 3revert rule CoYep 15:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a violation of the three-revert rule on Cultural appropriation. The reversions are:

Please try to work towards a consensus, rather than revert-warring over article content. Your block will expire in 36 hours. Rob Church ^Talk 16:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the edit summary of this edit, I'm afraid that that kind of behaviour is not at all acceptable on Wikipedia. Your block is extended for another 24 hours, to 60 hours. Rob Church ^Talk 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Day-um. I'm only just now seeing this. This guy blocked me for 60 hours (I didn't even know! :p) for that after this edit note? [1] And probably not a mumblin' word to User: Chameleon.) I'm almost sorry I didn't send him that fictionalized, nasty, "screaming" e-mail. lol deeceevoice 14:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right. Robchurch didn't say anything to Chameleon. But I did, and I blocked him for the same amount of time you got. But I don't think he noticed his block any more than you noticed yours. --Angr (tɔk) 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, huh. And where did I anywhere call him a racist or anything like "subhuman racist slime," "wikiscum," "subhuman racist slime," etc.? Answer: nowhere. Yet, we receive the same punishment? Bullsh*t. Under the circumstances, I thought my response was pretty cool-headed. That and fact that RobChurch not only did not say anything to Chameleon, but then lied about me -- and then was nominated for adminship -- by the same user who brought the RfC against me and then, I just found out, proposed that I be barred from editing any African-American related article in the RfA (anyone sense an agenda here?) -- within weeks of having (only partly) admitted his utter fabrication (I never sent him a single word about his blocking me; in fact, I only just discovered the additional 36 hour block), and that he got several votes, speaks, I think, volumes about the climate and sensibilities of this crappy, b.s. -- and racist -- website. deeceevoice 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand your frustration and anger. I was pretty shocked by the length of block he gave you and by the fact that he hadn't given Chameleon so much as a slap on the wrist, which is why I decided to step in. (The fact that neither of you noticed is irrelevant!) I'm not at all happy with Rob's behavior, nor was I particularly impressed by his retraction and apology at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice, especially since it came only 15 hours after deleting your response and calling it "garbage". The fact that his second RfA didn't succeed can be some slight consolation, even though it was very close. As for Chameleon, he just seems to be generally sociopathic, as evidenced not only by his vitriol towards you but even the disrespectful message on his user page and the fact that he considers it "vandalism" when someone posts a message to him on his talk page. I frankly can't understand why someone like that would ever want to be part of WP. All that being said, I for one wish you wouldn't leave. As you know all too well, Wikipedia's already too dominated by white guys like me, and if one of the few black woman editors we have leaves--especially one who's a very good and very profilic editor--that's just going to compound what some people like to call WP's "systemic bias", not make it better. --Angr (tɔk) 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about the 15-hour turnaround: I'm not going to disparage RobChurch in that regard. I've already accepted his apology. As I said to him, I wouldn't ever have fabricated such lies, and he didn't own up to everything --but he showed a great deal of character in what he did in retracting his earlier statement (something I know I'd find very difficult to do under similar circumstances). I don't think it matters how long it took for his conscience to kick in. The point is it did -- and he didn't have to say anything. After all, who would people believe -- him or me? :p Further, I urged him to stay with the project, if he was sincere in his apology and felt he could be of benefit to it.

That said, in light of his conduct, I don't think he has any business being an administrator, certainly not for a good, long while --particularly now that I now know how he handled the edit war between Chameleon and me. And, I notice, he's still hedging his apology. He's admitted to an over-the-top characterization of that fictionalized e-mail he says I sent, but he has yet to admit I never sent it in the first place. And that, to me, says he's still perfectly capable of lying/obfuscation when it comes to dealing with users on the website. Further, he persisted in removing the false passages from his special page devoted to me, when I specifically requested that he restore them -- so that those who wanted to understand what all the furor was about could easily access it. I have to say, even though I bear him no ill will, I still don't completely trust him. deeceevoice

Mediation request[edit]

Hi. There has been a request for mediation involving you made at WP:RFM. If you are willing to take part in the mediation, please add your name there or email me at sam DOT korn AT gmail DOT com. Cheers, Sam Korn 17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation[edit]

I'm rather inactive right now due to health concerns. It seems that the picture issues has been resolved, so I haven't posted on its talk page . I dropped a note on Chameleon's talk page reminding him of WP:Civility. If you need me you'll be able to get a hold of me more easily throught the e-mail this user option than by posting on my talk page fot the next few days. -JCarriker 03:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural appropriation[edit]

Deeceevoice, I've seen the talk page, and what you are proposing is using POV to illustrate a certain POV. We simply cannot do that, I will have to revert the image comment. Please try to understand that Wikipedia takes no POV, and the matter of fact is that racial segregation is seen different by different cultures. --Dejan Čabrilo 10:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The caption is not POV. You obviously jumped the gun, because I was still writing my explanation of the revert when you sent me a note. Read my comments in the discusion. deeceevoice 10:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes[edit]

Hi. I notice that you moved The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, presumably to disambiguate from the movie. There's no need to devote an entire page to disambiguating between the two -- a disambiguation header will do the job and not break hundreds of wikilinks. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more information. If you would like to help out, there is always work to be done at Disambiguation link repair.

The second thing is that I notice that you have Image:Kanye.jpg on your User talk page. We can't use copyrighted images to decorate our userspace, I am afraid. See Wikipedia:Fair use to explain why not. Parkstoday.jpg, which is on your main user page doesn't seem to have any copyright information at all, and is now a candidate for speedy deletion. Wikipedia as a whole is in the process of trying to minimize our use of unfree images, and there's been a lot of concern about the legal consequences of copyright violations recently. Sorry, and thanks for understanding. If you would like to help out, you can see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Thanks. Jkelly 18:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs[edit]

I wrote most of that page. Racism wasn't Bob Clampett's actual intent when he made the cartoon; he did it becasue he was facinated with Black jazz culture. The cartoon does show a lot of the ignorances and bigoted attitudes of Clampett and his team, but I think it would be better to re-word it just a bit, so that it doesn't read like they made the film specifically to thumb their noses at Black people. --FuriousFreddy 19:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there wasn't intentional racism, except inasmuch that using even well-established cultural tropes is racist if the tropes themselves are. However, Deeceevoice's edits are spot on; the cartoon, though a truly great cartoon if one sets the stereotyping aside -- great art, great music, great piece of history, but racist as all shit. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furious, I'm surprised at you. Do you really think whites have to be malicious in order to be racist? You should know better! deeceevoice 20:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always saw racism as a concious action, and labeled similar unconscious actions as "ignorance" or "insensitivity". But, you're saying that that's not correct, and, as I think about it, you're probably right. --FuriousFreddy 23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Deeceevoice and Jpgordon. In fact, I think the article's Controversy section is too short and needs more info. Are there any comments from critics on the film's racism? I mean, if the article is going to go into how so many people place this cartoon on the list of all-time greats, then there needs to be info on why the cartoon is considered so racist that it has almost disappeared. I'd also change the section head from Controvery to Racist Themes or something like that.--Alabamaboy 21:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a good analysis of the film. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my Gawd! That's not just an analysis, there's a link at the bottom of the page to the short itself. I don't see how any self-respecting blackman (or woman) could make excuses for this crap. It's hideously racist as hell. deeceevoice 21:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And it's relatively mild compared to a lot of the cartoons of the earlier decades, many of which seemed to have an unbroken lineage to minstrel shows. This was among the last of the overtly stereotypical racist cartoons. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...unless you count the Tom and Jerry cartoons with "Mammy Two-Shoes", which continued on until 1953. --FuriousFreddy 23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up watching that crap on television, and the caricatures in this are on par with that same racist junk. I watched no more than the first couple of minutes. I don't have a lot of patience for it. The rationalizing/excuse making that accompanies this cartoon reminds me somewhat of the treatment of Birth of a Nation because of its technical aspects. And no one -- and certainly no one black -- has dared to suggest that it's not racist. Just unbelievable. deeceevoice 22:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's racist. How could anyone suggest otherwise? Other than the excuse of the pre-existing milieu, what other excuses and rationalizations are available? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon is racist and offensive, without a doubt, but it's far from being as bad as Birth of a Nation (which I successfully lobbied against having to watch in school). There are worse Hollywood cartoons with such imagery (Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat, a Walter Lantz cartoon from 1941, immediately comes to mind), and even worse Warner Bros. cartoons (Jungle Jitters from 1938). I admit that I might be (a) desensitized, since I've seen Jungle Jitters and similar cartoons dozens of times as a kid on $2 public domain tapes from Wal-mart and (2) because Coal Black is rather well-animated with a musical score above the quality of that of a regular Looney Tune or Merrie Melodie. As a Black animator, it's frustrating to do research and studying, because you see cartoon after cartoon like this, and you don't know how to feel about it. A Black film scholar, Henry T. Sampson, wrote a book on the subject called That's Enough Folks: Black Images In Animated Cartoons, 1900-1960. [2]

As far as the article goes, during my week break, I realized that Cal Black could make a good featured article. The primary thing it needs is analysis of its stereotyping, compared with other similar Wanrers cartoons. It also could use more info on its plot and gag structures, and I can add a few more screengrabs. --FuriousFreddy 23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the information on the stereotyping present in the film (wow...I never realized just how detached I was in watching it until I had to go back and write that analysis). Let me know what you all think of the addition. --FuriousFreddy 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Since its obvious that you used a number of references in the article, is it possible to use an inline notes system to document the particulars of the references. I say this b/c if you eventually try to reach FA status you'll need the notes. If you need help with these notes, I'd be glad to pitch in.--Alabamaboy 13:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't be too difficult at all. --FuriousFreddy 18:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. Well done :D. But one more thing: it seems that the Snow White character is the classic black "sexual siren"/"wanton woman" stereotype/archetype (as opposed to the asexual "mammy" archetype). I don't know if the other black woman caricatures are mammy types, but if they are, you might want to mention these things -- also also if there are other black streotypes/archetypes in the film. deeceevoice 11:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that So White is depicted as the "exotic sexual Black woman" stereotype, and compared her to a similar character in Walt Lantz' Scrub Me Mama. Now that cartoon is even more flagrantly racist and unfunny -- clips of it appear in Bamboozled (the two Stepin Fetchit types slapping each other upside the head in slow-motion..."I'll buss yo' haid" and such). --FuriousFreddy 03:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Joplin[edit]

Sorry about that. I've come across a few edits by prudes, asterisking out words they find offensive, and I just assumed that this was the same. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janis and cultural appropriation[edit]

dear deceevoice:

I sincerely apologise if my edits on the Joplin article caused you any offence and I thank you for the changes of emphasis that you have made -- I wholeheartedly agree with them.

Had I thought my contribution out carefully -- rather than editing it on the fly, in the wee small hours, as I actually did -- I would have made explicit reference to Janis being a *white* singer and her influence on other *white* performers. It saddens me too, but the fact is that popular music was (and remains) a racist industry. I am well aware that the issue of cultural appropriation is a very sensitive one and that most of the great black originators of American music have never been properly acknowledged.

Basically, I was coming at it from the gender angle, and I hadn't really thought through the racial issues surrounding her work. Janis clearly appropriated a black music genre, but she was in my view one of the first white female performers to do so at all convincingly. However, I didn't explicitly say "white" and I really should have, so I am grateful that you have made that clear.

Also, whilst there has inevitably been a lot of cultural revisionism concerning her work, my understanding is that Janis herself always openly acknowledged the people who had influenced her, like Bessie Smith and Big Mama Thornton, and I do believe this had some effect in extending the awareness of their work among white audiences.

I have a few small comments about your criticism section. I think it's a fair to say that her popularity was and is mainly among white audiences. However, I think you need to insert a reference to support what I consider a fairly sweeping generalisation:

"Her designation as blues royalty also has raised vehement objections about "cultural appropriation"."

Clearly you share this view, but if you based your comment on some published critique, then you should refer to it, otherwise it's little more than a personal opinion.

Also, I think your comments about the nature and quality of her voice reflect a personal point of view. Clearly not everyone likes her voice, but judgements of that kind are by definition subjective. I have no problem with critical quotes in context, but your personal comments make it pretty clear that you don't like her voice, and with respect, I don't think that adds anything to the argument, so I have taken the liberty of replacing your comments with a less pejorative expression.

BTW I am always open to constructive criticism, and your comments have made me realise that I need to be more explicit about some of these issues regarding music. But next time you disagree with something I write, just point it out. You don't need to rail at me -- I totally agree with you! As Frank Zappa said, "I may not be black, but there are a lot of times I wish I wasn't white."

Peace! :)

--dunks58

Actually, my opinion of Joplin isn't the issue here. The adjectives "screaming" and "yowling" are common ones when applied to blues and r&b expression. They are neither negative or positive; they are what they are. And there's absolutely no doubt that either term adequately characterizes Joplin's style of delivery. Just google "Joplin screaming" and see what you come up with. The commentary is both positive and negative. "Yowl" is, of course, an onomatopoeic term. Listen to Joplin, and you hear it. Google "yowl funk" -- same thing. IMO, Joplin was a disaster. She simply didn't have the pipes to do what she wanted to do. She had a terrible voice and couldn't sing worth a damn. But even if I were a fan, I wouldn't have a problem with the adjectives. They've been used to describe Cameo, Sly Stone, Wilson Pickett, Aretha Franklin, Patti LaBelle, Howlin' Wolf, Etta James -- and on and on -- people of enormous and authentic talent.

And I italicize "authentic," because it's something Joplin's delivery completely lacked. It seemed forced and utterly unnatural (and, IMO, sounded even worse).

I realize your error may have been inadvertent, but I took particular exception to your mention of Diana Ross -- when anyone who knows anything about the African American music tradition knows that the stage persona of Supremes was among the exceptions to the general rule. IMO, there is no way anyone could possibly see Ross as typical of black, female vocalists of the time, when especially prominent then were also artists like Tina Turner, Etta James, Gladys Knight, Mavis Staples, Irma Thomas, Carla Thomas, Fontella Bass, Esther Phillips, etc. Your apparent carelessness is precisely how the historical record becomes distorted time and again in matters such as this. And over time, one loses patience for such gaffs that attribute black innovations to whites. It is annoying as hell.

But, hey, I've made well-meaning entries on Wikipedia that I cringed at later on. So, join the club. Peace back. deeceevoice 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deeceevoice[edit]

I got your message. I created this article as a response to the VfD. Thanks, Molotov (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I wrote that on the bottom. Oh well. Molotov (talk)

21:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know, I am coming to D.C. for thanksgiving. : ) (well, Maryland in PG county), Molotov (talk)

21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

I loved D.C., I hated that I had to come back to Florida in all honesty. Most people come to Florida from there and up North to think that we live in paradise (yeah, right : ) ). I HATE hurricanes... so the thing about snow up there really isn't so bad to me. Hey, there was a blizzard on are way up there on Wednesday (and I know snow is nothing to you, but that was the fifth time seeing snow in my entire life!) I swear, I lived in Southern California and Mississippi...now Florida, so how much snow could I see in those hot azz places. Anyway, I was ready to stay in D.C., once you get aroung all those hurricanes, you want to be there less and less. Thank you for always being a good friend. I hope you get this message. And hey, I couldn't imagine 26F in November, so what is it like in January? : ). See ya' I changed my user name by the way. Happy Holidays, (Christmas, Kwanzaa and all the rest of those days).

(I am giving out barnstars for each message I send for the Holidays). Alright!

Happy Holidays, Take Care, and PEACE AND LOVE! Энциклопедия (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, darlin'. :D How is it that I'm only just now seeing your message? Guess I haven't been paying much attention to my page. (Though I remember engaging (and then deleting) a pointless exchange about my "uncivil" [sic] behavior earlier today. (Amazing that people will actually read/follow my talk page and discussion page comments and then return to lecture me on how I should comport myself! I mean don't these people have lives? And like I give a damn. I just don't get that hall monitor mentality.) Anyway, I hope your holiday was a fine one -- with all the fixin's. What's with the new name, my multilingual friend? Though my twin sister studied Russian, I'm completely unfamiliar with the cryllic alphabet. So, how the hell does one pronounce it? As far as I'm concerned, it could just as well be Mr. Mxyzptlk. deeceevoice 06:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't speak Russian, I just thought it looked cool to have a different looking signature. Now I put mine in Greek. I hope you had a very special holiday. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That ish is Greek. Looks the same to me. :p deeceevoice 11:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of African Americans is listed at AfD[edit]

thanks to a bitter Jewish kid who's gone on a rampage. See discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (2nd nomination). --FuriousFreddy 06:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, User:Radiant! has rolled back all of Arniep's contributions, or at least all of the AfD nominations he's made, and temporarily blocked him. The AfDs are being closed as speedy keep, justified by the fact that User:Arniep appears to be trying to make a point. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-19 08:24:01Z

African American list[edit]

Hi, I saw your comment on this. Again, I apologize for what I did it was stupid and I didn't intend for the lists to be deleted, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Jewish lists were being picked on and people were just deleting them because they thought they were anti semitic or something. I'm not Jewish, I just wanted people to treat the lists fairly. Really I don't think any of these lists should really be deleted unless they are something really stupid like xxx-American tapdancers who live in yyy street or something. Arniep 17:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of African Americans (again)[edit]

Hey, Deeceevoice. Will you kindly check out List of African Americans? Grcampbell is adding in white folks and Arab folks who happen to have African parents. This totally ignores the definition of "African American" given at the African American article, of course. I've reverted him once, but judging by his talk page comments, he's trying to make a point. I think you would do a better job of convincing this guy to stop than I, a well-intentioned white boy. Thanks . . . . —BrianSmithson 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on the "motherfucker" article[edit]

deeceevoice, it is not too much to ask you to provide a source for the "maryland farmer" euphemism. I see from your above coments that you do not think that you should have to provide sources for things that you know. I respectfully disagree, and WP:CITE policy agrees with me. I do not doubt that the phrase was used in such a way, but as it stands, it is unverified. Your saying it is so does not make it so. If you can not provide a source, please do not revert the deletion as an uncited fact.Brian Schlosser42 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I put on Santa's running shoes and went through Wikipedia deleting all uncited statements, we wouldn't have much left. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. However, if a statement is not sourced when challenged, that's a different matter. — Matt Crypto 12:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New article on Labor history (discipline)[edit]

Hullo deeceevoice. I wonder if you would be able to add something useful to this article. Specifically, I thought you might know something about labor history and African/African American history (as subjects of academic enquiry) in the US. I have added C. L. R. James as an example of someone who dealt with both race and class in his work (in far too subtle a manner for me to try to describe it shorthand). I imagine though that work on African American history must have been something of a challenge to labor history in the US back in the day and would have posed difficult issues of the meaning of class and labor history. Hope you understand what I'm getting at! All the best, Mattley 11:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Hopefully I'll have a chance to research this over christmas. Thought it was worth asking around though. As for squirrels, yeah they're persistent, but we make a big fuss of ours so we bring it on ourselves really. Your story about the dead baby squirrels was a bit upsetting. We've got a big momma squirrel on our block churning out two litters a year, so we have baby squirrels around most of the year. Anyway, cheers! Mattley ^(Chattley) 13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

One wonders if you'd have better luck with User:Justforasecond posting repeatedly here if you didn't just delete his comments saying "deleted without reading" or "deleted vandalism". Your talk page is a point where people can contact you; it is not vandalism to do so. Moreover, I find it perplexing that you make a point of keeping the various nasty racist trolling attacks above, yet delete good faith genuine criticism "unread". Anyway, I should also let you know that I've posted an RfC on this issue: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice. — Matt Crypto 08:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFAS's first visit contained a groundless charge regarding my editing Afrocentrism -- which I hadn't touched in days -- and then, only to do clean-up, tone down the POV and flag for the need for citations. I gave ample notice to JFAS that he was NOT to post to my talk page, and he continued/es to do so. I consider that vandalism. He was totally off-base. Further, I have little use for people who arrive at Wikipedia and make sweepingly inaccurate generalizations regarding the nature of my contributions without knowing what the hell they're talking about. JFAS's ridiculous comments on your discussion page about me are a case in point. (I have some control over other black editors on this site, and I draw them into conflicts? What a huge, steaming load of bullcrap.) He has absolutely nothing further to say to me or about me that is of any interest to me whatsoever. Why? Because as far as I'm concerned, he's stepped over the line with his snap judgments and petty whining. I'm done with him.

I may choose to delete from my talk page, and my personal page as well, whatever suits me, without comment, so please don't concern yourself with what I choose to keep and choose to delete. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your obsevations in that regard. (Others do it constantly without so much as a sneeze.) It's my prerogative, and I will not comment on such trivia further.

With regard to your RfC, I never much saw the usefulness of that process. It certainly was utterly useless when I tried it for a truly serious matter. Doubtless, yours will come to a similar end. IMO, yours is fairly trivial by comparison. All that time and effort to smack my hands and say "play nice with the other kids" (who are often offensive and annoying themselves) when there are far more serious verbal altercations and conflicts and seriously disruptive behavior going on all the time on this website? Gee, good luck with that. And what will they do? Block me? It happens all the time -- mostly as collateral damage. Suspend me? Even ban me? For being impatient or snippy? Well, now. And Ed Poor, still an administrator, gets off with what he pulled recently? Now, ain't that a blip.

My God. We are pretty much all adults here. Far more serious stuff happens in church cafeterias than what I do. You want us all to put up our pinkies and have tea together and play nicey-nice and tolerate people who want to tell me that me calling something "pathetic" is a "verbal attack"? Sorry, buddy. I'm no lobotomized, white-bread Stepford wife. You may not be totally comfortable with who I am, and, gee, that's too bad. I come from a culture of verbal confrontation, and my nature is to be direct. And, more to the point, my tolerance for such drivel is really, really low. Frankly, IMO, this sort of thing is an abuse of the RfC process; it just trivializes it. And it amazes me that people have nothing better to do on this website than play Miss Manners with other adults like prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats.

And, no. I'm not saying that to get your back up; it's simply what I honestly think.

I have better ways than to spend my time than with such matters. But if this is what does it fuyyah, my friend, then have at it. Do your worst. And don't expect a response to whatever you may enter here. I'm done with this. The holidays are approaching, and my time is particularly short -- shorter, even, than my patience. Have a happy. Peace on earth and all that crap. But take your RfC and -- well ... I think you get the idea. deeceevoice 08:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DeeCee, I got threatened with imminent citation for... well heck, I really don't know what the complaint is. I allegedly "attributed a racial membership to someone publicly" (I think that means, I called someone black, or white, or something, and that is allegedly a no-no?). This complaint came right after you also were RFCd in the Black people article. Seems kind of suspicious, the timing. anyway, I helped my "victim" by filing the complaint myself here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Remove_personal_attacks#WHere_is_the_Wikipedia_governing_body.3F. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you already know, having apparently been blocked before, but incivility is a blockable offense. I strongly encourage you to be less abrasive in your interactions with others. Friday (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blues[edit]

Dear Deeceevoice, would you like to help me addressing the reviewer's comments on blues. Some are asking for copyedit. Since English is not my mother tongue, that's a bit difficult. Thanks, Vb 10:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution[edit]

Hi Deeceevoice,
I'd like to start by asking how familiar you are with dispute resolution? I've looked at talk page and contributions, but that tells me little about what you know and are not typing.
You should consider approaching a member's advocate. They who can tell you what the outcomes from the dispute resolution process can be. The talk page of your request for comment has discussion of moving to the next stage, based upon your perceived unwillingness to participate.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Hey Deecee,

Saw your RfC and thought I'd swing by and say hi, and keep up the good work. Even though you and I have briefly talked about civility stuff before too, this RfC seems ill-conceived and already turning into a gratuitious racial pile-on. Well, sorry it's happening; I've no doubt you'll keep up the good editing regardless! See you on the articles... --Dvyost 17:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me stick my nose in here too. Though we've rarely communicated, or even edited together, your edits keep popping up on my watchlist and they're always good. I haven't always felt quite the same way about your talk page participations. Your contributions are valued! Hang in there. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stay strong[edit]

- εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to wish everybody a Happy Holiday; I am through arguing now. It is like pulling teeth anyway. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern contributions award[edit]

Don't do it![edit]

Please don't leave, you stopped me from doing it...I can't let you go : )! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 17:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, as far as I'm aware, edited any articles you've worked on. I came across your name for the first time today on Talk:Dreadlocks, which led me to the RfC and then to your user/talk pages where I was horrified to see the attacks people have made on you. I think it's a very good idea you had to keep those attacks visible rather than sweep them under the carpet. I haven't actually seen your comment that you may be leaving Wikipedia, but I've seen others refer to it. I hope you don't leave, though having seen the attacks I certainly wouldn't blame you. I wish you well whatever you decide. --bodnotbod 00:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ragdoll cats[edit]

Sorry for the delay; I haven't experienced any furball problems at all with my Ragdoll; in fact, she's never even shown any signs of a problem related to ingesting her hair ever. I have a couple of other domestic short-hair tabby strays that I'm fostering [and probably stuck with at this point] which do have continuing problems with their fur and I have to comb them frequently and even administer a "catlax" type of emulstion to alleviate their problems when they show up. My Ragdoll's fur never seems to shed much at all [at least in comparison with the others] and again she's not at all tolerable of my attempts at combing or brushing her, no matter how gentle I am. Oddly, I can pet her all day long. I did get a combing glove a few years back, and all that it did for me was protect me from her inevitable swats when I tried to use it on her. It removed the least amount of hair of anything that I had tried.

Take care, --Dan 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stay[edit]

please stay and edit more articles about black american experience. Wikipedia is being taken over by a bunch of racist whities and we need more touch biatches like you to stand up to them.

Unsigned comment from 164.67.44.211

Restored by Dvyost 04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to stormfront[edit]

I would like to see you in a real, INTELLIGENT debate, why don't you go to the opposing views section of stormfront and post some of your gripes with Russians//Italians//Scots//Scandinavians//French//etc. Tell us all about the evil "social construct" that is the white race, and how despite all the Liberal ass kissing, affirmitave action, hate crime laws, media bias, excuses, welfare and other aid we give you that we are still as a race oppressing you? You want to belittle, bash, and ultimately commit genocide against the white race, thats all you Afrocentrists are about. If I'm walking down the street, and I get my ass kicked by 5 blacks (I love that tribal mentality of yours) then is it my fault because my Ancestors (which didn't arrive until AFTER the civil war) "oppressesd" yours, because I'm part of the evil "social construct" that is the white race? Well, I hope to see you at stormfront, I want to see you get destroyed.

Best wishes, EE33

P.S.

Note to EE33: I hate to be incivil, but I am going to say it: you sound like a complete ass. Please READ SOMETHING aside from the Turner Diaries and know that the world is not out to get you, you are out to get the world. So instead of your Sieg Heil chants, how about you open your eyes to common sense. ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found that story about the art dealer that you posted in the black supremecy section to be somewhat funny, if I were him I wouldn't have commited that evil sin of saying "I'm going to get some black art, good black art of course". That's because I'm not a douchebag liberal who goes out of my way to kiss black's asses. Despite my racist views, I still try and treat individual blacks with respect if they treat me the same way.

Love how racists are so brave when they post anonymously.--Alabamaboy 15:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Stormfront? Ha. Go to hell.

"Intelligent debate"? On Stormfront with a bunch of inbred, sleazoid, mental-cretin, hatemongers. ROTFLMBAO. If I won't bother with an RfC, do you really think I'd waste my time?

And "tribal mentality"? I suppose you should know. After all, to quote one of my favorite poems, "They don't come by ones, they don't come by twos...."[3] Mob violence wearin' yo' mama's bedsheets for anonymity -- kinda like your cowardly post here. That's more your style, you racist azzwipe. KMBA. deeceevoice 18:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were blatantly provoked by the rude comments left anonymously, but please do observe the civility policy. Responding to such things in kind only fans the flames. Friday (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my intrusion, but it's Deeceevoice's talk page; I think she's entitled to respond how she pleases. — BrianSmithson 20:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see ya back, Deecee... --Dvyost 21:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Brian. And thanks, Alabama and Dv. And, Friday, kindly refrain from leaving messages on my talk page from here on out. Is that polite enuff fuyyah? If you don't like the way I express myself, here's a tip: DON'T READ MY TALK PAGE! Now, that's an idea. Last I checked, it's not required reading for anyone here. Vote with your web browser and simply stay away. deeceevoice 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you want it, sure. However, I feel it's only fair to leave you with one last message: if I see you make such remarks to another editor again, there's a good chance I'll block you without further comment or warning. Civility is essential. Friday (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Friday, it is against Wikipedia policy to block someone as you are threatening to do. The Blocking policy is explicit in stating that only personal attacks which threaten someone can lead to a block. If you attempt to block Deeceevoice over something like this, especially when she was responding to a threateningly racist post on her talk page, I will report you for abuse of admin powers. As an admin myself, I guess I could respond to your threat by threatening to also block you back but that, as I said, is not what blocks are supposed to be used for. Anyway, I'm getting involved in this because there appears to be an organized drive to force Deeceevoice out of Wikipedia. I'm not saying you are taking part in this, but this is the perception in regards to recent actions against her. Anyway, you seem like a good editor and I appreciate your concern for civility, but there is a lot of history going on with regards to how Deeceevoice has been treated.--Alabamaboy 00:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you do you, and I do me. Don't post here again. What? No similar admonition to the racist mental cretin? No comment to him? Ha! So-oo-oo typical. And you think you have any credibility here? Yeah. Right.deeceevoice 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anon is the one who needs blocking here. Guettarda 23:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[4] -JCarriker 23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back. : ) ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. I just took a week-long break from the madness (need/ed centering), and I was (still am) busy trying to clear my desk for the holidays. I don't get it. Where'd the idea come from that I was leaving? Yes, I am bored/annoyed with this place and so will be spending considerably less time here. It's about restoring harmony/balance within and preferences w/regard to how I spend my time. I appreciate all the good wishes and such, but I haven't bothered to read the RfC page(s?) at all (and won't; I said I didn't have time for such nonsense, and I meant it), so I don't get it/have no idea of its status or any of it. (And I don't care.) Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is a toxic enough atmosphere without dealing with that rubbish, and I've resolved that feeding/nurturing my spirit is a hell of a lot more important than this place overall. Time for me to resume meditation, maybe do a little tai chi, take care of me.

Kinda sad, though, Mxyzptlk -- doncha think -- that the potential departure of one, measly editor would cause such a ruckus? I guess that speaks volumes about the need to attract more competent black editors to the project (assuming they're willing to deal with the abject nonsense of people like Justforasecond, the cowardly scum above, and a seemingly utterly incompetent administrator like Friday). Funny. I'm currently affected by a user block and can't edit your talk page (for a moment I thought the RfC had resulted in action against me) -- which is why I'm responding to your post here. (Because such collateral damage happens all the time to AOL users like me, I don't see how or why anyone thinks blocking someone is an effective solution to anything. Reminds me of another poem: "Let a revolution come. Cain't be like nothin' I done already seen....") deeceevoice 06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my fault for think you were leaving. Something in the back of my head said that you weren't. AOL? Ugh, I hated while I had, hate since it is gone ; ). Anyway, I am glad to see you and I am glad that you weren't letting people with petty threats of blocking you get in the way - I think, no I know, that Friday's little block threat for incivility is REALLY IGNORANT when some vandal was floating on your page. See ya, I'll post this to my page. Take care, ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What u doin' up, bwoi? Go 2 bed, youngun! I'm out. Got work 2 do. Peace. :D deeceevoice 06:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wondered where the idea you were leaving came from. Didn't make much sense, and besides which, you appear to have a life outside Wikipedia, and regularly disappear for days or weeks. I'm relieved the rumor is true, because I couldn't blame you a bit if you reacted to the RfC by finding something better to do with your life. Hey, have a good holiday, or whatever it is you're doing this season. Signed, former Alexandria boy. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pleae go to stormfront and show those bastards. I've been posting stuff over their opposing views and I kick their ass, but those losers sometimes just close the thread if they can't win the argument, those cowards. (unsigned post)

You're wasting your time. Show them what? I've got better things to do with my time than try to prove something to people so hate-filled they won't/can't listen. Besides, many of those sites get funding/ad revenues based on the number of hits they get. Ask yourself this: what/whom did you change? Surely, with all those in need, there must be a more productive use of your talents and energies. The time you spend preaching to the enemy could be used in the upliftment of others. Perhaps you get off on the combat. I don't. I don't need to prove to myself or them that I can best thm in debate. They're mental cretins, slime. My suggestion? Live your life, look for opportunities to be of true service to those in need -- and keep gettin' up. Feed your spirit with more uplifting pursuits. Rise. deeceevoice 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS[edit]

Thanks, all, for the support you've shown here. I'll be relatively scarce for a while, so I want to wish my friends and allies happy holidays and a new year of righteous purpose, rewarding work, joy, beloved community, health, success (however you meaningfully choose to define that) and inner peace (imagine that!). Everyone else? Coal, dammit. BLACK Coal. :p deeceevoice 06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Birds in the Air Quilt.jpg[edit]

I have added {{No source}} to Image:Birds in the Air Quilt.jpg. Jim Apple 15:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I DO AGREE...[edit]

...that there should be an Black encyclopedia in cyberspace. I believe I e-mailed you about this before. Our philosophies intertwine : ). ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe so, though it's possible you mentioned it (creeping Alzheimer's :p) -- but, yes. We do agree. ~~But don't post to me here anymore. I won't respond. Contact me by e-mail.~~ (I suppose I'll still respond to messages here for a time -- until the RfA nonsense winds down.) deeceevoice 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain you're aware of it, but Kike is an article. El_C 11:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of it -- as my user page so states. Read it again. deeceevoice 11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seemed to have overlooked that. Will do. El_C 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, as oppose to one of the "tweaks" in isolation, and to echo this section title, I agree on that point, though our explanation of why that is may vary highly (then again, maybe not). A broader point I draw on, is that Wikipedia vis.a.vis. the world outside it cannot get rid of chauvinism under this system (imperialism), I never entertain that it could be otherwise "fixed" (a dangarous delusion). El_C 04:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that ethnic slur still in use? I would think it's as passé as "23 skidoo". I reckon it's dangerous to assume that any kind of "language virus" has been exterminated. Wahkeenah 04:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather certain it's still in use; my emphasis, of course, is on the relation between language, attitudes, and so on, and the material reality (not viewing either in isolation), but I don't wish to impose myself via further polemics on this talk page. El_C 04:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Church[edit]

I've undeleted Rob Church's user subpage, as I believe it should stick around as long as the Arbitration case is filed. It certainly looks suspect to me, and I imagine to the ArbComm too. — Matt Crypto 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem RE: Image:River baptism in New Bern.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:River baptism in New Bern.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

The copyright holder, and
The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

The copyright holder gets the best protection of their work by licencing it under an open content license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another option. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag {{GFDL}}.

The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.

Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.

Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --David Johnson [T|C] 17:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that all such images predating a certain period were public domain. What's the deal? deeceevoice 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Slave Auction Ad.jpg[edit]

The same (no license) goes for Image:Slave Auction Ad.jpg. Jim Apple 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that all such images that predate a certain time (1920s or '30s -- I don't exactly recall, but I think the '20s) are public domain. Further, this was a handbill. It wasn't ever copyrighted. What's the deal? deeceevoice 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just needs to have the appropriate tag added to the image; I doubt Jim even looked at the image itself. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the image, though I don't understand copyright law, or whether, as a "Reproduction of a handbill", this image would be covered by some law covering reproductions.

As an example of the issues about copyrights of reproductions that confuse me, a photo of a painting is treated differently than a photo of a sculpture. I think.

You're correct. A straight copy of a 2D image/drawing/painting is covered by the same copyright as the original - so if the original is public domain, the copy is public domain also (as in this case). Photos of 3D objects (e.g. sculptures) and copies of 2D works where some modification has been made (e.g. the image has been processed, added to, or whatever) is usually covered by a seperate, new copyright. David Johnson [T|C] 00:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of this reproduction, by the way? Was it a picture or a photocopy? Was it a copy by hand with pen? What I'm asking is, if this was created by hand after 1923, is it {{PD}}? Jim Apple 00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; some other people seem sure, and they marked it PD. Jim Apple 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Someone has removed your notice. The cut-off date is apparently 1920. (Previous comment was delayed due to edit conflict.) Well, if you're not sure, don't you think you should be before flagging images for deletion? Just a thought. :p deeceevoice 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't flag it for deletion, I flagged it as "No license". After it has been flagged that way for 7 days, someone else is allowed to flag it for deletion with {{ifd}}. Jim Apple 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my talk page: there is more to consider than age when deciding whether a work is public domain or not. It can also depend on the type of work, how long the author lived and the country in which it originated. The images concerned are probably public domain, you just needed to add the appropriate tag. I removed the 'no license' tags from both since someone had added {{PD}} tags. As for your complaint that I'm cluttering your talk page: that's a standard message which is to be used in these situations - I didn't write it, I just dropped it in. It is intended to give you full details to help you understand why images need to be tagged and help you choose the right tag. To be fair, your talk page was pretty cluttered anyway ;-) David Johnson [T|C] 00:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An apology; fuelled by shame and disgust[edit]

Please read this prior to removing it. Thanks.

I've withdrawn from the witch hunt, as I have recognised that in fact, what you've said about me, and about the process as a whole, is correct. I should appreciate it if you could read the full explanation and full apology at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice.

I shall be sending this same message in an email, in case you don't get it. You don't have to accept my apology; and in your shoes, I admit I probably wouldn't - but I'm going to make it anyway. I've acted as badly as I claimed you had, and I am therefore sorry. Shame, shock, and disgust - to name but a few of the things I'm feeling as I re-read all the comments I made. I let myself type without thinking, and I let myself think without thinking.

I admire your resilience, your bouncebackability, and above all, your ability to wade through shit with your head held high. It's something I know I couldn't do in your shoes.

With enormous respect, Rob Church ^Talk 19:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Peace to yourself, as well, and season's greetings as appropriate. Rob Church ^Talk 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Departure[edit]

I was sad to learn that you're quitting the project. I wish you the best, wherever you choose to write in the future. — Matt Crypto 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain, image tags[edit]

In the US, material published prior to 1923 is now in the public domain (see Public_domain#United_States_law); copyright newer material hasn't been allowed to expire, iirc, because Disney lobbies Congress to protect Mickey Mouse. If they are believed to be in the public domain, they need to be tagged with {{PD}} or some related tag. Guettarda 23:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought -- sometime in the 1920's -- and that's why I used the {{PD}} notation. So, it's {{PD}}. Okay, thanks for the clarification. (Not that I'll ever be using it again. :p Just looking through my collection of images before I sign off for good.) deeceevoice 00:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of your user page[edit]

Dear Deeceevoice: Regretfully, I have had to delete your user page, since it consisted only of attack material designed to cause offense, and I figured reverting to an earlier version would not be appropriate since it may not reflect your present desire of its contents on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you wish me to resurrect an earlier version of it. Many thanks, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take strong exception to your decision. It would seem to me that users are free on their user pages to express their opinions about the project. Not only is your action precipitous and completely without warning, giving me no opportunity to salvage anything, it as a high-handed, gross abuse of your authority. It appears to be a unilateral decision taken by solely you that is, to my way of thinking, appallingly inappropriate. deeceevoice 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it mightn't hurt to tone down your user page, Nicholas was out of line to delete it - especially without talking to you about it. Guettarda 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems retaliatory to me, possibly for the apparent de-sysopping of RobChurch -- which he brought upon himself. Typical Wikish*t. I really am all too ready to leave this stinking cesspool. And who disciplines Turnbull? No one! deeceevoice 01:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) deeceevoice 01:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deeceevoice: I observe your user page has been restored - I shall leave it like that; I did not realise you would take such issue with its removal, judging from its content. I would, however, like to point you to WP:NOT:

"Personal homepages. Wikipedians have their own personal pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia."

"Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech."

"Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point."

I do believe this provides sufficient backing for my decision, and I do not feel I acted improperly. I would however like to ask you to please tone down your user page. As for retaliation, I had no such interest; I was merely trying to maintain an amicable state of affairs surrounding this matter. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your explanation -- all couched in neat, little nicey-nice language ("Regretfully" and "best regards" and such. Reminds me of the words RobChurch used as a prelude to his now retracted statement.) Common courtesy would have been to give me some warning. IMO, you acted improperly and precipitously. You abused your authority, plain and simple. And it was malicious. At least Church had the decency to admit it. The citations are garbage. Wikipedians use their user pages for all sorts of information which is often wholly unrelated to the project. Further, I would argue my comments treat this project directly -- perhaps a little too directly for your taste. But, hey, different strokes for different folks. And "modify[ing] an article"? How does that apply? WHAT article? And don't come to my page and tell me you "did not realize [I] would take such issue with its removal." It's been a long time since I've read such complete and utter bull****. If it were left up to me, you'd be gone before Church. deeceevoice 01:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] It would have been reasonable for Nicholas to ask you to tone things down - after all, it amount to using Wikipedia space to attack Wikipedia. If he had asked, you could have said no, and he could have taken it up at WP:AN/I or wherever else and asked for input from others. What is out of line is for him to delete the page preemptively. This mess just get s worse and worse - this an so many other messes... Rob was volutarily desysopped. I don't want to assume that it was relatiation for anything - he could have just followed the links from Rob's message to your page. It's possible that he acted without knowing context, that he took your page as literally a pro-racist page. Guettarda 01:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my somewhat bull-in-a-china shop manner, yes, I assumed it was pro-racist - or rather, consisting solely of such material as to get a rise, and I can hardly see reasonable call for that to be on a user page. My judgement is, however, terrible lately, and I admit it; I'm not mentally stable. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna argue with you, even though you clearly appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I won't press it. But, seriously, I have a commonsense solution. If, as you say, you're not up to snuff, then ... STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER ... and give the rest of us a break. deeceevoice 01:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Pharlap[edit]

Hi again. I tried to set the record straight; will provide further details if needed. Let me know. Yours, El_C 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just read your contribution to the RfC. You're, as usual, a lot nicer about Pharlap's deliberate misrepresentation of your stance on the Wareware RfC than I would've been. He continues to twist and misrepresent without conscience, without compunction. What a tragically emotionally crippled, uh ... human being (and if you ask me, I'm being pretty generous in using that term). deeceevoice 06:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the least I could do. Indeed, I'm not sure what he was thinking. That quote of myself dosen't make you look bad, it makes me look bad(!). El_C 06:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was trying to represent you as endorsing his assertion that I attacked Wareware with racist slurs. Keep in mind that he's presented (again) his Bowdlerized version of events, so someone reading his hack job on my comments (completely out of context) might agree with his contention that I'm some racist nutcase. It's highly unlikely that readers of this RfC would go back and actually read the reactions to his highly deceptive, roundly criticized and thoroughly misleading editing -- a fact he's banking on in presenting the same old garbage again. His objective was to make me look bad -- clearly (and, unfortunately) at your expense. deeceevoice 06:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he thought that I would just go along. And speaking of which, I should have just went with it! ;D Heh. Anyway, when it comes to the RfAr evidence section, he will have to provide diffs, merely copy and pasting out-of-context passages will not do. Should be interesting. Yours, El_C 07:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just think he was probably figuring you weren't following the RfA, since you hadn't weighed in previously. deeceevoice 07:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He must have missed my "WTF" question. But I should note that I haven't read much of any of the latest yet. I'll try to catch up soon. Yours, El_C 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As did I. Well, I don't know if you know about the RobChurch mess. Dang. But you gotta give him credit for doing what must have been some serious soul searching and admitting it. (For a moment there, I kinda wanted to put my arms around him and console him -- but just for a moment. :p) Trouble is there are lots more like him who hide their biases and nefarious conduct. And how many are sysops and administrators? You can bet he's not nearly the only one. deeceevoice 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[And to think that I asked it a total of three times!] No, I mean, I have just now. Wow. Truly shocking. Yes, I see what you mean. Also, the earlier Crypto-led efforts are quite the spectacle, to use an understatement. Btw, I also had an issue with him intruding on my talk page and returning immediately after being explictly told not to. Still reading and trying to piece everything. Let me know if I could be of help in any way. Yours, El_C 04:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

Saw a big removal on your page, reverted and was somewhat confused by the results, reverted again to let you sort it out... --pgk^(talk) 20:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted -- but next time, please check the diffs and it'll be clear. If someone other than the individual whose name is on the user page makes a change, chances are it's vandalism. Most people -- probably yourself included -- don't want people changing what they put on their own user page. Peace. deeceevoice 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that your account was hacked.--Urthogie 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it[edit]

(To User:Urthogie)

I wouldn't dream of editing your user page and leaving didactic notes. Kindly refrain from doing so to mine. You have neither the right nor the authority to do so. Consider this a friendly warning. deeceevoice 20:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression you were being vandalized with words like NIGGER and SIEG HIEL.--Urthogie 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, apparently you've kept them to maintain a victim complex. Wow. Do you really think the Jewish editors quit wikipedia if our pages our set to say stuff like that? You aren't being oppressed, i get so much bullshit on the internet as well for my culture.--Urthogie 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Added after seeing above note: If your intentions were well-meaning at first, then thanks.) Whatever my motives may be, what do you care? Don't touch my user page. Since under this identity, at least, you're a newcomer, I'll say it once more in case you didn't understand me the first time: don't do it. You have neither the right nor the authority. Besides, after our interaction at Talk:Cool (African philosophy), your actions might be taken the wrong way -- if you get my meaning. Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia. :) deeceevoice 21:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I know it was intentional, I won't be changing it. It was only good intentions.--Urthogie 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. And thanks again -- but keep your snide commentary to yourself. deeceevoice 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now I must quote my own mother: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." >:) Wahkeenah 04:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A message from our sponsors[edit]

Do you really think that fazes me? At all? I've faced down dogs in Mississippi worse than anything you could dream up. Puerile/infantile. deeceevoice 22:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anon who posted the attack has been blocked. I also nominated the template for deletion, which was speedily granted. The creator apparently thought it would be a good joke to leave it on people's talk pages. Not being too conspiratorially minded, I'm not sure how an anon found the thing so quickly and used it here. — BrianSmithson 23:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

Deeceevoice you should have no qualms with soliciting my support, as I certainly solicit yours without reservation. I got your comments on my talk page, and I am encouraging you to collaborate with me to make some effective and positive changes on the wikipedia pages. I cannot stress this any better. We cannot be effective working as some loose individuals. Those who are against our position, and the racists, you think they work in isolation? Trust me, these people who have been educated work in alignment, often sending each other messages for collaborating the articles. I can give you a good breakdown on how we can succeed here, especially considering the impending lockdown policies that will take effect. --Zaphnathpaaneah 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add to that. You fight or stuggle on here in isolation, ultimately deciding it's a futile exercise. Had or if we collaborated on here as the whites have done, we would be far more effective. There is another aspect to this that you may be overlooking and you have garnered much of the blunt of attention from those who oppose objectivity regarding black people. Yet you leave before considering realistically all of the options. The vandalism you face is something you should incorporate as part of the struggle. Had Sojourner Truth walked with the same end result, women, and black women especially would be further back than you may realize. So you are a small yet relatively powerfyl country fighting against the invading and occupying British Empire, and there are other small countries who are in the same region who want to coordinate a good counter attack so we can all have freedom, and liberty. Even though Africa still has a long way to go to independance, the decolonization movement was done with coordinated effort (why do you think most of the countries were liberated within the same decade). YOu have to know your strengths, and solicit to others to work with you in areas where you are weakest, as those weaknesses are their strengths. Please read my ENTIRE user page, and give me a serious response to it before you decide to leave permanently. Justice is not about making injustice dissappear. Justice is about consistent vigilance whenever injustice rears its ugly head. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zaph, I don't have any qualms about soliciting your support, my brutha. :) I don't feel it's necessary. You will do what you're moved to do. But I'm not fighting the RfC; I'm fighting the lies and misrepresentations therein.

Now, about your comments here: while I sincerely appreciate your good intentions, I really don't need a lengthy missive on Sojourner Truth, Africa and the British Empire. :p For me, it's all about choosing one's battlefield, as well as one's battles -- and, put simply, yours may not be mine. One thing I've become exceedingly good at over the years is coping/managing stress and not internalizing the ignorance and racist vitriol of others; it really doesn't faze me. I consider myself exceedingly blessed in that regard. Sometimes I don't know how I do it, just that I do. :) *smiling* Sometimes extreme annoyance/impatience is about as far as I go -- but nowhere near the edge. Chalk it up, I suppose, to my deep love for our people, my spiritual groundedness -- oh, and practice. I've had lots and lots of practice with soul-sick, racist azzholes. :p

So, my decision to leave is not about difficulties, opposition, or problems, but preferences and deciding how to be most effective. And it is about a dedication to maintaining my psychic and spiritual equilibrium. I am at peace, and I long ago resolved to stay that way -- which, as my talk page states, I, as a matter of course, limit my exposure to certain toxins -- Wikipedia among them.

These last few days, I've been visiting the site regularly to keep an eye on the b.s. in the RfC process and my user page and, in the meantime, doing some minor clean-up and working to prevent entities from hijacking articles like Cool (African philosophy). I'm really trying to get out of town, and my work load is horrendous, so I'm not likely to get to your page soon. I'll check it out, out of respect, but I really have no intention of staying here. And it's not about being driven off, or even being bitter or disillusioned. I am an activist and organizer, and I have civic and social responsibilities as well as a busy professional and intellectual life. This is about making what is, for me, a reasoned choice about how best to make use of what precious down time I have. And as far as my list of priorities, given the host of problems with this site that I've chronicled on my user page, Wikipedia is nowhere near the top. Peace. deeceevoice 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your (unsolicited :p) comments of support on the RfC page. Thankss. :) deeceevoice 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I seriously hope you are not as dismissive of working together in the physical world as you are here in the virtual world. Surely with all of your work outside you do not out of habit reject the collaborative efforts of other activists and organizers, although i can understand being very scrutinizing of their motivations and commitment. I'm dissappointed by some of your response, but not offended in any way. We do see things differently. Oh and I wasn't really talking about the RFC, i think the whole RFC process is bogus for situations like yours, but I was referring to the managment of the sensitive articles. Anyway I am not going to say more even after you reply, because I do not want to hold you up. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an experienced organizer, mobilizer, coalition builder, press wrangler, rabble rouser, strategist, etc. Don't worry. I know how to handle my s***. :p We simply don't agree here that Wikipedia is important/critical. It's the flavor of the month with lots of buzz and exposure, but in the end, it's wholly unreliable and riddled with fatal flaws. I simply choose not to work with you (or anyone else) to try to improve it. I'm done with all that. Never was much a fan of the "little Dutch boy" sticking his finger in the dike. And bein' here is like bein' in the gottdam Ninth Ward. F*** dat! :p This signifyin' monkey is "a strokin' MF. Ya cain't out swim me." And as soon as that ugly RfA process is locked down, I'mma roll over and backstroke on outta here. :p Peace. deeceevoice 11:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that acronym must stand for "Royal Frying Corps". Someone threated to recommend me for "censure" recently. Being threatened to be kicked off this so-called encyclopedia is about 1/100th as terrifying as some 9-year-old ringing my doorbell and running away. Wahkeenah 04:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested[edit]

I'm not going to ask you to tone down anything, but I'd appreciate it if you would clarify something. "REGARD RECRUITMENT EFFORTS TARGETING BLACKS AIMED AT CORRECTING SYSTEMIC BIAS WITH EXTREME SKEPTICISM," can be interpreted as regard not only the effort but the people behind it, with skepticism, rather than—what I hope is your intent—that from your experience you don't think such efforts can succeed and are misguided. Thanks. -JCarriker 00:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I respectfully disagee. After all, the statement is immediately followed by my assertion that I dont think the project can be fixed. It doesn't at all call into question the motives or integrity of those involved in the recruitment effort. I think you're being overly sensitive because of your involvement. Read it again -- from an outsider's perspective -- and tell me if you still have the same reservations. deeceevoice 02:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed it and I still think that the sentence could be interpreted as regard the effort itself with skepticism rather than its potential for success—especially if that what someone wanted it to say. I am concerned that the comment, as is, could easily be taken out of context, and used against me in local politics. I'm asking you to dull your skepticism of the HBCU outreach, just leave no room for doubt that it is its ability to succeed and not the people making the effort that should be viewed with skepticism. I really don't want to go into too much detail (e-mail me on the off chance you want to know more), but I do know that there are people actively combing wikipedia for something that they can use. You had the forsight to maintain anonymity here, I did not, and it is no longer pragmatic and most likely impossible to assert anonymity now. I'd appreciated it if you could just rephrase it to say something like "DON'T KID YOURSELF. MY EXPERIENCE HERE TELLS ME THIS PROJECT CANNOT BE FIXED. REGARD THE ABILITY OF RECRUITMENT EFFORTS TARGETING BLACKS AIMED AT CORRECTING SYSTEMIC BIAS TO CHANGE ANYTHING WITH EXTREME SKEPTICISM." Thanks. -JCarriker

Tweaked it. deeceevoice 11:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, when I saw your edit note, I knew immediately what I had done without even referring to this page. I've been obsessing over a deadline for a client, Jim C. Sorry. I need sleep. I hope my alteration of the passage satisfies your concern. deeceevoice 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does satisfy my conern and I hope that you met your deadline, and that you sleep well. -JCarriker 06:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey![edit]

Since I gather that you are not totally gone, I figure you will probably see this.

I respect your reasons for deciding to leave, but urge you to reconsider; I hope (but don't really expect) that a few months from now you change your mind and come back. You have been a very valuable contributor here, and I'll miss you and what you bring to this undertaking. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks, but I seriously doubt that I'll be back. I really don't think the project is worth my time. And it damn sure doesn't deserve me. :p deeceevoice 03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

And I thought I was critical of wikipedia. I called it a pretentious bulletin board. Looks like I was understating it a tad. Well, since Rush Limbaugh says there is no more racism in American, I must assume the slanderous stuff was sent to you by racist foreigners, from hotbeds of bigotry such as Estonia. :( P.S. Your usage of "affect" in the Blackface article is right on the money. You may quote me. :) Wahkeenah 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't need to quote you. What I'd appreciate, though, is if you'd watch the piece and revert any such changes. I'll be gone, and won't be watching it any longer. Further, you're, of course, welcome to weigh in on the article's talk page, should you feel so moved. Peace. deeceevoice 02:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that getting into edit wars with both registered yahoos and a-nones, over stupid tabloid topics like whether we went to the Moon or not, for example, does little more than make my blood boil, to no good effect, but I stick with it because I like to write about stuff. I just try to stay away from the more controversial stuff. Like "Political correctness", where I got into a tussle by insisting on pointing out that "Winter Holiday" preceded Christmas, and that most of these right-wingers who get so upset about it don't even know why Christmas was assigned to December 25th. Nobody ever sent me any swastikas, though. You've had to deal with mega-larger issues. Anyway, Tom Lehrer once said, "The reason 'folk songs' are so atrocious is that they were written by 'the people'." Likewise, wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" written by "the people". I gather you were the author of the Blackface piece. I didn't know much about it, but I read and then started watching the article because I was kind of curious about it after seeing an anniversary showing of the Boston Pops, one clip featuring Ben Vereen doing a very dynamic impression of Bert Williams in blackface, after having apparently talked to the audience about what blackface was all about and how significant it was as an art form, even if it turns us modern-day palefaced liberals redfaced to see it presented. Anyway, if someone else clearly messes with that article, I'll see what I can do about de-toxing it. Wahkeenah 03:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. deeceevoice 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new edits to rapping Cool (African philosophy)[edit]

i like your new edits to the main article paragraph. however, i think the body paragraph approaches african philosophy as if this is the only way of looking at cool in africa. perhaps have some alternative viewpoints? --Urthogie 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are no alternative scholarly viewpoints; it is not a subject that is contested/under debate. It is what it is. deeceevoice 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why does the article rely on secondary sources. You don't even quote a single African. That's why people don't like the article. (sorry bout saying rapping, i was working on that article and requesting peer reviews, but yeah i meant to say the cool page)--Urthogie 12:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to point out that any scholarly research has many points of view. It's not even intellectual if you only allow one view point. You really are mixing up ontology and whatnot with objective truth. The page is a way of interpreting cool in african philosophy, from a SECONDARY SOURCE. It is what it is? then show it with primary sources.--Urthogie 12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked from the article talk page (typical collateral damage crap), which is why I haven't responded sooner. Here's what I have to say about your comments.

Your yardstick for what constitutes authoritative sources is arbitrary and inappropriate for a topic such as this and is based on a European cultural model which is does not easily lend itself to the study of traditional West African culture. Scholarly secondary sources are perfectly legitimate, and there are certainly other articles where there are subheads left open for further development. To do so in this case does not mean that future contributions necessarily will include only information by Thompson. (Again, see Internet sources.) And as I've already stated, there are certainly other monographs also available which treat cool which also can be used to flesh out the subheads. If your arbitrary requirement were applied universally to all subjects treated on Wikipedia, a lot of articles would be gutted. Robert Farris Thompson is a respected scholar in the field and, to my knowledge, his research on this subject has never been called into question by his peers.

I'm no longer actively involved in the writing of this piece. My latest contributions are merely to keep people like you, who are obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter, from screwing with it, perverting it into something it should not be -- some sort of catch-all piece for this and that culture. I've provided links to possible online references on the discussion page. I'll leave further development of the piece to those who are seriously interested in the subject matter and who are willing to do the necessary research to flesh out the article in an accurate manner. Again, the scholarship is there. But the fact is West African culture historically and typically does not do the sort of navel gazing and academic examination of itself to which Europeans are prone. I have a few books on African spirituality/religion written by a well known West African author (whose name escapes me at the moment), but they are not written in an academic fashion, but from an experiential standpoint. There's nothing out there of which I am aware written by Africans specifically on the subject of cool. If other interested parties know of such information, then perhaps they'll contribute it.

Me? I'm done. deeceevoice 13:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean up your user page[edit]

Your user page is offensive to many people, a fact of which you're probably aware. As such, please clean it up and remove the spurious references to racism and nazism. I believe that you didn't write any of those comments and that the point you're trying to make is that vandalism frequently gets ugly, but note that vandalism is also swiftly reverted in almost all cases, and the offenders blocked. You shouldn't let a few shouting trolls ruin your week, and letting their comments stand is kind of a victory for them. Finally, note that this kind of vandalism isn't limited to users of any particular ethnic background - the exact insults used vary by ethnicity, but each group has some ugly nicknames that trolls and vandals can call them. Yours, R adiant _>|< 15:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now I'm not lying, huh? (I saw your unfortunate entry on the admin page.) You're missing the point -- deliberately, I think. I've explained my user page -- on my user page and on the board. Perhaps you need to read it again, because it's got nothing to do with anyone or any thing "ruin[ing my] week." Peace. deeceevoice 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You state your point is that most vandalism is quickly reverted and unseen, and some isn't. And you make that point by letting a bunch of blatant ugly vandalism stand, and reinstating it whenever somebody in good faith cleans it up. Have you read WP:POINT? Seems to me that you should be finding and removing the 'hidden' vandalism, rather than putting back the found-and-removed vandalism, otherwise you're just making the problems worse. R adiant _>|< 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are not me, and your life experiences are not mine. I do not presume to tell you how to spend your time on this website, so please extend me the same courtesy. Again, I've stated my reasons, which are perfectly valid ones. You disagree. And that's what makes life ... interesting. Consider yourself fortunate that I've chosen not to respond nastily to your obviously calling my veracity into question (essentially, calling me a liar) -- and then not having the good manners to apologize. I really don't have anything else to say to you. You're dismissed. deeceevoice 15:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite quotations of all time is from Alan King, who observed that, "The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." Nannyism is rampant in America now (not that it ever wasn't) and here this moron is telling you to change because he/she/it doesn't like it. A good response to them could be, "If you're offended, what's keeping you here?" I found your page funny. Wearing others' taunts proudly and defiantly is a powerful weapon. But I actually have some perspective, and more than a double-digit IQ. These nanny-types have no sense of humor or irony, and nothing resembling upper-brained intelligence, thus they don't get the point at all. Either that, or the imagery hits a little too close to what they are, and that fact is what they truly find offensive about it. Wahkeenah 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I appreciate you taking the time to register your opinions -- and for your support. Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 06:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I don't consider it funny at all. deeceevoice 04:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not funny in the normal sense, for sure. Funny to me, in a way that's hard to explain. I just find the taunts oozing from the limited gray matter of the Great Unwashed to be hilarious. Meanwhile, I don't know everything... such as how to get to the Admin Board Page. :( Wahkeenah 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Maybe they'll start posting the swastika on my page now. It could use some illustrations, it's kind of bland, nowhere close to being "immoral", so it clearly needs work. I sign off now. Thank you for your kind indulgence. 0:) Wahkeenah 05:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ANYONE WISHING TO COMMENT ON MY USER PAGE IS INVITED TO DO SO -- ON THE ADMIN BOARD PAGE[5] -- NOT HERE.

I cautioned Jbamb about personal attacks. El_C 05:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, El_C. He's already vandalized my user page once. deeceevoice 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JfaS's spamming[edit]

I noticed that yesterday as well, and I agree that he seems to have acted in very bad faith on this; if this gets to the evidentiary phase I'll be sure to add a note to that effect on the RfAr. If you'd like to have those removed sooner, I'd suggest appealing to a neutral admin--I've involved myself in this a little too much to feel comfortable pulling comments from article talk pages now. They still strike me as really inappropriate.

Sorry I haven't involved myself much lately; I've been following your advice and trying to do some regular editing to clear my palate. It's a shame that somebody like Justforasecond (who's hardly touched an article in weeks) can tie up so many other editors like this. --Dvyost 16:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. I sent you the message not because I expected any action on your part. I just noticed the exchange involving you on another page about it, and he gave the distinct impression (if memory serves) that he was removing, or had removed, the RfC (or RfA) spamming from the article talk pages. (Truly tacky.) And near as I can tell, he hasn't. Peace. Enjoy the holidays. :) deeceevoice 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and goodbye[edit]

No, you don't know me, and our paths have not crossed as editors, but I have followed your career more as a microscope on the vexing issues of POV and bias than for any real interest in the subjects of the articles you worked on. My own time here has drawn to a close because of disillusionments similar to those you so scathingly recite on your user page; and while I quite sure you nether need (or even care for) the approval of some old white man, I couldn't leave without at least the tip of a hat to you. DV8 2XL 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

You're mistaken. I appreciate your message. :) Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another old white man (as it happens) and I find the upper part of your user page nauseating -- and worthwhile in just the way you claim it to be. I don't agree with all that you say, but I certainly agree with much of it. I came to respect your name as one of the most tireless adult defenders of African American from the most obnoxious (drunkest?) of cracker fools back when that was on my watchlist. (Since that time, I've become a lot busier and I've also come to think that any WP article of wide interest is doomed to edit warring or worse -- often, much, much worse.) WP will be a lot worse without you, that's for sure. I just wish someone like Doc glasgow were in charge: then I wouldn't have twinges of conscience if I implored you to stick around. Anyway, enjoy your vacation! -- Hoary 09:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Hi! I just want to say Merry Christmas and Happy Kwanzaa to you! Have a peaceful and great holidays. Take care bro! - Darwinek 13:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to wish you and your family all the best for the season and in the year ahead. Guettarda 15:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the Wikipedia community[edit]

I just started this article. Please add content and spread the word if you like. Best to you, Djbaniel 07:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop. Fred Bauder 21:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy[edit]

Deecee, although I don't agree with many of the things you've written, and have been offended as a white person by some of your words, I won't use this post to criticize you in anyway but instead must express sympathy for you in your being subjected to such violence and abomination as has appeared on your user page. I'm sorry. You're a remarkably bright person as evidenced by the lucidity of your writing, and I commend you for your courage in expressing your views and thus exposing yourself to such hostility. Stay strong. --Jugbo 00:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

Rock on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of Wikipedia resources[edit]

It's a bit unorthodox. Have you thought of opening a blog? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sidaway, her userpage is composed, in part, of material "contributed" by others in an effort to intimidate. That she organizes it to demonstrate the abuse to which she is subjected is her perogative, don't you think? Xoloz 17:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, people sometimes like to read blogs.--Urthogie 05:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Greetings,

I have no idea of your feelings regarding these little things, but I thought you deserved one.

I, Xoloz, award this *Tireless Contributor Barnstar* to Deeceevoice for her myriad high-quality contributions, given despite being subject to abuse. Xoloz 17:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

when are you leaving wikipedia? you've said you're leaving but you just come back for more. Kick their racist mouph on wikipedia is what you should do. Stay fighting!

LOL. Yeah, I'm leaving. As I said, I'm keeping a slander watch over the RfA lynching process. And when I do check in, I watch over a couple of pieces. What? Can't wait for me to leave, huh? :p (Interesting that they dug up some guy who didn't even comment in the original RfA and deleted a bunch of bogus sh*t, but somehow they've accepted the RfA supposedly based solely upon this guy's complaint. Yet, it appears nowhere in the original RfA. Seem a trifle irregular to you? :p deeceevoice 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well damn, and here I came to say hi and express happiness that it seemed you were staying - evidenced by the fact that your edits seemed to be going back to articles and away from making your user page a piece of modern art. ;) I do hope you'll stay. Good luck. --Golbez 08:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deeceevoice[edit]

May I introduce myself, I am User:Revolución and am very interested in African and African American related topics. Do you know about the African Collaboration of the Week I started? I thought you might be interested.

I would also like to offer my solidarity to you. Racism is a terrible and disgusting problem in our society, and I am outraged that cowards would use their position as an anonymous user to slander you , to throw racial slurs against you and vandalize your talk page with offensive images.

I think your idea for an online 'Encyclopedia Africana' is great. I would love to contribute to that enyclopedia.

If you have left, and don't wish to use your talk page any more, you can reply at my email: revolucion1@gmail.com

In Solidarity,

Revolución

Happy New Year :)[edit]

Greetings, Madam and Happy New Year. I was listening to Nina's Pirate Jenny and Nobody's fault but mine, and your username flashed into my brain, so, I thought I'd come over and say hi and wish you a merry new year and ask you

"Kill them now or later?" =)

There was an interesting adaptation of Pirate Jenny by Dorothy Gambrell of Cat and Girl fame: [6] and [7]

And something for your ears for the New Year: Sarah Jones' "Your revolution" per the DJ Vadim remix, some anticon. remixes & One Self: [8]

Hasta Siempre,

Project2501a 14:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry you decided to leave - for what it's worth i get a lot of shit for being white and crippled - being told by people "it's all you've known - get used to it" - doesn't cut it at all with me. Rage against the dying of the light as they say. Best Wishes and take care. PMA 20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

I am in understanding to what you must have been exposed to in your real life, but please, try to tone down your page. Thanks Anthere 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking of your user page[edit]

As you see from its history, Snowspinner blanked your user page and protected it. I undid the blanking, but didn't unprotect. Anthere then re-blanked. I've taken the issue up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deeceevoice's user page. --Angr (tɔk) 11:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the text, but without the images or copies of offensive vandal remarks. — Matt Crypto 11:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice, if you want to highlight the sort of attacks you receive, you are certainly entitled to do so. However, a more community-friendly way would be to provide links to diffs that people can view if they want. I don't think plastering them all over your user page is a helpful approach, and I don't think it will be tolerated by other Wikipedians. — Matt Crypto 11:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, you have absolutely no authority to edit and then unilaterally bar me from editing my own user page, regardless of what you think other Wikipedians will and will not tolerate -- particularly given the fact that the matter is, per Angr's post, now under discussion. I view it as a high-handed abuse of your admin privileges and a blatant attempt to censor my views. deeceevoice 13:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bar/lock/protect your user page. Perhaps you should take a moment to review the facts before you make ill-judged claims about abuse and censorship. You'll notice that my edit was to restore some content after it had been blanked. — Matt Crypto 13:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I mischaracterized your actions, but while Snowspinner may have initially locked the page to editing, when you went in to make your changes, you apparently did not undo the lock. There was no edit tab available for me to undo your precipitous and, IMO, wholly inappropriate deletions. You deleted the images without consulting me, without giving me an opportunity to provide the links you suggested. And with the lock still in effect, there was no way for me to do so. When I saw you were making another change (the deletion of the watermelon image), I hurriedly restored my page, thinking I could do so before the lock was reinstated. I don't know how that process works, but I'm telling you what I experienced. I was unable to edit my page until you went in a second time and removed the watermelon photo. Had you not done so, my page likely would still be locked. And please. Don't pretend you were somehow rendering me a service. Any changes whatsoever to my user page by anyone but me (except to undo vandalism) -- particularly while this matter is under discussion are, again, IMO, high-handed and utterly inappropriate. deeceevoice 13:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit. I restored text; I didn't delete images. I didn't want to have an admin-only revert war with Anthere and Snowspinner, so I restored as much as I could with the hope that they would find it acceptable, at least while we could have a discussion, rather than an edit war. I didn't unprotect it for the same reason. — Matt Crypto 13:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true, Matt. Now I understand what happened. You didn't do the first round of deletions, but you restored the text only -- thus tacitly sanctioning Snowspinner's removal of the images. When you realized you'd left the image of the snaggle-toothed, watermelon-eatin' mammy, you went back in and deleted that one, too. (Yes, you did!)[9] But you left the lock in effect. You "suggested" that I use only links, but your upholding of the lockdown made even that impossible. I could not edit my own page -- until User:Angr stepped in at my request. I appreciate the restoration of the text -- but your actions are still unacceptable. deeceevoice 14:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage[edit]

Er... hi... I think this is the first time I'm talking to you. Regarding the evidence I presented at the ArbCom, it was Snowspinner and not Matt Crypto who protected your userpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

When you regain the ability to edit your user page, could you make a user subpage with all the offensive junk and link it from your user page? User pages with things that are not work safe is very very different than having articles about thingks that are not work safe. Your user page is linked every time you leave a comment somewhere, meaning that the tripe that the vandals tried to get you in trouble by leaving on your user page could get other users of the wikipedia in trouble. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deecee... if you want me to I can protect your userpage as you want it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd appreciate that -- very much. Thanks. :) I tried to revert it to the last version I edited -- for safety's sake, but find I've been blocked (an almost daily occurrence, and sometimes several times daily) because of collateral damage. Once again, I cannot edit my own user page. Please take care of this for me before blocking the page. Thanks again.deeceevoice 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deecee. Sorry that I logged off before you responded. I got your e-mail as well. I just logged in now, so it will take some time for me to look at what has happened while I was gone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deeceevoice/Harassment[edit]

User:Snowspinner created this page and it's been tagged for speedy deletion by someone else. Did you want this here? If not, I'll have it deleted. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please delete. It's but another example of Snowspinner acting unilaterally, without authority to try to modify my user page without my consent and without consensus among admins. No place for such cowboy mentality on wikipedia. This is getting annoying. Thanks. deeceevoice 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on that specific edit, it's important to understand that your user and talk pages aren't really yours in the sense of being owned by you. The pages belong to Wikipedia; they just happen to be for you. If you want "free speech" and/or full editorial control, you need your own website that is owned by you. Friday (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't insult my intelligence. Of course this is wikipedia.com -- not deeceevoice.com. However, I do expect others to respect my user page -- just as I respect theirs. There is absolutely nothing on my user page that breaks any wikipedia rules. If there were, you betcha it'd be disappeared permanently by now. Now, I've had enough of people commenting on my user page. I'm bored with it. The fact is, I really don't care what you (or anyone else) thinks about it. Anyone wishing to comment on my user page may do so on the appropriate disscussion page. Feel free to take your opinions there and rehash them ad nauseam. Go for it. Again. You don't like my user page? Then vote with your web browser and go someplace else. No one's forcing you to visit it, read it, or look at the images. After all, it's just one of umpty-ump thousand pages on this website. If you clicked "random article," it'd probably take you several years before you landed at User:deeceevoice. Take that as a sign -- and move on. Adios. deeceevoice 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link on the new bowdlerized user page[edit]

Hey Dee, if you link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deeceevoice&oldid=34125877 instead, it's easier to see the page in the pre-deleted version. --Angr (tɔk) 23:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, darlin'. I guess Jimbo decided to "take back the Internet" starting with my user page. ROTFLMBAO. :D deeceevoice 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue[edit]

Jimbo has invited you to engage in dialogue regarding your user page. I suggest you do it and take seriously the efforts of others regarding the matter. I think you are engaging in provocation. If this is a deliberate calculated effort to cause disruption it is unacceptable. If you don't understand the dynamics of provocation I hope my pointing you to it will be useful. Fred Bauder 15:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna talk about provocation? And being helpful? Posting comments to my user page is a clear provocation. And it is NOT helpful. deeceevoice 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, willingness to engage in discussion regarding significant issues regarding Wikipedia is required as a condition of using the site. I have blocked you for 24 hours and will block you until you come around. Fred Bauder 15:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:You know as well as I that no one is required to accept the placing of personal notes on their user page -- which is what you did. Furthermore, I regard your block as purely retaliatory and a blatant abuse of your administrative authority. I intend to insist that you be removed from any further deliberation of any kind in the RfA involving me. deeceevoice 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one is required to accept personal notes on one's talk page under almost all circumstances. It's called assuming good faith, and it's a policy. I also suspect you won't get far insisting on recusals. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my comments. He left a note on my user page,[10] and I told him not to do it.[11] His block is purely retaliatory and in utter bad faith. That's almost as tacky as RobChurch lying about me. deeceevoice 16:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Bauder's reason, on the Admin page, is this:

"I have blocked Deeceevoice for 24 hours regarding her refusal to engage in dialogue regarding her user page. Please see [87] regarding this issue. Fred Bauder 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)"

The real reason? He got his panties in a bunch because I told him not to post to my user page. Childish and incredibly tacky. deeceevoice 16:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what? He's gonna force me to discuss my grievances/criticisms of wikipedia? Now, that's precious! deeceevoice 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, good faith - one is allowed to edit other people's userpages. Tacky, perhaps, but not wrong. Phil Sandifer 16:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith? Ha! When one is informed that they should not leave personal messages on a user page and then gets they jaws tight and proceeds to then BLOCK that person just because they're P.O.ed, that's an abuse of administrative authority. Plain and simple. deeceevoice 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fred Bauder's reason was not an abuse of authority, given Jimbo's comment on your user page. Regardless, you reap what you sow. I told you last month, if you flout Wikipedia policies and etiquette long enough, you'll likely face sanctions. It's not terribly unfair nor unexpected. — Matt Crypto 16:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That just doesn't fly. Wales' message and Bauder's comment are nowhere near the same thing. An abuse of administrative authority is an abuse, and Bauder's block is clearly that. NOWHERE did I say I would or would not respond to Wales' invitation. Bauder's block had absolutely nothing to do with that. He was having a hissy fit. And such abuse should not be tolerated. I still intend to pursue the matter of his recusal. deeceevoice 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have lengthened your block to 48 hours for repeated personal attacks against Fred Bauder. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Ur really funny. :D deeceevoice 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked DCV as there is nothing on WP:BP to justify either Fred's or Snowspinner's blocks. --Angr (tɔk) 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the situation worse. I really appreciate that. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angr. :) Of course, I agree that both Bauder and Snowspinner's blocks were completely without merit and just don't pass the smell test. (Holding nose) As I've been saying all along, something is definitely rotten with the state of Wikipedia. Again, I will be asking for Bauder's removal from the RfA process in my case. Peace. deeceevoice 17:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered that the problem could be the stimulus, not the response? — Matt Crypto 17:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this as nicely as I know how, Crypto. You really have nothing to say that I want to read. Kindly desist from posting to my talk page. Otherwise, you'll just get your feelings hurt when I delete your posts without reading them. Thank you. :D deeceevoice 17:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are politely expressing legitimate concerns about your editing behavior. It's not reasonable for you to tell them not to. This isn't your page, it's Wikipedia's page about you. If you're unwilling to have the community respond to your actions, I recommend you don't edit Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but when the **** did removing someone's misplaced comment from your user page become a blockable offense? I suspect that if I put a critical message on top of Fred's user page right now, it'd be gone pretty ******** quick; any of us would respond the same. I've certainly removed misplaced messages from my user page before, but am I going to get blocked for it? No... just DCV. Surprise. DCV's been breaking some civility rules, but that doesn't make her user page a free fire zone, for God's sake. There's an RfAr in progress--why in the world aren't people willing to settle this there? I was very much under the impression that's what it was for, but I guess our arbitrator disagrees. --Dvyost 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly guilty of giving Deeceevoice a good poke to see how she reacted. Essentially I tried to begin a conversation with her about the effect of her behavior. Not a productive move except that I see how pointless the attempt was. Fred Bauder 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go so far as to say that deliberate provocation of users is generally considered "not a productive move." (That must be in the Administrator handbook somewhere... =)) Maybe next time you can initiate your conversation on her talk page? --Dvyost 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, Fred! "[A] good poke"? What were you thinking? El_C 20:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like high school. Welcome.--Muchosucko 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'm not high... oh wait, NM. El_C 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, it seems to me that Fred's actions at least border on WP:POINT.
It seems to me that the victim of racist attacks has the right to leave the evidence in place. We tend to think of Medgar Evers' mother as something of a hero for opting to have him in an open coffin. No dead bodies here, just insults (although some of them are symbols that can amount to death threats), but I think the point is the same.
This has essentially been the mode of Deeceevoice's user page for at least as long as I remember seeing it, probably close to a year. Why blank it now, while a conflict is under way?
Given that Deeceevoice has been a significant contributor to Wikipedia, this summary decision, of a sort we usually apply only to vandals, seems particularly out of line.
Deeceevoice has been much attacked lately, and has largely withdrawn from Wikipedia. Frankly, I feel we are losing a damned valuable contributor. For the record, I've had my own occasional criticism of her: I've at times suggested she tone something down, interceded when I felt she found insult where there was none, etc., but if you look at the history of what she's dealt with here, it's pretty easy to see why she has been less ready to assume good faith than many of us: she's experienced a lot of bad faith. It amazes me to see a member of the ArbCom be, at the very least, utterly insensitive to that and, quite possibly, add to the burden. If Fred were trying to assure that she would never come back to active participation, this would be a way to accomplish that. I don't think for a moment that was his motivation here: I just think his actions illustrate that someone who has not been the target of racism can be incapable of imagining the perspective of someone for whom that is an ongoing experience: incapable of imagining how actions may be perceived from that point of view, incapable of understanding range of legitimate means by which people may choose to defend themselves.

Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are all very eloquent but what is lacking is any authentic conversation with Deeceevoice about her own role in keeping the dispute going at a high pitch. Fred Bauder 22:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bauder, IMO, you no longer have any credibility whatsoever in the RfA matter. My role? It has been to defend what I've seen as my right to say some extremely important things -- with ample supporting evidence -- about the endemic, inherent problems of this website and to defend myself against a series of outright libelous contentions and bad-faith actions from people, many of whom clearly have, at best, a POV axe to grind. An admin I don't know from Adam tells a bald-faced lie about me, only partially recants his lie, steps down in shame -- and then is renominated within days for adminship. And, get this, he almost makes it! Most of my time on Wikipedia lately has been spent being thwarted by one, stupid collateral damage block to the next -- multiple ones, in fact, daily -- and dealing with bad-faith b.s. from admins who haven't the cojonas or common decency to own up to their own bad-faith, antagonistic b.s. I find my page blanked seriatim by a bunch of admins. They can't -- or won't -- come to agreement about what is what. And when consensus cannot be reached, some of them take it upon themselves to go cowboy and blank, then lock my user page at will, preventing me from editing my own freakin' page. (And that doesn't even count the blankings and b.s. by the wikipedia lumpen.) And then Mr. Wikipedia comes along, dismisses my commentary as a "rant" -- and then has the nerve to invite me to discuss the issues. And then you come along behind him and determine you have the right to leave notes on my user page -- and then block me because I take exception to it, giving some weak excuse about my 'refusal to discuss [my] page' and threatening to extend the block indefinitely. Oh, and then there's Snowspinner (one of the cowboy admins), who, like some jackal, comes along behind you and extends the block after I take further exception to your inappropriate use of your admin powers -- just because he can. Utterly contemptible. Frankly, IMO, it's time for you to get the hell off my back, find some other horse to ride and recuse yourself from the Arb Comm deliberations now. And, FYI, what's been keeping this "dispute going at a high pitch" has been the ongoing and virulent antagonism, outright libel and willful misrepresentations of some "contributors" to the RfC and RfA process over the past couple of weeks --and, among other things, administrative misfeasance and malfeasance. The crap just keeps on comin'.deeceevoice 22:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the crap keeps coming, but what you are doing is magnifying it. What I want you to do is to think about ways to diminish it. Fred Bauder 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Bauder, are hardly one to point a finger. deeceevoice 22:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about me Fred Bauder 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but it's certainly about me -- isn't it? I tell someone to go to hell, and suddenly, I'm a "racist", a (gasp) "Afrocentrist," "black supremacist," I've made no positive contributions to the website whatsoever, my edits can't be trusted -- and on and on and on. I'm the bogeyman. The nigger in the woodpile. :p The source of all things rotten on wikipedia.

Yeah, right.

And no. I'm not "magnifying it." I've merely exposed it. Pretty ugly, huh? Ya damned straight it's ugly. And from the looks of things, the response of many is simply to shoot the messenger. People are coming outta the woodwork. And, hell, yeah. It's a lynch mob mentality. Well, darlin', I'm no one's target practice. Tazmania this aint. You f*** with me, I'll defend myself. deeceevoice 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't effectively defend yourself because you don't have nearly as much power. Those who stand up for you are far from a decisive majority among admins, and they are certainly not part of the establishment, who hold key power. But you are giving them all the legitimacy they would need to get you out of the picture quickly; all these personal remarks, darlin', and so on, is just another item to depict you as unstable. And it dosen't matter that your user page was provocatively edited and that you were blocked for reverting that — it's all about what sort of context is shown in the final presentation. You need cold, calculated and emotionally imperturable language. You know this. El_C 23:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wasn't blocked for reverting my user page. I was blocked in retaliation for telling an admin he shouldn't leave personal notes on my user page. "Cold, calculated and emotionally imperturbable language"? And when I've used it, what's happened? Plain-speak isn't a sign of emotional imbalance. I'm not the only one who's made reference to the lynch mob mentality of people on this website. Suddenly I'm suspected of being "unstable"? That almost funny. I'm fed up with being the whipping boy. I'm not going to bow my head and shuffle and take it.

This isn't about who has power and who doesn't. Do you honestly think my goal is to win here? I have never, not once, contested anyone who's produced a reasonable complaint against me. And that includes the 3RR block by RobChurch. His additional block (which I discovered only after he lied about me) is another story. That sucked. Big time. I've contested the lies, obfuscations and those with ulterior motives (like personal animus, racial and POV issues). I'm not going to tolerate them, and I don't intend to mince words. deeceevoice 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that motive is immaterial; you were blocked for having edited it, that's what really counts — had you not touched it, nothing would have happned. On second thought, maybe not, it's difficult to tell, but it isn't a crucial point so much. As I said, it's not about what accounts for emotional imbalance, it's what can, in the final presentation (wherein the manner in which its context is drafted you are limited to determine and maneuver in), be shown to be imbalance, disruptive conduct, and so on. You write: "And when I've used it, what's happened?", but that's inconsequential, too. No matter what, so long as you don't use it (dispassionate language), you place yourself at a disadvantage. Because there are different ways in which to lose, and those, unironically, involve other minor victories. For example, diminishing the perception that they got to you to the extent that you are intentionally working to defeat your own interests (in how you end up losing). El_C 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To (try &) be even more clear, I realize you may not appraoch it as winning or losing, but ultimately, they're going to shut you out. So, it does come down to how you end up going down, and what sort of imprint you will end up leaving, are able to. This is where these considerations play a decisive role. I realize that's very abstract, it's difficult to condense these complexities into a high level of generality. El_C 00:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I beg to differ. I've already made my own determinations with regard to this website and my place here. I should think by now I've made that clear. (chuckling) There's nothing at all complex about it. deeceevoice 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, El, but that's ridiculous. I did nothing more than any other user --including you -- likely would have done. I removed it and pointed out that my user page was not to be used for commentary. To say, "If you hadn't acted the way you were perfectly entitled to do -- and in a manner most reasonable users would have...." is utterly pointless. I won't address your other comments out of ... respect. :) deeceevoice 00:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: motive is important. Actions by admins like Bauder, Snowspinner and RobChurch are precisely the kind of crap that goes on all the time on this website. Admins abuse their authority and then hide behind language meant to suggest that what they're doing is for the good of the project. Church claimed he was trying to show me the error of my ways when he lied about an e-mail I never sent. Church also totally ignored the actions of a thoroughly obnoxious and insulting editor who repeatedly attacked me and called me names and also violated the 3RR -- while punishing (or threatening to punish, as in the above exchange with admin Friday) me. And this is not an exception. Editors criticized me in the altercations I had with Wareware and never once said a thing about his blatantly racist vitriol -- until I finally filed an RfC against him. I have found far too many admins to be childish, pedantic, spiteful bullies who selectively and unfairly punish editors they don't like, or with whom they have tiffs -- for whatever reason. And it's not just editors. Any kind of criticism or disagreement here can be twisted into a "personal attack" or "incivility" if they don't like your politics on your talk page, your take on human history, your edits, the color of your skin -- whatever -- but seemingly don't have the intellectual capacity, grasp of logic, or basic knowledge to debate you toe to toe when it comes to article content. Wikipedia's system of dealing with disputes is not only unfair and corrupt, but utterly bumbling and incompetent -- as our experience in the Wareware RfC episode very clearly illustrated. deeceevoice 10:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect, I'll only say that you are sadly mistaken if you think I imply that any of this is fair. Naturally, I won't address your other points. El_C 01:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's what I'm talking about. I think you're finally coming to your senses; all these prior exclamative nuances are confusing for people who don't share your cultural background but might otherwise sympathize. And crucially, insidious others can misrepresent and distort it to them (I'm a prime example vis.a.vis. Ww's 'a racist afrocentric is targetting me for being Asian,' etc.). Anyway, on to the substance: yes, I know all of that. I read and commented on the lynching that is your arbitration workshop; I proposed that the Committee formally apologize to you (see The Wareware RfAR and oversights on ArbCom's part; I'm sorry to see that Fred has not seriously absorbed what I said, to use an understatement) and I pointed out the discreditable agenda of one of the main instigators, and another (it appears it has since been purged from the records by Kelly Martin; to her discredit, she did not note the diff anywhere on the arbitration page). But, as you know, I disagree with some of your methods (such as presenting the banners of the enemy as a form of protest), though we've been there - done that already, so it's probably pointless to reengage; still, I feel it's worth repeating. At any rate, as you know (I think), all the problems you face exist in and are a product of the dominant culture: imperialism. And in it's grand scope, it's highly complex; there have been countless progressive movements in history that were divided or failed because of disagreement on how to pursue the legal struggle, how to wage the armed struggle, and when to turn from one to the other. Cyberspace is not immunized from all of this; it is all social activity. Point is, imperialism and its multitude forms of chauvinism exists virtually everywhere, and it needs to be resisted, wherever. Gee, a soapbox to polemisize! But I'll try to wrap this up... So, if the type of resistence that is your emphasis (by virtue of background and knowledge — knowledge is a form of resistence, of course, from ignorance) cannot be effectively undertaken, which you're now certain of, then what do you do? You either change your approach & methods, or, if that isn't feasible or deemed worthwhile, you leave and the time you've spent educating people here will be spent elsewhere where it is more condusive. Again, you know this, isn't paradoxical, but it's worth repeating also. But even whilst being shut out, there are more and less effective (as per resistence) ways of going down. Your comment above is coherent and powerful; a few of the ones above, not so much. There's more subtelties to all this, of course, always, and some of which are decisive. I think an important lesson to draw from this is that one should never underestimate the sheer depths of hypocricy (which undoubtedly I will be accused of by some for this very comment) and the particular form of struggle most suited follows accordingly. El_C 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El, I've been in complete control of my faculties from the git-go. :p I've already said what I've said here elsewhere -- with links to specific examples -- on my talk page. No new information. SOS. I'm old-school when it comes to struggle, and while I appreciate your comments, they're old news. I've already addressed your other comments, too. And, as I've already stated here and on my talk page, I've already made my decision.

I do not think Wikipedia can be fixed. The Wikipedia paradigm simply doesn't work for people of color with any kind of social and political consciousness. Cyberspace begins at a point of elitism. Wikipedia was conceived by a white guy. It's been structured, built (written) and is enforced by a (predominantly) white boys' club, the nature of which I've already addressed. And, while access to the Internet is growing, the project's primary producers and consumers are overwhelmingly white and, beyond white, also overwhelming non-black. For black people seeking to contribute to or obtain information from an accurate, unbiased, relevant, useful body of information (an encyclopedia), Wikipedia is the wrong universe, the wrong solar system, the wrong planet, the wrong hemisphere, the wrong nation, the wrong city, the wrong "community," the wrong street, and definitely the wrong room to play to (and in). Unless and until the technology divide is closed in this nation and in other parts of the world, the entrenched, systemic problems of Wikipedia will remain. Period. Inequity; dysfunctionality; bias; grotesquely distorting knowledge deficits; racism; and bureaucratic indifference, stodginess and hostility are built into the system. (And I haven't even gotten around to mentioning the problem of misleading and downright inaccurate information.) And if you think any differently, you're deluding yourself. And, yes, there are other, more productive ways to use ones time in struggle. Before -- and even during struggle -- one must constantly assess and reassess the nature of that endeavor. What is the status quo? What are your goals and objectives? What are the impediments? What are the advantages and disadvantage? What are the costs? What are the benefits? What can you realistically expect -- not hope -- to accomplish? And with time, while one's goals may not change, the expectation of success or failure -- the cost-rewards benefit ratio -- likely will.

Long before this RfC/RfA process, I was well on the way toward an understanding that Wikipedia is not only not the place for conscious people of color; it has no place for us -- and will not -- not in the foreseeable future, at least. This has been hinted at by other black Wikipedians who, in the past, have written me expressing their various frustrations and disappointments with the website. I responded by urging them to take a break, if they needed, even to stay; and, ultimately, if they found Wikipedia was too much of a strain, to leave. But was important, I said, that if and when they left, to leave on their own terms, for their own reasons -- not to be provoked into doing so. But my counsel/support was short-sighted in that I was responding to merely their anger and frustration, which are emotions. If I had taken a broader view and been wiser, I would have told them to cut their losses and run -- not walk -- to the nearest exit. But not before leaving their contact information. You see, the notion of an Encyclopedia Africana is an idea the time for which has come. :p

Wikipedia survives, IMO, in great part because of ego. The gratification of a desire to see one's words/thoughts in print, or the vanity of believing one can somehow help to change the world by contributing to a vast body of knowledge can be compelling, heady stuff. Wikipedia assumes that ego, or a desire to be a part of, or a sense of belonging to, the Wikipedia "community" will be enough to keep contributors here. Let's be plain: on some level, Wikipedia is to the intellectually pretentious (and, increasingly, the Internet-equipped, semi-literate, pimple-faced, spaztastic adolescent) what an X-Box is to videogame geeks.

What if one has no ego in that regard? What if the illusion of making a difference is exposed as just that? I believe that, for conscious people, particularly (judging from the several e-mails I've received from Wikipedians, white and black and otherwise, who've either left, or are contemplating leaving, the project in protest over what's happened to me here), that that illusion eventually is exposed for what it is. Black folks tend to be the bellwether for a whole lot of stuff. Ironically, when s*** hits the fan, people of color always seem to be at ground zero. Tsunamis; the myriad, destructive impacts of extreme poverty; AIDS; the 9th Ward -- you name it. The same seems to be true here. At the risk of over generalizing from simply my own personal experience, while we are not the only disgruntled, disillusioned, pissed-off Wikipedians, many of the very few blacks who are here -- judging from the various e-mails I've received and reading some of the commentary on the site -- are indeed, generally pretty sick of the project lately. And whether they leave or not, that central fact is important and should be understood.

While it may take some time for the true nature of the project to sink in, while the project is all shiny and glittery and has had its successes (Wales has become a kind of rock star of the Internet, and Wikipedia is a kind of cyberspace flavor of the month), when all is said and done, the project is a failed one. It is doomed by its essential nature. The very elitism Wales rails against is an essential, defining characteristic of his own creation. It's a sad farce.

Make the bourgeoisie/lumpen believe they are in control and all will be well. To take a page from the wisdom of Bro. Malcolm who used a metaphor from our people's history of bondage and struggle in the West (and also taking a bit of license): the head house nigger who runs the rest of the house niggers may have some authority, some say-so -- but he's still a house nigger. He's still a nigger. The master-slave relationship has not changed one whit. Tell people they can "take back" the Internet. And even though the statement itself makes absolutely no damned sense (it began as a Defense Department project and, when it became operational, it was confined to academia), gee, it sure sounds good! And "take[ing] back the world" --with the Internet? Another particularly knotty problem, that -- for obvious reasons, not the least of which is: the Internet is, in predominant part, still in the hands -- guess who? :p And take it back where? If the world was ever the property of anyone, it was that of unscrupulous, venal, violent, technology-driven (the weaponry of war and subjugation), mercenary, white, imperialist, racist men. The motion of history -- yes, aided in part by the Internet (but most dramatically in the spheres of, ironically, both micro and macroeconomics, where it has become, at the most grassroots level, a weapon against elitism and domination; and, even at the macro level, against Western uber-capitalism, rather a tool in their service) -- has been away from such a circumstance. In reality, the world "belongs" -- and can belong -- to no one. IMO, Wales' rhetoric is not only nonsensical, but shallow. The dream -- while inspiring and noble to fantasize about -- is empty. It is maya --complete illusion.

"ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός ápo mēchanēs theós," "deus ex machina."

"In technology we trust."

"Eschew all logic, suspend disbelief and ... believe."

Rejected!

Peace, my friend. :D deeceevoice 16:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I actually offered you anything to reject! :D Anyway, again, it's not about being in-charge of your faculties; it's all about appearences, and how these could be manipulated. So, control in a different sense, if you will. Of course the standards are not equale, nor can they expected to be under this system. This should all be elementary to you, anyway. But if you think I'm wasting our time pressing these points, that's fine. Maybe I am. I could bore someone else with these diatribes, at any rate. ;) That aside, in all likelihood, the internet, and undoubtedly, wikipedia in some form or another will survive this system. Right now, it seems much more likely that the U.S. will lapse into fascism than anything remotely progressive, so all this talk about struggle I'm sure seems strangely anemic to those who, whether by choice or through deulsion, hail the archbeasts and their values. Thanks for your comment, I enjoyed reading it; it definitely underscores some of the fundamental problems faced by the project vis.a.vis. its contributors. Problems which, to reiterate what I said here a few weeks ago, indeed, are not possible to be fixed in a vaccum, without the system outside it itself being fixed. Be well. Ciao! :) El_C 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree. Again. Rarely, if ever, does anyone have control over the message others put out about them. To think otherwise is to be sadly deluded. The critical thing is never to let the Other (or the enemy) define you. Speak for yourself. And I have done so here. The responsibility is with each of us to stand on what and who we are. We must define ourselves. That is self-designation, self-determination. And this is particularly critical, given that, again, Wikipedia, as a collective organ of (mis/disinformation) is so myopically Eurocentrist, so inept, so grotesquely ignorant, so tragically incompetent when it comes to writing about African peoples, about virtually anything outside the usual bailiwick or ken of establishment-, mass-educated, Westernized, (and often racist) white men (and women).

Finally, "Rejected!" is a reference to the illusion, not to anything you wrote. U 2. (Oh, BTW, love the dreaming kitty. :) ) En la lucha. deeceevoice 19:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dreaming kitty loves you! :) I am speaking for myself (mostly!), you are perfectly entitled to disagree about what should be elementary or not; misunderstandings are also to be expected. I think it's much the latter. If I'm speaking to, let say, an English-speaking comrade from India or Benin, I'm not going to nuance myself to her same way as I would someone from New Orleans (highly pronounced disproportionate presence here not aside), it simply isn't going to have the same impact and is more open to possible confusion and therefore successful manipulation (of course, the enemy will attempt to distort anything, regardless). What I'm getting at is that (cultural) self-determination should not come at the expense of (internationalist) clarity; but there is the flipside, it's a fine, context-dependent line, a dialectical one. For me, then, the style you use directly above is much more clear than the more heavily nuanced one you were using elsehwere. I'm sure it'd be much easier for me to grasp it in speech, but with text it's much more difficult to tell what is meant by what, in that sense. And yes, I knew what you meant by "rejected," I was just being an idiot! :D I never said I was tactful, or funny, or intelligible; though I did aim to motivate you in writing the above expositions. Hasta la victoria siempre! Yours in the struggle, El_C 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're aware of your penchant for dramatic personal conflict. But Wikipedia is not a forum. We're concerned that this behaviro hurts rather than helps the encyclopedia, so many of us would like you to tone it down a couple notches. Are you willing to do this? Friday (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you clearly don't seem to be aware of are the many, many, many more times I've been baited, insulted -- repeatedly -- and never responded in kind, never run to the RfC or RfA page about it. So much for my "penchant for dramatic personal conflict."

My user page has been obliterated. So, What's the problem now? If someone acts against or offends you in some way, then comes up to you and lies to you -- to your face -- about it, IMO, you're entitled to speak plainly, bluntly about it. I haven't responded with personal attacks. Hell, in Church's case, I accepted his apology. But I'm not going to play nicey-nice under such circumstances and pretend I don't understand perfectly well what's going on. I'm not a sap. deeceevoice 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very, very aware that you get more than your share of abuse. This has been clear to me for some time. I'm sorry for it. You do not deserve it. I do feel that your responses have sometimes contributed to the drama rather than reducing it. I just wish you could see that this conflict doesn't help. Wikipedia isn't about anyone's personal pride or honor. We're just trying to make an encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. Friday (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal pride or honor"? You're kidding -- right? If I thought that were the case, I'd stay up in the RfC/RfA page, complaining about this or that "editor." Hell, this is nothing to do with my ego. Hell, this is cyberspace! You don't know me from Adam, and you'll never know me. I could be the whitest, white-bread, gay libertarian on God's green crouched over my keyboard having a grand old time, and no one -- no one here -- would know any different. :p This has everything to do with the appalling institutional dysfunctionality, the deeply entrenched systemic bias of this website and the way it handles people whose scholarship doesn't tow the party line. And it has to do with basic, fundamental fairness. And, no. I beg to differ. This is not about producing a people's encyclopedia -- a way to poke a stick in the eye of stuffy academia and yap and yammer endlessly on about populism this and "taking back" that. That "child in Africa" Wales writes about in his current funds appeal won't give two s***s about who produced the material he/she is reading. What this should be about, first and foremost, is producing an accessible, quality, reliable, unbiased source of information -- and certainly one that isn't skewed by usual minority, white, Western sensibilities, biases and knowledge deficits. That, first and foremost. The means about how best to achieve that end should be continually up for discussion and debate. After all, when all is said and done, who really gives a damn about "deeceevoice" -- or Jimbo Wales (the public persona; I never met the dude -- and likely never will), for that matter? I, for one, certainly don't. deeceevoice 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually "toe the line". Jim Apple 16:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, Jim, darlin'. Of course it is. Thanks for that monumental addition to the discussion. (A brain fart answered with the real thing.) :pdeeceevoice 18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think people objected to the form of your argument rather than the substance when it came to your user page. If you put forward your argument in a form that didn't use "shock" images, and wasn't written in an angry and vitriolic tone, it might actually help the project recognise and seek to deal with its biases. It's readily recognised that Wikipedia articles often have a Western bias at present, and I think the idea that Wikipedia articles have a "white" bias is also entirely credible, although I would attribute it to an unfortunate result of the interests and/or ignorances of its contributors, rather than a more sinister "institutional dysfunctionality". The best cure, in my view, is to encourage more people from different backgrounds to get involved. — Matt Crypto 09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sinister 'institutional dysfunctionality"? That adjective is yours -- not mine. But I agree -- at least in part. The dysfunctionality may not be sinister by intent, but it is certainly sinister/malevolent in its results. And there is no doubt the institution is dysfunctional; it doesn't work. I stand by the comments on my (now expunged) user page.[12]:

REGARD THE POTENTIAL EFFICACY OF RECRUITING MORE BLACK FOLKS TO WIKIPEDIA IN AN EFFORT TO COUNTER SYSTEMIC BIAS WITH EXTREME SKEPTICISM. DON'T KID YOURSELF. MY EXPERIENCE HERE TELLS ME THIS PROJECT CANNOT BE FIXED. As a technology-driven enterprise that allows any hack with a computer and a modem to write what they will, Wikipedia is doomed from the git-go. It will never be an authoritative source for anything. And the technology divide between rich and poor, with blacks having the least access, guarantees a systemic bias that is pervasive and often virulently and blatantly racist, and a governance structure that is riddled with antagonism and indifference. In my experience, not only is there hidden racism in many of the articles treating African peoples on this website; it is endemic and integral to the project. deeceevoice 10:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Class action lawsuit against Wikipedia[edit]

How many of you are aware of this?[13] deeceevoice 19:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are aware of it. How can you help? Fred Bauder 20:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? lol Hey, 's not my business. Not my lawsuit. Merely asking a question. How can I help? You're kidding -- right? :p deeceevoice 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I offer the link, because I was previously unaware of it -- until a few people e-mailed it to me. It seems there are a lot of people with some of the same concerns about the website. Is this an outgrowth of the Siegenthaler article, or something that existed before it? Comments, anyone? deeceevoice 09:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suing a free resource is lame, and their case is bonkers. — Matt Crypto 09:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me, much of the criticism about the project's unreliability has merit. Again, is this an outgrowth of the bogus info in the article on Siegenthaler? deeceevoice 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it grew out of QuakeAID initially. I don't have a problem with people criticising the project for unreliability; it is healthy that people question why they might trust Wikipedia, and to what extent. People might even decide that Wikipedia is so unreliable that they can't use it for any purpose. Again, fine. However, suing a free resource is lame, and in this case, I'd venture, immoral. — Matt Crypto 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H-m-m. Sure sounds fishy. I've been doing a little reading up on Wikipedia and Wale's connection to the porn group ~~Boma~~ Bomis (or something or other). Funny. He's repeatedly claimed it wasn't/isn't porn, but from what I've seen ("Jade plays naked. Play, Jade, play." Gawd!), it sure the hell was/is. Another big, fat target to shoot at.... I see that the same "Jennifer Monroe" wrote this piece.[14] Still, photos don't lie. I guess it remains to be seen what impact, if any, the class action will have on the way Wikipedia does business. I know that there was some discussion about not allowing anonymous (or new?) editors to start new articles. An outgrowth, too, of the QuakeAid scrutiny/lawsuit (or the Siegenthaler episode)? deeceevoice 10:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi, I just got your e-mail. Thanks. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What/which e-mail? deeceevoice 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting ugliness behind us[edit]

I know you've said you're leaving the project, and I know you've also been unimpressed by the arbitration proceedings involving you. I thought of a simple solution to all this. Since you don't wish to edit anymore, why not voluntarily agree to a permanent block of your account? This, I suspect, would put an end to everything. There's no point in persuing arbitration on a user who's already gone, right? This would allow everyone to drop the matter and get on with life. Please don't take this as an attempt to get you to go away- it's offered as a suggestion to end the conflict, pure and simple. Take it or leave it, as you wish. Friday (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what you call "putting ugliness behind us"? LOL Uh ... no. deeceevoice 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. yes. It would render the ugly conflict irrelevant and over. If you're not interested in editing articles here anymore, you have no use for the account, right? Friday (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the guy who threatened to take action against me for responding to a Nazi, skinhead, Stormfront antagonist -- without saying a single word to him for his racist remarks? And I'm supposed to believe you mean well? Excuse me, but I have a hard time buying that. I'd call your suggestion trying really, really, really hard to have me disappeared. Again, no. deeceevoice 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ok, I see you don't like the idea. That's fine. It was based purely on the fact that you've already said you won't be editing articles here anymore. I apologize; no offense was intended. Friday (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few hours ago, in a discussion where Friday (who is a she, I think) was present, Fred Bauder stated, in part:

I think anyone posting anything there needs to think about whether it will be helpful in encouraging her to attempt to stay here and contribute.

I'm sure, then, that her suggestion that you voluntarily agree to a permanent block of your account was expressed with the aim of "encouraging you stay." (!) This interview is over! El_C 23:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it, El. Besides, as I've said already, I've already made my determination about what I'm going to do. :p deeceevoice 23:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more questions, please! El_C 23:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Friday, you're wrong. The "ugly conflict," as you so characterize it, has a lot to do with the systemic problems I've outlined on my user page and on this talk page. My going away -- or staying -- will not render those very serious issues "irrelevant." deeceevoice 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unrepentently speculative! You're going to delete that, too? Heh. El_C 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just couldn't care less why people think I might go or stay. And I don't much care for being discussed on my own talk page like I'm not around. That kind of exchange belongs elsewhere -- where you guys can "talk amongst yaselves." deeceevoice 02:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, you should not conflate my answer to Friday, that I brought to your attention here, with other motives — nor assume I was speaking to anyone but yourself. El_C 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She came here and offered to block your account —with that suggesting you'd need such an impetus, that you don't have the self-control to simply leave if you wanted to— deleting my comment is not going to help placing further emphasis on this speculation. What can I say? El_C 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long comment of mine nearly lost in "Edit conflicts."

Sorry, I tend to disagree with EVERY word Friday has said. WtF? You are telling me that you want a damn good editor like Deeceevoice to leave Wikipedia, and it will "solve problems" Sorry, no - racism will still exist on Wikipedia, - the ignorance of Criticism of Wikipedia will exist - and other holistic problems will. So, I tend to disagree. People present silly arguments like this, and then if Deeceevoice would say something to them, it would be "incivil". I also found Friday's threat to block Deeceevoice here some weeks earlier, while showing no attempt to block a current vandal on her user page, to be an example of clear incompotence - you dare threaten to block a legitimate user while letting a vandal fly around. Why not arrest a man for putting quarters in parking meters, and let someone who shot you get away! ...And I find the same problem with Fred Bauder. You don't go around blocking people to tell them that they have to waste time here and discuss and argue with them, when they are only going to try to delude/misinform themselves and the Wikipedia community about them. Sadly, Wikipedia thinks that topics are important, only if the community (whatever that may be) thinks that is important. How ridiculous, Wikipedia is filled with editors who, for the most part, don't even begin to show a mixed population. Thus, I see a brick wall on Wikipedia: doesn't it make sense that a lack of Black, Hispanic and other "minority" (note that I take offense to that term, so I have it in airquotes) editors creates a lack of Wikipedia articles of related content. So along comes a dedicated editor that tries to help use her personal knowledge to help edit in these fields. Is she welcome to do so? HELL NO! What has she received since she has been here? what type of reactions has she received from other editors? Look at the vandalism here !!?? IT is absolutely outrageous, I have seen more racism from Wikipedia, than most (not all, after all, I know something about racism. I was living in Jackkkson, Mississippi for some years) places. Instead of solving the problem of racism, these editors have spent more time telling DCV what to do, and what to say. I recommend that you people not come here looking for something to complain about. I am very disappointed that some users have dismissed DCV's old version of here user page as "ranting" - that "ranting" was from Wikipedia. Those were examples of what she experienced here. Kind of funny when that backfires, isn't it!

I guesss my comments make me a "malactor" huh? Someone who shouldn't be - pardon, shouldn't have been - on here in the first place, and what I say is POV. "Civility" is a funny word, I find that trying to block dedicated editors to the encyclopedia while allowing little childish vandals run lose not in line with what I define as civil. If you want to define incivility, I think , Fred Bauder, Justforasecond, Friday, et al. have, in my opinion, have allowed personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Me saying so makes me so terrible I guess? I am going to sit back here and see what you'll say - not to say that I will address such petty comments, mind you - and wait for my own RfC, or block or ban. Because I really don't care, I think I have put much more in this project than I had first intended, and that I have also gotten much less from it than I have hoped for. I don't agree, and won't agree, with the actions of the majority of admins. here. And for that they will attack me. One thing RickK was definitely right about was the "fatal flaw" in this supposed "system" of Wikipedia. Interestingly enough, a Wikipedia confrence is scheduled where I live on the 14th, but I won't bother to mention this, there are WAY to many internal problems, too many editors adding to them, and too much "blind eye" turning to what problems we may have here.

I like to state here and now that I have respect for Jimbo Wales, but I really don't agree with the deletion of Deeceevoice's user page - she should have the right to summarize the difficulties she has encountered here, and the deletion (and the demanding thereof that the stated page should be deleted) is a blatant turning of the [sic] "blind eye" of problems concerning racism, and deliberate censoring of more "outstanding" viewpoints such as DCV's. Of course, my opinions don't count here (that is what I am finding out more and more, everyday) and the way that some editors are treated here (myself included) makes me feel that my presence is REALLY not necessary. I have enjoyed giving some knowledge to a free encyclopedia, but dealing with some particular people here has been more than hard to deal with. Great. I don't intend to leave, I just intend to stop caring (which I have). Me adding comments to something has not and will not work, so I do not plan to waste my time doing such, anymore.

Funny. I got out of class today (my first day this semester) - and GUESS what my professor had to say. "PLEASE don't use Wikipedia." His words in brief "[it is] crap...no academic review, a whole lot of dubious content is kept, and should be limited to the morons who feel the need to use it." Do I agree, no (I'd like to note that I explained to him that I am an editor on Wikipedia, and that I feel that there are too little qualified/legitimate editors to holistically help such bad articles [...leading to my argument that there should be more admins.])...but do I think the whole Seigenthaler controversy (which he mentioned) has really, REALLY diminished the reputation of Wikipedia...I don't think adverse racism would help it any. Think about it. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it is not worth it. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not welcome[edit]

Apple, I'm bored with you. Your comments on this page are no longer welcome. Please do not post here again. Period. deeceevoice 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friday and Jim Apple[edit]

I have joined Friday and Jim Apple to the arbitration cases. You may add statements regarding their behavior to the case or add evidence if you wish. Also regarding your call for my recusal. I see no basis for recusing although I realize I would have done better to post my request for dialog here rather than on your user page. Fred Bauder 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Only your posting to my user page was improper, huh? So, I guess you feel it was okay to block me in a fit of pique and then threaten to do so indefinitely when I called you on it? (And then Snowspinner -- a recent candidate for the ArbComm, I see, piling on.) Nice, Bauder. Stellar, in fact -- and pretty much par for the course when it comes to admins around here. At least that's been my experience.

About adding Friday and Jim Apple to the ArbCom case: I'm not sure what to make of Friday. Her actions don't pass the smell test, but she may be guilty of simply really, really crappy judgment (a not very encouraging/desirable attribute when it comes to an admin -- but, I'm finding out, a fairly common one), but far from a fatal flaw. Apple, on the other hand, has been on my ass for weeks. One more thought: you might wanna add yourself to the case while you're at it. :p (At least Friday never actually improperly exercised her admin authority against me, as she threatened to do; you, however, did.) See my point? :p deeceevoice 17:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't see your point. I suggest you revisit the question I asked you about provocation and take it seriously. Fred Bauder 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, let me suggest you revisit your, IMO, weak excuse for your actions and your admission of deliberately provoking me ("I am certainly guilty of giving Deeceevoice a good poke...."), after which you blocked me for responding firmly and justifiably to your admitted provocation. Then I strongly suggest you check your ego at the door, revisit the remarks of other editors/admins on the matter (above), reconsider -- and then take them seriously. deeceevoice 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strawpoll[edit]

Hi Deecee, I'd put up a little straw poll on your userpage, but then another user had the better sense to take it down. However, in a week or so, when I have more time to manage such a thing, I'd be interested in possibly seeing what the results of such a poll would be. Out of curiousity, would you be willing to use your userspace for it? If not, that's fine, obviously. You can see the original strawpoll in the history of your userpage. If you respond, you can respond here, as I'll put your talk on my watchlist. Cheers. Babajobu 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your sentiments about my user page, what on earth gave you the idea that you could presume to put something like that on my user page? (Stupid question. Why the hell not? Clearly, practically everybody in this freakin' place thinks they have a right to decide what should and should not go there, or whether I can or cannot edit my own page.) Pretty ballsy -- and very presumptuous. I wouldn't dream of altering your (or any other editor's) user page in such a manner -- or in any way for that matter. What is this? Open season on my user page? Pretty irritating. I'm more amazed than annoyed, but that, too. And, no. While I appreciate your good intentions, I won't consent to it. Peace. deeceevoice 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that, very poor judgment on my part. I guess I thought that sine your userpage had essentially been taken out of your hands by Jimbo, a poll to restore might as well get plunked there, too. Still, very poor judgment. It was only up for a couple minutes. Again, sincere apologies. Babajobu 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'S all right -- really. We're cool. :) Peace. deeceevoice 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!! I just read the whole thread above about Fred Bauder that was prompted by his posting his own comments to your userpage; I wasn't aware of any of that! Talk about my already bad idea for a userpage strawpoll coming at an exquisitely inopportune moment! Ouch!!! Anyway, thanks for your understanding. Babajobu 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's up for reelection to the ArbCom (appointed by Wales). You might want to weigh in here[15], however you feel -- for what it's worth. I have. deeceevoice 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Proud to be White guy" -- blocked[edit]

I've blocked the user who posted the "proud to be White" message. It was his first post after returning from a long block for hate speech. — Matt Crypto 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the header, it was appropriate. Thanks. deeceevoice 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably gonna hate me for this but. . .[edit]

I wanted to drop a line to let you know that I recently changed my mind on supporting you against the RfC and RfAr (you probably saw my recent posts). I still think you are a great editor and a needed asset to Wikipedia, especially since you've worked on articles like blackface which other editors won't touch. That said, I could no longer rationalize away your ignoring of Wikipedia guidelines on civility and politeness. Yes, you have been endlessly provoked. Yes, you have been spat upong and shat upon by way too many editors (who usually bravely choose to remain anonymous). But you know what, a whole bunch of us have been treated this way our whole lives and we still try to remain civil and polite, even while continuing to fight for what we believe in. Anyway, I hope you'll stick around and keep editing here but that is your decision, as is the decision to act as you will. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen them. And I have no comment -- except to say that whatever you do is, of course, your prerogative.

I just skimmed your comments. You say something (nebulous) about my conduct in the last few days convinced you. I find that really curious, when I've spent the last few days doing nothing but reacting to bulls*** from admins -- and writing about my criticisms of the project -- to which, interestingly, there has been damned little response. (So much for "dialogue" :p.) Whatever your decision is, it's your prerogative. I don't hate you; I don't know you. I won't even bother to answer your intimation that "we all have gone through crap, so what's your problem?" remark -- because, for one thing, IMO, it's utterly ridiculous and totally irrelevant to my experiences here on this website. And for another, it doesn't matter.

Further, I find it interesting that I seem to be the only one here calling Bauder on his hypocrisy. The man can't (or won't) see that his actions were wrong and own up to them. IMO, he's got no business on the Arb Com -- or as an admin, for that matter. Yet, people are willing to look the other way. And he has the nerve to add people like Friday to the RfAr and accuse her of harassing me -- when he did far worse. So typical of the kind of crap that goes on here all the time. There's no equanimity, no fairness, no impartiality, few effective checks on the rampant incompetence, wrongdoing and egotism of admins. It's an old boys' club. People just look the other way.

And then people wonder why people like me have no respect for the process and damned little, if any, for most of those involved in it. The whole thing's a farce. deeceevoice 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee, and/or no one dares to speak. It's obvious that Fred has placed himself in a rather, shall we say, peculiar position. I do agree that he needs to recuse himself from the case and have another arbitrator take over, after that unfortunate stunt. Worse yet, was the utterly dissatisfactory manner in which he acknolwedged this (truly) inexplicable lapse of reason. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to have meaningful discussions on the date of your departure with Jim Apple, as per your suggestion (they hate me, they love me, they hate me!). El_C 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol El, I gotta love you. You're such a brat! :p (See my comments about Bauder's bid for reelection to the ArbCom here.)[16] I'm #65. Judging from some of the other comments, Bauder has a history of this kind of conduct/bad judgment/abuse of authority. Hand-picked by ol' Jimbo himself. Peace. :) deeceevoice 06:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diddly squat license[edit]

You're still licensing your diddly squat [17] under GFDL, aren't you? Carbonite | Talk 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Still"? Never did. deeceevoice 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you missed the bit on the edit page that says "Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL". This isn't something you have a choice about I'm afraid (well, other than not editing here of course) -- sannse (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I guess that says it, then! :p deeceevoice 14:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People's, please! Deeceevoice didn't say that her userspace & otherwise contributions aren't licensed under the GFDL, obviously everything on Wikipedia legally is. All she said was that she "[dosen't] agree to free license diddly squat" — and I, for one, do not think that should be her responsibility. Her contributions across all namespaces is a totally separate matter. There's no harm (possibly benefit) on her part in calling attention to this obvious fact. So, in case you were wondering... Now you know. (Wow, I am so going to get it for this!). El_C 14:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

As I explained on the admin page, I put that statement on my user page because someone (whom I regard as a stalker) indicated he'd seen some verbiage elsewhere on the Internet that read like it was mine, but was attributed to someone else. (I have no clue if the person was blowing smoke or what. I also got the impression he wasn't speaking of an article -- perhaps talk page comments?) Okay. So, now an ensuing discussion on the admin page has me asking some questions. User Dragons Flight commented that default GFDL permission of the sort that Wikipedia has has been challenged and is not set in stone (if I'm reading his comment correctly). My question is, if it is set in stone, then why are people asked to put the free license box on their page and explicitly state that they agree to license their contributions? What's the deal? Does anyone know? deeceevoice 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The box has to do with additional licensing - like CreativeCommons or Public Domain. Someone spammed everyone a year or so ago and asked them to mulit-license their contributions, and a lot of people did. Hence the boxes. Guettarda 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Application for a temporary injunction pending clarification of licensing[edit]

I have applied for a temporary injunction forbidding you from contributing material to Wikipedia until you clarify your recent statement that you refuse to comply with the free license. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I guess it should be pretty clear that I haven't edited an article on Wikipedia in quite some time. Besides, read my comment above (edit conflict). I've frankly never concerned myself with this issue before and don't know much about it. I'm merely asking some questions. I'd appreciate some answers. Got any? Also, if I actually do refuse to comply with/agree to the free licensing of my contributions, what's the status of my earlier contributions to the project? Thanks. :) deeceevoice 16:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you edit there is a notice at the bottom of the page, "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL." The position of Wikipedia is that if you edit a page and save it that you have agreed to license your contribution under the GFDL. A few people have contested this "agreement". You gave the impression that you might be contesting it. I don't think you are, based on what you have done so far. Fred Bauder 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the license closely you will see that anything licensed under the GFDL may be republished elsewhere and may be modified, provided certain conditions are met. Fred Bauder 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deecee, as per you concerns re: mis-attirbution, what everyone (inexplicably) are neglecting to mention (in terms of meeting "certain conditions," etc.), is that you're still entitled to propper attribution under the GFDL and other less restrictive licenses. El_C 21:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you say (above) "someone (whom I regard as a stalker) indicated he'd seen some verbiage elsewhere on the Internet that read like it was mine, but was attributed to someone else." That might be a violation of the GFDL license. Fred Bauder 22:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural appropriation/Cool (African philosophy)[edit]

Your e-mail: "Hi DCV, this is Urthogie. You probably know me from the conflicts at wikipedia. I'm emailing you on a seperate subject-- I want to hear, and discuss, your opinion of cultural appropriation. I'm doing this to open my view(im 16 years old and most of my views aren't solidly formed in yet), not to reinforce it. If you're interested in discussing this topic, please reply. Thanks!"

What? You've got some nerve contacting me via e-mail after the hatchet job you did, and continue to do, on Cool (African philosophy). As I e-mailed you, my opinions on cultural appropriation are utterly irrelevant to the project -- as are yours. No. I have absolutely no interest in discussing my views on the subject with ~~some ignorant, intellectually arrogant/obtuse adolescent~~ someone who has demonstrated, as well as admitted, his own ignorance of the subject matter involved -- and an unwillingness to respect the scholarship and research of a noted scholar in the field. [revised deeceevoice 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Not satisfied with two failed RfDs (for the unitiated, attempts to obliterate the article completely), you've gutted Cool (African philosophy). I just took a look at what you've done with it. Because of your ignorance and bias, you have gutted potentially important subject matter in an interesting and valuable piece that sheds light on African and African-American cultural expression, two areas in which Wikipedia is miserably lacking in contributions. What? Having a hissy fit because of my response to your e-mail? :p

IMO, your ongoing actions and behavior are emblematic of precisely what is wrong with this website vis-a-vis black subject matter and the problem of intellectually (and, perhaps, emotionally) immature contributors. Do not ever contact me again -- via e-mail or in notes. I have nothing to say to you. And you have nothing to say to me that I wish to read. deeceevoice 14:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24 hours for the above personal attack (removed). — Matt Crypto 15:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto, you're so predictable, you're positively boring. If discounting the research of an imminent and highly respected scholar on a sociological/anthropological/culture matter because he's not a "scientist" isn't being intellectually obtuse, then nothing is. I stand by my remarks. And I couldn't care less what you do about it. User:deeceevoice 15:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments can stay, but I've removed the personal attack per WP:RPA. — Matt Crypto 16:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks, Crypto, for giving me permission to edit my own freakin' user page. *x* deeceevoice 07:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may not maintain a personal attack here. If you persist in restoring it, I will protect this page. — Matt Crypto 16:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, IMO, you're clearly out of line and abusing your authority. Urthogie is, indeed, ignorant -- by his own admission. Second, he is clearly an adolescent. My appraisal of his obtuseness is also based on clear evidence. (See the discussion thread on the relevant article.) You may disagree with my assessment, but it is an honest and accurate one.

Further, you have absolutely no authority to restore Urthogie's comments. He's been told his comments are unwelcome on my page. You have no right to reinsert them. deeceevoice 16:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for restoring Urthogie's comment; a feature of rollback is that it reverts several changes at once, and I intended only to remove the personal attack. Nonetheless, you are still not permitted to make personal attacks. If you do so again, I will protect this page. — Matt Crypto 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you are thoroughly conversant with how the rollback works. You knew you were restoring Urthogie's comments -- as clearly evidenced by your edit note. As I stated -- a blatant abuse of your authority. Apology not accepted. deeceevoice 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback edit summaries are generated automatically. — Matt Crypto 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know as well as I that rollbacks are generated when one chooses a specific version and then activates that option. It's a conscious choice -- one which you deliberately made, as evidenced -- again -- by your edit summary. As far as I'm concerned, this subject is closed. deeceevoice 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would reconsider your attitude. Taking Urthogie at his word, he is young, inexperienced and willing to communicate with you regarding the content of an article. Our method of decision making Wikipedia:Consensus contemplates extensive communication with each other as matters are negotiated. You seem to make a good case, why not be patient with him and explain to him why you take the position you do? Fred Bauder 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For precisely the reasons stated, Bauder. Just based on "Cool" alone, I have no time, no patience for his ilk. Further, he asked for my opinions. Wikipedia (purportedly) isn't about opinions, and Urthogie's uninformed personal opinions matter immeasurably less to me than opinions do, generally, to Wikipedia and the content of its articles. The purpose of my participation in Wikipedia was not to make friends or to try to enlighten individuals. In the real world, I probably wouldn't waste two seconds on this guy. In cyberspace, he's already consumed too much of my time. I'm done with this subject. deeceevoice 17:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you're not editing anymore....[edit]

and to see that your extensive contributions here were not more appreciated. It's also disheartening, though not surprising, to see the sludge left on your User Page. Even more disheartening to see your principled, lucid, and thoughtful discussion of the issue labelled as a "rant" by Jimbo. I can understand his concern with having such images visible on the site, but his refusal to address the issues you raise, and his threats to block you, seem pretty unconscionable. As is much of the treatment you've received on Wikipedia for that matter. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that you're missed. NoahB 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your comments. Yes. I find it interesting that Wales invited me to discuss the issues and then had absolutely nothing to say himself. In fact, very few people had anything worthwhile to say at all in response to my comments (likely because they had no credible comeback). Pretty pathetic -- and very telling. Could it be because the emperor has no clothes? :p Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

I've blocked you for 24 hours for your personal attacks here. The policy says, "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.". — Matt Crypto 23:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, what a surprise! :o deeceevoice 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, is he still insisting on primary sources? El_C 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]