Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 22 January 2007

sudancampaign.com

savedarfur.org

hurricane Katrina relief,

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

Reply

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

Please cut down on reverting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bike

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

Another Question

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

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

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

Nevermind, it's unimportant.Altarbo 21:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. deeceevoice 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Uh, 'scuse me?

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

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

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

*Harriet Tubman woulda had to shoot knee-grows like you. deeceevoice 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Okay. Now, this is beyond childish. (I didn't even read the reference to which you refer. I guess it got lost in all the profanity.) An' tell ya what. Next time you see a man pull a man- or woman-child from out his punani, u b sure an' let me know, ya hear? Finally, u shd know "we made you" is just shorthand for "we know where you come from; we raised ur black ass." Day-um.) Go 2 ur room, fool. You wanna show ur ass? Fine. We both know what went down here -- don't we, darlin'? I'm done. deeceevoice 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time you find a black woman who had a child without a mans sperm you let ME know. You showed your ass a million times. All your doing is telling me that yours is bigger than mine. Go ahead and erase my comment so you can LOOK succsesful. This was beyond childish after your first response. QUESTION MARK is not the same as a COMMAND. You're done? I'm done then. All this over a Question MARK! From now on I refer to you as "the riddler". --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-contradiction about what you knew and didn't. Self-righteous, foul-mouthed bluster. Crude, abusive language. Name calling. Mischaracterizing my words and my approach. Da-ang. Read to me like sumbahdy need Jeezus! :p deeceevoice 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont care if you are white, black, alien, I dont care if you are Queen Latifah. You come at me with an attitude of disrespect for no reason. You also being a hypocrite show more of your foolishness and this time I am sick of it. You can misspell all the words in the world "yasself, Jeezus" that don't do noTHING. What you can do is choose. You can choose to be a self-righteous self-centered doublestandard jerk or you can actually realize that you initiated this confrontation by over-reacting to something... a lack of seeing my comment for what it obvioulsy was and asserting ... no attempting and failing to assert your ego onto me. Or you can go back to your "cho chu" talking and continue past hour three. I will never stop. I will never end. If you recognize that were both in enemy territory then the smart thing to do is to stand down against me and stop responding to me with your dominatrix mentality everytime we chat with each other. You're triggre happy Deecee, and you expect everyone to avoid the confrontation, you think you can control others. It will not work with me. How much more childish bullshit do you want to see on our pages? I dont care either way. You only egg me on further. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You can mischaracterize my comments all you want. My point is the very obvious contradiction. After all, I'm not the one with with Jeezus this and Jeezus that plastered all over my page. I'm not the one claiming to be a Christian -- talkin' high an' stoopin'/crawlin' low.

What I see here is an example of the kind of venomous viciousness that comes out when a person is unable to draw a line between passionate argument/logical discourse and ego. IMO, you've been behaving like an ego-driven, venomous, little ... gee, what's that word?!! You know. That word? :p Sorry to disappoint, but the power struggle you perceive is all in your head, seemingly a mere projection of something you're dealing with onto me. And you know precisely what I'm saying. After all, I seriously doubt I'm the first person to tell you such a thing. You're shadowboxing like some punch-drunk prizefighter. And it's a pretty sad sight. Time to put down the gloves and get back to the real world where people can act a fool and defend their fragile egos behind closed doors and no one's the wiser. Me, I've got work to do. Go find something that brings you peace. If you must remain combative, then meander on off and find a better punching bag for your misguided jabs, 'cuz this one punches back, and I cannot and will not be goaded into tearing into a brutha -- and certainly not here. For me, bloodletting is not a spectator sport for the enemy's entertainment. And when I cut, it goes through the bone, past the marrow. Don't let the fact that I'm a woman fool you. I don't play; my blade's a fuckin' atom splitter. deeceevoice 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice you've lost credibility and respect with me. I no longer take your perspective seriously. Poof, begone! Report me please. I DEMAND YOU TO REPORT ME. DO IT NOW. You hypocrite, you are the LAST to speak these words. And for the provocative factor, you believe that I provoked you? I spoke clearly indicating the obverse is true, but of course, like many other arrogant people, you disregard that and instead assume you are by default "right" in your perspective. When you say things like:

• 'cuz this one punches back, and I cannot and will not be goaded into tearing into a brutha -- and certainly not here. For me, bloodletting is not a spectator sport for the enemy's entertainment. And when I cut, it goes through the bone, past the marrow. Don't let the fact that I'm a woman fool you. I don't play; my blade's a fuckin' atom splitter.

You only agitate more. So you want to suggest that I calm down while threatening me sideways? I double dare you. I insist, I demand. Do your worst DoubleStandardVoice. Take your fake, ego boosting advice with you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Throughout all of this, I've never lost my temper with you; you haven't made me angry. I don't take any of this personally. And, no. I haven't threatened you. And, yes, provocation. This all started because you did not respond to a request of mine regarding an article -- not even with a note saying you weren't interested/couldn't be bothered -- yet not two days later left me a note asking for my intervention on an article. You're the one bent out of shape and spewing obscenities. You're the one making demands. You're the one showin' ur ass. And I've repeatedly told you I have absolutely no intention of returning your vitrol in like manner.

And you demand? If you're one of those self-flagellating believers so hell-bent on going before the Arb Com, then I suggest you report yourself.

Oh. And one, last thing, my ranting, frothing-at-the-mouth "Christian" brutha. You might consider removing your name from the "Category:User Misplaced Pages/Nice users" page -- particularly given the nastiness on your user page. (As an aside, I find it particularly odd that, on a website such as this, your first order of business is attacking another black person. It seems to me like you've got some serious issues that need attention. Such conduct would seem to confirm to me your problem of projection, that you are the person concerned about being the big, black, badass dog around here. Don't you know that the king of a dunghill is still lord of a sh*tpile? :p) Anyway, yours was the first page I'd ever seen such a thing -- and I 'bout fell off my chair. Sum helluh funny stuff dat. :p

I wish you luck in finding equilibrium. Because you need it (still). Bad. deeceevoice 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Let me report the both of us. Because I don't like chickenshits that use a computer to puff up their ego and expect me to be a willing participant in their egotistical establishment. Obviously you aren't going to fly to Chicago or LA to fuck with me, and I am not going to hunt you down in DC or wherver you think you are. So lets cut to the chase, you can't cut a damn slab of butter with a ginzu. You aren't the commander and you aren't doing anything other than agitating me with your threats that you try to half-ass imply. So let's legally resolve that end of it. I solemnly swear that I have no intention or interest in causing any physical harm to you in any way. Now, on the other end of this, you need to take your own advice and use it for yourself. You certainly want and sadly think you will get the last word (your punch) and your hoping that the whole "insecure black male" routine is going to do that for you. You like to fight men because you feel that proves you are superior in some way, so you seethe for a chance to do so at every turn. FIVE times in the past you have instigated battles with me over DUMB shit. Ok DumbAssVoice let me explain to you why your irritating me. It is not my ego that is bothered. Heck, you're a five out of ten on the richter scale, you'll see my ass on websites, forums, getting more flack than your " How dare you insult the Heavenly Black Female Isis" routine will ever generate. No what irritates me is that you by default, try to dominate discourse with me in ways that are way out of proportion to whatever it is you think has offeneded you. You go on and on about egos and insecurities, as if it's not obvious that those are the very things that are motivating YOU. It's like if I knew you in person you would be that woman that constantly flips her ghetto hand in someone's face if they don't agree to everything you say, or try to laugh in someones face if they make a mistake then tell them not to be so sensitive, telling them to not act like a punk or some BS. Youre the kind of woman that thinks it's equality and takes pride to get into a fist fight with a man, then knowing that the police will arrest the black man and send HIM to jail (not you) because of bias, you get an extra kick out of fucking someone's life up. "oooh look at what i did yall I suckered him into the fight, cuz I knew he would get arrested". Thats what you are trying to do here. Trying to incite me with your threats to violate the policy to such a degree that me, not you, gets banned. After all, you need someone to step on to validate your long Wiki-rap-sheet. So let me out flank you. This conversation has ended. Any and all messages on my talk page by you are deleted and any further communication from you to me on my talk page is automatically blocked (whether it is by automatic means or by me just highlighting and pressing the delete key). I'm sure you have a witty retort ready, but in the end, look at yourself. You've alienated yourself yet again from probably one of the people who was in your corner the most. Bravo big tough girl. Bravo. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself.. it's a celebration!!!!

]

I hope the both of us get the absolute worst possible sanctions they can conjure up. And if that does happen, and you don't ever forget about me. Don't ever forget how you kept trying to punk around someone who wasn't even an enemy, all so you can get your ego high. Was it worth it? I hope so. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You can dispense with the lenghty, abusive posts. I stopped reading them a very long time ago -- except for a sentence or two here or there that snagged my eye. And, no. I won't bother following the link, because I can guess where it leads. I haven't much patience for such matters. Sad. A phrase from a very talented poet acquaintance who committed suicide some decades ago comes to mind: "... tell me how willing slaves be." deeceevoice 06:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As the one finger points to me, the other three point to thee. Your name is now "hypocrite", that's the noun that I use to refer you as forever. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, how devoted you are to getting the last word. There is nothing sincere in you bringing your friend and his suicide into this conversation. You disrespect his life and death by doing so. Nothing is sacred for you, and nothing sincere comes out of your mouth. You are a perspective, not a person, and it is your perspective, your attitude that I address. Whatever issues you think I personally have, my words ring true. You are far motivated by personal desire to look tough and to come across as a master than you are to listen to others and mutually learn from each other. That is YOUR problem. Next time you find yourself struggling to contribute to an article and you have to go it alone... no even worse, watch the black people article deterioriate. Watch the Egyptian articles deteriorate. You and EditingOprah certainly contributed to me leaving Misplaced Pages for an indefinite period in ways that no white Eurocentricst could. Get your last word, make sure it's worth it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've recently amended your user page to include me in your personal attacks on Wikipedians. The most telling/interesting passage that I bothered to read? (It seems really appropriate here.)

You are the proverbial sellout, the 21st century field nigga that runs to master's house to report when the "other" slaves are trying to escape. You're the one massa gives the gun to watch over the rest of us, and the one that dances for him.

And I'm the "hypocrite"? :p deeceevoice 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Peace in ur life. deeceevoice 06:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Tol' ya

Hmph. Tried tuh pull yo' coat, but u kep' it up -- 'n' ran tuh yo' massuh instead. Now u gon'. deeceevoice 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Afrophobia

This article could use some in-text citations for its claims. Gazpacho 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't done much work on that piece. Nor have I even really read it. Perhaps you should leave a note on the page(s) of the editor(s) responsible for the article or, more specifically, those who contributed the unsourced information you're concerned about. Peace. deeceevoice 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All the other significant editors on that article appear to be inactive. I have removed all the material that didn't discuss cited uses of the term, and you can see what's left. Gazpacho 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If most of the editors were black, then that doesn't surprise me. I doubt I'll get around to taking a look, either. deeceevoice 19:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a question....

I was browsing through the discussion history on Afrocentrism and I couldn't help but notice your rant on the Olmecs. What evidence do you have that they were immigrants from Africa? Why couldn't they be simply just full-lipped and broad nosed Indians, due to them being in a tropical wet climate? I will lose all respect for you if you defend the long disproven theoreis of hyperdiffusionists like Ivan van Sertima and Clyde Winters. Get back to me ASAP. Peace. Teth22 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And just where have I engaged in a "rant" on the Olmecs? (Furthermore, I'm not here to gain -- or lose -- the respect of anyone.) Peace. deeceevoice 04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

M'kay, sorry for my lack of better wording, but what evidence do you have of Olmecs being immigrants from Africa? That's the central focus of my question. Peace.Teth22 06:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, where did I engage in a "rant" of any kind? What about a near rant? What the hell is the problem with people around here? I'm fed up with mischaracterizations of my work. What don't you understand? It's not about what evidence I have or what I personally believe. Nor is it about what you personally believe. Whatever little I may have contributed to the article was probably centered around Van Sertima's work and, if I recall, some disinformation repeatedly inserted by certain editor(s?) regarding the purported lack of epicanthic eyefolds in African people -- which is patently false. They Came Before Columbus involves some interesting theories that deserve to be properly and accurately represented. Period. Peace.deeceevoice 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Deecevoice, sorry to bother you, but can you forward me a copy of Susan Anton's e-mail (s) to me? My e-mail address is sicilyties@hotmail.com. I need it for the sake of revision of the article, yes I'm working on the article yet again. Peace. Teth22 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The e-mails cannot be used in the article; they are considered original research. deeceevoice 05:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But could you just send it to me anyways? I remember you saying "you'd be more than happy to forward anyone a copy of Anton's e-mail", I e-mailed Anton several days ago, and she hasn't responed back. Thanks. Peace. Teth22 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Use the link to the left to e-mail me your addy. deeceevoice 11:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Will that e-mail work for ya. Get back ot me. Peace. Teth22 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians

Please don't post unsourced negative material about living people, according to WP:BLP. Talk pages come up on search engines. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You gotta be kiddin' me. My, my. Slow day, huh? deeceevoice 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I assure you, no kidding. WP isn't the place to post insults. Not a free speech zone and all that. Posted on AN/I, FYI. Tyrenius 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're not, dear. deeceevoice 07:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"African American" and "black" in Minstrel show

Hey, Deeceevoice. A user who may or may not be trolling is complaining on Talk:Minstrel show that we shouldn't use the term African American to describe people of African descent in America for that article. He argues that they could not own land and were therefore not "Americans". I find that pretty silly reasoning, but it did give me pause re. the correct terminology to use. In your opinion, what term is best for the article vis-a-vis enslaved blacks pre-Civil War, free blacks pre-Civil War, and free blacks post-Civil War? The sources used tend to mix and match "African American" and "black" with no apparant rhyme or reason, and I notice that the blackface article uses both terms. And apologies from this ignorant white guy. :) — BrianSmithson 11:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being "ignorant"; we're all ignorant about at least something. (Besides, you seem a hell of a lot more knowledgeable of black subject matter than a lot of white folks on this website. Gee. That's not saying much is it? Well, you know what I mean.) I've responded on the article talk page. I haven't read the article, but I'm sure your work has improved it. Will take a look when I have more time, though. Peace. :) deeceevoice 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saying hello

Glad to see you are still putting up a fight.. Hope all is well with you! --Aika 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice I agree with you!

Millions of people believe that South Asians are distant members of African diasporas. I personally don't believe this, but it's a fascinating theory that should be given equal weight in the article. Zaph is trying to marginalize this view, but I feel more comfortable mentioning it in the article because it a provides a coherent theme that links all the grousp being discussed. Editingoprah 02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't have a problem with mentioning the African diaspora. That's why when I revisited the article for the first time in several months a few days ago I included the link to African diaspora in my comments on the talk page. It is a relevant, interesting notion -- but one that is not critical to the discussion; it is documentation of the application of the term to the populations in question, but not an explanation/justification. The peoples mentioned have been considered black, or have considered themselves black, before and beyond the postulations of Afrocentrist scholars or pan-Africanist ideologues. They have been considered black historically and referred to as such by explorers, casual observers, their countrymen, by colonizers, etc., and themselves. See my comments and the link provided for one example of such a mainstream application of the word black to a non-African ethnic group -- the Tamils of Sri Lanka. You will recall that you removed a photo of Sri Lankan children, incorrectly and rather uncivilly asserting that its inclusion "undermined" and made "absurd" the statements made in the article. deeceevoice 10:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

African American

I tried doing what I thought was some pretty basic stuff in African American recently and discovered (I guess I shouldn't be surprised) that I had stepped into a minefield. The first one who came in after me I had no compunctions about just reverting. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you would take a look and see if you disagree with the direction I was trying to take some of this; certainly I value your thoughts in this area enormously. - Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Misplaced Pages. No good deed goes unpunished. :p Will do -- but if it's really complicated, don't look for much from me until probably the middle of next week. Hope you and yours are well. Bless. :) deeceevoice 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

beauty

Yeah, it's lovely up here -- I wish we could spend more time here, but at the moment we need to be spending about 3/4 of our time in Las Vegas, which has its own charms, but not like this lovely land. I'm slowly realizing that I'm really meant to be a rural rather than an urban person.

You can keep an eye on our chunk of paradise here. --jpgordon 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've just been getting to know the desert in the last few years. For me it was a matter of learning to understand the subtlety of it. The big views in the Basin and Range world are just the indicators; the way the flora and fauna vary with every few hundred feet in elevation; the slopes and curves that the water shapes; everything is either alluvial fan or will be in a few hundred thousand years; the creatures brilliantly adapted to live in their particular niches...Yeah, Vegas is a blight. But it's an interesting blight. And we're just twenty minutes from open desert; we can turn our backs to the casinos and we're here. Kernville is kinda the exact opposite of Las Vegas; we're surrounded by beauty -- one has to travel an hour through a narrow winding canyon to get to anyplace remotely urban, and that's Bakersfield, which really isn't much to write home about unless you like country music. My wife was born and has spent most of her life in Kernville, and when I first came here I discovered a social structure I could slide right into. A highly educated social structure, too -- a lot of deliberate underachievers, people who choose to be underemployed so they can enjoy the benefits of the river and the mountain. (The Kern River, our back yard, is the primary watershed of Mt. Whitney, and is perhaps the top whitewater sports river in the country.) There's a lot to be said for small town life -- if you don't need the everyday stimulation of urban hubbub. It's an interesting tradeoff. --jpgordon 14:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Gandhi

Hi - I'm afraid you are persisting in repeatedly making edits that violate WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:RS and WP:NOT. You are requested to stop and discuss the issue with other editors at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi. If you continue reverting, you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks, Rama's arrow 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(from article talk page)

The charges of racism are well known and completely valid. Don't quote wiki policy to me when you are clearly in violation of it. You oblitered accurate, relevant, adequately sourced information with a completely meaningless and dismissive (uncivil) edit note that in no way justified the edit. You have yet to offer any justification for removing the information. Why is it not relevant? And how is it "nonsense"? Finally, absolutely none of your nice, little links has any relevance whatsoever to the edits I've made. If anything, they apply to your behavior -- and not mine. Unless and until you can justify your deletion of the material, I will continue to insert it. deeceevoice 16:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Khalistan.com is a POV source. Please see WP:RS. Also I request you to see the talkpage archives here as I think this issue has been previously discussed numerous times. Rama's arrow 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! A mere technicality. That's all you had to say, that the Khalitsan website is considered a POV source. Your unhelpful, disrespectful edit note gave no indication of the nature of your objection and -- again -- clearly is a violation of wiki policy. And that business about "disruption" is just bluster -- to use your word -- utter "nonsense." I'll be happy to provide the same information from a NPOV source, then, so you will have no credible objection -- because the historical record is clear: Gandhi was an anti-black bigot. deeceevoice 16:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Racists in Black People discussion

Dear Deeceevoice,

I am the anonymous user you encountered on the "Black People" article.

I have the impression that a lot of racists try to infiltrate that page. For instance "Whatdoyou" has quoted a racist wesbiste for some of his explanations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Whatdoyou

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/ethiopians.html

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/

Others are persistently quoting Michael Levin who is known to be a racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Levin

Finally, I truly believe that you Americans (Black&White) are very influenced by the strong racism of you society. And therefore you have a tendency to split the world in white-black-yellow and brown.

But the world is much more complicated. And for instance, just because Mexicans might look brown, it doesn't mean that they have anything in common with "Brown" Indians, "Brown" Iraqis or "Brown" Afghans.

So you should be very careful not to take the reality of Harlem as the reality of the rest of the world("Put him in FUBU and set him down in Harlem in a Black Panther Party rally, and no one would bat an eye"=> It made me laugh! ;-) ). We still have to do a lot of work to unite Blacks against racism.

Greetings and please stay engaged! (another unsigned post)

I appreciate your sentiments about racism, but your cautionary note has landed with a thud. Whatever I've contributed to the article has little to do with my personal viewpoint. All of the peoples mentioned in the article have been considered black by various peoples around the globe, or who consider themselves black. Truth be told, the reality of much of Harlem (which today is being gentrified out of existence as a black community) is that many of the black folks there would have an extremely provincial notion of what "black" means. The fact is, the world of black folks is an international and multicultural/multi-ethnic one. It is the critics of the article who have displayed not only racism, but an unreasoning, deliberate obtuseness in their refusal to accept -- or a dismal ability to grasp -- the breadth and scope of the term. deeceevoice 20:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

=> Dear Deeceevoice, I think that "Black conscience" is very important in that topic. Because Prince Bandar is obviously of African Origin. But "Black conscience" is not strong in many Arabic countries, because other cultural things(Religion, Family, etc.) are much more important. Therefore I doubt that Prince Bandar will be considered as a member of the "Black People" Group in Saudi Arabia, as many Saudis probably don't know what that means(For them he is "A Prince"). While in countries where "Black conscience" is important, you will have Blacks from different origins considering themselves to belong to one group(Even Sri Lankans in the Britain, Germany, etc.). (Unsigned post.)

Your point has no point. I raised the matter of Bandar in talk because the writer (you?) claimed very few Arabs were mixed -- when that is patently false. And I provided the reference regarding the obviously "Negroid" presence in Libya. The centuries-long Arab trade in Africa, including its despicable trafficking in black human beings, has produced a population shot-through with black African-bloodlines. And before Arab hegemony in the region, there was black hegemony. Virtually the entirety of northern Egypt is comprised in predominant part of a mongrelized population of Semitic people (Arabs) and black Africans. And Bandar is but one example of many I cited because of his prominence. If someone like him, with his brown skin and nappy hair, can rise to a position of prominence in a culture known for its anti-black racism, then that should provide at least an inkling of just how common Africoid/Negroid blood is among Arabs as a whole.

"Blackness" as an individual or group identity may or may not be a function of "consciousness." After all, the British constantly during their colonial reign referred to Australian Aborigines, Indians and others of the subcontinent disdainfully as "blacks" and "kaffirs". The article is not exclusively about who self-identifies as "black"; it is also about people anywhere who have been called, are called/considered "black."

Finally, kindly do not post to my talk page again without identifying yourself. deeceevoice 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal?

Please stop vandalising the black people article. It's finally starting to look good after months of chaos. Your recent edits have been impeding the process. Timelist 06:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are the vandal. You've repeatedly deleted text without justification. The lead of any article is meant to present the subject under discussion and summarize the information in the article. There is absolutely nothing "redundant" about the information provided. The article is not a dictionary entry; definitions do not suffice. deeceevoice 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks?

I am an African American currently residing outside of the States. I just wanted to write and say "Thanks DeeCee", for your work over at the Black Supremacist page. I surfed there by accident. I was shocked to find that Misplaced Pages has even chosen to include this article. It is far too long in view of the insignificance of so-called "Black Supremacy" when compared to the massive White Supremacist Movement which is once again taking the entire White World by storm. (Are you a Black Supremacist, if you are only trying to survive in a nation that overtly practices and tolerates Racist practices such a lynching or segregation?) Until I read our courageous comments, I was truly daunted by the sheer malevolence that appears to be at work in that article, especially the insidious denigrations of Marcus Garvey. So many considered him to be a hero for addressing Black suffering in the Post Slavery Occident. Yet, that article slanders him viciously, referring to him as an errand boy of the Klu Klux Klan and a friend of White Supremacists. I have not been able to find any truth in any of these statements, so I deleted them. So much of the material there appears to be merely conjectured or anecdotal designed to tell ugly tales about African people in general rather than focus on the purported subject at hand. Yet, on the White Supremacist page, there are no such juicy tidbits to further incite anger and outrage. There are no tales told period, just the bare bones concerning this virulent hate-inspired movement. In fact, much has been left out. The White Supremacist article could have included a number of recent and not so reccent events that would have turned any reader's stomach but the writer keeps it very cut and dry. Not so on the Black Supremaciy page where, the author goes out of his way to assasinate the character of any Black person who remotely expresses any racial pride or hope for his people. I guess, he is just two fingers from calling Martin Luther King a Black Supremacist, since he incited Black people to protest white brutality and segregation.

I want to complain to Misplaced Pages about the unhealthy tone in which the Black Supremacist page has been written. The assaults on Rappers and other musicians such as Lauren Hill is shocking. I have no doubt that the article is motived by racial hate. It is so apt that you have identified the problems as systemic. Misplaced Pages is a true menace in the sense that people of African descent are often assaulted but may lack the resources, time or orientations necessary to defend themselves against those who use Misplaced Pages to commit what amounts to racial assault. Refutations are highly resented and a general ambiance of White supremacist aggression reigns on many pages. I haven't read all that you've written, I imagine that you spend a lot of time, fighting the good fight. Again thanks. I hope you get this message.Sincerely Vani --VaniNY 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to register your comments.

CoYep is an edit warrior with a history of following me around the site. He's inserted deliberately slanted information into the article and used legitimate information in blatantly misleading ways.

I've taken another quick look/cut at the article and reorganized it into something more coherent and excised the most objectionable material I've referred to above. It probably deserves another look. It would be helpful if you would take a look and make any fixes or changes you deem appropriate. And keep an eye on it. No doubt, CoYep will be back to twist/contort the article again. deeceevoice 07:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank DeeCee

Thank you for the warm words. I believe that I have already expressed that I'm happy that you have been available to work so hard on this site. I have only been at it a few days, and already I have had enough. I am sorry that we have had cross words, but, even though it may reoccur, it means nothing. Your views nearly mirror my own (concerning the subject at hand) and that is really gratifying. It disturbs me that I may not have the time to keep up with this nutty site. As my mother used to say "No rest for the weary". Peace to you too. VaniNY

African American

Thanks for your work on this. I'll try to get a look at it again today. It's often a mess, and there simply aren't enough people watching it. Apparently, we have a few "contributors" who think the title of the page is The Negro Problem. Then again, I guess the title of much of the talk page could be The Clueless White Boy Problem.

Same thing happens to Roma people. On Jew, it's a little better, because there seems to be more of a "diligence squad" watching it through an RSS feed. I tend to hit things as they come up on my watchlist, and that means I'm usually lagging by a few days, so if a page is churning, I rarely see it unless someone calls my attention. Still, it's amazing the vandalism I sometimes find that has been sitting for days. - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on October 17 2006 to Great Sphinx of Giza

Unblock request

I e-mailed the admin who blocked me to get the link to the documentation supporting the action, stating I didn't believe I violated the 3RR. He responded: "Sadly, an all too common response. See WP:AN3 -W}}"

I checked the information. It does not support the 3RR. I responded with a follow-up e-mail:

"Yep. It probably IS a common response. However, did you really read the fourth edit?"

"First, the wording is changed in the second edit, because I realized that someone had played with the Schoch quote to make Schoch say something he may not have said. I changed it in the second edit."

"Most importantly, one of the main points of contention with this segment of the article was the placement of this information. I deleted the "Ethnicity" subhead, deleted the ancillary quotations from the writers (DeVolney, DuBois, etc.) and, I thought, worked the information in very effectively to a previous paragraph where it fit seamlessly regarding the controversy about Khafre. Domingo's observations provide another example of a dissenting opinion regarding the Sphinx's identity. The result is quite different." (edited for clarity)

"I think you're in error, and I request that the block be reversed."

I don't think the admin even bothered to read my fourth entry. It's obvious it's in a completely different location, and the resultant language is quite different.

I find the fact that I have been blocked ironic. User:Stbalbach repeatedly reverted my edits without explaining why and using what I consider uncivil language. And he ended his third block with the following edit note, a blatant and open invitation for people to engage in tag-team edit warring: "There is no consensus for this - my 3rd revert of the day so someone else can take it from here." So much for following wiki procedure. deeceevoice 13:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: bulls***. deeceevoice 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Just take a break...."

Just take a break from the black people article for a while. Your edits aren't helping. Kobrakid 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you take a break? I think my edits, which have not only added information, but corrected numerous typos and capitalization errors, have been an improvement. What's more, IMO, my edits have been objective, balanced and informative. In many cases, my edits aren't even controversial -- but they've been reverted -- wholesale -- anyway. Now, that's not helping; that's simply edit warring. And you're one of the main culprits in that regard. You've got some nerve coming to my page and telling me to "take a break." deeceevoice 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Black people

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.SecurID 05:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Another unjust block

I've blocked you for 24 hours so you can calm down a bit. Remember WP:CIVIL. — Matt Crypto 11:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't care less about your block. I will continue to speak my mind as long as mind-sets such as those exhibited at Black people continue to censor/expunge, wholesale, legitimate edits by engaging in tag-team edit warring. The fact that you chose to block me and not take action against others speaks volumes -- and is just another example of the tacky manner in which you choose to exercise your authority. deeceevoice 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to "speak your mind" in an uncivil matter will lead to further and longer blocks. Whether you care about it or not is irrelevant. — Matt Crypto 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And as far as I'm concerned, your continuing to block me unjustly is just as irrelevant. It means nothing to me personally. Your blocks are just classic, textbook examples of what is foul about this website. deeceevoice 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The blocks aren't for your benefit, Deeceevoice, so whether it means anything to you personally is not really something I'm interested in. As Hoary points out, you're quite capable of arguing your case civilly. — Matt Crypto 18:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Matt, Deecee certainly is capable of doing this. However, it seems to have little or no effect. She's forced to deal with the edits of a number of people. No doubt some of these rationally disagree; others obviously don't argue against or even read civil, rational arguments that don't happen to jibe with their own prejudices, instead dismissing these as "politically correct propoganda" (sic), etc. What should an editor do if her civil, rational arguments are dismissed without consideration? Uncivil eruptions don't seem the best solution. She could start an RfC, I suppose; but that rigmarole (searching for diffs, writing them up, etc etc) looks so time-consuming that I'd never want to start one myself, and I don't suppose my unenthusiasm is unusual. Or again she could just acquiesce and watch the entire article (and all its commercial scrapes) become the playground of earnest students of people like D'Souza, not to mention the unthinking followers of talk-radio blowhards. -- Hoary 03:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not just my block, but the abject (and repeated) failure on the part of Crypto and others of his ilk to deal with (or even acknowledge) the violations of others involved in the same matters in which I am involved. The edit warrior in this case clearly and blatantly incited others to essentially take over where he left off -- to engage in tag-team edit warring. And while the wiki definition clearly states that one can be cited for a 3RR violation for having violated even the spirit, and not necessarily the letter (four reverts), of the rule, no action was taken against him. Typical, classic Crypto. And that is why I (and others) hold him and the so-called wiki process in such contempt. deeceevoice 04:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Deecee. Welcome back after the 24 hour "break". I'm an admin and maybe that's because, or that's why, I'm a stuck-up jerk, but I view the eruption that won you the break as an understandable response to other editors' refusal to consider the explanations that you'd very civilly written the previous day.

I'm appalled by the stupidity and ignorance that often passes hereabouts as another, valid "point of view" on issues somehow involving skin color. I don't have much time, effort or inclination to flush this stuff away, but now and again I do try (recent example). I really hope you continue to stick around because you do much more of it than I do, and I'd prefer that the WP coverage of these issues weren't too horrible. All the best -- Hoary 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even notice the block until it was over -- or nearly over. (I didn't try to edit, so I don't know.) :p deeceevoice 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Followed the link re AAVE. Your ongoing efforts are appreciated. deeceevoice 07:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, Deecee: my efforts are minor and sporadic. All the best with your work; stay cool. -- Hoary 11:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

a few criticisms

First off, I want to say I admire your devotion to your cause, and your voracious pursuit of knowledge on subjects that are important to you. However, I have the following questions, which are somewhat criticizing, but not meant to rant at you:

1. You present cool as an african aesthetic, and give the example of Miles Davis as the icon of cool. If he is the icon of cool-- a non-Western idea/invention/cultural trait, then why does he drive a Mazeradi that has costed him probably a million dollars? Is this not a huge investment of capital being put into a Western "synthetic" version of the cool you refer to?
2. You have at one point presented a dichotomy of European vs African, wherein the Africans "get low" with dances and being down to earth and the europeans "get high" on ballet classical music, etc. How would you respond to the claim that this dichotomy is contradicted by the fact that Europeans often found their inspiration in getting low, and africans in reaching for the heavens, before the two cultures came into contact.
3. One of your most edited pages in black supremacy. Do you believe in black supremacy?
4. You've admitted that you're prejudiced at one point because of bad experiences with racism. How does this effect your editing?

--Winatchess

I'm busy. Comments and inquiries by registered users are more likely to receive a response/faster response. deeceevoice 12:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you have a chance would be great. Secondly, I was wondering why you think that art with black people in it proves any historical fact about egypt. They drew whites and arabs then too. (Mix-raced society). Reply whenever you're not busy --Winatchess

A Response

*sigh* Frankly, I find responding to such flat-footed inquiries as yours tedious and annoying. I'm not here to provide answers to queries from the obviously not well-read (on a particular subject), yet opinionated, as a substitute for knowledge resulting from serious inquiry and scholarship born of interest rather than curiosity. I will say what I have to say here this time and no more.

• No doubt about it. Cool has been commodified and commercialized. It's changed over the centuries and become disconnected from its spiritual roots. That's what happens with cultural fragmentation and appropriation. Like much of African-American culture, it's been pimped and distorted/appropriated mercilessly by Western culture. Regardless, Miles Davis was and remains an icon of cool -- for any number of reasons. Google him, research him and find out why.
• The example of the "get down" posture in African culture is well known and widely documented. The fact that Africans brought this aesthetic with them to the New World is also well known and widely documented. My statement(s?)/contentions in this regard are not original research. They are widely disseminated throughout the literature. It might help if you did some reading/research.
• It doesn't matter whether I do or do not believe in black supremacy. And, frankly, it's none of your business. The information I've provided on the subject is accurate.
• I've "admitted" being "prejudice? I don't know what you're referring to. Have I been formed in part by my experiences? Yes. Do I consider myself scarred or deformed somehow as a result of my experiences with racism? Not that it's any of your business, but no. I'm whole, healthy and at peace; I know who I am, who my people are and where I come from. My experience and knowledge base are those of an African-American, educated by mainstream American society, but also by generations of survivors of a black (and brown, as my ancestors are also Native American) holocaust, who have endured and persevered and thrived despite the odds. By natural circumstances, instinct, inclination and conscious choice, I am steeped in my culture and deeply aware and somewhat knowledgeable of my roots in Mother Africa. As such, I am multicultural and with a far broader knowledge base in certain subject matter than the average mainstream-educated, and often marginally literate, often intellectually lazy, American of any color. Just as the average white is, IMO, conditioned by racism, assumptions of white superiority/supremacy and white privilege, I have been influenced by the heritage of struggle, overcoming, humanity and spirituality of my people.
• When I write, I bring information, knowledge and insight to bear on the subjects I take on. I am objective.
• I've already addressed the subject of ancient dynastic Egypt. It was, first and foremost an African civilization, which had its roots to the South. The Oromo of Abyssinia, the Khoisan, Nuba, and other Nilotic peoples, as well as Equatorial Africans comprised ancient Egypt. The founders of Egypt traced their origins to Punt, located in Eritrea or Sudan -- lands of black, African peoples. There are no whites, or Arabs, or Semites indigenous to Africa (unless one counts some of the Maghreb Berbers on the other side of the continent). There are no Arabs indigenous to East Africa at all; they came from the East. The myth of a Semitic or Arab ancient Egypt is just that -- a myth. Did other populations -- Semites/Arabs/Jews and Asiatic blacks -- at some point live, work, and some even rule in dynastic Egypt? Without a doubt. But ancient dynastic Egypt began and remained a principally black civilization throughout the millennia. And not only is that my contention, it is supported by ample archaeological evidence and propounded by historians more learned than you or I.
• You obviously have a different opinion, and you're welcome to it. But I frankly don't care what you believe. Based on the way your questions have been phrased, I seriously doubt your opinions are learned ones or informed by any serious scholarly inquiry -- and that's tragic. But, hey, that's on you --isn't it? Again, the voluminous information I have brought to related articles (which likely has been mostly expunged at this point, because that's the nature of Misplaced Pages) is just that, factual information. That others with differing viewpoints on such matters obviously feel compelled to delete such factual, well-documented material wholesale (often without even reading it), IMO, is very telling -- and typical of the way mindless pap and patent falsehoods are substituted for true knowledge in the service of abysmal ignorance, white supremacy and the perservation of the Great Lie.
• Save your fingers. I'll not read your response. You've brought absolutely nothing to this discussion in your questions. Nothing personal, but I'm bored with you and the entire project. I suggest you address future questions elsewhere. Or, better yet, do some serious reading and open your mind. deeceevoice December 16, 2006

Just a note

Just so you know- I'm no admin, just a concerned outsider. :) johnpseudo 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I had you confused with someone else and realized it only after I'd posted the note. :) deeceevoice 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "black people" article...

...strikes me as no longer awful. It is still not a great article, but I think it is no longer a serious embarrassment. You might want to look in on it some time and see if you can suggest some tweaks, or some references worth people following up. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the inclination or the patience at the moment. I don't know when, if ever, I'll return to the article. 138.88.232.140 13:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront material

You are right about that material, it was racist, it was my mistake to have restored it without reading it more carefully. Wanted to admit my mistake on that single edit and clear up any misunderstanding that it was made intentionally. I did not defend it after you removed it the second time and I agree it should be removed. -- Stbalbach 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the way you roll, isn't it? Wholesale deletion/reversion without bothering to read anything, exhorting others to do the same. Please, don't come here pretending to be acting in good faith. deeceevoice 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi DeeCee! I just want to say Merry Christmas and Kwanzaa to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Get down

When you create stub articles such as Get down, please try to find the best specific stub tag(s) on the page WP:STUBS. This saves other editors work in categorizing the page, and makes it easier for editors with experise in the subject to find pages that need work. Thanks, — Swpb 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very interested in the project at the moment, so whatever I do I do what I have the tolerance/patience for. I don't have the patience for such matters such as stub categories, so I'm afraid you'll have to accept what I have to offer and no more. Not the best response, I'm sorry to say, but it's my response. deeceevoice 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Louis_Gossett,_Jr._as_Sadat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Louis_Gossett,_Jr._as_Sadat.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. dee. 01/02/07

Thank you

Hi,

Thank you for your recent postings on Dravidian people. It has been frustrating with the number of people modifying the info on that page. Some have been turning it into a propganda page to make it look like we do not exist. Yes, we are related to the people of East Africa and the aboriginals of Australia. One can see that not only in our features, but in some of our martial arts, music, and dance.

Wiki Raja 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, we were both sending each other a message at the same time without knowing. Wiki Raja 06:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The U.S.Wiki Raja 06:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanakkam and Greetings,

I see that the debate is getting pretty hot on Talk:Dravidian people. Asian2Duracell has been harassing a few people showing intolerance towards other people's ethnic backgrounds and vandalizing the talk pages. He is also in the habit of posting messages without signging them, like as though we are not going to know who it is. Today, he posted a very inapporiate message on my User talk:Wiki Raja page. Furthermore, I sense some sockpuppetry going on with this user, since his tone of language sounds almost the same as ARYAN818, who has been reported by none other than (me). ARYAN818's previous history of harassing otherusers, warnings, and blockings because of his name alone is the reason why he is being removed from Misplaced Pages by next week.

It seems that one of the few that is making noise here is Asian2Duracell. We must act accordingly and report this user at once to administration. I cannot believe the kind of language he is using here and getting away with it. Lastly, I have come up with an idea to start a WikiProject Dravidian Civilizations to counter these inappropriate activities and to promote the different Dravidian cultures, not only in India, but in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives, and Bangladesh. So far, the majority of articles relating to Dravidians are good to go. It seems that it is mainly the Dravidian people site which we need to tackle. So, I would like you to be on the WikiProject Dravidian Civilizations team. This group is open to anybody and everybody who is interested in participating. As you will notice Dravidians are not locked into on country, but are spread across borders too.

Anyways, here is the link: User:Wiki Raja/WikiProject Dravidian Civilizations

Take care.

Wiki Raja 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If this guy hasn't been reported already for violating the 3RR on both Tamil people and Dravidian people, then he should be. It's amazing that, given his conduct, he actually called in someone else for assistance. (I'm not sure that person is an admin, though. They certainly don't appear to be acting, in their comments on Talk: Dravidian people with any degree of equanimity. Unfortunately, the next few days for me will be incredibly hectic, so you probably won't see much more of me 'til next week.

And, yes. I'll take you up on your invitation. Unsatisfied with his shenanigans at Dravidian people, this guy's taken to vandalizing the Tamil article, as well. If he's not put in check, he'll likely continue his activities to other related projects.

With regard to sock puppetry, there's no doubt in my mind this guy has other tags under which he edits on the project. deeceevoice 11:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that Asian2duracell has been reported for 3RR violation at Tamil people. If you have a moment, you might wish to do the same for his antics at Dravidian people. Back-to-back blocks might discourage him from further such behavior. deeceevoice 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

haha ur talking about me, oh what an honour. I'm sorry I didnt signed the post, WikiRaja. It was ofcourse me. But that ARYAN818 guy is definitley not me. Hey Guys, or better deeceevoice, I think ur the last guy who should talk about "get blocked". Hey WikiRaja, tell me... nee ellam oru tamilana? edho oru karuppan oda sendhu, tamilarae patri ennennovo sollrae. Ithuvaraikum yaro oru tamilanae alladhu dravidarae nee pathirikeeya? Nee Tamil enda sollu, unda piranthae oor ethu endu. Allathu Tamile theriyathe? idhu varaikkum ungaludaya Asian2duracell 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC) :-)

hey

Whats up? Two things, one related to Misplaced Pages and one just a general question.

1.Philip Emeagwali's article seems completely POV against him (I have my guesses why...). Even though he is kind of bullshittin' about being the father of the internet, I think it's some pretty awful treatment of him that you could easily counterbalance. 2. Just a general question. Does it piss you off that "Afrocentric" rappers like Nas have ignorant lyrics like:

Egypt was the place that Alexander the Great went

He was a'shocked at the mountains with black faces

Shot up they nose to impose what basically

Still goes on today, you see?

Or is your view of ignorance limited only to eurocentric prejudice? Anyways, peace, --Urthogie 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My comments about that article were registered a very long time ago. I'm done with it. Don't come to my user page asking stupid and deliberately insulting/provocative questions about my view of "ignorance" or anything else. deeceevoice 12:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tread lightly, Urthogie. El_C 13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd do well to heed your own advice. Don't come up in my space with smart-ass questions and expect me to play nice. deeceevoice 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Oops! deeceevoice 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

EL C does not = Urthogie.--Urthogie 16:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You ain't nevvuh lied about that! Sorry, El C. I'm crunching deadlines and didn't read very carefully. Happy New Year, bwoi! :D deeceevoice 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See, everyone makes mistakes! --Urthogie 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And your record is a constant, never-ending string of them. You're an annoyance. Get lost. deeceevoice 12:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Gospel Music Wikiproject

I noticed your earlier work on the Take 6 article. I would like to invite you to join the new Gospel Music Wikiproject.
Absolon S. Kent 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work!

I thought the changes you made to Black people were great. Get ready for a fight, though. There are some people here who take that guy seriously (!) Try to stay calm and cite a lot sources. I'll be around if you need any help.-- futurebird 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)