Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:41, 30 April 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Deeceevoice has not edited Misplaced Pages since January 3, 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

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 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 7 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 8

Carnegie Commission on the Poor White Problem in South Africa

I just made this article. I think it's really interesting how there seem to be links between Apartheid and the racism in the united states, this isn't from the 19th century it's from the 30s and these ideas were taken seriously for decades after. The more research I do, the more I find that contemporary manifestations of racism in the US are a direct reaction to Brown Vs. Board of Ed. -- At WP:AFRO some people are talking about looking in to the question of our schools which remain segregated to this day. Perhaps you'll want to help. Hope the holidays are being good to you! (And I'm sorry about the whole mess with Dbachmann. I'm shocked at all of the people who have some issue with him, the evidence page has grown absurdly long.) futurebird (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Our exchange at Talk:Afrocentrism

I was somewhat dismayed at our exchange of words at the Afrocentrism discussion page. I did not feel that your responses to my concerns where directed at solving these concerns nor explain to me why I shouldn't be concerned, but rather at making me refrain from asking questions and keeping away from the article. I found your tone hostile and condescending, and I felt that you were halfway expecting me to be a troll, or a white supremacist out to get you. I don't know if this is how you usually respond to people in disagreement with you or if I just caught you at a bad time, but I imagine that the wikipedia experience must be quarrelsome for someone who meets other editors with such an attitude. I hope that further exhchanges of information and/or opinion between us can be conducted in a more positive spirit - I commit to contributing my part.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in exchanges of opinion; I thought I made that clear. However, exchanges of useful information are always welcome. The "hostility" and "condescension" you write of weren't intentional, but I suppose that's one way one could interpret my comments. I'm simply weary of those who seemingly and often admittedly know very little about something proffering their opinions and then proceeding to POV-push and edit-war their mis/disinformation into articles on that same subject matter.

I glanced -- and I mean that, glanced -- at something you wrote about Van Sertima, and I found your characterization of the criticism of his work far too general, absolute and somewhat lacking in documentation. Van Sertima long ago admitted some errors in his interpretation of historical data. Such things are normal in the practice of history in attempting to patch together some semblance of meaning/coherence from artifacts and data related to the prehistory of humankind, and findings and postulations often are revised after the fact by those who originally avdanced them or by those who come after them. Still, Van Sertima's work was far from devoid of documentation, as at least your first edit (I skimmed no further) states.

All that aside, an in-depth discussion of Van Sertima's work is best placed elsewhere -- perhaps in an article devoted to the "Pre-Columbian African presence in the New World." In fact, I would venture to say that much of the article loses its way in treating Afrocentricity only in the practice of history and little else, when such certainly is not the entirety of its scope. Your addition, IMO, merely contributes to this unfortunate trend.

Finally, if your intent is to contribute objectively and positively to a balanced article, then we'll have no problem, and your contributions are more than welcome. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've learned from you :-)

You once said to me that (paraphrasing) editors like me needed to take a stand against racism and other injustices on Misplaced Pages. For your viewing delight....

Nazi userboxes and other fun stuff

I just had to drop you a line expressing my amazement at your response on that userbox thread at AN. Not only is it against policy (it is just as if not more offensive than the pro-pedophilia userboxes that people get banned for, and helps discredit the project), but to equate a pro Nazi userbox with a userbox supporting a candidate for president, and worrying that deleting it would give people the impression that we discriminate against Nazis (for God's sake), is absolutely illogical and the sort of thinking that allows Nazi apologists, Holocaust deniers and other racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic nut cases to proliferate like mushrooms on the net and in real life. Stand up against intolerance! Let people know that Misplaced Pages is not a place to spread hate. Remember what Santayana said... Jeffpw (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I must draw the line here and leave things clear, in that thread I only said that I wanted a second opinion as I was hesitant to remove by myself, though I did say that its removal had my support, never did I say that having this in userspace has my support, let's leave something clear, I would never support a Nazi cause, and during my stay here I have avocated against racist point of views, have supported Jimbo's banning of a (ironically enough) anti-Jewish pro-Nazi supporter and offered my support in a proposal suggesting that a policy against racism motivated edits be established, enough said. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had no hesitation, and I had policy and precedent on my side. That user is on the short road to a block. Nobody said you supported Nazism...you just dithered instead of standing up to it. I guarantee you, nobody is going to criticize you for stamping out hate on this website. Jeffpw (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• And here is the thread at AN, which resulted in the indef block of that user: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive119#Offensive and disruptive userbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpw (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. And well done! :) deeceevoice (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi

I don't think Moreschi enacted the ban he only presented flimsy evidence for it. Right? Check your block log. Nonetheless, Moreschi lead the charge on that one presenting evidence that didn't make any sense after Dbachmann asked him to come in and "clean up". That's why I didn't make the request, but at this point with Moreschi presenting so much evidence, and in light of the weird and rude exchange on the talk page at Afrocentrism I think you're right --he needs to be involved. futurebird (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

deeceevoice (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I forgot about all of that. That's as good as enacting the ban himself. futurebird (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? deeceevoice (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at your block log:

• 23:47, November 15, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) blocked "Deeceevoice (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year

The block was not enacted by Moreschi, it was enacted by Viridae, I'm assuming on good faith, based on the fact that (if you didn't bother to look at the diffs) Moreschi's evicence and your last armcom case made it seem neccesary. It was all a smoke screen, but still, this is going to come up so we should just preempt it. The stuff on your talk page works fine. futurebird (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote, fb. Moreschi banned me from/locked me out of editing Afrocentrism. You're stuck on the failed year-long block from Misplaced Pages. Dab started the ball rolling, kicked it to Moreschi, who then cleared the way for Viridae. Interestingly Moreschi's failed bid for the Arb Com provides us with plenty of info for his inclusion in the Arb Com case against Dab. deeceevoice (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OH! Now I think I get it. There were two bans, one from editing Afrocentrism then they upped it to a year-long ban on everything... and Moreschi did the ban on Afrocentrism then posted the "evidence" to get the year-long ban. Okay, I've put up my evidence on the evidence page (let me know if you see any errors.) I don't quite know what you're getting at about the failed arbcom bid. I voted "no" as a result of all of this nonsense. --but that was one other reason I didn't want to add Moreschi to the case at the time-- it would have seemed like I was trying to ruin Moreschi's bid. But now that that is all over I think it's OK to proceed without making the case seem like some kind of unfair "political" move. futurebird (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perzackly. My point about Moreschi's failed Arb Com bid is that the numerous dissenters (of whom there appeared to be an inordinate number), those who opposed his election to that body, provided rationales that could be useful in building a case against Moreschi at the Arb Com case. Certainly, I would guess his precipitous action in my case, his POV pushing at Afrocentrism and his Bachmann-esque abuse of, and disrespect for, other editors at Afrocentrism likely have been repeated numerous times elsewhere around the site. deeceevoice (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm a little concerned that there are too many people involved in this already. I simply don't have the time to read all of the evidence so I can't weigh in on some of the statements. How are so many people even finding out about this case? I've never seen half of these editors before... At any rate, I think I've just been accused of being a "meatpuppet" for having this conversation. I don't really understand that either-- futurebird (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's necessary -- unfortunately. I've got to actually find some time away from deadlines (hopefully later this week) to knuckle down and write a statement. I really haven't yet -- but at least things have started to settle down a bit after the holidays. It's been just a crazy time. I honestly don't know how people find out about these things, but considering that Dbachmann seems fairly well known around the site (I had no clue he was even an admin at first), I suppose it's not surprising. Also, both Dab and Moreschi seem to have been on an "anti-nationalism" crusade for some time, so I suppose that's also a potential point of interest for some.

Yeah. I visited the Workshop page and saw the post. Curious. It reads like someone's attempt at keeping you in line and away from the Dark Side ( pun intended ;) ), but I can't imagine they would seriously think anything could be gained by such a post. You're too independent to be intimidated and far too bright to need cautioning. This place is just stupid sometimes (often?), and I long ago learned not to try to get inside other people's minds. It's exhausting and a real waste of time. I wouldn't give it a second thought. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

YO

I have been shocked by the (now frozen) statements and comments on your userpage. I never would have expected them from you. Peace, YO. HeyYallYo (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're referring to, but, hey, life is full of surprises. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Over several years of seeing your comments, I had concluded that you would never say Negro or "negroid." HeyYallYo (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all about context. deeceevoice (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Dbachmann is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions. Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians are placed on article probation. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Irony of ironies

It seems Dbachmann is currently writing a treatise on the abuses of the ArbCom on his user page and, of course, claiming that the evidence against him regarding his misuse of rollback, etc., were fabrications. I frankly disagree. However, to the extent that some of the lengthy diffs presented as proof of his egregious misconduct were off the mark, it strikes me that this is the same admin who incited another admin to ban me from editing an article without cause, leveling trumped-up and wholly ridiculous charges, whose ban in turn then prompted another admin to ban me from a year from Misplaced Pages. (Both bans subsequently were overturned for lack of evidence.)

Assuming he truly believes he has been unjustly accused, perhaps Dbachmann will think twice in the future before he levels groundless charges at other editors now that he's experienced -- in his eyes, at least -- the same treatment. He's the one who left us no recourse other than to go to the Arb Comb. Seems to me he's been hoisted on his own petard. Kind of ironic -- doncha think? I got one word: karma. deeceevoice (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, deeceevoice. I didn't find any evidence that dbachmann incited user:Moreschi to ban you from a page (this diff is the limit of his conversation with Moreschi at the time, an editor he's familiar with from working at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. You are neither mentioned nor alluded to in that post, and there is no talk of bans and blocks.). Nor did I see dbachmann support or even comment on the subsequent (and bad) 1 year block performed by user:Viridae. Stating his opinion and asking for help doesn't make dbachmann responsible for other administrators' actions and chain reactions. In these cases, Moreschi and Viridae would have been the ones to be held accountable. Personally, I think this whole arbcom case was much ado about nothing, and, to me, it looked like dbachmann was supposed to become the fall guy for heavy-handed adminiship, and also for another type of user: There are users lacking all sense and notion of social history who keep trying to whitewash articles such as Jazz, Blackface, and others, but dbachmann is not one of these users. I really hope everyone's karma allows for some forgive and forget as well. Among other, this arbcom case was driven by ancient grudges that had nothing to do with anything really. There, I feel so much better now. ;-) Belated Happy New Year, and take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you still waiting for the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus to visit you, too? ;) Still, if believing what you believe and saying so makes you feel better, then I'm glad you feel better. If you read Bachmann's comments, he clearly expects others to be held to a higher standard than that which he sets for himself. Furthermore there are other ways to "whitewash articles," and it's clear that Bachmann engages in POV pushing around the site. I see it at Afrocentrism and elsewhere. There's no forgiving and forgetting this guy; he refuses to admit he even did anything remotely off the wall. If you ask me, Bachmann didn't get nearly what he deserves, but I suppose he got as good as could be expected. deeceevoice (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Belated Happy New Year to you, too -- and same back atcha. :) deeceevoice (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments, and best of luck with 2008. ~ priyanath talk 17:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for dropping that comment. I love braiding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessenia0606 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Alert: User:Wikidudeman up for admin; voting ends today

FYI, the info and voting are here.

Do whatever you feel moved to do. I know I have. deeceevoice (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're Invited!

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Tamil civilization. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Tamil related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Smile

A citation request

In the blackface article, there is a request for the citation about the price paide in the eBay auction of the Ronson lighter. Since you uploaded the image, I imagine that you are the most likely to be able to provide a citation. (If you can't, we can just modify the caption so that it doesn't make a specific assertion about price, and just describe it as an example of negrobilia.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

African American culture GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed African American culture and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there - Balance tag at Caucasian Race

Hi there... Just to say that you may wish to elaborate on the subject, as I can't quite figure out why you put the tag there; and if I can't figure it out, probably others won't either. But I know you always have good reasons. :) However, if I'm writing this as you're writing a reason... well just ignore this. Have a good one!--Ramdrake (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. deeceevoice (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Misplaced Pages. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Blues

The Blues article is currently being reviewed. It requires quite a lot of work but we could save its status. Please help. Thanks. Vb (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blues at WP:FAR

You are one of the leading editors of Blue, which has been listed at WP:FAR. Please follow the discussiona at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Blues and consider helping out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Memin pinguin comic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Memin pinguin comic.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

There is a discussion at AN/I which relates to you, indirectly. You might want to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Blackpower, which mentions you in passing. I'd like to know what your thoughts are on the issue. Horologium (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Hello

I just want to say that I think you are awesome. I'm African-American myself and I admire your work and tenacity. I just want to let you know you got a friend and ally in me. Pandyu (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mudsling

Please do not make personal attacks. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Allanlw 08:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Damn! Chill for just a second and read your talk page. But you may like what I intended even less. deeceevoice (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stereotypes of Jews

I have nominated Stereotypes of Jews, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. seresin ( ¡? )  23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created, Stereotypes_of_Jews maybe deleted from Misplaced Pages.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes_of_Jews (2nd nomination).

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
   
3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
   Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely is a stub, and it probably will be deleted. Please help me find sources to support its existence:

User:RWV/Del#Notability.2C_Verifiability.2C_No_original_research travb (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Move/redirect the article to Antisemitism

Would you agree to move/redirect the article to Antisemitism? If so, email the nominator of the article, and he can speedy close the AfD.travb (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The subject matter is broad enough and deep enough to merit a separate article. Just as there is a separate article on Stereotypes of African Americans. deeceevoice (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it up and I will advocate that the article is deleted. You are alienating everybody in an attempt to prove a point. Watch out for 3RR (3 reverts to an article), you are going to get banned soon. You may win a small battle, but you are going to lose the war, guaranteed. travb (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can advocate deletion if you want. But let me warn you that tampering with another editor's comments on the discussion page is not permitted. There is nothing contrary to Wiki policy about me writing down a list of items to be considered in the writing of an article. And "collapsing" that list so that readers do not see it is not cool. 3RR applies to editing in article main space. Why? Because "editing" of contributors' talk page comments is not permitted. Kindly lay off. And please don't threaten me. deeceevoice (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I've taken this to an administrator's noticeboard. While I didn't mention you be name anyone looking at the page history will be able to see that this is dealing with you, so I thought I'd let you know anyway. The thread can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Stereotypes_of_Jews. --AniMate 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stereotypes of Jews

I have nominated Stereotypes of Jews, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on January 3 2009 to Talk:Stereotypes of Jews

I've read the 3RR rule, and my understanding is that it appears to apply to article main spaces: "The rule applies per-page. If an editor performs, for example, three reversions on each of two articles within 24 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this rule, although it may well indicate that the editor is being disruptive." It has always been my understanding that no one is allowed to expunge or alter another's contributions in the article talk space -- except (possibly?) in cases where it is clearly trolling or off-point. In fact, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette makes it quite clear that: "Deleting or removing text from any Talk page without archiving it, except in your user space . Talk pages or any discussion pages are part of the historical record in Misplaced Pages. Every time the pages are cleaned up, don't forget to store the removed text in its corresponding archive (/Archive) page. (See Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.)" Neither applies here. The list is of possible things to include in the article -- no different from any other list of such items in any other article talk space. It is a working tool used in framing the article and directly relevant to the task at hand. So far, I've found it exceedingly useful -- just as I've found the sources I provided on the talk page useful. People have complained that the list is uncited. There is no requirement that such working lists be cited in the article talk space (though many of the sources I've added below the list actually bear out the accuracy and usefulness of the list itself -- as well as the text I and others have added in the article main space). It would seem to me that the problem is the hypersensitivity of "editors" who refuse to allow a thorough examination of the subject matter at hand. How is it that these "editors" are repeatedly allowed to alter and remove a perfectly legitimate working tool from an article talk space, a tool that I've been using to contribute to the article -- and that I am the one being blocked -- rather than those who persist in vandalizing the talk page, many of whom have contributed not a single word to the framing of the article on the talk page or in the article main space? This block is crap. deeceevoice (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR applies everywhere, although you are usually granted leniency on your own talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The only example given under the 3RR is of an article main space. And I've always been told it is not permitted for an editor to remove another's comments on talk pages, etc. What of that? Along with the working list, they've also removed suggestions about further article development. And the complaints about the list are groundless. deeceevoice (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified the policy page to make it unambiguous; but this is how its always been interpreted. AFAIK there is no absolute prohibition on removing another editors comments William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a good start. But which policy page? You're probably referring to the 3RR. But it seems to me there needs to be some clear direction on not only what constitutes a violation of 3RR, but under what circumstances someone may, or may not, expunge talk page comments. Certainly, obliterating a legitimate entry -- as happened in my case -- simply because the content may offend some hypersensitive people should not be tolerated. You will note that many of the items on that list -- again -- have been so far verified by the sources I (or, perhaps User:Colonel Warden) have provided, or in sources/info we've provided in the article main space. And not all of them were negative. What of that? Oh, yeah. And let's not ignore the puerile taunting of User: travb/User: Inclusionist on the project discussion page of the AfD. His conduct has been pretty childish and certainly contrary to Wiki rules. Anybody doin' anything about him? Uh-huh. I thought not. deeceevoice (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting talk comments may well be against netiquette but its not going to get you blocked, unlike 3RR. As for Travb, I've asked for an explanation of that comment William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It should. In this case, it's disruptive to the development of the article. I've reinstated the list -- with lots of documentation for most of the points. Let's see what happens. They can't claim, preposterously -- as another administrator did (below) -- that I'm just spewing anti-Jew hatred. deeceevoice (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stereotypes of white people

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stereotypes of white people, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people. Thank you. If this is deleted, all previous edits to Stereotypes of Whites will also disappear as redirects to deleted articles are themselves deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it turns out the previous version was supposed to be deleted in an AFD but wasn't, so now the whole thing got speedy-deleted. The version you created was heading for a WP:SNOW close, almost nobody liked it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If any of the other "stereotypes" articles remain, the article on SoW will be back. What I wrote wasn't intended to be an article, but the start of a working list of ideas for an article -- just as with the list at Stereotypes of Jews -- which, incidentally, now has the makings of a pretty decent article, if approached properly. If I were asked to judge the list as an article, I'd hate it, too. But it was a start, something to get the ball rolling -- not even a stub, really, but no different from the way a lot of articles at Misplaced Pages get started -- and nothing more. deeceevoice (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of African Americans

In case you are interested when your block expires, please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of African Americans. It's really rather annoying that, rather than nominate the offending article for deletion, you feel the necessity to create a massive disruption to get your point across. --B (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding: Stereotypes of Jews

My block has nothing to do with Stereotypes of African Americans (duh), and I know when it expires. (I can, after all, read my own talk page.) My point was not disruption, but parity. I've had it up to here with the systemic bias of the project and the way it's open season all year long on any and everything treating Black people, but other ethnic groups are somehow off limits. I'm fed up.

Yep. As I've already stated, that's what started the SoJ and SoW articles.

I've also stated, however, that I think the article on Jewish stereotypes is an important one, treated properly. Growing up and going to school with lots of Jews, I always noticed the physical traits described under "spastic Jew," but never had a clue what that was all about -- at least not consciously. I think it's great there's an article that actually explains that -- and the stereotype that has come about as a result. And I never knew where Jerry Lewis' annoying, sometimes funny routines came from, or that the term "spazzing out" -- used virtually exclusively by Jews when I was growing up (and, possibly, still) -- had a medical/biological basis. I also hope the article will treat the stereotypes of Jews as venal, money-grubbing, money lenders and merchants and explain their foundations in history -- how Jews were prohibited from owning land and couldn't farm, so they became shopkeepers/merchants, tailors and lenders. And balancing those stereotypes with the custom commonly known as "jubilee." (What a great concept.) And it should treat all the major stereotypes/archetypes as well. It's important to focus on how they have persisted -- and how they were used, e.g., by Hitler to justify his Final Solution and enlist support, or at least tacit compliance, in that chapter of history generally referred to as The Holocaust.

It's potentially a fascinating, informative and useful article.

Just as I think the article on Stereotypes of African Americans (IMO, it should be broadened to include all Black people) is potentially an important one, if treated properly. (Right now, I think it's pretty awful.) As I protested on the article talk page some time ago, the subject must be treated in historical context in order to provide perspective/meaning. More and more, though, I wonder if such is even remotely possible in a venue such as Misplaced Pages. This place fairly stinks of not only double standards and intellectual dishonesty -- as is clearly evident in the matter of the SoJ article and talk page space -- but racism as well, as is abundantly evident in virtually any and every article here treating Black people. Just pick one.

Interesting, though, that of the stereotypes articles, only the one treating Jewish stereotypes has occasioned such an uproar -- don't you think? Interesting, too, that the only major "racial"/ethnic groups without a general article devoted to "stereotypes" are Whites and Jews? In my book, no group should get special treatment. I don't care how many people cry foul. It's flat-out censorship and caving in. It's contrary to Wiki principles, and it shouldn't be allowed. Whatever happens with SoJ, the same general rule should apply to all articles dealing with group stereotypes. All or nothing. Contextual or nothing.

IMO, people need to get over it and get on with the business of producing an authoritative, well-constructed, useful article and lose the drama. And you need to stay the hell off my talk page -- unless you have something useful/constructive to say.

And in case I still haven't gotten through to you, coming to my talk page with this garbage, wasting my time and mischaracterizing my motives here as well as here is not constructive. As an administrator -- at least that's what your user page says -- you should know better. deeceevoice (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

blocked

I have blocked you for one week owing to disruption at Talk:Stereotypes of Jews. You should know by now that edits like this will likely be taken as nothing more than backhanded racism. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Appealing. I was adding a paragraph at the beginning of the working list that it had been amended and that I was taking the matter to the ANI (or whatever it's called -- the Administrators Notice Board) when I was blocked. This is unjustified. The complaint with the list has been that it is controversial and potentially "offensive." Well, hell, yeah. The topic is potentially "offensive." Ditto with Race and Intelligence, Race, Blackface. That doesn't mean contributing a working list of legitimate and noteworthy ideas for the article is improper. Before restoring it this time, I spent a great deal of time annotating it so that it would not be mistaken, as it was before, as a racist, intolerant screed, or with no basis in reality. And not all the stereotypes listed are negative. Let's face it. I didn't just pull that stuff from out of thin air. I even added suggestions and cited sources for explaining the origin of some stereotypes and debunking them. Certainly, in the context of framing the article, my contributions in the article talk space are a hell of a lot more on-point and certainly less gratuitously offensive (in fact, in terms of "gratuitously," not at all) than the Jewish jokes bandied about at the AfD and the discussion that sprang from that. The source materials identify the items on the list as legitimate and verifiable stereotypes and also address them in a scholarly, informative fashion. The list began as a stream-of-conscious listing of the Jewish stereotypes I've heard/read about and has been useful to me in starting to frame article. I've referred to it -- as well as the earlier listing of sources I contributed farther up the page -- repeatedly. The added sources should make the list more useful to me and as well to others wishing to contribute to a quality entry. Hell, I shouldn't even have to be writing this explanation -- let alone defending myself from a -- what (checking) -- uh ... week-long block. Particularly when my exchange with William Connelly, the administrator who blocked me before for unintentionally violating a 3RR (because the rule was unclear), told me that removing material from a talk page -- as with the repeated removal of list -- was a "breach of netiquette." I spent a great deal of time annotating the items on the list and providing sources for those interested in working on the article itself -- instead of just griping about it. I even removed some of the possibly more contentious items or reworked them/incorporated them with other items and deleted others until I could find documentation for them. If working on an article in such a manner is "disruptive," then it is not I who should bear the onus of blame for that; it is the hypersensitivity and unreasonableness of those who claim to have been offended. And if they are offended, my regrets. It has not been my intention -- but perhaps they should simply avert their attention and go elsewhere to contribute constructively to the project, as I am doing at SoJ. I do that kind of thing all the time. You won't find me editing at Race and Intelligence. Why? Because it's a topic that I feel is a waste of time, and I'm certain to get p*ssed off. Misplaced Pages simply isn't worth it. I avoid toxicity and stay centered. If this subject is toxic or upsetting to people, then let them move on, give the article a chance to develop (what a concept!) and leave others to do the real work. The people complaining about the working list clearly don't seem to be interested in actually constructively working on the article anyway (check the edit record) and are a hindrance in that regard. The repeated removal of the list, as well as this second block, is absurd and unwarranted. And it's censorship -- flat-out. Incidentally, I don't get why my entry here looks the way it does. The text of my appeal ends here. deeceevoice (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having read over the incident that led to your block and a sizable amount of the history that surrounded it, I'm going to decline to unblock you at this time. You continued adding the list after it had been removed and despite objections to it. I can see no other reason to do so other than just for the sake of being disruptive and inflammatory under the guise of WP:NOTCENSORED. Even with this in mind, I might have been moved to assume good faith and discuss a shortening of the block were this the first incident. But being that your block log is so long that I can't fit it all on my monitor, I think that a week block is not unreasonable or unnecessary. I concur with Gwen Gale's decision to block. — Trusilver 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please reread my block notice. If you don't know what I mean by "backhanded racism," please ask. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot. I can read and understand English. Presumably, then, the list of scholars/sources substantiating the stereotypes detailed therein -- many of them Jewish, judging from the surnames -- are engaging in "backhanded racism" as well -- including the rabbi. Yeah, right. Maybe you need to learn what actually constitutes racism before leveling such an utterly baseless charge. deeceevoice (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand that the list, along with edit warring over it, was disruptive to many editors? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I didn't feel that the editors were justified in removing a legitimate talk page entry. Editing warring, as I understood it, was restricted to article main spaces. I was always told that it was improper to edit the talk page contributions of another editor.

2. "I spent a great deal of time annotating the items on the list and providing sources for those interested in working on the article itself -- instead of just griping about it. I even removed some of the possibly more contentious items or reworked them/incorporated them with other items and deleted others until I could find documentation for them. If working on an article in such a manner is 'disruptive,' then it is not I who should bear the onus of blame for that; it is the hypersensitivity and unreasonableness of those who claim to have been offended. And if they are offended, my regrets. It has not been my intention -- but perhaps they should simply avert their attention and go elsewhere to contribute constructively to the project, as I am doing at SoJ. I do that kind of thing all the time. You won't find me editing at Race and Intelligence. Why? Because it's a topic that I feel is a waste of time, and I'm certain to get p*ssed off. Misplaced Pages simply isn't worth it. I avoid toxicity and stay centered. If this subject is toxic or upsetting to people, then let them move on, give the article a chance to develop (what a concept!) and leave others to do the real work. The people complaining about the working list clearly don't seem to be interested in actually constructively working on the article anyway (check the edit record) and are a hindrance in that regard. The repeated removal of the list, as well as this second block, is absurd and unwarranted. And it's censorship -- flat-out." deeceevoice (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok but do you understand that how you dealt with this has been disruptive, whether you think editors should have felt that way about it or not? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged the editors' stated concerns and addressed them. I assumed too much. I assumed that providing an adequately sourced, revised list and suggesting countervailing information/sources would address their grievances/perceptions about the listing being merely a racist/anti-Semitic screed, and I expected that reason and the interests of the project would prevail over unreasoning, knee-jerk revulsion and baseless personal attacks/hostility. As an African-American editor here at Misplaced Pages, I deal with articles like Nigger and Blackface that confront racist stereotypes all the time, and I do it in a reasoned, dispassionate manner. I'm expected to. It is, in fact, demanded of me by others. All the time. And I am expected to hold my tongue and not scream "racism" without some pretty damned solid evidence. Hell, I've been blocked in the past for calling someone a racist when I've done nothing of the sort! Black editors are expected to walk on eggshells, all the while being assaulted by all manner of stupid, racist crap. And if we complain too loudly, we're threatened.

It's unfortunate that forbearance -- not even in situations such as this, when the issue involves addressing an unpleasant topic forthrightly, assuming good faith and with some modicum of intellectual curiosity/rigor -- seems to be neither the conduct, nor the expectation when other ethnic groups are involved, when the shoe is on the other foot. It's unfortunate that Jews seem to be off-limits when it comes to such matters; the image and mission of the project suffers. This kid-gloves, coddling approach runs counter to the interests of the project. Are we here to produce an encyclopedia, or aren't we? All along, ever since I came to the project, the message has been "no censorship." Well, that's certainly not my experience in this regard. This entire matter is another glaring example of the project's intellectual dishonesty in the face of ubiquitous, strangling systemic bias. There's a stinking double standard at work here. And it's utterly indefensible -- and reprehensible. deeceevoice (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing was never the worry or at least, it wasn't at all the only worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It was the only legitimate concern. I'm not here to coddle people's hurt feelings. deeceevoice (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I take your answer to mean you don't care if other editors found you behaviour disruptive. If this is so, it is much less likely that you'll be unblocked before the week is up, if ever. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"I spent a great deal of time annotating the items on the list and providing sources for those interested in working on the article itself -- instead of just griping about it. I even removed some of the possibly more contentious items or reworked them/incorporated them with other items and deleted others until I could find documentation for them. If working on an article in such a manner is 'disruptive,' then it is not I who should bear the onus of blame for that; it is the hypersensitivity and unreasonableness of those who claim to have been offended. And if they are offended, my regrets...."

"I acknowledged the editors' stated concerns and addressed them. I assumed too much. I assumed that providing an adequately sourced, revised list and suggesting countervailing information/sources would address their grievances/perceptions about the listing being merely a racist/anti-Semitic screed, and I expected that reason and the interests of the project would prevail over unreasoning, knee-jerk revulsion and baseless personal attacks/hostility. As an African-American editor here at Misplaced Pages, I deal with articles like Nigger and Blackface that confront racist stereotypes all the time, and I do it in a reasoned, dispassionate manner. I'm expected to. It is, in fact, demanded of me by others. All the time. And I am expected to hold my tongue and not scream "racism" without some pretty damned solid evidence. Hell, I've been blocked in the past for calling someone a racist when I've done nothing of the sort! Black editors are expected to walk on eggshells, all the while being assaulted by all manner of stupid, racist crap. And if we complain too loudly, we're threatened.

"It's unfortunate that forbearance -- not even in situations such as this, when the issue involves addressing an unpleasant topic forthrightly, assuming good faith and with some modicum of intellectual curiosity/rigor -- seems to be neither the conduct, nor the expectation when other ethnic groups are involved, when the shoe is on the other foot. It's unfortunate that Jews seem to be off-limits when it comes to such matters; the image and mission of the project suffers. This kid-gloves, coddling approach runs counter to the interests of the project. Are we here to produce an encyclopedia, or aren't we? All along, ever since I came to the project, the message has been "no censorship." Well, that's certainly not my experience in this regard. This entire matter is another glaring example of the project's intellectual dishonesty in the face of ubiquitous, strangling systemic bias. There's a stinking double standard at work here. And it's utterly indefensible -- and reprehensible."

Obviously, you're reading selectively. If, after putting in a great deal of time and effort to work to address people's stated, legitimate understandable concerns, it comes down to a choice between pandering to someone's sensitivities or continuing to engage in competent, good-faith efforts to improve the project, I'll choose the latter. Every time. deeceevoice (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Many editors didn't see how edit warring over a naked list of slurs would help the project. Rather, they found it highly disruptive and that's why I blocked you. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to insult your intelligence, so I'm going to assume you're being intentionally obtuse, or, better, perhaps you're being inattentive. The list was certainly not a "naked list of slurs." You may wish to revisit my responses again and, if you haven't bothered to view the revised list -- you clearly have not; otherwise you could not credibly characterize it as such -- perhaps you should. deeceevoice (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is your edit. It looks like a list of slurs to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Gale Gwen, it's a list of stereotypes -- positive and negative. That is, after all the stated subject of the article. And it's not a "naked list." It is -- for the umpty-ump time -- well sourced and cited and includes suggested materials to debunk certain stereotypes as well. What about that doesn't compute? You're either not reading what I've written, or simply being obtuse. It does no good for me to repeat myself. You just won't acknowledge the facts. The only alternative is that you're just flat-out stupid, and I refuse to believe that to be the case. You've obviously made your decision and intend to stand by it, no matter what -- and I've got deadlines. deeceevoice (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like one editor's encyclopedic project is a bunch of other editors' list of slurs. Edit warring over it got you blocked and now you're tottering on the brink of either a 1 year block or an indefinite ban. If you haven't groked by now that your behaviour here has been stirring up too many worries and taking too much time from volunteer editors, then the outcome is beginning to look foregone. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the validity of the list or otherwise isn't the issue at all, any more than it would be if it was on an article page. The issue is your edit warring / disruption over it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on the charge of edit warring or disruption: I haven't looked into it. Edit warring and disruption can indeed merit blocks.

As for the charge of listing slurs, I've looked at the edit to which Gwen has linked twice above, and while a lot of its ingredients are indeed offensive, I don't find the posting as a whole offensive. (For one thing, I note that Deecee highlights the debunking of these slurs.) More specifically, when Deecee writes above The list was certainly not a "naked list of slurs", I agree with her. (Again, my agreement does not excuse any edit warring.)

I also find talk during a one-week block of either a 1 year block or an indefinite ban unfortunate.

I'll now bow out of this (and go to bed). -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't address the edit warring issue, but the attempt to escalate this to a fullscale ban is pretty over the top. How can one discuss an article about stereotypes without providing the stereotypes? And removing DCV's list from the talk page was inappropriate, as it was clearly not meant as insult but as illustration; of course some of the stereotypes are hurtful -- but they are still extant and, if such an article is going to exist, they can be discussed as stereotypes. I don't for a moment believe DCV thinks that Jews are money-grubbing, evil scheming effeminate Christ-killers. There might indeed be some pointy behavior here, but let's keep the various issues separate from each other. --jpgordon 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_list_returns. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|More nonsense. The block log is lengthy, yes -- and comprised of a lot of unjustified hounding by one administrator wa-aay back in the day. Let's deal with the matter at hand -- shall we? More nonsense. Your rationalization might have some merit had I simply restored the list in the form that it was previously. But the objections to the list that it was baseless, racist and uncited -- the latter not being a requirement for article talk pages. Still, I took the time to add citations/sources for a good deal of that information included in the list, leaving the most obvious additions uncited, because they are fairly common knowledge as stereotypes. Neither you nor your counterpart has offered any plausible explanation or justification for why the list should be expunged, or why the "editor" who deleted it was justified in doing so. *x* deeceevoice (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): After talking about this with you, seeing some other feedback from editors who haven't posted to the ANI thread (above) and giving this more thought, I believe your edits were in good faith faith and hence, while there has been some disruption and edit warring, I think those worries should be talked out further in the ANI thread. Request handled by: Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The list was and is offensive, but more importantly it was original research. Deeceevoice wrote an entire article on stereotypes that even she has described as "stream of consciousness" that was never meant to actually be an article. She then edit warred to make sure that her original research or "stream of consciousness" be kept on the talk page in order to form the framework for an article. The list has zero encyclopedic value, though I do think it speaks volumes about its author. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but looking through her contributions, block log, and the arbitration case, she appears to have problems with other races. The block was appropriate, and I'm disappointed that it was removed. I'm way too involved to reinstate it, but I'm fairly certain we're going to find ourselves dealing with this behavior again and again and again. AniMate 19:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the list, I don't think it's a helpful way to build on the topic because, indeed, the structure makes for original research looking for citations. However, I think it was written in good faith and not backhandedly. There are still meaningful disruption and edit warring worries and I'm hoping a way to deal with them can be found either in the ANI thread or elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things to AniMate. 1) The list clearly was/is not "original research." 2) You don't know me, and you also clearly have no clue how I regard other "races" -- your term. Even if your completely off-the-mark speculation about my motives and beliefs had merit, I don't get the relevance -- because the last time I checked, Jews weren't considered a "race."deeceevoice (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Where are my manners? Thanks, Gwen. You surprised me. :) deeceevoice (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My politics are pretty thoroughly opposed to those of Deeceevoice and I think she's deleted my comments from her talk page in the past as offensive to her... but I think here that hers is the more reasonable position, despite being Jewish myself (non-religiously, though). If there is to be an article on "stereotypes of Jews" (that's the subject of an AfD debate now, and that's the place to bring it up if you don't think there should be such an article), it's reasonable to discuss on its talk page just what those stereotypes actually are, and the kind of rigorous sourcing and lack of original research that's needed in the article itself doesn't fully apply there, at least so long as you're not getting into the touchy area of potentially defamatory statements about specific living people, anyway. Her contributions in that area seem to be in good faith, and the opposition excessively thin-skinned. She also raises some valid "double standard" concerns that I've brought up myself in the WP:SAUCE essay. The punitiveness with which some people bring in blocks and bans to deal with people who say things they don't want to hear is distressing. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of manners, thanks to those who've lent their support, including User: jpgordon, User:Hoary and Dan T (who, I'm sorry to say, I don't remember). JP, your characterization of me as someone who believes Jews are "money-grubbing, evil, scheming effeminate Christ-killers" was so preposterous -- even in the negative -- that I laughed and cringed at the same time. Happy new year to you and yours. :) Well, I guess, to everyone -- except, of course, those screaming for my head on a stick. (Nuts to ya! Despair, misery, disappointment and general overall suckiness, too. Lots of it. :p) deeceevoice (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hullo old friend!

Deeceevoice, I left for a while Misplaced Pages because I was alone for weeks fighting with people like Moreschi, Woland... in the article about the race of the ancient Egyptians. Not being able of discussing objectively, they frightened to suppress the article or to have me baned. Big-dynamo was baned by those people. I couldn't see you around. Being also busy with the preparation of the discussion of my doctoral thesis in Missiology, I had to retreat a bit leting my adversaries spread ignorance on Black civilizations like the one of ancient Egypt, and waiting for the rescue. Now it has come. Recently, from time to time, I came to read especially your contributions. Interesting what you wrote in the Tut article. Thanks a lot! I will see what I can do for my coming back. There are new names like Wapondaponda. He is very well informed! I have not interacted with Taharqa for months now. I just don't know his whereabouts. I noticed that you have had problems with admin. Please, know how to swim in the troubled waters of Misplaced Pages in order to survive. Take care!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is User talk:Big-dynamo, not Wapondaponda, who was banned for six months from editing the article on the race of the ancient Egyptians and the article related to that theme. I felt from wanings I received, that I was near to fall in the same trap! That's why I desapeared. I profited from that absence to work more on my thesis. The coming of Wapondaponda, as far as I can understand his points of view, is a big news. I am happy with him. He knows a lot of things about the race of the ancient Egyptians and he wants a balanced article. For now, the introduction of the article favor only the Eurocentric view presented by Hawass! And also it is faulse that from the today standard, ancient Egyptians are neither Blacks nor Whites. On the contrary, even if they were mixed, they would have been called Blacks, just like Obama. Besides, from today's standard, people of dark color skin are easily labelled Blacks, that is the case with Indians living in Europe. Hotep, bro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi all - following too much suppression of debate at various Egyptology sites I have created Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? - I hope it will survive past the weekend. Your input would be great. Thanks Wdford (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A Request

Hello, deeceevoice. Could you do me a favor? Could you get rid of that bogus list at the Black Indians article? It seems you-know-who added it again, even though it's absolutely ridiculous. Urabahn (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

HELP!! The article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is about to get squashed, just like all the other attempts to air these issues. We need your vote – please take part in the debate!! Wdford (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, we are expecting your arguments and your vote for or against the existence of the new-old article resurrected by Wdford!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am suprised by the deletion. Very sad indeed! It was a nice and balanced piece.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, already a thread here. Deeceevoice, about a million years ago wikipedia time you and I had one or two unpleasant encounters. I wanted to give you a chance to air any concerns you might have with my continued involvement at Ancient Egyptian race controversy (AErc).

On the actual deletion, Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka I tried to be clear that that was (in part) due to practicalities of working with the article as opposed to the actual material in the article. I've already restored some of that material to the talk page of AErc.

brenneman 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaron, sorry, but I don't remember you or any encounters. It's a bad habit. I just don't generally tend to key in on user names. :/ But anyone who wants to contribute constructively to the development of quality, NPOV articles should be welcome to participate in the writing of any article anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and the current piece under discussion is no exception. Welcome aboard. Regards, :) deeceevoice (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In appreciation

This is for you, Lusala, and all the folks who worked on the (now defunct) Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?.

deeceevoice (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC) :(

We ain't done yet, guys. Apartheid was not overturned in a week! The fight continues - voting at AErc thusfar is 3-0 for the good guys. Courage! Wdford (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Now Lusala makes four. I've sent notes to a few of the names that snagged my eye as I scrolled up the talk page, looking for contributors, in order to get their comments on the suggested language -- including to Paul Barlow and Brennaman Aaron Brenneman (I think that's his name. I'm terrible with names! The admin who's taking the handoff from the guy who locked down the article.) We need a general consensus to move this forward, and that means from the contrarian people as well. So, we'll see what sticks.  :) deeceevoice (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

General sanctions ban

Deeceevoice, under provisions of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Imposed by the Committee, Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted, you are banned for three months from all pages (article and talk) related to the race of ancient people/peoples. This includes, but is not limited to, Ancient Egyptian race controversy. You can appeal this to the arbcom. Tom Harrison 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to Deeceevoice? Up to now, things looked peaceful!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is nothing, Luka. Absolutely nothing. ;) Check Wapondaponda's talk page. I have to attend to a deadline. Also check Harrison's talk page. I've only given in the most cursory of glances. I just don't have the time or the patience right now to actually read it, but it looks like the ban may stick. It may be technically enforceable, but those of us involved in the article know it's totally unjustified.

Frankly, if someone wanted to go after Zara and have her banned for her part in shutting down the article, disruptive editing, they'd have a pretty good case. Certainly, a far better case than could be made for any POV pushing on my part. But that's another matter.

If the ban isn't enforceable, I'll be back at the article. If it is, then I'll still be around. You can always e-mail me, and visit my talk page space. We can discuss the article and how to attack it. I just won't be able to edit there. Gotta go.

Peace! deeceevoice (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. *looks around* I too am currently unable to locate a reason for this. On the technicality: Currently and unfortunately there is ambiguity on if the ban will "stick." Arbitration Committee has said that warnings are specifically not administrator action w.r.t. bans of this type, and that adminstrators need to heed reasonable intput from their peers. They've also made it very clear that reverting any actual admin button pushing will lead straight to a spanking by Jimbo. What they have not made clear is what happens if:

• Admin A warns User 1,
• Admin B says 'not required to warn User 1, they are fine'
• Admin A blocks User 1.

Thank you for the patience and good will demonstrated in the above post. brenneman 23:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Following the discussion

This discussion continues on Harrison's talk page, which I don't have time at the moment to follow. If you want to know what's going on with this, I can't help you. It's confusing. So, lotsa luck. But thanks, people, for your expressions of interest, concern and indignation. deeceevoice (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I can tell you anything you would find persuasive or useful. Tom Harrison 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tom, I don't understand too why you have placed a ban on Deeceevoice. I haven't seen anything said that is innappropriate. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree, Tom. I think what you might have to say could be very useful. It's a simple request. I mean if you're going to content-ban someone for -- what -- however many months, the least you can do is point me to the relevant governing language. Again, it's a simple -- and civil -- request. Just show me the relevant language, so I can determine if your ban is warranted/justifiable -- in which case I won't waste the ArbCom's time. Thanks -- again. :) deeceevoice (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you repeatedly and seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of the project, and its expected standards of behavior. You've been persistently and disruptively uncivil, routinely attacked anyone who disagrees with you, and are trying to slant Ancient Egyptian race controversy toward a fringe viewpoint. I guess that would be uncivil pov pushing. Tom Harrison 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you won't explain, I'll request the demand be removed; Tom, you are obliged to explain or recant. --jpgordon 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I know I've done nothing of the sort. Your explanation appears little more than a throwaway excuse. In fact, I've spent the last couple of days trying to build some sort of consensus on the rewriting of the lead paragraph in wholly value-neutral language that, from the looks of it, is likely to succeed -- and nothing more. If you have evidence of POV pushing -- rather difficult, seeing as how the article has been locked down over the past few days -- where is it? deeceevoice (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I've read so far, I agree with Jpgordon - either Tom should give a better explanation or undo the ban. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka tells me I didn't follow the correct steps to impose a topic ban. I will not be enforcing the topic ban, or having anything more to do with the page(s). Tom Harrison 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of those who became constructively involved in this matter. Since Harrison won't apologize, I will. I'm sorry that one admin's precipitous and ill-conceived decisions/actions wasted the time and consumed the efforts of so many.

Harrison, thanks for the notification that the ban is no longer in effect and that you intend to have nothing more to do with the article. I'd be lying if I said you'll be missed. deeceevoice (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

You can be nice. I've seen you do it. But your 22:13, 6 February 2009 post drips venom. It's not polite to say "so-called sources." Please try to stay on-topic and be cordial. - brenneman 02:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Venom"? Wow. That bad, huh? I'll have to go back and check it (but later, please). I guess my fatigue (I've been up going on now, oh, 28 hours, still working on a deadline) and my flat-out impatience/fed-upness (yeah, I made it up) with Zara are showing. But I'm knocking off for the night. I'm (literally) falling asleep at my computer. Just thought I'd check WP once more before crashing for about four hours and then getting back at it. Yeah, I can tone it down, but I just don't think I can type one more word tonight. You should go to bed, too.

Goodnight. deeceevoice (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, deeceevoice, I am greatly impressed with what you have to add, but had a small piece of advice. Let us remember the aphorism "Who the cap fit" - if there's problematic behavior, just try to describe the "cap" without naming any names, and then see if anyone puts the cap on and decides it fits them! It's also slightly more diplomatic than mounting a direct attack! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Egypt

I didn't mean to school you in NPOV. What I meant was, if you have a properly sourced significant view, you could save yourself the trouble of endless discussion on the talk page and just add the view to the article. And I meant that people who knew policy would back you up. Now, this is ust my personal opinion, but when I see any artile where the number of edits to the talk page are of an order of magnitude higher than edits to the article, there is something wrong - and in my experience at least half the time th solution to the problem is not more talk, but actually just adding the points one would make on the talk page to the article itself. That's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy for you to say. The last time I tried that, I got slapped with a three-month content ban. Like I said, all I was doing was answering your question. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, next time you have a specific text you want added, let me know and if we both think I can be of help, I will do my best. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the offer. :) deeceevoice (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, thanks for your hard work and, above all, for your vigilance!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, have a look to Ancient Egyptian race controversy. The article has been radically changed by User:Dbachmann and friends--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't be surprised. ;) I'm really busy at the moment -- and I see that the page has been locked down -- again -- anyway. And I'm also pretty damned bored with this website. You don't honestly think this virulently racist/backward website can ever be a venue for any intelligent discussion of such matters regarding Black people -- do you? I may return and take a look at the talk page and weigh in when I have a moment -- and, of course, I'll always take time to respond to specific issues that need addressing. Peace to you, my dear brother. Stay up. deeceevoice (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

Deeceevoice, where are you? Where have you been? I hope you didn't leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klonk (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see you back. I thought you died. Klonk (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a question I think you can answer. We know Africans and Europeans had conflicts in the beginning of the slave trade. Did some Africans help the Europeans capture slaves or was it strictly a European thing? Klonk (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been pretty well established for some time now that indigenous Africans conducted raids into villages, took captives and sold them to slavers. It's doubtful they had any idea what was in store for their hapless victims, but the fact is -- yes -- black folks were complicit in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Why is that so difficult for so many black folks to own up to/accept? White folks don't have a corner on cruelty or greed. deeceevoice (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just asking a question. Klonk (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand. It's just one that has been answered fairly definitively -- and for quite some time. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, nice to see this page pop up on my watch list. How are you doing? Good to see you around. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not staying long -- or doing much while I'm here. But I'm well, thanks. :) I trust you and yours are, too? deeceevoice (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's my last question. Was Ancient Egypt really a black empire? Or was it non-black? Klonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Its origins were Black and African. And Egypt remains primarily black. Some people just can't/won't get it into their noggins that Black people built a high civilization while they were still living like barbarians. deeceevoice (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

African admixture

There is a debate on the article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe regarding the presence of haplogroup E3b in Europe. Some editors are arguing that E3b does not constitute "African admixture" even though it is known to have originated in East Africa. Seeing that you are interested in African history, if you have any free time, your comments would be appreciated. In the government (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Please, go to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy

FYI: I am not sure that anyone has actually been banned. I checked the block record for several peope who had "banned" messages on their talk pages, and in fact I saw no record of their being blocked, and i saw that several have made edits recently. Sock-puppets will be banned, and there is nothing I can do about that. But there are others who seem to be good-faith editors who have done nothing to justify a block. if I am wrong and someone actually has been blocked, please let me know. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know that ArbCom has formed a new council to devise new forms of Misplaced Pages governance(Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development)? I thought you might be interested in looking over who has been made a member of this council. They were not selected through any kind of transparent process. I have strong doubts about at least one of them, based on this comment, which I believe would be of interest to you. You and I know Misplaced Pages has problems that need to be addressed. Is a council with this member going to address them? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Thanks for the heads-up. I've checked it out and registered my comments in the appropriate space. As far as Jenna what's-her-face (who commented here, then expunged her remarks), IMO, anyone who doesn't see so-called "white pride" as a reactionary, racist, white supremacist phenomenon likely either: 1) is a racist him/herself and being disingenuous, 2) doesn't have a clue what racism is, 3) is intolerably, unforgivably naive, 4) in denial, or 5) bent on methamphetamine and/or home brew. And, no. I have serious doubts whether such a person belongs on any kind of advisory panel for Misplaced Pages. deeceevoice (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

this provides more context and discussion of the issue at hand... if we are going to have a real conversation about race at Misplaced Pages, this might be the place to have it (or to use it as a spring board into a discussion of how the policy council should investigate raceialized conflicts). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Minstrel show

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Minstrel show/GA1. I have de-listed the article. This decision may be challenged at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Misplaced Pages: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think Misplaced Pages has "diversity" issues. One of the areas for reform on this project page is, how to recruit and retain editors and I wish some of the discussion addressed how welcoming a place this is for people whose life experiences and ways of expression do not match that of the original 30 something white male computer programmer demographic that so long dominated Misplaced Pages. If you know people who have given this matter thought please encourage them to go to the project page and participate.

As for commenting on the topic ban - I think it is reasonable to give ICB this week to finish providing statements. At that point I think it is reasonable to protest to ArbCom that an appeal cannot be endlessly delayed because someone needs more time to put together the evidence for a ban that should have been provided when the ban was first issued. But as soon as ICB provides the evidence (which I think he has in this case) I think it is a good idea to go over it and give a response.

Frankly, I think that ICB is right that some people did commit blockable errors. Now, whether these merit a six month topic ban, or whether the blocks were issued in a partisan way, gets to questions of structural inequality at Misplaced Pages which is precisely why I created a project page to discuss reform. Another editor in fact started a thread on bans. That is the place to address systemicproblems at Misplaced Pages and devise policy remedies.

More practically, I think it is reasonable for banned users to request mentoring and a kind of "parole" to work specifically on whatever got them banned.

My philosophy is pretty simple: there is a politics here, and the policies are described in such a way that they can be interpreted so loosely that it is practically inevitable that some people will be blocked because someone basically finds them irritating. My solution to this situation is to figure out what kinds of policies you can get screwed on, and then be absolutely devoted to making sure you never ever violate those policies. I view Misplaced Pages in many ways as a game. There are certain rules that are not written down and if you figure out what they are and play by them, you can win (i.e. help create an article that is of the quality to which you believe articles should aspire) but if you do not play by them you will lose. It is unfortunate that some editors play Misplaced Pages like a game but they do and it is not too hard to learn to beat them at their own game but you have to be willing to look at things that way. Just my personal opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Oreo Fun Barbie.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Oreo Fun Barbie.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Black Kite 01:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• No problem - I fixed the fair use rationale - it was uploaded as a free image but any photo of a copyrighted toy is a derivative work and therefore non-free - it's a common mistake as people think their photos are their own copyright. Black Kite 22:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson GAR notification

Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)