The following, two posts were deleted by another editor, but I've chosen to restore them here. The first was posted to my user page, the second to my talk page in another location.

1. I most certainly agree. They should certainly not read any of the nonsense you write. I am an Arab from North Africa and I consider you a sudani nigger. To quote a famous Tunisian from the Southern Mediterranean : "...the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals..."[32]

And yet another North Africa, from Egypt,Al-Abshibi: "It is said that when the [black] slave is sated, he fornicates, when he is hungry, he steals."[33]

How right they were! We dislike negros in the Southern Mediterranean and I can assure you that the berbers from my region are whiter than many europeans. The study you refer to is based on 40 desert nomads from the mauritanian region, which is not part of north africa though for some reason probably niggers like you it is sometimes. Geographically it is part of sub-saharan black africa. I think sudanis are dying because Allah hates them, they must be as stupid as you are nigger. If you ever visit my country, Tunisia, I will kill you or use you as my slave. By the way, did you know that in Libya they kill niggers like you? illegal niggers lol..you should stop dreaming and admit youre a nigger and focus on your black history which is im sad to say just in sub-saharan africa with huts and black magic and dances, that is what you niggers are good at: dancing like aniamls, sex , aids, drugs and stupidity! your brian is too small. (also posted by user at I.P. 68.90.116.243 12:19, 17 June 2007)

2.Hey, you are a nigger but why do you want to turn a white mediterranean north african civilization into a nigger animal one like yours? by the way, sudan is not part of north africa it is a black sub-saharan nigger country like you, nigger. oh, and if you visit one of our coutnries, we will lynch you like the nigger that you are, animal. I dont expect a nigger esp a self-hating one to understand simply notions like geography and race and maybe you are blind and see niggers everywhere but the truth hurts, black animal. (posted by user at I.P. 68.90.116.243. on my user page at 12:36, 17 June 2007)

I will address the only thing above worth addressing, the rest being the ridiculous, reprehensible ravings of a creature with ... obvious issues. A few results of Googling "North Africa" and sources which include Sudan in the region: [1] [2] [3] *x* deeceevoice 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This is some of the most disturbing stuff I've ever seen on the wikipedia. Yikes! What a creep. futurebird 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This is nothing. I've had swastikas, a photo of a lynched blackman, pornographic garbage and all sorts of racist vitriol posted to my talk and user pages. I've had a racist mental cretin stalk me around the website, trash talking me and the race, and the Wikipedia community said nothing, did nothing -- or criticized me when I responded (but never once with a racist attack). This guy's just another boil on the butt of the project. Neither he nor the project's systemic racism fazes me. He has accomplished nothing but reveal what an obviously troubled, spiritually stunted a**hole he is and get himself blocked for a day or two -- a slap on the wrist.

For my money, his hateful ass should be blocked from ever editing here again -- if for no other reason than he's too damned ignorant to be here. ;)

The project is riddled with entities/creatures that think (and I use that word in the broadest sense of the term) like it does. It's just that some are mindless and crude enough to come right out and say what's in their cesspool hearts, usually never signing in and neve revealing their true names -- cowards that they are -- and some remain silent on that score. They simply make a habit of twisting/perverting and edit warring articles with black content. You're relatively new here, hence your apparent surprise, but this is what I've come to expect from this place.

IMO, you'd do well to be ever mindful, futurebird, that this is hostile, enemy territory. deeceevoice 09:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately permanent blocks on IP's are not allowed. I take it you looked at the rest of his edits/rants? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, yeah. Right. Forgot he didn't sign in. Such creeps rarely do. No, I haven't looked at any of his comments elsewhere. Frankly, I have better things to do! I just saw the obvious stuff because I check my user and talk pages from time to time. deeceevoice 12:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:RBI. I appreciate your patience Deeceevoice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Blackface in Rocket Festivals doesn't belong anywhere but on a talk page, I've decided, as the reversal of the Phadaeng Nang Ai legend doesn't satisfy WP's criteria for a notable myth. I think I'm going to stay altogether away from Black people, too, even though my Isan wife and all her friends consider her one. Black/white is an Issue in Thailand, but I don't have access to Credible, Scholarly Sources, just the people I know. Drop by my talk page some time -- if you ever have the time! Pawyilee 12:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I did leave in this statement: "If he is poor, his rocket may blow up in his face (hence clowns in black face in some parades), but he is the one most likely to win the favor of a village Nāng Ai." But left the Black face article as you changed it. Pawyilee 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Re Greetings. Thanks! I left an 824-word reply for you on my Talk page. Pawyilee 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I rili loved the part on netherlands and the link, to the research. I anyhow hate the whole commerce stuf, including bishops eg. but it is interesting that you notice that there has been international attention to the subject over the years. If the word media silence menas anything it must have been close. I have always lived under the impression that every country would be crowded with such horrid traditions:/ I must say i have difficulty in finding 'darky faces' more problematic then other advertisements and merchandise, however it is an obvious point. (hated it) Personally i have been paying some attention to the (rather dumb and boring on the national level) subject of its controversial character. What i think is overestimated in the research is the impact of the dutch (or other people) on their own opinions. It is actually the commerce,(capitalism, captured trade) if needed up to the national level that prescribes that this farce must go on. That usual people hardly understand what it does to them if the children of the shopkeeper (eg.) smile better, apparently suffices. And i fear that would suffice anywhere. 77.248.56.242 22:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm only just now seeing your comments. The sort of advertising referred to in the article is far more "problematic" than run-of-the-mill junk cranked out by capitalists to encourage spending. It is insulting and offensive and perpetuates racist stereotypes. What makes it particularly disgusting is that it is directed at the very young. Still, IMO, it's all too easy to blame only those seeking to profit materially from such an appalling practice. There is, of course, a deeply racist element in Dutch society to which this kind of crap appeals as well. deeceevoice 08:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not that familiar with wiki policies in regards to user talk pages, so feel free to delete this if this is totally out of line...but I was reading the discussion on the 'gremlins' article about the (alleged) racism in the movie. I don't have much to contribute on that specific movie, because I haven't seen it; I was curious if you actually believed that the movie was *purposefully* racist. I can see how the stereotype of rap music=violent/criminal came to be, considering some of the prevalant themes in (popular) rap, but I would think white rap listeners are more likely to actually act on it than blacks. I would also think that any racism displayed would be symptoms of a larger cultural problem and not any individual's beliefs, the same way the changes made from Crichton's Timline (novel) to the film version completely annihilated any strong, independent, intelligent women and replaced them with your usual Damsel in Distress archetype. And don't even try to pull the "you're white so what do you know" card. ;) I got my honorary minority card by marrying one. Jett rink 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I couldn't care a whit about the screenwriter's personal beliefs. The info about the movie being seen as racist pertains strictly to his product/creation. IMO, the movie was, indeed, racist. But what I think doesn't matter. The controversy was a very real one and much discussed at the time of the movie's release.

With regard to your comment about rap, stereotyes of black men as violent, depraved and criminal far predate gangsta rap -- a phenomenon which, incidentally, postdates this flick. At the time the movie came out, breakdancing and rap were still phenomena largely confined to black and Latino communities.

It hadn't occurred to me to "pull the 'you're white so what do you know' card." But since you've brought it up, don't pull the "I married one, and some of my best friends are" -- because if whites sleeping black meant they weren't racist, then we wouldn't have had all those slaveholders with half-black babies listed among their property, and we wouldn't have so many screwed up mulatto children comin' out of mixed marriages.

BTW, let me know the next time you're out driving alone, or just walking down the street and get stopped, frisked or roughed up by a cop for no damned reason. Is it because you've got "I'M MARRIED TO A NEGRESS (or some other person of color)" emblazoned across your forehead? Bet not. So, hell, no. Marrying one of us doesn't give you an honorary membership card, and it certainly doesn't mean you automatically know or understand.

Oh, and news flash: if you're white, you ARE the minority.

Don't mistake my frankness for rancor -- but you brought it up. Peace. deeceevoice 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Rancor is perfectly acceptable considering it appears I didn't say anything even vaguely intelligent. I'd like to pretend it's a language barrier, but probably not. In my defense, the "honorary minority card" and everything related was a bit of a rib--I'm really not amused when people expect gold stars for being friends with "Others," or when they use that as a cover-up for their bigotry. On the other hand, I generally don't appreciate being cut out just because of *my* demographics. True, I hardly know what it's like to be randomly frisked (--Ryan says he was only breaking the law 90% of the time he's been harrassed by the police), etc, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm walking around with my head shaved claiming that the white man is being held down by the special treatment everyone else is getting.

Statistically, I may be the minority as a white man; politically, I'm not. I may get a few points taken off for being a homo, but I can always go on the downlow and solve that problem.

I'm not trying to argue with you at all, because we're on the same side, and I'm very confident that you know a whole lot more about what we're talking about than I do. Only other question being, what books/authors would you reccomend, if any, regarding race in America? Jett rink 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, no rancor -- just frank-speak. I'm not invested in what you think about race. In fact, I long ago stopped caring what white people think of black folks. I certainly don't point-score them, and I don't make recommendations to white people about books to read -- because, frankly, I don't have a clue what would make sense to them in helping them resolve/come to terms with whatever issues they may have. Besides, I generally don't read books about "race in America" -- except maybe in the broadest of terms. I'm thinking a trip to the local library or bookstore would be more informative than any exchange with me on the matter. Peace. deeceevoice

Per your request, I have semi-protected your user and talk pages. If you, at any time want them unprotected, please contact me or any other administrator. I hope this helps. -- rogerd 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I reverted more trolling by the same user as before. Unfortunately, he is now been registered for more than four days, so the semi-protection doesn't help. -- rogerd 02:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI, that troll ( User:Rillio) was banned on Aug 3 for his trolling and sockpuppeting (he is apparently the same person as another banned user, User:Chichichihua). If you need anything, let me know. Peace. -- rogerd 13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments, I just now have a chance to get back to you. I grew up with 60's rock and roll, like the Stones, Hendrix, Eric Clapton and the Allman Brothers. I few years ago, I started thinking about how all of them were heavily influenced by old time blues artists, and started really getting into the Blues. I now listen to them as much as I do rock and roll. It's too bad that there are no radio stations in my area that play the blues. My local NPR station plays a show called "Nothin' but the Blues" on Saturdays, but I wish there was more. Whenever I ride with someone who has XM satellite radio, I try to listen to channel 74 "Bluesville", which is a good mix of old and new blues. -- rogerd 02:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I awarded you purple star for dealing with numerous personal attacks from others while diplomatically contributing to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Wiki Raja 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Gee, thanks, Raj. :) I guess that means someone's been killed or wounded in battle? Well, I'm not dead. I'm not wounded -- but, presumably, unfortunately, perhaps one of my people has been hurt by the "race"-based invectives hurled my way. So, my dear brother, I accept the star in their behalf. Bless. deeceevoice 03:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you are still around, but I find it funny that User:Stbalbach feels the same way you do about Wikipedia's cabals. (See his talk page) On another note, you seem to be getting really upset about a website you already think is crap. I've found that the best way to deal with admins is to stay so calm that they can't do anything to you. That, and maybe putting on a front and acting like one of the good ol' boys so you can become an admin. I haven't tried it, because I don't care as much as you do. And, well, I never edit controversial topics. (I had my comments deleted too many times on Intelligent Design. Fortunately, some more esteemed editors made my points for me.)

Anyways, here's hoping your permablock is/has been overturned.

-- trlkly 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Who says I'm angry? That would give these ... entities power over me. If I ever catch myself feeling aggravated/annoyed, I simply catch myself and say, "Don't." It's that simple.

And I never was "permablocked." I haven't/never really kept track of any of all that, but I'm assuming that whatever block you're referring to expired months ago. I just haven't bothered to change my user page since, well, forever.

I have absolutely no desire to be an administrator -- never did. And there's no way I could or would pretend to be anything other than what I am. What you read is what you get. No subterfuge, no sockpuppets, no simpering. I'm pretty much in your face. What can I say? To know me is to love me. ;) Bless. dee.

Hi,

Thought you would be interested in checking out the makevover for WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. Enjoy!

Wiki Raja 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Here is the outcome of the final decision for AfD on the Dravidian civilizations article:

“

The result was no consensus to delete; defaulting to keep. This is most certainly not a 'hoax'; there are plenty of sources to show that this is a valid concept. However, the views of the Community were split down the middle with strong opinions on both sides. What is clear is that there are significant parts of the article that are disputed and the way forward is for those concerned editors to initiate a thorough-going rewrite. TerriersFan 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

”

Once again, thank you for your input in the matter. Regards. Wiki Raja 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

The debate on the Dravidian civilizations talk page now is if Dravidians are related or not to the Indigenous Australians and/ or East Africans. Could you take a look at that page and give your input, along with some other users you know who would like to give their input too here? Wiki Raja 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I haven't talked to you in a bit; I worked a bit on jazz and blackface with you a while back. Anyway, I am currently putting together a symposium thing of sorts, and wondered if you'd like to contribute. If you might be interested, could you email me for details? It's noahberlatsky at hotmail.

I'll expect it to take a while since you're not here that much anymore. Hope you're well, NoahB 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Have you considered making some contributions over at Jena Six? I think a perspective like yours is sorely missing from the writing and editing of that article. Qworty 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Not really, but thanks. I haven't seen it. I'm too busy dealing with such issues in the real world -- the Jena Six among them, actually. Peace. deeceevoice 10:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, dcv. You seem to be quite busy at the moment, but I thought I'd alert you to some discussion going on at Talk:Blackface. Another user wants to remove a lot of material from the article regarding blackface's influence in world popular culture since minstrelsy. They seem willing to discuss, but I've so far been unable to convince them that the article is fine as it is. This person also has concerns about the sources cited in the article, and although I've been doing my best to address their comments, my time on Wiki is also pretty limited right now, so it's been slow-going. They seem eager to start cutting material from the article despite the talk page discussion. Hope all is well with you. — Brian ( talk) 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It's the same guy who's been screwing around with Jazz. He's doing his best to whitewash that article, overemphasize Jews in Jazz, downplaying its African/black roots, etc. "Jazz" is now pretty much utter crap -- and no longer a featured article. My guess is this guy is going for pretty much the same thing at "Blackface." But, frankly, I have no time. I'm an activist. I'm dealing with all kind of real-world sh*t -- and I don't have the time or the patience to deal with a website that, frankly, is a cesspool of abysmal ignorance, arrogance and racism. I appreciate your efforts, Brian. I really do, but I'm dealing with far more immediate/exigent things going on right now than Wikipedia. If the article doesn't survice, I'm confident that, as with "Jazz" there are enough sites in cyberspace quoting the old article -- in fact, outright plagiarizing it, that it'll be around somewhere. Unfortunate, though, the majority of people will come to Wikipedia looking for good iformation and get crap. Thank goodness for the forks and mirrors and just flat-out plagiarizers (I see my writing all over the place these days), because after a time, there won't be anything at all useful on Wikipedia about black people -- from the article on the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians, to "black people" to the "Great Sphinx of Giza" and on and on.

You're fighting a losing battle in an enterprise where any ignorant, opinionated/racist asshole with a computer and an ISP can edit. Peace. deeceevoice 11:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I decided to get in your business (I love reading other peoples' talk pages) and I added some references to the article that I hope will prevent further deletions, by this guy. I guess I should look at the Jazz article too... sigh... this is tiresome. futurebird 20:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, fb. I simply have neither the time nor the patience. (I haven't even been back to take a look at cool aesthetic since I last posted there.) deeceevoice 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Just thought I'd drop by and see how you were doing. Glad to see you're still here and still editing. Guettarda 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Heya, babe. :D I'm really not. (See the post above.) I'm certainly not doing any serious writing. I just drop in when I need a break from deadlines at my computer. And now that blackface is apparently under attack, I probably won't bother even doing that. After a while, this crap just gets really, really, really old. Bless. dee 28 September 2007

I hear you. Writing is still fun, but the politics and fights makes it barely worth dropping by. But there are still lots of good people that are nice to run into. Guettarda 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Deeceevoice, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deeceevoice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Deeceevoice during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —[[ Animum |  talk]] 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It's since been withdrawn. —[[ Animum |  talk]] 18:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Gee, Animum. Thanks for giving me permission to edit my own freaking user page. The issue you need to consider is what gives you the right to do so? Get a life. Hands off my user page. deeceevoice 19:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow. I thought I had seen everything! futurebird 21:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This is nothing. And this isn't the first time. Over time, several users, including Wiki admins have blanked my page. Once, there was even an edit war of sorts as some admins blanked the page and then others restored it. (Downright silly.) And then Jimo Wales himself deleted my user page -- giving me absolutely no opportunity to salvage anything on it once (rude!) because it contained a commentary of the systemic bias and racism I had encountered on Wikipedia and because I kept or replicated some of the racist crap that had been posted to it and my talk page there. He "invited" me to discuss my criticism of Wikipedia, and others threatened me with "disciplinary action" if I did not. And then when I did set out the problems of the site at length, not a single soul participated/responded -- and certainly not ol' Jimbo himself. lol Gurl, you don't know the half of it. deeceevoice 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

That's really absurd. Who has time for it? Why can't people just find things that they know about and make the wiki better? You know? I think these kinds of things drive people away, and then we end up wondering why all of the articles relted to African topics are in such poor shape. A lot of people I know want to start an "afro-pedia" but I'm not in to that: separate never was equal-- Still, I wish there was more wide-spread acknowledgment of the problems that face the wikipedia. futurebird 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm definitely in favor of an Afropedia. The way this project is structured, serious, learned, treatments of subjects related to black people will never happen, because most here are white, virtually all whites are racist, and virtually all of them have been inculcated with euroecentric values, eurocentric notions of world history -- and they're arrogant and hidebound in what they don't know. Separate might not be equal in terms of resources or input -- but separate definitely could be better in terms of quality and accuracy. deeceevoice 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I think you make a good case for it. But, I'd have a hard time pulling away. There are so many things here that are such a mess, that it makes me scared when I think about how many people take what the wiki says as "truth" -- I think the trend is moving more towards that over time. futurebird 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

An Afropedia soon would gain the reputation of quality, reliable, well-resourced information on subjects relating to Africans on the continent and in the diaspora. People might still check Wikipedia first -- but they'd also consult Afropedia. And it would need a different editorial structure. This business of any clueless half-wit with a computer and an ISP being able to come in and obliterate or twist months and months of quality, thoughtful work in less than a day is absurd. This place is hopeless. It won't/can't change. What is needed is a counterbalance to the bullsh*t. This place really isn't worth the constant hassle with opinionated ignorance. deeceevoice 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. I'll put it in the back of my mind for the day that never seems to come when I have time. By the way did you know there's no page for Encyclopedia Africana? futurebird 04:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

And why does that surprise you?! And the sad thing it's probably a good thing. deeceevoice 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Through all that, Animum couldn't be bothered to try to engage you in discussion? Not even once? (All he posted was boilerplate). Makes you wonder how many potential contributors get run off when their first article is speedy-deleted by someone who can't be bothered to explain to them what they did wrong. Guettarda 04:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Precisely, Guettarda. deeceevoice 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

::( Personal attack removed):: How did this user get to be an admin? futurebird 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

(Comment by futurebird restored. This is hardly a personal attack.)

futurebird, again, this is nothing compared to what some admins up in here have done/are doing -- nothing. I didn't even notice the (expletive withheld) was an administrator, but it doesn't surprise me one bit. Rudeness, flat-out lying, complete lack of judgment, instigating conflict, violating the same guidelines they posture at enforcing. In my case, hounding me and fabricating infractions -- all the while completely ignoring the blatantly antagonistic/racist conduct of others. Oh, yeah. Afropedia. deeceevoice 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Even disregarding the sensitive situation, these attacks on user pages are completely out of order. There is considerable latitude for users to add information about themselves including information about their areas of interest and likes and dislikes. The guideline Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space indicates how to raise concerns about user page content, and there's no excuse for breaching the Wikipedia:Civility policy. So, sorry you've been having this hassle, it's wise not to be too bound up in this project and have more important things to do. However, any continuing input it suits you to give will be much appreciated. I've added Jazz to my watchlist, and will try to improve matters when current rush jobs are sorted out. Mind you, while the points you raise are the most blatant example of bias, I'm a bit miffed that there's no mention of the significance of Trad. ;) ... dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think I said it. JP, Guettarda, futurebird -- thanks for lookin' out. deeceevoice 11:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The first time I ran across you was your insightful and helpful comment at Talk:African American culture that the article "Needs much work -- preferably by someone black". I don't know who died and made you HNIC, but there's no need to disparage the work of other editors — including Black editors — who have worked on the article, especially User:Crownjewel82, who is Black and put a hell of a lot of work into getting the article to Good Article status.

So am I touchy when you knock the article in an edit summary — "Grits? lol Grits isn't cultivated; it's processed"? No, just interpreting the comment in light of an editor's previously expressed contempt for other editors who have contributed to the article. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You're still at it, huh? Too much coffee? lol If an article needs work, it needs work. Such a comment may not have anything to do with the quality of the work already done. It may refer to an absence of information or the need for a broader scope. And expressing the hope that black editors will come on board also is not a commentary on who may (or may not have) contributed before. Take a chill pill. Otherwise, don't bother to post here. I really don't have time for this silliness. deeceevoice 21:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I've deleted your userpage after many concerns over the inappropriateness of the content there. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you wish to contest the deletion, feel free to do so at the ANI post. -- D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

My God, will the persecution of this user never stop? For the moment, I've piped in over at ANI to let DarkFalls try to justify himself. — Brian ( talk) 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This can hardly be equated with persecution. Please cease with those typical straw man arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have restored the page as the WP:AN/I discussion seems to concur with my opinion that the deletion was a nonsense, but I have edited out the soapboxing - it's not helpful and is contrary to what Wikipedia is supposed to be for. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Neil  ム 12:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with Brian. Deeceevoice seems to receive an amount of criticism and abuse far in excess of that meted out to other editors with controversial opinions and robust argumentative style. As far as I can see, DC is editing here in good faith and in general tries to work within community norms. -- The Anome 12:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That doesn't make her anymore different than us. As a Wikipedian since January 2006 I have received my fair share of abuses and criticism as well. I don't expect others to give me liberty for blatant soapboxing in my userspace. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Dude, have at it! Post a rant! I don't care what you do. Just leave other users alone. It's not your job to tell others what they can or can't do in their userspace, Nick. — Brian ( talk) 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

errr, yes it is - especially if a user is going against WP:USER. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I think what is needed now is for everyone to cool down a bit. Clearly DC is severely pissed off right now, and blasting away at other editors on the presumption that they are white and therefore racist is clearly unacceptable (and, indeed, potentially open to accusations of racism in itself). However, I am sympathetic to DC's concerns that black editors are underrepresented on Wikipedia, and the apparent ganging up on DC leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that DC's opponents in this issue are acting in bad faith or being racist, either.) -- The Anome 12:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You don't get it, Anome. At all. I laughed when I read your characterization of my mood. "Clearly DC is severely pissed off right now...." You couldn't be more incorrect. My comments are not emotional; they are merely a forthright statement on the state of affairs at Wikipedia. There seems to be far more emotionalism on display here than on my user page. And "ganging up"? I've been busy with deadlines and had no idea any of this crap was going on on my talk page. This is funny as hell. deeceevoice 13:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Brian, relax. The user space belongs to the community and not one user. We are here to collaborate and to make an encyclopedia, not to post divisive comments against another's ethnicity. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you've got it all figured out, Nick. I'm glad that Wikipedia has finally gotten to a point when expressing an opinion is considered "divisive". I'm glad that we've decided that free speech among our members is dangerous and must be suppressed. I'm just disappointed that I haven't been subsumed into the Collective as well as I should be to agree with you. — Brian ( talk) 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I can certainly agree with you on that. Let's see if we can chill out a bit, and forward the encyclopedia. -- The Anome 13:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

...and blasting away at other editors on the presumption that they are white and therefore racist is clearly unacceptable

So what you are saying is that if someone thinks there is racism they can't say anything about because it's uncivil? I don't think that makes any sense. I don't know why deeceevoice is being attacked, but it is really one of the most unfair and disheartening this I've ever seen on the wikipedia. I think there is a lot of truth in the things that she writes, especially the part about systemic bias. But frankly, even if she is wrong, 'it's not a personal attack to point out *actions* that you think are unfair. Everyone needs to be able to do that. We shouldn't hide form criticism. futurebird 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Ditto. What fb said. If you don't like reading the criticism/critique, then don't read my user page. 'S easy enough. Use your web browser and move on. deeceevoice 13:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Please see this enforcement report and my response. Thatcher131 17:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Silly, time-wasting business. Sorry to the usual "suspects" -- but thanks. Others, get a life. Please. Me? I've got deadlines to attend to. deeceevoice 13:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your hard work on African American culture. futurebird 16:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You're way too generous! But thanks, sis. :) deeceevoice 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Minor Barnstar
		For all the little changes made to keep the WP:AFRO homepage up to date. CJ 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This is really funny. (Do they have a minor minor barnstar?) Thanks, CJ. deeceevoice 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Purple Plush Tiktaalik Award
		Quoting the Bonzo Dog Band's The Doughnut in Granny's Greenhouse, can blue men sing the whites, or are they hypocrites? A silly purple award for a cool response to off-colour remarks. dave souza, talk 11:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Added link to The Suns of Independence. Ahmadou Kourouma. book review by Danny Yee Pawyilee 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I know you're busy, but you have given a lot of good advice, and I respect you very much. Can you please sign this [4] so we have enough to help bring this article to FA? You have been working on it, as I see you right now. lol. I don't know how this works, really. As when I signed it said it only needed 4 sigs, now it's jumped to 8. I don't understand that. I wonder if the more sign, the number of needed sigs jumps again? Well, we have six so far, and if you sign it will be 7. I asked another e-buddy to sign too, hoping it makes the it. TIA. Jeeny ^(talk) 06:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I was hesitant to sign the article improvement page. Unfortunately, given the nature of Wikipedia, I've found that the less attention an article treating black subject matter receives from the general editing population, the better it may proceed. But done. Thanks for looking me up, and I appreciate your comment. Bless. :) deeceevoice 06:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Oh, I understand. I was just reading your user page, about some of the ignorant messages you recieved from idiots on Wikipedia. I too have had swastikas and other repulsive crap added to my talk page. I also have been blocked before because these sneaky ignorants had the gall to report me, and no one did any investigation. He and others are blocked indef for now... yet now I have a record. Oh well. Sadly, I know they'll be back. I have a love hate relation with this friggen place. There are a ton of them here. :( I feel obligated to stay because of this. Jeeny ^(talk) 06:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm feelin' ya, Jeeny. But I don't -- on both counts. Mine is a hate-hate relationship, and I don't feel obligated in any way to this hell hole. ;p deeceevoice 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

lol! I love you! Jeeny ^(talk) 06:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week African American culture was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

CJ 10:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Wiki Raja 04:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Slammin'. Wow. Love the banner. The only thing I'm wondering is why it has no color. Still, very, very nice. (Of course, I got no clue what the script says.) I remain impressed by your hard work on subject matter treating people of color for the project. Blessings.  :) deeceevoice 07:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, an admin made this banner and I have contacted her about the coloration of the wordings. From left to right, (Kannada script - Namaskara), (Telugu script - Namaskaramu), (Malayalam script - Namaskaram), (Tamil script - Vanakkam). They all say Greetings. Wiki Raja 07:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't it be great if we could just download languages into our brains and become instantaneously literate/fluent in the tongues of our choice? I wish, I wish, I wish.... That and world peace/justice for humankind -- and the environment (smiling toothily and giving a beauty pageant wave)

"Thank you. Thank you very much." ;)

It's back to deadlines for me. Elvis has now left the building.... deeceevoice 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Special thanks should go to Persian Poet Gal since she was the one who created the banner. Wiki Raja 05:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't believe that calling out other editors on your user page is appropriate, and as you know full well, saying, "Am I calling John Smith a racist? You decide." is merely a rhetorical device. It is not an appropriate use of user space to incite or spread divisive personal attacks against specific users. I generally defend the use of your user space to complain about systematic bias at Wikipedia but not extended to naming specific individuals. And, all such uses of user space are privileges, not rights. Please remove it, or I will take whatever steps are necessary. Thatcher131 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Thatcher's right on this. Just drop the name. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Better? ;) deeceevoice 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Hmm. You're still targeting an individual editor, as anyone who actually looks at the diff will know. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not explicitly naming anyone. It's useless to try to convincingly discuss systemic bias or admin misconduct in vague and general terms. Diffs provide evidence. If one cares to look at the examples provided, they're there. And unless one edits anonymously, then of course those who care to take note will see the name. If people do not wish to be associated with their edits in any way, then they should edit anonymously or not at all. deeceevoice 19:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice and the enforcements state that "Deeceevoice is prohibited from using her user page to publish offensive rants." I find a lot of the userpage offensive including the sentence "Wikipedia is a f***ing runaway freight train headed straight to hell. It's downright and despicably dangerous." I would suggest that you remove all soapboxing from your userpage as it's not only against WP policy, it's also in violation of the enforcement of your arbitration. Thanks Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I suggest comments like this about Wikipedia are perfectly acceptable, and that you need to raise your personal filters regarding offensiveness. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not here to endlessly entertain other people's opinions about my user page. And I certainly couldn't care less what WDM thinks about my page. This discussion is closed. deeceevoice 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you are aware but this is being discussed in the Administrato'r Noticeboard, just tought you should know. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This is getting ridiculous. It's borderline badgering. (I know 'bout badgering lol) Jeeny ^(talk) 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Pursuant to JPGordon's comments above, I have removed the links to specific edits that you were using to "call out" a specific editor. If you reinstate them, I will remove them and protect the page. Please note that I agree with the general sense of your complaint that there is substantial systemic bias here, and I think editors should leave you alone (as long as you are willing to do the same). Note however that there is a big difference between user boxes that say "This user opposes denial of the Armenian Genocide" (to cite an example currently at WP:AE), and "User Joe Smith has made racist edits." I have no problem with a general complaint against bias on Wikipedia or with your statements of support for various causes. You can not call out other editors. Thatcher131 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• • As I said, and pursuant to your Arbitration case, I have reverted and protected your user page. Thatcher131 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

*Hey, I can't edit your userpage, to fix some typos. It's bugging me. Nevermind. It was reverted. Jeeny ^(talk) 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Deeceevoice can request unprotection if she is willing to agree to stop naming specific editors, as discussed above, or she may use {{ edit protected}} to request an admin to fix typos etc. on her behalf. Thatcher131 17:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

What the hell is the matter with you? Don't you have anything better to do with your time on Wikipedia? Don't answer that. Tragically, obviously not. I've named no one on my user page. And it's perfectly legitimate to provide links. I've been through this before. Where do you get off making a change and then locking the page to the version you prefer? If there's another, more sensible admin around who's got a problem with this, then I invite you to do what's right. I have deadlines to attend to. *x* deeceevoice 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You were naming User:Stbalbach. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, that's gone now; you're the only one naming him now. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah. And it was gone when YOU objected to the link. deeceevoice 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Shrug. I don't like unnecessary drama, and the links were creating that. I'm outta here. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You don't like drama, then talk to the drama queens. Linking to wiki content on one's user page is not forbidden. Thatcher is out of line and you're off the mark. No one has to visit my page or my talk page. Vote with your web browser and step off. *x* deeceevoice 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You are invited to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Thatcher131 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You're repeating yourself, which I find a bore and a waste of space. I've already commented. I've got nothing else to say to you. Now go make yourself useful -- if you can. deeceevoice

This discussion is closed.

Not until your user page is unprotected. I came here to vandalize it with some graffiti, for bringing due weight back into the article on jazz. Guess it will have to wait. Pity, I wish people found Wikipedia's articles more interesting than its user pages. Chidongo's sculpture isn't smiling either. Take care, deeceevoice. --- Sluzzelin talk 10:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying the references to Creole on the Jazz article. Just a wee point that seems a bit of a discrepancy to me. You've added a picture of Bolden to Louisiana Creole people with the caption saying he was a dark-skinned Afro-Creole, or "Creole of color". This article cites Morton as saying "He was a Negro, yes.. . . . No, no . . . he was light complected. He was what you call a light brown skin boy.” Perhaps someone else would be a better example. However, the images suggest he was darker-skinned in comparison with the photos of Jelly Roll Morton. Do you know if Morton would have been called a "Creole of color"? Don't bother too much with this, just that it's all a bit puzzling to me. ... dave souza, talk 21:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Bolden would be considered a Creole of color; he was obviously black (as opposed to someone like Audubon, who essentially passed for white/lived as a white man and was born of a slave owning father). Jelly Roll Morton -- I don't know if he considered himself a Creole at all, and as far as I know, only his father was Creole -- and Afro-/black Creole at that. My description of Bolden could be in error. In the photos I've seen of him, he appears fairly brown-skinned. But it could be the quality of the photos. Feel free to delete that description from the caption. My point in adding Bolden's photo was to show that lots of people who were clearly black by any "racial" categorization were called Creoles. Verklempt seemed intent in Jazz upon classifying the Creoles involved in early jazz as something other than black people, when it is quite clear that ethnically and by lineage they were black people, were accepted by blacks as black people and were assimilated into non-Creole black communities -- when they did not resist it (and many, convinced they were better than their often darker-skinned brethren did). Afro-Creoles were consigned to black communities after the change in the law classified them as black. They collaborated with non-Afro-Creole blacks to produce jazz. So, what we're discussing here is a segment of the black community, temporarily accorded certain rights and privileges, who would have been considered and treated as black people (read "discriminated against") any other place in the U.S., but who, by virtue of the peculiarities of New Orleans culture -- a society highly stratified by ethnic admixture and skin color -- they often were not). deeceevoice 22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that fits with what I've been reading. The website and Morton's recollections probably don't count as a RS to some people, so no big deal. The biggest change I'd think of would be to change from "dark skinned" to "brown skinned", but that's probably unnecessary. Will watch out for any better example, all the best, .. dave souza, talk 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You won't care about this, and neither do I. But you know something? I have never, in 45 years, encountered a single racist who could see the ugliness of their racism for what it is. Have you?

I honestly couldn't believe you would accuse an entire segment of being racist based solely on ... their skin color!

Things that make ya go "Hmmmm"...

PS: your indictment of WP's systemic bias, on the other hand, is among the most articulate and cogent arguments I have seen around here. Obviously, I feel you are wrong in your assessment of the project's future, and I hope you find time to keep bringing this up, as the WP process needs intelligent and forthright editors like you to do just that. Ofc, activism in the "real world" is probably more attractive to you than activism here, which is our loss, IMO.

Eaglizard 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

"I honestly couldn't believe you would accuse an entire segment of being racist based solely on ... their skin color!"

Don't know where you got that, but good -- because I didn't. deeceevoice 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Giant mag Rihanna cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 13:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/31 The African diaspora and African american stub categories are up for deletion. CJ 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) {subst:di-orphaned fair use-notice|1=Wynton Marsalis.jpg}} Jusjih 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

CJ wants you to be nicer. She thinks you start to many arguments. I sort agree. Now I'm feeling sheepish about getting on you case at all because some of the time some things just need to be said... but do you think you could assume good faith a little more? I know that's a hell of a lot to ask when enough things have happened that you don't have any "good faith" left. But, yeah. futurebird 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That's just precious. CJ is the one who started off getting the a** with me in a series of talk-page exchanges (along with that guy who signs Malcolm X's Muslim name) for daring to say that the article on AA culture (or history; I don't recall) needed serious work -- and it did (still does?).

Furthermore, if she has something to say to me, presumably, she's a grown-up. She can say it herself.

As far as Wikipedia, generally, I speak my mind. That's not going to change. deeceevoice 06:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

So the other day, I'm walking around when suddenly I saw a squirrel, and I was like: "take this peanut, quickly!" And much happiness ensued. El_C 09:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

When I was in elementary school, we sang a squirrel song. "Grey squirrel, grey squirrel, swish your bushy tail. Wrinkle up your funny nose. Hold a nut between your toes. Grey squirrel, grey squirrel, swish your bushy tail."

Yeah. I used to think they were cute.

Until I started feeding them on my balcony.

One winter day while I was in my home office, I heard this loud noise coming from the study -- something banging against the window. I went to investigate. It was this fat (my fault), furry critter jumping from the wrought-iron railing and flinging himself against the window -- his version of "The Little Shop of Horrors'" Audrey's obnoxious, "Feed Me!" I suppose. When I didn't offer him any food, he proceeded to gnaw and the wooden sash to try to gain entry. I chased him off.

Subsequent encounters with these greedy, aggressive little b*stards?

• Repeatedly having to replace potting soil and plants after these creatures repeatedly have dug up the flowers and hostas in my planters to plant and retrieve acorns from the oaks that line my street -- costing me hundreds of dollars (not to mention the effort and aggravation of extra maintenance).
• Discovering that a mating pair had overwintered in one of my larger plant pots, leaving three rather large, limp (and very dead -- yuck!) offspring in them covered in leaves -- the bodies of which I removed and placed in trash bags only after successfully fending off an enraged parent by wielding a freaking broom and roaring like a madwoman and screaming like a banshee.
• Over the years, I've repeatedly had to destroy other squirrel nests constructed in the same damned planter with -- adding insult to injury -- my very own, rather expensive plant materials, coconut-husk planter liners and branches from the blue spruce they use as a ladder/springboard to my balcony.
• They've chewed through four screens, which I've had replaced multiple times.
• I found one on the sill on the inside after it had chewed a long, jagged incision into one of the screens in my living room, and I had to chase it away with -- you guessed it -- the same freaking broom. (What's this fixation with gaining entry into my home?

So, squirrels? I hate the mean, nasty, little b*stards. They're psycho.

On the other hand, you, El_C I adore. ;) Just don't talk to me about feeding squirrels! The fat little f***s. deeceevoice 09:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree, kittens are cuter and a better way to find happiness, don't believe me? try standing next to one, they will try to pounce the life out of you. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

If you're talking about the kind of "kitten" on your user page, I believe you! But, yeah. I know what you mean. I had two kitties, 'til they both died. Old age. I'm thinking about getting another one, though. Just one -- a mutt-cat rescue. deeceevoice 10:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't get me wrong, I prefer chipetting over squirreling, and unlike the former, I never let them climb on me, or touch me in anyway. And these rats-with-a-puffy tail bully the mice-with-a-puffy-tail and a stripe, and also birds. They climb and steal their seeds. But chippies are now gone, deep in burrows, enjoying peanuts, happy. Who else am I going to give peanuts to that will sit, happily? But I take your point, definitely. El_C 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Aw, I love chipmunks! (The real kind. Alvin & Co. work my nerves. Every Christmas when I hear their shrieking "music", I just wanna stab myself in the ear with a pencil.) They're cute and shy and sweet. But we don't have them here in D.C. :( Try feeding the pigeons, wrens and chickadees. It's what I do. I prefer flying rats to "puffy"-tailed rats any day. deeceevoice 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I just clicked the "Chipetting" link. Love the photos. They make me want to pull up my city stakes and go somewhere quiet. "I'm gonna move on out to the country, baby, an' paint my mailbox blue...." *sigh* deeceevoice 10:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Chickadee, too! I don't have any pictures to back this story up, but, about a month ago, there I was, petting a chipmunk as he was munching on peanuts and I noticed that a chickadee was watching us with great interest. After chippie went to take peanuts to burrow, I offered chickadee half a peanut (which I pealed), and to my amazement and happiness, it landed on my finger, gripping it with its legs, took the half pealed peanut, and flew away! Afterwards, it returned a few more times for more pealed peanuts, and other chickadees also saw this and followed suit. It was the first time I held a bird since my parrot Tee-Tee (he flew away 1yr after, after my grandpa opened the door; I didn't have the heart to fuck with his wings, so there was no stopping him — it's likely he's still alive right now, since they live for many decades and he has no natural predators in Israel), and the first time I held a wild bird, so it was an enormously rewarding experience! El_C 10:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Watch it, El_C. I'mma start callin' you "Snow White" in a minute. ;) deeceevoice 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

LMAO! I found this so funny because someone close to me actually said to me; "What, are you Snow White or summtin...", because of my feeding and concern over my backyard "city" wild-life. ~ Jeeny ^(talk) 22:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It is nice to have an audience. Too many people I know have started to get sick of my woodland stories. For the 28,344th time, I start a sentence with: "this reminds how the other day, I was giving a chipmunk a peanut," or "so, here I am petting groundhog, when..." and the whole room sighs! The insolence, the audacity, the tenacity, the intransigence, quickly! El_C 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yep. I know what you mean, Jeeny & El_C. Tree huggers & critter lovers, we git no damn respeck! ;) I love your "small" photos and your big, fat tuxedo cat, too. One of my beloved kitties was a tuxedo shorthair. When she got older, as female cats often do, she got a little chunky and developed a tummy. It flopped when she ran. I called her "Orca-porka." Don't think she cared for the name. She'd just look at me like, "What" (no question mark, because she really didn't care) and then ignore me. I think she understood and was insulted. My dear, (not-so) little Habibi. deeceevoice 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It's true, Kitty has grown plumped over the years. I remember how years ago, he was gone for over two weeks and I already thought him lost never to return. It was early winter and snow has fallen when suddenly I heard a scratch at my attic's window: it was kitty, very thin and sad, meowing. I was so happy! This was not long after my roomate to whom Kitty originally belonged (he grew up on her parents farm in Michigan) left for florida to go to school and left me him, and our bond was not that strong yet. I let him in, gave much tuna and we've been best of friends ever since! El_C 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Prodigal kitty. That's a nice story. Nothing like bonding over tuna. I like mine as steaks, grilled, slightly rare, with spicey/hot mango chutney. Fabulous. ;) deeceevoice 02:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It was a taxing two weeks. Everyday, I'd go to he animal shelter to see if he'd been picked up. I still wander where he was... El_C 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No telling, LC, where outdoor kitties go. You know how when they sleep, they do the REM thing, and their muscles and paws twitch? I'm thinking fight-flight-hunting dreams. I used to watch my sleeping kitties (both street rescues) and wonder what they were dreaming about. Wonder if Kitty (still?) has nightmares about being alone, hungry and scared. :/ Too bad. But he has you to wake up to. I love a happy ending. :) deeceevoice 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I wish I could have attached a tiny video camera, then had someone else edit the best parts! All's well that ends pettings! El_C 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

What? No stomach for the sad, scary parts? LC, you're such a weenie! ;) deeceevoice 05:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You and I know there's a big issue of systemic bias on wikipedia. There's a lot of people who'd prefer to whitewash the whole thing. To paraphrase Malcolm X. I will forget every negative thing you have said about me and I ask that you will forget every negative thing I have said about you. There's too much work to be done here to spend time arguing with people, especially your allies. If I've learned one thing in my short life it's that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. We don't accomplish anything by taking potshots at people. Especially not those on the opposing side who would prefer their happy one-size-fits-all version of human history and culture. The reality of the situation is that it's not happy. And people do need a good kick in the pants from time to time. But we all have to make the effort to be civil when dealing with these situations. All accusing them of bias does is make them angry and defensive. You know better than I do what the result of that is. You're not the only person I've addressed this with. And yes I have addressed it with myself. I'm not a flowers and friendliness person myself. But I do believe in doing what is necessary to get the job done. And I think you do too. CJ 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

There has never been a time when I did not work with you. In fact, when you were having your little hissy fit a while back, I maintained my equilibrium and didn't return the b*tchiness. Same thing with the Malcolm guy. He visited my page with nastiness and never once did I return it in kind. I don't know if you've been around here long enough to be familiar with a user named Zaphnathpaaneah. He's gone now. This [5] might be instructive in terms of how I prefer to deal with disputes between us. I don't believe in black bloodletting for whites' amusement -- and we definitely are in enemy territory. When you asked me to intervene on the African diaspora tag, I obliged. So it should be more than abundantly clear that I understand full well the need to work with one's allies. Now, when it comes to our enemies? I have my way of dealing with them and you have yours. (What? You never heard of good cop, bad cop?) You guys wanna be all touchy feely, fine. That ain't me. You wanted/needed me to weigh in, and I did. Now, if you want someone to say what you would say, then get a sockpuppet. (That's not my style, either.) But don't ask me to drop some beats at the house party and then complain because you don't like my music.

As far as knowing how to get things done, I have some advice for you. Trying to justify the African diaspora stub as one based on the generally discredited notion of "race" is precisely the kind of thing on Wikipedia that will get your efforts slam-dunked into the dustbin by the politically correct/well-meaning -- or by those who want a kumbaya-sounding reason to accomplish an ulterior racist motive. Think/write in terms of "ethnicity" and you're home free. deeceevoice 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Glad to see you are back active. I've been drifting back in myself, though not making it the full-time job it was for me a while back. - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, darlin'. :) Your greeting took me by surprise. Did I go away? Am I back? I almost never sit down at my computer with the intention of editing on Wikipedia. I use the site as "recess" when crunching deadlines. It's my way of (believe it or not) releasing stress, goldbricking -- a form of resistance/protest, I suppose, against my crappy, slavedriving boss (me; I suck). And I've had a seemingly never-ending string of projects lately, so I guess I've also been taking more Wiki breaks (as in "lunch breaks" -- I suppose even my syntax is contrarian when it comes to this damned place ;p).

Anyway, good to hear from you. I hope you are warm and happy and well. I visited your page briefly and saw you in your purple "pimp hat" with the leopard band. I don't know a single black person who'd be caught dead in that. lol (Huggy Bear lives.) Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh yeah? He doesn't look dead, but I guess he got some money for modeling it. lol ~ Jeeny ^(talk) 11:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That guy is so lame, he can't even look cool in that hat. Where the hell did they get that Urkle-esque geek from? Bleh. deeceevoice 19:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm also glad to learn you're doing well, Joe! All the best from moi and Kitty! El_C 11:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Aw, cute kitty! ~ Jeeny ^(talk) 11:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

My hands are all messed up because I caught a stray kitten today and I'm trying to tame it to be my pet. So I'm not in to doing too much typing.

Looking at where the cool article is right now I still think it gets events out of order and fails to distinguish between "cool" as Shakespeare used it (to mean absence of emotion, lack of love) -- and cool as Miles used it-- indicating detachment, but at the same time a kind of openness and moral high-ground obtained from that detachment. It's a way of dealing with your enemies with love rather than hate-- a deep faith in some kind of cosmic order behind the madness of the moment. An inner sense of certainty and confidence that requires no bragging. That's how I understand it after reading the sources.

I don't really care what came first, I just want it to be clear that "cool" as we know it today would not be the same without the contributions of African cultures filtered through the experience of the diaspora. But um, I think I'm preaching to the choir here.

I think some of the editors who have rushed to fabricate a non-african history of cool think that what the article is saying is that nobody but black people are "cool" in the californian superlative sense. And I guess they find it insulting. And I think there may be a few who can't handle the idea of "African contributions" to *anything* --though I'm going to assume good faith and hope it is the former.

So, what needs to be done is relentless pruning if ANY source that isn't talking about the question "what is cool" ---just mentioning that something seemed cool isn't enough for inclusion. We need to stick to sources that deal with the idea of cool in the abstract.

We also need to clarify what the word has meant in each context. They aren't all the same!

Golly, I typed a lot.

I'd post this at the talk page but, I don't feel like having a little debate. I just really ant the article to be accurate and not a confusing mess like it is now. futurebird 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh and I should add cool as it's known to members of the African diaspora would also not be the same if not for the European notions of cool, yes and the Asian notions too. etc. The important concept is that the west African idea was really different from what was coming out of other parts of the world, and it has had a huge influce on what we see im pop culture today. futurebird 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You probably know that I wrote some text that clearly differentiated African cool from that of any other culture, properly sourced, etc., but it repeatedly was edit-warred out of the piece in a disingenuous effort to by other editors to homogenize the concept. I've already made a mental note to go back and retrieve it. My approach to articles is somewhat scattershot. I use Wikipedia as break time. I haven't gone back and read the piece in its entirety, but I know it's got to be a mess just judging from where I left it months ago and what little I did read recently. I began this article a long time ago, and it got hijacked by people trying to appropriate/lay claim to African/AA cool, and the only way they could do that was to attempt to prove there was essentially no difference between the African philosophical and aesthetic construct and European behaviors. In reality, of course, African cool is far more sophisticated/complicated, spiritual and elemental. To a great extent, we're in agreement. deeceevoice 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

About your hands -- I'm sorry! :( But you did a good thing. There are few things more pitiful than a sad, scrawny, hungry, homeless kitty (and her kittens) shivering in the cold. deeceevoice 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you take a peek at the talk page? The problem at the article is the really negative, and condescending way some editors want to portray Afrocentrism. I can't imagine another philosophical and cultural movement like say... romanticism being written about with such contempt. I'm forward a "mild" compromise and I want to know what you think of it, and if you can suggest any sources. Read the comments in the 2nd to last section of the talk page. futurebird 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

For better or worse, you seem to be following my footsteps around the site. I was an earlier contributor to this article, and there was a credible, fair version which stood for some time -- but clearly not long enough. I've been aware of the recent editing activity because the article is on my watch list, but I haven't had the patience to revisit it. Wikipedia is a lost cause. You might want to look through the edit history for my name and see if those edits/versions yield anything worthwhile. If not, then please feel free to visit here again, and I'll see what I can do.

The problem is, fb, whatever you/any of us write(s) of merit can and will be changed obliterated by someone with a racist, POV axe to grind. The only article I've worked on that has stood for any length of time is "Blackface" -- and that's only the case because one or two white editors/admins have taken it upon themselves to police/defend it. deeceevoice 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I found a nice set of quotes in one of the old versions that should shut up the people on the talk page who are saying there never was "eurocentric history" -- my god... futurebird 18:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I was describing the idea of talking about colonialism from an African perspective and I get "that's scholarship not Afrocentrism!" --yeah, maybe it's scholarship today but Tonbee'd have a fit if he was still alive. futurebird 6 November 2007

That's so pathetic/tragic. Like Afrocentrism isn't about serious scholarship. That remark is so clearly indicative of the mind-set here. These people are so racist, ignorant and/or biased they automatically Afrocentrism is fiction; they use the term as though it is inherently pejorative. That's the kind of crap I deal with all the time. deeceevoice 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I produced those and fought repeatedly and successfully (for a time, at least) to make sure they remained. White, racist historical revisionism is a important element w/regard to the need for Afrocentrist scholarship. They can't erase their history of racism and ignorance -- much as they'd like to. What? Like we made it all up? WTF? These naive, ignorant white kids who came along after MLK? What do they know if scientific racism and Jim Crow? deeceevoice 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You might also want to dig up that photo of the Giza sphinx that was in the previous article -- the one in profile -- that shows its pronounced prognathism. ;) deeceevoice 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll leave that to Muntuwandi. :P futurebird 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I can't find a good source for Egyptian cornrows. But, here is one for braids: http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/22/2/377 See the "The Braided Lady" about half way down.

By the way. braids needs some work. In fact it redirects to "braid" and is mostly about... get this... coaxial cables... OMG!

futurebird 11:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I just went back and double-checked the edits. Actually, I haven't seen any Egyptian artifacts with cornrows, either, and they may actually postdate dynastic Egpypt. I must have been reacting to the blatant ignorance of the edit note rather than the actual edit. (I think I actually made a corrective edit to similar text way, way back to the article once upon a time. My bad!) Frankly, I don't know if Egyptians wore cornrows. I would tend to think not. Just "singles", dreads and huge afros. But, God. Such abject ignorance! I'm so sick of dealing with the same miseducated (expletive withheld)-s time and again. That's the problem with editing on Wikipedia. It's like ducks in a shooting gallery or a Whack 'Em game. One down, another one pops up. There's really no way reliably to preserve accurate editorial content that flies in the face of common ignorance (and racism) -- and there's so much of that among the Wiki crowd. deeceevoice 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't respond to anything dbm says unless there is a point relevant to the content of the article. He's on my "ignore list" as of now becuse the last thing he posted is nothing but desperate nonsense. I really want him to just get bored, stop trolling the talk page and go away so people can get back to making the article better. Please help me kill this argument. This isn't the first time I've had trouble with this admin. He was rude to me some time ago-- and if this happens again, we should do an RFC. futurebird 19:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry to butt in, but FB's right, plus if we keep the strictest civil tone possible and he keeps on with his verbal abuse, that would make a very neat, clean case directly for WP:ANI. Just my tuppence. Happy editing!-- Ramdrake 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been asked to look at the Afrocentrism article as an uninvolved admin, and noticed that you have reverted 3 times today. Please don't revert again, as that is considered a violation of 3RR and may lead to a block. Please stay civil on the talk page, and come to me with any concerns, as I'm going to keep an eye on the article for awhile. I've considered it and am going to fully protect the article for a day or two so that you all can cool your heels. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

And where precisely did I edit war? Point it out. I reverted the blatant edit warring of DBachmann (he made no attempt at justification of his edits whatsoever) once and reverted the deletion of photographs by WDM, who incorrectly called them POV -- when they clearly were nothing of the sort. All other changes were substantive. So, where's the edit warring? Where's the potential violation of the 3RR? deeceevoice 15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see my comments on the talk page. Regards, Neranei (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

We don't have enough, and I hate to do these things and have them fail. It's too much drama. What we should do is start a list with diffs of every instance of problematic behavior. I've made one here. The important thing to to make record showing the lack of civility, POV edits etc, and at the same time be able to show that you have always asked for him to stop nicely and never received respect for that request, or a fair response. I don't think this will be hard, he seems to be having an emotional meltdown across several articles at the moment. That all said, I'd rather just avoid this all together and get back to improving the article. I really have nothing to prove to this guy or anyone else. But, unfortunately, I don't think this will be the last time, so add what you think needs to be added to the list. Sound fair? futurebird 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I want to get the afrocentrism article unprotected but this can only happen if it is agreed that no edit warring will occur on it. Would you agree to a 1 revert rule on the article? 1 revert of the same material per week. This means that if material is added and then reverted only once, no other editor can re-add it for a week. Would you agree to these stipulations? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't get why you're asking me and no one else (other than dBachmann), because I haven't edit-warred at all on the article. All of my edits were substantive and justified in the edit notes. And when there seemed a legitimate concern/problem, I made efforts to change the text to make it more accurate. Clearly, Bachmann was edit warring, but why are you contacting me? deeceevoice 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and asked everyone on the pages talk. Sign under "Will do" if you agree to the stipulations. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You didn't answer my question. deeceevoice 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Because you've edit warred in the past I was going to leave more notes on user talk pages relating to that article but I decided just to leave it on the articles talk for everyone involved to see. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Really? Not buyin' it. deeceevoice 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Everyone needs to agree to it or else it won't work. You and Dbachmann seem to be the only ones not agreeing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

With all due respect -- and I'm being blunt -- I find your answer to my question wholly disingenuous. You started off wrong on this with me from the git-go. I'm not going to tolerate being demonized. Someone pokes me, I punch back. I haven't edit warred on the article. Your concern isn't with me; it's with Bachmann, who clearly did so -- and, according to your note to him on his talk page, elsewhere as well. Further discussion about this can occur on the article talk page. deeceevoice 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh wait, he was the one who started that complaint about your user page, I almost forget... I mentioned it at his review. Yeah, that sucked. Well, I don't blame you for not trusting him, but in the end I try to forgive and forget and move on. But, I'm not easily angered and I may be too passive as a person in general. I have seen people come around, though. Sometimes giving them a chance is a way to make it happen. Ah, well. futurebird 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't even know that. Yep. Just one more reason. You bend over backwards to get along. And you're likely a lot more mainstream in your views than I am -- that buisness about dynastic Egypt being a "multicultural society" rather than fundamentally and in predominant part a black civiliation. That's just utter white hogwash. So, I think we can agree, sis, to let u be u, and me b me.

With regard to WDM's "proposal," I'm not agreein' to squat. I didn't start the sh*t, and I'm not going to curtail my editorial rights because of someone else who's just got the a** with me simply because I don't buy white folks' lies about who our people are and our history. The guy's got a problem with me -- but that's his problem, not mine (along with, obviously, some personal issues as well; people as hateful and nasty as he is generally lead very sad, empty lives). And I'll be gott-damned if I spend any more time talking about "compromise" with a guy who's part of the problem, who started with the b.s. edits in the first place (removing photos without any real justification), who has a history of edit warring on black subject matter, and who doesn't have the guts or the inclination to enage similarly the person who's at the root of the problem: dBachmann. deeceevoice 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see here. If you reject the efforts of good-faith editors to compromise and reduce edit-warring, I have little choice, and seeing as virtually all your edits involve pushing the same POV, I have little sympathy either. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Where are the instances of my POV pushing at Afrocentrism? You've made a charge. Substantiate it. Point them out. I don't want your sympathy. I expect you to act as a responsible admin. deeceevoice 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

This is not right. There are many POVs here. Some voice them stronger. To censor one is to let the other remain, making a more narrow POV. Moreschi, from your own user page "All it would take is for more to understand that truth is a woman, and she will not let herself be assailed with the cold bludgeons of policy." This is censorship at its worst. ~ Jeeny ^(talk) 20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

This has nothing to do with POV pushing. I clearly was not. Check my recent edits at the article and my comments on the article talk page. This is an utterly baseless charge. I've got deadlines, and I'm too busy to concern myself with this at the moment. I have more important things to deal with. deeceevoice 20:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've gone through your edits and can quite clearly detect a recognizable POV pattern behind them all (not just to Afrocentrism). Seeing as you won't accept the 1RR everyone else has signed up to, there's no point letting you filibuster on the talk and waste time on the article any more. I'm not really in the mood for arguing this, so if you don't like it, try ANI. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You're making excuses for a completely wrong-headed and precipitous act that is completely without justification. It's a simple request. You've charged me with POV pushing at Afrocentrism and imposed a rather drastic penalty. It's perfectly reasonable to expect you to provide the diffs that caused you to come to such a decision. This has nothing to do with your "mood." I couldn't care less about your mood. I find your comments here unresponsive, high-handed, arrogant and totally off the wall. What is at issue here is your responsibility as an admin to justify your actions. Do it. deeceevoice 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Moreschi, if you will review the Afrocentrism page's history carefully, you should come to the conclusion that it was DBachmann who acted against editorial consensus, as he did the first reverts, who got reverted by no less than three different editors, and he himself reverted the article four times in a matter of a few hours, let alone 24 hours. Plus, while I won't excuse DCV's argumentative edits on the talk page, they are made at least understandable by an extremely similar (if not worse) attitude by DBachmann. Moreover, the last block DCV received was over a year ago, and the ArbCom case you're raising is nearly two years old. I say this ban is wrong, and I will personnally take it up to AN/I if you pursue it. Please also note that I am remaining civil and refraining from any personal attack, so you would be ill-advised to block me for interjecting politely and registering my disagreement.-- Ramdrake 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, for the record, Moreschi, DBachmann has also refused to sign up to the 1RR condition, so this doesn't look fair-handed at all.-- Ramdrake 21:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Ramdrake, I'm transferring the exchange from Moreschi's talk page. I don't even think he (she?) is reading any of your comments. deeceevoice 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No. I've got so many wikidramas boiling around my head I don't have time to deal with your tedious wikilawyering. Your incivility and tendentious talkpage time-wasting are quite clear for all to see, as are your attempts to insert as much of your own opinion as you can get away with. You don't like it, try ANI. I'll provide diffs there if I absolutely have to. Right now, I'm trying to write articles in between wikidramas, which is enough of a chore as it is without you wasting your time, and mine, on this page. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That doesn't cut it, Moreschi. You've made a charge and acted on it. Where are the diffs? deeceevoice 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Deeceevoice, I'm preparing an RfC for DBachmann, do you want access? If FB reads this, you're invited too.-- Ramdrake 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, cool. I raised the issue of an action against Bachmann earlier. I don't know how much time I'll have to devote to it, though. I've got to get up to NYC within the next few days -- and them I'm out to the Midwest for Thanksgiving. And I've got crazy deadlines in between. Filmmakers/producers are lunatics, and everything they need they need ASAP. But I'll be back on the 24th or 25th. Also, I see Moreschi is up for the Arb Comm. We need to deal with that, too. deeceevoice 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic."

— Dresden James

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

— Benjamin Franklin

~ Jeeny ^(talk) 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, forgot it. Posted on ANI myself. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, for the record, Moreschi, DBachmann has also refused to sign up to the 1RR condition, so this doesn't look fair-handed at all.--Ramdrake

I agree. This seems really unfair. futurebird 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Note: This request is incomplete. I'm under deadlines at the moment. Please refrain from taking action until it is complete, at which time I will remove this note. Thanks. deeceevoice ( talk) 07:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see discussion below and the RfC on dBachmann. There has been absolutely no substantiation of the charges of POV pushing at Afrocentrism. In fact, the involved editors have vouched for the fact that my editorial changes were in keeping with the general consensus on the talk page. This whole thing began as the result of, in fact, disruptive "revert warring" (by his own admission) of User: DBachmann, who swooped in, reverted text (even a simple correction in punctuation) wholesale and then charged me with POV pushing and "trolling." The admin who took this action still has provided no credible evidence to substantiate such charges -- or to justify this ban. deeceevoice ( talk) 07:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Please check your e-mail when you have a minute. Regards,-- Ramdrake 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Per your arbcom ruling you "may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause". This has been discussed at WP:ANI [6] where support from more than the three required admins has been obtained. Your recent behaviour that gained you the ban from "Afrocentrism" was also uncivil, and shows that once again you have not learnt from your previous blocks or the arbitration ruling. Viridae ^Talk 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

NOTE: This unblock request is incomplete. I will add information in a bit, with diffs, but I'm under the gun with deadlines at the moment. Kindly do not take any action in this regard until I'm done, or unless you contact me first. Thanks. deeceevoice ( talk) 07:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Absolutely no credible evidence has been given of "POV pushing," as was charged in the complaint that precipitated this and that was lodged at ANI. Furthermore, my responses/comments were not personal attacks. They were direct challenges to an administrator, whose actions by virtually all accounts of other participating editors were disruptive and, in fact, POV pushing. There is currently an active RfC involving him directly related to this matter, one just having been archived involving him in another, separate matter. Furthermore, the admin originally involved is the one who has extreme civility issues, lodging personal attacks, making snide remarks (to all of the involved editors) and ad hominem attacks, rather than confronting his own administrative malfeasance, intemperate behavior and -- in his own words "necessary" revert warring. Yet, no action thus far has been taken against him, though his behavior in this and other matters has been several orders of magnitude worse than anything I have written. With regard to my remarks directed to the admin who banned me from editing at Afrocentrism, I have simply demanded that she do her job as an admin -- provide some justification for her precipitous decision to ban me from editing at Afrocentrism. So far, nothing -- just "take it to the ANI." The admin simply stated she was "not in the mood" to address my requests that she provide diffs to back up her empty and wholly baseless charges of POV pushing. The diffs provided at the ANI of my purported POV pushing have been successfully debunked in the discussion and are utterly groundless. deeceevoice ( talk) 07:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I unblocked you because I thought that the "evidence" supporting the block actually showed you were trying to comply with the conditions of your ArbCom probation by treating others (most others) with good faith. If someone else blocks you though I won't be able to help. I believe that there is a double-standard at Wikipedia and you have suffered in part because of it. Since I unblocked you I beg you to indulge me and allow me to offer you some well-intentioned advice before I disappear again. Please put aside questions of whether you are treated fairly or not, and focus instead on how you can most be effective. You will be effective if you make edits that are not reverted; you will be ineffective if you are again blocked or banned. Therefore, you need to bend over backwards to ensure that all your edits comply fully with our core policies (NPOV, V, NOR) and, when you know an edit of yours may be controversial, seek to build consensus for it or at least a clear majority of support for it before editing the article. Treat everyone with good faith, whether you think they deserve it or not - ask only in return (but ask politely and firmly) that they too comply fully with NPOV, V, and NOR. Resist any urge to be rude or sarcastic, hard though this may be given how many other editors practically beg to be dealt with sarcastically or rudely - just resist the urge. My only intention in offering this advice is my wish to see you continue to participate in Wikipedia as an effective editor of articles. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I appreciate that, but I just tested this, and it appears I'm still blocked from editing at Afrocentrism and elsewhere. I also appreciate the spirit in which your advice has been offered. But I'll say this. My edits in Afrocentrism were't even remotely POV. That's the hysterical part of all of this. And where they may have been questioned (as in the caption under the photo of the Papuans), I simply based the caption on text someone else had written and which had been in effect for God knows how long. WDM called it POV, but left the substantiating text in the body of the article in place, so I reverted his edit because it was quite clear -- if he didn't disagree with the text in the article -- his justification was incorrect, as I pointed out on the talk page. (He doesn't seem to know the difference between something that's POV and something that requires citation.) And because the text had been in place for, presumably, quite some time (and because it is accurate and verifiable), I assumed it was uncontested. So, the caption -- which I based on the information provided in the text -- was likewise not a subject of contention. Note that WDM also deleted another photo, of Alek Wek, and the text again very clearly supported the caption and the photo, and the text, unlike with the previous example, was adequately sourced. So, WDM's labeling of that as POV was also incorrect. It looked to me as though WDM was simply deleting photos he didn't like for whatever reason and offering strawman objections (an understandable assumption, given his antics at AAVE in the past), so I reverted his changes and gave justification with my edit notes. If WDM had slapped a fact tag on either caption, I would have taken the time to provide appropriate citations -- or someone else likely would have. But he didn't, so I didn't.

You will also note that I did not object to WDM's revision of the caption for the Wek photo. [7] deeceevoice ( talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC) reply

And I, of course, removed the fact tag that dBachmann slapped on the article after my rollback of his block revert of my edits without any attempt at meaingful justification was upheld by another editor. Bachmann acted unilaterally when he did so, when editing on the article was going well, with at least one outside editor dropping by to compliment participating editors on the work done to improve the article -- for which I can take no credit, because I'd only just happened by it recently and hadn't done much in the way of substantive editing on the article for quite some time, attending only to things that snagged my eye. I thought Bachmann's drive-by disruption disrespectful to those who'd been working hard on the piece, because, again, he did so without discussion, without notice -- and so I removed it, with a note explaining why. And he then reinserted it -- again, unilaterally.

Did I have any clue the perfectly reasonable edits referred to in the ANI would lead to all this crap? Not in the least.

One good thing about all this, though, is that dBachmann is finally being called to account for his incivility, revert warring and other disruptive behavior. And that, my friend, would have been well worth a year from this hell hole. ;p

I don't know about your releasing the block(s?). I still can't edit. But thanks for the sentiment. deeceevoice ( talk) 16:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Your autoblock has been removed, however, the discussion is still underway on the administrators' noticeboard. You are kindly requested to leave concise comments there. It is also expected that you do not make any article-space edits before the issue is resolved. I would personally recommend that you review the whole thread before editing the section. Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh. So, now all of a sudden the gagged party is allowed to speak at the ANI in her own defense? lol This is funny.

Thanks -- really. But I just don't have time. I've got some terrible deadlines, a daytrip to NYC tomorrow, and I'm leaving town for the Thanksgiving holiday. And I just don't have the patience right now for dealing with the, frankly, b.s. charges of racism, POV pushing, etc., at the ANI. I suggest things be put on hold in this matter until after the holiday. I may have a little more patience -- and time -- then. But editors are free, of course, to reproduce my comments here about the ban from editing at Afrocentrism and what's-his-face's year-long block to the ANI page, if it suits their purposes. Just tawk amongst yasselves. ;p I'll check back in later, but I really can't -- and won't -- deal with the ANI at the moment. deeceevoice ( talk) 18:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

One more thing. Since I've been asked not to edit/post anywhere else, I won't visit your talk pages individually. But -- in the spirit of Thanksgiving (no, I don't mean racism, genocide and land appropriation on a massive scale at gunpoint ;p) -- thanks to all those who've spoken up in my defense in the face of these ridiculously trumped-up charges. Happy Turkey. Peace. :D deeceevoice ( talk) 18:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sigh. So much for my NY trip. Deadlines postponed it from Saturday to Sunday, and now it's postponed to sometime in December. Still, I'm dealing with trying to clear my desk to get the hell outta here for Thanksgiving. So, I've taken my wiki breaks (not meant the way it commonly is meant, but in the way "lunch break" is used) dealing with the, IMO, far more important RfC against dBachmann. I may get around to it before I leave, but I rather doubt that I'll be able to address ANI before the week after the holiday. deeceevoice ( talk) 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Deeceevoice, I had some dispute with Dab in the article Race of ancient Egyptians. But maybe it is not enough to put my signature where I put it. So I am just going to remove it and sign in another place. Thanks!-- Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka ( talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Do whatever you feel is best. I simply wanted to make sure you understood that the space where you signed was for people involved in that particular dispute -- not the one at Race of ancient Egyptians -- and that if you wished to weigh in -- whatever your opinion of the matter -- you should do so in the appropriate place. Peace. deeceevoice ( talk) 23:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, Deeceevoice, the RfC was meant to apply to both incidents, as some of the links provided lead to the Race of Ancient Egyptians article history. Not that it matters really, mind you.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Yes, I see now. (Deadlines have me a little crazy/weary, and I'm not very attentive to detail at the moment.) I'll post a note at Nkuka Luka's talk page -- if you haven't already done so. Peace. :) deeceevoice ( talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd appreciate if you did (going under some deadlines myself), and totally understand the confusion. Think nothing of it.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Deeceevoice, there is no problem at all. Even from where I stand, I still feel involved in the Dab case! We met in French Wikipedia where you made a quick visit. The article "Origines des anciens Egyptiens" has been suppressed on demand of some racist users who refuse to accept the reality of Black Egypt. As they lack arguments, they used their force, because most of them are adim! Egypt is a test in the relationship between peoples. There will no peace in the world as long as there will be vandals thinking that all that is valuable in the world sprang from the White race or that the Black race did nothing even in his homeland Africa. Amasing! Now I am often blocked for months, so I can't edit sensitive articles like Kemet. Some racist users think that they have the full right to belittle Afrocentric contributions. They semm to ignore that they are only promoting Eurocentric Egyptology. Everything linked to ancient Egypt is highly politicised in order to submit Black people. But they will not have all of us! Eurocentrism is doomed to failure. It is a question of time. Poeple are studing more and more. Even some Whites began to understand that enough is enough. Truth is better even if facts are bitter. Take care! Hotep!-- Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka ( talk) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'm so glad to see you here. :D

I'm sorry about never responding to the lengthy French post, but I asked a friend of mine from Mali to translate it for me, and he never did! :(

When you say you were banned, presumably it was at the French edition?

Yes, I know what you mean. I just did some work with a film team filming something in a New York City public school, and I was struck by the young men with closely cropped hair -- how much their heads were identical in shape in every way to that of Tut. Every once in a while I think that, perhaps, 30, 40, 50 years hence the truth about dynastic Egypt finally will be acknowledged, and many of the editors here, having grown old and gray, will have to eat crow/concede that we were correct and marvel at how we knew. (I myself have known the truth since the late '50s.) And I read the words of Zahi Hawass, and I laugh at the lies and how he can speak about Tut's "wonderful buckteeth" and talk about his beautiful face. He has to know Tut was a gracile, Nilotic blackman. Yet he persists in his posturing before the public.

Just amazing. But time and knowlege are continuums, and the space in time that we inhabit is a mere blink of an eyelid. The truth will out, my friend. All things in time. ;) Peace back. deeceevoice ( talk) 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I have been contributing in Wikipedia Fr Discuter:Kemet, Commentaire inédit and I have been blocked Discussion Utilisateur:Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka. Another contributor called Ogotemmêli has been asked to not edit certain african related articles. Finaly Bèrènèbugu, a French man who understood how ancient Egyptians are Black has been banned frm Wikipedia. They accuse us of insulting other users. But the truth is that they don't want to hear about Black Egypt. The reason why they suppressed the article dealing with "Origines des anciens Egyptiens" Modification de Origine des anciens Égyptiens. I studied hieroglyphs for three years. So I know what I mean when I say that Egyptology is a racist field. It works angaist the African cultural location of ancient Egypt which was obvious to Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology. Time will tell. But we have to be careful with egyptological publications. They are politically motivated. Science is about truth, but Egyptology is about the death of the Black heritage. If this is called truth, we are surelly in danger. We need to protect the Black nation from this racist scholarship called Egyptology. French wikipedia is on the wrong side, at least for the moment.-- Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka ( talk) 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you take a look at this and give me some feedback? Thanks! futurebird ( talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Check this out. [8]

What does that mean? I think I'm entitled to an explanation. Everybody all up in arms over nothing. I'm banned from editing an article. I get no substantive explanation that makes any sense. I'm then banned for a year. Ditto. (They got nuthin'.) And then the thread just dies? And no one's called to account for this? And I'm not even formally notified of any decision? WTF? Anybody? deeceevoice ( talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Old threads on ANI are archived. New thread is at AN here. If you want a permanent decision and a long discussion, a location without archive bots will be best. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Carcharoth has summarized my reasons far better than I could. Cheers, east.718 at 23:41, November 26, 2007

It's a lot less work to let people just dig their own. IMNSHO. futurebird ( talk) 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what your cryptic note is referring to, but if it's about Bachmann's scandalous posts, you're absolutely right. I mean jus' day-um.

I needed clarification on my status, so I went back to ANI. I don't know if you noticed, but the page had been shut down with no further activity. As it was, I was in limbo with only a temporary unblock -- and even then, not allowed to edit article main spaces. I've served notice at ANI that I am assuming the full unblock stands, since the discussion has been inconclusive and the matter has been archived. I'm assuming the matter is closed. If they want to try to make the blocks stick, forcing me to push the case further -- and I'm convinced they would lose -- then they're, of course, free to do so. They got nuthin'. ;) deeceevoice ( talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

My comment was just about all of these things, I don't understand what happened either. futurebird ( talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been following this too, and my guess is, somebody (maybe plural) realized they didn't really have a leg to stand on, so they quietly let it drop. FWIW, I think DCV chose the best course of action (assuming the complete unblock stands). And BTW, did anybody catch that Fouler&Fouler (sorry, Fowler&Fowler) seems to discreetly allude that those opposing Dab are are idiots and shouldn't be writing in Dab's RfC?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You thought it was "discreet"? Lol. I thought it pretty offensive. More of the Bachmann, "You guys are third-world idiots, so I don't Bachmann shouldn't have to respect you or the unique cultural experiences that have shaped your perspectives. Only mine his/ours are valid/important." Jeeze. Anybody smell something really stank? lol I wrote on the discussion page that his comments are essentially worthless because they don't address the matter at hand or the specific complaints in the RfC. They carry absolutely no weight as far as I'm concerned. If anything, I've dismissed them with prejudice. (Nice going, Fowler&fowler.) Yep, Ramdrake. Just crazy.

And, yeah. I'm thinking they just decided to disappear. I don't s'pose I should hold my breath for an apology, huh? ;p deeceevoice ( talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Right now, the only thing I smell are several litterboxes that urgently need cleaning, but I'm guessing you had in mind something with a similar smell, just a different animal. :) --And no, I wouldn't hold my breath. Your continued health is too important to waste waiting for an apology here. Ramdrake ( talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No. I may be a "POV pushing troll," ;p but I'm not delusional. You have kitties? (excitedly) I want one! (pouting) :) deeceevoice ( talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Understood. I can at times be said to be in the same boat as Dbachmann is, with people criticizing me for what are to me and others justifiable actions, so I have a knee-jerk tendency to take that side. The case in question by the way is User:Bus stop, currently once again on the WP:AN/I page. I do acknowledge my own occasional violations of civility in that case, although just about everyone agreed that it could be understood, under the circumstances, particularly for a relative noob like me. Regarding the 3 admin rule, though, I think it might help if you made it clear that what you are seeking is a review of the case by those individuals, and potentially others, and that you would abide by whatever their decision on the matter after they undertake that review is. You probably couldn't mount a successful effort to get the mainspace block lifted if they hold to that opinion anyway, but making the statement at least sounds good and might give a slighly better impression, and might help to influence one or more of them to change their minds, or other admins to "lean" on them to do so. And, by the way, however often you have been in this situation, trying to be polite probably is not ever a waste of time. Try to remember to AGF, OK? John Carter ( talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The blocks have been lifted, and I'm going to take the route suggested by another. Thanks, though, for taking the time. There's no way either of the blocks would stand up to further scrutiny. In fact, the discussion on the matter so far has pretty much exposed them for what they are: utterly groundless. Peace. deeceevoice ( talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Funny, though, Carter. I just read the AGF part of your post. You might try doing the same. You automatically assumed my post at the ANI was deliberately intemperate, warning about civility, when it was nothing of the sort. Just a thought. ;) deeceevoice ( talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Civility, as I have found out elsewhere, particularly when dealing with Bus stop, is measured at least as much by the actual words used, and the meanings that they can be given, as it is by the thoughts behind them. Again, I have been repeatedly accused of being markedly incivil when I thought all I was doing was making statements less than completely clearly, which necessitated my clarifying those statements later. You'll even see me obliquely refer to that on my user page. I've learned no one can know what you mean, just what you say, and that on that basis it's much better to be as clear and exact as humanly possible. And, like I said, I've had people jump to those conclusions regarding several of my own inexact statements, so, unfortunately, thought such statements were, as it were, "par for the course." You tend to think it's acceptable to criticize others for the same sort of conduct you often get criticized for yourself. And, by the way, I prefer John. John Carter ( talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes -- and I'm assuming the "you" is interchangeable with "one -- John. :) Written communication is fairly limited when expressing tone or nuances. It just is what it is -- imperfect. deeceevoice ( talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

i hope this helps. I will be off-line for a few days and if you need more help you need to go to another admin. A couple of weeks ago i left some comments on the Afrocentrism talk page. if you can find them, I hope you find them constructive. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Again. :) deeceevoice ( talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I left some dopey remarks in response to your comments on my talk page; sorry it took so long to reply! Lame jokes aside, I'm tickled that someone is reading my sub-pages. Thanks for noticing. -- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Grill work? lol (shaking head) Check your page. You need help. deeceevoice ( talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It sounds like some of the stuff is on some kind of IRC channel? What on earth is going on? Email me, and if you think it makes sense send her my email too: me at futurebird dot com'. I'm worried about her. Judging by how ugly things get around here I can't imagine what some of these people are like off the record. I hope she's OK. I'm not posting on her talk page because I don't want to make anything worse for her by accident... somehow. futurebird ( talk) 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

For those of you concerned about the future of the project, who followed the recent, rather unsavory ANI antics of User: Moreschi and company, you might be alarmed to find out that Moreschi is up for the Arb Comm elections in December. FYI, Moreschi is the admin who jumped to support the bogus charges lodged against me by User: Dbachmann, who has a very lively RfC currently in process against him for (among other things) perceived racism and antagonism toward non-Western (read: "non-white") persons/perspectives in a project that purports to be a global one, [9] and who subsequently banned me from editing Afrocentrism for "POV pushing" and "trolling", when there was absolutely no evidence of it whatsoever. When pressed to justify his (her?) action, he repeatedly refused to do so, stating he was "not in the mood." [10]

"Tell it to the hand." Nice, huh?

If you'd like to see just how bad it can get with this admin, I refer you Moreschi's comments here. [11] Moreschi's precipitous act banning me from editing Afrocentrism was completely unsupported by the diffs provided. Several admins and other users called Moreschi on that rather obvious point. Moreschi also supported a year-long ban imposed upon me by another clearly inattentive admin, who piggybacked on Moreschi's seemingly blind support of problematic admin Dbachmann. That year-long ban clearly clearly was unsustainable as well. But did Moreschi back down one iota? Did he offer an apology?

LOL. Yeah, right. In your dreams. The ANI suddenly just went inactive, and I never heard another peep outta my accusers.

And did you notice this gem?

Absolutely. A "diverse point of view" is the last thing we want. We need one [emphasis added] point of view - the neutral one. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 11:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes!

Banned from editing Afrocentrism on trumped-up charges of POV pushing and trolling. Gee, am I the only one who senses an agenda here?

Not only that, it appears that Moreschi has a history of defending and excusing DBachmann's bellicose, antagonistic, disruptive, abusive tactics around the project.

If you have any questions or comments for this potential candidate, here's the relevant link. [12] Ask away. You may get another "tell it to the hand" response, but if so, we'll see how such dismissive tactics serve Moreschi come election time.

User: Moreschi. On the Arb Com? Just thought you'd like to know.

Peace and hair grease, chirren. deeceevoice ( talk) 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the public service announcement. I added a couple of questions of my own.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 11:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

On second thought, I'll take the peace, but leave the hair grease. Not really my style, if you get my drift. :)-- Ramdrake ( talk) 12:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL. Well, if you don't have nappy hair, then you don't need it! Just another way of sayin' "soul," babe. Peace and soul, then. Everybody needs some soul. ;) deeceevoice ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Good stuff & nice work I've been following those news stories and wondering if I'd ever have the time to document them. It's rather odd isn't it? Like some kind of new epidemic? Or is it just an old fad that never really went away and only now the media is willing to pay attention? I don't know. But, good addition in any case. It's great to see "historical" topics gaining contemporary relevance. futurebird ( talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, fb. :) But I have to say this article is very tightly written. There's very little, if any, core information essential to the framing of the piece that isn't already there, and as a consequence, the article has changed very little over the last couple of years or so. The college info isn't new material; it was deleted by another user as "non-notable." I had to wait for the banning business to be resolved before I could restore it with new citations. New additions to this piece generally deal with ancillary or unrelated, but similar, phenomena in other cultures with which I'm unfamiliar. That, of course, doesn't mean the piece can't be improved; of course it can. So, maybe one day I'll take a look at it and be surprised/impressed with some new information or a new angle I/we didn't think of. deeceevoice ( talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant---

Success in Circuit lies

Too bright for our infirm Delight

The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased

With explanation kind

The Truth must dazzle gradually

Or every man be blind---

Emily Dickinson

Emily has a point you know! I don't think they can handle what you're saying. But, maybe if you say it often enough it will finally sink in. futurebird ( talk) 12:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sis. Fat chance. :p It's been -- what -- going on five centuries now. If they ain't ready for the full light of day by now -- hell, they'd better grab some shades and stock up on some @#&*(#&*)+!@$$(*&! sunscreen, "'cuz we pullin' the covers off" as we used to say back in the day. The Third World won't be the Third World forever, and it won't wait much longer for somebody to get a clue. deeceevoice ( talk) 13:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That paragraph needs a second source. (or just make it clear it's all from the first source?) I'm asking you because you know the topic far better than I and because I'm LAZY. I warned Vrkmt(sp?) But he/she has a point, without a source the second part of the paragraph seems to wander a bit, not so much to justify cutting it out, but enough that it needs some attention. futurebird ( talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, fb. I suppose I was busy hunting down citations (something I'd put off for a long time) when you were posting this. I saw the orange "light" on, but ignored it in order to complete the task and post to the article talk space -- because I'd promised to do so in my edit note that accompanied the reinsertion of the deleted text. You may recall Verklempt from his edits at Jazz (and, I think, possibly Blues as well), so his actions at Blackface should be no surprise. At any rate, the paragraph is more than adequately sourced (I'll attend to the Joplin thing later) and is clearly relevant to the matter of the precedent set by blackface of cultural appropriation and exploitation. deeceevoice ( talk) 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I threw on the reasoning for my changes. I'll write back tomorrow. Just let me know what you need and i'll see what I can do. Potatoes come first right now, as you might have read. Ciao Paddy Fitzgerald ( talk) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^{( Talk)} 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You have been added as a party to the case, at the request of an arbitrator. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^{( Talk)} 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Tell me. How does one go about adding a party to the ArbCom proceeding? deeceevoice (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a motion on the page with all the motions... look at the motions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop

You should also weigh in on the various motions already on the table. futurebird ( talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Motion to name User: Moreschi a party in the Dab Arb Com case

FYI, people. I've made the request. The threshold of cause has been more than met for his inclusion in the case. Furthermore, Moreschi's recent failed Arb Com election bid has brought to light other conduct that may merit examination, and this is an opportunity for that to occur. If you have an opinion one way or another, you're invited to weigh in here. [13] deeceevoice ( talk) 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Email me. me@futurebird.com futurebird 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I was just going over it, and it looks like you may have inadvertantly moved your comments to Futurebird's section. I know you're currently grieving and have other (real life) things on your mind, but when you get a moment, can you look into it? Thanks!-- Ramdrake ( talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I was wondering about the same thing. futurebird ( talk) 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I moved it and removed something

I removed this thing I added, you might want to put it back in your own words, We're not supposed to edit each other's areas..

(Note: [14]The remark was changed from the version quoted here shortly after Deecee, posted this. futurebird ( talk))

futurebird ( talk) 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing it. Initially, I posted my remarks in a separate section -- but then I saw a section marked "Responses", and I took it to mean that it was for comments on statements already made. And since the only thing I've done so far is respond to what's-his-face's comments on Bachmann's edits, I moved my remarks there.

Didn't mean to end up editing in a section you had actually started, fb. Oops. :/

And I left in your observation about what's-his-face's edit to address the issue of Afrocentrism being a paradigm and simply noted that it was added with my permission. Thanks. I probably wouldn't have noticed the guy's revision of his statement. deeceevoice ( talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The worst mistake I have ever made on Wikipedia was endorsing your year long block from editing. I was swayed by the mob mentality in the discussion, which is out of character for me. I apologize sincerely for this. Wikipedia needs members like you, who provide a very useful counterpoint to what many see is biased editing and historical revisionism. Please be assured I have learned from my error, and will not make the same mistake again. If you ever need assistance, please feel free to message me. Jeffpw ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I accept your apology without reservation. No hard feelings. Well-meaning mistakes I don't have a problem with; it's the unrepentant, unreasoning, dogged lynch mob who need dealing with. And editors like you need to step up to the plate and call them on their tactics/M.O. This sort of thing is rampant in the project -- and User:Moreschi, who banned me from editing Afrocentrism on no evidence whatsoever, is up for the ArbCom. Just wait. It'll get exponentially worse if people don't stand up. deeceevoice 11:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Wait. You are still banned from the Afrocentrism article? I thought it didn't pass, wth? I'm on probation for behavioral problems, lol. So I've been avoiding some articles. You did nothing to deserve being banned from that article at all. Sheesh, I'll have to look at this later. I can't believe this. <sigh> PS. I hope all is well with you and those you care about. Bless. - Jeeny ^(talk) 13:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, Jeeny. :) (How did I miss your post?) No, I can edit again. Moreschi's ban from Afrocentrism and Viridae's year-long ban of me from the project were so flimsy/groundless, the lynch mob essentially just evaporated; they ran out of steam. Based on Slrubenstein's lifting of both bans, both admin decisions simply were overturned. And thanks for the kind wishes. Same back atcha. ;) deeceevoice ( talk) 15:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Blackface has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The fundamental problem with your essay about the influence of African-American performers on world culture is that it is not about blackface. That is why it was (and should again be) removed from that article. If you disagree, please respond on Talk:Blackface where this was brought up, rather than reverting a good-faith attempt to keep the article on-topic. - JasonAQuest ( talk) 15:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

So you oppose Giano because someone you don't like supports him? This is an interesting perspective, for certain. Mr Which ^??? 20:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Try reading my comments for comprehension rather than what you would like to believe I wrote. deeceevoice ( talk) 22:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

To quote directly:

I note that User: Viridae supports this fellow -- not a plus in my book after being banned from the project for a year by him without any justification whatsoever. (The ban was seen for what it was -- a gross misuse of administrative authority -- & speedily reversed, & Viridae offered no real explanation, no apology.) That & the above comments? Hell, no!

Yeah, it still bases a majority of your vote on the fact that Viridae supported him (about 80% of the commentary deals with you soapboxing on the issue). You wrote what you wrote, and it's certainly an "interesting" way to reach a decision. Mr Which ^??? 00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You have an "interesting" way of interpreting what you read. Nowhere do I state that the "majority" of my vote is based on anything. That's something in your head. Think what you want. I've cast my vote based on the info at hand. Like it or lump it. I really don't care. I think we've both spent more than enough time already on this exchange. deeceevoice ( talk) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

On the other hand, I would have thought Giano would be the candidate of your liking. Even with the "drama-factor", he is a kind of guy who stands up for what is right on Wikipedia and never keeps grudges. But well, to each his own. :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Given your comments regarding the Dbachmann affair, Nick, I'll return to the vote page later when I have more time and read the comments more thoroughly. About your namesake: it doesn't surprise me that someone wanted to take the head of a man named de Mimsy-Porpington. (How on earth could anyone say his name with a straight face?) deeceevoice ( talk) 12:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

My point was that most of your commentary about Giano was soapboxing about your anger at Viridae, which would -- logically -- lead a person to believe that's what you based your vote upon. I really didn't understand your anger at Giano, for the same reason Nick didn't, but I guess he asked you about it more nicely. :) Mr Which ^??? 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No, he addressed me more openly and didn't attribute to me language I did not offer as a rationale for voting against Giano. You should either read more carefully, or write more accurately -- or both. And you're still doing it. "Anger," "soapboxing." Your entire approach is annoying. deeceevoice ( talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, here's the count: 53 of 58 words in your oppose were used to comment about Viridae's block of you. Any logical person would assume that you based a large portion of your vote on something that you spent 91.4% of the words of your oppose writing about played some large factor in your vote. Also your phrasing "That and" leads one to believe that the fact Viridae supported Giano played a role. The problem's not in my reading or writing abilities. You posted what you posted, and it says what it says. It's not unclear at all. Mr Which ^??? 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This exchange long ago became wearisome. You're wrong in so many ways -- wrong in what you've misguidedly called "logic," wrong about any emotionalism on my part -- wrong in your entire mischaracterization of my vote, plain and simple. It's all your misinterpretation, all in your head. You may have meant well initially, but I'm now really bored/sick of this -- and of you. Should you post here again on this matter, I'll simply delete it -- unread. Now, go away, you irksome pest! Go hound the other hundred 205 or so voters who oppose the guy. deeceevoice ( talk) 05:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I remember hearing that somebody had blocked you and was pushing for a ban, but I didn't get around to following it up. Fortunately I see that Slrubenstein (an old hand at Wikipedia who knows your field of editing as well as anybody) did pay attention, reviewed the evidence and unblocked you. Good job, and I'm pleased to see that you're still around. If you ever need help, my email address is public (at the top of my talk page) and you're welcome to ask. -- Tony Sidaway 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Tony. I'll keep that in mind. :) deeceevoice ( talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yep, and he is not the only one keeping an eye on the whatever that surrounds you. Its great to see you still here, me too. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

lol Should I start to feel creeped out? My apologies, SqueakBox, baby, for not stopping by to thank you for your support at the (what was that?) whatever-page-it-was where the lynch mob had gathered to decide my fate. I kept meaning to, but I'm really distracted these days. So, THANKS. :D (Jeezus. This place is just crazy, isn't it?) I hope all is well with you and yours. Love the photo of you and your wife on your page, BTW. Very sweet. ;) deeceevoice ( talk) 22:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

MrWhich. He's been warned that he is harassing you. Jeffpw ( talk) 09:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Jeff. :) I was in the process of going to ANI about this guy. Does he not believe I'm not reading his posts? What is he? Obsessed? (Pretty sad.) deeceevoice ( talk) 09:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

And now he is doing it on my page. <sigh> No good deed goes unpunished. Jeffpw ( talk) 09:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I just deleted another. Time to go to ANI. It seems like perhaps a block is in order here. deeceevoice ( talk) 09:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is a literary character from J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. He was decapitated for unknown reasons, the axe that was used to execute the insidious deed can be still found in Hogwarts' Room of Requirement. No, you can't say it with a straight face, no one can! Yours truly is also the administrator with the longest username on Wikipedia! </smug> — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

lol Yes, well, I suppose you can be smug about having the longest user name in all of Wikipedia-dom (is that a word?), but I'd be curious how you pull that off with a name that sounds like a swine ("Porkington") sporting a feathered hat, ruffled shirt and pearls and squeezed into a pink tutu? And what do you mean, "He was decapitated for unknown reasons"? It was his name!!! (Of course!) ;) Not nice, not just -- but, oh, so understandable. deeceevoice ( talk) 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

He got the "Nearly Headless" part after he became a ghost. He would grab his head and let it dangle by the ruff to surprise the Gryffindor students. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, he's that guy! lol Well, you gotta love a man with a sense of humor. deeceevoice ( talk) 12:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've already entered a case, but I'll add it. Thanks. :) deeceevoice ( talk) 10:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you did it already. Thanks. I think this matter is closed. ;) deeceevoice ( talk) 10:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've made a post over at Talk:African art#Dispora art and a removal, and since you seem among the more active on the talkpage, I thought I'd drop you a notice.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I wanted to support Giano, but I don't know if it matters. If needed, I will verify with anyone that my pure intention was to vote in the "support" section. Giano did say that the elections closed a few seconds earlier, so my vote does not count. Either way, I'm not sure if I have to make my intention clear. I hope my vote doesn't cause any confusion... -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry for my late response. -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please refer to the discusson on the talk of Kwanzaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Doe or Jane Doe ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Deeceevoice! I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Kwanzaa and all the best for you and your loved ones in the new year. - Darwinek ( talk) 11:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Wolf ticket- Revision as of 01:27, 26 October 2007 (edit) Deeceevoice (→See also: Cosby is an African-American. He would have gotten the term right -- "woof" -- not "wolf.")

Do you really think that Cosby would have gotten the term right just because he is African-American? So Mr.Cosby is correct just because he is African-American? That seems very Racist. Mr.Cosby has earned a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Massachusetts. Why didn't you use that as your reasoning instead of the fact that he is African-American? Also if you know anything about Mr.Cosby,beside his skin color you would know that he cannot stand the way black youth act and talk these days. I can see by your Racist edit,and your history, that you like to stir the pot on topics that are Racist.-- 99.177.248.92 ( talk) 00:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply