User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 2

NOI Sniper item
I have deleted the sniper item from the NOI article. I went to NOI's website, and they also seem to have also chosen to let the old, bad press die rather than giving it ongoing debate. I hope other aspects of this article can find a consensus. As you would say, Peace!  Vaoverland 16:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just to touch base. I am watching both the NOI and Black Supremacy articles and their talk pages. Both articles are well outside the areas of Wikipedia where I usualy work. I will probably stay quiet unless things get out of hand and there is a need (or potential benefit) from some mediation from me as a more objective writer (or least someone who is trying to be one). Vaoverland 10:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

More NOI
The conflict between Firebug and RK seems to still be underway. RK left me a request to advise action on my talk page. Any thoughts? Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 17:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I asked another admin who is also not involved in this article to look in on the conflict. The advice is that noth Firebug and RK shoudl atke a Wikibreak from editing the article for at least a week (or month) and see if cooler heads can get the article better. I suspect that advice will please neither of them, but... Any thoughts? Vaoverland 21:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Marsalis quote
"Jazz is the musical expression of the nobility of the race." -- Wynton Marsalis
 * Good lord, if any white person said, "Classical music is the musical expression of the nobility of the [white] race." they'd immediately be branded a racist.


 * But, note, Marsalis does not specify a race (as if such a thing exists within the human species) in his quote!

Selective Neologisms
DeeCeeVoice, you are truly "eagle-eyed" to have come across the "The New anti-Semitism". It will be interesting to see if it raises, as a 'neologism', the same amount of discussion as 'aphrophobia'. Karhu 16:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding your remark on neologisms at Aphrophobia -- the thing is that Wikipedia is not the place to coin a new word or phrase. It happens quite often that somebody conceives a new word or phrase and puts it on WP as if it were widely accepted, possibly in the hopes that it will become widely accepted. That is generally frowned upon, so neologisms are often deleted - via VfD, giving people the chance to prove that it is not a neologism. Which was done in that case. If you feel that new anti-Semitism shouldn't be on WP, feel free to nominate it for deletion and we'll discuss it. HTH! Yours, Radiant_* 20:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Afrophobia has been proven useful. The votes lean to keep now, don't they? Ah, I'll just add mine. Regarding neologisms, I think that established neologisms (e.g. fnord) should be on WP, and new neologisms (e.g. spruklther, which I just made up) should not. That does mean that the word 'neologism' itself is used ambiguously, though. Radiant_* 10:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Uploading images
Saw yoiur comments on the Golliwog Talk page - I have never uploaded images to Wikipedia before, but AFAIK the prefered way is through the Wikimedia Commons. Go here. You'll have to register a name there - Wikpedia names don't transfer automatically. It looks easy enough (though not having tried I can't say for certain). Guettarda 22:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for editing Western New Guinea
I appreciate it. Articles related to West Papua are a priority for me, but I've mostly been editing Western Saharan and Taiwanese articles lately. It's good to know that someone else out there hasn't forgotten the Morning Star! Justin (koavf) 18:36, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Knecht Ruprecht
Please see Talk:Knecht Ruprecht. Also, I thought you might be interested in: Talk:Redneck. Cheers,

Sam Spade 05:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia meet-up
Hey Deecee, I just wanted to make sure you knew about this: Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip. Hope all is well. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know how to find out about these things. I just happened to stumble across this one and wanted you to know about it. I think we're meant to intuit these things like Platonic forms. Bear in mind you could just pop into the restaurant and say hi; no need to do the full meal deal. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

African-American culture
Hey, I thought you might be interested in fixing this page up.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_culture

Right now it is beyond stereotypical. Basically says that black culture is nothing but what the media shows you and what they have learned from rap videos, and that riots, crime, and poverty are POSITIVE cultural aspects if you look at it in the wrong mindset. The kind of page you love to fix up.. I will see what I can do in the meantime, but being mixed, I only know a small bit and you are the guru of black pride here :) Take care friend. --Aika 19:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

(To User:Beland)
 * If you think something is offensive, then there's a good chance it is. Let me pull your coat: so, don't write it.!!!! Click the following link: Talk:African-American culture. You'll find my comments. Please. Do the race a favor and steer clear of such topics in the future. deeceevoice 15:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing out the non-hyphenated version...I must have missed it when I created the hyphenated version. Now we have a redirect, so that won't happen to other folks. I was alarmed that the subject had absolutely no coverage, and I'm relieved to see that it actually has considerable treatment. I was also hoping someone would find this seed and grow it properly, and I guess it has been found, so, yay. Thanks! -- Beland 18:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

(Reply to User:Beland)
 * Don't come to my page actin' all cutesy after what you wrote. Fact is the "seed" you planted was a poisonous one. It was insulting to the race and utterly irresponsible. If you don't have enough information to do a topic justice, if your ignorance is so considerable that you are unable to provide a balanced picture of a subject, then leave it the hell alone. *x* deeceevoice 21:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Images


I fiddled with the image a little - if you remove the word "frame" you can change the size. As it stands the line is

That produces the image that's on the Golliwog page.

I tried changing it to and got this image.

You can adjust the size of the image by changing the 175px to a larger or smaller number of pixels. Guettarda 22:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
The request for arbitration you made has officially been accepted. Please bring formal evidence to Requests for arbitration/Wareware/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Evidence request re Wareware RfA case
If that clearly sets out the problems, in a way that makes it as easy as possible for the arbitrators to understand the issues, then that will be fine. The most important part is to provide us with good, relevant diffs - rather than "he did this", we need to know "he did this, on this page, and here is the diff as evidence of that". Just try to make it as clear and concise as possible. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Should be easy, DC, it just needs to be organized in accordance with the specified chronology format, with some minor modification perhaps, your corresponding descriptions on the RFC should more than do. Yours, El_C 08:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Deeceevoice!


I do like the way you added color to the site, please look at my contributions at William Lynch Speech and some that are listed from under my user page. Dbraceyrules 15:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool
In Cool (aesthetic) you write that ""Arrogant self-awareness" seems precisetly what the writer intended -- and it is accurate." Though I don't see how merely being self-aware can be arrogant. Conversely if someone is self-absorbed or self-centered it is usually described as being nearly synonymous with arrogance. As is stated a couple sentences later "Likewise, outsiders may often deride the "cool" group as merely self-centered or conceited." Maybe you could explain what exactly MacAdams meant?--Deglr6328 17:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Race riots
Hi. I read your thoughts in the Talk:Race riots page. I was wondering: If i wanted to look deeper into race relations in the US, where should I start looking and/or reading? I would like to re-write/expand Race riots, but I don't think I currently qualify. I need to assimilate information but I am confused: I don't know if I should start reading about US History from the early 1900s, or start reading from 1950s. Any suggestions? Thank you in advance.

Project2501a 15:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: How is it that Malcom X. is being evangelised as a modern US black intellectual in high schools during black history month? i mean, the man was a solid rock of logic and intellectuallity, but he was not the only one. How come nobody mentions Claude McKay, for example? Or any other off-beat/less heard of intellectuals? Or, is it just me and my ignorance? I was raised in Patras, Greece but I grew up in ppNewark, NJ.


 * Hi. :) I appreciate your interest in improving the article. Frankly, I think the civil disturbances (modern day "race riots" -- which are no longer called that) should be referred to briefly, but put in a separate article civil disturbance.  Race riot should be reserved for the real deal. Your guess is as good as mine insofar as readings about race riots beyond what I've mentioned specifically in my comments in the discussion:  Ida B. Wells' writings, the Kerner Commission report.  What I know/can recall is based on living through the modern civil disturbances and an assimilation of all that I've read in the past, seen in documentaries, etc., etc., etc.  I would suspect there is ample information on the www on this subject also.


 * With regard to your question about Malcolm X and Claude McKay -- how should I know? I don't make education policy.  I'm not involved in curriculum decisions (though, as an education advocate/activist, I wish I were).  However, I agree with the emphasis on Malcolm.  It's a refreshing change from the seemingly once singular emphasis on George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Dubois and MLK.  They were all great men, but it doesn't hurt to broaden the focus a bit to include Bro. Malcom.  All of these others,  were either somewhat accommodationist or nonthreatening to the status quo of white domination on some level.  Malcolm was a different blackman -- someone with whom youth can identify.  With all this blah, blah, blah about thug culture and with the appeal of crap-rap, he's an example of a strong blackman who lived the thug life and turned it around.  And he made no apologies for what he believed.  With so many young, black men alienated from and ill-served by the public education system, I think the life of Malcolm X --a strong, intelligent blackman; father; husband; leader; teacher; seeker of truth -- is an excellent subject for study.  Malcolm was intelligent without being an intellectual.  The brother was real.  deeceevoice 19:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've been busy and I didn't want to give you a rushed responce. First, I was asking you not as a black man, which would be stupid), I was asking someone who I was suspecting was older than me, who lived through those troubled times and has more experience than me in the matter. I've been out of the country for three years now or so, and i'm and i'm starting to lose my grip of the English language. So, let me rephrase my question into a statement: I would like to see more modern black intellectuals and noted figures, in addition to Malcom X. I was tuttoring computer science for a year in Irvington High, and I kinda grew tired of hearing malcom this, mlk that... I agree. I mean, yeah, when I have to compare Malcom as a figure, as a stature, I can only compare him to Che. In my opinion, those two had the same gift of being able to attract people around them, they were charismatic. I get the same emotion reading Che's speeches as I read Malcom's: Passion and dedicated to a greater cause. But, where's everybody else? That's my point. Che didn't start the cuban revoltion all by himself, thought he did become the posterboy for it. I guess I'm looking for more breadth, if that makes any sence to you. I guess i'm looking not looking for Cris Rock called "Martina Luther King." (end mildly obscure reference). For the record i'm here to talk not pick a fight and hopefuly, I will not shove my foot in my mouth. ok, so, *gives you a copy of Us3's Hand on the Torch*, race riots. any suggested course of action? Project2501a 13:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't develop curriculae; I don't make education policy. Americans are not only ill-educated, miseducated; they're just plain stupid.  This nation's public education system, for the most part, produces mediocrity and worse -- particularly in the inner city.  Inequities based on socioeconomic status and ethnicity are a come-with.  Poor and minority children generally succeed in spite of the system and not because of it.  This nation has a long way to go in education, generally.  It has even longer to go when it comes to effectively including the contributions of nonwhite, non-male actors in this nation's history.  All too often, educators do the quick-and-dirty, the pat, the cliché stuff -- out of ignorance, laziness, stupidity, lack of imagination -- you name it.  Tokenism is de rigueur.  If you think the curriculum in your local schools needs changing, then I'll tell you what I tell the folks in my community:  "Do something about it."  And that means, in part, asking your questions of and pressing your concerns with policy-making people and institutions -- not anonymous schmucks on the Internet.  Or get involved more directly and volunteer.


 * Nothin' wrong with your English. Don't mistake my plain-speak for hostility.  You haven't put your foot in your mouth; you just did what white folks usually do: come upon a black person you connect with on some level and then treat them like some kind of freakin' Mr. Wizard. ("How come?" this and, "How come?" that.  What on earth do riots/civil disturbances have to do with education policy, anyway?  Dang.  I mean I understand the impulse, but it's still off-the-wall.)  But I'm used to it.  You (collectively) do what you do; the sun comes up in the morning.  No offense meant.  No offense taken -- and certainly no payback intended.  You cool wit' me.


 * Hadn't been aware of Us3, so I checked out the music video with the low rider. Interesting. :) Peace 2 u.  P.S.  FYI.  (Not that it matters) I'm a blackwoman.  deeceevoice 03:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocking
I don't think I did block you, at least not intentionally. According to the Block log, the only people I blocked were User:Jayyg, for impersonation and vandalism, and User:Bancroftian747, an account used for nothing but vandalism. Plus, you were able to use my talk page. Are you sure that it was me, and that you were blocked? Meelar (talk) 12:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * What might have happened is that you were logged out, either through human error on your part or (more likely) a database fluke, and saw a message I left for an anon. It's strange, since I hadn't blocked any anons in the preceding 24 hours, AFAIK. Not sure why this would be happening--you could try taking it to the technical section of village pump, although I don't know how much help they'd be either. Anyway, sorry about all the confusion--I certainly haven't intended to block you. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 19:15, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Re: The Temptations.
Thank. I'm not doing anything this holiday weekend but sitting at home and recovering from illness :(. --FuriousFreddy 02:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Dreadlocks Page
Hey Deeceevoice-- I added a couple of lines regarding the term trustafarian to the dreadlocks page. Please feel welcome to revert or improve at will...

I also put in a few lines for cultural appropriation, but it needs SERIOUS help. (I wasn't logged in when I made the contribs, so they show up as an anon user.)

Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia!! It is much appreciated... Djbaniel 09:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

concentration camps
Interesting tidbit -- one I'd not stumbled upon before -- regarding black folks in concentration camps. How many? I don't usually picture Germany as having much of a black population; would this have been, for example, Africans from Vichy France? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation
I want to complement you on the rewrite you did on this page. It's been a while since I've seen a newer article of its size that well written. - JCarriker 05:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

hey deeceevoice-- thank you so much for the response on my page and the effort and improvement you have made on cultural appropriation. would you be interested in elaborating on the aggressive and pervasive forms of cultural appropiation that have targeted African American culture, compared, for example, to that which has targeted Native_American/First Nations culture? Of course all of this is from a very American perspective. it would also be very valuable to gain a more international perspective on cultural appropraition. in any case, you have clearly made a significant improvement to the few lines that i put up. thank you again-- sincerely. Djbaniel 09:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

hey deecee-- thanks for noticin' about the night owl thing... i AM fond of night people. sorry about the delayed response. things been crazy with me. i'm going to copy and paste your note to me here as a reminder-- please delete if you like: Hey, early riser/night owl. :) Your suggestion sounds intriguing. While I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to contribute, though, from an "American perspective," I'd be more than pleased to contribute what I can from an African-American perspective :p -- the two are quite different. I need a better sense, though, of what you have in mind. Drop me another note, and I'll ponder it over the weekend. Meanwhile, this night owl is off to bed to catch a few z-z-z-z-zzzz's. Forgot to mention that your comment about "trustlocks" in Dreadlocks made me chuckle. Hadn't heard that one. Peace. deeceevoice 09:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) so-- thank you for pointing out "American perspective" vs. African-American perspective-- very different indeed! and i'm glad you liked the "trust-blank" terminology. not only has it caught on, but it seems to be a pretty useful term especially when the 'trust' part is interpreted as some form of privledge, rather than just a trust fund. i suppose we will need a TON of additional perspectives to hope for an article with a (close to) NPOV perspective on cultural appropriation. but that's what's great about wikipedia, eh? plant a seed and it grows... hopefully (usually so far!). once again, thank you very much for all of your contributions. i for one value them immensly. about your question, "I need a better sense, though, of what you have in mind." The last sentance of the Cultural Appropriation article reads, "Arguably, the most pervasive and aggressive forms of cultural appropriation have targeted African American culture, elements of its music, dance, language, dress and demeanor." I was inquiring as to whether you would be interested in going into the argument. What are your thoughts on this? Djbaniel 00:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism
The first major rewrite I've done here has been on Afrocentrism. It was reverted sometime ago, but to be honest I think it is much better than even the current edition. Read the substantive re-edit I wrote, and let me know what you think. What I will probably have to do is simply write an "Afrocentricity" entry. kspence 14:45, 5 June 2005

Sally Hemings
The evidence you presented in Talk:Martin_Luther_King%2C_Jr. will make a good addition to the Sally Hemings article. Samboy 20:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racism in the Southern United States
Please look at Racism in the Southern United States. I recently moved it from the incorrect title its current location. Its well intended, but falls drastically short of doing the topic justice. It also has the type of naîvité and politcal correctness you like to correct, using N word in place of Nigger for the pejorative for example in the article. I have some ideas, but I'll let you take the lead. -JCarriker 03:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is terrible! (I mean it really sux -- content-wise, copy edit-wise, grammatically, etc.)  Besides, what's the point of it?  Why single out a particular geographic area of the U.S. instead of dealing with the nation as a whole?  It's not like the South is the only region with a time-honored tradition of racism, discrimination and race-based violence.  deeceevoice 12:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to turn it into a redirect, that'd proabably be the best improvement, possibly to Racism or History of the Southern United States. My enegries are directed toward merging another bad article, American West, with the article it should have been in the first place. I guess you could vfd, though as an inclusionist I believe, more extreme inclusionists might try to save it. Whatever you do I won't miss it, most of what's been said has been said better elesewhere. -JCarriker 08:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Berbers
In case you want to get a wider range of perspectives on the Berbers, I thought you might be interested to know that there are several Berbers on Wikipedia. The most active of them is Agurzil, a Kabyle. Akzennay, with whom I've had protracted arguments (mainly over Ibn Khaldun), is Moroccan, but not very active on en; and Ameno is Tuareg, but hasn't edited for a few months. - Mustafaa 21:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I missed that
What? El_C 11:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: hey
Yeah, I'm feeling better. Trying a change of pace, adn going back to working on animation and comic book-related articles. I've nominated the article on the super hero Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for featured status (can you believe that, during the 1940s, Captain Marvel was the best-selling superhero on the shevles, even outselling Superman)? --FuriousFreddy 15:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hush harbor
Deeceevoice, just wrote up a stub on the above topic. I think it'd be great to have it fleshed out a bit, but I don't know much more on it than I've written and wasn't able to find any more on the internet. Since you seem to have something of an interest in African-American history and culture, I thought you have more knowledge of hush harbors, or know of another Wikipedian who might. If you can help add to the article, that'd be great. Please don't pour any haterade on me. Babajobu 01:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Haterade"? That's an overused (street) term I do not use.  (I don't know anyone who does.)  And, no.  I don't just go off on people, unless I'm provoked -- and sometimes not even then. :p


 * I don't know that hush harbors, except in the context of religious practice (and not necessarily Christian religious practice, as your article states), merit a separate article. As a separate phenomenon -- often, the crudest of clearings in a wooded area -- hush harbors can be most effectively treated in an article treating African-American syncretic religious practice -- which, I think, merits fuller treatment in African American culture; or, as has been suggested earlier, in a separate article on the African American church.  Then "hush harbor" could simply redirect to those pieces.  However, praisehouses/meetinghouses have a very particular history, and I think they might deserve separate treatment.  deeceevoice 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the street can be a pretty fertile place, and haterade is a great term. Thanks for the feedback on hush harbor. Your comments confirm for me that I'm really not up to the job of expanding it or placing it in a more appropriate context. I just don't know enough. However, I think it's very notable, very interesting, an important part of American cultural history, and very much merits some form of treatment in Wikipedia, perhaps--as you suggest--as part of an article on African-American religious practice. For now, I'll just leave it there hope it attracts some work from contributors more knowledgeable in this area. Thanks. Babajobu 16:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wareware arbitration case

 * The case was closed because Wareware left Wikipedia. I'm sorry, you should have been notified of that by the closing arbitrator - it seems he forgot that bit. -- sannse (talk) 13:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HBCU recruitment
Jmabel and I are begining a project for HBCU recruitment. I thought you might be interested. Also your page is getting rather long have you considered your archiving preference yet? Personally I prefer creating archives to blanking the page, as achives makes the material more accessable. -JCarriker 17:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey. :) I skimmed the page, and it looks pretty good.  Great idea, guys.  I'm not signing on because I'm not sure I have much time to devote to the effort.  I make my contribution of "color" to the project by editing Cool (aesthetic) and Afrocentrism are the latest among several.  It's something I can do (with regard to black subject matter) that not many others on Wikipedia can (for reasons you've and Jmabel already have so thoughtfully noted.) I'll pretty much leave this effort to enlightened people who have the time to devote to it.  Besides I'm not using my real name on this site anywhere, anytime.  I choose to remain anonymous in cyberspace -- especially on a site like this.  This isn't a hard-and-fast, flat-out refusal to become involved in this effort.  After all, it's really needed.  So, if you need my help with something in particular related to this endeavor, please don't hesitate to contact me again.  Peace. :)  deeceevoice 13:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what is up with the "please sign your real name" request on the HBCU page??? What's the logic? Plenty of us would rather take a hot poker up the arse than start throwing our real names around cyberspace. You can be sure that plenty of people at HBCUs feel the same way. For the good of this very worthwhile project, I think the bizarro request for real names should be dropped. Babajobu 20:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a bizarro request, participants will be seeking out school officals and thus will be in a professional enviroment where anonymity would not be will recieved. The page exist so that the officials and subequntently the students we want them to recruit have a page to refer to that explains the projects goals and validates that the representative they met with is involved with the project, its sort of a portal. Ultimatley no one recruited is obligated to join the outreach, and therefore they do not have to remain anonymous. However, if you are interesred in participating in the project but not being a representative I suppose the representatives and the notice in question could be moved to their own section. - JCarriker 04:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

martinlutherking.org
looks like scheissfront (sorry, stormfront) has been getting a bit more active and simultaneously a bit more subtle recently; I've zapped a half dozen new martinlutherking.org insertions in the last week. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Traffic impact during Montgomery Bus Boycott
Do you have reliable info on traffic impact during Montgomery Bus Boycott?--Jusjih 07:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. I've never read anything about traffic snarls, nor have I seen any evidence of it in the footage of the boycott over the years.  Keep in mind that Montgomery was still a fairly sleepy southern city back in the 1950s.  Traffic congestion wasn't that much of an issue.  That doesn't mean there wasn't any impact on traffic patterns, but I deleted your language because it was vague and obviously purely speculative.  Peace. deeceevoice 13:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I thought that car use increased very fast after World War II in the USA, so I wonder if not riding buses caused traffic problems, but I only said "likely" while I did not thought that Montgomery would be sleepy. As hitchhiking is not necessarily non-motoized, I just changed with: "There were also hitchhikers, although it is unclear how risky doing so was. Nor is it clear whether the boycott caused considerable traffic problems." As "although it is unclear to what extent this was based on sympathy with the boycott, versus the simple desire to have their staff present and working" is already in the article (I did not write that), it is okay to say it unclear whether hitchhiking was risky or traffic problem arose, isn't it?


 * Discussions can avoid editing wars. As an administrator in Chinese Wikipedia (but not here), I have seen users there, including a very active administrator, who have made total deletion of a paragraph without explaining why in "edit summary".--Jusjih 05:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree saying unclear about something, how about deleting the later part of "Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work, although it is unclear to what extent this was based on sympathy with the boycott, versus the simple desire to have their staff present and working." after "although it is unclear ....." Your deletion looks too far and destructive. If I were an administration here, I could have possibly taken actions such as temporarily protecting the page. Note well that I am a traffic researcher. If you do not sufficiently care of traffic, you may not be very suitable to have a driver license.--Jusjih 28 June 2005 06:54 (UTC)

What is with your fixation with the freakin' traffic and whether or not I have a driver's license? Get over it! The speculation with regard to the motivations of white housewives picking up their black domestics is a matter of historical record. There is no way of legitimately knowing exactly how many were in sympathy with the boycott or just wanted their dirty drawzzz washed and meals cooked because they were too damned lazy to do it themselves. They were not polled, so it is impossible to know. However, finding out if there were traffic problems can fairly easily be ascertained. Read the historic record. If there were traffic snarls, presumably, they would be mentioned in reports of the period. There would be records on police blotters, reports in the press, ample documentary evidence in the footage shot of street scenes of people walking, empty buses passing, of private drivers. Speculation on something that can be verified or debunked with a little effort makes an article look sloppy and downright amateurish. If you're so wed to inserting language into the article about traffic patterns, then do your research. It's deleted. deeceevoice 28 June 2005 11:51 (UTC)


 * I understand that the comment "Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work" is the subject of an edit war about the reason these whites drove their servant to work. I would suggest that this entire comment be deleted b/c there is a high chance this is merely an urban legend. I grew up in Montgomery and I repeatedly heard this statement presented as fact by white people who were embarrassed by their city's history and wanted to make it seem that the city's whites had not been so set against the boycott. Despite these statements, though, I never saw any documentation of this occuring. In addition, even if some whites did this, it was on a small, individual basis. UNLESS someone can produce a reference that "Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work" the entire statement should be removed.--Alabamaboy 7 July 2005 13:30 (UTC) Note: I also posted this comment on the article's discussion page.

Sorry, Alabamaboy, but you don't know your state's history. That white women drove their black domestic servants to work is a well-documented historical fact. Just a quick google, and there are ample examples of documentation. Here's just one:. Further, the so-called "edit war" -- not! -- was about some silly, hazy statement inserted by someone with a fixation on traffic that served no useful purpose because it imparted absolutely no information whatsoever. Go back and read the exchange. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)


 * Then the answer is to insert that reference into the article. I couldn't find one but since you did insert it (and if you have additional references on this fact, insert them too). As I said, I hadn't seen documentation of this fact. Since you have references of the fact then insert them and I will support you on the issue.--Alabamaboy 7 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of support, but the subject under discussion is a widely known historical fact. I've provided the link. If you think it needs to be inserted in the article, then you're welcome to do so. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

White supremacy
If it won't turn your stomach too much, I suspect you might have substantive material to contribute at White_supremacy, where I have finally gotten people to acknowledge that white supremacy is not so much a matter of a few loonies in white hoods still running around rural Mississippi and was, within living memory, a dominant ideology. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I briefly visited the article and made some fairly superficial changes -- mostly copy editing kinds of things -- through only a portion of the piece. (The pathologies of white people bore me.)  But the article is deeply flawed.  I made some notes on the discussion page.  Further, most black people I know wouldn't refer to white supremacy in the past tense; it still is a dominant ideology.  Peace.  deeceevoice 7 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

About User:Wareware
I saw one of your earlier comments about User:Wareware on User talk:FuriousFreddy. I wanted to say I couldn't believe such a thing could happen, but then I'd be lying. Seen too much of it in the world. Just curious: How'd the arbitration process you went through on that work out? Were you satisfied with it? I'm still somewhat new here and haven't had to file any complaints or anything, but thought it'd be good to know what the deal is if someone ever does that crap to me. --Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

This might interest you
Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_3. Guettarda 3 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

Lincoln and white supremacy
Hey Deeceevoice. Don't really think my response is likely to be of use or interest on white supremacy, but thought I'd reply here. Didn't mean to say that Douglass idolized Lincoln; my apologies -- I've seen some evidence that other blacks (and white for that matter) of the time did, but not Douglass in particular. What Lincoln would or would not have done is, of course, impossible to know. He was a white supremacist, at least at some points in his life, and the scenario you describe is certainly conceivable. On the other hand, Lincoln also at points managed to live up to the egalitarian ideals he (occasionally) espoused. So did Jefferson, and so did Washington for that matter. Refusing to recognize their flaws can be duplicitous, self-serving, and racist, as you point out. Nonetheless, I think that calling Lincoln a white supremacist without qualification is like calling Malcolm X a black supremacist without qualification -- both statements are true as far as they go, but what's left out is perhaps the most important bit. (Which isn't meant to morally equate black supremacy (an ideology that has done little harm, relatively, as far as I can tell) with white supremacy (responsible for numerous genocides)).

Probably more than you want to know about my POV, so I'll stop. Take care. NoahB 8 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)


 * You're dead wrong about Haj Malik El Shabaaz. Calling Malcolm X a black supremacist would be an error, period.  At no point in his life was he ever one.  And there is nothing the man ever said or did that would lead any rational individual to believe such a thing.  There is absolutely no comparison between Malcolm and Lincoln.  (Damn.  White people!)  The same, of course, cannot be said of Lincoln, and there is no evidence he ever changed fundamentally in that regard.  I don't feel there is any need whatsoever to qualify the categorization of Lincoln as a white supremacist; he clearly was one -- and, as far as the historic record indicates, remained so until his  death.  deeceevoice 8 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)


 * Well, that was not my impression from reading Malcolm X's autobiography, but I guess there's room for disagreement. I agree that there's no comparison between Lincoln and Malcolm  in terms of their actual accomplishments re: black liberation, but that's no reason to condemn Malcolm, who was still a great thinker and a great man, whatever his flaws.


 * There is some evidence that Lincoln's position on white supremacy did shift fundamentally, as did that of many Northerners over the course of the civil war. The successes of black troops in the northern army changed a lot of people's opinions.  NoahB 8 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)

Then, perhaps you should read Malcolm's autobiography again, because -- again -- there is nothing he ever said that reasonably could be construed as supremacist. Your remarks represent a complete misreading of the man's life and work. Lincoln, on the other hand, is a different story. The change in his position on the role of black troops did in no way indicate that Lincoln ever changed his basic assumptions about blacks -- that we were inherently inferior and, as a result, deserved to occupy an inferior station relative to whites. He never even hinted at such. Giving black troops their due in light of their record of exemplary military service was a no-brainer. Besides, why not use blacks as cannon fodder? According to the historical record, Lincoln was and remained, in no uncertain terms, a white supremacist. To suggest otherwise is pure wishful thinking/speculation. deeceevoice 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)


 * I've read it several times, but it's always worth looking at again. You, for your part, might check out Lincoln's Second Inaugural again.  But I guess we'll probably just have to agree to disagree about who is engaging in wishful thinking and about what.  Take care.  NoahB 8 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

"White People!"
Deeceevoice, on behalf of non-racialists everywhere, please stop exclaiming "White people!," or "Only a white person would say that!" or any of your many other variants, everytime someone says something with which you disagree. Thank you so much. Babajobu 8 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)


 * And who the hell made you the thought police? lol Further, my response is no more over the top (and certainly more accurate) than your "everytime [sic] someone says something with which you disagree."  Further, what I say to someone else on my talk page (or theirs) is none of your business.  Thank you so much.  deeceevoice 8 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I failed to put a space between "every" and "time". Alas, no one has yet appointed me thought police. This is why I said "please" rather than simply demanding that you stop making gratuitous racialist remarks. All of us at Wikipedia are free to make crude racial remarks so long as they aren't simply racist. Still, I don't think we should. Cheers. Babajobu 8 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)


 * I think you missed my point. The italicizing of "everytime" was about your hyperbolic mischaracterization (both in frequency of ocurrence and nature) of my responses on this web site.  The "sic" was a reflexive, noncritical one (being a writer/editor) which I chose not to inhibit in light of the circumstances.  You're flat-out wrong in this regard.  Additionally, because your experience is not mine, you cannot school me on when and when not to make "racialist" remarks.  Again, you are neither the thought nor the etiquette police, so stop frontin' like one -- at least on my talk page.  Peace.  (You know I love you, darlin'. :)  Stop buggin'.)  deeceevoice 8 July 2005 09:24 (UTC)

Archiving
Mrs. Deeceevoice,

Ma'm, I noticed that your page reached 101 messages. I just want to let you know you that you can archive your talk page like this: User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 1 or User talk:Deeceevoice/2005-July. Long pages take long to load for people not on broadband :). If you need help, drop me a note. I'd be glad to help.

Respectfuly, George Marselis 8 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

PS, you might enjoy this:

Anti-racism
Hey deeceevoice. I'm sure you're busy enough as it is, but if you get a moment and feel like doing so, you might check out anti-racism which I have extensively rewritten. The old version suggested that anti-racism originated with white anthropologists in the 1920s. I think it's (somewhat) better now, but would be interested in your perspective. Take care, NoahB 15:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

insults
I'm originally from the South, Spade. It is common for people to use "cracker" and "redneck" in nonpejorative ways -- even "peckerwood." Get a clue. And listen to the nameless contributor. Since when the hell did presidents, dead or alive, become sacrosanct? Get off your high horse, Spade. You're 'bout the last person on this web site to preach about this sort of thing. Ya buggin', bwoi, and it's just plain laughable. *x* You come to the aid of a foul-mouthed, racist mental cretin/coward like Wareware and then want to chastise me for criticizing a foaming-at-the-mouth, rabidly racist dead prez? What are you doing -- testing some comedy shtick/routine for the road? Fine an' dandy. Just don't quit your day job. :p deeceevoice 8 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)


 * I don't care where you are from, if you are signifyin / frontin' or playin', this is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself here. I am not a "bwoi", and I would prefer not to have to waste my time gathering instances of you being rude in order to make a formal complaint.


 * I would have done that long before now, but your edits to articles has been of a professional nature. I would not disrespect any other user in this manner, nor will I tolerate such disrespect from anyone, regardless of race, sex, or religion. Please, be more considerate towards your fellow volunteers. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, Spade, you are not the etiquette police -- nor are you qualified to be. Your admonition that I must show "respect" to a racist, segregationist, crakkka dead prez who showed my people only disdain and intolerance is about as ridiculous as it is pointless. Sorry to break it to you, but people are free to speak their minds here. If that offends you, then it appears the problem is yours -- not mine. Stop buggin', bwoi. Go preach to someone who gives a damn. You're boring me. *yawn* Kindly refrain from responding; I'll simply delete any entry from you before reading it. You are not welcome here. deeceevoice 20:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikimediation
Someone has started a page at Wikimediation in an attempt to amicably resolve some disputes with you. I encourage you to have a look at the Wikimediation page to get a feel for what we're trying to do there, and then to read the page and see if you can come to an understanding with the people who you seem to be in conflict with. I've left a few comments there already, and I hope you'll take them to heart, and understand the spirit in which they're meant. Snowspinner 21:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, I see you're giving up on the Wikimediation process - that's fine and your right, but I encourage you to rethink it. Sam may be being a bit gruff, but he does have some good points - I think you could be less inflammatory in your conduct. At least think about it. Just because Sam suggested it doesn't mean it has to be wrong. Snowspinner 02:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in any Wikimediation. I went that route with Wareware, and it got me absolutely nowhere. Besides, there is nothing to be mediated. And, no. I will not play nicey-nice with someone the likes of what's-his-face (I honestly can't think of his name at the moment) who prides himself on being "politically incorrect" and then presumes to tell me what I can and cannot say. I appreciate your well-meaning input, but it means nothing to me. (Since when is being "gruff" a crime? You think you're going to change me?)  I hold my tongue on this racist web site more times than anyone knows; this matter never should have gone up for mediation in the first place. The complainant's points are flimsy and totally ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. deeceevoice 10:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said, DC. And I challenge that much more evidence could be added to support your argument. That said, I also agree that Snowspinner's efforts are inherently well-meaning. Best, El_C 22:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Cool (aesthetic), and random comments on Berbers, Jews and skin color
No problem. The article has already improved a great deal. Because so few Wikipedia contributors have any knowledge of the subject matter, and because it's a social science-ish article, people are going to want a lot more source references than they would for articles on, say, baseball or molecule or whatever. But it's a good, interesting article, and a VfD is way out of line.

On a completely unrelated topic: I noticed you had a very interesting discussion with mustafaa about the most appropriate racial categorization of Berbers. I can vouch for Mustafaa's description of Algerian Berbers, having spent some time in Tizi Ouzou, a predominantly Berber community in that country. The Berbers there are very caucasian-looking, even more so than the mixed-ancestry (Arab/French) Francophone elite in Algiers. But I don't know what Berbers look like outside Algeria. Maybe darker. Also from that conversation: you mentioned that older Jews from pre-war Europe often refer to African-Americans as "Yemenites". Your point here was completely valid (the darkness of many people native to the Nilotic area), but a small tweak: from my experience it's usually Sephardic Jews or Israelis who associate African-Americans with Yemenite Jews, because of the similar skin color. Old country Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to refer to African-Americans as "Kushim", or "Kushites", because in Hebrew people of dark skin are associated with Kush. However, this is changing with the influx of Ethiopian Jews into Israel, since Ethiopian Jews generally dislike being referred to as "from Kush", when, of course, they're not. Take care. Babajobu 09:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Institutional racism
I just wanted to say thanks for your lengthy reply to my question about "functional integration". Any chance you could put a bit of that into the article? -- The Anome 12:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Watermelon and Racism
You raise some interesting points, deecee. I think your solution is one of the better ones; but I also think you are rather off on the whole reason for the image's inclusion. African Americans have a very DIFFERENT history than lationos, italians, asians, etc, and there is a far greater history of stereotypical associations and images in the US than any of these other groups; it is not simply a fair or direct comparison to ask why there are no stereotypical images of other minorities when they are not direct equivalents to the historic racist assumptions our ancestors had to endure. Just some thoughts. Nice meeting you, by the way =). It's interesting to be multiracial on wikipedia; it comes with its own sets of assumptions and stereotypes to break. =) Elefuntboy 17:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello Deeceevoice. You and I are having a spirited, though fruitful, disagreement over at Talk:Watermelon. I've been looking through your contributions, and I'm quite impressed. You've done a lot of great work, and you focus on important subjects (such as race relations) that other editors are reluctant to work with. I have renominated blackface as a featured article candidate.

That said, I worry that you're rubbing some people the wrong way and making too many enemies. Our debate has been mostly mutually-respectful, but it looks like some other debates you've been in have not. There have been editors eventually blocked from Wikipedia for personal attacks (like the spat with Sam Spade above), and I don't want to see that happen to such a great editor as yourself. Stay cool, friend. Wikipedia needs you, and it needs you to keep a level head. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * You said Wrong, Quadell. Actually, they are. Review choices three and four -- again.
 * See, it's snide comments like that that turn your potential friends into enemies. What do you gain by talking down to other people? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. :) Thanks for stopping by my talk page.

I think you're being oversensitive, Quadell. In reading my response, I don't see anything whatsoever "snide" about my response. You were incorrect in your observation that no one was pressing for the removal of the text. Should I have said you were "mistaken" instead? Would that have been more palatable? Certainly, no offense was intended -- and I don't think my language was offensive in any way. Sorry if you feel that way -- and thanks for your earlier kind words. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Dixie" sheetmusic image
Hello. You didn't like the Dixie sheetmusic image? I'm surprised. I thought it was one of the better examples. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation and "Sixteen Tons"
You know, I'm going to chime in here too. I made some changes to the entry on Cultural Appropriation, and perhaps they were poorly written, perhaps not, but they did not reflect irrelevant information or some sort of tantiential blithering. The fact that you reverted them because you fail to recognize the clear ties between class and culture shows to me that you seem to want to just ignore that and pretend that white and black is the only line along which cultures divide. Maybe you're just living in the past, but class is just one of many other ways that culture divides, and one of many boundaries across which a majority or power-holding group can react in an act of cultural appropriation. I'm not going to try to fix the entry, it seems to me like you're intent on making things out to be exactly how you think they are, rather than allowing for a dynamic, trans-racial approach to this kind of thinking. I'm glad people like you exist, because you always remind me of how far we've come, and yet how far we have to go. Feel free to delete this comment, and likewise, go right ahead and accuse me of being a racist, white, thought police, or whatever else. Pretend that my perspective on "primarily black" cultures, or whatever you would call them, is automatically excluded, while you sit and posit your own theories on why white people are so arrogant as to question your infinte wisdom as a member of this special class of oppressed peoples. But for the record, I'm not white (not that that should matter in the least, with regard to the issue at hand or the culture you pidgeonhole me into), I'm not rich or even well off, and yet unlike you, I recognize that the struggles of our white comrades-in-arms, especially the poor or otherwise so obviously oppressed, can be the same as our own, if we discontinue utilizing the ridiculously outmoded notions that race defines ethnicity, or that white people are automatically part of the oppressive monolith of mainstream American culture. But feel free to continue to disregard the appropriation of poor "white culture" in America, or any other "white culture" for that matter. But don't forget about bands like The Bad Brains, the usual target of this kind of thing, who instead stole away a poor "white culture" and its music, despite being completely opposed to the ideals of that culture like acceptance and tolerance for gays, or even for white people. Don't forget that white people have contributed to indpenendent/underground music, in both "white music" and "black music." And next time you cut out somebody's points in an article you claim as your turf, consider instead rewriting them. Maybe my points weren't exemplary, maybe they were poorly written or poorly incorporated into your precious article, but they bring up an entire side of this issue that you apparently choose not to acknowledge. -IP 149.43.x.x 15 July 2005 22:19:28 (UTC)


 * Awful self-righteous -- aren't you? Could it be that I deleted your text (not because it was poorly written or because of some "turf'-war mentality) because I thought it didn't belong in the article for other reasons?  Get off your high horse.  If my reason for deleting your text was as you state, then why on earth would I leave the text about Native Americans alone?  Before you come to someone's talk page, write an anonymous note and ASS-ume something about their motives, try asking a simple question first.  *x*  deeceevoice 23:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Though the bitchy manner in which you've approached me on this matter doesn't warrent a second approach, I've decided to return to the subject because it seems really important to you. This is the text I deleted:

"Another example would be the use of songs or music in general in manners that wholly contradict the original meaning, intent, or origin; e.g. the commercial use of songs like the grim coal mining tune Sixteen Tons and the anti-war song Fortunate Son to promote General Electric and flippantly-patriotic clothing, respectively."


 * The difficulty I had with the example you gave is that the song was released as a pop song for mass consumption. The rights to that song were then, presumably, sold to the company which used it in its commercial.  The song was already distanced from the culture about which it was written.  The thing being appropriated has to have, in the eyes of the originating culture, a particular and special, perhaps even iconic, value.  And, frankly, I can't see that either of these things do.  They're just songs which already were commercial products before they were sold again as jingles of sorts.   Is it, perhaps, corporate co-optation?  Yes.  But, presumably, the producers of the product received monetary compensation and cooperated with the process.  Is it off-the-wall?  You betcha.  But does it rise to the level of cultural approriation?  I wouldn't say so.  At least it's not clear cut.  Perhaps you can come up with a better example to make your point?


 * Now, go to hell with your snide comments/ASS-umptions. (Just kidding.) :p


 * Look, you haven't signed your contributions, so I have no idea how long you've been around Wikipedia. I, myself, have been here for only a year or so.  But if you disagree with an edit, then that's what the discussion/talk page is for.  State your case, argue your point.  If it's important enough for you to stew about and leave a bitchy note on someone's talk page weeks after the fact, then it must be important enough to you to take a few moments and explain your opinions to someone who you think doesn't get the point you're trying to make.  I suggest you try this tack -- rather than simply assume bad faith on the part of the person who's deleted or otherwise changed your contribution and being sh*tty/self-righteous.  Don't give up so easily -- and fight for what you think is important.  Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 00:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

My "bitchiness" aside, I attempted here to make my complaint to you as strongly and assertively as possible. I may not be as involved with internet encyclopedias as you are, so don't fault me for not commenting back until a few weeks later. And don't tell me I should make up a username, as if that lends me some sort of weight. I don't see how that's at all relevant or even true - you're just as anonymous as me, it is the internet, after all. I use Wikipedia often, and have contributed a few small things to a couple entries. I've never had to deal with someone deleting my revisions like this. And my "ASS-umptions" were not without basis - it's clear that many people do not lend any legitimacy to the existence of non-mainstream "white cultures" or even cultures that do not have a racial basis. Judging by your actions and the comments/incidents associated with your user provile, it seemd quite possible that you were among this group of people. I have no cause to lend you any credit, I'm not one to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I suppose I will offer my appologies if that's a problem. And the Native American bit is not a counter-example to anything I said, that cultural division is clearly one based on race. Unless I misunderstand what you're saying there. (Anonymous contributor)


 * Funny. You say "'bitchiness' aside" -- but you still haven't put it aside.  Who said anything about your anonymity having anything to do with credibility?  I mentioned the fact that you don't have a user name/page to say that, by virtue of that fact, it's hard to say how familiar you are with Wikipedia -- hence my suggestion about using the article talk pages to argue a point (not personal talk pages).  And, yes, the Native American  point is a counter, since you charged me with framing and accepting things in only a white-black framework.  (Information about cultural appropriation and Hindu and Polynesian culture also was added to the article, information which I later helped edit.)  And, last I checked, Native Americans, Hindus (narrowly speaking) and Polynesians were neither black (strictly speaking, anyway, in the case of Hindus and Polynesians) nor white.  And who the hell said anything about giving someone the "benefit of the doubt"?  I wrote about not jumping to asinine conclusions -- something entirely different.

Note: Remainder deleted without reading. This rude poster can post his comments to the article talk page, per my suggestion. deeceevoice 10:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You are, by far, the least courteous person I have encountered.... (Remainder of this post from the same anonymuos contributor deleted without reading). deeceevoice 20:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL You don't learn, do you? Actually, I've been quite patient, even indulgent with you. When you write me, you're imposing on my space, my time. I have the option of receiving you as a visitor -- or not. Do not come to my talk page with insults; I'll simply ignore you. I will, effectively, close the door in your face. It's really easy to do. I read the first few words, determine it's another b*tchy tirade, and I simply select the text and click "delete." SLAM! The door is closed. Now go away. deeceevoice 20:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad we agree about Zwarte Piet in Blackface
I see no serious content related issues anymore. With some hard work on formatting and references, this article can become a featured article, as far as I am concerned. Andries 20:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't remember any serious content-related disputes in the past related to this article. As far as I can remember, the writing of it went quite quickly and fairly smoothly.  The only reason it was denied featured-article status before its the lack of references.  But, as with any article, a little tweaking never hurts.  Peace.  deeceevoice 22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You may be happy to learn that I retracted my objection to blackface as a featured article candidate. Andries 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Only my English in the article may need some correction, but I guess you can fix this in a trice. Andries 21:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for lifting my spirits

 * You've gotta be kidding! Don't make other people's problems your own.  We need you here.  Cases in point: Talk:watermelon (the vote on inclusion of the racist image in the article) and the recent, wholly bullsh*t move to delete the article on Cool (aesthetic). To quote a poem (the name and author of which escape me; maybe Gwendolyn Brooks) "Let a revolution come.  Cain't be like nothin' I done already seen." "Stress"?  What's stress? :p  Peace 2 u, youngblood. deeceevoice 15:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have returned to Wikipedia, the reason I was so mad because I had been provoked by User:DreamGuy in his constant rudeness to other users, and to being somewhere where no credit is given for hard work. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 00:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)