Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wareware/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by deeceevoice[edit]

The format of the following information may not conform exactly to the template provided. However, in order to avoid duplicating information already presented elsewhere, I've simply copied for your consideration the following documentation from the RfC/Wareware that preceded this RfA.

Evidence of disputed behavior (excerpted from RfC/Wareware)[edit]

It starts at Talk:Race/Archive 14, beginning here [[2]]: a disagreement between User:Wareware and User:Deeceevoice regarding whether ancient Egyptians were black.

22:16, 14 Dec 2004, first racist innuendo from User:Wareware, who incorrectly assumes deeceevoice is a man:

It's wrong to say that people always cared about color when talking about Egypt. True egyptian researchers don't, but white supremacists do. (google white history if you're too dumb to differentiate between the two) ... Anyway, I guess your favorite site is this [3] Buddha, the earliest Chinese, Egyptians, Indians, and Beethoven were all "negroid". Must make your balls feel big :) [4]

22:54, 14 Dec 2004, User:Deeceevoice goes along with Wareware's mistaken assumption and responds by "signifyin'" (see definition below):

Man, you better stop talkin' from up under my clothes! LOL! You're an ASIAN, and you wanna talk about the size of someone's balls? ROFLMBAO.... I think you'd better leave THAT one alone, my misguided Asian brother. This "discussion" has reached a new low. I'mma do you a favor and pretend we never had this exchange. [5]

Main Entry: sig·ni·fy·ing

Pronunciation: 'sig-n&-"fI-i[ng]

Function: noun

Date: 1959

- a good-natured needling or goading especially among urban blacks by means of indirect gibes and clever often preposterous put-downs; also : DOZENS - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

23:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC), User:Wareware:

Also, I've read that blacks like to show off their presumed virility because of an inferiority complex that they got nothing "man-made" (civilization, architecture, literature, philosophy...etc) that can rival those of other "races." Hey, at least the asian balls don't smell as bad as apes' right? Oooops, was that racist? [6]

00:36, 15 Dec 2004, User:Deeceevoice:

Aw-w-w-w, I know, I know. There, there (patting this tortured soul on the head). You're just showin' your true colors, aincha, bwoi? But you can't really expect me to be offended by such hackneyed crap! I've been called far worse by far better than you, child ... You ain't stoo-pid; you're simply mentally and spiritually crippled. Better tend to yasself! [7]

01:38, 15 Dec 2004 User:Wareware:

If you truly are the more educated representative of your race, then I'm not really surprised that african-americans still generate the worst statistics than any other group in america.[8]

02:39, 15 Dec 2004 User:Deeceevoice disengages from the discussion:

Wareware, you've demonstrated yourself all along to be a mental cretin and a low-minded racist; you just finally came out and said what has been on your mind all along. So, now there's no need for me to be civil any longer. I got nothin' else to say to you. Stay obstinately ignorant and lost, you pathetically hateful fool. I will not address you again; as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. You're not worthy of my attention, not even my contempt -- and certainly not of a single additional nanosecond of my time. (whistlin' as I show u my back) [9]

03:08, 15 Dec 2004, User:Wareware:

Wow, you just labelled me a racist right after I said you might do so and I don't think you can prove my point any better. [10]

00:37, 16 Dec 2004; when User:Deeceevoice doesn't respond, User:Wareware tries to keep it going:

Come on, you can at least make one "yo mama" response to show your quick wit, no? Or did that really hit you, and you can't think of anything logical, and then said I'm not worthy of your attention? Calling people racists and then shut them out while "whistlin' away" really seem to be in the vogue nowadays. [11]

After Deeceevoice leaves the Race article and discussion, Wareware also leaves. From Dec 16 until Feb 10, Wareware posts only 54 times. Then on Feb 10, he starts up the dispute with Deeceevoice again, by putting the "totally disputed" tag on Afrocentrism, an article he has not edited before, and which DC started editing on Feb 7. [12]; then he tries to engage DC on the talk page.

11:17, 11 Feb 2005, she refuses to discuss with him:

Wareware, you're the epitome of opinionated ignorance. You already know full well I have no intention of engaging you in dialogue ... [13]

About the time of the exchange between Wareware and deeceevoice on melanin, Wareware surfaces for the first time on another talk page where deeceevoice is a participant. This time, the subject is African American. Under discussion is whether someone's insertion of crime statistics has a place in the article and, if so, in what context. This discussion thread is particularly pertinent in that Wareware displays a pronounced anti-black animus totally outside the context of any interaction whatsoever with user deeceevoice. Here, the two never exchange words; yet Wareware is antagonistic and sarcastic.

03:20, 18 Feb 2005

Insitutional racism? Why not just add a section on "blame whitey"? [14]

Participation in this discussion thread is open-minded and diverse. Wareware's comment is treated dismissively. He responds:

20:47, 18 Feb 2005

Oh really? I'd rather listen to what Ward Connely and Bill Cosby have to say about it than some liberal PC-police who like to taut the culture of dependent victimhood. Oh look, we're all really poor and innocent victims exploited by the system have a laugh [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340801/posts] [15] and [16]

Another participant, User: Jmabel, responds with a link to an article by Camille Cosby on "Prejudice Permeates American Culture." Wareware:

00:04, 19 Feb 2005

Yeah I'm sure America teaches ppl to kill blacks (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2884) Really ludicrous. And yes I brought up Cosby because he said something the liberals wouldnt say, like stop portraying black criminals as "political prisoners." [17]

The same forum participant responds, "Wareware's choice of source speaks for itself." Apparently, seeing other participants will challenge him, Wareware moves on.

05:41, 14 Feb 2005, Wareware turns up at Talk:Melanin, an article he hasn't edited before, and comments on additions by deeceevoice regarding the role of melanin in social and race bias. He truncates it drastically, stating:
Did a clean up of this "verbal diarrhea". [18]

03:57 8 March 2005, Wareware resurfaces at Talk: Cool (aesthetic).

Don't bother arguing with deeceevoice. Just look at his discussions and edits on Afrocentrism and you'll know that you can't get anything "un-racist" through his glued head. [19]

18:41, 8 Mar 2005, Talk:Melanin: A previous user (the author of the phrase "verbal diarrhea," and who later apologizes for his "rant") has written, "The section on social and rase bias is psychotic. It's about as relevant to an article on melanin as a lengthy discussion of the biochemical properties of melanin." Wareware follows suit:

Why the hell would we need to have a lengthy description of what racism, racialism, black supremacy, white supremacy, all sorts of "caste" system on a page on melanin the biological molecule? What's this crap? [20]

deeceevoice responds that the article is about melanin, generally -- not just as a "biological molecule" -- and that brief mention of the role of melanin-based color bias in human societies in a meaningful way that directs users to other related subjects is pertinent. Wareware continues to disagree and makes a number of reverts without carefully reading the text and in some cases simply automatically repeatedly reverts self-edits by deeceevoice, including her correction of a typo. Deeceevoice reverts Wareware's edits; this is now an edit war focusing primarily on WW's objections to inclusion of material in a section on melanin in social and race bias. He repeatedly complains of other articles to which deeceevoice has contributed on matters of race.

03:40, 9 Mar 2005, Wareware:

I don't think anything can get through your thick skull that's so preoccupied with race, racism, racialism, and all sorts of related crap. [21]

07:11, 9 Mar 2005, Wareware:

Hear that deeceevoice? Oh my god! Big Black Momma is coming to report me for suspension! Holy jesus I'd better run. [22]

11:31, 9 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice asks him to focus on content:

I could bring up all kinds of garbage here about your conduct and your racist remarks. But I won't. Try to focus, Wareware ... [23]

16:56, 9 Mar 2005, Wareware:

The only remotely racist remark I've made so far is the one on africans and apes, and that's after you made a fool of yourself by saying Asians have small penises [a mischaracterization of Deeceevoice's actual comment] ... That was a long time ago and you're kidding yourself if you say you can bring up all kinds of my purported racist conduct. [24]

19:19, 10 Mar 2005, Wareware requests mediation regarding Melanin [25]

18:51, 11 Mar 2005, Wareware continues on Talk:Melanin:

... unless you tell me that blacks are discriminated against because they have thick lips ... Really, why is your skull so thick? Why insist on inserting so many references to racism? Are you on a crusade or something? This is not black-o-pedia ... [26]

19:00, 11 March 2005, Wareware drops user Jiang a note, requesting protection for Melanin:

hiya Jiang, I've been in a revert war with a pathetic Afrocentrist for quite a while.... This person is a total nutcase preoccupied with race.... [27]

User:Jiang complies, the article is protected from further edits and remains protected as of this writing. The version that is sustained is Wareware's.

Deeceevoice makes her first contribution to Black supremacy, and Wareware follows. March 13, Wareware turns up at Black supremacy, an article he has not edited before. At 00:58, March 2005:

He makes an extensive, somewhat clumsy edit, remarking in the edit summary: "npoved a bit and streamlined the pseudoscience crap in this pile of an article." [28]

In another edit which immediately follows, he all but completely deletes a substantive examination of the nature of black supremacy contrasted with white supremacy, including a quote by celebrated author and social commentator author bell hooks (contributed long before by another user), calling it variously "apologist drivel," "meaningless drivel." At 01:22, 13 Mar 2005:

Wareware remarks in the edit summary, "deleted meaningless drivel"

[29]

03:49, 13 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice on Talk:Black supremacy again tries not to engage with him:

Still stalking me, eh? ... I won't have any other comment on your response on this matter, or on any other matter, until you learn to engage in civil discourse. [30]

05:48, 13 Mar 2005, Wareware:

Teach me civil discourse will you, eh? Try looking into a mirror and see if you can see a savage yourself. [31]

01:21, 14 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice:

I do not presume to teach you anything; frankly, I've begun to doubt that you are even marginally trainable. "Savage"? I have responded, civilly and with specific information ... [32]

04:59, 14 Mar 2005, Wareware:

Is your reading comprehension way below average or do you need somebody to take the jungle out of you? [33]

05:21, 14 Mar 2005, Wareware leaves a note on User talk:Deglr6328, saying he "can't stand" Deeceevoice. [34]

13:41, 16 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice on Talk:Black supremacy:

The very idea that black folks -- the "lowest of the low" -- to whom racist, soul-sick, pathetic mental cretins like Wareware refer using "ape," "savage" and "jungle" references would consider themselves superior to white folks just enrages and outrages them ... it really pulls the sheets off. 'S crackin' me up ... [35]

19:00, 17 Mar 2005, Wareware:

Give me a break, you pathetic louse. Black supremacy, just like any kind of supremacy, should enrage people and not to be diminished by reverse racism and whitewashing. You gotta be a fucking racist if you think otherwise. [36]

08:55, 18 Mar 2005, User:Deglr6328 joins in with a snide comment directed at Deeceevoice:

Thanks but I'll pass on taking advice on methods of scientific inquiry from civil rights era grandmas, no offence. :) [37]

09:05, 18 March 2005, and Wareware follows up with:

LOL delgre that's a good one.... [38]

18:12, 18 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice:

"Ape." "Savage." "Jungle." "Big black momma." Blatantly racist comments. And the pathetic thing is you [haven't] even the good sense/common decency to be ashamed. Most animals who feel as you do at least have the good sense to say such things in private. ROTFLMBAO. What a sorry, sick, foolish, little excuse for a human being you are ... [39]

19:03, 18 Mar 2005, Wareware:

... Here, have a banana, it'll make you feel better :) [40]

20:00, 18 Mar 2005, Wareware:

You're dumber than an ape really. [41]

07:37, 19 Mar 2005, Wareware:

Talk:Race_(Archive_15), everyone go on a have a laugh at the ape (scroll to the one about egyptians). [42]

Wareware later feigns an apology laced with insults, at the end of which he sarcastically throws in another simian reference for good measure:

12:02, 20 Mar 2005, in [[Black supremacy], Wareware writes:

Sorry about mocking you with racial slurs, deecee. I think next time I'll have to come up with more creative and more PC ways to address your intelligence and conduct. I suppose a bag of shit or a cockroach nincompoop is better than apes or savages for the more sensitive. I'm not really acquainted with yo mama jokes and the dozens to come up with original insults like you do all the time, so I just took the lazy way and called you an ape directly. ...a single mention of ape is going to get me labelled a racist. Just remember kids, it's okay to insult people if you're creative and don't jump into using racial slurs like I did, and make sure you don't ever call black people apes or else they'll go monkey on you. [43]

WW then pursues DC to Talk:African American Vernacular English, but DC won't engage:

02:51, 24 Mar 2005, Wareware:

I see that you're having fun ridiculing other folks again, pretty much illustrating what I wrote in the black supremacy discussion page. You're living proof no kidding. [44]

05:49, 24 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice:

Re: Wareware's post: I have absolutely no intention of engaging this racist mental cretin who uses words like "ape," "savage," "jungle," "monkey" when referring to black folks in a discussion on AAVE. Period. [45]

Finally, in an exchange in talk: Black supremacy, Wareware and deeceevoice are engaged in a discussion on the applicability of the phrase "liberation theology" to the dogma of the Nation of Islam, wherein Wareware repeatedly misunderstands the connection. He erroneously repeats the charge that she is equating black supremacy with liberation theology. deeceevoice patiently and repeatedly attempts to explain; but Wareware becomes increasingly agitated.

02:54, 24 March 2005

You're not answering the question.... Can you read? [46]

06:41, March 24

This is getting stupid. Can you even read?[47]

Mindful of the pattern of Wareware's abuse, deeceevoice suspects his verbal attacks will escalate in short order. She advises him, "And change your tone." It is at this point that she decides to search for some resolution to her ongoing problems with user Wareware -- which leads us here.

(end of excerpt)

Sumitted. deeceevoice 09:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by pharlap[edit]

Note: Please see my statement at the talk page as well

While I agree that Warewares attempt to fight "fire with fire" was inappropriate, the circumstances and climate surrounding the misbehavoir (Personal attacks, general racially offensive remarks against non-blacks, edit wars and the overall negative climate on talk pages imposed by deeceevoice) should not be ignored, especially since they most likely will trigger negative behavior from other users in the future as well.

Unfortunatly, the "Evidence of disputed behavior" provided by deeceevoice is faulty, the timeline is inaccurate, the provided diffs are often unrelated and the assertions are often untrue.

The complete collection of diffs below add credibility to Warewares statement. [48]

The complete timeline and collection of diffs indicate that:

deeceevoice started the exchange of blows
Wareware didn't "make a number of reverts without carefully reading the text and in some cases simply automatically repeatedly reverts self-edits by deeceevoice, including her correction of a typo" (notice that Ware only edited the article in question twice, while deeceevoice edited the article 29 times, 18 of them reverts/deletions of of earlier contributions from other editors (user Warewares 2(!!) edits included)
deeceevoice often "barely skimmed" articles before she reverted edits and attacked the editors
the assertion that Wareware resurfaced at Talk: Cool (aesthetic) is untrue
deeceevoices diff #13 to prove how she "disengage" from alleged "attacks" is not related to a personal attack, but to article discussions which challenged her biased notions
Wareware tried to reason with deeceevoice, but she repeatedly attacked him
deeceevoice refused offered mediation
deeceevoice attacked Wareware directly as well as indirectly in conversations with other users
deeceevoice often responds with racial slurs and frequently claims racism when other editors question her contributions and/or ask her to source her contributions
deeceevoice thinks that she is the one who is entitled to lose patience
Wareware didn't "stalk" deeceevoice: deeceevoice placed requests on talk pages, asking other editors to "check out" her contributions to Black supremacy, but when Wareware did so and disagreed with her edits, she called him a racist and a "stalker"
the Npov tags from Wareware were accepted by everybody but deeceevoice
deeceevoice often refuses to explain or source her contributions and replies with attacks instead
deeceevoice starts edit wars and disputes over her POV edits almost everywhere she goes
several users questioned deeceevoices racial attacks and POV edits

In conclusion, the pot is calling the kettle black.

Evidence of disputed behavior (sorted by: 1. Article, 2. Date)

Race[edit]

It starts at Talk:Race, 26 Oct 2004, when deeceevoice joins the edit team of the featured article stating that the informations provided are "Ridiculously False Assumptions" and "European pseudo-scientice" eventhough she admits that she didn't take the time to read the entire article "I haven't read the entire article -- not nearly. In fact, I've barely skimmed it" [49]

A lenghty discussion starts regarding whether ancient Egyptians were black, Buddha a darkskin black of african origin and Pre Persian-incursion Indians nappy-headed black Africans.

14 Dec 2004, 09:59 Wareware objects

The thing is, Egyptians were not exclusively "black" (like someone similar to Michael Jordan) like what afrocentrists would tell you, nor were they nordic like what white supremacists would say. More or less they look like modern egyptians, certaintly not "white," but wouldnt be classified as "negroes" either. They were simply egyptians. [50]

14 Dec 2004, 09:59 deeceevoice insists that her statements are correct because "Egyptian scholarship is riddled with hacks, liars, racists and the ill-informed"

Towering above their heads carved from centuries-old stone were the effigies of the very same people they kept in chains, worked like dogs, used as beasts of burden whipped like animals at home. My, how inconvenient! How mortifying. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the toe of one of those massive structures to listen to them come upon a temple flanked by allees of stone renderings of "a bunch of royal niggers." ROFLMBAO. [51]

14 Dec 2004, 11:36 Wareware states that egyptian studies have been clouded not only by classical Egyptologists, but also by Afrocentrists.

Yes, egyptian studies have been clouded by hacks. Not a lot by classical Egyptologists, but a lot by people like Molefi Asante, ben-Jochannan, and the likes. If you're talking about upper egypt then the earliest people there look like modern day north africans. The blacks were brought as slaves from south. Nobody gave a damn about what race the Egyptians were until the afrocentrists started saying Cleopatra was black, Egypt was black, Greek/Roman cultures stole from blacks, and other related nonsense. Associating archaelogical discoveries of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries with slavery is just cheap shot at muckracking genuine research. [52]

14 Dec 2004, 16:57 deeceevoice hurls personal insult at Wareware: Note that, in the black community, calling an adult man a Boy/Bwoi is considered a stinging insult

First, Wareware, your ignorance is showing. Upper Egypt is south; Lower Egypt is north -- not the other way around. It is also clear that Upper Egypt was more advanced than Lower Egypt, with Upper Egypt conquering and unifying both lands under Menes (obviously, a black man with a big, broad nose lol). For the sake of argument, which Egypt do you suppose was whiter than the other? The one closer to NUBIA, as you claim (funny) or the one up North? (I'm having too much fun with you.) And, yes, folks always cared, which is why Europeans took such pains to manufacture and perpetuate the lies. You are clearly beyond the reach of reason if you contend that blacks in Egypt were all slaves; there is ample and sustained evidence to quite the contrary -- monumental evidence, in fact. In short, Wareware, dang, bwoi. You a fool. :-p .[53]

14 Dec 2004, 22:16 Wareware responds

http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html Mary Lefkowitz in her book wrote that egytologist never cared about what race were they. They cared about history, literature, their heiroglyphs, and architecture. When Napoleon discovered the Rosetta Stone did you hear him pressuring the scholars to find more about their "race"? I think they had more important stuff, like actually deciphering a language. It's wrong to say that people always cared about color when talking about Egypt. True egyptian researchers don't, but white supremacists do. (google white history if you're too dumb to differentiate between the two). It's when afrocentrists realized that sub-saharan blacks didnt develop a written language or a wheel or whatnots and refused to delve more into genuine african civilizations, like the great zimbabwe, that they started to grab whatever they felt like and portrayed egyptians as blacks and greeks and romans as cheaters. And then everything that was done by "white" scholars were portrayed as as racist sham, and that's where the issue comes from. Anyway, I guess your favorite site is this http://www.ibiblio.org/nge/blacked/tablecontents.html Buddha, the earliest Chinese, Egyptians, Indians, and Beethoven were all "negroid". Must make your balls feel big :) [54]

Wareware explains the term "Must make your balls feel big" here: [55]

the balls is a reference to one's confidence and self-worth, as the argument in particular was that Afrocentrism would make black people feel better through its "therapeutic" qualities

Note that deeceevoice never explained HER racial slurs to Wareware

14 Dec 2004, 22:54 deeceevoice attacks Wareware

Man, you better stop talkin' from up under my clothes! LOL! You're an ASIAN, and you wanna talk about the size of someone's balls? ROFLMBAO. (slappin' sides) However big they may be, it's a safe bet they're bigger than yours! I think you'd better leave THAT one alone, my misguided Asian brother. This "discussion" has reached a new low. I'mma do you a favor and pretend we never had this exchange. (Still slappin' sides) BWA-HA-HA-HAAA! [56]

14 Dec 2004, 23:36 Wareware responds to deeceevoice's attack with a counter attack:

So when presented with proof of afrocentrist idiocy, the afrocentrist goes on a rampage of insults. Very typical, like what Lefkowitz described in a lecture. Also, I've read that blacks like to show off their presumed virility because of an inferiority complex that they got nothing "man-made" (civilization, architecture, literature, philosophy...etc) that can rival those of other "races." Hey, at least the asian balls don't smell as bad as apes' right? Oooops, was that racist? [57]

15 Dec 2004, 00:36 deeceevoice responds with personal attacks

A "rampage of insults"? :-D You gotta be kidding! After all, I wasn't the one who brought up "balls." Now, now, Wareware. "Apes"? Tell me you don't go 'round doing comparative sniff tests on primates' balls. Pleeze! (wink) :-p Aw-w-w-w, I know, I know. There, there (patting this tortured soul on the head). You're just showin' your true colors, aincha, bwoi? But you can't really expect me to be offended by such hackneyed crap! I've been called far worse by far better than you, child. And guess what? It didn't (and doesn't) faze me a bit. You've succeeded only in demonstrating what an azzhole you are, and you make it abundantly clear to those who may have thought your obtuseness in this matter (why you cannot accept the fact that black Africans were anything more than slaves in ancient dynastic Egypt) simply healthy skepticism that your apparent dim-wittedness is actually a symptom of your sickness. Poor thing. I really do feel for you. You ain't stoo-pid; you're simply mentally and spiritually crippled. Better tend to yasself! But I gotta give you one thing. You're at least good for comic relief. BWA-HA-HAAA! Keep sniffin' them balls. (slappin' sides -- still) :-p [58]

'15 Dec 2004, 01:38' Wareware responds

Instead of responding to the topics at hand and takinng a look at your source( every afrocentrist's favorite website), you resorted to three more paragraphs of personal attacks. If you truly are the more educated representative of your race, then I'm not really surprised that african-americans still generate the worst statistics than any other group in america. I feel sorry for you. You can write quick retorts compounded with funny spellings but you can't face the truth. Really sad. But I guess you can blame the racists and "da man" for that one. [59]

15 Dec 2004, 02:39 deeceevoice responds with a personal insult

Wareware, you've demonstrated yourself all along to be a mental cretin and a low-minded racist; you just finally came out and said what has been on your mind all along. So, now there's no need for me to be civil any longer. I got nothin' else to say to you. Stay obstinately ignorant and lost, you pathetically hateful fool. I will not address you again; as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. You're not worthy of my attention, not even my contempt -- and certainly not of a single additional nanosecond of my time. (whistlin' as I show u my back) [60]

15 Dec 2004, 03:08 and 16 Dec 2004, 00:37 Wareware responds

Wow, you just labelled me a racist right after I said you might do so and I don't think you can prove my point any better. Call everyone who doesn't agree with you a "racist" instead of looking at facts. How convenient. I'll bet if I were black and made some anti-afrocentrist remarks you wouldn't have anything against me and certaintly wouldn't have labelled me a racist. Oh wait, weren't Ward Connelly, Bill Cosby, and Larry Elder called "race traitors" for presenting such views? Hey, the race card is always the trump card for some people, right? [61]

Come on, you can at least make one "yo mama" response to show your quick wit, no? Or did that really hit you, and you can't think of anything logical, and then said I'm not worthy of your attention? Calling people racists and then shut them out while "whistlin' away" really seem to be in the vogue nowadays. [62]

After this verbal fight, both move on.

Between 16 Dec 2004 and 6 Feb 2005, Wareware edits ~28 articles without causing any disputs or arguments.

Between 16 Dec 2004 and 6 Feb 2005, deeceevoice edits ~ 32 articles, starts serveral edit wars and attacks other editors. Examples:

December 2004 Kwanzaa[edit]

24 Dec 2004, 11:02, and 30 Dec 2004, 15:56 and 12:17 deeceevoice attacks the edit team and claims racism after they restored informations she deleted from the article:

Glad that crap is gone. They were totally unnecessary from the git-go. But some white folks just have to have their freakin' say on every goddamned thing black folks do. [63]):

Misguided, pain-in-the-ass, often racist idiots who can do nothing but pick at anything related to African Americans and our African heritage want to criticize a holiday because its founder did time? Think: what other U.S. holiday is evaluated based on the life of the individual who originated it? It's patently ridiculuous. But if you insist on doing so, well, fine, then. Let's play that game. It's then perfectly legitimate to demonstrate the absurdity of such a criticism by pointing out, "Hell, that's nothing. YOU (white folks) celebrate a holiday named in honor of a racist, slaveholding, slave trading cracker." [64]

Bullcrap "Criticisms" There is an ugly tendency on Wikipedia in articles dealing with African-Americans for people to pick and pick and pick and pick anything and everything ad nauseam. Often ill-informed and/or ridiculously pretentious criticisms, which, IMO, are a particularly perverse/rampant form of white arrogance, anti-black antipathy -- or of just hopelessly old-line knee-grow mind-sets. The first set of objections will have to suffice. This other stuff is more of the same -- pure bull (only even more extraneous) -- and it is disappeared. [65]

December 2004/January 2005 New anti-Semitism[edit]

1 Jan 2005, 01:34 deeceevoice starts edit war, attacks the edit team and after she gets a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR she blames "a handful of Zionist azzholes who can't stand to read a differing opinion"

I've been shut down for 24 hours so many times when it had nothing to do with me, that this doesn't even begin to faze me. I think my revisions were fitting and proper. If Wikipedia wants to be intimidated by a handful of Zionist azzholes who can't stand to read a differing opinion, then that's pretty pathetic. But, then, that's pretty much par for the course, isn't it? [66]

3 Feb 2005, 23:19 deeceevoice starts to edit Black supremacy "This article was garbage", [67]

5 Feb 2005, 11:45, deeceevoice adds "Melanin Theory" to Black supremacy [68]

5 Feb 2005, 11:54, deeceevoice adds Black supremacy reference to Melanin [69]

February 2005 Superconductivity[edit]

deeceevoice starts edit war

5 Feb 2005, 14:57, In an attempt to support the key assertions of Melanin Theory deeceevoice added to Black supremacy, [70] deeceevoice adds incorrect informations about the properties of Melanin toSuperconductivity [71] and a link to black supremacy [72]

6 Feb 2005, 01:47, RJFJR removes her edits [73]

6 Feb 2005, 04:04, [User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] accuses the Superconductivity edit team of racism and reverts her edits: What is with you folks, anyway? If melanin were ketchup (or any other organic substance) and not associated with black folks, and if I were not black, would you have been so quick to assume "vandalism"? Very telling. Ya better check yourselves ´[74] [75][76]

6 Feb 2005, 04:32, [User:Furrykef|Furrykef] removes her edits again [77] and comments 04:50, 6 Feb 2005

I'm not finding any claims that melanin is a superconductor except in reference to claims of black supremacists... [78]

6 Feb 2005, 11:15, deeceevoice moves on to Organic semiconductor adds incorrect imformation about the properties of Melanin [79] and Melanin reference to Organic semiconductor [80]

11 Mar 2005, 21:36, Qdr removes her edits. "Removed some desinformation (note: Melanin is not a mainstream research topic in this area)" [81]

::6 Feb 2005, 11:24, deeceevoice adds Melanin reference to Semiconductor [82]

::7 Feb 2005, 16:33, deeceevoice adds Black supremacy reference to Afrocentrism [83]

Melanin[edit]

5 Feb 2005, 12:01' deeceevoice asks the Melanin editors to check out Black supremacy for her recent Melanin additions.

See my recent additions to Black supremacy for some provocative info re the melanin as a superconductor, Melanin Theory, and also for brief references to melanin in biotech. I think all this should be included this article. I'm thinking of doing a separate article on the Melanin Theory in conjunction with (or, possibly, separate from) the Cress Theory on Color and Confrontation. People think Minstrel show is potentially explosive. It oughta be interesting to see the reactions to this on Wiki. [84]

6 Feb 2005, 01:12, In response, Wareware posts a link which disputes the Melanin Theory:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9201/minority.html [85]

6 Feb 2005, 03:38, deeceevoice insists on including the melanin Theory in Melanin

I've seen the article on "scientific illiteracy" to which the above link connects. In that particular context, I've already noted that the Melanin Theory has little credibility in mainstream thought in Black supremacy. I'll likely do something similar here -- just in greater detail. In any event, Melanin Theory certainly bears mentioning in this article on melanin -- pro and con. [86]

Wareware moves on and edits Yu the Great, Zhang Qian and Li Ao

10 Feb 2005, 16:41 Mjklin| makes minor grammar edit [87]

11 Feb 2005, 06:17, deeceevoice reverts Mjklin| edits [88]

12 Feb 2005, 18:35, Babajobu edits Melanin

I fixed up the beginning a little to add some information about what melanin actually is. I also deleted a lot of irrelevant verbal diarrhea from the end. This article is garbage. It needs a lot of work [89]

12 Feb 2005, 18:48, deeceevoice deletes all edits by Babajobu and restores her own [90]

13 Feb 2005, 02:03, Babajobu responds

The section on social and rase bias is psychotic. It's about as relevant to an article on melanin as a lengthy discussion of the biochemical properties of melanin would be to an article on the KKK [91]

14 Feb 2005, 05:40, Wareware edits melanin "Pigmentation and social and race bias - clean up" [92]

14 Feb 2005, 09:30, deeceevoice deletes all edits by Wareware and restores her own [93] [94]

14 Feb 2005 10:46, Wareware restores his edits [95] [96]

15 Feb 2005, 15:02, deeceevoice attacks Babajobu, calling him obtuse and ignorant, and his edits vandalism

Don't speak on what you don't know....My comments on your changes stand; by and large, they have not been improvements. Quite the contrary. And, again, none of this justifies your obtuseness and puerile vandalism in dealing with melanin and race bias in this article. [97]

After this personal attack, Babajobu refrains from contributing to the melanin and race bias section. [98]

8 Mar 2005, 14:55, deeceevoice restores her edits [99] [100]

8 Mar 2005, 18:41, Wareware revertes deeceevoice edits "that doesnt belong here" [101] [102]

8 Mar 2005, 19:12, deeceevoice restores her edits [103] [104]

9 Mar 2005, 03:32, Wareware revertes the edits [105]

I don't think anything can get through your thick skull that's so preoccupied with race, racism, racialism, and all sorts of related crap. Look, what is the point of mentioning the apartheid systems (already covered in racism article) and redheads/blondes with melanin. Because the readers are directed to more thorough information in their respective articles, there's no need to explode into more discussions about them. If they want to know more about racism and skin color, just go to their own pages. [106]

9 Mar 2005, 06:24, deeceevoice restores her edits [107]

Your complaints accompanying your last two reversions are groundless. The section on race and color bias makes perfect sense, and I have now tweaked the two sentences on "black supremacy" even further. One more revert, one more intemperate comment, and this matter will be referred for mediation, and you will be recommended for suspension. [108]

Mar 9 2005, 06:57, pstudier comments:

Racism is important, but it doesn't belong in every article. Let us keep the short version [109]

9 Mar 2005, 07:11,> Wareware responds

Hear that deeceevoice? Oh my god! Big Black Momma is coming to report me for suspension! Holy jesus I'd better run. Seriously, you're not getting the message here, but insist on inserting every racism/racialism/black supremacy/white supremacy every chance you get. Why don't you re-read my previous comment, as you seem to have totally missed the message [110]

9 Mar 2005, 09:53, deeceevoice accuses Wareware of stalking her.

Keep in mind that the average Wiki user doesn't follow me from article to article to read my contributions. Each article to which I contribute should be viewed separately and the merits of my contributions judged as one would judge those of any other contributor. ... Wareware, you keep harping on my "preoccupation" with matters of race. My stated intent is to bring a black perspective to Wiki articles -- which is sorely lacking on this website. And you seem to have a problem with that. Not my problem. The preoccupation, in fact, is yours; because you repeatedly follow me around Wikipedia like some lap dog to snipe at my contributions, becoming increasingly belligerent with each post. Get some common sense, some self-respect. Get a life. [111]

9 Mar 2005 , 10:16, Wareware responds

I guess I should've made myself clear. Your preoccupation is inserting pov information on race, not some innocent neutral black perspective. Your ridiculous edits on Afrocentrism is the prime example of it. And the crap about each article should stand on its own. Well, that depends what kind of contributor is writing those articles. You gotta be kidding me to have made that statement. But hey, I need my daily dose of comedy, and your various edits and comments provide plenty of those. And that I'm increasingly belligerent? Just take a look at the talk pages of Afrocentrism and see who was repeatedly requested to act with some basic civility? It's rather pathetic of you to accuse somebody of being belligerent, you know. [112]

9 Mar 2005, 11:31, deeceevoice responds with an attack against Wareware accusing him of being racist

I could bring up all kinds of garbage here about your conduct and your racist remarks. But I won't. Try to focus, Wareware. Under discussion is this article, this discussion thread and your conduct herein. And if there's something POV in this article, then point it out. Straighten up. [113]

9 Mar 2005 15:45, deeceevoice restores her edits [114]

9 Mar 2005, 16:48, Wareware restores his edits [115]

9 Mar 2005, 16:56, Wareware responds You know what, you need to come up with some good reasons on why the hell you're reverting the article, but I guess that is out of your league. And you've accused me of being a racist for I don't know how many times now; I've even predicted on several occasions that you'll do such. The only remotely racist remark I've made so far is the one on africans and apes, and that's after you made a fool of yourself by saying Asians have small penises and made a long and biting derision out of it. That was a long time ago and you're kidding yourself if you say you can bring up all kinds of my purported racist conduct. God, the probability of your accusing someone of being racist approaches one on almost every discussion, it's funny and pathetic at the same time really. [116]

9 Mar 2005, 17:16, deeceevoice denies that she accused him of racism

No, I said no such thing. You're delusional. First, you assumed I was a male and made a comment about the size of my genitalia, and I simply suggested that, as an Asian, you might not wanna go there. What you read into it is your business. :-p [117]

9 Mar 2005, 17:24, deeceevoice restores her edits [118]

10 Mar 2005, 01:40, Wareware edits "Melanin and human adaptation" (a different, unrelated section of the article) [119]

10 Mar 2005, 11:20, deeceevoice reverts his edits "Another mindless revert. Reverted" [120]

11 Mar 2005, 18:51, Wareware trys to reason with deeceevoice

Why insist on inserting so many references to racism? Are you on a crusade or something? This is not black-o-pedia or something for you to add substantial racism-related vents when the articles call for none. Look at the article on human skin color, it's got a even shorter mention of race relations than this one. I'm thinking about doing it that way and get rid of the subhead altogether like that. Why don't you add more racist info to lips, hair, eyes, evolution, apes, human skin color, melanin, melanoma, sickle cell disease, crainiology, human intelligence, and so forth? Look, when a reader wants to know about racism, he would most likely search for, say, racism, racialism, prejudice, discrimination, miscegenation, racial superiority, affirmative action, racial intelligence, and so on, but NOT melanin. You're not the one with at least some logic here, and I don't think it's a "black" thing, so why don't you open your eyes and clear up your brain, and stop reverting. [121]

10 Mar 2005 19:19, and 11 Mar 2005, 02:33 Wareware requests for mediation

I'm requesting a mediation between me Wareware and User:deeceevoice. This person keeps on reverting my edits and inserting racism/racialism/racial supremacy related matters on an article concerning the biological molecule of melanin. On the melanin matter, User:babajobu and User:pstudier stand by my opinion (see the talk pages). [122] The agreement I'd like to reach is that the role of melanin in racial/racist matters can be mentioned, but should not go to a long extent that is already covered in more relevant articles.[123]

10 Mar 2005, 18:52, Wareware asks for page protection[124]

11 Mar 2005, 02:38, After Wareware notifies deeceevoice he submitted the melanin disput RfM I've put it up for RfM since it doesnt seem to attract any third-party attention in RfC. [125],

11 Mar 2005, 20:23, deeceevoice responds with another attack and accuses him, again, of stalking:

Seemingly, your raison d'etre on Wikipedia is to follow we around like some deranged stalker. How sad. [126]

12 Mar 2005, 00:01, Wareware responds Nah, I just like correcting dumb and racist (reversed) people's edits. It doesn't take as much time and energy as you'd think. [127]

18 Mar 2005, 08:20, deeceevoice advertises her Melanin Theory edits again

See talk:black supremacy for info/links re physical properties ongoing high-tech research. I'd like to refer those who have an interest in this subject to the talk page of the above-referenced article. I've brought in some additional information regarding melanin-related deafness in mammals, as well more info regarding current melanin research in the fields of quantum chemistry and plastic (or organic) electronics that should appear in this piece. And, yes. Melanin is an organic semiconductor -- a fact which has been known since 1970. [128]

27 Mar 2005, 15:24, Tony Sidaway removes melanin page protection. [129]

29 Mar 2005, 11:15, deeceevoice reverts her edits [130]

Mar 31, 02:06, RJFJR objects:

You asked for comment so I'll put my two cents in. Please read with many grains of salt. While melanin is the pigmentation chemical in human skin, I view this article as chemistry, material sciences and biology. But I view the material you want to add as either psychology or sociology. (Melanin molecules have neither psychology nor sociology, only humans have these). A link to other articles on human's perception of skin color, etc., is appropriate. If the material you are seeking to add already exists elsewhere in the Wikipedia then we don't need to duplicate it here but can just link to that material. This raises a related question: does that material exist in one article or is it distributed through many articles? [131]

31 Mar 2005, 06:27, deeceevoice responds with a racial slur against RJFJR:

This may not have anything to do with your reaction to the inclusion of such a brief discussion of the matter in this article, but I have to ask: what is it with white folks and racism -- particularly these folks on Wikipedia? Are they afraid of the issue? Is this a means of censoring subject matter and keeping articles confined to only those matters with which certain people are comfortable? I think a major dose of intellectual honesty is in order here. [132]

2005 Mar 31, 22:54, pstudier comments

From the beginning of the article: Melanin is a polymer of either or both of two monomer molecules: indolequinone, and dihydroxyindole carboxylic acid. Sounds like Chemistry of melanin to me. Most bias in society is not based just on skin color but also on history, culture, etc. Therefore these things should be discussed elsewhere. Why do you assume that the people who disagree with you are white folks? [133]

1 Apr 2005, 01:33, deeceevoice denies her comment against RJFJR

Bias based on things other than melanin should be discussed elsewhere. Melanin-based bias should be addressed here. Why do I assume that the people who disagree with me are white folks? I don't. Why are you assuming I do? Further, are you assuming that I assumed RJFJR is white? Gee, why assume that? :p [134]

2005 Apr 1, 02:34, pstudier responds:

Well, from your above comment: what is it with white folks and racism -- particularly these folks on Wikipedia? [135]

1 Apr 2005, 05:02, deeceevoice denies her comment against RJFJR again and accuses Wareware (who by then already left the discussion) of being "the racist"

Well, that's what assuming things will get you: wrong again. (After all, I didn't say, "... what is it with you folks...?) Actually, the racist (and he is one; I'm not gonna get into it here) I got into an edit war with about this isn't white or black; he's Asian. Is that all you've got to say about the substance of our disagreement? (Jeeze.) [136]

Afrocentrism[edit]

7 Feb 2005 deeceevoice starts editing Afrocentrism and puts the NPOVs tag on the article [137] claiming that To some white folks, any kind of so-called "Afrocentrism," period, is "radical" and unacceptable [138] but then removes the whole "Radical Afrocentrism" section and the NPOV tag [139]

What the hell. I've simply decided to remove the section below until certain things can be ironed out regarding the general approach to this subject matter. I've already changed the header regarding criticism of "radical" Afrocentrism to simply criticism of Afrocentrism. There is no clear distinction between what is radical (beyond the claim of black superiority) and what is not. [140]

8 Feb 2005, 01:42, User 128.97.1.207 restores the section [141]

8 Feb 2005, 07:04, deeceevoice deletes the section again [142]

9 Feb 2005, 08:16, El C restores the section

9 Feb 2005, 15:39, Babajobu joins the edit team [143]

01:30, Wareware joins the edit team and adds the NPOV tag [144]

that's not really the definition of Afrocentrism. Almost every link I've read doesnt equate Eurocentrism with Afrocentrism... [145]

10 Feb 2005, 03:16, El_C agrees with the NPOV tag

There are serious NPOV issue which I am in the midst of attending to [146]

Okay, I have reviewed and made changes to the article to reflect the NPOV issues alluded to by Wareware. And this is perhaps a good a time as any for me to eat my own words by attempting to follow my own advice: reading more closely. Yikes. Wareware, if the you find the changes I made insufficient, please reinstate the tag and I will give it another shot. [147]

El_C , Wareware, Paul Barlow and Babajobu POV edit the article

10 Feb 2005, 11:58, deeceevoice reverts the edits

Afrocentrism vs. Eurocentrism The argument against presenting both sides, both views of Afrocentrism is simply bull. [148]

10 Feb 2005, 12:27, El_C asks deeceevoice to refrain from heated exclamations and explains the rationale behind the changes

Please refrain from heated exclamations that go towards hindering a collegial editorial collaboration [149]

10 Feb 2005, 15:35, deeceevoice objects, indirectly attacking Wareware

Oh, my bad! "Afrocentric" -- that title applies only to black folks with the effrontery to challenge white/Eurocentric scholarship, doesn't it?!! Ivan van Sertima's just some delusional half-wit -- never mind his many honors and his recognition by UNESCO (mentioned in the article and edited out simply because Wareware wrote of his claims that Africans actually could have sailed to the New World before Columbus). You see, only crazed, white-race-hating, revisionist black folks trying to compensate, to find a "therapeutic" remedy for feelings of inherent inferiority can be afrocentric. No credible white historian could possibly believe such claptrap! Could they? Oh, of course not! (Downright pathetic.) [150]

10 Feb 2005, 17:37, Paul B questions deeceevoices assertion that Corinthian columns originated in Egypt [151]

10 Feb 2005, 17:58, deeceevoice starts her response with an personal attack against Paul B

Okay, okay. For those in denial or otherwise challenged [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Talk:Afrocentrism&diff=next&oldid=10135256]

10 Feb 2005, 19:15, Babajobu asks deeceevoice to provide sources for her claims

I would please like be given a link to something indicating that it is a generally accepted fact among scholars in the field that ancient Egyptians were black. I hope they were! That'd be neat to know! But I'd like to see it, please [152]

10 Feb 2005, 21:34, deeceevoice responds to Babajobu with a racial slur

Oh, God! *frustrated* This is why black folks don't bother with Wikipedia ... This is just disgusting! And it's something so fundamental to the study of human history. Most white folks, I think are simply ignorant by default [153]

10 Feb 2005, 22:06, El_C asks deeceevoice the second time to refrain from personal attacks

Before I adress you comments I would like to make certain thing perfectly clear. You must —stop— from continuing to make exclalmations such as For those in denial or otherwise challenged and many others. I have already asked you to cease from these, and it is not fair that I would have to reiterate that a second time (!) It is tautological and mildly insulting. [154]

11 Feb 2005, 04:20, Ware restores several informations regarding Afrocentrism. [155]

11 Feb 2005, 05:46, deeceevoice "After skimming, some overall comments" [156] objects and responds with another racial slur

And the hilarious, amazingly absurd thing is that someone in this discussion feels somehow compelled to insert some thoroughly silly comment about how they weren't "bad people"! *chuckling* (Only a white guy!) WTF? (They were nice people, and their criticis are "overwrought." ROTFLMBAO.) .... But what I do know is that they were a bunch of racist, lying bastards. And that's the point [157]

11 Feb 2005, 06:04, Ware tries to reason with deeceevoice

These arguments go on and on and never end, http://www.geocities.com/enbp/ . So what's your point? You're the epitome of this whole afrocentric thinking, one focusing on the myth of ancient egypt. Also, I think it's perfectly fine to include the Mali and other African civilizations here, because they're no doubt African and often overlooked when talking about wolrd history. If you want to list some real African civilizations, then I don' know what's a better example than these [158]

11 Feb 2005, 11:17,

deeceevoice responds with an insult against Ware

Wareware, you're the epitome of opinionated ignorance. You already know full well I have no intention of engaging you in dialogue. I have nothing to say to the likes of you -- for reasons already stated in another discussion thread. [159]

11 Feb 2005, 09:47, El_C responds to deeceevoice

Let me get this straight: you skimmed it?(!) But we are supposed to read your much lengthier diatribes here? And based on that skimming you don't think it's topical?

and asks her to cease immediately from making comments which violate Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy

The pronouncedly unhilarious thing is that you would so grossly distort those comments which compare parochialism by white Europeans to other cultures such as the Chinese, etc., as somehow inherently racist. Your response above is out of proprtion to the comment made, it makes insulting insinuations, and it clearly goes beyond the realm of civility. I —again— urge you, nay, I demand that you cease immediately from making comments which violate Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. By continuing to violate this policy you risk consequences which are as unpleasent as they are uneccessary. For someone who obviously is an educated person, your conduct on that front –that you don't see it defeats your own points– never ceases to baffle me. But I, and the other editors will not remain baffled indefinitely. That is not a threat, incidentally, its a final plea which reflects the exhaustion that I, and undoubtedly the other editors here feel towards such incivility. Please don't skim this comment ... I'm sorry, there comes a time when one needs to be firm. Please review closely the following policies:Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement, Wikipedia:Profanity, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. [160]

11 Feb 2005, 11:17, deeceevoice responds with another attack against El_C

My, my. Defensive aren't we *chuckling*. ... Sorry your mind is so easily, uh ... "blown." ROTFLMAO. "Nay, you DEMAND"!!! Thanks, El_C. Really. I can't remember when I've had such a good laugh whilst online. The fact of the matter is "parochialism" is far different from a pattern of blatant lies frontin' like "scholarship" in the service of white supremacy and imperialism. That's not an "oops, my bad" kinda thing. You want me bite my tongue and play nice? No, I won't. I have no more patience; it's been used up dealing with ignorance, arrogance, racism and some people's embattled sense of entitlement. + + :"Nay, you"demand." Day-um! *shakin' my head* That's part of the problem. *x* [161]

11 Feb 2005, 11:42, Babajobu asks deeceevoice to stop the dinner-table ranting and mocking of her collaborators on this article

The Importance of Taking a Chill Pill. Deeceevoice, I implore you to take a chill pill. I haven't been around Wikipedia very long, and its protocol is just as unnatural to me as it also still seems to be to you. I'm contrary and argumentative by nature, and never happier than when casting aspersions at the motivation and character of people who disagree with me. But unfortunately for both of us that is not how encyclopedias are made. If you keep up the dinner-table ranting and mocking of your collaborators on this article, the talkpage will be more fun to read, but the Afrocentrism article will be a piece of crap. So please, in the interests of bringing a knowledge of Afrocentrism to the benighted masses who have so little appreciation of Afrocentric contributions, take that chill pill. Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement, Wikipedia:Profanity, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view [162]

11 Feb 2005, 11:48, Ware responds to deeceevoices insult

Yeah I know, it's the same as last time when you refused to check out information from non-afrocentrist websites that I provided and called me a racist and broke off. I remember that. [163]

11 Feb 2005, 13:07,

El_C responds to deeceevoices attack against him I demand, as a condition of our discourse, which has now been terminated. As if Deeceevoice's obsesssion with proving the 'blackness' of ancient civilizations (true or not) is somehow at the heart of progressive anti-imperialist struggle(!). An utterly absurd, reactionary, and elitist notion, in my opinion. Somehow, s/he is the one who is entitled to lose patience, though, while attempting to single-handedly chart the direction of the article, with its all (crucially) nuanced emphases. All of that –regardless– if s/he is correct with his explicit claims in defence of ancient history-centred Afrocentric shcolarship. S/he has performed very poorly in explaining him or herself, with much bravado, lengthy copying of text (rather than more condensed, key exceprts) which could be linked and greatly clutters this talk page, chatroom exclamations that detracts rather than add to any colegial atmosphere, and with a great deal of intolerence towards, what in the worse of cases is mild prejudice that could be overcome with patience and mutual respect. Needless to say, highly lacking here throughout [164]

13 Feb 2005, 03:03, Ware racist, white supremacist assumptions regarding the contributions of nonwhite peoples to world history. What's this, a strawman attack that makes all Western research "white supremacist"? You gotta be kidding me. Renaissance, the Enlightenment, nationalism and related ideas and philosophies are western ideas, so what's so "white supremacist" about it. I don't think any Chinese person that I've talked to regard history as white supremacist or Eurocentric at best. Saying so is rather vitriolic. [165]

El_C , Wareware, Paul Barlow, Babajobu and -- Uncle Ed keep on discussing and editing the article.

20 Feb 2005, 11:58, deeceevoice deletes/reverts the new edits

Same old lies. No intellectual rigor whatsoever I read the lead paragraph and then dropped down to the section purporting to treat the ethnicity of Egyptians. Appaently, there was no intellectual rigor whatsoever devoted to the subject. The section does little more than conveniently perpetuate the usual lies/myths about ancient Egypt with NO effort to seriously examine the issues. Further, IMO, the selection of the first photograph was selected in an attempt to give credence to those lies. I've been (and continue to be) busy with deadlines, but will return to this subject when I have the time and the patience/inclination to do so. [166]

20 Feb 2005, 13:25, Paul B comments

see as usual you think that bluster counts as argument and that saying "it's all lies" somehow proves something. The two photographs were chosen for specific reasons... If you wish to seriously debate alterations to the text and to add material that supports some Afrocentic claims, then debate your points with other contributors. Otherwise I will simply revert your edits. Your deletion of my comments about the relationship of Afrocentrism to civil rights issues is an example of your high-handed manner. [167]

20 Feb 2005, 18:15, deeceevoice responds with racial slurs I find the abysmal and thoroughly obtuse ignorance on the part of so many whites in this regard more than a little curious... the susequent raft of misconceptions, silliness and outright racist crap that makes its way into the articles treating black people on Wikipedia. No matter how jaded one is, how accustomed to such appalling ignorance, it's disconcerting and downright disgusting. Not many folks have the patience for it -- and I'm fast losing what little I possess. Most black folk I know -- myself included -- do not have as their raison d'etre correcting the various and sundry racist misconceptions, presumptions and assumptions of white folks. As a matter of fact, we prefer to avoid contact with the most backwardly ignorant of you as much as humanly possible. [168]

20 Feb 2005, 19:52, Ware tries to reason

Well, that's one long polemic without any real arguments. You quoted one big proponent of Afrocentrism, so what? And the thing with classicists having no comeback. When Leftkowitz asked Asante why the hell would he say that Aristotle studied at the Library of Alexnandria when it was built after his death, he called her a racist. Really, tell me, who doesnt have a comeback? Who's the one talking out of the other end? [169]

23 Feb 2005, 12:41, Paul B criticizes deeceevoice edits about how Egyptians depicted themselves

Well, all I can say is that is you do not know perfectly well that Egyptians normally depicted themselves as red-brown, then you should see more Egyptian art before writing in an encyclopedia about how they depicted themselves. I could easily have chosen a depiction of a lighter skinned Egyptian, such as the famous bust of Nefertiti, if I'd wanted to show that Egyptians were pale-skinned people. I don't, because the evidence is that most of them weren't. I chose an image that seemed to be representative of the norm [170]

23 Feb 2005, 13:24, deeceevoice responds with a insult and racial slur

My, my. You've really got a bug up your butt, don't you? ...What's amusing is how white folks will call black folks with varying skin tones (which happens naturally, even without any "mixing") "Negroes" and "black people," but when it comes to Egypt, they take great pains to point to the fact that Egyptians sometimes depicted themselves using rich, dark brown skin tones as evidence that they aren't somehow "Negroid." WTF? [171]

23 Feb 2005, 15:52, -- Uncle Ed asks to avoid making personal remarks about other contributors and offers mediation

Civility. I think we should all avoid making personal remarks about other contributors: * your silly comments * got a bug up your butt +* you do not know * You know perfectly well * your conduct on that front –that you don't see it defeats your own points– never ceases to baffle me. If you need help, please ask a Mediator (like me for instance). [172]

23 Feb 2005, 20:16, [User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] refuses

Dear Uncle Ed, if we do need a mediator, we will need someone who is impartial -- not someone who apparently sees fit to criticize the contributions of a single member. Perhaps your services can be utilized elsewhere on Wikipedia. *x* [173]

24 Feb 2005, 03:54, El_C comments

Civility has nothing to do with contributions, and deeceevoice does seem to be the only one here to consistently be directing such uncivil, emotional exclamations towards other editors. It is my opinion that Ed is correct and has every right to insist on civility, as I and other here also have [174]

Between 24 Feb and 26 Feb, Ware edits Afrocentrism twice (2 times), Between 24 Feb and 26 Feb, deeceevoice edits Afrocentrism 29 times, 18 of them are reverts/deletions of earlier contributions from other editors [175].

Nevertheless deeceevoice interdicts Ware from editing the article, and threatens to report him for violating the 3-reverts rule.

26 Feb 2005, 10:34, deeceevoice:

With regard to many of your earlier changes, Wareware, I've reverted a lot of them -- again. I wrote much of the original text you've been tampering with, and I've made certain changes for a reason, Unless you have a good reason for reverting the edits and state them, let them stand. You seem hell-bent on reverting anything and everything I contribute. You even reverted a typo I'd corrected. Exercise some critical thinking and stop acting like an automaton. If you continue in this manner, I will report you for violating the 3-reverts rule. [176]

and, after El_C 02:30, 27 Feb 2005, complains that deeceevoice "changes were split through such a great number of successive edits (tens), it makes following the changes a rather prohibitive task" [177], [User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] indirectly attacks Ware and blames his "mindless and repeated reverts" for her edits.

27 Feb 2005 , 09:18, deeceevoice:

My apologies for the multiple, successive edits; but after Wareware's mindless and repeated reverts -- done completely without any justification being offered for most of them -- I felt compelled to make fewer changes at a time and specifically state my reasons for making each one in the hope of stopping this stupid back and forth. For a time, he was reverting my edits of my own material -- edits I made to either correct or refine information that I had presented, in one instance, even reverting a typo. He couldn't possibly have known what he was doing or why -- just simply slavishly reacting to anything he saw that I had done. Let's keep in mind, people, the objective is the accuracy and journalistic integrity of this piece [178]

Cool (aesthetic)[edit]

deeceevoice's assertion that Ware resurfaces at Talk: Cool (aesthetic) is not true.

February/March 2005

deeceevoice starts an edit war about the definition of Cool (aesthetic) attacks other editors after they challenge her edits and ask her to list her sources

8 Mar 2005 , 00:26,

deeceevoice :

What is pathetic is your arrogant ignorance. In your cluelessness, you assume that because you're unfamiliar with something it's simply a fabrication -- because I couldn't possibly know something you don't -- not even about my own culture. Typical arrogance. And "all African Americans"? Only mental cretins make assumptions about all anything. You shouldn't project your small-mindedness onto others. You come off looking like an even bigger jackass. ... I don't give a shyt what you think. You're nothing but a weasel [179]

8 Mar 2005, 14:42, After an anonymous user challenges deeceevoice edits she accuses him of being a racist who anonymously vandalized her user page.

Another anonymous "contribution" by a puerile mental cretin who engages in vandalism of user pages because he can't hold his own in a civilized discussion. Weak. Pathetic. Coward"   [180]

8 Mar 2005, 17:07,

Lockeownzj00 joins the discussion, and also challenges deeceevoiceedits, now deeceevoice accuses Lockeownzj00 to be the anonymous person and personal attacks him.

Ah. So, the weasel identifies himself? *snicker* .... I don't presume that my writing is flawless, but belligerance and abject ignorance frontin' like knowledge certainly can't touch it. When you can explain how "juxtaposition and coexistence" applies to, say, African dance and then to, say, Ray-bans -- then maybe you'll be ready to edit my definition. Until then, perhaps you should stick to really heavyweight subjects like Star Wars or the Forces of Evil. :-p [181]

9 Mar 2005, 01:31 and 03:35,

Lockeownzj00 asks deeceevoice to source her edits [182], and challenges her hostile tone and her POV edits [183],

deeceevoice refuses to provide her sources and responds with a personal attacks instead:

9 Mar 2005, 06:54 deeceevoice :

you're not only ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous, you're lazy! I'm not here to be your personal tutor on African or African-American culture. Your computer has a search engine. Use it. I'm certain you'll find plentiful information relatively easily -- if it is information you truly seek, rather than validation of your own obtuseness. [184]

10 Mar 2005, 03:51,

deeceevoice :

Who said anything about being "conversational" or "kind"? lol You're kidding -- right? Do some research, and then maybe I'll have something to say to you. Of course, rather than take some initiative for your own education, you can always sit around and wait for someone else to enlighten you. [185]

9 Mar 2005, 03:57,

Ware leaves a note on Lockeownzj00 talk page Don't bother arguing with deeceevoice. Just look at his discussions and edits on Afrocentrism and you'll know that you can't get anything "un-racist" through his glued head. [186]

12 Mar 2005, 03:38, Lockeownzj00 keeps asking for sources [187]

12 Mar 2005, 23:34, deeceevoice refuse and continues her personal attacks against Lockeownzj00

What I've written is fact. You rudely, arrogantly and ignorantly challenged it -- without asking questions first. You simply ASS-umed I had fabricated my entry. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have a problem pullin' your coat, but given your belligerence, I'm not so disposed. I don't have time for such obnoxious bull from the intentionally obtuse. Like I said, the information is readly available on the Internet -- if you care enough to find out the facts. [188]

13 Mar 2005, 04:45, Deglr6328 joins the discussion , and files an RfC 13 Mar 2005, 05:31,

That makes absolutely no sense. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by your lack of a cooperative attitude on the talk pages. I'd like to get some more opinions on the topic so I've listed at RfC [189]

African American Vernacular English[edit]

27 Oct 2004, 21:50,

Nohat remarks that the assertion that differences in pronunciation are a carryover from West African languages is disputed [190]

1 Nov 2004 07:05, / 8 Nov 2004 23:36, deeceevoice responds with a racial slur and accuses Nohat of racism

Why is it that white folks (certainly, in my experience, white Americans) are so blind or obtuse our African roots? [191] Curious how folks will automatically agree that certain language characteristics of Americans who are the progeny of Eastern European Jews -- hooking g's, reversal of verb and subject sequence, questions asked in the form of statements but with an inquisitive inflection -- are Yiddish in origin. No one would question that the cadence and certain characteristics of Italian-Amercan speech are obviously from Italy/Italian -- and on an on. But when it comes to diasporic Africans, all of a sudden, our speech and language patterns are somehow created, out of whole cloth, in the New World. This is really galling. Not only does this NOT make any sense, it reminds me of the old lies and racist assumptions about blacks not having any culture before they came in contact with Europeans. ... The validity of AAVE as a dialect with clearly West African origins had been established for DECADES -- long before the "Eubonics" debate which began in California became a political football and an opportunity for every reactionary, racist, neocon radio pundit and hack columnist weighed in on the matter with ill-informed, but highly opinionated rhetoric to the contrary. [192]

9 Nov 2004, 20:08, /10 Nov 2004, 05:32, Nohat clarifies that he wants to achieve NPOV and that his edits are not motivated by racism [193] [194]

10 Nov 2004, 01:33 and 11:30, deeceevoice responds I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the racism crap and assume you're trying to be funny [195] Wrong again. If/when I think you're being racist, I'll let you know. And since when did "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" become a threat? Get a grip. Understand that your assumption that I (or any black person, for that matter) am so hypersensitive in matters of race that I am incapable of distinguishing what is and what is not racism is in itself an insult. Quite the contrary. If, in your opinion, you're not being racist, then fine an' dandy. There's no need to tell me when you stopped beating your wife. (Damn.) [196]

11 Nov 2004, 19:56, Nohat withdraws from the discussion I feel like this conversation is essentially over--there are no more important issues at hand, but I wanted to point out that there is a big difference between "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" and "telling someone you're giving them the benefit of the doubt". [197]

12 Nov 2004, 00:41, deeceevoice responds Oh. Like not being racist and actually saying you're not being racist? LOL *slappin' sides* :-D [198]

18 Mar 2005, 19:13, deeceevoice states that "white folks generally (because of certain physical limitations) don't have the equipment to sound like black folks when they speak" [199]

18 Mar 2005, 22:14, Quill challenges deeceevoices assertion Excuse me, but you've got to direct me to some legitimate sources here. A lot of them. Deecee, if anyone had the temerity, stupidity-- what can I say--the unmitigated gall to state in my presence that an African-American could not, e.g. recite Shakespeare, dance ballet, sing opera, comprehend higher mathematics or speak ancient Greek because black "folks generally (because of certain physical limitations) don't have the equipment to ... like [white] folks when they ... -- especially men. (It's a function of ....)" my ire would know no bounds. Unless you've got some serious scientific backup, please do not make such statements--at all--ever. We've got enough racists ready to pounce without giving them such obvious openings. [200]

19 Mar 2005, 07:16, deeceevoice responds The simple answer is head-voice resonance. Now, I hesitated when I used the word "limitations," because it is in some way value-laden and I knew could be construed to mean "less than" or "inferior to," when such is not the case -- unless one applies a subjective standard of particular personal taste. (White folks get extremely touchy when it comes to stuff like this!) But the word simply fits in this context. [201]

19 Mar 2005, 07:27, Marnen Laibow-Koser disagrees as well [202]

19 Mar 2005, 10:55, deeceevoice responds with a racial slur The more I engage in exchanges with white folks on Wikipedia, the more I am reminded of why so many black people just don't bother. Everything is an effort, everything requires some explanation [203]

20 Mar 2005, 06:20,Marnen Laibow-Koser asks deeceevoice to back up her assertion [204]

20 Mar 2005, 10:20, deeceevoice refuses and responds with a racial slur instead

I'm not going to spend my time searching the Internet for sources -- particularly for stuff that isn't germane to the article in question and perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street. I have neither the time nor the patience. But that's just me. After a while, this kind of stuff gets really old really fast; it's just wearisome. I've already spent too much time discussing this. What some white folks stubbornly want to believe is what they want to believe [205]

20 Mar 2005 , 16:03, Marnen Laibow-Koser again asks deeceevoice to back up her claims

Deeceevoice, I'm disappointed in you. I think a lot of what you have to say is extremely valuable, but this refusal to back up what you claim is really shooting yourself in the foot. Your assertions may be "perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street", but they're not obvious to me (or Quill, or probably a lot of other nonblack Wikipedians). It appears that you complain about not being understood by nonblacks, but then you refuse to explain yourself when asked by people who genuinely want to understand what you're saying. That's not fair, either to yourself or to anyone else. [206]

21 Mar 2005, 03:16, deeceevoice still refuses and responds with a personal attack

My ego isn't invested in any of this. What do I care if, in your ignorance, you disagree? Things are no different today from what they were yesterday, or what they will be tomorrow. I'm out. [207]

21 Mar 2005, 21:16, Quill comments

And yet, all you've done is state your opinion. You've invested a lot of time in stating your opinion. The problem is that your opinion differs from what others have learned. My ignorance? Marnen's ignorance? Maybe, but you haven't alleviated it. + You're right about one thing: the issue here was the sentence that begins "Most African Americans, regardless of socioeconomic...." I maintain that that sentence is misleading. >/code> [208]

21 Mar 2005, 21:34, deeceevoice responds

*chuckling* Like I care what it sounds like to you. :-p The statement isn't misleading at all. ... Two of you have provided examples of black folks who've confessed to you what difficulty they have in speaking AAVE. That "oh, poor me" complaining can be even more of an artifice, far more of a put-on than code switching. Now, I'm not saying such is the case with the instances described herein, but certain knee-grows like to give the impression that they're so far removed from the "great unwashed" of the black masses, that they have a problem fitting in; they're too "well-spoken," as white folks are fond of putting it. Most black folks I know who have their heads straight (not straight-ened) wouldn't dream of saying such things to someone white; it smacks not only of personal insecurity but a desire to suck up to white folks. Yeah, there are plenty of self-loathing, uppity black folks who speak SAE who make a big deal out of being teased because of their "proper grammar." They think their above-average facility with SAE somehow makes them special, and they seek white approval/validation. (This syndrome is particularly noticeable in half-white kids who enjoy being an "exotic" -- just as long as they're not perceived as being "too" black -- and are not above playing the classic tragic mulatto in order to set themselves apart.) But it's my experience that even many of these same folks' speech has readily discernible elements of AAVE if they've grown up in a black family (in this case, generally not the "tragic mulattoes"). One simply has to know what to look for. Finally, Quill, given that black folks do code switch, and given the fact that you're white, you're certainly in a far less tenable situation than I to accurately judge how many black people speak AAVE, how often and to what extent. What part of that don't you get? [209]

22 Mar 2005, 21:41, Quill

The part where you make many assumptions and then base arguments on them. The part where you express your opinion as fact. The part where you contradict your own arguments. The above is amusing; I 'get' you pretty well, actually. Didn't you say you were 'out'? [210]

22 Mar 2005, 22:09, Marnen Laibow-Koser asks deeceevoice asgain to cite her sources So you're only aiming this article at people who agree with you? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it will be read by people who do agree with any given view, people who don't agree, and people for whom neither is true. What happened to striving for accuracy and citing your sources? What happened to NPOV? + ::Also, it is not necessarily the case that those of us who disagree with you are "ignorant". Making such unjustified assumptions effectively cuts off any possibility for dialogue. Anyway, if we're really ignorant, wouldn't educating us be more productive than teasing us for our ignorance? + ::Finally, if (as you claim) you don't have any ego invested in this debate, why are you being so defensive and unhelpful when your assertions are questioned? [211]

22 Mar 2005, 22:53, deeceevoice responds with an attack against Quill

I've already said I wouldn't discuss that matter any further. Accept it or don't; it really doesn't matter to me. It's not germane to this discussion. Bottom line, black folks generally don't speak AAVE around white folks. Quill, you got no clue. :-p [212]

23 Mar 2005, 03:41, Marnen Laibow-Koser comments If it wasn't germane, why did you bring it up in the first place? If it was germane enough to bring up in the first place, why is it not germane enough to take responsibility for? I won't speculate on your motives in doing this, but this sort of behavior does call the credibility of everything else you've said into question. Is it worth your credibility to go on playing these silly games? [213]

23 Mar 2005, 08:31, Quill comments Well, Deecee, I've been called 'clueless' before; but since many more people think I'm brilliant, I can live with the fact that there are a few who don't. In this case, I happen to be quite clued in; you don't recognize that because you've made assumptions and decided that you don't have to credit any disagreement because of those assumptions. I understand your frustration, I even understand the chip on your shoulder, but that doesn't mean that I will let bigotry pass without comment. [214]

23 Mar 2005, 19:37, deeceevoice attacks Quill

You got me laughin' out loud up in here, Quill. You mistake plain-speak for having a "chip on [one's] shoulder." And "bigotry"? LMBAO! :-D I don't give other people that kind of power over me. Life is good. :-) Now, about that "brilliant" thing (how embarrassing). Gee, I'm sure the vast preponderance of those fortunate enough know you are simply blinded by your "brilliance" -- as are we all here on Wikipedia (bowing low); we're all duly impressed by your huge "Mars Attacks"-like brain: http://videodetective.com/search.asp?SearchForMethodId=1&searchstring=mars+attacks&search.x=6&search.y=7) not to mention such a self-serving observation. (Crackin' up, still. Dang. And whose ego is showin' here?) But as a "brilliant" white man, when it comes to gauging how widely black folks speak AAVE -- when it is virtually universally acknowledged that we generally don't do so ("code switching") in the presence of white folks dumb as dirt or otherwise; you're outsiders in this regard -- I repeat: you got no clue. Now, writing "You got no clue" is different from calling you "clueless." (Far be it from me to do so! I certainly wouldn't want to be among the lowly, benighted "few" who don't recognize the awesomeness of your magnificent brain power!) The simple fact is you are in absolutely no position to have any kind of credible opinion on the matter -- unless, of course you have some sort of empirical evidence. Which you don't. Otherwise, you would have presented it. So, again, my "brilliant," white brutha, when it comes to the numbers of blacks who speak AAVE and the numbers who don't, you got no clue. It should be a simple concept for someone of your dazzling intellectual capacities. Your obtuseness is baffling. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to Wikipedians of lesser intellect. (I'd like to know, too. :-p) So, I gotta ask again: just what part of that don't you get? Inquiring minds want to know. :-p [215]

23 Mar 2005, 22:07, Quill responds

You keep saying you've had enough, Deecee, but not enough to refrain from tossing the sarcasm around. I never said I thought I was brilliant, btw, just one more thing you've misquoted me on. I'm actually going to save all this; it's going to be great in a book sometime, as an illustration of just how wrong people can be. + :::Fascinating that I'm now supposed to come up with 'empirical evidence', where you can simply restate opinion and assumption and call me 'obtuse' for not accepting that as fact. + :::Inquiring minds might want to know, but at this point your mind isn't inquiring, it's closed. [216]

23 Mar 2005, 23:36, deeceevoice responds with another insult

Aw, Quill, baby. Just havin' a little fun. :-p (chuckling) No, you didn't say you were brilliant -- did you? Just that everyone who knows you -- except "a few" -- does. Oh, yeah, and you also mentioned that you're "quite clued in" -- whatever the hell that means. lol Maybe it's just me, but I find the sheer smugness of that really hilarious. Ah, well, humor: diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.... :-p [217]

24 Mar 2005, 02:51, Ware, in defense of Quill , calls deeceevoice on her double standard

Hi deecee, I see that you're having fun ridiculing other folks again, pretty much illustrating what I wrote in the black supremacy discussion page. You're living proof no kidding. You gotta stop doing this crap. If you think it's not okay for someone to call you ape-brained, why would Martian-brained be better? Or is it all just part of the fun? [218]

24 Mar 2005, 05:49, deeceevoice responds

Re: Wareware's post: I have absolutely no intention of engaging this racist mental cretin who uses words like "ape," "savage," "jungle," "monkey" when referring to black folks in a discussion on AAVE. Period. [219]

24 Mar 2005, 06:12, Ware Would you answer my question if I call you a moronic bag of shit or Martian-brained? Honestly, is that any better? [220]