Current time: Tuesday, November 5, 2024, 16:32 (UTC)

Leave a message

User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive

Quotes

archived @ User:Sam Spade/Quotes

It is He who is revealed in every face, sought in every sign, gazed upon by every eye, worshipped in every object of worship, and pursued in the unseen and the visible. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find Him in its primordial and original nature.

Futûhât al-Makkiyya

Art

User:Sam Spade/Art and artists

Ed Poor

If you are serious about wanting Ed Poor off the committee, state your case at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Ed Poor. I will contact every single mediator and have them vote, arbcom style. If there's a consensus to kick him out, he will be kicked out. I myself will act as the top judge and will monitor it and will not vote. If the link above becomes blue, leave a message at my talk page and I'll proceed with the case. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks very much for your welcome!! I hope that I'll be able to contribute much. I'm currently working on dumping my knowledge of video game lore into certain appropriate articles. :-) ParallaxTZ 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles will be read, that much is certain ;) Sam Spade 00:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dated user message

Hi. Your user welcome message is signing as 31 August 05. See User talk:ParallaxTZ. Thought you'd like to know.. Secret london 00:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it gives the time stamp from when I last edited it. Thanks tho. Sam Spade 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, I used a number of dictionaries which helps me to build a good one. - Vaikunda & Raja

Re: welcome

Thanks for the welcome. I'm slowly finding my way around. JohnSankey 08:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope those links help! Cheers, Sam Spade 14:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Talk:Psychoanalysis

I understand the practical reasons for archiving. I do wonder, though, what this does to the cumulativity of discussions. Not that unarchived Talk pages are necessarily consulted for background systematically.... --Macrakis 18:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't archive this particular page, but I do often archive after coming to a contentious page. Such pages usually have alot of long winded debate, and I find it best to clear the air and allow for people to take a fresh start periodically ;) Sam Spade 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

human

On June 2nd you suggested adding this to the introduction of the article for "Human":

A concept current within the scientific community is that human evolution occured in response to a need for long distance running. Humans are said to be one of a short list of animals with such a capacity.

It (the above 2 sentences) were later added to the article and they are still in the current version of the article in this form:

One current hypothesis within the scientific community is that the human evolution of bipedalism (two-legged locomotion) occurred in response to a need for long-distance running. Humans are said to be one of a short list of animals with such a capacity.

I agree that the origin of human bipedal locomotion is an important issue, but I think that mention of specific speculative ideas about it is not the best thing to include right at the start of the article for "Human". Nobody knows how or why humans became bipedal. A list of speculations about the origin of human pipedal locomotion could be added to Human evolution or some other page dealing with human origins. Since these speculations are tentative, they should be presented on a page along with citations to specific references.

My suggestion is that these two sentences be replaced with something like: "Current evidence indicates that bipedal locomotion in the human lineage evolved before the large human brain. The evolutionary origins of human bipedal locomation and its role in human brain evolution are topics of on-going research." --JWSchmidt 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've looked over Talk:Human, but the discussion regarding the intro filled up a number or archives ;) Still, if you'd like to see this changed (I an decidedly neutral myself), I would recommend mentioning it there. Sam Spade 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Human#intro. Cheers, Sam Spade 14:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome and for the links.

Ciao! Trifola 14:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you! Sam Spade 14:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bektashi

Thank you for your comment about the Bektashi article. However, I would like to ask you to comment in more detail, i.e., clarify what you think about the appropriateness about these jokes and the accusation/offensive comment directed against me by freestylefrappe. Thanks again. AldirmaGonul 14:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Sam Spade 15:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Höðr and Lóðurr

Hi, Sam! :)

There's currently a vote underway on Talk:Höðr on whether Höðr should be moved to Hodur and another at Talk:Lóðurr on whether Lóðurr should be moved to Lodur. I know you've edited Höðr in the past and I thought you might be interested. Your opinion is valued if you are. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Greetings, and thanks for your letter. I've been learning a lot on the fly, as probably a good many editors have; but the links shall be very useful, and I will hang on to them. (Actually, when I saw the flag, "You have messages," I thought I was either (1) in trouble for something; or (2) getting some abuse from some vandals that have been attacking the Code: Lyoko page. I've been helping to fend them off over the weekend, but it's just teen larking, AFAIK.

Peace be to you.

I obviously still don't have a total command of the Wiki. That other message was from me. And this is probably wasting bandwitdth, so I'll shut up (grin).

Harperbruce 14:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like your often to an excellent start! I'll have a look @ Code: Lyoko. Cheers, Sam Spade 21:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Buttfor is a sassy lass

Yikes. That was obviously not what I intended. Dystopos 13:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"no jumping que"

It's spelled "queue".[1] -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sam!

Thank you for your support on my RfA, and for your very kind words. Both are sincerely appreciated. It is always a pleasure collaborating with you.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Florida article about Jim Wales and wikipedia

Hi, Sam There's an interesting article about Jim wales and wikipedia. http://www.floridatrend.com/issue/default.asp?a=5617&s=1&d=9/1/2005

Interestingly, Jim is virtually unknown in Florida, where he lives and is more famous outside the Us.

Raj2004 00:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely good article, thank you! I'm going to post it on the mailing list. Sam Spade 13:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. Cheers, Sam Spade 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Sam

Raj2004 00:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbiter refuses to discuss mistakes

This does not strike me as a sound revert, nor the right wording regarding it. Please be more careful with reverts and edit summaries. Sam Spade 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was sound, the reasoning was sound, and please do not bring up 3 month old edits on my Talk: page any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any basis for that revert (which you have chosen not to explain) the personal attack was of course unwarranted.

I will continue to bring attention to unfortunate misuses of the revert function, and politically motivated personal attacks in the edit summaries. If you refuse to accept or discuss your mistakes, and they continue, I will of course go forward with the next step of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Sam Spade 12:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Page!?

AWESOME JOB ON IT! like a professional:D User:Xino

Have you seen the sub-pages? I'm still working on those, of course... Sam Spade 23:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

o_O.You got Sub Pages.. lets check it..out

Nice awards...wait a minute did you steal them and put your name on it

don't worry i don't need an award, i may even own this Wiki

by the way.. your Internet Logo, doesn't come up has "W" it comes up has "Y" Yahoo sig..thats cool><ino 06:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which logo? Sam Spade 14:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I just posted "The lies/misrepresentations that constitute this hatchet job can be appreciated by studying the involved set-up behind this misrepresentation: "he posted a list of 12 things that I must do before he will leave me alone". How about: "He was goaded into stating what would make him comfortable enough to throw away the subpages he thought he might need if an attack like this one were to occur." So that it could here be taken out of context, misrepresented, and used as a weapon against him. These bullies make me sick." at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2. WAS 4.250 10:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and wish your comment was an outside view of its own, so I could endorse it. As it is its in a subsection on terrorism, and I am not well aquainted enough w the particulars to endorse it there. Sam Spade 14:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks a lot for the links. I really want to try and contribute to wikipedia and I've been nervous about making large additions to any page. These will help a lot.

Seirscius 23:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsertion of Material in Time Cube

Hi. In this edit, you reinserted lists of quotes from the Time Cube website. This material was previously controversial. It would be greatly appreciated if you enumerated your reasons for this reinsertion on the talk page. Thanks. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 18:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu denominations

Sam, I agree with you that most Hindus probably don't fall into any denomination and adopt smarta beliefs. Of those who choose a denomination, most are Vaishnavites. On the other hand, those who agree with the inclusive monotheism model do fall into smarta category.

Among Brahmins, smarta is a common distinction to distinguish between Brahmins who follow Madhva; i.e., Madwas, or Ramanuja, Srivaishnavite Brahmin or Saivite Brahmin such as Iyer.

Thanks, Raj2004 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Shankara

In what sense is it "bad form" to revert edits whose main function was to turn decent English into poorer English? I don't, for example, insist on changing so-called "split infinitives", but I can't see the point of an edit that deliberately inserts one where the text originally avoided it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They made alot of edits, most of them good. Reverts are not ment for such purposes. Sam Spade 01:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"most of them good". Which? One or two were, and I kept those. You, on the other, simply reverted everything.

"Reverts are not ment for such purposes." I don't know what this means, except that you disagreed with my reverting the edits. I wanted an explanation, not a mere repetition of your position. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary edits, please avoid reverts in the future. Sam Spade 20:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following to Mel's talk page: Split infinitive says In the present day, all reference texts of grammar deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable..

I wonder if I should have also quoted where it says a split infinitive can remove ambiguity or where wikipedia says not to pointlessly revert. I never can tell where the line is between not providing enough data (Why didn't you say so?) and providing too much (What do you think I am - an idiot?) WAS 4.250 23:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a near total loss as to what to do about mel. In reality, I think its less his fault than the wikipedia's social structure, which rewards cliqueness and discourages well reasoned discussion. We need a different method of Reputation management. Of course, w Jimbo's recent decision to micromanage the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005, and the sort of discussion I see on the Wikipedia:Mailing list... I don't have over much hope.

My answer is to focus on doing what I enjoy, reading and writing high quality encyclopedia articles, and talking to nice people (like yourself), rather than messing about w users like mel. Sam Spade 00:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one

Thanks for that mate, being blocked is amazingly annoying. Martin 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, having been controvercially blocked twice now I can empathise. The wikipedia needs more rewards, and less punishments. We are volunteers after all, not prisoners, and focusing on punishments (blocks, arbcom, criticism) as we do drives away good contributors, and encourages malevolent ones. Sam Spade 19:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that, altho I usually contain my statements to the evidence page, not wanting the workshop to become overly cluttered. Indeed as you can see here, I advise against excessive use of the workshop page. Are you meaning to say you'd prefer more comments be made there? Also, what was this about rewards? ;)

Cheers, Sam Spade 15:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rumor is that should a members advocate (rather than wikilawering) contributed a suggestion which was used User:Kelly Martin would "buy them a drink." Yes Workshop provides a platform for lengthy effusions; but constructive and thoughtful suggestions are more welcome. Can't have too many of those. Fred Bauder 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... not sure my wife would allow that! Anyways, I will begin to make suggestions in the workshops, if nothing else it will provide an example of the sorts of decisions I might make, and should give you some food for thought. Thank you for your informations, Sam Spade 16:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam

Gee Sam, you are supposed to be a friendly user! Lol. Just kidding. :) I appreciate your vote, but if you think my "campaigning" for votes was wrong, it was because of this reason. A couple of users voting oppose were rallying support against me. See the following: [3], [4], [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (+ there are even more). I didn't think that was fair. Btw, I simply asked all the users I have had contact with before, and I just asked them to vote, not necessarily support. Thank you for your concern. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently wrong w campaigning, particularly when it is general, rather than selective, in nature. Yours gave me a clear impression that you were seeking a particular partisan voting bloc.

As far as opposition campaigning, there is a precedent against that, I used informations regarding such an incident in one of my many successful cases before the ArbCom. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK.

So that you know, I don't rule out voting for you in the future, if you improve the bad impression the current RfA gave. I am certain I am not alone in that regard. You may want to consider a new user name and a fresh start. Sam Spade 03:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I wasn't selecting a particular voting bloc, just all the editors I know and some I have seen around. Aside from that I had only good faith, no bad intents. I don't think I can improve the bad impression Sam. There are just some voters who will do this and I can't change who they are. I have changed a lot since I first started editing here, but unfortunately there are people out there who don't want to change. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate, some of the support voters are among my most unreasonable opposition. I assure you however that everyone changes, and that I make no judgement regarding you as a person, but only regarding the small bit of information I have seen regarding you. If you are confident you are being unfairly persecuted by unreasonable persons, it should be easy enough for you as an anonymous editor to create a new acount and a fresh start, thereby leaqving all that baggage behind you. Sam Spade 03:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the advice. However, I don't want to lose the reputation I have with good editors simply because some are doing this is bad faith. Thank you for the advice though and just wondering, why "strong oppose"? Now that you have seen both sides of the story. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find the situation disturbing and creepy, and feel strongly this is not the time or manner in which a promotion should occur. Sam Spade 13:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fin

Picture of the day

The tentacled flathead (Papilloculiceps longiceps) is a species of marine fish belonging to the flathead family, Platycephalidae. It is found in the western Indian Ocean, including the Red Sea, and also in the Mediterranean Sea, probably as a result of migration through the Suez Canal. The tentacled flathead is a well camouflaged, ambush predator of fish and crustaceans, living near coral reefs on sand or rubble substrates at depths of up to 15 metres (49 feet). The species has an elongate body, with a maximum published length of 70 centimetres (28 inches), although 50 centimetres (20 inches) is more typical. It has a depressed head with five prominent nuchal spines, ridges on its operculum and preoperculum, a spine on the rear of the suborbital ridge, and smaller spines elsewhere. The body is mottled brownish or greenish dorsally, and whitish ventrally. There are three or four dark bands on the caudal fin, and the other fins are marked with large, dark blotches. This tentacled flathead was photographed in the Red Sea in Ras Muhammad National Park, off the southern coast of the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt.Photograph credit: Diego Delso

Archive – More featured pictures...

To include this picture of the day on a page, add the text {{pic of the day}}.

Page Protection problems

FYI - The arbcom case I had against Willmcw and SlimVirgin was accepted last week and the usual clique is now at it again. A recent incident stands out that I thought I'd ask your advice on. I introduced evidence for the arbitration showing that SlimVirgin had repeatedly and flagrantly violated WP:PPol's injunction against admins from protecting pages where they've been editing[11]. A couple days later SlimVirgin went over to WP:PPol and quietly tried to change the policy itself she had violated in a way that would give her more cover.[12] This was also done without consensus on the talk page as is required for changing official policies. I reverted back and posted an explanatory note, but knowing the way she operates I'm anticipating that the clique will arrive in short order and try to bully her change into official policy so she can get off the hook when the Arbcom looks at it. Please take a moment to review this incident - any advice or input would be much appreciated. Rangerdude 04:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty Board

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a great idea, there are a few articles I'd be willing to pay a bit to see improved! I doubt I'd be especially inclined to work on these however, as I very rarely make improvements to articles I wasn't reading for enjoyment to begin w. Anyhow, this is an extremely good idea, providing an incentive (however convoluted) to editors for their work. Thanks for the heads up, Sam Spade 23:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sufism

I think it would be better if we started a single article named Sufi Philosophies and add cosmology & Lataif-e-Sitta in it . Since there will be a lot more concepts/philosophies coming up , I think it would be nice to have all of them in one article , rather than different pages . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال}^/c 21:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not both? My conception of an ideal wiki article is a hub, linking to related texts. You can always summarise on a central page, but whey lose content which can exist on a subpage? Sufi philosopy is going to result in a huge amount of content, over time. What we need to do is set up a good framework. Sam Spade 21:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can help a bit with North African Sufism, it is radically different from Sufism practiced by non-native speakers of Arabic though and I'll have to explain tons of it, it mainly revolves around repeating verses, repeating LONG prayers, and if it does have a cosmology I don't know it nor really care about it. Been practicing it for 12 yrs or more.--The Brain 00:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mandate of heaven

What is the Mandate of heaven?

Mandate of Heaven or The Mandate of Heaven? Sam Spade 22:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Amalekite affair is discussed again

I don't know if you noticed but the Amalekite affair has been brought up again on my RFA, which now looks as though it will probably fail due to it, with around 7 new oppose votes having come in today. I would value your opinion though I understand if you don't want to wade into that dark pit again. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lonnie Donegan - Sing Hallelujah.jpg

This image had to be removed from Lonnie Donegan as there is no commentary on it in the article it is violating fair use law. You can readd it if you mention it in the article and say how well it was received etc., although the image you added ws a recent reissue it would be better to use the original. Arniep 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Sam Spade 20:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for the kind words. I had kind of had it, but this helped. My thesis is about explaining why European Defence is picking up, and more specifically why now? Why not in 1989? Or even after Bosnia? Why now? Not sure about the answers yet, but i'll find out soon hopefully! I'm putting wiki work on hold, I really have to get to work on it... About those articles: I will probably also do a bit of work on them. I'm busy writing my thesis anyway, so i'll put some stuff on Wiki while i'm on it - there is almost nothing on Wiki on that topic! It'd be nice to do some stuff together. Well, see you around! The Minist e r of War^(Peace) 18:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FK Research

Dear Sam, Famekeeper's gone a while and I don't miss him. You were involved with him and have wondered about his language. Well, I asked a friend of mine, who's into computers and stuff, about his IP and he said, that FK posted from Dublin, Ireland. He also thought that his language as well as his insistence on being a native speaker of English remings of Indians (meaning from the subcontinent) he was talking about. This is also confirmed by some sections from FK's talk page: [13] [14] [15]

I thought I might post this, in case you're interested. Str1977 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I can understand why you didn't enjoy him, but I enjoyed cleaning up his additions, mainly due to my interest in the subject matter. He was clearly very opinionated (regarding you as well as catholicism and etc...), but bulk content contributers usually are... Sam Spade 22:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone. →Raul654 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur's RFA

Thanks, Jack. I appreciated it. All of it. - Haukur

What bothers me is that this wasn't a situation where reasonable people could disagree. Your one of the very best wikipedians (the best I can think of, actually), someone who writes wikipedia articles which are better than what can be found elsewhere. I used Lóðurr as a justification to my professor as to why wikipedia should exist, and be given a shred of credibility. Hrafnkels saga is another example of something that just can't be found on other encyclopedias.

As monstrous as some may have found your request for administrative review and intellectual rigour in the case of this one "nazi" (I think in other times and places this word for an unpopular minority could be traded for "communist" or "jew"), no one was ever able to show any credible basis for assuming you would misuse the status of adminship. Quite the opposite.

I am frankly disgusted that a project i have so long volunteered for allows such partisans a monopoly on the RFA process. In the end, it is RFA that needs to be changed, not your willingness to fight fallacious reasoning and crowd psychology. Thank you for all you have done, Sam Spade 16:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A "Spirituality" portal

Hi Sam,

Goethean and I have been discussing the possibility of creating a “Spirituality” portal. I’ll be asking some other editors to weigh in on the subject as well. What do you think? — Richard_RDF^talk 12:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiritual Fauna, but it hasn't gained any interest. Advertising these sorts of things seems to be important. In any case, yes, I'm interested. Sam Spade 16:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Would you be willing to comment at the above link and mention something about the project you started? :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 16:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I entered some basics to get the ball rolling. I look forward to your participation in the Spirituality WikiProject and reading your contributions to the Spirituality portal. :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 00:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoof?

You may want to check out this user, if you didn't already know about them. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do, and I'm not too worried about it. He seems to be an advocate of a micronation, rather than an attempt to make me look bad. I appreciate the courtesy of your note,

Sam Spade 12:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

H's P, again

Thanks for your kind words Sam. I leaft a link on the discussion for H's P which is the clearest most complete analysis available . I keep an eye on things from the exterior , and the guy who noted on my Rfc that things don't link , would find they link still less now . It is almost comic how it's effected . Really though I don't like the idea of hopping thru the german sections and nazi sections and all that , but it will have to be done unless we abdicate altogether . I can only suggest you read that link , such that you will understand . Even jimbo said that there's no point in persuading those who don't want to hear , and I don't retain such an illusion . I put the link for the rest of you - I suggest it be edited as minimally as possible and used to correct all the relevant articles , Hitler, Weimar, Popes , Magnates.

As to Str missing me and wanting to find me - I left word at the start of all this on WP , in case I'd be missed . As you well know, every hair is counted in time , especially in India . EffK 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is destructive as it removes the focus of a case away from trying to find out what the real problems are and trying to find a solution. Encouraging someone else to focus on wikilawyering as the basis of a defense rather than addressing their behavior is quite unproductive. By the way, the arbitrators are equal in status. Fred Bauder 20:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint on this particular is diametrically opposed to my own, and not for the first time. We disagreed regarding your wiki-info, and the exceptions to your SPOV. And we utterly disagree here, regarding the ability of Kelly Martin to adjudicate in a non-partisan manner in this case, and in your assessment of the standing of appointed arbiters as opposed to those who have been given a mandate by the community (such as Theresa Knott). Arbiters, admins, Jimbo and the board do not an encyclopedia make. The contributers, the readers, and the developers are the key to the community, and they have not signed off on these recent "appointees", nor the process which might be taking place to replace them this december. Sam Spade 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

up-coming wikishowdown :please note

I'm sorry to butt in here but you are both somewhat familiar with famekeeper problems. On return here I have immediately encountered the editor ,User:Str1977 , who has taken again , it upon himself to revert all and any extra background and foreground to nazi historical/ vatican subjects. I came back because str1977 was speculating as to my location in depth , and consorting in malicious calumny with User:Robert McClenon as to my sanity . This is rather more serious than their shared use of ad hominem against my writing and left me no choice but to return to the fray . Fred knows that I was driven out by Jimbo to Wikinfo, but also knows that I have not treated it with the same active sense as the Wikipedia .

I stumble upon you both having asked User:Pjacobi to assist in oversight to the Reichskonkordat article where Str1977 has tried immediately to revert my additional history , even to the extent of reverting material re: Nuremburg Trials . I find this so shocking that I conclude that after all there will have to be a wikishowdown between myself and Str1977 , and I invite you both to join as responsible citizens of this sorry planet's cyberspace , in oversight of this very showdown . I ask either one and both of you , if you judge it a necessity as I now do , to list that user , with or without my user name(whatever cookie it is) , under whichever list , pages, alerts necessary . A general decision should be possible, though I rather fear from this particular section , that both of you are at odds over similar current dispute . I appeal to you and to everyone , to consider this with the seriousness and relevance of this history to our present world as real factor in your action or decision towards inaction . There is no point in mediation , and there is no point in the WP , if such a cavalier dismissal of history is left to reign un-checked . I believe that Str1977 is a clear enemy to truth and understanding , and i regret to ask for you to assist in extracting the mental vandalism, albeit of the highest possible order, from polluting this organ . Please now call for study of his editing however so tedious and let's hopefully have him permanently removed from WP . However erudite his contributions to abstruse subjects may appear I refer to his particularly focused efforts at sanitisation of all links and references from history concerning the darker history of temporary , mistaken and immoral collusion between the Holy see and Hitlerism . I presume neither of you gentlemen is frightened to so assist . yrs EffK 23:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax and have some tea. If I thought Str1977 needed to be banned (which i don't), and I had time to review his edits (which I don't), now is not the time to bring an ArbCom case.

I understand you and he havn't gotten along, but the key is to be as nice to him as possible, and focus on citing sources and allowing others to step in and correct the situation. I will review the article in question, and please remain calm. Sam Spade 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sam, despite EffK's accusations. I have looked at his edits with an open mind and even retained some (smaller edits). However, alomost everything was either off-topic, or inaccurate or POV. It was basically a piece of editorializing matching in quality to the article he linked to (about Ludwig Stiegler), whose author apparently has no clue whatsover about current German politics or the Weimar Republic - calling the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold a right-wing group resembles either User:68.57.33.91, who calls the DNVP left-wing or exposes his own political position as being so much to the left, that everyone else must be right-wing. Unfortunately, that's the kind of literature EffK feeds on. Str1977 23:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will look it all over, if its off topic, it needs to be merged elsewhere. If it is inaccurate it needs to be cited, and if its POV it can be reworded. I think he is right to be upset by such a large deletion, but clearly a "wiki-showdown" is not called for...

The issue of content on other articles being wrong suggests we need some citations, and a consistant story in both articles. Sometimes that means 2 or more sources cited, and 2 or more stories told, but both articles should still agree.

i will do the best I can to help, but despite my skills in german history (which are well above average) I don't know that much about these particulars. My primary advice is for both of you to be extra nice, and to cite anything being disagreed about. Sam Spade 00:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I respect your reaction and regret to remind you that I already and very often did cite . I was also very nice , apart from recognising his motive , which I have to recognise tonight all over again . I'm tired of this man, of his reversions which began about a year ago and which have forced me into diatribes on top and after after sourcing. I think its all rotten , and I have remained consistent in pointing this out. I cited source endlessly -more than anybody . I particular cited one Klemens von Klemperer , to have this Str absolutely discount an OUP accredited contemporary source re Kaas' hand in the 23 Hitler speeches . It is purely outrageous the extent of Str dismissal of source , whether Avro Manhattan himself or KvK or John Toland or Wheeler Bennett of Bullock who he dismissed , and he is agaisnst Shirer , Lewy , the megamemex Timeline, Mowrer , he hopes to rubbish Cornwell whilst dismissing the generality of conclusion that the archives are locked from sight . It is just outrageous and I have cited all and several more relevant sources and as my ex user name's Rfc states , the interlocking overlap of the history exists. Therefore I will not accept the false coralling of sectioned and thereby diminuished articles, each of which so diminuished prevents actual understanding . User:Wyss proved unable to understand or adapt to the co-ercion exhibited throgh this with Str , yet accepted as have the articles to a meagre extent those corrections I placed . There is still a widespead dis-association within the Germany , Nazi and Weimar pages which is purely designed . Str exists to emasculate these connections and I reject such action out of hand because I do understand and have proved that I understand and that the sources suggest , unto Nuremburg itself , that these facts pertain to the historical events of reality . Kaas' meeting with Hitler on 2 April cost me endless acrimony and attempts at civil persuasion, and the stupidly annoying reality is that either this editor Str is ill-informed but obstinate (in denying even such a well known fact, hjich he finally , gracelessly and reluctantly admitted ....or. Str is indeed a contumately devious and dishonest apologist in defence of the C.church . I am abused beyond tolerance (and then abused further when I accede to all the best tenets of WP and attempt reason - I did the Kantean reason thing too, but to no avail) . I have in fact proved by extracting from Str's very hand , that he is entirely without moral shame in any of this. If I prove source, he uses different criteria, any criteria , any means . You Sam have witnessed this at the start , as I have called for arbitration consequent on Str behaviour for a very long period .

Sam , I do not ask you yourself or Fred or Pjacobi to any of yourselves be the judges or have to wade through the Str/ FK blood filled battlefield . I do however demand that either the WP stick to the rules , which is that source be applicable, per se , or that vandalism be censured . My actual experience with Str is in the negative on source until this very moment, and I have no confidence except that continuing dishonest ad hominem will be used by him against me , for purely ad hominem reasons. I will not be constrained by falsities as was tried by McClenon, whose dishonesty I register upon the old FK pages ,as saved from his Rfc deleted . All I ask of you Sam is to post the maximum possible enquiry now against Str1977 as an editor unbecoming to the spirit of the WP, of cyberspace and of a better world than this that he defends. Please post my request to ban this user entirely , please then observe what follows and witness to the termination assistants themselves that they read all the relevant reversions and disputes , in order , and in their time order containing the given sources . My User:Flamekeeper , User:Fiamekeeper, User:Corecticus, User:Famekeeper and now User:Effk user contributions contain all that is evidence . Str did not allow me to function at all profitably outside of the "Great Scandal", and my user contributions consist of one long preparation for this trial I request . or not , as the case may be . I wish it put on record that I want Str1977 to be stopped , and why, for papal whitewash faith based editing.

Post the request please , and if the WP is not big enough for this enquiry , for a reasoned trial , so be it . There is otherwise no point to my say, repairing these relevant articles . I am blocked by this educated (clerically positioned ) vandalism . The Nazi Pope who becomes [{Hitler's Pope]] sanctioned murder , and the suffering that accompanied murder en masse puts my little discomfiture in perspective . Turf the apologist out , and lighten the world from this murder . Kaas did have a private meeting with Adolf on 2 April 1933, and the Nuremburg Trial did suppose(according to the mouth of Papen) that the Reichskonkordat was a maneuver intended to deceive. I have both reverted and I demand an end to such whitewash . Help the WP, Sam , we owe it to those who suffered , if not to ourselves . I served my discussions and was threatened for my trouble by Jimbo . I still try to explain to him that this whitewash is an attack on him, more than on me , so I could , finally , ask you to consider Jimbo's benefit in this . Is it the removal of EffK who points to whitewash , or is it the whitewash itself ? I repeat that I can do nothing except now call for a resolution of motives . A showdown . I respect your reaction and respectfully ask for you to post his name for banning as a repetitive apologist faith based vandal editor . Sorry , Str, sorry Sam, Jim , Fred . Not you McC. EffK 02:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming Newcomers

Hi, Sam. I just want to let you know that when you welcome newcomers using your welcome template, it shows a date of 31 August, regardless of when you actually send it. I came across one that you sent very recently, and then I took a quick look at your contribs to see other welcome messages, and the next one also displayed 31 August. Maybe you should remove that date from the template, and then just use the four tildes after the template when sending your messages. Cheers. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This way it lets them know the last time I updated the signature. i'll do that now. Sam Spade 19:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA pages

I got as far as leaving a plea on the Rfa discussion page , and I think Jimbo's attitude warrants this going straight to the top . I consider, as any reasonable wikipedian should , that deletion of Nuremburg trial allegation is a serious offence. Please list my request to ban str1977 on the final list where advocates can pick it up . Hitler-papal whiewash by Str1977 , simple but I see not how or which list to tag into . it may not be taken up, but at least it deserves attention. I am most disappointed in Pjacbi's reaction, and with several others. I hope FJB sees all this too . Its incredible and un-mediateable . EffK 04:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see you are an advocate. You already counsel me and since I know you to be several knds of good, if you will over the course of time receive from me reasoned ordered links into the history with Str , I'll do just that to make it easy , and remain as you say calmer knowing someone will witness to it . Ill not add flames but simply times, dates of edits, sources represented, history of denial etc. , and leave off belting old Str openly . Will you think about it and whether you'll perhaps in a few months or yers take the case ? I still want the case to be Str1977 . If you really advise it, Ill do more correction and try and fix the WP from this constraint , and you could watch what transpires. I believe today is a cardinal lesson and determinative representation of the charge I make . EffK 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

If you got a minute can you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. nobs 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Nomination

Hey Sam I noticed its been over a year since your last RFA attempt... would you like to be renominated? ALKIVAR ™ 09:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I almost certainly won't win, and your pretty sure to be attacked if you nominate me... My guess is I'll eventually become an admin, probably by 2010 ;) Its simply a process of haters dying away or actually getting to know me. It would be kinda useful (for example moving pages like third way), but I can't ask you to go thru the hassle. Unless your in the mood for a fight, and possibly a gaggle of new enemies, i advise against it. Thanks much for the thought tho, either way. Sam Spade 18:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also has to do with actually having integrity, of which you have none and of which you most likely don't even comprehend the nature. It's the people who "actually get to know you" who realize you're an untrustworthy POV-pusher who deserves an RfAr rather than an RfA. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Antaeus, for illustrating my point. Glad to see your feeling better, btw. Sam Spade 19:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party revert Reichskonkordat

JK's revert under suggestion of Str is designed in belief of mine, and now presumably, your bad faith . I think such generalised edit war necessitates the demand I earlier made. This is execrable .EffK 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As my possible future advocate , I say that I have welcomed User:Goodoldpolonius's sane comments (and his disputed tag)at discussion Pope Pius XII. I probably would not get so concerned if there was more of this rationality , had been , rather . The need for advocates and such would diminuish with lessening attack, but I doubt this likelihood for reasons I made plain to Jimbo re the spring Conference at the vatican ( enjoining concerted online effort to stem the secular comment ). Just a note . Do read the comment about 1936 synthesis tween xtianity/nazism in the Nuremburg / Papen post . Today I am accused of creating havoc by my oldest 'friend' ! EffK 23:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Spirituality

Template:Spirituality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Spirituality. Thank you. — Richard_RDF^talk 17:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Greetings - The arbcom case with Willmcw and SlimVirgin is underway, and unfortunately I feel i'm getting very unfair treatment. The Arbcom originally voted to merge a subsequent retaliatory RfAr against me by Willmcw into my original, but when the cases were set up they did the opposite. Now one of the arbitrators is setting up criteria for voting on the case and virtually all have to do with trying me for the allegations Willmcw made against me in his retaliatory complaint, including on rules that he violated in a far more eggregious manner.

The case has also taken another unexpected turn in the evidence phase. Willmcw posted a response denying that he was wikistalking me but openly admitting that "Since then I've more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits." The twist is in what the "since then" in that sentence refers to. He states he began "keeping an eye on" my edits because of an anon IP post somebody made to the William Quantrill article here [16] before I even signed up at Wikipedia. He claims this edit, which is very POV and inflamatory in many ways, was made by me but in fact I don't know anything about it. I certainly didn't author it and i've never even used that anon IP he is attributing to me as a basis for his wikistalking! It seems to me that this is a major violation of WP:FAITH and who knows what else by Willmcw, and I pointed out as much on the Workshop page. Unfortunately I don't feel that I'm getting a fair hearing there as the Arbcom member working on that page has been generally dismissive of my side of the dispute and has already decided to conclude I'm the "disruptive" one BEFORE the case even started. Any advice you could offer regarding this mess would be, as usual, much appreciated. The workshop page is here [17]. Thanks - Rangerdude 06:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silverback is having a similar problem, but when I expressed concerns, the arbcom reacted very badly, and when I took it to the mailinglist, nobody seemed to care, and some people felt I was the problem for questioning their conduct. Its a very ugly situation. Sam Spade 16:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Topic Solution

Following the internet reflected terminology I have tried to satisfy the contradictions considered to be off-topic by writing the central linking page to the Thirties Weimar -end scandal at The Great scandal . This puts me back firmly into the realms of what I earlier referred to as unacceptable truth . I do not wish the showdown , as it can only cuase general harm , but no one can , it seems , assist this pain-denial into truth and reconciliation, Sam . I would have imagined that such a high-tech enterprise as Wikipedia might have been more enlightened in its approach thus far . You remain one of (? who ) the apparent grown-ups . Robert McClenon started a similar type of catch all page , but I follow the vernacular titles as more relevant . I was short sighted in acceding to hitler's pope when Str1977 turfed me off Pius XII , as the only other actual historic term is Nazi Pope . Great scandal has the merit of being entirely descriptive as well as catch-all for interlinked topics . Uh , Str1977 is at it already , I post him to consider. EffK 15:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK deleted & the Great Scandal deleted

You are in with the mechanics of WP , can you find my deleted prose, something I did not carefully lock down in my hard-drive ,. I ask fred Bauder if he can get it out to Wikinfo . My username page has been deleted so maybe I'm persona non grata . I leave you in good company , or will everythibng I have sourced be deleted . I would like to get that out to wikinfo , andf fred said I should write the definitive article . well , well . str pulled all the stringa, every link out , check his edits . can I have the trial before I get suffocated utterly , would you please help ?EffK 17:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its still there, and so am I . The first was my leaving out a capital, the second seems to be Wp malfuntion. My headlien user name leads to the main page . Do read it anyway . EffK 18:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primo Levi-

Additional material from Nazism in relation to other concepts Hi Sam Spade, You have copied across material from Nazism in relation to other concepts - to Primo Levi. From your contribution to the Nazism in relation to other concepts discussion, you seem not to like this material where it was (is?). I do not think copying across is the way do deal with it. Some is irrelevant to Primo Levi. I think the PL article needs more about his attitude to Germany and Nazism, however as there is no reference for this material it is hard to check. Would you like toi ammend your contribution to Primo Levi? --Paw42 19:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take this to Talk:Primo Levi. Sam Spade 21:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD The Great Scandal

Hi, Any opinion ? Again I lose the chance to write a full article. I suggest rename and big big expansion. I explain why at T Great Sc talk .EffK 12:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your help at Category:Soviet spies. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance. nobs 18:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration filed naming you

Please be advised that today I filed an arbitration case naming you. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nobs01 and others acting in concert.--Cberlet 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal

FYI - I believe Jayjg has a strong prejudice towards CBerlet in this case. I'm accordingly asking for his recusal. [18]

Good luck, did you see how my request for an arbiter to recuse went in the silverback case? And she had been recently insulting him... I expect no recusals, and nothing approaching a fair trial. Sam Spade 15:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universal reconciliation and Second Awakening

Please see Talk:Universal reconciliation - I think the text in question was entered by you and I could not reconstruct where you got it from. Irmgard 10:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norse mythology naming convention vote notice

A new proposal on the representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. Some people object to it on the grounds that it would use non-English characters in some article titles. It would be interesting to hear your view since you've commented on related votes in the past. I'm advertising this somewhat widely since people seem to feel that a wide participation in the vote gives the policy more legitimacy.

Have you, btw, seen Halibutt's RFA yet? Not a pretty sight. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating Experiment

Hi! (I'm back. :-D ) What do you think of this? Tom Haws 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latest picture in SH article

Sam, it's stupid picture. In SH article it looks like intentional vandalism. It should be moved to more proper place. Vugluskr 16:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, and what do you know about Wikipedia:Vandalism? Do not make such accusations in the future, its no way to make a first impression. Sam Spade 16:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Shankara

Sam Spade, I wonder if you might wish to remove the personal comment from your last addition to Talk:Adi Shankara? Comment on content, not on the contributor (official policy). The balance of your comment does not seem to refer to the history of the Adi Shankara dispute, unless I'm mistaken. In my review of this dispute, I saw no record that Mel Etitis "revert[ed] [a third party] out of hand and left a nasty note on [his or her] talk page". Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and ideology

[copied from User talk:Jmabel]
Don't make comments like this, such disrespect makes communication useless. Sam Spade 00:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[end copied remark]

Sam, no insult intended. Are you saying that you are an expert on the Republic of Fiume (or, I suppose more properly, the Italian Regency of Carnaro)? I don't think I've seen you write three sentences on the subject. If you have, please, direct me to them, and I will stand corrected. We don't have an article on the topic, just a few remarks in passing in our article on Gabriele D'Annunzio (where your contributions are minimal, and don't touch on this subject) and stubs at Constitution of Fiume and Alceste de Ambris (to which you did not contribute). Am I missing something? I would have presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that if this was an area of expertise for you that you would have written on it in Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]