User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Februar 2005

Ta

Thanks Sam.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your very welcome, glad to have you, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 18:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meeting reminder

Sam, just to let you know I've logged on to #AMA and Wally is also there. Hopefully you will show up before the top of the hour when the meeting is supposed to begin. — © Alex756 18:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logs of first AMA Membership meeting

You may view the log of the first meeting on the following two pages: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) (first hour) and Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) Pt II (remainder of meeting). If you are interested in commenting on the agenda of the meeting please do so here:Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics).

OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

"The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend."

The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinatorÕs report:

• How many individuals did you help as an advocate
• What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
• Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
• How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey

— © Alex756 23:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (The Coordinator)

Need comment

I have been added huge content onto Classical definition of republic and I would like your criticism and/or suggestions. I don't know, without some oversight, what looks good or not, and I would enjoy some constructive criticism, suggestions, ideas. I am still working on it and I need some feedback. Strange, that nobody has gone in and changed anything. Can I get some help please.WHEELER 14:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, will do. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Arbitration is being sought against you. See WP:RfAr. Adraeus 00:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and need one more favor

Thanks for your edits on the Classical republic article. I have added to the post Romanitas in conjuction with a new article titled Culture defines politics. Can you comment on it for me or do you have any information for pertinent to the new article.WHEELER 01:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:34, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Hello, and help?

Thanks for your welcome message on my talk page. Very, very helpful. So, I've begun trying to edit boldly, and almost right off the bat I am embroiled in heated discussion. Could you take a look at the talk page for Talk: Nineteen Eighty-Four and let me know if I am out of line? I think I am right, but then, I've often been wrong before. :) It's more a private question so I can have a third party take a look at my actions and response and let me know how I could improve my approach in the future. Thank you in advance. Alavery7 17:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam

Sam, there WAS an ongoing discussion concerning whether to remove all stuff that was not about the book. You took one look and made a reference which indicated that you thought that one person was the author of the stuff you removed. That was not the case at all. However, since you decided to remove stuff I did contribute with other stuff that I did not, you seemed to be in agreement with the discussion to clean up the article. Now you appear to have jumped to another conclusion. Sam, I am the type who does not care. I don't delete the work of others, I do discuss, I am polite and I don't revert and I walk away from heated discussions when they are no longer enjoyable. This seems to be such a time. MPLX/MH 20:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think I thought that. I didn't. I got the note above from User:Alavery7. I reviewed the article in question, and skimmed its talk page. I made the edit I thought necessary, with no emphasis or excess of thought upon who had wrote it. I then took the passage into the talk page in question and explained why I had removed it. You responded in a way I did not like, making assumptions about my having tried to single someone out, and by removing maybe 1/3rd of the article to the talk page. I understood (perhaps wrongly) your reasoning in that as having been to prove a point of consistency. Regardless of your motivation, I very much disagree w your having removed such a large portion of the article. I have no desire to be less than delightful to be around, and intend to discuss things as needed. I'm sorry we got off on a bad foot, and I promise spend the time necessary to improve the talk page communications. Please try to see things from my eyes, and how moving such a large portion of the article to the talk could seem disturbing to another. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Psychobilly article

Hello Sam Spade, I'm a newbie to Wikipedia. I created a psychobilly article, but now the vast majority of it has been randomly deleted by an anonymous user. I need your help getting it back. Thank you very much. Inanechild 23:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me, as far as I can tell all your edits have been restored. I'm a big Hank III fan, and you? Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 10:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kevin B. MacDonald

Do you mind having a look at the KM article again? Most of it was moved to Jewish ethnocentrism on spurious grounds and I've reverted both but expect more hassle. If you agree with the move too (I hope not), I think I'll give up, as I've wanted to do for a long time. Jacquerie27 08:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald

I've left a note on your talk page about KM. Jacquerie27 08:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is my talk page ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, I have had a sound laugh when reading this. You two have reminded my Marx Brothers' dialogues. (Unsigned reader)

Need Check for me.

I have edited Family/State paradigm. Somehow, those edits are not showing up on the page. Look at the history and then look at the page. Something is screwy and somebody has messed with the computer codes. Please look into this please. Thanks.WHEELER 15:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, your edits will turn up, the wiki is simply running slow at the moment. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please disregard last. Thanks.WHEELER 15:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No worries, all is well. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Thanks for the message but that article on "Kultur" has no relation to what I originally wrote. This is sad. I will have to redo the whole thing all over again. WHEELER 19:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Kultur and [1]. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 19:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you restore the original page history? When the guy changed the title he started the page history all over. Can those be reconnected back. Thanks for your work and vote. WHEELER 21:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't, I'm not an admin. Try getting an admin to do it, you may have to ask a few of them, but eventually one of them ought to be willing. Good luck, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 07:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OFFICIAL THIRD MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

The second AMA IRC Membership meetingwas held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.

Suggested Topics and Specific Proposals

MEMBERS PLEASE REVIEW

Suggestions for topics/proposals and agenda to be discussed at the next meeting are to be found at: Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics). All members are requested to make proposals there and respond to proposals on the talk page there before the beginning of the next meeting so discussion can be held forthwith concerning such proposals. Thank you, your Coordinator.

The coordinator is requesting that members who have not done so already submit the following information for the upcoming coordinatorÕs report:

• How many individuals did you help as an advocate
• What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
• Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
• How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here. — © Alex756 23:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info

Th name signing thing's been bugging me for a while so thanks for that especially :) User:The IP (sig added by Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 07:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC))

No problem, glad to have you! Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 07:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changed title

I changed the title of "Culture defines politics" to Cultural imprint on politics. I think this is a winner of a title for the subject material. I hope you agree. Let me know what you think? Thanks for your consideration and time. WHEELER 19:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

I invite you to sign in as a participant to the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses project and add that page to your watchlist. Tom Haws 21:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Adding the AMA to your welcome message

Sam, I think we might have touched on this, but since you do give welcome messages and have your own, perhaps you could add the AMA to the list of links to new members, that might get some new people interested. I noticed that one of your recent new members just joined the AMA. — © Alex756 21:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think thats an important plan long term, but I think we need to create a more solid framework for the AMA before searching for an influx of clients and members. We'd probably get about as many members as clients, in my estimation. So far, has the AMA had more members or clients? Something to keep in mind. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that there are really only a few people involved in the AMA, even though 30 members are listed (now 31) quite a few of them have not made contributions in a long time, so I think our active membership is really low, probably between 8-10 which is reflected in the number of people who responded to my poll for more information (I know you have a problem with it, but no one else has brought up the same issue as you about it taking too much time to respond with a few lines of general summary). When we started there was not any reason anyone couldn't join, so I don't see any reason not to let people join now. Maybe if they see we are promoting it and thinking up all kinds of activites, that will get more people interested and more cases that we can use to further develop our expertise and learn more about the dispute resolution process. I am not convinced by your thinking above. — © Alex756 02:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Primitivism

The only things I know about primitivism is what I gleaned from a friend of mine who briefly became one (she started eating pigeons and roadkill) and from a presentation I saw by some primitivists on tour. I found them earnest but unconvincing and a bit odd.

Anyway, as you can gather from my friend (she's since become a Catholic), one thing primativists try to do is get away from the mediated food chain and domestication of animals etc by killing and eating their own food. As far as I can gather they even reject subsistence farming as too technological and want to go back to the hunter-gatherer model of living.

Basically, they're utopians but even the pre-Marxist "utopian socialists" of the 19th century (Owen etc) who set up rural communes are seen as too industralist and modern for primativists. AndyL 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well thats disturbing... All I know is what I hear from Ted Kazynski, Socialists, and of course what I know from watching non-stop archaeological films w my 12yr old. He has a thing for "ape men", early men, bigfoot, etc and I like to encourage educational hobbies (like editing an encyclopedia, for example ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the word of encouragement. I just hate the hypocrisy and the lying. I moved the whole thing to Wikinfo. And I won't be fighting the deletion process. I will continue to work on Wikipedia.WHEELER 14:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, we need more citations and less hypocracy around here, thats for sure!

Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 16:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin case closed

Sam, I really appreciate what you have done in the CD/AL case in favor of Vincent. Unfortunately, he has got the ban, but Adraeus got it too. You have made a great job. --Neigel von Teighen 22:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the verdict was much too harsh on Vincent, who was new to the project and seemed confused about the proper method of handling conflict here. I think he generally tried to follow the rules, and was treated unfairly by both his opponents and the commitee. Yes alot of time and energy was wasted, but I think that was less to do w Vincent than our vague process of determining article content. I also think the ruling in regards to Andreus was to leniant, of course I am biased due to the long history of ugliness I have experienced from him, but if your review the evidence I compiled, most of it doesn't relate to him insulting me alone, he has always been very carefree when it comes to incivility. I lodged a bit of a complaint here, but I doubt it will be taken very seriously. Thank you for your thoughtful note, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 09:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

mmx and xmm

sorry about the mmx and xmm mix up i thought it was a spelling mistake didnt read the source :-S sorry User:Roguecomgeek

Hmm.. no comprende Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 09:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

The Subject/headline says it all really. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Righteous! Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From me too - of course mine is way belated Tršdel 14:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome! I found the links very useful. Zikari 03:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And from me. Always nice to be greeted in a foreign land. abomination 05:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, and the useful links :) Potatojunkie 12:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh hey, I just noticed you all up there! Glad to see I've helped a bit, let me know if there is anything more I can do! Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

survey in Talk:anarchism

Since you've been one of the regular editors of the anarchism article, I'd like to see your answers to the survey posted in the talk pages. Cheers, --albamuth 21:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ok. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IP Address

Have I just done something stupid by signing an old talk post of mine that I posted with my IP address (accidentally) with my username, thus connecting the two to unsavvory characters?Theaterfreak64 00:34, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. Not only was what you did more in the spirit of the wiki community (letting us know who were talking to), it also made you slightly more anonymous and less vulnerable. Having ones IP address on display, while unlikely to result in any unpleasantness, does provide an easier opportunity for tracking you down or hacking you. See [2]. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 08:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedians

I would like to know why you removed gK from that list. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[3]. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tutorial/Introduction

You appear to have submerged the (very) nice Tutorial which Isomorphic wrote, and I've contributed to, behind a redirect to the Introduction. Seeing no discussion of this on the talk page for the Tutorial, I'm curious why you did this, and where it might have been discussed. In lieu of any such discussion, might I suggest you retract the redirect until such discussion has taken place somewhere? --Baylink 14:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anythiung about that, I responded to the note at the top of this page. I am copying this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Introduction. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Atheism

What prompted you to make the edits today? No doubt you were aware of the need for discussion before changing this article. Please consider joining the discussion. BM seems to be trying get it going by adressing some of your edits. Mgm|^(talk) 18:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

your signature (again)

I've mentioned this a while ago, but you haven't taken action. It is not acceptable to use a standard template for your signature, like what you are using Template:vip. Change it immediately, because we've been discussing either redirecting, modifying or removing that template. When that happens, all your signatures on every page you've signed are going to break. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

It would appear you could use a course in public speaking, since you seem to have trouble expressing yourself intelligibly. Are you talking about this "conversation"? I don't know what your on about, but I'll be looking into it. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This conversation. There really is no reason to delay. Go into your user preferences and change your signature so it doesn't use any template. -- Netoholic @ 21:58, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

I think not. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plagerism

I know that at least one paragraph of the Louis Pasteur article is plagerized directly from World Book, that is, the last one in the germ theory section. However, 1) I know not enough about the subject to do more than paraphrase (not summerize) this paragraph (and that would take some work even still), 2) if I list it on the copyright violations page, I think I will be suggesting that the whole article be deleted, as you know, and 3) no one has responded to the post on the talk page yet, which has been up since Nov. 29, 2004.

What would you suggest?

--Theaterfreak64 00:16, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote it a bit, what do you think? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.--Theaterfreak64 08:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Febuary 25th.

You planning on joining in? Good. Then everybody else on Wikipedia can see you for what you really are. Rick K 23:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, your the only troll on this page. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Current discussion you might be interested in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Conscious_evolution

thanks for the welcome

Hey Sam, thanks for the welcome! It's a pleasure to be a part of this project. I'm just sorry that I didn't know about the wiki world much earlier. I'll probably have lots of questions, even after reading the many tutorials.

--Whysperseed 14:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, and feel free to ask.Keep in mind you don't need to read all the tutorials, they were mainly intended to be used as reference :) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sig

It took me a while to figure out what Neotholic meant, but I think I get it. Using a template like this the server needs to do a transclusion every time it reads your signature. For talk pages you frequently visit that could really drain resources and slow down the rate at which it is loaded.

Why are you using a template anyway? Using the option to code it in your user preferences makes it nearly impossible to vandalise your sig, while now, simply vandalising the template would do. Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't a big concern for me, I've had precious little of it in my time here. But server needs are quite important, and I am more than willing to compromise when someone polite is making an inteligible request. How is this? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam; Regarding your signature, your Talk page is not being linked. I think that the problem may be the lower case "u" and the underscore; "user-talk" should be "User talk" (I think) Cheers to you, hydnjo talk 22:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops - I forgot about self-referencing links. Your sig is most probably fine as is. Sorry about my confusion on this issue. hydnjo talk 23:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haha... Where did you come from? ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hydnjo .... backs away ..... bowing ....and wondering wtf, where did I come from ;) hydnjo talk 22:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quite alright, nice to meet you. Let me know if you think of anything I can help you with, eh? Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The content is not the same as the community

Note that the content of the Wikipedia (as opposed to the community) is also organized in a fashion that is not overtly hierarchival. For the most part, the relationship between the individual articles does not form any sort of structure.

Your joking, right? How about Jimbo, the wikimedia board, the developers, beaurocrats, the arbitration commitee, the mediation commitee, admins, users, new users, anons, known sockpuppets and trolls, and hard banned users.... doesn't that sound like a clear hierarchy to you? Also this ignores completely the general guideline to avoid self references when possible, on top of the POV and factual inaccuracy. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 08:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry -- I think you didn't read well. The developers, bureaucrats, admins, etc., are the community, not the content. Michael Hardy 23:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, I did misread, but I still would insist their is an overt hierarchy, from featured article status to totally disputed stubs on vfd, and everywhere in between. Also I would say their ought to be more such article hierarchy, not less. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry I didn't know what to say when you came by my profile recently to welcome me, but thanks. Now, there's the matter of some dude calling me a Neo-Nazi and playing all these straw man fallacies. I sternly objected to his ignorant McCarthyism but he has now gone and contacted RickK on his talk page and I don't know what'll happen. Is this common, the "witchfinder general" blacklisting? Does this happen to everybody at some point, on Wikipedia? How do I avoid it? Borderer 02:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own self-centric POV, like all communities. The one here strongly resembles that of an average american or european university, altho with a great deal more pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli bias. It is far left, agressively multi-cultural (pro-homosexual, etc...), anti-theist, and often willing to throw intellectual honesty and rigour out the window to enforce these POV's. RickK is a bit of a "grand inquisitor", altho he is actually rather unpopular w the in-crowd, which is on the Wikipedia:Mailing list, in case your interested. Let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, I'm a ]]Wikipedia:AMA|members advocate]], and unlike many others (likely most) here, I appreciate intellectual honesty and real diversity ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LaurelBush and Laurel Bush

Thanks for the welcome. I am now using (mostly) Laurel Bush, and I believe Wikipedia should come with the warning "Can be nicely addictive". LaurelBush.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:)

Dnagod

You can see the discussion for yourself at the Conscious Evolution VfD page. You'll see why he was blocked. SlimVirgin 14:25, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

That would appear to be a wrongful block. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wrongful block. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you mean &lquo;not in accordance with the letter of Wikipedia rules” then you might be right, but if you mean “morally wrong”, then you're definitely not. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I mean both. I am here on the wikipedia to promote the neutral dissemination of knowledge. Those who use power to enforce bias are contrary to the purpose of the project. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you're so keen to defend someone who spewed racist insults in almost every posting to Wikipedia Talk pages, especially when it's those insults (not the character of his far-from-neutral additions to Wikipedia) which led to the ban. Do you really think that the precise application of the Wikipedia rules (though see my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wrongful block) is more important than common decency and morality? (I'm of course assuming that it's not because you agree with Dnagod's paranoid and hate-filled ravings.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am a member of Wikipedia:AMA, and have undertaken User:Dnagod as a (completely unofficial at this juncture) "client". I did this based on need, not POV. Secondly, your Personal attacks on User:Dnagod and insinuations regarding myself are unfortunate. If you are unable to separate the person from the argument (which would be unfortunate) you could always read User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases, where my personal opinions are expressed. You can read that even if you are able to separate the person from the argument, BTW ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am able to separate arguer from argument, but in Dnagod's case there was no such separation (unless you're implying that he's not a racist, it's only the way he talks). The final sentence of my previous message wasn't meant to be sarcastic, nor to insu=inuate anything other than what I said. (It's true, though, that I think that defending unworthy people against what are perceived as being unfair attacks can start off as being noble, but gradually become something else; it's also true that I've no firm opinion yet as to whether that applies to you, though I confess to being worried.) As to my supposed personal attacks on Dnagod, I merely responded to the way in which he himself spoke. When someone accuses me of being part of a Jewish conspiracy, and rants about the Jewish domination and corruption of Wikipedia, it's not exactly making a leap of logic to refer to them as racist. Indeed, Wikipedia policy seems to back me up on this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was refering to "paranoid and hate-filled ravings", not if he was a racist or not. I think were all fairly certain he is a racist. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When someone takes all criticism as evidence of the critic's membership in a cabal, isn't that paranoid? And isn't racism, especially in the way that he express it, hate-filled? And aren't repetitive and ungrounded fulminations against such a hated cabal ravings? I refer again to Wikipedia policy. Besides, what I say to you about another user is surely not what the policy is about; it's concerned with what I say to that other user. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to get you in trouble for making personal attacks, I am saying I don't like to hear them, that I find them unfortunate, detracting from the case at hand. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I envision a wikipedia where all verifiable, expert POVs are included, where admins who insist on violating policy are no longer admins, and where special interest group POV majoritocracy does not determine article content (or worse, if articles are deleted). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All verifiable, expert POVs yes, but he didn't express any of those. You recently indicated that you don't believe Hitler wanted to destroy European Jewry. It's because of comments like that that some people draw certain conclusions, perhaps unfairly, about your support for Dnagod. SlimVirgin 18:27, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I see you havn't read Reductio ad Hitlerum yet. Sad that. Please do, and then place any slander you can come up w @ User:Spleeman/Sam Spade. Thanks, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also remember, rather clearly, being accused (as part of a group) of intellectual dishonesty because I argued that there was a significant difference between a voter with no (or fewer than five) previous edits and one with twenty or thirty. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I never accused you of anything, but that VfD was a joke, as have been other, related VfD's. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)