User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/April 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request help on resolving dispute for page Assam[edit]

Hi Sam,

Thanks for leaving your "calling card" on my talk page.

We have a dispute on a section (Assam#Origin of name) of the Assam page. We will be honored if you could have a look at the page, and the discussion in Talk:Assam. A summary of the dispute is given here: Talk:Assam/OriginDisputeResolution. What should we do?

Chaipau 00:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will indeed, but very slowly, I won't have home internet for about 1 week. Sorry about that, but when I'm back online I'll look into things. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you've done very well! I'm not sure what I can add, especially since I know nothing about Assam whatsoever, but please let me know some specific areas I might help with? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do I go beyond this point in resolving the conflict? I have asked the other contributor to provide evidence, but to no avail. He only makes assertions. I tried to look for the evidence myself, and I didn't find any. Now should I go ahead and delete what he wrote? I fear this will start an edit-war. So what is the next step? Thanks for your help. Chaipau 13:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basically yes, delete what he wrote, or cut and paste it to the talk page. Your right it may start an edit war, in which case you can Request page protection and / or initiate Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. I'll be glad to keep an eye on things. If he can produce a citation, thats fine, his addition can stay as one POV among others. If not... this is an encyclopedia, and references are required for disputed material :) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

OK, but I don't like school articles enough to get very involved. "Vanity" pages I am more willing to vigorously defend. People are notable too ;) VfD is broken, BTW. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Request from El_C and Myself[edit]

Hey Sam,

Firstly (and I've repeated this to El_C), if you want to discuss things or have an argument or the like, that's fine, but I'd prefer you not do so on my talk page. Please keep anything there only to relevant communications.

Secondly, El_C has some requests, namely that you try to watch yourself and tone down language that he feels is unduly insulting and offensive. Comments like "This is BS" or what have you seem to be what is at issue. While both I and he acknowledge that tempers can run hot in user disputes — I've certainly had my share — such behavior is not conducive to any sort of settlement, and El_C would like that addressed as we proceed through dispute resolution. Perhaps give the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Wikiquette articles a once over, although I don't doubt you're well versed in their contents. He and I both just want to keep the amount of personal comments, value judgments, subjective assessments, etc. down to a minimum.

Thirdly, I'm posting a request for mediation right after this is complete. You indicated before that you were amenable to such mediation, and I operate under the assumption that this is not changed. Let me know if it is, as that is for obvious reasons quite important. Otherwise, check the mediation page for appropriate comments. Wally 02:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I request specific instances of "language that he feels is unduly insulting and offensive", and will say that BS does not fit that criteria, IMO. I find comments like:
"At any rate, dear readres, bitter foes, and well-wishers, Let the record state that, in fact, I could not give a flying fuck about what is in my best interests right now."[1]
"I don't hate my political opponents, I pitty them"[2]
and his refusal to provide references for disputed claims, and insistence that such is not needed, unfortunate.
I am not alone in having difficulties with your client, he recently caused quite a stir on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, conflicting repeatedly with 2 admins, User:Dbachmann and User:Mikkalai, with exchanges like this, and antics of escalation like that being typical. I find him haughty and difficult to interact with, and there will need to be changes made in his conduct if we are to achieve an amiable compromise. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

El_C Mediation[edit]

I request progress Re: El_C forthwith. El_C requested your assistance 01:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC), and you requested mediation 02:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC). Since then I for one have been distracted in my wikipedia volunteership by the lack of progress and dialogue, the amount of times I have spent checking and reading over the pages in question alone subtracting mightilly from my volunteeerinsm on this site. I am not alone in that, certainly, and our mediator is also not unique in having an engaging and demanding personal life. I insist that matters be addressed and resolved, or at least that clear effort be made. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you said yourself, our mediator has been having problems which have prevented him from engaging in mediation on this issue. I have, myself, contacted him several times in order to establish some sort of plan of action; my attempts were only fruitful today, and only due to an unrelated matter. I told him that he should contact me when situations in his personal life are such that he can take a more active role in the matter. This should, hopefully, be good enough for you, as it is for myself and El_C; otherwise, you may request to Danny personally that he make himself available, or request another mediator via the appropriate forum. I am also sorry that your Wikipedia volunteerism has been impaired, but feel fortunate that it is not due to my client, who has not posted on any of the pages in question since the dispute began. Certainly, however, there are plenty of other, non-contentious Wikipedia pages that could use attention in the interim from a dedicated editor such as yourself. Alternatively, while we all wait for mediation to begin, perhaps you could indulge in your own engaging and demanding personal life.
Wally 22:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rest assured that I am. Indeed I moved this week, as you would know were we in more effective contact. It is not the mediators lack of action which concerns me (in reality he can only react or facilitate, not truely act himself, his position being what it is), but your own, coupled with El_C's unwillingness to communicate with me directly. If either of you had been actively pursuing this matter I would have some hope of eventual resolution, but as is I see an unfortunate state of affairs is being extended unduely. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be in some way confused. Mediation cannot proceed when the agreed-upon mediator is out of contact; obviously an advocate of your experience is aware of this. If you want to find my guilty of inaction, so be it — I am indeed unwilling to proceed without the mediator upon which all have agreed. I find myself willing to be patient, as does El_C, while Danny resolves any problems that he feels require his immediate attention. Quite frankly, I find your insensitivity and lack of patience on this matter a little bit appalling.
I would prefer that anything you post on my talk page or El_C's be of a strictly informative or utilitarian nature from this point forward, as your recent communications have not been helpful in resolving outstanding issues relating to this case. I further remind you that I am an advocate representing El_C, and as such have no obligations to you whatsoever outside of anything he requests that I do. It is not my job to inform you of anything, keep in contact with you, or do anything else of the sort outside discussing issues immediately related to this dispute on behalf of El_C. By his request and my agreement this will not occur before our mediator is in such a position to supervise such discourse, as that could lead to further, unnecessary hostility, which we all are desirous of avoiding.
I would also add, as a final note, that if you are so concerned about the resolution of this dispute I wonder what you are doing yourself to promote its resolution? I have posted to our mediator to request an update on his ability to mediate; have you also done so? I have been communicating with El_C and ensuring he avoid any further dispute by abstaining from discussion on tendentious pages; have you likewise been making such abstentions? If you are so concerned about the slow pace, I say again, do you wish another mediator be found? We are satisfied as things stand, and can wait. Wally 19:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mediation cannot proceed when the agreed-upon mediator is out of contact"

That is absurd.

"I find your insensitivity and lack of patience on this matter a little bit appalling"

I find the lack of attempts at, and attention to, progress on the part of your party to be of note.

Since you feel no obligation to communicate with myself, I will no longer play the game of your being the go between betwixt myself and El C. I see no personal benefit in your continued involvement in these matters, and from here on out will discuss them with others, as needed. I will also say that I disapprove of your demeanor, and feel a need to address our coordinator regarding the unfortunate, neglectful and disrespectful manner in which you have conducted yourself in this delicate matter. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to take what actions you see fit. I note however that I did not say I feel no obligation to communicate with you; I feel no obligation to report to you on the progress of the mediation, as that is your job. I represent El_C. I do not represent you. I remind you as well that, though you may behave as you like, as long as I enjoy the confidence of my client to speak and act on his behalf, whether or not you "see no personal benefit in [my] continued involvement in these matters" is an irrelevance. Wally 21:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is very relevant in the sense of me accepting your presumed status as "intermediary" between El C and myself. I no longer accept your status as such, not finding it personally beneficial. That means I will communicate with him directly (as I see fit) and will consider anything short of a direct response by him as a non answer. I will do this because I am getting precious little feedback from yourself. I was not enquiring of you regarding the mediation (or whatever the heck you 2 have planned) as an outside party, far from it. I was enquiring as the person who has been accused of "perpetual and outstanding conduct issues" in regards to those very accusations, and the steps being taken regarding them. I must say your choice to be generally non-communicative is not only an unprecedented step for an Advocate, it is also particularly unusual for a participant in mediation. In my experience (and they are copious) requests for mediation usually resolve with minimal input from the mediation committee. The mediator is a referee more than a judge, their job is to facilitate discussion rather than conduct it. To be blunt, I get the impression that El C is happy with the present state of affairs, given that they prolong the accusations against me without wasting any of his time (he freely admits to ignoring the pages in question). I being the accused, necessarily keep up with the status of charges against me. Again, bluntly, the longer this is drawn out, the more a charge of slander would seem appropriate. I ask you be mindful that I have fulfilled every one of your requests (see above), and thus stand in question of your goals. I again strongly request that progress be made, goals stated, or that charges be dropped forthwith. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I see that you reverted some changes on the primitivism article that I made. Specifically, I'd like to disagree with your reinstatement of the opening line that reads: Primitivism or anarcho-primitivism is an anti-technological critique of the origins and progress of civilization.

While primitivism is clearly characterized by luddism, it is first and foremost a perspective in opposition to civilization (something which is not built on technology alone). The origin of civilization was agriculture (domestication of food), which, in its infancy, was not dependent on significant technology. Thus the opening sentence does not entirely make sense (unless civilization is in reference to industrial civilization only). Please let me know if you disagree. - Nihila 15:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not very much, you make a good point. I was actually trying to emphasize anarcho-primitivism so as to distinguish it from other forms of primitivism (like the primitive baptist church, for example). Also I thought the link to technology was cool. So... lets find a way to weave in lots of good links (like luddite for example), and differentiate between anarcho-primitivism and other types. I'm gonna copy this to Talk:Primitivism, I hope you don't mind. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Sam, I’ve noticed that you’ve made a few edits and additions to the kibbutz article. I was wondering if you would like to vote on the article becoming a Featured Article. For some reason, NO ONE votes either way on kibbutz. I don’t know why. Perhaps if you became the first person to vote you could get the ball rolling.

The nomination is right here Dinopup 19:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll look into it, it does seem like a pretty good article, but I'll have to read it again obviously. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: talk page notification[edit]

I was already aware and participating in the RfC against GRider before that notice was placed there. If you actually bothered looking into the case, you'd see that RfC #2 (which is what that notice refers to) was forked from RfC #1, on which I had already passed comment. Chris 14:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In that case I think I'll offer GRider my services. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Asking for advice, Happy Easter season )[edit]

Hello and greetings from HappyApple Goodwill and good wishes to you in Easter season =) It seems there already an end to Saint Mark and San Marcos issue, however i am still not conviced about the vote, i dont think so it reflect an accurate point of view from wikipedians. The reason of why i come here is to ask you an advice because i feel i am threatened by User:Viajero and i think this because of his words in and i quote :

In case you are not aware, the vote was 8-3 in favor of San Marcos. This issue is now closed; it is not open to further "interpretation"; no appeal is possible. However, if you continue to insert "Saint Mark" into articles, I will revert you. -- Viajero 17:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For this words i feel harrasment, user:Viajero in my personal point of view feels he is the owner of many articles related to peruvian topics such as Lima and Alberto Fujimori articles, and each time i try to clarify some, he reverts me, using arguments which i consider silly, such as brevity, clarity, etc..

He has a double standard to judge articles, in University of Saint Mark he says, its better to be brief, but in Alberto Fujimori article he says all what he wants.

It is not the first time i feel i have some kind of threat because of him,

previously, he said me, that because my english is not good i cant do edits on wikipedia, and i feel that as some kind of discrimination against me.

  • And i quote
    • you are not the right person to be determing what correct Engish usage is

and in Lima city article he said If you are unable to accept native speakers of English correcting your texts, then you won't last very long here.

  • even when i wanted to discuss the issue about motto in Lima city he said this
    • we are spending far too much time and energy on insignificant details.

I would like to have your opinion of what i can do, i dont think so i deserve to be treated this way. Please i would like you give me an advice of what i can do or where i can ask for complaints of Harrasment. Thank you again to take time to read my message and have good Easter Cheers .HappyApple 18:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict resolution and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. He is wrong about the poll, you could always try again @ Wikipedia:Current polls. Keep in touch, I'm very busy but I can give advice if nothing else. Oh, and happy easter! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome and a request[edit]


I was happy to be of some help. I have no familiarity with the case, but upon recognizing the name and scanning the proposed principles and findings I felt I ought to speak up, even for an editor with whom I might so bitterly disagree.

I also offer my hopes at improving relations, and at speedy settlement of outstanding issues.

I come also with a request; on my user page and talk page I've put up messages asking that people take to the VfD page to get rid of the OMI. My plea reads:

  • Take action NOW to preserve Wikipedian values: vote to delete the Office of Members' Investigations!

Standing on the same side on this issue, and your page getting far more traffic than mine, I was wondering if you might pop that (or something like it, whatever suits you) up there. The vote right now is delete by a single vote; consensus will never develop this rate. If this thing is going to be nipped in the bud, honest and dedicated people have to act. Thanks in advance. Wally 21:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well actually, I havn't voted to delete it myself, I just got "tarred w the same brush" as it were by ambi. IMO Snowspin should probably join the AMA, and should definitely talk to alex (I think you saw where I tried to arrange that?). I really don't know what else should be done at this point. I agree with alot of the criticism, but simultaneously deny the value of the VfD process generally. Also, Snowspinner is an interesting and dynamic user whom I don't feel inclined to oppose at this juncture. So with all good graces, you'd have to convince me to vote for deletion (something I almost never do BTW, I'm a pretty extreme Inclusionist) before I could consider advertising for the cause ;) Hope you understand, best of wishes and happy holidays, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No problem; for some reason I thought I'd seen your name as a no vote, otherwise I'd not have asked. My mistake (especially since I made the same mistake the others' were in the assumption)! Wally 01:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but people always seem to think I say things I didn't. Maybe its too much devils advocating catching up w me? Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Sam, I think your message ended up under the incorrect entry (yours used in Labor Day is a few entries higher up in the list). hydnjo talk 18:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks much. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


If I recall correctly, that was reverting a page move vandal. -- Decumanus 17:12, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

What should be done at this point? Is there such an antelope? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea if such an animal exists. I would perfectly happy with the redirect being deleted, since it was vandal created. I think it just got lost in the bookkeeping shuffle after the scramble to restore pages. -- Decumanus 18:18, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
I've found this, suggesting there is such a (apparently ridiculous looking) creature. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

not new?[edit]

I am not new. The information about pope's death was at the website of american embassy in poland. Anyway, thank for taking care :).Mdv137 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have you either way, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for tips to a newbie[edit]

Sam - Thank you for taking the time to offer me some tips, tho it may take some further time for me to absorb and have good results show up in my entries. I glanced over your User:page, and am impressed. Yours, Reformatikos User:Reformatikos

Your welcome, and thanks for being here. Anything special about my user page you like? You can copy the format you know ;) Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About my user page -- and the Wareware RfC (now that I'm here)[edit]

I happen to believe in free speech (to a point). No, I wouldn't object. People are free to write whatever they wish on their user pages, within reason. My page expresses my interests and who I am.

Regarding your comments in the RfC, as I stated, your opinion of my user page has no bearing on that matter. However, I take issue with the fact that it doesn't matter that there are very, very few blacks in evidence on Wikipedia. People's opinions and interests are colored by their experiences, their experiences by all kinds of factors -- not the least of which is their ethnic, or "racial," identity. I've read all kinds of silly, appalling misinformation or heavily skewed garbage on Wikipedia related to black folks written out of sheer ignorance, or naivete, or malice/racism. There needs to be a counterbalance against such ignorance.

And, yes, I agree. We are all brothers and sisters under the skin, but day to day, for any number of reasons, "race"/ethnicity matters; it matters a whole hell of a lot. That I address it causes some people discomfort. I can't help that; it's not my concern. I do what I do.

I wasn't going to comment further on this matter, but since I'm already here... Your comments in the RfC just don't square with your words in your note to me. There's no way anyone concerned with, say, fairness and equanimity or "godliness" could write what you wrote. No way they could not endorse my RfC against Wareware. Your words simply ring hollow. You're simply not at all credible. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 10:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re user pages and wiki demographics, I agree that self expression is good, and oppose censorship of user pages. In general I think wiki demographics should be more reflective of the real world, but I strongly disagree that black people are more qualified to edit "black pages", indeed I think there is a disturbing trend towards identity politics and its usage in enforcement of POV on certain pages of the wiki. Indeed I'd like to see a more natural diversity on the wikipedia, particularly on contentious pages which have been overtaken by special interest groups. That would involve not only more black wikis, but more redneck and republican and christian right wikis as well ;)
As far as the importance of Race, I agree there is still an unfortunte excess of emphasis on it (even more so here in europe), but it is considerably less so in the military and on base.
Regarding the RfC, I would have endorsed a RfC brought by someone else, but I feel like you traded blows w wareware rather than appropriately chastising him. Ergo there is no way I could agree w your RfC. I could add my own "outside comment" scolding both of you, but that’s about it, and I don't feel motivated to do so. Yes, he made the first rude comment (that I know of) and yes, he made more comments than you did, but you responded more than once w rudeness and racial invective of your own. I don't think you deserve more than a scolding for that, but neither do I think he needs banned (from what little I have skimmed, I have not been directly involved) at this juncture. If either of you makes a pattern out of being rude or making personal attacks of racial (or other) variety, perhaps more should be done. In summary, I don't approve of how either of you interacted w one another, and altho I don't like (nor agree with) "Your words simply ring hollow. You're simply not credible.", neither of you has been rude to me (I never talked to him that I know of). Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Racial invective" on my part? That's absolute nonsense. You must be hallucinating. And, no. There are several instances throughout where I've told him to stick to the matter at hand. deeceevoice 10:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Racial invective:
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.[3]
General rudeness:
You ain't stoo-pid; you're simply mentally and spiritually crippled. Better tend to yasself![4]
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.[5]
Understand, I'm not saying you were way out of line, I am saying that I don't feel your responses helped the situation. If you had said something polite yet succinct (like referring him to Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, etc...) I would have been able to endorse your RfC. As is, it strikes me as a situation w unfortunate comments on both sides. I agree it is not balanced, he does appear to have been the aggressor and the more excessive of the 2 of you, but its not a situation where I feel comfortable doing anything other than generally rebuking the incivility, and advising concerned parties to keep an eye on both sides for a time. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedians are not required to follow Sam Spade's Rules of Comportment. Perhaps, I did not respond the way you would have under similar circumstances. But to say I responded with "racial invective" is simply a lie. Further, your statement that "... it does minimize later statements in my eyes as a tradeoff back and forth. Frankly, I think alot of apologies need to be made..." is also absolute bull. "Tradeoff"? And you think I owe that racist mental cretin an apology? As I responded in talk, your comments speak for themselves. IMO, you have no credibility on this issue whatsoever. deeceevoice 11:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I think you owe the community an apology for statements such as those I quoted. You may not agree that you statement about asians was a "racial invective", but calling my reference to it as such "a lie" strikes me as abrasive and hubristic. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You tell me I've used "racist invective," and you call my comments "abrasive"? That's really funny. There is absolutely nothing I've written in response to Wareware's flagrantly racist language that remotely resembles a "tradeoff back and forth." Period. We're not going to agree on this at all, so let's just end this pointless exchange. I think your comments on this matter have been silly, utterly lacking in perspective and completely over the top. deeceevoice 14:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you might do well to review Rigour. Your egocentrism seems to be interfering with your abilities in that area. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for opinion[edit]

Sam Spade, despite the fact that you and I have squabbled and incessantly schemed to "eliminate" each other, I would value your participation in the discussion of current issues at Talk:Atheism. Sometimes progress requires a third-party voice. Thanks for considering. Adraeus 23:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, and I advise you as an AMA advocate not to request arbitration against the very popular. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why should I not request arbitration? User:Mel Etitis has been at my throat since the start with blatantly obvious ad hominem comments that any reasonable person could interpret as such. Adraeus 23:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Common sense, he'd probably win, he's popular and your not. If you'd like some more substantive advise you can email me. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then I shall formally begin the process with an RfC instead of an RfA. (By the way, I like your greeting. It's bloodcurdling to the unsuspecting.) Adraeus 23:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An RfC would probably be ok. If nothing else it will give you a taste of what your up against. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

El C/Kevehs/Sam Spade. I will try to mediate your dispute, asuming you still have your dispute. If interested go to the page below.

User:Coolcat/Mediation C-TAC-01A

Also please notify me in my talk page. Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism[edit]

I read your article on Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism and would like your comment on Circumcision and Anti-semitism. Sirkumsize 12:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually User:TDC wrote that article, I merely moved it there in attempt at reaching a compromise. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sam, I just sent you an email on the rfc subject. TDC 15:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Where did you send it? The email I have activated on the wikipedia email didn't recieve anything. Maybe its a trouble w my email account or some such? Have a look @ User:Sam Spade/Info. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just sent one to yepmail. TDC 18:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

FM Copyvio[edit]

Ok, that was juvenile.

Technically correct, by the rules, very well thought out, even humorful! :)

But juvenile.

I was about to go tell folks that I thought you'd handled that like a man. Instead you handled it like Sam Spade. O:-)

Ah well. You're hopeless, that's what you are :-P


Perhaps you might revert yourself before it causes any trouble?

(I can hope, right? :-) ) Kim Bruning 22:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed your copyvio listing of User talk:FeloniousMonk[edit]

I have removed your copyvio listing of User talk:FeloniousMonk. This is an abuse of the system. I have also reverted that page to restore it to the version prior to your removal. I would suggest not sending people emails through Wikipedia that you would be so embarassed about in future. —Morven 22:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am not embaressed, and I am offended by your misuse of Wikipedia:Revert. Please go review some copyright law. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Too late :-/ Kim Bruning 22:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Public posting of EMAIL[edit]

I am uncomfortable with the actions of User:Morven seen here. I understand the petty nature of whatever copyright I might have to my own emails, but I feel explaining to me my rights, or interceeding on my behalf would have been better than deleting my request. I would appreciate expert advise on the subject of public posting of emails on the wikipedia, and / or some action taken. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your attempt here to game the system has all the hallmarks of a SLAPP action. It's nothing more than a cynical and transparent attempt to hide the dirty laundry that you'd rather ignore than take responsibility for. Claiming that your uncivil email is copyright protected was a nice try, but that does not mean I cannot reveal its contents. You have no expectation of privacy when sending unsolicited email. Copyright applies only when there is commercial value in what is protected. [6] And so far I can see no value at all in your email except for demonstrating your true colors here.
Since you so desperately want to me to take your email down from my Talk page I suggest you simply offer an earnest apology instead of trying to game the system with a specious claim of copyright infringement. You need to take full responsibility for your actions here, and an heartfelt, long overdue apology from you is the solution to this issue, so be the big man, Sam, . --FeloniousMonk 00:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in Germany, not the USA. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)