I looked it over, and theres pretty much no chance he left because of you. He does look like a good user tho, have you thought about emailing him? Sam Spade 11:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

JC

Speaking of Trolling, did you notice on the Jesus talk page that I got called a TROLL by SLR? near the bottom of the secion. He's apologised though. Hmphy. :( --Silversmith 14:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I think he is sincere, and probably finds A.D. offensive in some sort of high fallutin' intellectual way. The end result however is a tremendous amount of time and energy wasted for the project and the editors involved, not to mention the aggravation and frustration. Sam Spade 15:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Woman

Hi Sam: Thank you for the gracious revert at Woman. I am always pleased to see someone revert their own edit. Admitting one's own error is so admirable. I aspire to do it consistently and promptly myself. --Theo (Talk) 22:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanx. Sam Spade 22:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you attend meeting?

Hey Sam... missed that meeting yesterday. Did you attend? Are there any minutes? Do you think we should have an election now, it has been more than a year since the last election? Know anyone who would run for the job? — © Alex756 18:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I had no clue there even was a meeting. WGfinley might want the job, or maybe wally. Unless your too busy to keep up w things, I'd likely oppose a vote and vote for you if there was one. Sam Spade 20:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Centre Party Germany -Entry Structure

I post u this , Sam : Trouble is , a cursory glance at the editing history shows the lack of historical good-faith . This always prejudiced the article and still does . I believe users have to account for anti-social activities and can be hauled-up . This will become a history within the history . We could put up pages devoted to the revisionism in the wikipedia and have us some stars who shine at that activity ..... Ill come back to this and see if any repair is undertaken or whether it is brazen revisionist war (coming from one who is very brazen) . Clean up the act !

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29" Also would you look at an entry I made for Edgar Ansel Mowrer and see if you think it allowable- I have done this to obviate this stupid historian rivalry and rev'nism , on the basis that as I link it Witness POV history should be available -ie memoirs from commentator -historians . I did this because the Germany article protection is symptomatic of a partly revisionist , partly nationist wiki reality .Flamekeeper 09:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That effort is probably the first step out of the Misplaced Pages for me and towards a mini-parallel Flamekeeper one .Perhaps the real battlegroungd is on the search engines . Faith-based, politically-based and national-based editing here is too irksome . Faith-based editing seems to have debased everything remotely touching upon the Church , and since that touches most anywhere in the final analysis , the damage is serious . The problems of languages I imagine can make that, however, pale in comparison . Babel maybe what the Misplaced Pages will be . I think really that copyright risk is where I may take myself in preference to direct negotiation with faith-editing or revisionism (right-wing ) . I admit to using the wikipedia to do the obvious , to no more than show the contra-diction . It could take forever to find a solution -look at the opus dei discussion . Everything is a mess and the faiths will win over the open-concept . I'm amazed that Pius XII is not sundered , but I was as careful as possible in not extracting the massive apologia , but interposing . Yes the syndication I feared at the first , can be turned , and the contradictions made , but when every assertion of learning is challenged there has to be a better way . Flamekeeper 19:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

newbie

Sorry, if I did something silly.

I did read the tutorial a while ago, but haven't edited for a while. Too many deadlines.

Thorsten 21:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No worries, your all good, I just wanted to give you some leads in case you had any questions as a nube. Cheers,

Sam Spade 22:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - didn't know that!

that 4 tildas in a row are used for signing

Thanks!

Winston Smith 21:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I have been of assistance! Cheers,

Sam Spade 22:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I really enjoy the Misplaced Pages community, thanks for the links and the welcome. User:Tskaze

And I in turn enjoyed the fine article you created on classical fencing! Please keep up the good work. Cheers,

Sam Spade 00:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...

Many thanks for welcoming me to Misplaced Pages! I appreciate your help.

The Anachronism 00:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And many thanks to you for being here! The wiki is Mutualism :D Sam Spade 00:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Heavy metal template

I don't mean to be offensive, but next time you rewrite a template, please make sure that it contains no obvious errors - such as a wrong inwiki link to the genre itself. I have reverted the colors to the former ones, since those are part of the wider Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music genres. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 01:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply@User_talk:Sn0wflake#User_talk:Sam_Spade.23Heavy_metal_template. Sam Spade 10:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite an answer for a terse comment. If you can't work on a group project, I suggest you create your own Wiki. That template was most certainly not my work, if that wasn't clear enough. --Sn0wflake 19:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

German/Nazi occupation of Norway

As you must know, the issue is under vote. Until the vote is complete, no move can be contemplated. You may also want to take note that the person who is pushing for the move is anonymous and keeps accusing me of "Jewish propaganda." --Leifern 15:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I understand, but this isn't about personalities. The Nazi's didn't invade Norway any more than the Rebulicans invaded Iraq. Germany did. Unlike the US invasion of Iraq, there was precious little protest from the Germans. You may say they couldn't protest, but seriously... Did China invade Tibet, or did communism? Sam Spade 15:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think honest people can disagree about that, which is why I brought it to a vote. Other than that, it isn't clear to me why one title or another is particularly POV in general, or "Jewish" in particular. --Leifern 15:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since you identified yourself as Jewish on your website, I assumed you had something against Germany since you insist on this POV title. A number of those voting in the VdD process seems to be Jewish too. As you are known from Aftenposten for claiming the coverage of Israel is always biased, you should be more careful about maintaining neutrality, or your actions may turn against you in different issues (like the Israeli-Arab conflict, or Zionist occupation of Palestine, if you like). //83

Look, as I said above, stick to the issues. I don't care if he's a jew, or your a nazi, or whatever. the issue is who invaded norway, and whats the right way to title the article. Sam Spade 16:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ad Hominem

Okay Sam, let's see what you wrote:

Did you think I was implying that you are megalomaniacal? If so, I wasn't. I was saying that until common usage changes, it would be unencyclopedic to change our usage, and that in order to change common usage you';d have to be megalomaniacal. I didn't mean to suggest you'd actually attempt such a thing..

Yes, it is true that I did think you were implying — no, saying — that I am megalomaniacal. I appreciate your saying that you were not. Yet, the next two sentences make the same ad hominem criticism. Of course I want common usage to change over time. I do not mean I want it to happen all at once. And I do not think I will accomplish it alone. There are already millions of people who use BCE/CE, and I know there will be more, and I want to pitch in. By the way I address your argument, that we should follow common usage, in my proposal. Aside from the fact that encyclopedias are meant to educate (surely, you agree that we should not limit ourselves to writing articles that present only what is common knowledge?), popularity or commonness of use do not trump NPOV, this is clearly stated in our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"surely, you agree that we should not limit ourselves to writing articles that present only what is common knowledge?"

That depends on what you mean by "common knowledge", and where you draw the line on original research / WP:POINT. Personally, I think trying to force a switch of such things on the wikipedia isn't what we are here to do (What wikipedia is not). Frankly I think contesting such things on the Jesus pages is offensive (to christians) and confrontational. If this was all regarding Jewish or Hindu or whatever pages, I might even be siding with you.

Assuming this is as important an issue to you as it would appear to be, I suggest you make that a larger part of your non-wiki life, and a smaller part of what you do here. We are here to collect the sum total of human knowledge, not pass judgment on it. The NPOV policy is here to allow for inclusion of all points of view, not take a stand behind any one of them we imagine to be most neutral. Sam Spade 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, first, concerning the dating system at Cultural and historical background of Jesus, I provided an explanation for why it should use BCE and CE. I think you will find my explanation reasonable, and if not certainly hope we can discuss it.

But I am very disappointed by your response to Clem McGann on the talk page of the BCE-CE proposal. When he wrote "Then what will happen to the articles which have been changed by User:Slrubenstein from BC/AD to BCE/CE, such as Cultural and historical background of Jesus," this is what I wish you would have replied:

• He wrote the first version of the article, so it is not right to say he "changed" it "from BC/AD."
• Maybe it should be BC AD rather than BCE CE, but you are wrong to insinuate that his changes are arbitrary, or always imposing an unreasonable POV. After all, he has as much right to edit a page as you or I. Let's see what his reasons are. And finally
• Well, the vote on this page has nothing to do with whether or not that page should be BC AD or BCE CE. SR's proposal is to make BCE/CE a NPOV issue. Even if most people disagree with him, please remember that our Manual of Syle permits both BC/AD and BCE/CE. Just because this proposal is likely to be defeated doe not mean the BCE and CE are "banned" from Misplaced Pages, and it would definitely be wrong to start going around and changing every use of BCE/CE to BC/AD."

Or so you really think that (1) I do not have a right to edit Misplaced Pages articles and (2) it is against Misplaced Pages policy to use BCE/CE? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I can see compromises being made regarding pages devoted to issues other than Christ himself(!), but certainly not on a page like the one in question. Clearly i don't agree with any of the options you provide for me. Sam Spade 16:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? The Cultural/Historical article is explicitly written from a non-Christian point of view, and the vast majority is about the Jewish people, their culture, and history. The article does not call him Christ or say that he is or was Christ; drawing on secular scholarship it explains how some people may have come to believe he was a messiah after his execution. Pleae remember, Jesus was Jewish, and there really are many people, perhaps a majority in the world, who do not think he is Christ. This is an article on his cultural and historical background, which is Jewish, and virtually all Jews did not see him as Christ. I do not object to an article that explores the Christian perspective on Jesus, but how can you censor the views of Jews and historians that he was real, that his life reflects something of his times (thus, things going on in Jewish culture), and that he died a Jew? You don't have to agree with this view, but how can you censor it?

Moreover, I know there are reasonable arguments against my proposal, arguments that AD and BC are not always POV. But you really cannot imagine why it is inappropriate, and to many, to date events in Jewish history with "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini?" In any event, for most of that article's existence, it has used BCE and CE; that is the status quo and if you want to change it there needs to be considerable discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"Nazi occupation"

The "Nazi occupation" is ready to be moved to the proper title as the duplication is deleted. Courage 19:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Heavy Metal genrebox color

For a color change, please discuss a change at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music genres. This is the second time someone wanted to change the color of the heavy metal genrebox. Originally, cyan was used. Then it was suggested for change, and Sn0wflake and I agreed on #BB0022. We shoudn't be changing the color all the time.

Also, your black background with red text is nonstandard for genreboxes. In a genrebox, we use black text for lighter backgrounds and white text for darker backgrounds.

Andros 1337 22:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why? Have you seen the difference in the template from before, and after i edited it? For what possible reason would there need to be uniformity of color amongst music genreboxes? Sam Spade 22:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If a text color is assigned to heavy metal, other genres will have to get a text color assignment too. This can make things more complicated. Remeber, with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music genres, you must REQUEST A COLOR CHANGE ON THE TALK PAGE. You cannot spontaneously change a color. Andros 1337 22:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 has returned

Sorry, I noticed that Robeykr seemed to panic here on your talk page after I said I was leaving the project. But after reading some of the comments I received by that user and others on my talk page, and some other events, I have decided to return today -- but with a few self-imposed restrictions on myself. See my user page if you are interested. Thanks for your patience and understanding dealing with me and that user in a professional manner. Happy editing and see you around ;-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

Although you deleted his complaint from this page (), Felonious Monk rightly pointed out that you had left what amounts to a personal attack on him on another user's Talk page (). As you must know, this isn't acceptable, and it is exacerbated by the fact that you have a history of conflict with him, including another personal attack sent by e-mail. Your history makes clear that you will not apologise for your behaviour, but please don't repeat it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)