Open main menu



Thanks for noticing me Sam Spade! I know its about seventeen days late but oh well. --Klaser 03:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful, glad to have you! Sam Spade 23:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

peer reviewEdit

But we do have peer review, occassionally. Let's try to make it more regular, no? Rickyrab | Talk 18:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC) (now that I've logged in)


Thank you for your welcome. It is much appreciated. Anonymous editor 23:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

:D Sam Spade 00:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Combine the Existence of God ArticlesEdit

I'm proposing combining the Arguments for the existence of God and the Arguments against the existence of God articles. Bryan also supports this, Mel opposes. Since you have supported a similar idea in the past, I was hoping you might want to give your two cents on the matter. Here is the discussion: Talk:Arguments for the existence of God#Combine the articles. Thanks! crazyeddie 17:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Partly, that's what I get for copy-and-pasting the same message to several people, partly, I may have misinterperted a comment you made. I was looking for people who previously expressed an interest in combining the two articles. Here is your comment that I interperted as an expression of interest:

<<I would like to create some unity on the for/against God pages. I think we can find our way to agreeing on the best way to quantify and categorize the debate thru premises. IMO if one accepts certain premises they will be atheist, and with others a theist. This assumes proper reasoning of course ;).There is also obviously the opportunity for poor reasoning leading to either conclusion. Experience clearly affects the premises a given person chooses to accept. Some turn away from theism due to tragedy, and others turn toward God after a personal revelation. But always there is some basis for their belief or lack thereof, if not logical than cultural, emotional, psychological etc... Thoughts?>> crazyeddie 20:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I've done a fine tuning myself, please check it out. I've included your request. --Silversmith Hewwo 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


im doing a project and i want to know wether a fetus is considered a human

That depends on who you ask. Where is the line drawn? From single cell to infant, when do we become human? --Silversmith Hewwo 10:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From sperm/egg to enlightened guru ;) As an animist, everything is alive to me anyhow, from the tiniest quark to the multiverse. There is a page on this subject which might be slightly less confusing however, it is: Morality and legality of abortion. Cheers!
Sam Spade 11:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is truth in the idea that "Everything is one". But the point of words is to distinguish between parts of that which is one; between that which is mine and that which is yours for example. Using a word to mean everything in the universe (Everything is alive) deprives a word of its usefulness. Deciding what use you wish to make of a word provides the useful definition for that context. The usefulness of saying "everything is alive" lies not in your ability to successfully communicate something about the universe, but to communicate something you feel about yourself and your relationship to the universe. When you avoid doing something that will kill you, you are using the concept of alive in the another way. I doubt you believe that you dead and you alive are the same thing. 21:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thats extremely complicated., There are different states of being, but I know of no evidence for an end to being, matter/energy being destroyed or whatnot. Sam Spade 17:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great Job Sam!Edit

You're doing a great job Sam, keep it up! League Of Responsible Trolls 16:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you, I guess. I greatly admire your goals, but I caution you that the word "troll" has rather sharp negative connentations on the wiki. Me, I associate it with Nordic mythology and Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, or at least I did until I began editing the wikipedia ;) Sam Spade 18:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Repoussé and chasingEdit

Hi there, I was wondering, since you love making little wikilinks, if you could have a look at Repoussé and chasing for me? I don't think I'll be removing any of it's content, just adding more. Thanks, --Silversmith Hewwo 19:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, but please, feel free to redo things if you don't like my changes! Sam Spade 20:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, great job! --Silversmith Hewwo 12:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


A baby marginated tortoise free of its shell

Request for Assistance: ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE: Administrator Mustafaa is a Wiki TerroristEdit

Asking for assistance regarding Administrator Mustafaa:

Regarding the page and edits to Islamic Terrorism, Administrator Mustafaa acts as the police to this page to ensure that his biased POV is inserted. He was called in by Yuber to revert my edit, which was balanced, an improvement, and entirely without a POV (as are all my edits). They worked to team up to ensure that only their biased POV is inserted. Mustafaa then blocked me, in the process breaking many Wiki policies. Basically Mustafaa ‘s reactionary vandalism and his act of blocking me was an act of Wiki terrorisim.

Administrator Mustafaa broke many of Wiki policies:

1. Abuse of Administratorship: Most important is that Mustafaa has an obvious POV and abuses his Administratorship to ensure that his POV is inserted into his favorite articles.

2. Edit Abuse: Mustafaa (and Yuber) made a reactionary rv revert of the entire article instead of simply making one simple correction, the only correction that they disagreed with.

3. Edit Abuse: Unlike what they stated, there has been no previous discussion of this issue. The only previous discussion concerned their own sensitivity to the term. The term “Islamic Terrorism” is the term used by the West and it is the term being described. I provided a source (and there would be tens of thousands of sources, because this is the proper term in the West. I accurately described the dispute that some Muslims have over a term used in the West.

4. Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

5. Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

6. Violating blocking Policy: the 3RR policy is not to be used to deal with vandalism as mine was of Mustafaa and Yuber vandalism.

7. Violating blocking Policy: Mustafaa made no warnings, he just wanted to protect his POV.

I believe that I have made significant contributions to Wiki and I very greatly object to 2 people teaming up to block me out of the system so that they can insert their POV.

These people are doing a real disservice to Wiki, and I can think of no worse vandalism than they have done:

I think Administrators like Mustafaa are dangerous for Wiki, especially when they are so willing to violate Wiki policy to insert their POV.

So, I would appreciate any information and assistance you can provide to Noitall. Thank you.

--Noitall 03:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Referring to someone called Mustafaa as a "terrorist", while amusingly hyperbolic, seems rather Islamophobic. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I find this very confusing and refer everyone to WP:AMA and Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Old mediation requestEdit

I don't want to drag up old disputes, but can you tell me whether it's safe to archive the dispute you had with El C regarding Socialism and which was brought to the mediation committee by Wally? Mgm|(talk) 18:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You would need to take that up w them, see [1]. Sam Spade 21:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abuse ReportEdit

Yo homedawg, check out Bentley, Automobile, Wealth, and Rapping for the abuse Ive taken of having my legitimate image of White Dawg posing in front of his BENTLEY removed MULTIPLE times. People are hating on White Dawg just cause hes successful and rich beyond anyones dreams. HATERS. -BrowardBulldawg 11:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I restored the thug link to bently, but the image really wasn't needed anywhere. I suggest you focus on cleaning up Thug Lifestyle, it could really use some help. Speaking of which, have you seen this photo of White dawg? Sam Spade 20:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I think your contributions to the AH article and talk page are helpful and this note is only to let you know in a non-confrontatinal way I was surprised you implied there was even a hint of possibility he wasn't fully aware of the genocide and the various means used to implement it. He thought he was saving the world, no doubt in a quick and dirty, desperate swoop and did one of the most inept, misguided and damaging jobs of "world saving" I've ever heard of. For example, AH the volkish anti-semite gets almost full credit for the creation of Israel. He set Europe back at least a couple of generations (France is still recovering from the war, like it or not). I imagine there's a possibility his judgement was clouded by an advanced case of syphilis and who knows what other issues. But to say an intelligent [sic], leadership oriented, charismatic individual like AH wasn't responsible for and knowledgeable of such a massive project is for me, beyond the pale, so I thought I'd say something... Wyss 12:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing it at all, so long as we remain non-confrontational (esp. since we prob won't agree). My thought is that he was wacked out on meth and cocaine and syphilis and who knows what all, and intensely focused on micromanaging the war effort (a particularly poor move, that, he should have focused on say,... architecture?). Anyhow, I am unconvinced that very many of the higher ups had much of any idea of the specific going-on at the camps, and those that did know certainly didn't bring it up over tea. It just wasn't polite conversation for the Führer. Despite what anyone says, the Germans had relatively delicate sensibilities for the most part (compare them to say the Ustase, or the Nanjing Massacre, both of which involved nazis on the scene being shocked and outraged at the abuses). I'm no holocaust denier, I'm well aware of what went on (I used to watch the history channel quite a bit when I was in the states, and I still rent WWII documentaries fairly regularly, not to mention my extensive studies online and in books), but it just doesn't make sense to me that Hitler was directly involved. Indirectly culpable, sure, and if he gave the slightest damn whatsoever he could obviously have prevented all manner of atrocity and bloodshed, but I simply don't think the evidence is there for him personally engineering specific concentration camp abuses. I know there’s a certain "feelgood" aspect to saying he is guilty of 6 million murders, but he frankly didn't have the time or interest. Rather the Nazi bureaucracy killed 6 million people, just like communists and fascist and totalitarian and authoritarian and royalist and etc... bureaucracies have killed billions of people over the ages. No one man could personally take responsibility for so much death, not even Father Petar Brzica, Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic, etc...Sam Spade 12:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, save any conjecture he wasn't fully aware of the death factories whether or not he had anything to do with engineering that particular system (maybe not much, though I do think it likely he was "wacked out on meth and cocaine and syphilis and who knows what all"). Let's both let our conjectures be then (interesting to hear yours!), since it seems we both agree neither has a place in the article. For what it's worth I'd also say we're close enough on AH's culpability, never mind if we stray from the same path now and then to get there. So far as the Nazi bureaucracy having killed those millions of people, spot on it did and Stalin was even worse (he didn't think he was saving the world, for starters). Wyss 18:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really don't like bureaucracy, it has elements of peer pressure, mob mentality, and a tendacy for people to feel an utter lack of personal responsibility and accountability, as well as a lack of respect for those outside their chain of command. Its like they spread their culpability out across the entire organisation, until its so thin they can commit all sorts of horrible acts without blinking. I completely agree w you about keeping the conjecture out of the article, altho as I said, if you want to cite someone expressing your opinion, i doubt it will be hard to find. Thanks for being so wonderfully polite, these are just the sort of convo's that lead a lesser person to acks of flaming rage. Maybe its just your sense of respect, and personal responsability shining thru! Sam Spade 19:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me started on bureaucrats :) Wyss 02:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler on JewsEdit

/Adolf Hitler on Jews from Mein Kampf 22:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, I'm not questioning his sentiments, I'm questing the extent of his awareness and micromanagement, Sam Spade 22:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I read more than sentiment there... that's a proud boast the killing's in progress, saying in effect, they said I could never pull it off, but I am as we speak... Wyss 02:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To be honest I havn't read it yet, thats a mighty big Hitler rant! I will when I find the time (and fortitude), I have a class to be off to at the moment ;) Cheers,
Sam Spade 14:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William White (agitator)Edit

I have posted an RfC regarding William White (agitator). The recent contributions to it need some review and editing, IMO. I would guess that even the most sympathetic editor could find room for improvement and, in fact, it may be easier for a sympathetic editor to make those improvements. As an experienced editor of whatever sympathies, your contribution would be appreciated. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I've been aware of these guys for like 15 years, and I have never seen a face to go w their eyebrow raising Libertarian National Socialist Green platform. I thank you for the opportunity to help out here, and the thoughtful nature of your request. I assure you I will look into the page, and its recent histories. Cheers, Sam Spade 22:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We may have more than just the face. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)



Democratic peace theoryEdit

I have been attempting to make this article POV by adding and clarifying the case against the extreme form of the theory.

User:Ultramarine has deleted several arguments, and the key points in other arguments, while denying he has done so.

In addition, the article (which probably should not be simply deleted: the theory is real, and its less extreme forms are valuble) is peppered with extensive cut-and-pastes from the subject's website, taken verbatim.

Please advise. A literate arbitrator would be best, but may be out of sequence here. Septentrionalis 23:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Etitis Guilty of 3RR violation at Islamist Terrorism

At Talk:Islamist terrorism I wrote:

Mel engaged in a revert war (causing a 24 hour block as punishment) over "but some believe it to be a smear against Islam" versus "but it is often thought to be a smear against Islam".

Words fail me, Mel. Might I suggest "Sorry, I was awake for 48 hours straight. Thanks for the block, as it helped me to admit my Wikipedia addiction. I am now in a 12 step program for Wiki-addicts, and my first step is to say sorry to those I hurt. Sorry." 23:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. Sam Spade 07:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bill White (activist)Edit

Sam, I've just about finished with my editing of this page, except perhaps for a few tweaks. I've tried to present the main issues, sticking closely to what third-party sources have said about White, and linking to the sources whenever possible. I think it's a fair and well-sourced article now; there may be issues I've left out, but I didn't want it to get much longer, and I don't think anything significant is missing. Regarding the list of articles White/Baxter wanted to have included, Willmcw suggested linking to it (as it's also on his website) in the External links section as a compromise. I also added a couple more images, one of his anarchist logo, and another of him being wrestled to the ground at a demo. Let me know what you think when you have a minute. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

So long as everything is linked to, that sounds fine. I havn't had a chance to read the article since you've rewrote it, but my primary concern was that mighty list of references, which I feel is vital to provide our readers access to. If theat can be done indirectly, so be it. Sam Spade 14:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I read that link at the end of the Hitler death article. I'm startled you seriously cite that sort of material at all. It's not scholarly, but a warmed over hodgepodge of half-baked tabloid and cheap paperback fiction [sic] from the past 60 years. AH in Antarctica? Sorry, it's codswallop, you've lost me cold on this one. There is zero (I'll say it again, zero) documented evidence AH ever made it out of that bunker alive, never mind to some sort of hollowed out mountain in Antarctica. Yeah, yeah, the story about him biting down on a cyanide capsule while blowing his brains out is a bit thin... but that doesn't mean he escaped to Antarctica in a submarine (Bormann didn't even make it past a nearby railroad switching area, by the way).. maybe he didn't do the cyanide bit and only shot himself. Anyway the link should be removed, it belongs on one of those "worst of the web" joke pages is all. Oh, er, one last thing, one of the stories at that link talks about AH being spotted standing by a German jet, waiting to be spirited away at the last moment. I've read something about those early German jets. They had enough fuel for 10 to 20 minutes of flight at the most, were mostly (if not all) cramped one-seaters and not too safe... anyway take my word for it, based on the available evidence, it's a cinch AH didn't skip out of Berlin in a frickin' jet :) Wyss 05:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand, the fact that I want all verifiable theories presented by no means ought suggest I believe each of them. Rather I feel for the sake of the reader as much verifiable on topic variety be provided as possible. this is my understanding of NPOV. Sam Spade 19:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monotheism and HinduismEdit

Hi, Sam I made some changes to articles on monotheism and Hinduism. Feel free to take a look.

Best regards,

Raj2004 21:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good edits! Quite a bit was added to monotheism. I reworded a bit, trying to reduce the level of emphasis on bahai and islam as being especially monotheist, but your eadditions were both excellent and copious! Very glad to see you continuing your fine work here. Cheers, Sam Spade 12:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam I had to clarify what monotheism means in Hinduism. The popular conception of Hinduism is the West is only a Smarta view as the earlier teachers who brought Hinduism into the west were all Smarta. (Vivekananda, Sivananda, Chinmayananda, etc., were notably all Smarta. Other denominations of Hinduism follow an exclusive monotheistic model like the Abrahmanic religions. There appears to be a lot of ignorance among many in the wikipedia community of Hinduism so I felt that I had to clarify once and for all why Hinduism is not polytheistic. It is perceived as polytheistic as only one division of Hinduism, the Smarta school, which had a dispropriationate impact on presenting Hinduism to the west and great influence on Hindu culture, i.e., Sankara and Advaita, is an inclusive monotheistic school rather than an exclusive monotheistic school as Ramanuja and Madhva followed.

Raj2004 00:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and hope you keep up your fine work in promoting understanding and accurate, neutral presentation of facts. Cheers, Sam Spade 18:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I need help dealing with rv war-prone Jayjg (talk · contribs)!Edit

Judeo-Christian needs your attention. I'm afraid that he will not back down from keeping all things Jewish to his POV. I have tried to explain the NPOV, but time will tell upon his return to fight a balanced persepective. Judeo-Christian#See also is the hot button, this time. - ScapegoatVandal 07:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will look into the matter. Thank you for your clear and helpful use of links. Cheers,
Sam Spade 14:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also need help with Country music/Talk:Country music, because they have Afrocentric racism against Whites. With Cowboy/Talk:Cowboy, you will see similar bullshit. Thanks for your time and please help me help the articles. ScapegoatVandal 22:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Jayjg has done it again with the article Judaizers. He gets involved with all topics related to Judaism and controls them for his own sake. Please help me deal with this nonsense. I don't want to get stuck in edit wars with Jews who are probably going to call me an anti-semitic nazi as a way to push forth whatever they want and deny whatever they don't. ScapegoatVandal 16:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for paying attention and speaking on behalf of NPOV information. ScapegoatVandal 03:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, I am being given another problem by some Jews/gays at Circumcision. Why do they insist on getting in my face and trying to control every goddamned thing that may have their identity in it? I confess, I was circumcised and curious about the practice, but somehow I am not valid editing because I put to light a relationship between Jews, Puritans and Victorians which are well known to British and American historians of at least minor professionality if not complete experts on the subject. I have a Puritan ancestor who fought for Oliver Cromwell, but some right bastards won't let me talk about it. They convince themselves it would be a problem if people learnt more about our history. I guess this place is not an enyclopedia, just a goddamned spindoctoring machine for propaganda artists in the infowars. I don't want to be involved in those fights. I'm here as an academic with university experience in western history. I will not ever concede to ethnocentric fascists on this site. I stared down both Nazis and Jews so far. I don't want their unimportant garbage! ScapegoatVandal 14:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision / genital mutilation are both ugly topics which I prefer to avoid. If you feel strongly enough to edit them, be aware they are legendary for their lack of neutrality and aggressive editors. Sam Spade 14:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg is following me everywhere to prevent legit edits on jew-christian topics. please stop his pov prejudice and edit war mongering. ScapegoatVandal 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AH, populist-nationalistEdit

Thanks for pointing out the problematic aspects of the word humanize in the caption! Wyss 18:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ludwig KaasEdit

I have posted dispute , it needs publicity/ linking , as does it all and the 'drift' needs attention . Your top line here is apposite . Fiamekeeper 01:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sam,

thanks for your welcome message back when I first logged onto Wikipedia.

I see, that my friend Fiamekeeper, once known as Flamekeeper or Correcticus, has already posted here, so I might as well give you the other side of the story.

There is nothing wrong with the Ludwig Kaas entry. I have done an overhaul lately (as I did of the Centre Party (Germany) and of Heinrich Brüning, including many things that weren't there (and in which FK has no interest)). Now he calls this entry disputed, but what he posted on the talk page doesn't warrant this call. He posts all the things he always posts (sorry for the complicated wording, but I'm trying to avoid a word he doesn't like) - the only substantial thing is a quote which he immediately misinterpretes - and which can be dealt with fairly easily. In fact, I have immediately included a sentence which gives the fact to which the quotes is refering.

Please do have a look into the Kaas page and see that there is nothing in need of dispute there. Of course, one could expand it, but then it'd be a replica of the Centre page to which there is a link. I focused on Kaas personally.

Thanks and greetings from Franconia to the Eifel.

Str1977 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, I didn't have the time and/or energy to create a user page as great as Yours. And I don't have such a famous namesake. Originally it was empty (except for some gibberish some anon user posted there), but as someone gave me a lot of "presents", I started to put them on exhibition. Actually your page is really quite impressive with all these different options. Str1977 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, I appreciate your edits on Kaas. It's always better to have more than one person editing - not just because of typos and idiosyncracies. However, I changed some things back, as you can see here. Str1977 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, for the tips. As for bulk content: as I decided to overhaul these pages, I saved the source text to my PC and edited it there. Otherwise I might run into edit conflicts (it took me some time to edit), or crash my PC and lose it (something like this happened anyway) or some other Internet/wiki bug. Of course, I don't like the look of this bulk either (it it very annoying e.g. on the Germany talk page - some users post bulk with their post added. This makes it hard to find out what's new.)

And please don't You believe the things FK said about me (and that was before the bulky editing). And he has decided not to give me anymore ammunition.

I'm not blameless either and our previous discussion became very heated, but I honestly - POV :-) - tried not to attack him personally (apart from any policy) and only criticize his actions.

We all have strong opinions, but I think he is going too far. And I am not the only one who thinks that way. You know better, since you have been at wiki longer than I have.

PS. I have posted an explanation and alternatives on the Kaas talk page - and put in "pushing" as an alternative, at least for the moment. Feel free to improve the wording.

Str1977 20:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sam, what is the reason for including the "magnates" link into the Centre Party entry? It might be relevant to Papen or to Hitler or to Hindenburg or to Schacht or to NSDAP but here? Str1977 21:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thankyou for pointing that out. *Satis 01:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an adminEdit

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. Since you've been previously nominated I added an '*' immediately before your name in this list. If for any reason you're NOT interested, my apologies and please remove the '*' (you could entirely remove yourself from the list also, if you'd like). I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


Agreed. Incidentally, I don't oppose the inclusion of polytheism in the "beliefs about humans" section, if we can find a suitable segue. --goethean 04:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade on wheelsEdit

I assume User:Sam Spade on wheels is you - it has 3.8k links, so I've redirected it to User:Sam Spade. ··gracefool | 06:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about this page move vandal? Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels ScapegoatVandal 06:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you're probably right. I've redirected it there - if it is Sam, he can change it back. ··gracefool | 08:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL, no, it wasn't me. Sam Spade 14:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think so from the first I saw it. ScapegoatVandal 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sam Spade/ - archive/Juni 2005 2".