User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Juli 2005 2

What is with the swam of socialist apologetics all over the political and economic articles on the wiki... sorry, just need to vent a bit. --Pearlg 4 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)

Your completely right, it has to do w the demographics of who edits the wiki, and their difficulties w NPOV. Think "Ministry of Truth". Fortunately, some of us take intellectual rigour and the M:Foundation issues to heart.

Thank you for being here, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 4 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

As requested, the primitivism article has been moved to anarcho-primitivism and a tiny substub created at the former. It would be good if you could take a look and at least partially expand the single line at primitivism. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I have now done so. I'm not sure if it should be merged w primitive, or what... ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 4 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

I understand that you're the go-to guy on these matters. I am suffering from admin abuse. I am in a dispute with SlimVirgin, who is POV warring against me and protecting pages on what he considers the "correct version." Please take a look at Peter Camejo and High Times. Thanks. Cognition 5 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

Sam, Cognition (talk · contribs) is a LaRouche movement activist or supporter, who arrived on June 29 and has since then made a series of inflammatory or disruptive edits. I'm involved here only as an admin, not an editor, and the pages protected are not pages I've been editing. More details at WP:AN/I#User:Cognition (II). SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 5, 2005 01:38 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been watching since before his note ;) I don't agree w the wiki-policy towards LaRouchites, but this doesn't seem the right situation to challenge it. I think some people have been less than welcoming to Cognition, but I also think his references and edits have been... sub-par. Anyway, I would ask everyone to focus on rigour, and to be nice. If I cared to step into this matter, I would have to side against Cognition on every issue of substance I am aware of. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

The links may be changing on Overthrow. I posted excerpts from an article there on Talk:Bill White (activist). Could you take a look when you have a chance to see if that adequately establishes White's length of service and compensation? Thanks, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 05:34 (UTC)

Please see the intro to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I added content that I think has been sorely missing. A discussion may ensue. Tom Haws July 5, 2005 18:13 (UTC)

Someone here said that Lenin turned around the old Russian anti-Semitism in a few years. While that may have been an official stance, long-held prejudices are hard to just banish or turn around. I doubt very much that the average Russian farmer, say, in 1924, was actually convinced that Jews were OK; anti-Semitism is way too deeply-rooted to just disappear because of official government policy. They just knuckled under, kept their own council, and when Stalin purged the Jews in 1937-8 he had a very willing populace to rely on. They had never come around at all. They just waited until it was OK to hate Jews again.

And the idea that fame was as good as money works only because that fame brings perks. Better apartments, cars, travel, etc. Money wasn't really the issue, what money could buy was. It's always been that way. No one works harder unless he perceives there is reward for it. Capitalism works because it acknowledges this. And it pays according to market: how much is this work worth?, etc. You can't attempt to destroy market forces and expect to succeed. Communist regimes, in order to exist at all, need to become more and more compromised until all that is left of their ideology is its inherent authoritarianism. Hence, modern China.

No people would willingly become communist once they have seen the results. Of course then it's too late. That is the history of this failed system. Conquest, occupation, terrorization, propaganda, enforcement, imprisonment, slave labor, collapse. To say that totalitarianism is not a fair word to use for communist rule exhibits an unwillingness, or a fear, to look at this belief system - which is all it is: a secular religion - with any kind of objectivity.

Totalitarianism is inherent in Marxism. The creation of a false class, the proletariat - an invention of Marx's to begin with, there never was and never has been a proletariat, it's a myth, a concoction in order to anchor an economic theory - is the first step towards this 'total controlism,' if you will. You create a false class, and then you do whatever you want in their name. It sanctifies everything including mass murder and starvation, slave labor and torture. Marx had never met a proletarian, after all, he just dreamed them up. And the people he imagined to be among this artificial class of people - miners, let's say - were part of a vast, undifferentiated (to Marx) mass. He hated them, he feared them, and he elevated his fear to prominience in his writing.

No one willingly participates. They do so only out of fear. Those block captains and gung ho Red Guards in Maoist China are the same people we see in any industrialized society - thugs, hired guns, strike-breakers, you name it. Hitler had his brownshirts and his blackshirts (cooler, smarter, but even more brutal since they murdered all the brownshirts). In Zimbabwe it's Mugabe's version of brownshirts, the 'war veterans.' Like the enthusiastic party thugs of Maoism, they all do it from a mixture of their own fears and feelings of alienation - common to many humans in industrial societies, a fact which Marx understood well - this painful feeling of alienation is salved by belonging to something bigger, to the greater whole which is how totalitarianism takes root and flourishes - look at any religious cult) and their hatred towards those designated to be their enemies - the kulaks, for instance - can be legitimately channeled and released in the form of brutality and violence upon these enemies of the people. They are what you would expect and then some. Some are educated people with a grudge against what they see as an unfair society which does not prize them highly enough. You also get the prison guards. You get the lowest of the low. These are the ideological enforcers. These are the communist version of Islam's religious police. Nothing was ever accomplished under communism without the threat - and the acidulous carrying out - of brute force. User:69.109.196.57 20:06, 5 July 2005

You hit the nail on the head. People don't do things without incentive, and communism has 2: ideological doublespeak (equality, class struggle, internationalism, etc...), and once that is seen thru... the slave masters whip. They have nothing else, and frankly, abuse and lies are poor incentive. God, truth, meritocracy and happiness... those are sustainable incentives. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

We're just a bunch of mindless slaves, kidding ourselves that we aren't, whilst our capitalist masters dangle the carrot and weild the whip. Anyway, Sam, here's an article on what we were disussing a while ago - Vivian Solon. --Silversmith Hewwo 6 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

I am the master of all I survey, and last I knew... you were self employed... So if your getting whopped by the master, I suggest you lay off the flaggelation! Anyhow, I'm off to read that link ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

Sam, I am a sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to express the opinion that rogue admins are out of control. I fear negative consequences if I used my regular account to express this opinion. Is there an organized response to the fact that some admins are openly claiming that there is no need for them to follow policy? Norrath 6 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

There is User:Sam Spade/Detective agency, but its probably best to discuss such things via email, as I explain there. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

great merge. One minor edit, the other schools of vedanata, vishtisadvaita and dvaita praise Vishnu as the supreme God.

Raj2004 7 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

a good essay on smartism-inclusive monotheism and world approach. God the Father, Allah and Vishnu are the same according to smarta view: http://www.dlshq.org/discourse/may2002.htm

presented by divine life swami, follower of sivananda Raj2004 7 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

Sam, as always, thanks for your suggestions on Ayyavazhi. The more I read about AyyaVazhi, the more I realize in philosophy, it is similar to smartism.

Raj2004 02:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, we are having a discussion about whether we should merge threegod heads with trimurti in ayya vazhi?

I said perhaps. what do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_godheads_%28Ayyavazhi%29

Raj2004 21:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sam. made some changes to panentheism Raj2004 23:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure why you reverted the Erica Hardwick. Was it about the third photo of her? I'd deleted it originally because it doesn't show her face and doesn't seem to add anything to the article. However I presume that is why you reverted so I restored it at a smaller size. Please let me know if there are any other problems with the article. Cheers, -Willmcw July 8, 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Who are you talking to here, and what is your meaning? I honestly have no idea,

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

• I was reacting to:

I said on the description page that if you didn't like it, I would delete it, you asshole. You are a completely absurd person, fuck you. john k 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

I think that an Admin should be more ...well... more. hydnjo talk 9 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I agree. Its a weird situation. I don't know how on earth things escalated that way, but I am trying to find an answer thats good for the article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 9 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

Fine. I just want an Admin to represent this project in a way that ... well you know what I mean. hydnjo talk 9 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Yeah, there is the note on Jimbo's talk page, and abother on the mailing list to that affect. Maybe an RfC should be filed, but I'm unconvinced it would help, particularly if I created it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 9 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

Well shoot. I sure don't have the standing around here to do much except to complain. On the other hand Sam, your voice is quite respected. So do what you think is appropriate. hydnjo talk 9 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

Sam Spade, thanks for your efforts to welcome new users (even if sometimes your "welcome, new user" message goes to not so new users :-).

But I want to draw your attention to the fact that the way how you do it (putting a link to your subpage) can cause some confusion. It causes an "edit" link to be created on the user page you tried to welcome. However acting on this "edit" link causes your own subpage to be edited, rather than the page of the user you tried to welcome. Take a look at the history of your welcome page, there are quite a few of unintended edits because of this reason.--Vlad1 9 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've had a look. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have picked up the thread I started 2 days ago. I haven't been able to follow up due to RL stuff. Thanks for helping out! Inter\^Echo 9 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

No problem its what I do. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem.. im Australian im easy going! :)... Hope to see you around! :) - UnlimitedAccess 15:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming template

Hi there! I was told you're one of the frequent welcomers of new users. I was wondering - since this is a rather frequently asked question, would you please add a link to Wikipedia:Merge to your welcoming template? Thanks. R adiant _>|< 20:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, see [1]

Please stop adding a link to paederasty in the Straight Acting article. The topics are unrelated, and persistently readding this link is vandalism. Exploding Boy 20:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Go read Wikipedia:Vandalism, your supposed to be an admin, fer crissakes. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me save you the trouble since you must be unfamiliar with it:

Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Repeatedly adding a link to an unrelated article is vandalism, particularly when it is an obvious attempt to mislead, misinform, or malign. Stop it. Exploding Boy 20:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I can't stop what I havn't started. Go read the bible. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in your religious views, and nor do they have anything to do with Wikipedia. If you can't divorce your religion and politics from your editing you don't belong here. Please take this as a warning: don't add that link back to the article. Exploding Boy 20:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your existance as an admin is plenty of warning to me that the wiki is in trouble. Take your ridiculous accusations of vandalism to WP:ViP, and your threats to RfC. Try not to assume bad faith. Thanks, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to play around with you, so you can stop playing wounded. We all know, and you've made abundantly clear, your bias against homosexuality. Please leave it out of the articles you edit (and that goes for the Anal sex article too). Exploding Boy 23:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your bias regarding myself is what we have ample evidence of. I don't know of any other gay people who have a problem w me, at all, ever (on or offline). There are 2 barnstars on my user page. One was given to me by a male soap opera expert, and the other by a biological male who prefers to be refered to as female. I have edited extensively with User:hyacinth with no problems which I am aware of. The issue between us as wikipedians has nothing to do with what you may or may not do in private. Rather we disagree regarding your editing as a wikipedian, which I see to be POV advocacy. My POV is @ User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. If it were a Westboro Baptist banner, you would still be out of line claiming ownership of these articles, or perhaps even subjects. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really have no idea what you're talking about. Your anti-gay bias is well documented here. Exploding Boy 23:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Where? User:Spleeman/Sam Spade? Get real. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that's not what I meant, but thanks for pointing that out for me. Exploding Boy 00:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Go revel in your wikihate. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Sam, Thank you. Presently I don't know much about rudraksha but a little. I have heared that there were rudraksha seeds from one face up to sixteen faces. But I have seen only seeds with four, five and six faces. And I have also heared that seeds with one and sixteen face were rare and costly in the market.And if I come to know more about I will say you.-Vaikunda Raja

Thank you, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine someone else hasn't already mentioned it, but that signature you're using now has to be some sort of crime against humanity... In any case, it's really poor form to make links you can't decipher without hovering over them. Be glad you're not sight-impaired; those users would have hell trying to make sense of your sig. There are plenty of other people out there who are, shall we say, enthusiastic adorners of their signatures, but please try using something at least vaguely readable... if it doesn't cramp your creativity too much? JRM · Talk 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks, I like this alot. people are always getting after me for my signatures... I tell you what... come up w an appropriate title for me, and I'll change it to that. As far as the readability, my thought was that people could simply click on it if they have some sort of hover-aversion. So that you know, the next signature I was planning on was Sam Spade (talk · contribs) or some variation thereof. Oh, and yes, you are the first to mention it ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I never complained about your signatures before, not even the ones advertising for this or that... When it gets to the level of ASCII art, though (well, not ASCII strictly speaking, but you know what I mean) I feel obliged to stop and point out that you're about as far from a functional signature as possible, without actually making it useless.

As for an appropriate title... That's quite a tall order. You do a lot around Wikipedia, but it's not something that lends itself to an obvious title. You welcome people, you argue with people, you edit articles, you argue with people... Hum. Well, you do argue a lot, but it's not something a title could or should be assigned for, methinks. Tongue-in-cheek as my "official capacity" is, I'm still reluctant to act inappropriately, so I'll have to forfeit on this one for now.

If that means you won't change your signature, then it's no skin off my back, mind you. I said what I had to say, I'm not going to bargain over a personal opinion. If you like having an unpronouncable, unreadable, inaccessible signature, go right ahead. It's a free wiki. :-) JRM · Talk 23:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this trend of messing around with signatures has gone too far. Signatures are meant to be a way to identify users, not a vehicle for their political posturing, advertising, or displaying their creativity. What's wrong with just using your user name? Exploding Boy 23:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one thing is that people like you associate negativity towards me for it. How about if you challenge my edits on their individual basis, rather than on my having been the one to make them? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but again I don't know what you're talking about. I certainly objected to your using your signature to advertise your horrid little "detective agency," if that's what you mean. Exploding Boy 23:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC) Added: and why do you feel you need some sort of title? You're an editor, same as everyone else. Exploding Boy 23:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

In fairness, I wouldn't put much weight on any titles I could assign to people... After all, I'm an editor, same as everyone else. JRM · Talk

Well... I for one would like to assign a few titles right now, but they wouldn't be "editor" ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Careful. FeloniousMonk will be here any minute, to talk about that one time you assigned a really weighty title. JRM · Talk 23:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know, your sig is now a part of the Wikipedia:Wikistory. We're trying very hard to make that story unintelligible. Your sig is the answer. -- Toytoy 06:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why not have Sam Spade ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ With the "Sam" going to your user page, and "Spade" being a link to your talk page, and the pretty arch to your email. Or perhaps: S a m (these would look better not on your talk page of course) :) --Silversmith Hewwo 10:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You say:

I tell you what... come up w an appropriate title for me, and I'll change it to that. As long as you're encouraging requests, I submit the handle "One with God". It says so much about you. It lacks your wonderfully creative flair tho, so it would have to get the ol' Jack/Sam creative touch before it was exactly right. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Cheers, 4.250.33.21 07:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats the best compliment I could possibly recieve, thank you so very much. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guy named Nightscream who is making changes to an entry Wolverine (comics) which are for the worse. Several other Wikipedians have been reverting the changes he has made and have attempted to enter a discussion with him but he is rude and very troll-like. I know several others are of like mind, is there anyway we can block him from editing the entry? Coincedentally, the guy contributes very little to Wikipedia from what I can see.ScifiterX 09:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an RfC would be in order. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 12:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Spade, you are not the etiquette police -- nor are you qualified to be. Your admonition that I must show "respect" to a racist, segregationist, crakkka dead prez who showed my people only disdain and intolerance is about as ridiculous as it is pointless. Sorry to break it to you, but people are free to speak their minds here. If that offends you, then it appears the problem is yours -- not mine. Stop buggin', bwoi. Go preach to someone who gives a damn. You're boring me. *yawn* Kindly refrain from responding; I'll simply delete any entry from you before reading it. You are not welcome here (User talk: deeceevoice). deeceevoice 20:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikimediation/Deeceevoice

Would you take a look at this page . Understandable but is it acceptable ? This would appear to be the culmination . ThanksFamekeeper 21:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sam, I have restored what FK deleted from the talk page. He also has posted that there were "several disagreements in progress" and he'll "tell you what this is really about now". Str1977 23:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, was it you who called me to anti-gay slogan with that wavy line signature? Uncle Ed 01:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ASCII graphic, by the way.

But about the page. I suggest you let ExplodingBoy move the disputed text to talk:anti-gay slogan. Then we can discuss it calmly and rationally.

Okay? (Remember, you asked for my input.) Uncle Ed 01:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

He can do what he likes, he is an admin after all.. (and I had the bad sense to vote for him). As far as what I'll do, I have no intent to revert again until 24hrs after my last revert. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my proposed page: Wikipedia:NPOV violation? Uncle Ed 02:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, I can't do what I like because I'm an admin, as you well know. And not being an admin is no excuse to engage in behaviour you know to be contrary to the rules and accepted practices around here. And I'm against your NPOV violation proposal. Exploding Boy 03:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I think you need to take some time off from Wikipedia. Why don't you give it a rest for a week? You can spend the time meditating on what it means to have a point of view while writing an unbiased article which treats other POVs fairly. Try reading Wikipedia:writing for the enemy, while you're at it.

I've placed your name at Wikipedia:policy enforcement log under "proposed blocks". Can you give me one reason why I shouldn't block your account for a while? Uncle Ed 00:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of recieving abuse from me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, Wetman, etc. (whom Melissadolbeer claims to be sockpuppets of one-another) are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. I put this article up on VFD; thought you should know since you expressed an opinion. Here's the link Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists. Take care. NoahB 05:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]