Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sam Spade and Exploding Boy

User:Sam Spade and User:Exploding_Boy

This user has sought out opportunities to conflict with me since I opposed his nomination of "Gay Bathhouse" for FA status some time ago. Unfortunately, due to Ed Poor's tragic mishandling of the situation (Talk:Anti-gay_slogan/Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement_log/Sam_Spade/User_talk:Ed_Poor/user_watch), things have gotten considerably worse.

Now, we have a blocked page, no progress in sight, and a friendly user offering to mediate. Why am I here? Because EB wants somethig formal and official. I'd like it if you could deputize User:Grace_Note to officially mediate, or at least could steer us towards a process somewhat more expediant than what I found here. Oh, and for the love of God, please keep Ed Poor from stirring the pot. Thank you, Sam Spade 13:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I find this entire post highly offensive. To begin with, the whole thing constitutes a spurious attack, not to mention a series of lies.

1. Ed Poor had nothing to do with the gay bathhouse issue ([FAC nomination]) (in which Sam was in the wrong, let it be stated formally); he did get involved in the anti-gay slogan issue, in which again Sam was in the extreme minority in his views, and was trying to add misinformation that all other editors disagreed with, not just me, as a brief perusal of the relevant talk page will demonstrate easily.

2. The link Sam provides here is truly bizarre, as it's (A) nothing to do with the gay bathhouse article and (2), far from showing that I'm attacking Sam it demonstrates that, in spite of my vehemently disagreeing with Sam's views I opposed Ed's proposal to block Sam...

3. This link doesn't even have anything to do with me; it's a sub page of Ed's user page where he evidently keeps a list of problem users; surprise; Sam's on it.

To summarize so far: Sam is here attempting to make a link between his opposition to the gay bathhouse article (on the grounds that it is an "inherently objectionable topic," by the way, grounds that are not actionable according to Featured Articles rules, and in which he was in the extreme minority, with a vast majority of uninvolved users disagreeing with his position) and our later conflicts. I have repeatedly told him that that conflict is over and done with and has nothing to do with later disagreements; Sam is the one who can't seem to let it go.

The blocked page Sam mentions (the Anal sex article) was blocked as a result of Sam's problem edits, because an admin got tired of seeing us revert each other. Sam refused to discuss his edits for over a week after the page was protected, and when he finally did come back he still failed to address any of the issues. Oh, and this link really begs the question: how many times has Sam been involved in mediation, informal or formal, on Wikipedia?

I have serious doubts about Sam's reasons for requesting mediation in this case, so I'm as yet undecided about whether to accept. In particular I'm deeply suspicious of any mediation attempt that begins with an assertion that it is being undertaken as a prelude to arbitration., and in addition I have grave doubts as to whether mediation with Sam will accomplish anything.

Oh, and I should add that Sam and I have attempted what I suppose would be called "informal mediation" before, on the gay bathhouse article (the text is still available spread over several archives pages of the article's talk page) and it went nowhere, largely because Sam refused to address anybody else's concerns. In the words of an impartial observer: "the impression I have received, solely from reading the discussion on the FAC subpage, is that Sam is uncomfortable with the subject matter . . . and objects to the article becoming FAC. It seems to me (and I apologise if I'm mistaken, I'm merely documenting the inferences I've made from reading the discussion) that the latter stems from the former. Personally, I think it's a very well written article about a subject no less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than any other. I still support the bid for FA status and I do not believe that this article is anything other than NPOV" and, on another page: "as it still strikes me that Sam Spade is the only user who has any serious objection to the article and my opinion is that those objections are entirely based on the subject matter" (original posts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gay_bathhouse/Archive_2 here] and here). Exploding Boy 15:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The situation that Ed mishandled was your hysterical persecution of myself on Talk:Anti-gay_slogan, his talk page, and since then... He had (and continues to have, to my knowledge) nothing to do w gay bathouses, but he did make such a mess of things that a Mötley Crüe (including your own illustrious personage) came to my defense. The extent of your closure on the subject is made clear in some detail above, so I won't elaborate further. Suffice to say we could use some assistance from a neutral party, and I for one accept User:Grace_Note's generous offer, as does the blocking admin. Sam Spade 21:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Hysterical"? "Persecution"? Get a grip. Exploding Boy 22:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do this, guys. Fighting on the mediation request page is too much for my poor old irony meters.

EB, please give it a try. We won't be starting with an "assertion". I outlined the parameters we could all agree to. This is a process designed to avoid further steps in the dispute resolution process, not to encourage them.

I understand your concerns about lack of structure. But "informal" does not mean "unstructured". Give it a chance. Take Sam's willingness in good faith and have a go. If it breaks down, you can at least say you tried and failed and I will give an honest account of what I think happened. I really do think the issues on this particular page can be resolved. Yes, you both have biases, very clearly so, but we have to believe that it's possible to put them aside. Allow faith to be shattered rather than not have it at all! Grace Note 03:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine, although I must inform you that several users have warned me against (1) attempting mediation with Sam, since he has apparently been involved in several mediation attempts, none of them successful, and (2) accepting you as the mediatior, since you apparently have something of a soft spot for Sam (I believe the term "loveable rogue" was used). I'd therefore like to have a completely transparent and as-brief-as-possible mediation. This means that everything takes place on a page or pages accessible to the entire community, and none of the communication is by private email. Exploding Boy 06:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hold it. It's just come to my attention that "User:Grace Note" is in fact "User:Dr Zen." I find it deeply suspicious that I wasn't informed of this fact from the beginning given my interactions with this user (as "Dr Zen") during the RFC against Robert the Bruce. Given this new revelation, and the fact that this same "Dr Zen" has been described as an intractable edit warrior who's sense of consensus appears to be that he is right and everybody else is wrong, I retract my agreement to proceed with this user as mediator. I thought there was something strange about his last post on my user page. Exploding Boy 07:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, man. I'm not hiding who I used to be. I simply didn't even remember that we'd had a discussion. I still don't actually. I know you're an interested party in this area with a particular set of views, so the name was familiar, but I wasn't aware we'd had words. I don't spend my days digging around in my archives to check out who's who. I took you at face value. I was slagged off in the arbitration because I disagreed with some users on a page. They insisted that a "consensus" was a 2/3rds majority and some used their admin powers to enforce that view. The case was a foregone conclusion because Raul and Snowspinner were two of the editors involved, and another arbitrator had refused to compromise also. If you ever find yourself on the wrong end of those people, EB, you will be described in just the same terms. It doesn't mean anything and it certainly isn't true. If anything, that gives me perspective on what it feels like to be embattled and not be listened to. I've also disagreed sharply with Sam but I've found him willing to compromise in the past. You, OTOH, seem to feel that a prior disagreement means that I can't treat you fairly! Basically, you refuse to mediate unless you are sure you have a mediator who agrees with you to start with. I could hardly offer to be a mediator in a case with Sam if I had a track record of namecalling him and attacking him. If you actually pay attention to the message where I called him a "loveable rogue", you'll see that I was agreeing that he should do his part to resolve his dispute. It was, as many of Sam's problems are, a storm in a teacup. He has a reputation and gets slaughtered for it. Some editors will automatically take the other side against him because of his views. I don't share the views but I have a repugnance for those who think that he shouldn't have a say because they don't share them. Grace Note 03:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Why am I not suprised that the mediator is now being attacked? Sam Spade 16:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not attacking the mediator, Sam, I'm saying that he or she is not an appropriate choice in this situation, for reasons which are quite valid and which should be quite clear. Exploding Boy 17:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming it is true that grace note is Dr. Zen. I have seen no reason to believe that however. Sam Spade 21:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I looked into it a bit, and it looks like you are correct. Sam Spade 21:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm sure you can understand why I'd be entirely opposed to having that user act as mediator. Exploding Boy 03:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I likewise assume you accept my reasoning for opposing Ed Poor in the same role? Sam Spade 20:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh good lord, yes. I wouldn't have wanted him either. Exploding Boy 02:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor

We need to know whether:

• both parties are willing to have a Mediation
• either party wants to have (or not to have a particular Mediator).

Meanwhile, I will try to refactor the initial statements on the RFM/SS+EB page. Uncle Ed 18:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am certainly seeking mediation, but as I made perfectly clear above, it is vital that it have nothing to do w you, ed. I strongly request that you remove yourself from this process and allow anyone other than yourself to make the needed changes, comments and suggestions. Sam Spade 20:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at some mediation

OK, our agreement on which mediators not to accept gives me a shred of confidence, so I will try for further progress. Let me be honest. I am torn between 2 tracts to take w you here:

One, the hard (but possibly more moral) road, is convincing you that it shouldn't matter if I was a Westboro baptist, I still have just as much right as you to edit/express opinions regarding the articles in question, and that my edits, when taken on their own w/o ad hominems (emphasis on my person) arn't particularly remarkable or disagreeable.

Two, the "community before process" road (which sadly seems to be what works here on the 'pedia), probably alot easier, which is explaining to you that I don't feel a personal duty to stuff you into a firey place based on your postulated bedroom athletics (which thankfully I have no specific knowledge of anyhow). We certainly disagree on various matters regarding sexuality, but probably not in the same ways or extents to which you might think. As I said above, it shouldn't matter, in theory I should be allowed to be a misanthropic bible-banging flat-earth believing Nazi and still be an editor in good standing, but if it saves us both alot of time and foolishness, I am prepared to take the easy route in this case.

Also, can we both formally agree not to edit Anal sex, and to otherwise avoid editorial conflict until the resolution of this mediation process? Sam Spade 17:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

1. In general, I agree that, no matter what an editor's religious proclivities, s/he should still be able to edit any articles and to express opinions on them, with the caveat that those edits should reflect the consensus of the community and the standards and agreed-upon style of Wikipedia--for example, we prefer gay, not homosexual, for many very good reasons. One editor may not unilaterally decide that a term other than that given in the manual of style is preferable. While any editor is free to express his or her opinions on the relevant talk pages, editors should also strive not to hinder the progress of actual editing by, for example, pushing points of view that are contrary to overwhelming consensus.

2. When it comes to your edits in particular, I'm happy to see you edit any article as long as you can stick to (1). My concern is that you sometimes seem unable to do so (witness, to continue using this example, your fight to use "homosexuals" instead of "gays and lesbians" on the Anal sex page). I'm also fine with you expressing your opinions on article talk pages, as long as that expression doesn't hinder work on the article, which it has tended to do on more than one occasion. As to your edits, many of them do appear unremarkable, except when they are to articles on particular topics. I am still at a total loss to explain, for instance, your insistence on adding Paederasty as a "See also" link to Straight acting! This is both disagreeable and destructive.

3. As far as I can tell, neither of us has edited the Anal sex article since it was initially protected. I'm willing to continue not editing it for the moment. As for otherwise avoiding editorial conflict, it is never my intention to have conflict of any type, despite what you may think. Case in point: the I am page where, from my point of view, my attempts at discussion were met with hostility and refusal to engage.

4. To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by the "hard route" and the "easy route," but if this is the easy route I'm quite happy with it so far. Exploding Boy 17:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool, everything seems to be going splendidly. Addressing your points:

1. On articles I try to use "gay", because somebody at one time or another showed me how that was according to some accepted rules of style. In reality I find the idea of catagorising people by sex acts abominable, but for purposes of encyclopedia writing I can accept the concensus for the time being. On the other hand NPOV always trumps the POV of editors present, and I will insist on NPOV when applicable (i.e. not regarding the particulars mentioned just above, for the time being).
2. I'm sure I've said "homosexual" instead of "GLBTG culture" or whatever the heck is most P.C., esp. on talk pages. I apologise for any duress or confusion caused thereby, and would point out that our reversions have not been in this regard, particularly in recent times. Regarding pederasty and straight acting, I thought that was a good edit for reasons I could explain if need be, but chose not to fuss about it, as I agree it was far from necessary. Re: "I'm also fine with you expressing your opinions on article talk pages, as long as that expression doesn't hinder work on the article, which it has tended to do on more than one occasion", I'm not sure what your getting at, and almost certainly disagree,
3. Sounds good. Re: I am, the article is currently in great shape, despite the lack of functional dialogue @ Talk:I am. Thats whats most important, not who did what, IMO. On the other hand I think it would be best for the encyclopedia for us to either improve our style of interaction, or stop interacting.
4. OK, good, lets keep up the progress. I appreciate your reasonable responses, and have every intent to be as amiable as possible in return.

Sam Spade 19:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Not to get too far into it, but in general on Wikipedia, we like to call people what they themselves would like to be called. Please see Wikiproject:Sexuality and its associated talk pages were a number of editors hashed out the gay/homosexual issue at great cost in terms of personal time and effort. "Gay" does far more than simply categorizing people in terms of sexual acts, and neither is it a question of being politically correct, as I'm sure you're aware. On the other hand, it may not be perfect, but it's what we have to work with. As to issues of neutrality and terms about sexuality, I direct you once again to Wikproject:Sexuality, where the issues are quite clearly laid out.

2. As to paederasty and straight acting, I would be most interested to hear your reasoning on that subject, perhaps on my talk page rather than here.

3. Re: "I'm also fine with you expressing your opinions on article talk pages, as long as that expression doesn't hinder work on the article, which it has tended to do on more than one occasion", I'm not sure what your getting at, and almost certainly disagree

In the interest of maintaining this rather civil discussion, I'll not go into it. Rest assured I'll point it out if it happens in the future, though.

4. I think it would be best for the encyclopedia for us to either improve our style of interaction, or stop interacting.

Yes, and from my point of view you behaved in a manner on that talk page that was completely unreasonable. Despite what you've said you think, I don't make a habit of following you around and picking fights with you to punish you for opposing Gay bathhouse (although to be clear, I stand by what I've always said about your opposition: that it was not based on any acceptable criteria and was motivated simply by a desire to keep that topic off the front page). I do keep an eye on your contributions, as I've made clear. I do this because I want to see exactly what type of edits you're making to certain articles. At I am, I think I explained my rationale rather clearly, and it certainly had nothing to do with Gay bathhouse. You can believe me or not on that point, but you must think I'm awfully stupid if you really believe I would jeopardise my continued involvement here for reasons of petty revenge.

Exploding Boy 20:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

1. There is nothing special about wiki projects. They have no particular authority. They’re merely and opportunity for people to network and coordinate regarding related pages. A resource. My willingness to go along w that terminology, which you so clearly prefer, is not based on that wikiproject. Rather it’s based on a discussion which I had (and don't intend on looking for) when someone (possibly even yourself, back when we used to get along well) cited some widely accepted book of style regarding terminology for those who wish to be associated with homosexuality collectively. Until I am convinced otherwise, I will continue to use the term "gay" in the wikipedia name space when appropriate, and when I remember to do so.
2. It was an external link. Pederasts tend to be straight acting. But the reader wasn't impaired in any great way, and I chose not to spend much time on the matter.
3. I think we'd better discuss such matters here and now. These personal remarks and Ad Hominem attacks on article talk pages are the basis for our presence here. Feel free to review my edits, and be aware that if things move towards arbitration, there will be no shortage of evidence. If you would prefer a different method of communication, we could always create public pages for the gathering of such preliminary data. That is the "hard route" of which I spoke before. One way or another, things need to be resolved, not set aside until the next article is disrupted.

Sam Spade 21:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Manual of style, "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group."

• "It was an external link. Pederasts tend to be straight acting. But the reader wasn't impaired in any great way, and I chose not to spend much time on the matter."

If I'm reading this correctly I think you misunderstand what "straight acting" means, or are misapplying it.

• "I think we'd better discuss such matters here and now." What matters are you referring to? Disrupting article talk pages? Haven't we discussed it enough? I'm beginning to lose my patience because we seem to be going around in pointless circles--here you are threatening me with arbitration again. Why are we here? As far as I can tell it's because you reverted my edits to Anal sex without troubling to read what you were reverting and what you were reverting to, and because you apparently lack the specific knowledge necessary to make decisions about what does and does not belong in the article. Exploding Boy 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Exploding Boy 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that manual of style cite, there is a situation at Talk:White Supremacist where that will come in handy. Re Straight acting, we've both read (and edited) that same page, and I was using the definition found there. I could quote it, or you could pop over and have a look for yourself about what I ment.

Regarding Wikipedia:personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal remarks, and Ad hominem arguments, I think its safe to say that we both feel the other has abused one or more of these policies, failed to make good faith edits to Wikipedia:Talk pages, and/or has behaved in an unfortunate and unproductive manner towards the other, to the detriment of the page(s) in question.

One way to deal with that situation would be to start listing our specific complaints. That would probably create yet more argument and bad blood, and would certainly pave at least part of the road to arbitration. That is the "hard way".

The easy way is for us to realise that our difficulties have primarily stemmed from misunderstanding, rather than intentional violations of policy. I feel that comments like "you apparently lack the specific knowledge necessary to make decisions about what does and does not belong in the article" are unhelpful, contrary both to policy, and to the spirit of mediation. I also admit that my allusions to "the hard route" may also have been unhelpful, and contrary to the spirit of mediation.

What we need to do here, as I see it, is to find a way to either a) co-exist in a manner with which we are both reasonably comfortable, and which does not disrupt the wikipedia, or b) find a compromise whereby we can reconcile ourselves to generally avoiding one another. If we don't do either of those things we will have failed in our mediation here, and arbitration will become a viable possibility. That’s my take on the situation.

Sam Spade 16:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've read this and will respond later when I've more time. Exploding Boy 18:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look at Straight acting again, and can't for the life of me see what you're referring to. Since this will only become a problem if you plan to reinsert the paederasty link, however, we can leave this for now.

Look. My preference is for us to avoid mediation and any other "requests for ~" if at all possible. I'm quite tired of this whole business, as I'm sure you are, and have also been unexpectedly catapulted into a very busy period -- well, not all that unexpectedly actually; it is the start of the school year. But it's more about volume than... Oh well, whatever. Never mind.

My suggestion is that we forget about the past and move on. What this means is that (1) you'll start taking my arguments at face value rather than attributing them to a vendetta, and (2) I'll leave out references to what I percieved to be your past homophobia. This of course also means that we're free to discuss future issues, but hopefully with a clean slate (plus of course we'll agree to adhere to the guidelines on civility, etc, etc). This might solve some of our disagreements and if it doesn't, well, we can move on from there.

Exploding Boy 17:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What I need is for you to agree not to discuss me on article talk pages. If you have to complain about me, do so on my talk page, or an applicable policy page. I also need you to stop popping in out of nowhere in unrelated discussions on my talk page. I consider that, and issues we have had over my signature, I am, and even the recent "debate" at anal sex to be unnecessary and intentional conflict. You not dismissing edits as rooted in my "homophobia" would be good, but not substantive enough. I don't disagree w your ideas about "moving on", but I am going to need a deeper and broader commitment. I for my part am more than willing to reciprocate, I'm not the one monitoring your edits, mind you. Sam Spade 22:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I'll talk about you on your talk page. However, I must strongly disagree about issues such as the one with your signature and the Talk:I am page. This is what I mean about taking my comments at face value; I felt your signature and your redirect at I am were inappropriate for reasons totally unrelated to other disputes we've had. I would have said the same about anyone's signature, and I would have opposed that redirect if made by any other user. You were seemingly unable to separate them. Similarly, the core issue at Anal sex was really nothing to do with our past conflicts; it was about the insertion of inaccurate and unencyclopaedic information in the article. Exploding Boy 20:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I can accept you complaining about whatever you like, signatures and all, so long as it is done in the right place. I can try not to assume bad faith regarding your presense in seemingly random places and and times. What I would like from you (and what you seem to have agreed to) is that we not discuss each other in an unflattering light on article talk pages. I feel it is contrary to policy and detrimental to the project.

I would prefer it if I didn't get notes like this and this on my talk page, but suppose I can live w it if need be. Sam Spade 21:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok, I can see why you wouln't especially like those messages, but in my defense they are sort of out of context -- the second one in particular was borne of frustration for your seeming refusal to actually discuss the issue, preferring instead to bring up you-know-what again. I mean, from my perspective I was actually attempting discussion with you, and while I acknowledge that those messages seem a little, well, harsh, you must admit that you really weren't showing much willingness to talk about the issues. 21:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Our experiences hadn't been very good for along time, I remember a rather harsh difference of opinion regarding a note you left on a clueless nubie's talkpage, and a variety of other unpleasentries over otherwise forgetable events.

I'm sure you can understand why I might feel you were "out to get me" given our past, the consistant intensity and viriol of our disagreements, and their seemingly random nature. That being the case, yes, I have indeed avoided communications at times, and have been intractable or closemouthed where I would have sought dialogue and compromise w another user.

A random example, you had me so pissed off over the signature thing that I fully intended to fight it out, until User:Janke nicely asked why I made it difficult to get to my talk page. At that point, I just couldn't justify keeping it any longer just to spite you. Thats exactly the kind of atmosphere I'd like to move away from. If were going to interact, I need it to be in such a way where I can preserve my self respect in accomodating you. Due to a variety of incidents and comments, I havn't been feeling that way for along time.

Sam Spade 21:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well ok, fair enough. So now what? Exploding Boy 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets put a small contract on this page, saying what we have agreed to and sign it, and then if one of us begins to act like an expletive, we can refer them to it, and if that doesn't help we'll have a pretty solid case for arbitration. How about something like:

small gentlemans contract

I agree not to make unflattering remarks regarding the undersigned on article talk pages or other wikipedia pages not designed for that purpose.

I will do my best to assume good faith regarding the motivations and presence of the undersigned, and will do my best not to bias the opinions of others in their regards (with the possible exception of wikipedia pages designed for that purpose), nor to exclude them from discussion.

Comments left on the personal talk page of the undersigned will be as amiable as possible, attempting to leave them able to comfortably agree with our position.

If we feel the other is not living up to these agreements, we will refer them here and make a good faith effort to discuss first, before moving towards arbitration with our concerns in these regards.

(feel free to edit until we have both signed)

Hi. Sorry, have been super busy for a few days.

Anyway, I have to say I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this "contract." After all, really all it says is "I agree to follow the procedures and guidelines of Wikipedia." Isn't that enough? Exploding Boy 01:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about time, real life always has precedence. As far as the contract, it provides incentive for us to follow the rules of the wikipedia. Our problem, in my opinion, would certainly be solved if we both honored wikipedia policy and its underlying philosophy (esp stuff like assume good faith, wikiquette, and so forth). The reason why arbitration has been discussed is that we both have felt the other was not doing this at one time or another. I assume we can both agree that doing so would be in our own, as well as the communites best interest. The only downside to this contract (as I see it) is that it will rather clearly underline our failings if we proceed to edit in an unfriendly and unhelpful manner. I think thats a good thing, over all. Sam Spade 20:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This was the easiest mediation I ever conducted. I brought unity to you guys, on the basis of your mutual desire for me to butt out entirely! That I have, and it seems to have worked splendidly.

And now I shall get busy on butting out some more, since it's been working so well! Uncle Ed 20:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, like a week ago I was thinking a common enemy is always good, and I noticed neither of you really was a fan of Ed, and it seemed to bring you together... ah, the irony. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually we were doing rather well until he jumped in and claimed credit. That pissed me off enough to no longer want to comment here, and I'm sure it was much the same for EB. Sam Spade 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)