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

newcomer
Hello Sam, (btw: great nickname!) :-) Thanks for the welcome and for the really interesting links. I plan to contribute mostly to the Italian wikipedia, but I could do some minimal contribution to the English version as well, and I appreciate your help. bye --Andrea.gf 17:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, glad to have you!


 * (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dnagod again
In what sense did Dnagod express an expert, verifiable POV? SlimVirgin 22:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying he did, I am speaking generally, about things like prometheism. There are alot of crazy people, and alot of crazy theories, but we should give them each their day in court. Let the references and the the neutral presentation allow the reader to decide for themselves. Thats the intellectually honest thing to do. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you want to argue that, you'll have to seek a change in Wikipedia policy, because the two backbone policies are NPOV and no original research. These say that we're an encyclopedia, not a research institute, not a newspaper. We report published views; views already in the public domain, with no original research (which includes no new analysis or synthesis of views already published) from editors; and though significant-minority views are welcomed, views held by a tiny minority "have no place in Wikipedia" according to Jimbo. The article on prometheism was written, I believe, by Dnagod, and was a copyvio from his own website. I could set up a website today - slimvirginism.net - with a discussion group for my friends, and a membership list, and tomorrow could create an article about slimvirginism, and go around inserting links to my website. And you'd have to support that to be consistent. That's a reductio ad absurdum, by the way. SlimVirgin 23:02, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm frankly unconvinced that Dnagod wrote that website, and/or that prometheism is not noteworthy on its own. Besides, he's banned indefinately, so stuff he writes isn't original research anymore. Also, if he owns the site, it surely isn't a copyvio. Maybe we should contact the sites owners, and ask them if they mind their material being copy-pasted here like that ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hierarchy Copy
Just to keep you informed, I copied your 24 Jan '05 description of the Wiki Hierarchy to my tajk page for its insight and my future reference. Please let me know if you have a problem with my doing so. hydnjo talk 23:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well thats neat. I have no problem with that at all, but I have to say I'm curious as to where you came from and how you took a recent interest in me. What can you tell me about yourself? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I was just poking around and following some controvertial stuff when I came across either Mgm or Netoholic (I forget which) trying to get you to stop using a template for your signature. I was interested because I wanted to understand their's and your position so that I would do the proper thing myself. Anyway, as I was looking at your talk page I noticed your commentary about the Wiki heirarchy, a well thought out description I thought, so I copied it to my talk page for my own reference. I hope you don't mind but if you do, I'll get rid of it. hydnjo talk 01:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Heck no, just curious is all. If you like a bit of controversy, you might want to look into the WP:AMA. Our job is to look out for users having problems, and try to ensure they are treated fairly, and have the wikipedia policies and ins and outs explained to them. If you have any trouble, it’s a good place to go, and if you'd like to lend a hand, our co-ordinator is eager for new members. Glad to meet you, and keep in touch, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edits
I am privileged indeed to be your 19,000th. SlimVirgin 02:35, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:British Royal Family - IMPORTANT
Just to let you know that I vandalised the above template at 8:17 server time and it is now. If this is the admin efficiency rate no wonder this is such a crap place. I'm a previous user who left after being insulted and abused, and look what the place is still like.--212.100.250.215 08:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well thats interesting... Since your obviously a creative a thoughtful person, how about you create an account, and hire me on as your advocate? I'd be glad to help protect you from abuse. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Or how about you get you apostrophes right? See this website.


 * I don't see as how the 2 are mutually exclusive. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * They're not. But being able to write is officially more important.


 * Excuse me, hope you don't mind my commenting as this seems the most appropriate place. Sam says: "Since your obviously a creative a thoughtful person, how about you create an account, and hire me on as your advocate? I'd be glad to help protect you from abuse." I may not obviously a creative and thoughtful person but nonetheless I am creative and thoughtful. I'd like to hire you as my advocate. Please go to the Talk Sollog pages and see the abuse heaped on me as people like Wyss maintain I am Sollog and thus feel justified in continually calling me a liar, a pornographer etc etc etc. Also look on my Talk Page and see where an ADMINISTRATOR has been disrespectful by saying (I quote) 'I am not your fucking monkey'. I just want to know about the Edit/Conflict stuff - and it would be nice to see some consistent treatment from some 'respected' people and not be absued all the time. Thank you The Number 01:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
I revert stuff all the time. But you're the first to thank me for it. I appreciate it.

Actually, thinking about it, there is one thing you can help me with. Find out if my 1090 edits in almost 3 months without anyone leaving any messages on my talk page (except the standard welcome template) is some kind of a record? ;-) Shanes 10:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it’s a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand it’s a compliment, since you didn't annoy anyone enough to get them to comment about it. On the other hand, since most of your edits involve reverting vandalism and editing obscure bio's (from what I can tell from my cursory glance at your contributions history), you probably haven’t had the opportunity to get noticed by many users. If you'd like to interact more, I'd suggest having a look at some of the policy pages, and places like WP:RfC, Current polls, Collaboration of the week, Help desk, Village pump etc... I also highly recommend reading the Wikipedia Signpost, its a great way to learn more about what’s going on. If your really interested in what the movers and shakers are up to, have a look @ the Mailing lists, especially Wiki-EN-l where Jimbo spends most of his time. Hope I've been a bit of service, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question, but never mind. I'll just say it's a record until someone proves otherwise. And thanks for the links. I thought I had learned my ways around wikipedia and knew about everything, but I honestly had never noticed or read about the Wikipedia Signpost before. Looks very nice and really filling a void. It's on my watchlist now. Thanks. Obscure bio's? Hmmm... well, maybe. But they're not obscure to me. That's why I edit them ;-). Shanes 11:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)



(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WT:AN
WT:AN is only for discussion about how to organize the noticeboard. Any discussion about the listing you mention should be on WP:AN/I. Noel (talk) 15:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * How about if I Reply here, and then place a link to here on your talk page? Or if you don't like that, we can always copy and paste. Not that I have alot to say anyhow, other than thank you for your helpful input :). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the former, I have no definite response; what you did worked fine, as you can see. As to the latter, you're welcome. Noel (talk) 15:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Request for Assistance re. You
User:El C has placed a request for assistance about what he calls a long-standing dispute with you. Thought you ought to know. Wally 03:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Would you like to take the case? I am willing to have mediation, or whatever else within reason, particularly if the advocate who takes him up (assuming anyone does) is focused on reconciliation / conflict resolution, rather than escalation. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that you've already noted that El_C has asked you to stop posting on his talk page, and I'll just reiterate it for the record. Anything you'd like passed on I can send along. I think mediation (assuming they have their... offal together) would be the best way to fix this up. Also, I'm going to ask El_C to hold off on posting on the pages in question for a little bit. If you could do the same as well, I'd be much obliged. Wally 04:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Rodger, I've already been avoiding Talk:Socialism, Talk:Racialism, and his talk page already. I assume these are the pages your refering to? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
They have put a deletion on my Classical definition of republic. I will not even vote. I ask that you don't either. Let it be deleted.WHEELER 18:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a laugh. It is the only article with over 70 footnotes with a huge bibliography and they want to delete it. Good. This is all a joke. Gravitas is a virtue sadly missing today.WHEELER 18:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Free content. My Ass. This is a Marxist controled encyclopaedia. What doesn't fit Marxist scholarship and assent gets deleted. I have now three major articles deleted; National Socialism, Cultural imprinting on politics, and now Classical definition of republic. Yes, this is a "Controlled" encyclopaedia. Information will be scrubbed. We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the Herd. You will comply. We are the Borg.WHEELER 19:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And they deleted the only articles that have references to them. See, what counts for "academic scholarship" these days. This is sad commentary on them. See, what real research unveils and what crappy research is in America today. That information has to be Marxized before it gets accepted.WHEELER 19:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the hell did I make a Bibliography for if this is original research? I must be stupid.WHEELER 19:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I almost completely agree. The wiki has extreme POV problems, and the NPOV policy is a joke. The main reason for these problems is that Consensus is ill defined, w most assuming it means majoritocracy. This results in polls and votes where the vast majority of the participants are POV extremists, often w no history of editing the article, and recently often emailed by a POV "party boss" w a long list of those certain to agree w the party line. All the while, the out of touch "cabal" (as if they were aware enough to earn such a title) sits idly gossiping and coddling one another on the Mailing list. Sometimes I wonder why I bother, but I love encyclopedias and studies, so as long as I don't let frustration get the better of me, this is still a rewarding and informative hobby. Policy change is necessary however, if this encyclopedia is to earn the respect even of its own editors, much less the general public. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article to be deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_christ is just plain wrong. It seems obvious to me it's simply some religious nut trying to get his review accross. Furthermore, there's already a fine article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-christ.

I tagged the article with NPOV, and I think it ought to be deleted entirely, but I don't know how to do so.

Joshdick 18:42, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like that page you were describing has already been deleted, but I turned it into a redirect. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human
Hi, Sam. I'm afraid you are going to have to open up a discussion before moving the image/taxobox since their standing position resulted from considerable polling and discussion. Tom Haws 21:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * That sucks, thanks for the heads up. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalization
What do you think? I think that User:TDC is going overboard by launching personal attacks and failing to attribute criticism to critics (but he's right on the fact that we should probably have Oriana Fallaci's opinion). David.Monniaux 09:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, we agree completely. The situation is a mess, and needs to be contained before it explodes into a massive waste of time and energy. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you SAM!
Thank you for the kind welcome, I look forward to doing some sensible editing. Time permitting ;o)

--Deli-Eshek 21:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Righteous, glad to have ya! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having trouble
I am having trouble. It seems now that a certain user doesn't want links to the classical republic as an external link. Here is his comments: WHEELER 18:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If an article is deleted it should not be linked to off site. - SimonP 18:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) VfD seems to have decided that either the topic does not belong in the encyclopedia, or that that particular version of the article does not belong. Either way an external link to the same content does not seem advisable. - SimonP 18:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHEELER"


 * Wow, thats awful, I'll look into it. If you have a list of articles he's removing it from, I'll be happy to revert once a day forever. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no real opinion on whether the page should be deleted, but as a matter of general principle it is not a good precedent to circumvent VfD decisions in this manner. - SimonP 22:11, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not circumvention, it is compromise. The article is deleted, and the reader has access to it. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nazism
I've placed a note on my talk page regarding my position on this now. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw, but the key thing is in not blocking people based on POV. I find alot of stuff offensive (atheism is basically the worst thing I can conceive of, for example), but I would never block someone based on POV. If you really hate them that much, just keep a sharp eye, and eventually they'll probably slip up. If not, were probably better off having them, since they hold up under scrutiny. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misc and reply
Yeah, I know. The process worked as they got blocked for a different reason (I personally think that such hateful views should be blocked on site, but that's why I won't deal with issues on Nazism any more). I think atheism is wrong too, incidently, as I'm a Christian (though one who's beginning to have some serious doubts - though not intellectually, just through anger).

Getting off topic a little, can you help us out with some of the CD articles? I'm going through and removing all the unsourced text and attempting to NPOV the articles. Any help you can give would be great! Are you interested in helping with The Two Babylons, btw?

One last thing: what happened on IRC? I hang out there quite a bit and I had no idea you had been treated badly! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have gone on #wikipedia a handful of times, and have been flamed, or told that I was not going to receive any assistance. Not every experience has been bad, but many have, and I feel #wikipedia should be better moderated, and more focused on helping.


 * On the subject of wrongful ideologies, the wiki has a few self-announced satanists, and huge numbers of communists and homosexuals and anarchists, each of which is offensive to some user or another, I am certain. Frankly I'd be ok w a known criminal editing, so long as they didn't violate policy.


 * As far as anger, are you referring to The problem of evil? If so, there are a number of answers to that, at least one of which would likely give you comfort.


 * I'll look into The Two Babylons, but I tend to avoid music articles, since they have terrific problems with NPOV, and it’s hard to describe a sound, or sometimes even what genre the artists is in without sounding POV. I wrote most of Hank III tho, so its not like I'm incapable.


 * Hmmm... my anger is one of feeling isolated. However, this is not rational, it comes more from not being able to deal with getting depressed. The problem of evil (without having looked at the article) is that humans are sinful, and humans need God, as there is no other way out.
 * The Two Babylons is a pamphlet by Alexander Hislop, by the way (not a song!). CheeseDreams used it to try to prove several points on various Christian articles, so I decided to write an article describing her favourite source. In a nutshell, it's a tract by an Anglican minister (in the 1800s) that claimed that the Roman Catholic church was the "new Babylon" of Revelation. It uses lots of dodgy "facts" and jumps to many conclusions. I was hoping you could help me by reading it and documenting what it says in an NPOV fashion so that if anyone refers to it again we can note the issues with the document. It seems to be a favourite polemic amongst those against the RC church and those against Christianity. While I don't agree with many of the practices of the RC church, this document is not a good source and it's best to have info on it so others can read it and understand what Hislop said. I was hoping that you could assist me with it: it's not easy to read!
 * As for IRC, bummer :( if you do go online and I'm there, I'll make sure you are treated with respect. I'm sorry that you got flamed!
 * Onthe subject of being flamed: I've been known to go off the handle sometimes... however I usually realise what I've done and have to apologise. Hence I try not to go off the handle :-) Also, I try not to engage in personal attacks. I try to only engage people's arguments! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)



Focusing on the argument rather than the person is better in so many ways, and I'm very glad to hear you emphasize that. Not only is it logical, but it promotes a better environment. Of course some users are complete expletives, but engaging in ugliness with them only serves to make good users uncomfortable, and encourage yet more flaming. When everybody starts fires, everybody gets burned. Besides, sometimes the person we get mad at is generally a good person, and is confused, or just having an off day. In my experience most conflicts are based on misunderstandings, rather than genuine disagreements. For a present example of the ugliness of ad hominems, see Talk:Anarchism.

As far as isolation, are you a member of a church? Either way, I think the best way to get closer to God and feel him in your life is altruism, Commensalism, and mutualism. Community and kindness, basically. If you look at any of the major religions, they all emphasize kindness to ones family, friends and neighbors, as well as strangers. I think that, and learning, is what God really wants us to be doing in this life. Learning to love, and loving to learn, thats my motto :).

Cheese dreams has been a big stress to a number of users, and I find some of the ideas they insist on promoting extremely offensive. That said, I think I can be quite neutral in proofreading The Two Babylons. What I've read so far seems rather silly. While there are actually alot of Roman pagan and European pagan links with Roman Catholicism, some very valid criticism about the manner in which Christianity changed when it became roman, and alot to be said about the manner in which european pagans were forced, or tricked into converting, ties w babylonian paganism strike me as absurd. The evidence used in that tract couldn't be less solid, and it strikes me that the fellow who wrote it had done little if any research of any substance. Frankluy he reminds me of an 18th centuray Jack Chick ;)

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, where do you think Jack Chick gets his ideas from? That is the document that gave him his ideas! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, well that makes alot of sense. I've been a big Jack Chick "fan" (as in I love to read and share his tracts, but I suspect they are the result of insanity) for years. The wild thing is that their still being given out. I had a job at a call center a few years ago, and I saw this pretty young black girl was reading a chick tract. I asked her where she got it, and she said they give them out at chucrh all the time ;) The thing is tho, the most popular ones are also the most agreeable, and the extreme and shocking tracts are less commonly seen, at least as far as I know. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome
I am steadily working through the huge list of helpful links that you provided. It is a very handy introduction. --Theo (Talk) 20:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, your signature is broken or something. The talk page links to a talk page other than yours. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In need of Advocate
Thanks for heads up. I got your message about the Members Association. I think I do need assistance. There seems to be a gang that has already formed around me and visions of the Star Chamber are in my head. What do I do?Keetoowah 02:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you present a brief summary of your case @ AMA Requests for Assistance, making sure to include relevant links. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Humble Thanks!
Thank you for welcoming me, John. See you around! --StuffedTurkey 23:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, but the names not John ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dembski
Hi. Yes, I've been teaching philosophy here for about twenty years (it feels like a lifetime). I read your message on my Talk page after I'd responded on Talk:William A. Dembski (after a frustrating three Edit Conflicts in a row — I just couldn't seem to get a word in edgeways). I think that by the time I managed to add my comment it was superfluous, but that's the way it goes. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 00:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't type perfectly, so I go back and corect mistakes. My appologies, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome message
Thank for the helpful message. I was a bit of a skeptic about the viability of Wikipedia, but I value the non-commercial aspect of it presentation to contribute to its success and coverage. And while it has its limitations, I feel comfortable at this stage pointing my students to it for an Internet reference to complement their required textbook reading. All the best...


 * Well like all sources of information (including textbooks ;) there is a certain amount of error and lack of perfect neutrality. Fortunately on the wikipedia we are fairly eager to root this out, and have pages like WP:RfC where controvewrsial pages are announced so that they may be examined. If you are a teacher, an assignment which has proved very helpful (and I assume educational ;) in the past is assigning students to improve articles relating to the subject matter of the classroom. Oh, and you not logged in, btw ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for the welcome help. Much appreiciated. --Electricmoose 13:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of service :) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)