User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive Oktober 2004

re:A man without tea in him is incapable of understanding truth and beauty
Amen! :-) Kim Bruning 07:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hehehe.... :) Sam Spade 16:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vandal vs. userpage
A vandal hit your userpage twice and your talkpage twice. His damage was reverted. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 18:04, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance. Sam Spade 10:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A bit late
I am sorry but it struck me that I did not express my gratitude properly over the links that you sent me. They cleared up a whole mess. Thank you very much. --Marco 13:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of service :) Sam Spade 09:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links
Thanks for sending me the links some time ago when I registered.

Finally got round to putting something on my homepage and checked out yours while I was at it.

Your opening line made me laugh;

"A man without tea in him is incapable of understanding truth and beauty"

Just in case its true, I'm off to make a cuppa.

Kevinb 22:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea, tea is so very good that I find it difficult to express its importance sometimes ;) The opening line is a Japanese proverb, and while it may be a bit extreme, it is quite difficult to exaggerate the benefits of copious tea consumption :) Glad to have you, Sam Spade 11:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ha ha
Why am I not really laughing at your redirect "Gnome Chompy". If someone's that far off the right spelling of the name, they don't deserve to see the article we have on Noam. -- user:zanimum


 * I've had this discussion before regarding redirects. The summary is that my redirect in the worst hurts nothing, and takes up an infintesimal amount of space. In best case it assists a user who probably has more need for the information provided here than one with a perfect grasp of spelling. I am of the position that every possible misspelling of every entry here should be a redirect, with the limit being when it is debatable where the mispelling aught to redirect to. Your position, as I see it, is exclusionary in nature, and rooted in haughtyness and academic argot. I see this as anti-wiki, and personally desire the wikipedia to be accessable to the common man, if for no other reason than that is the only way the project will survive. Also, it is clearly the moral thing to do. Sam Spade 10:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

good grief. Exploding Boy 16:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
How would you like to be a sysop, with over 12,000 edits since November 4, 2003? I would think that you are true sysop material. What do you say? Marcus2 14:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What a strange idea... Why would you think of me? Where do you know me from? What inspired you to count my copious edits? I'd like alot more info as to where this idea is coming from, if you please. Sam Spade 14:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have heard about you a few times. Also, see List of Wikipedians by number of edits. That's where I found out about how many edits you've made. Furthermore, I've traced your editing career down to as early as November 4, 2003. If you didn't know already, a "sysop" is a term used for a Wikipedia administrator. These administrators are able to delete articles, block vandals from editing, edit locked pages (i.e. the Main Page), etc. And with a broad range of edits over a span of almost a year, you may as well be nominated for the adminship. I just wanted to get your consent to nominate you. In other words, I wanted to know if you'd accept this nomination. Marcus2 20:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What context have you heard about me in? To be frank the only benefit I can think of in adminship would be the "prestige" of community support, and I am quite doubtful I would recieve such. More likely it would be an excuse for the usual suspects to sound off about how their inability to cope w the group editing process is compounded by their poor social skills. Also, I wouldn't really have any use for the added abilities, generally oppose lone-ranger blocks and page protection (additionally I tend to get involved in debates, so me protecting a page in a neutral fashion would be difficult), and I havn't any interest in editing the main page, it seems pretty nice as is. Other than my long term and copious contributions to the project, what is it about me that suggested to you that I'd be a good one to nominate as admin? Curiously yours, Sam Spade 14:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I first heard about you when you readded the "PPG World" fan site back to "The Powerpuff Girls" article with an edit summary of "+ fan site for lame cartoon". This site did belong there because I saw a bunch of other "External links" pages to fan sites, so why couldn't that one belong there? So I guess you decline in my request for your nomination as an admin, huh? Marcus2 22:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps by default. I'm not officially declining it because I might accept it if I won, and I might be amused by the debate/slander either way. But its highly unlikely I'd win, and would be of no more than symbolic benefit if I did ;) Thanks for thinking of me, Cheers, Sam Spade 15:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For You

 * October's winds come,
 * shake the leaves in dream dances:
 * is it hat weather?

Just wanted to say hello :-) -- Jwrosenzweig 22:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey thanx.I just moved, and will fill you in on the particulars when I get a moment (and a home-I-net connection ;) Sam Spade 15:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow, your nom for adminship caught me by surprise. One of the toughest ones I've had to decide on in a long time. You know we have our differences of personal opinion (though I think we agree in many ways about the principles on which this site is based), and certainly I've seen you in many disputes. But the disputes seem to have dissipated recently. I just want to ask one question of you, which will help immensely in my decision. There seem to be some current administrators who want to go beyond current policy in applying blocks, page protections, etc. -- they generally excuse these actions as being in "Wikipedia's best interests" and claim that policy takes too long to catch up. If you were an admin, Sam, would you remain within consensus policy in using your admin powers, or do you feel there are areas where policy is so insufficient that you would feel the need to go outside policy (basing your actions on "common sense" or some other independent standard)? I think I know the answer to this question, but I've seen a lot of comments here and there that people claim are quotes from you, and I want to be sure. I hope you don't take offense to my asking. Jwrosenzweig 19:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * lol, you are surprisingly consistent about worrying if people will take offense to things. Is that a real life character trait, or just something I seem to notice online? Anywho, no, I have never remotely taken offense to anything I've ever "heard" (seen, or whatever) you say ( altho I've been meaning to ask you if you had some specific complaints/suggestions regarding my interactions w 172, and/or any questions I'm allowed to answer. I have held back cuz I don't know what the rules are re: matter in arbitration. Just so that you know, your opinion is a valuable one to me, and I wouldn't want you to be over-cautious in providing it, once the time is right. ) and this is certainly no exception. I know exactly what your talking about, my comment about holding popular folks to the same standard as others. I ment that sincerely, but I didn't mean to suggest I would become the "rogue sysop" myself in doing so! Quite the opposite, I'm a bit of a "rules lawyer" kinda guy, I think we have rules for a reason, and if they’re bad they should be changed, not ignored. I'm not one of your "passive resistance" or "civil disobedience" types. Frankly, I'd use sysop "powers" similarly to how I use my regular user "powers", w the main difference being I assume I'd use them less. What I really ment by what I said is that too many here hold those they like to different standards than those they don't like, or don't know. That’s no good. Rules aren’t just for newbies and trolls and anons, their for admins too, heck even for arbitrators and bureaucrats, IMO. Rather than making controversial lone ranger blocks and defying consensus in my actions, I'd be making controversial votes (as I do now, but I've seen ideas of admin-only votes) and altering consensus w my persuasive talents regarding the treatment of those very same lone rangers. As I think I made pretty clear re:172, my thought is that everybody must be held to the same fair standards, w warnings, encouragement, and eventually... escalating penalties (and perhaps most important, an effective reform process, since many of these people will be here for the long term). Hope that was clear, and to end on a happier note (and to provide a bit of balance) I would point out that I don't think the wikipedia community does enough in the way of praising those who excel. We have too much attention paid to Requests for comment and arbitration, and not enough to pages like Trust network, Great editing in progress, etc... Sorry I rambled on so long, but I feel pretty strongly this stuff. Always nice talking to you, Sam Spade 20:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Spade
Hello "Sam Spade" there seems to be a problem here that maybe you could correct. I think you are violating wikipedia's NPOV policy by refering to Kim Jong-il as a dictator.--Gustuv 05:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is my name in quotes? Are you insinuating I am someone else? I will have you know that while "Sam Spade" is not my name IRL, it is the only user name I currently maintain on this project. If you ment the quotations in only a generally disparaging way, I appologise for the lengthy explanation. As far as your comment RE: Kim Jong-il, I have interestingly enough been recently convinced by an explanation by User:172 on talk:Kim Jong-il. Seeing as how your user page states you are a communist, and I oppose the very fundamental tenents of Communism, It is distinctly unsuprising that you might find some question regarding my NPOV. That said, in the future it is more functional to discuss these particulars in depth in the article talk, assuming it is not a personal matter. Cheers, Sam Spade 15:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think he is insinuating that you are not the character from the Maltese Falcon.AndyL 16:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * oh, but I am ! ;) Sam Spade 11:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Pir
I removed that sentence from the racism talk page. - pir 11:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam. Agreeing to disagree? Yes and no. Of course it's completely OK for you to disgagree with me, and of course I have not interest of describing all of my personal opinions as NPOV. The thing is that some issues are more than just a question of opinion. To give an analogy, imagine the situation I argued that Earth is spherical and that we known that Erath is spherical because of sea-farers that didn't fall off at the edge of a flat earth, satellite pictures, the way shades fall, evidence that it's part of the solar system etc, and another Wikipedian constantly and religiously objected "but it looks flat to me, it's obvious". Would I just agree to disagree, and would I agree to state in the Earth article that "some people believe Earth to be round while others believe it to be flat"? Clearly not. It is not just a question of opinion. To make such a statement in the article would have far-reaching implications in terms of the world-view Wikipedia is promoting. Don't get me wrong: I love the NPOV policy, I believe it to be truly revolutionary because it allows for real pluralism and allows for a lot political propaganda and disinformation to be undermined. However, the NPOV policy must not lead to a situation where all facts become malleable, subject to political discourse and ideology, in an Orwellian way. The nihilism of such an Orwellian encyclopedia scares me. How do we decide between what should be described as fact and what should be described as opinion? Through reasoned debate on the talk pages. If objections are justifiable, have merit and hold up to scrutiny, then they should not be presented as facts. If they are not justifiable then the objections should only be described as opinion while the thing they object to should be described as fact. So I'd only agree to the sentence "While historically Earth was believed to be flat, a view some people still adhere to, Earth is now known to be a spherical planet, as suggested by XYZ."
 * Of course racism is a lot more complicated than the shape of our planet. And of course there are different definitions and uses of the term racism, and we may disagree on that. But it is a matter of historical record that racism was developed in the context of European colonisation which racism was used to legitimise, and that it has subsequently been used in similar ways by powerful interests to oppress and divide people. I'd agree to mentioning both definitions/uses of the term if they are discussed in the text and merits/defects stated. - pir 12:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "How do we decide between what should be described as fact and what should be described as opinion? Through reasoned debate on the talk pages."


 * No. Thru Cite your sources and Verifiability. Do you have an expert source stating "it is a matter of historical record that racism was developed in the context of European colonisation"? If so we can present that as one opinion amongst many. Our own personal opinions are not ment to end up in the article, thats POV. NPOV is when we present all verifiable expert POV's in a neutral manner, not taking any position, except in case of concensus. As far as I am concerned, there is concensus amongst all expert sources that I am correct and that you are wrong (regarding this matter), and further I feel the position that racism is power related is a fringe (non-expert) opinion worthy only of a passing mention. However, for the sake of progress, compromise and concensus, I am willing to allow both opinions to be presented in the introduction for the time being. Presenting the fringe as fact, and dismissing the concensus of expert opinions (like say every other encyclopdia, dictionary, and source of reference) would be a grotesque violation of the NPOV policy. Sam Spade 12:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Welcome Message
Thanks for the welcome. Have I just reached some magic contribution count that has brought me to your attention? I only ask because I have been around for over 7 months now and it seems a queer time to be welcomed. User:PRB (signed by Sam Spade 12:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC))


 * Well, I only just now noticed you on my watchlist. You made an edit to Nigger (word) which just so happens to be on my watchlist. I responded to the conversation there. Sorry we didn't get around to welcoming you sooner, but I was moving, and its a bit of a gamble for me to find you nubes (based on the red /unused talk page) in anycase ;) Glad to have you, Sam Spade 12:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Caroline Colden
Thank you. User:C Colden ( sig added after by Sam Spade 15:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) )


 * And thank you for being here, glad to have you :) Sam Spade 15:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why
My primary reason was the comment on your talk page about not wanting/using the admin powers. I'll also say I'm familiar with some of the past run-ins you've had with others, but since those are older I'm not inclined to let that influence my vote. CryptoDerk 15:57, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

admin accountability
Hi Sam, yes I guess we do agree on that subject. I don't think there are appropriate mechanisms to hold admins to account. The existing ones just take far too long. Most importantly, admins should be judged by all Wikipedians, and not a selected elite. I think it makes a real difference, because the people in these committees are seasoned and respected users of the community and therefore - although I have no doubt whatsoever that they act in perfectly good faith- would give admins a more sympathetic hearing than the average Wikipedian. The reason is that the average Wikipedian is far more at risk from any "rogue" admin than a respected user who's a member of such a committee. Furthermore, admins are elected by all Wikipedians, and that's where this power should remain. So I am in favour of a proper recall procedure, with strong safeguards against abuse (there must be no lynch mob or witch hunting of admins). I think it would make a real difference, even if it is only used very rarely in the most serious cases of admin abuse (which is rare anyway), because there would be no temptation for admins to use their powers and get away with it. I also think that adminship should not be "for life", but ideally would be limited for a certain period, after which admins would have to become "common" Wikipedians again for a certain period. In this way there would be a regular turn-over of admins. This would prevent the formation of a special group with the associated group-think, all of which I think to be detrimental to Wikipedia project. But maybe it's too late for this already, I don't know, the Wikipedia founding fathers should have thought of this. - pir 20:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It's never too late! Write up a policy on it, or have a look at mine. We may not agree on matters of etymology/word politics, but we do seem to agree on wiki-policy. Let me know if you come up w anything specific, or have any thoughts re: my idea. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See RFA
See my vote at RFA....hope it doesn't offend you. ;-) I kid, I kid. I am pleased to support you in what looks like an unsuccessful nomination. If you should be promoted, I trust you will do a very good job, in part because there will be a good many admins, I think, ready to snap their jaws at the first sign that you are somehow abusing your powers. And in part because you're a good guy who wants the best for this place and knows its policies inside out. Regarding the arbitration question, I think it best to wait to chat about it, since apparently my comments to some users (which I have thought reasonably innocent, or at least not prejudicial) have bothered others. I can't recuse myself too often or the other arbitrators will grouse about my light caseload. :-) I will keep you in mind, however, and I promise to be unhesitant in criticism if necessary. All my best, Jwrosenzweig 20:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Great, thanx. As so that you know, I am one of the most difficult to offend people I know of, and you are one of the least offensive, so the statistical likelihood of offense is approacing null ;) Sam Spade 20:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to see the hard time you are getting - you have my respect and admiration, for what it's worth. ;) Mark Richards 23:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, this is the nicest I've ever been treated! I'm actually thrilled, no sarcasm. I've had a couple nominations in the past, and a couple people stood up for me, but until this time the haters were in the majority, which really didn't make me feel to good about my volunteering here. However, I liked the project ideals, interface, and subject (I read encyclopedias/research generally in my spare time anyhow) enough that I expected to be here for years, even if apreciation for my work didn't increase much. This time around, its obvious that goodwill towards myself is on the increase, and the uglyness is on its way out. I'll convert them, molify them, or outlive them, but one way or another I can see myself actually being able to present my service here as blurb on my resume, or whatnot, something to be proud of. Unlike alot of the users I have problems with, my ego isn't bigger than my enthusiasm for the core values of the project, and I plan to do whats best for the wiki... stay working here for years to come :) Sam Spade 23:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * P.s., have a look at what I was saying about you all the way back in July ;) (that list is by no means complete, BTW~!) Sam Spade 23:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing that to my attention, I hadn't seen it. ;) Mark Richards 00:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fedora
Saw your comment about fedoras - have you seen this? Mark Richards 03:10, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Haha, now I know where I can buy that bullwhip! Sam Spade 10:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)