User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive Oktober 2004 2

Re:VFA
Firstly, my apologies if I come off as hostile. I respect your work and your opinions, and any sort of personal attack is completely unintentional.

I have encountered various publications of your stances on certain issues. The only one I can recall of the top of my head—there are other examples, though I cannot remember them—is your suggestions on the subject of username policy. You commented that you opposed certain usernames (examples: Crucified Christ, Allah is Great, and a number that contained swearwords). In the case of the previous two, you pointed out that censoring them without censoring others (such as User:Hephaestos) was contridictory, since all three are religious names. I certainly agree with this principle, but it misses the point that usernames should not be inflammatory; where CC and AiG would certainly be, Hephaestos is not necessarily well known to most people. Had a similar philosophy of questioning authority—however valuable it may be to Wikipedia—been followed through in your execution of Admin duties, the results could be a good deal more malcontent than is healthy for Wikipedia.

We need people like you to provoke thought and point out things that ordinary people wouldn't notice. But this can be a bad thing, especially in the people who have a responsibility to act as Wikipedia's most trusted users. There is a reason why the best leaders are centrists rather than extremists. By this I don't mean we should all be sheep. I just mean that moderates, after having recieved input from extremists and moderates of every stripe, are better capable of making appropriate decisions than extremists. Battling on Wikipedia isn't always bad, but the actions of an extremist can cause it to escalate beyond a reasonable level.

Cheers, •   →   Iñgólemo   ←•  03:40, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)


 * I agree actually, and I think you misunderstood the argument I was making Re:usernames, as well as my personal politics, Radical centrism. My point w the usernames was not that names w swearwords should be allowed, nor that Hephaestos, crucified christ, or allah is great should not be allowed. In fact, my point was (and still is) the opposite. I feel that a user name mentioning a religion in a respectful manner is perfectly acceptable, similarly w other popular figures. If someone is insulted because I love God, thats their problem. A user name which is explicitly offensive (user:F-You, or whatever) should not be allowed. What I have absolutely no time for is the argument that "his displaying his love for Jesus offends me". Thats BS.


 * In summary, complimentary, thought provoking usernames are good, insulting ones are bad. I have long had a stance of opposition to the user name User:mydogategodshat because I think it is intended to be rude for example (altho the user himself is a highly productive and positive member of the community, I still think his name should be changed). All of that said, I feel pretty strongly (and am not alone) that opposition to my particular politics or personal POV is a poor measure of my potential abilities as an admin, whereas my track record of assisting others (particularly new users), demanding NPOV, and working hard for compromise, civility and admin accountability should be an essential criteria. Heres hoping you change your mind, or at least decide to look into me further, Sam Spade 10:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I'd be happy to support your adminship (actually, I thought you already were!), but since you've just voted for mine do you think it may look like logrolling? Fire Star 21:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I doubt it, but if it worries you, you needn't. I probably won't win this time anyways. My advice is to vote (or not) how you think is best, rather than allow others to decide for you (that includes me ;) BTW my comment was completely sincere, I think you are a very fair and easy person to discuss with, and am very glad you are here. Good luck w your election! God be with you, Sam Spade 21:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I wanted to get your thoughts on the subject before I voted. Cheers, Fire Star 02:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

59%
17+24=41 24/41*100%=59% rounded.

Quite a lot of controversy about you on your RfA. Looks a bit like a Who's who of wikipedia too, I'll be keeping an eye on some of the Nay voters. ;-)

Editing on controversial articles will get you enemies, I guess.

When I look up opinions on something, there's 3 possibilities, and my assessment of them :
 * Everyone agrees it's great.
 * "Booooooooriiiiinnnngg, probably useless, people only agree on stuff with no substance."
 * Everyone agrees it's terrible.
 * "They're probably right."
 * The topic is extremely controversial.
 * "Hmm, interesting! Might be worth looking out for."

have a neat day. Kim Bruning 11:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Why think you, I am glad to be interesting :) I don't expect I'm going to win, and I don't intend to accept any "half" admin status, but the show of support from the community has made me very happy :) Sam Spade 16:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anthere
Hmmm. Thanks. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Thanks for the links
Thanks for the links you posted on my talk page - much appreciate the help and friendly nature :) Can I ask if you do this for all new users, or just the ones you notice? It certainly made me feel welcome.

Cheers, Shikasta 17:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Just the ones I notice, but I do go looking for them when I find the time. You can consider joining the Welcoming committee yourself, once you find you footing here. IMO welcoming/educating/caring for/hosting others is perhaps the highest calling in life, and I am glad to take part in that in a small way here on the wiki :) Glad to have you, and let me know if there are any other questions or troubles you might have. Cheers, Sam Spade 18:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're kidding!
Thanks for directing my attention to your personal details -- I like openness and am glad to see it. But I'm shocked at your location! My family hails from a tiny village called Achtelsbach outside of Birkenfeld. My family still corresponds with old family friends in Brücken (they run the Huhnsrückerhof), and we have a distant cousin who runs the pharmacy in Birkenfeld, as well as other distant cousins in Idar-Oberstein. If you meet anyone whose last name is Ruppenthal, I'm almost certainly directly related to them. Unbelievably small world. :-) I haven't been in the Bernkastel area since 1994, but I loved it there and hope to go back someday soon. I don't mean to pry, but is it wise to assume you are there in service of this country? Jwrosenzweig 19:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My wife is an Air Force 2nd Lieutenant stationed in Bitburg (spangdahlem). I'm a psyche major/salesman/counselor/preacher of God's good news ;) I'm actually in Bruch, a small town not to far from Birkenfeld and Bernkastel, right along the Salm river. From what I remember, their on the way to Rammstein from here. Are you familiar w Wittlich? I'm very close to it.

We just arrived, so were not entirely settled yet, but I am very lucky to have the amount of opportunities which I do education-wise. I'm kinda in a hurry to get my degeree and certification so I can be a practicing Hypnotist / psychoanalyst, but the military is paying for 1/2 my tuition, and seems to want me to go at it pretty slooow. I'll have to see what I can do about that, but until then I've been helping quite a few people as an amatuer head-shrinker. Glad to hear you have family here, maybe I'll stop by the Apotheke sometime ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 20:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Max Heindel
I am working on an article about Max Heindel, not an easy task! :) --ekhalom 22:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Administrator
Thank you for the information. Are you an Administrator? Just curious.


 * Nope, just a lay user, like the majority of us here ;) Sam Spade 22:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ersatz obscurantist?
Well, perhaps I was trying to be glib, but parts of this exchange, which I think was my first encounter with you, were terse to the point of confounding, and complicated by some rather condescending assumptions on your part about what I had or had not read or understood regarding pantheism:. Unfortunately this exchange also occurred relatively early in the Paul Vogel unpleasantness (at least as far as I am familiar with it). I have to say, part of my early impression of you was that at times you appeared to be reinstating and defending aspects of Vogel's POV. I don't know that there's anything to clear up about your remarks--I was able to parse your meaning well enough, but at the time it struck me as a wee bit obscure--I came away with the feeling that you were a slippery character and I just didn't really know whether I could trust what you said. older ≠ wiser 01:00, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, well that clears that up. That was my first conflict in editing here. It started w a three way struggle between myself, User:naturyl, and the anon Paul Vogel. User:naturyl had encountered Vogel previously, on another site, and was rigidly opposed to him (in hindsight I understand why!). I on the other hand was trying to play the peacemaker, and to help Vogel express his Nazi POV within the article (I don't believe in censoring views, or individuals based on ideology). That clearly didn't work, Vogel got arbitrated, and I realized late in the game he was not worth defending (see my comments to him here. Anyways, you received alot of hostility that I had just following that whole fiasco, which really would have been more appropriately placed (like towards Bcorr and RickK, who used talk:pantheism to harass me about my name change, and even protected the talk page itself during that particular mess). In any case, I apologize for my arrogance and rudeness, which you deserved none of, and will explain my vagaries as merely an attempt to hold back bile (I was severely P.O.'ed at that particular time). In any case, I think the current Pantheism article is in pretty good shape, and that the Naturalistic Pantheism article strikes a good compromise. Sam Spade 12:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)