User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive July 2004 2
Hi, Sam. I could be mistaken, but I thought a tea infuser was the little metal ball that you placed loose tea in, and then put in a teapot, rather than being a carafe-like device like a French press. Joyous 05:29, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well gee Sam, given that the dispute has already been resolved what resolution would you suggest for this dispute?AndyL 02:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well good. Thank you for admitting there is no dispute. AndyL 02:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sam, if you want to convince people of your "good faith" you have to start demonstrating it. Clearly the RfC you've started is in bad faith given that you did not give me any time to resolve the dispute and given that you are continuing it despite the dispute having been resolved. How can you speak of "good faith" when you behave in such a petty manner? If you want respect you must earn it. Begging for it cravenly won't do. AndyL 03:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sam, you either act in "good faith" or you don't. It's not something you can ask other people for. AndyL 03:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sam, you're wasting my time. I have no interest in debating you or talking to you any further. I'm going to ignore your RfC page from now on since it's clearlyi a waste of everyone's time and seems to be nothing more but a childish attempt by you to get attention. Go bother someone else. AndyL 03:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Bible and Reincarnation
Your editing and additions have been superb. Thanks for making a "C" article into an "A" article. One Salient Oversight 06:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See my talk page for answers on this One Salient Oversight 11:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help. I've been watching Wikipedia grow for some time now and am very excited about helping to make Wikipedia an even better place. It's always nice to have a friendly face. =) User:SocratesJedi (signature added by me after the fact Sam Spade 18:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC))
I thought the link wasn't working. AndyL 05:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw your user greeting, and I'm not sure if the list of links is entirely geared to a new user. Can I suggest you throw in Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:Help desk at the top? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
question about redirects
Hi, I'm a relative newbie; I'm emailing you because you left a message on my talk saying you could help. I think the entry for Sayed Qutb should be a redirect to Sayyid Qutb which should be the main entry, but I'm not sure how to switch them easily. Sayyid is the much more common transliteration of this Arabic name into English, as far as I can tell. It's certainly the way his name is spelled on English translations of his books. I read the rules about deleting redirects and so forth but I'm not sure what category this falls into. Thanks. --csloat 10:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome message (wether it is automatic or not ;-)). I'll have a look at these link sometime. Currently, I'm in the process of writing my first article. While I'm here, what should I do when I finish writing it? I mean, except for the stub tag (which I'll add), is there a way to tell people: "Hey, I've written a new article but I'm new so I'm not sure I did it correctly, please have a look at it".
- Well, whats the name of the article? I'll take a look. Also you can try Wikipedia:Peer Review. Your not logged in, BTW. Sam Spade 19:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well I know... I just noticed while editing this message that I'm not logged... and seems like you edited faster than me so there is a conflict but nevermind... BRB...
Ok, the article is Computational tree logic but it's not done yet (will take some time to make as I'm not quite fast.
Ged 19:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind thoughts. Too Old 21:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, the only reason I commented was because it was so long in code. I thought mine was too long... Its nice to have the external link graphic added. But generally, the idea is that the field in prefs is the section inbetween the "[[User:Name|" and the closing "]]" Ideally the extra talk sig would be an optional field, but we have to add the extra "nickname]] [[User_talk:Name|Nick" . Im sure you already figured that out, but I hope that explains it: Be well, -Stevertigo 01:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you Sir--ATZ 16:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nice edits. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:23, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
What is the procedure now? no one participated at the talk page of National Socialism. Andy just decides to return national socialism to the Nazi article. I still don't agree and I think very unprofessional and unacademic. National Socialism existed before Hitler. How can National Socialism be redirected back to Nazism without any talk. He doesn't say or do anything to me. What is the next step for me? Where does the information that Czechs were the first ones to use it in a party name and where does Maurice Barres who also used the word at the same time go? Andy does this without consulting when it was disputed. What gives?WHEELER 22:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"OK, but some method of saying "this complaint is unfair and foolish" should be possible. How about having the writing of "Frivolous or vexatious complaints" being a criteria for being a disruptive or antisocial editor? "
You mean like your complaint against me last weekend?AndyL 20:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That was a legitimate complaint, which was quashed due to an unfortunate state of affairs here on the wiki, which I hope Erich’s policy will assist in correcting. You are likely a self correcting problem, as you will almost certainly either a) mess up bad enough and often enough in your defiance of policy to become a well known misuser of admin powers (much like user:172) or b) shape up and act right, learning from your mistakes and keeping your feet out of the dog droppings in your path. I actually tend towards the latter, and hope that my RfC shamed and frightened you enough to help push you in the right directions. In conclusion, obey policy, including npov Wikipedia:Protection policy and wikipedia:civility, thank you very much :) Sam Spade 21:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That was a legitimate complaint
No, it was a frivolous and vexatious complaint. The fact that not one single editor agreed with your complaint should have told you something. AndyL22:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And see my response to WHEELER and his response. The poor guy's going to go out and get himself hanged because he can't accept the fact that the community has rejected his article. Perhaps instead of railing against me because you're jealous of the fact that I was elected a sysop and you weren't, you should try to help him by warning him that he's about to make a huge mistake if he actually goes ahead with his National Socialism article. But no, then you'd be agreeing with me and your ego is much too big for that. AndyL22:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Good lord. WHEELER'S article is just fine, it just needs a group editing process to help sharpen the edges a bit, and for you to stop harrassing the poor guy. And as far as me being jealous of you, I have declined nomination what, 3 times now? Immodesty doesn't become you. Sam Spade 22:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ha! If WHEELER's article was "fine" then why didn't you speak up for it when it was up on Votes for Deletion? Seems that when push comes to shove your friends cannot rely on you to come to their aid in their moment of need though I'm sure your belated support for WHEELER's article is appreciated even if it comes several weeks too late. (and, please note, that I did not initiate the VfD process - I am hardly alone in my criticism of WHEELER's work on this topic). If it the article was "fine" why did the community, in a rare move, come to a consensus that it be deleted?
As for your declining nominations to be an admin, were the nominations not headed for defeat when you graciously declined them? Who is being falsely modest now;)? AndyL
Do you have to be so rude? I guess now I can start an RfD on you for having made apersonal atack. I guess all your talk about "civility" is just hypocricy. AndyL
Sorry. I didn't mean to be particularly rude, I was actually kinda sincere about you going out and enjoying life rather than fussing about w me. I'm not exactly your enemy, y'know. Yes, you have annoyed me in the past w statements I found rude (insulting my spelling, etc...); yes, I disagree w you having been made admin, and w some of the decisions you've made when using that authority; but no, I don't hate on you, or want you to be unhappy or anything like that. If it were up to me your life would be all sunshine and buttercups, and yes you'd still be an editor here. I like your edits, something we unfortunately haven’t had much opportunity to focus on. I did look over your edit history more than once, and as far as actual edits you’re quite a positive contributor here. The stuff I have complained about is fairly petty in comparison, I agree, but promoting someone w a penchant for making unfriendly remarks and controversial decisions to admin wasn't something I agreed w, I admit. As far as me being admin, I may want to be someday, but I honestly haven’t in the past. Its alot of work and responsibility w/o much reward. The reason why I might like it in the future is based mainly on Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors, something I'd actually have some interest in having an admin status for, and helping with. Anyhow, I'd like to conclude things as sweetly as possible and move on. I don't hate you, rather I wish you well. I don't think your a bad editor, rather I'm glad your here. My complaints about you (mainly talk page stuff) are minor when compared to the benefits your provide (numerous beneficial edits in the main name space). Can we make our peace? I'd appreciate it, Sam Spade 18:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- (insulting my spelling, etc...)
Sorry Sam but while I agree flaming someone's spelling is a low move on discussion boards, USENET etc I think it's perfectly valid to take an *editor* to task for poor spelling. Editors who are chronic misspellers only create more work for other editors. AndyL
I seem to have hit a sore spot. Perhaps instead of being so thin skinned you should just buckle down and work on your spelling skills?AndyL
Who holds the power on wikipedia
(In reply to comments made on User talk: WHEELER)
There's different layers, we have developers, admins, and bureaucrats at the moment.
Some developers also have admin rights, some don't. To become a developer, you simply need to contribute to the technical aspects of wikipedia. To become an admin you need some measure of popularity. So I think both systems are represented on wikipedia. (That and the meritocrats still rule the system, to a large degree. Thank goodness.)
Kim Bruning 21:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
hello, sorry for bothering you. i tried to create a category of "Female Composers". it seems to have created the category, but it doesn't seem to work to add entries to that category. i tried to add Pauline Oliveros by using the standard category tag, but the category does not show up on her page, nor does she show up on the category page. what did i do wrong? thanks, Jimaltieri 23:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I read that page... but where does it say that? Erich 06:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for welcoming me
When I first joined Wikipedia you posted a welcoming message and a number of useful links on my discussion page. I didn't know how to thank you then, but I do now, so thank you. Jayjg 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hello to you too
Thanks for noticing me :) Tinus 01:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't know where you live or who you have been talking to, but you clearly know next to nothing about the climate of opinion among Jews. I work all day with Jews, I live in a Jewish area and I read the Jewish press both locally and internationally. I would guess that 90% of all people who identify themselves as Jews, either by religion or by ethnicity, consider themselves Zionists in the sense that they support the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. That includes those who oppose the Sharon government and favour the creation of a Palestinian state. The only Jews who are not Zionists are some Hasidic groups and small numbers (and I mean small) of secular left-wing intellectuals in New York and Paris etc. Furthermore, most Jews think that the slogan "anti-Zionism" is usually just a cover for anti-Semitism. As it happens, I think they are wrong about that, but that is what they think. I actually gave two good reasons in the article why anti-Zionism should not be equated with anti-Semitism, which you have apparently not noticed, and which your silly edits detract from. As to my debating style, I certainly give as good as I get, but I only deploy my blunter rhetorical weapons against people who first show either stupidity or malice. Adam 06:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I say that the Jews I know and read are more representative of Jewish opinion than the Jews you know on left-wing chat sites. But that is not something we are going to resolve. My position is that the section of the article on this issue is fine as it is, and I will revert changes to it which in my opinion add nothing to the article (or which introduce illiteracies such as "cornucopias of reasons" or whatever it was you wrote). Adam 07:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think this conversation is concluded. Adam 07:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I like "that gay stuff," but that would stand to sense, don't you think? Anyway, I added Christian Campbell's birthdate and another role. He's playing on one of my favorite soaps now. Mike H 14:40, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I was using a Britishism used by Hilda Ogden. Anyway, I was saying that it would make sense, right, because I'm gay? Mike H 16:18, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Just because one is gay does not mean one is unwilling to breed. I want to have two kids of my own, by a surrogate. Mike H 16:47, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, people have long been proposing ranking systems for pages (like  this), and for editors as well. The idea depends on technology, which most of the mainstay developers are kind of (or had been) FLOABT, lacking in enthusiasm for. I tend to agree, generally. At the time of the above listing, I was quite opposed to methods by which people formed cabals (around this time people started defining terms like wikifaith, deletionism, etc) and by which WP would institute the kind of rigid structure that failed to do anything for Nupedia. At times I kind of come to think that things need to change a little bit, and this might be one of those. Not everything can be done with software, nor will developers write free software without feeling like its worthwhile; this kind of idea might just be the way that WP:PP proceess (particular to articles) is merged somewhat with the newer process now called mediation and arbitration (particular to people). Its out of my hands and up to all youse guys. I'm out of ideas for today. -SV 17:00, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
You are very kind. I appreciate the feedback. Mark Richards 17:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's it, I'm going ahead with an Request for Arbitration against you for breaking wikipedia rules on personal attacks. AndyL 07:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments
Hi Sam, thanks very much for editing my discussion page with some helpful links. Hope to see you around a lot more. Madeline 08:28, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Re: Nazi Theology
"If this subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_nationalism#White_Religion.3F) interests you, I would request that you study up and contribute. The wiki articles are neglected and sparse, but their actually one of the most mainstream sources on info on this subject. I find the concept of extreme mysticism (extremes in general really) rather fascinating myself, and would appreciate your input if you feel up to the challenge."
I'm currently looking into it and researching it. I find this subject (mysticism) fascinating as well. In fact, when I got your message, I was actually doing research into Italian Witchcraft -- specifically Charles Leland, the Malandanti & the Benandanti, and Aradia de Toscano. I'll put that one on hold for a while though while I research this and see what I can contribute on the matter. Thank you very much.
--Corvun 23:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia a cult?
You most definitely have your blinders up. You missed the entire point David Halperin was making. This reading of the present into the past, even in text describing how the past was different from the present, is what makes your definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexual orientation ahistorical. Hyacinth 02:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Halperin did not say "homosexuality", he said "heterosexuality and homosexuality." If an ideosyncratic gay community currently exists it is in junction with, or because of, an ideosyncratic straight community, and this is more than worthy of inclusion in articles. Hyacinth 07:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I assume that this is how I send a message to someone--double click their screen name and they'll get a message on their User Page that says "New Message?" Thanks for the links. Then to "send" it I select "Save Page?" I'll try it.
Aloha, Aliman 04:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Sam. Personally, I find the article Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path to be a vague treatment of a dull subject. But that's just me. Esotericism (which Theosophy espouses) in the article is a "Left Hand" path, a path to power in this world. It also mentions that orthodox religionists tend to Legalism (which also misses the mark, IMO). The areas I like to concern myself with are transcendant of such ephemeral positionings. Was Blavatsky an Esotericist or a Legalist? Cheers, Fire Star 05:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your welcome messages
I just happened to see your welcome message on the page of a new user I wanted to talk to. I am just wondering if a great list of links leading (in some cases) to quite esoteric pages is the best thing to do. I can imagine new users being put off all that reading material. We don't want to create a high barrier to entry if possible. Better to break it to them gentle as required. What do you think? Pcb21| Pete 11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've replied to your questions on the talk page for my arbcom statement. Snowspinner 13:35, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
Heh, you must be watching my userpage?
Since you welcomed me back with some real speed. :-) Thanks. I don't feel that I contribute too much around here in either content or wisdom, but I do what I can and am glad that even editors who tend to disagree with me (nudge, nudge) seem to get along with me well. :-) I hope all is well in your corner of the WP, and that you're having a good summer in real life. Wear those hats -- keeps off the sun. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Even so, forgive me for not knowing that maximum curtesy must be afforded evn to those WHO CONSPIRE to lie and cheat.
In the future, I shall be more careful!
Rex071404 03:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If we have a Wikipedia:Civility rule aginst "incivility"...
I find that to be VERY "stress(ful)"
Rex071404 03:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?
I await your answer...
Thanks for the compliment on effeminacy. Also, I apologize for earlier comments, I never meant to insinuate that you did not have the ability to absorb information, I meant to say you didn't have the desire. Either way, it is mostly irrelevant to Wikipedia, and could have gone unsaid. Wikipedia, luckily, is very humbling. Again, happy edits. Hyacinth 06:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sam, you seem to have been around a while, and you seem as well to have gotten yourself embroiled in a fair amount of controversy. I'd like to ask your opinion on a few matters:
1. Despite all the proclamations about NPOV and no propaganda, yadda yadda yadda, is Wikipedia really just dominated by gangs of thugs, imposing their own POV?
2. Has the arbitration process ever been known to work? If so, how long did it take? And were the results durable?
Thanks for your time, --Herschelkrustofsky 07:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- 1. Short answer, no. Long answer, everything in life is POV, and dominated by groups of likeminded individuals. The wiki is actually less so than most, but its no exception.
- 2. Yes, but it takes a very long time, and in your case it looks like you may be railroaded for being a larouche advocate. From what I saw here you are losing your case rather handily. I am sympathetic, and feel too little attention has been paid to Adam's incivility, and too much to your pro-larouche sympathies, but what will be, will be.
- In a better world, the questions of Adam's incivility or my symphathies would be tertiary at best, and the arbitrators would be primarily concerned with the truth or falsity of the articles that Wikipedia is presenting to the world. I am beginning to suspect that there is no standard for truthfulness, period. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"I don't agree w the legalist = right, esotericism = left idea that seems to be a basis to your reasoning, but I can understand how you might not want to spend alot of time discussing the particulars of this :) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new)] 20:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)"
Yes, mine is purely an opinion of what I see as an inadequacy of the categorization scheme itself. Also, I'll understand if you don't agree w/my characterization of Theosophy (I'm not a fundamentalist, I believe wholeheartedly in free will and how it works, so while I do disagree with them, I don't feel a need to persecute them) and I do agree that the subject is only tangentially material to the article we were discussing. You've earned my respect and gratitude as the result of some of your arbitration afforts in the past, and I'm sorry that my carelessness has led to a disagreement. Best regards, Fire Star 14:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sam, just wanted to let you know that I've nominated User:Kim Bruning for admin -- given that you've awarded her a barnstar, I figured you might want to rush to add your name to the list of supporters. :-) I've tried for 5-6 weeks to convince her to allow me to nominate, and she has relented, but she commented right before doing so that she wished she could be sure that anyone but me would bother to vote for her. Vote your conscience, of course. :-) See you around, Jwrosenzweig 19:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What do you suggest I do: Whitehead espouses a very different kind of ontology (its more in line with modern physics/quantum physics) and so he defines words differently, and creates neologisms galore. To define these terms, do I maybe stick in a link to Wiktionary? How do I do that? Aliman 07:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- OK, answered my own question with one of the links you sent me. Mahalo. Aliman 07:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Something to read
Please consider reading this:
-- orthogonal 18:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)