User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive November 2004 2

dab

Hi Sam, I was a bit in a hurry yesterday evening, so I acted a bit spontaneously, without really thinking things over. Anyway, I hope you don't mind my "seconding" this admin nomination—I know it's unusual to do this. It was a spontaneous act in an attempt to mitigate the concerns you voiced over at User talk:Dbachmann when you initially made the proposal. It later occurred to me that it might be misunderstood along the lines "Sam's opinion doesn't have enough weight" or some such. That was never my intention. Sorry if I've overstepped a line. If you do mind, I'll move by comment to my vote. Lupo 07:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite alright, indeed my first thought had been my opinion might carry too much, not too little weight. Furthermore, you helped out with the formatting problem I encountered. Nobody has opposed, so apparently me nominating someone isn't particularly controvercial any how. I wasn't sure, because I have my share of trolls and haters, but if my RfA says anything, I have my share of supporters as well (most votes ever :D Anyhow, thanks for your help, kind words, and thoughtful comments. Cheers, Sam Spade 14:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More info on Types of Avatars

Sam, I wanted to educate you on the fact that in Hinduism, there are many kinds of avatars or incarnations. Parushrama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu is an Avesha avatar, which you will read momore about in the article about him.(Avatar section) Hence, he is not worshipped like Krishna who is a lila Avatar, which is the closest to God in qualties an avatar can be. Also see references, http://www.srivaishnavam.com/stotras/dasavatharam_meaning.htm#PARASURAMA, and http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_iswara.html#67. Raj2004

Well, you must understand that your preference for Krishna is personal, many have a preference for Christ, feeling he is the most perfect and close to God. I think this preference for Avatars is not so important, rather I prefer worshipping God directly (Brahmanism). As for avatars, I rather like Kalki :) Sam Spade 15:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I agree with you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant among Vishnu's avatars, Krishna is considered the closest to Him in form than Rama or other avatars are.

ah, you mean krishna's beauty? Sam Spade 16:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily, in attributes generally, such as power. Example: Krishna showed more powers (i.e., more miracles) such as lif lifting ting a mountain on His pinky finger and raising a stillborn child from the dead. I don't remember the reference and technalities. There are different classes of avatar. Krishna is a Purna avatar and has 16 rays. Rama is a Lila avatar and has 14 rays.

Oh, ok. Krishna is certainly the most reveared avatar in India as well. I myself have found the Bhagavad Gita an especially illuminating book. Sam Spade 16:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lot more. But The whole message of Gita is hope. I have found the Gita very helpful in my daily life as many find the Bible is for them. These two verses come to mind. "I personally take care of both the spiritual and material welfare of those ever-steadfast devotees who always remember and adore Me with single-minded contemplation. "(9.22)"If even the most sinful person resolves to worship Me with single-minded, loving devotion, such a person must be regarded as a saint because of making the right resolution. (9.30) Such a person soon becomes righteous and attains everlasting peace. Be aware, O Arjun, that My devotee shall never perish or fall down." (9.31) Also look at the external links in wikpedia's section on Gita. (i.e., dvaita.org) It is particularly enlightening. Raj2004

Thanks

I appreciate the heads up. If you have an opinion or advice I welcome it, Slrubenstein

thanks again

I really appreciate the support. I know you and I have clashed over content many times in the past but I too have always felt that you were committed to Wikipedia and its principles. I wish others could see that there can be profound, sometimes bitter, disagreements between editors without one person calling the other a vandal who should be suspended. In this case, I think Rev of Bru and CheeseDream need mentoring on wikicitizenship and also editing policies, especially no original research and NPOV. Obviously they won't accept you or I as mentors. Do you have any ideas? Maybe you can suggest this to someone you think is qualifed and capable. Slrubenstein

What about asking Stevertigo? He and I have often gotten into pretty intense scraps -- but I think he too is committed to Wikipedia, and a patient person. Slrubenstein

Who wrote me?

is it you who asked me if I wrote the text myself? somebody send a message but since it is my first time here I probably deleted it by mistake

Any way I wrote the text my self. My grandfather was an officer of the Cretan Gendarmerie

What is the meaning of the initials NPOV?

I have put the same text in my site as well (www.geocities.com/sssksadk/) I also have some photos there

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Christopher_Mahan"

talking to users

Hi Sam,

Thanks for offering to answer questions. I'm a geek and I thought it was time to particpate in a great resource. Someone sent me a message on an entry I changed. I want to respond but I can't seem to find their name. How would I go about doing that?

~Alison

User:Alison9 (sig added by Sam Spade 13:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC))

The problem was that they (as well as you ;) didn't sign their post. I clicked the "history" tab at the top of your talk page, and found out it was User:Neschek who left the note, and signed for them.

Remember, you can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam Spade 13:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't steal my thunder

AndyL, I thought we have already established that I am the worse speller in Wikipedia, and I will be damned if Sam is going to steal my thunder due to your unabashed, non-NPOV favouratism! Btw, Sam, this probably qualifies as spam, sorry about that (I just could'nt help myself), feel free to propmptly delete. El_C

Re: Vandalism

The edit you marked was not made in good faith. It was added by someone losing an argument, trying to weasel their way out of being branded a racist by claiming that his statements were not racist because everyone else involved "did not understand the word". Perhaps the dicdef could go, though - it looks a little out-of-place where it is, especially since it refers to "race" without a real definition of what is meant by "race" here - since it's come from dictionary.com, I'd suggest it might also be a copyvio (at least, without the reference) depending on which publication is the source. Chris 16:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have been asked to speak with you

Sam, a user named FeloniousMonk has asked me to speak with you -- I hope you will be open to some comments from me. FM shared with me some comments you have made to him, and I have to say, they're beyond the pale, I think. I admit that FM seems to attract controversy and argument -- my impression of his interactions with Kim Bruning, for example, has not been a positive one. However, unless there are absolutely scandalous comments FM has made to you that I am unaware of, I think you need to tone down your reactions to him. In fact, even if he is going overboard, I would urge you not to react in the same way -- you know how important it is not to fight fire with fire. You have often been remarkably effective in working with people who do not share your views. I hope you can show that effectiveness with FM, or, failing that, that you can avoid open conflict. If he leaves you rude messages, ignore them. I ask this of you, not because I want you to feel that you are "outnumbered" (I have no idea what the dispute is here), but rather as a part of my humble ongoing effort to increase Wikiquette and Wikilove around here. I have had a little chat with FM also, which I hope will have some impact on his courtesy and attitude.

Finally, while I understand your position on emails, you should know that the Arbitration Committee has accepted emails as evidence, especially when they have been sent via the Wikipedia email function. If you're making remarks via email to a user known to you only via Wikipedia, about their involvement at Wikipedia (especially if you're using the Wikipedia email function), you need to do your best to behave as though you were writing on a talk page. And that I suggest to you, not from anyone else's prompting, but purely because I want to keep you out of arbitration if you can avoid it. I know it's not pleasant for anyone to be before the AC. Anyway, I hope you are doing well, Sam, and I wish you well in the long German winter. :-) Sorry to leave such a long chastising note, but as always, I'll trust you understand the underlying motivation behind my words. Take care, Jwrosenzweig 19:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with everything about this note. I disagree with you presenting the situation in the manner in which you are, and I disagree with your insinuations regarding wikipedia policy. I disagree with you assuming I am behaving in a provocative manner towards User:FeloniousMonk. I disagree with you giving him the legitimacy he so sincerely does not deserve. I disagree with your assumption that my conduct would in any way result in me being brought before the arbitration committee, and I disagree with the sentiment that being before the arbitration committee (where I have been, BTW, for some time now) is in someway uncomfortable for me.

What you might have asked me is "I heard you had some strong words for User:FeloniousMonk, why might that be?". That might have gone over alot better. Then I could have explained things like that I have given up on speaking to that user entirely, because of his horrid conduct, and anti-Christian agenda. That I sent that email assuming I was in accordance with policy. I based that aassumption on, among other things, a statement I read once, early on coming here, made by Martin (the arbitrator) if I remember correctly I can't find it at the moment, I'm too ticked off, but the gist of it was "If you must, take your flames to email". At the time, I found it to be good advice. Apparently not. I would have thought the constant mention that "IRC is out of our jurisdiction" "the mailing list is out of our jurisdiction" etc... would have ment something. Apparently not. I suppose the next time a respected wikipedian like User:Hephaestus repeatedly flames me on IRC (as occurred one of the first times I went on there) I should expect a response from the arbitration committee? I doubt it. The wikipedia has a clear pecking order, and I'm not much higher than the arse end of it.

Apparently when trolls publically harass me, as have become all to common here, I am the one who needs rebuked for taking ugliness off the wiki. I am frankly ashamed of what is happening on pages like Historicity_of_Jesus, Sources_about_Jesus, Yeshu and Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus, and I admit, I do stand up and do something about it (within the policy of course). When my most vigorous critics have consensus that I obey policy stridently, and now I am subject to rebuke and threats of potential arbitration, at your hands, of all people? I am deeply saddened by this state of affairs. Sam Spade 21:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I apologize for offending you -- it was not my intention. I agree with you that there is a disturbing trend here. I have absolutely no idea what has transpired between you and FM (as I noted above) -- your anger, I suspect, is understandable. I have seen upsetting things here recently and, while I have always been able to stop short of the kind of flame wording in the email I was shown, I do recognize that we all react in different ways. I do, though, remain insistent that good users have to try to avoid flaming trolls, and I think of you as a good user, Sam. Whether or not FM is a good user or a troll, I would still encourage you to do all you can to avoid flaming him. But I am sorry if my note implied that I thought you were the sole party at fault and that FM was blameless in this -- I am not sufficiently aware of the situation to know this, and I suspect strongly that you were much provoked into your remark.

I apologize also for my remarks about arbitration -- they were unnecessarily confrontational. I have had difficulty in the past getting your attention when I have spoken with you about your abusive language towards other editors (again, I am not saying that you have not been provoked into these situations). I think I felt that I would be ignored if I didn't try to capture your attention more forcefully, but I can see that doing so merely angered you, and I am sorry. It was not my intention to do so.

Finally, I don't know what to tell you about arbitration jurisdiction. As far as I know, IRC, the mailing list, and email have all been used as evidence in arbitration cases -- all the AC has promised is that we cannot control IRC or mailing list use (we only ban or restrict use of the site proper). But this may be a misunderstanding on my part. I know you're on the arse end of things around here, Sam. I wish that was different. That's why I do my best to take time to speak with you when I am asked to -- I have respect for you, and I believe you have at least occasional respect for me, and I want to do what I can to keep you out of arguments. Because of the way too many in the community treat you, I know that FM (even if a troll) will be able to get plenty of people talking about you if he files an RFC or something. I want to prevent that because I think you're a generally good editor and contributor who shouldn't be harassed anywhere near as much as he is. That's why I left the note I did.

Again, I am sincerely sorry for angering you. I didn't contact you to threaten you or to "side against you", and I see that I gave that impression. I'll just close by saying again that my intentions were to try to help you. I have been upset by anti-Christian sentiments around here recently also, and I would like all of us who are attacked by these POVs to remain calm and productive. But perhaps I'm trying to do too much, or overstep my bounds. If I can be of any help on any talk page arguments, please do let me know. In the future, I promise not to contact you in these situations -- I will simply continue to encourage people to apologize to you for their faulty actions and sincerely seek productive dialogue (as I advised FM, although I do not know if this advice was heeded). Jwrosenzweig 03:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand, I welcome your comments and concerns, and have a deep and sincere respect for you and your position here. That is why I took your statements above so seriously, and why I responded to them in such detail and emotion. The passionate sentiment that came across in my response was not due to anger with you, but rather the situation, one which I feel has been manipulated in a manner unfortunate.

The communication between FM and myself was regarding the Atheism page, where the debate has reached near record volume, with many archives having been needed in a relatively short amount of time. The gist of it this time (last time they wanted to spell God w/o the capital "G", unlike any other book of reference) again relates to the definition of Atheism.

They are currently attempting to broaden the scope of atheism to such an extent as to cover all persons, objects, etc... not devoutly theistic. This would mean the confused, the uncertain, the secular, the agnostic, the infant (even rocks!) would all be "atheists". In order to force this POV thru, FM (among others, but he is by far the worst culprit) has engaged in a variety of fallacious tactics, including page flooding (with references which either don't agree w his position, or are from extremely biased pro-atheist sources), constant ad hominem attacks, an unwillingness to allow a contrary view to his own to be considered or respected, and a rhetorical abandon reminiscent of 1984 (black is white, 2+2=5, etc..). Things reached the breaking point with me when he turned the discussion into character assassination of each of his opposition, painting fellow atheists (who happened not to agree w him) as theists, theists as unable to communicate impartially or effectively and necessarily unintelligent, and finally me, bringing up volumes of unfortunate accusations and past conflicts (including a mediation w User:Bryan Derksen approximately 6 months ago, which I thought had been resolved amiably, but which Bryan was all too happy to give him links to, as well as the usual User:Spleeman/Sam Spade), and suggesting they "concerned [him] about the appropriateness of [my] continuing to contribute ... in good faith".

That was all too much. What is the statute of limitations on the wiki? When does "has three failed arbitrations against him" become an acceptable debate tactic? What kind of user brings such things into a debate with such regularity? Frankly, I have no patience for that. I was on the debate team in HS, and have tutored logic on and off in college... such methods as he employs are beyond the pale.

In conclusion it would look like Wikipedia:Email needs some more content, perhaps a debate and a vote, if some of the things you suggested are to be the case. I feel strongly that they should not be, but if they is to be, there must be some policy behind it, and I sternly insist that there currently is none. Arbitration committee precedent alone does not policy make. Perhaps if I had flooded his email, or made a threat of harm to him, maybe that would be a concern. But one isolated note, with no personal information nor threats of violence, viruses, not even an advertisement or link to tubgirl? I'm sorry, but it frankly doesn't seem on level with having an arbitrator and friend give me such a stern talking to.

I am of course happy to hear from you at any time, for any reason, and while I take issue w this circumstance, I would strongly prefer that you not refrain from discussing matters of concern with me in the future. I would like more openness and communication, not less, and I hope my righteous anger with the likes of FM didn't come across in an unfriendly manner towards your fine self :)

Sam Spade 15:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind and careful response, Sam. I appreciate your words and the attitude they convey. As I noted before, I do recognize that my comments to you were too stern -- FM had sent me no less than 5 emails about you, and I knew I was writing to you too quickly without getting a better sense of the situation. I just felt a bit overwhelmed and wanted to leave the note so that my role in the discussion could be completed -- not particularly fair to anyone, I admit and can now see more clearly. I will take more time in wording things in the future -- certainly your note, while I found it a bit shocking (especially considering you've normally been much calmer in the recent months), was not on the same level as the notes normally introduced as "evidence", and as you note, it was an isolated note. FM insisted it was a part of a pattern of behavior, and I didn't take the time to investigate that in more than a cursory way -- I should have done.

I share your perspective on the atheism issue -- it's going too far. I'll do what I can to be more involved. The bias against religion at Wikipedia seems to be growing, and I find it disturbing. The idea that "NPOV = bashing faith and those who have it" seems commoner than it was a year ago. I don't know what we do about this, other than do our best to present to the world the kind of character our faith demands of us. I think it will mean patiently bearing trials that would normally break us, and I know it feels unfair to endure scorn and derision without striking back. But there is no other way that I know of. I have shirked my duty, I think, by not getting involved in enough of these pages to hold the line with others of faith (regardless of whether they share my beliefs) and with those agnostics and atheists who are remarkable in their ability to see the biases creeping in. I will do what I can to stand in the gap from now on.

You're right, you take a lot of hits for old evidence and past wrongdoing. So do many around here -- RK, 172, Anthony DiPierro, Lir, Michael, etc. Some of them deserve more trust than they get -- perhaps all of them do. And I'm not suggesting your career is like theirs in every respect -- only that the persistence of memory seems to cling to some people in that way. I wish people were more willing to re-assume good faith. I guess it's human nature that they don't, and I don't have an answer for it.

I am happy to chat about the issues you raised -- I'm a little ambivalent about them myself, and would appreciate community input. I'll look around and see what's out there. You're right that AC precedent isn't policy, but it is at least precedent, and so it was what fueled part of my note to you. But I'd rather the policy was clear. Thank you for being open to my remarks, even when they seem unfair, and thank you for extending an olive branch. It means a lot to me that you have that level of respect for my opinion, and therefore I will be much more careful and thorough in the future before sharing my opinion with you (though I will still do so freely, given your remarks on the topic). Thanks for everything, Sam, Jwrosenzweig 21:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Things I'm unlikely to respond to

So it's your position that what you percieve to be slights against you justify your harrassing another editor with insulting emails sent through wikipedia systems? And even if your belief that emails sent to other editors are not covered policy and hence not actionable, that only makes your doing so a cynical manipulation of a policy loophole.

You make a number of factual errors (favorable to your position of course) in your recounting of the time leading up to your sending me the insults. By selectively placing your link yesterday after the first 1/4 of the discussion you've conveniently ignored the beginning of the discussion about you instead directing us to my comments only. By reading from the beginning of the discussion you will see it was The Rev of Bru that first stated you made a bigoted comments about atheists. I merely asked you to clarify your statement in an effort to determine whether how best to interpret your insistance on a unique, personal definition of Atheism while ignoring the 15+ academic references I presented saying otherwise. At that point, UVwarning indicated that you made a number of other bigoted comments as well. Again, I asked you to clarify if this was indeed true and if so, what you meant. In the meantime I decided to read up on you myself and discovered that you have gone under another username, JackLynch, that you have an extensive history in the Talk:Atheism pages obstructing consensus. Many other users have alleged that you have cynically abused the RfM process to bring actions that were frivolous and without merit, intended simply to harass and/or silence opposition. I then asked you and others to clarify this and while expressing genuine concern about the appropriateness of you continuing to contribute here in good faith and your ability to maintain some level of objectivity if this were indeed true. That's when the email from you arrived (which is summarized on my Talk page). I can only guess that you were angered that my posting outed your past identity and history, which you've wanted to keep secret. To justify that our questions of Sam were indeed not an odd, oblique ad hominem, I once again state that when someone publicly makes bigoted statements on wikipedia, as Sam has, and it becomes apparent that their particular ideological POV stance prevents them from working to an article-building consensus and from considering any opposing credible evidence, etc., such as Sam's history for the last 10 months in Talk:Atheism, then asking them and others if their past includes a history of disruptive actions is not only legitimate, but necessary for determining the method and the liklihood of making progress in improving the article.--FeloniousMonk 17:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Jwrosenzweig, before contacting you, I gave Sam several opportunities to account for his email; he either ignored them or deleted them, and then made an additional insult in the deletion's edit summary. I have never made insulting statements to Sam, nor have I acted toward him with malice or disrespect. I have done nothing to justify his sending me this email. As I have given Sam the opportunity to explain on my Talk page, if he has a justification for sending me this email, or information that shows where I've maliciously provoked him he should present it here or on my page. I'd like to bury the hatchet with Sam, but as long as he insists he is the aggrieved here and fails to either take responsibility for sending an insulting email to me, or prove where I've maliciously provoked him, I'm not optimistic of the prospects.--FeloniousMonk 08:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If your are sincere in your concerns, request mediation, something I don't believe I've ever turned down. Sam Spade 15:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm attempting to handle this problem in the manner suggested in the guidelines; jumping right to mediation/arbitration is not the preferred method, and I in my opinion serves no one. I've given you many opportunities to atone and put this matter behind us; if you don't see the error of sending someone insults using wikipedia systems or the benefit of resolving this amicably, then please continue on your present course.--FeloniousMonk 17:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)