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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ayyavazhi and Hinduism 2 Hinduism rewrite 3 Ayyavazhi Trinity 4 == Vaikundar == 5 Ayyavazhi and Hinduism 6 Thank you 7 =rfc things 8 What is sbst 9 of interest 10 New Article 11 Chip Berlet article 12 Racialism 13 Agreement 14 Trustbusting 15 8th Duke of Wellington 16 possible RFC help 17 re:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk 18 Thank you 19 Amalek 20 *eyes*

[edit] Ayyavazhi and Hinduism

The Article Ayyavazhi and Hinduism had been Completed and please have a look - Vaikunda Raja

I have begun some edits, but I am nervous about them, and would appreciate you keeping an eye. I'll ask you in advance to forgive any mistakes on such weighty matters! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism rewrite

Hi Sam, Aum namah Sivaya! I´ve been trying to help on the rewrite of the Hinduism article and I´ve written both the introduction and an overview. I thought others would jump in to help, but things have been rather quiet there. Thre is absolutely no problem in doing it slowly - I´m just taking a deep breath before doing the most debated parts of it, in a very ahimsa and conciliating way - but I´m not a native speaker of the English language and, though I try hard, it´s not the same. So, could you help us, once in a while, checking and correcting awkward sentences? Thanks! Shanti, Subramanian ^talk 16:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! I apologise for not being able to provide more of the bulk content, but I am a student, rather than an expert, of the Indian variety of Sanatana Dharma. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I thank you for being one of the greatest defenders of Santana Dharma in wikipedia. Many people who are ignorant try to tear it down but you have been a great supporter.

Thank you.

Raj2004 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You are always very welcome, and I agree about some discrimination I have seen. One thing i don't like is when people have been rude, or even deleted some ayyavazhi articles because they didn't understand them right away, or saw some typing mistakes. For me, I think we are very lucky to have multilingual editors, because this means more articles and more learning. One important reason I am here on the wiki (and also here in this life :) is to learn. Deleted articles and rude people don't help me to learn. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ayyavazhi Trinity

I have created an article Ayyavazhi Trinity .Please have a look. this article right from the time I started editing were warned for Speedy Delition. Please find what the problem is and tell me the way to rectify. - Vaikunda Raja

Who is making this warning, and where? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who did it. It was once deleted, though I suggest in the Talk page, the reason. And I created it once again. Anyway Thanks a lot for comming immedietly for help. Again a request;there are chances that any users fing similarities between this article and article Ayya Vaikundar and some times they use to merge it. So in such case I need your help in explining to the Users about the variation. - Vaikunda Raja

[edit] == Vaikundar ==

Changes made in Ayya Vaikundar please have a look. - Vaikunda Raja

[edit] Ayyavazhi and Hinduism

Reply for your questions in Talk:Ayyavazhi and Hinduism. If there is any thing fault please forgive. And still there is any thing to be clarified, please ask but in simple English. The article Ayya Vaikundar had been expanded, provide more Information, Thank You.- Vaikunda Raja.

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I look forward to making a positive impact in the future of the Wikipedia. JogCon 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful, glad to have you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] =rfc things

that wasnt particularly helpfull... Gabrielsimon 05:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I felt it was just the right timing. Edit summaries like "reverting POV of SAM Spade, no offense dude, but come on, most other editors revertyour change of this nature, please stop operating from achristina pov." and talk page discussions like Talk:Mysticism are more than unhelpful. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

it was true. you seem t o be perating from a religious pov...Gabrielsimon 05:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is sbst

Using {{subst:User:Sam Spade/Welcome}}, rather than {{User:Sam Spade/Welcome}} will paste the contents of your template rather than embedding them. This would mean that the last edit link on the talk page will no longer lead to your template page, and you won't have people editing your template by mistake any more. Like many people, I use the last edit link to add a section to a talk page, finding it taking me to a template page is annoying - especially when I don't notice until I've saved!

Using subst also means that changes you make to the template, will no longer change all previous uses of the text - something that saves on server resources and allows you to update the template without changing old talk page messages. -- sannse (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] of interest

please check thebottom section of my talk page( least i think its the botom) the section called problems... Gabrielsimon 09:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Article

I've created a new article Boons Offered to Kaliyan. Please have a look Thank You. - Vaikunda Raja

[edit] Chip Berlet article

Sam - thankyou for your input on the Chip Berlet article. I hope you will consider reviewing this article and the discussions about the Horowitz section further. It's an unfortunate circumstance for wikipedia, but in my recent experience with several of the involved editors here I have come to discover that there is a very strong personality clique around Mr. Berlet and 3-4 other contributers. These editors frequently work in tandem to insulate each other from individual editors who lodge objections about their violations of WP policies and guidelines no matter how valid the case or, in the case of Mr. Berlet who has an article here about his off-site identity, to insulate him from any revisions to that article that introduce critical material, no matter how sourced it may be.

As you may know, I recently made several major revisions to the Southern Poverty Law Center and, in researching their political controversies, found that they had been involved in a very vocal public spat with David Horowitz over an article that the SPLC published by Chip Berlet. It was basically a below-the-belt smear piece by Berlet that accused Horowitz and dozens of other people he disagrees with of being racist KKK-types, and Horowitz naturally responded with some very strong criticisms of Berlet. While adding the section on this to the SPLC article - complete with sourcing and everything - I concluded it would be proper to add a corresponding section into the Berlet article as well. When I arrived at it I quickly discovered that the Chip Berlet article was basically a friendly puff piece on Berlet, much of which had been directly lifted almost word-for-word from a favorable biography of him on his own webpage at that interest group he works for. Given that I decided that the Horowitz material would bring much needed balance to the article. I added it to the appropriate section with full sources and even quoted Berlet's rebuttals to give him equal time and to fulfill the NPOV policy.

Well, a couple days later Cberlet showed up and was outraged that Horowitz had been quoted at all, so he plastered a note to all his loyalists entitled "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page" (as if he personally owns the article about him on wikipedia!) to try and get it removed. Shortly thereafter he even filed a mediation request against me and another user, Nobs, claiming that we were "personally attacking" and harassing him by adding critical material to his wikipedia biography article. Within a few hours all the usual suspects (SlimVirgin, Willmcw, Jayjg) responded to his call and have been relentlessly attempting to sheild him from criticisms ever since. This is the clique I was talking about, and it seems they travel in a pack around wikipedia covering each others backs. When one gets called out for violating a policy on an RfC or mediation, the others show up and try to vote it down. When one gets into a talk page dispute over their POV-pushing, the others show up to support him and beat the guy who called them out into submission. The only thing normal editors who get caught in the crossfire of this group can do is stand their ground and keep pointing to the applicable policies and guidelines. Thanks again for your help. Rangerdude 06:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, glad to be of service. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've found the above problems you've encountered with controversial editors Jayjg and SlimVirgin to be accurate. Controversy follows them everywhere it seems. A "clique" would be a euphemism for it. It's hard to respect that kind of activity.69.209.225.121 06:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Racialism

Sorry about that, Sam, but I wasn't sure what else to do. The discussion at Racialism didn't seem to me to be constructive, and the changes were rapid and confusing, so I reverted back to an older version that I knew had some support for it. As for Roots of anti-Semitism, I saw large unexplained deletions in your edit, which is why I reverted e.g. the paragraph beginning: "In modern times, especially since the Holocaust, supersessionism has been linked to anti-Semitism of both the ethnic and theological kind ..." I'll go backk now and will re-insert from your edits any spelling corrections, wikifying and the like, and perhaps we can discuss the deletions on the talk page. Or if it's citations you need, perhaps you could make them invisible and ask for a source, or else add {{{fact}}} after them. Does that sound fair? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, thank you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement

I swear Sam that the worst , the very worst , most duplicitous and insincere argument is that of the father, who agrees with you. And then turns his back . I know I can't rock a commercial boat , so the port is looking a bit too crammed . I can't argue thru agreement , there's no traction. But it is the fathers' ingenuity when faced with the unanswerable . Take care . Famekeeper 19:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trustbusting

Sam - Thank you for the advice and suggestions regarding the clique problem here. I don't have email enabled for reasons involving privacy. Unfortunately some of the same problems that produce cliques around here have also made it necessary to take extreme care in protecting my privacy here. I had a lengthy dispute with another editor who was stalking and harassing me, producing a need to take these measures (he incidentally happens to be an administrator now and close friend of Cliquemeister SlimVirgin). I would be more than happy to lend a vote, offer assistance, etc. on articles where a clique or abusive administrator is actively disrupting things, so please drop me a note on my talk page - or even a simple link to the article - and I'll gladly take a look and do what I can to help. Rangerdude 23:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

And the same holds true in reverse, of course. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 8th Duke of Wellington

Sam - Regrettably User:Petesmiles has repeated the copyvio cropping of the copyright image that precipitated the set to about using images with captions. This had been spotted almost immediately by one of the Board members I advised you about. Permission for the use of all the images, I uploaded from the archives collecttion, for use on Wikipedia has therefore been withdrawn immediately. I have listed all the uploaded images on Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. It seems all your help has been in vain? Richard Harvey 23:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so, I personally apologise, not as a representitive of wikipedia, but as a human being, for the insults and abuses you, those images, and the Duke of Wellington's name have suffered. God be with you,

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Sam, for that it's greatly appreciated. How long will it take for the images to be deleted from the Wiki database. I've already had a 'severe slap on the wrist' about it. The next step would be the equivalent of a US Top Sgt becoming a PFC. Richard Harvey 23:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello - just popped in to let you know that the above was going on - seems you're a step ahead of me! - I've popped a note on Richard's talk page, really just reiterating that it is a shame we're losing those images - and i certainly hope no-one has been overly upset by it all..... cheers! Petesmiles 05:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] possible RFC help

if you have the time, pleae check with my RFC's evidance, and look at any 3rr invilving DreamGuy , to check his edit summaries for rude and ilsulting and incivil behaviour, which would, in itself constitute baiting. i believe the majority of those would show at least some baiting, hich would help proove his vendetta. Gabrielsimon 00:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

First of all I strongly disagree with the fact that you seem to be trying to convince every support voter to vote oppose just because you have a problem with Felonious Monk. On the same note I wanted to tell you that I have decided to withdraw my support vote for the time being, however this has nothing to do with your note on my talk page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sam, regarding FeloniousMonk you recently posted: "Despite my having apologised twice now on his talk page" [1]. Could you point to some diffs for those apologies. This debate goes back to November of last year, at least, so I have been unable to find them in a year's worth of edits. Thanks. FuelWagon 18:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Sam: Way back when (March of this year), you were kind enough to send me introductory materials about Wikipedia when I first joined. I want to thank you very much for your kindness and let you know that I will be availing myself of the advice you sent along now that I've begun to become active. I've made a few small additions to the Hermann Hesse article and am proceeding along slowly. Best, Donw714 18:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful, glad to have you! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amalek

I apologize for not answering your request for updating the History of Hinduism article. I agree it is in a mess, but I do not consider myself an expert, and I didn't find time to address it. Re the 'antisemitism' stuff on Talk:Historical persecution by Jews, I am not aware of accusing you. I didn't check the history for who added the link, and my statement was intended as in defense of your apparent (apparent for lack of edit summaries) position that the Amalekites should be mentioned in the article. I.e. I was giving you the benefit of doubt. I may have phrased my comment badly, but I do think you rather protest too much. dab (ᛏ) 11:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel your revert prior to research was in bad form. I feel comments like "we have already established" on a page in such a state of chaos is unhelpful. I also feel that insinuating anti-semitism based on your own admitted ignorance was outrageous. It would seem that protesting at all is protesting too much. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anti-semitism. Your edit did disregard talk page discussion, so it would have been up to you to justify it. dab (ᛏ) 12:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually you insinuated that the link placed on Amalek could have been placed there by an anti-semite for some complex purpose. "I just found it on the Amalek article, and it may be an obscure internet thing added by an antisemite in the typical attempt to portray antisemites as victims". Having been an editor of amalek since january 2004, and it being one of the articles I am most proud of, this statement went over very badly. If you didn't mean for it to be insulting, I can accept that, but regardless of your intent, questioning the motives of citations is probably not a good idea. Lets discuss the quality of the edits, not the qualities of each other. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] *eyes*

Sam, the last time we talked, I gave you a proverbial light slap on the wrist while in the middle of blasting FM for being an ass. It was my intention at the time to take the good advice and thoughts of others, and judge you on your own merits carefully but also with a positive light since lots of people seem to have it in for you. This edit [2] does NOT inspire any confidence in you. Take note, that I was baised towards your position, having had positive interaction with you, having recieved good conduct, and having been told that you were legitimatly a good editor, having been around forever, had just collected enemies. TINC, lets keep it that way.--Tznkai 15:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Firstly, "cabal" is not a very apt term. I study the Kabbalah, and other sundry mysticism, but i doubt very much that has a large role to play in wiki-power politics. Rather what I see here is much more like the cliques and subcultures I saw in grade school, people who have banded together due to a vested POV. My vested POV is NPOV, and when I get an email, or note on my talk page asking me to check something out, I do just that. I have a look, and make up my mind based on the particulars. Unfortunately, I (and many, many others) have seen a growing trend towards m:factionalism here on the wikipedia. Sad as it may be, and as much as wikipedia is not a democracy, wikipedia:Consensus is not consensus. Instead it is "something closer to supermajority". Anyways, to make a long story short, I oppose blind partisanship, and feel the only way to do so effectively is thru organised neutrality. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Cliquism is an unfortunate side effect of community life yes. Fighting fire with fire doesn't work. If you insist though, careful of the company you choose for your "organized trustbusting" group. I know atleast one of those invited has been throwing out accusations that make the good Rev. Fawell to shame.--Tznkai 15:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Fighting fire with fire" isn't a terribly apt analogy. More like opposing one voting bloc with another. Anyone who wants to can ask me for help, what I'm looking for is people I can call on when the chips are down, and frankly, I'm not inclined to any standard higher than those who havn't personally offended me, those whom I can give a modest amount of my trust and respect. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse that I find your voting bloc an equal if not greater threat.--Tznkai 16:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait, my non-existant NPOV voting bloc is an equal if not greater threat.. to what? The postulated POV enforcement clique? I'm sorry, I don't see it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In plain english. I don't trust you with a voting bloc, a trustbusting coalition, or anything otherwise resembling an organized group of persons you can "count on" in enforcing a certain vision. I don't trust anyone else with one much either. I do not enjoy playing wording and ruleslawyering games. I am asking you to stop because it is deterimental to Wikipedia. I am concerned that you were evasive in your answers. Take it how you will.--Tznkai 01:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Get bent. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)