User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive February 2004
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] User Name change
Hello. How did you change your user name? I hope you don't think I was being grumpy or bothersome. Try to get back to me. Lizard King 20:40, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sam, I hadn't realized you felt so strongly. Perhaps the fact that your former username appears on this talk page twice led me to assume it was not so great a matter. If you do intend to leave, then I wish you well. If you, however, do not leave Wikipedia over the next couple of weeks, don't be surprised if I make the same request again. It's nothing personal: I just know I get confused by name changes (they are fortunately rare), and I figure if I get lost, others will too, so it's best to leave notes explaining. Best of luck to you, Jwrosenzweig 23:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Voting mistake
What on earth do you think you're doing removing votes from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? Angela. 23:05, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Mistakes happen. Just try editing some articles instead and stop worrying about the various conflicts pages. You might find a Wikipedia a nicer place if you do. :) Angela. 00:15, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Lizard King
Hello Sam/Jack, wondering if I could chat...Lizard King 05:53, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think you gave up too easily there. You just need to find allies on here and get organized. If it works for trolls it can work for people to. Lizard King 05:55, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Now I see, you already tried that. Didn't know about your attempt at making that wiki-harmony group. I didn't mean an affiliation of people that would be doing anything obvious like that. I meant people that would be acting in concert behind the scenes, where the trolls can't follow them around wait for someone to say something that the trolls can take out of context or distort. If it isn't said on Wikipedia, they can't do anything about it. Lizard King 09:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Comment
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Homegrown images - UtherSRG 16:28, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Take the Sysop Protection Pledge Poll?168... 00:49, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] trolling
Changing other people's comments is unacceptable and can be lead to your being banned. RickK 07:02, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Without making a general comment, in this particular case, you really can't change the comment in that way. He is referring to User:JackLynch, which is a Wikipedia username, and so must be typed exactly like that to actually refer to the correct user. You're the one who chose the username, after all. --Delirium 07:05, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
Funny you don't mind having your supposed "real name" on your email address, but you do here, which you logged in as without any oppression on anybody else's part. RickK 07:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Windows Messenger
Please email me before putting me on your "buddy" list. Given today's Security Bulletin, I was a bit worried when Windows Messenger told me someone of whom I had never heard had put me on their Contact List. I've blocked you for now: post a comment on my Talk Page if you want to be unblocked. --Phil 09:19, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
- There was a big new story which broke that morning about (allegedly) the biggest security problem ever discovered in Windows. When my Windows Messenger popped up the news that you (with a name/handle that I did not recognise---luckily a google search provided me with your identity) had joined me to your watch-list I was just in the procss of pulling down a reasonably large update from the Windows Update site. Sorry for my knee-jerk reaction. As to what security risks there might be in Windows Messenger, I don't know specifically, but anything capable of transferring files is worth a bit of constructive paranoia in my book. HTH HAND --Phil 10:00, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Your OMA membership
Hello Sam, and welcome to the Office of Members' Advocates. As the de-facto interim coordinator I've added a link to your talk page on the talk page of the association; if you want to add any more contact information that you feel comfortable with please do so. I've started writing a few other pages and if you want to contribute to any of those pages or do some more editing that would be great. Once we have a few more members we might try to have a membership meeting to discuss how we might act as a group or help each other with our new-found volunteer role. Good work with the Harmonious editing club and Wikipedia:Truce, good attitude. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 12:37, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Poll
Just notifying you that the second option of the poll was changed. - snoyes 04:08, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- OK, what do you want to talk about? - snoyes 04:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- Sure. We'll discuss our future edits there. - snoyes 05:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] wikiculture
Dear Sam, thanks for the kind words considering the attacks I have been suffering lately here and on the mailing lists. Seems the more you try to help the more people are out to attack you here. Why is that? You think it is because so many people who use Wikipedia are lost, lonely souls who have no other emotional outlets? Maybe we need to start Wikipedians Anonymous too? — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 08:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
Do you have any preference as to who mediates between you and Bryan? The members of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee are the recommended choice, but you may ask anyone if you like. Please note at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation which mediators are acceptable to you, or ones that you would refuse to accept. You may also e-mail me if you do not want your concerns publically posted - I will keep all communication as private as you like. (angela AT fused.org). Alternatively, if you decide you no longer wish to pursue mediation with Bryan, please can you let one of the mediation committee know your decision. Thanks. Angela. 21:56, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks/no inflammatory usernames
Do not create false user names for logged-in users. RickK 06:05, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Anti-Semitism
Sam, sorry for my insertion of comments. This is how it is done when answering e-mails, and I "forgot" that in this case the dialog flows dufferently. I wanted to write more, but I recalled that this is not a chat room and hardly my opinion will impress anybody. I even wanted to remove my rant, but decided to leave it, because it mentions specific obligations of the USA towards Israel, which are not very often recalled in such discussions. Of course, this may be judged from the point of view of purely American interests, but formally the "bias" has its foundation. Mikkalai 06:24, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] irc
No, no. I'm just off to bed. :) - snoyes 10:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] I ain't arguin' w no Jimbo
Where can I go to argue against the policy of summarilly deleting/reverting articles written/edited by banned users? Take it up with Jimbo Wales, it's his policy (which many, if not most, of us support). RickK 20:43, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Political correctness
I have absolutely no idea how Political correctness became a featured article. It was listed in the Featured articles page, so I added the notice. Feel free to raise an objection on the Featured article candidates page. -- Emsworth 23:04, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Compliments
Well, when you leave compliments on our fine work (at Willibrord), that's a boost for someone's day right there!. Wetman 20:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment on the edit! I'm sure we'll work through the issues on Libertarian Socialism. I can appreciate your point of view - if you've only been exposed to Libertarian referring to Libertarianism, it probably does seem like a strange juxtaposition of terms. I also admit it's a less common term than Libertarianism. I guess that's one of the issues when you've got a one article = one page system: everything appears equal, even though The Beatles are known to just about anyone, and TISM are probably only known to followers of the Australian alternative music scene!
I guess that raises the question is whether the confusion over libertarian socialism vs libertarian is counterbalanced by the introduction to a term people may not be familiar with, and can then educate themselves about (if they choose). Anyway, I look forward to coming up with a workable solution with you. ShaneKing 08:05, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Libertarian Socialism
Re: Libertarian socialism, from latest edit on my talk page. The whole point of calling it libertarian socialism is that its proponents find those aspects of state based socialism to be repressive. Therefore, they (generally) believe that socialism is best entered into on a voluntary basis. Many would argue that you can't have socialism and also have a state - that it will invariably devolve into state capitalism, such as that in Soviet Russia. Hence the term libertarian socialism. One of the aims is to educate people such that they will want socialism, and subsequently work to realise this goal. As many libertarian socialists are also pacifists, it's not a given thing that this need be a violent process.
Now I'm failing to see what about this fails to meet the definition of Libertarian (the freedom to persue one's individual liberty). They're entering into a voluntary socialist arangement! Surely freedom to be socialist if one chooses is part of freedom.
We can argue all day as to what extent this is realistic or achievable. That's really besides the point - as it would be POV if we put it in the article. An article on a political theory should aim to document the theory. Besides, some of them would outright tell you that their goals are utopian. As a NPOV source, it should be the aim to document their goals, and if applicable, offer credible critiques of them from authoritive sources.
Since their goals certainly are libertarian, they fully deserve the heading libertarian socialists. If you take it away on the basis that you believe the end results may not be libertarian, then you've set a dangerous precident. We could just as easily rename the libertarian article on the same basis: that some people do not believe libertarian theory would result in individual liberty if put into practice.
In short, I urge you to reconsider your plans. You admit yourself that you're not well versed in this aspect of political thought. The page has been edited by people who, judging by what I've read on the talk pages of talk:Libertarian socialism and talk:Anarchism, are. Would you advise someone who has just learnt high school Newtonian physics to edit an article on Einstein's theory of relativity, written by people with PhDs? I sure wouldn't, and for the same reason I'm asking you to please listen to the judgement of people who are better versed in this than you (and indeed, than me). ShaneKing 12:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] What is is, what shall be, shall be
I have neither the time nor the inclination to convince you otherwise if you are set on your course, as you seem to be. Each must find their own path. I've made my position clear: I feel that to say that socialism is inherently totalitarian is as big a mistake as that which many anarchists make about capitalism.
I feel there is potential for good and bad inherent in any system, and it depends more on the people than the system itself. That goes for capitalism, socialism, whateverism ... and things like a wiki.
Thus I put trust that there is more good than bad at play here (as in, on wikipedia), and that you, and whoever you collaborate with, will come up with something that mutually satisfies everyone, to the extent that this is possible.
I thank you for your opposition, as it is through opposition that we refine our thoughts, and strengthen our character. May others be of the same service to you.
If you need to run anything by me, I'm open to it. I remain an interested amateur in anarchist theory, and although surely not as knowledgeable as some here, perhaps I can offer my own perspective on it if you so require.
Best wishes until our editing paths come to cross again. ShaneKing 14:11, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] AIDS kills fags dead (revisted)
I've moved the AKFD from VFU to /deleted as the one that previously existed remains deleted. I apologise for suggesting you were a troll and have replied at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/deleted. Angela. 23:57, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
p.s. why do you keep blanking your talk page?
[edit] a scholorly view from the opposition
Sam, sorry I disappeared and hadn't seen your comment. I'll have to take a look at that talk page. I do understand your argument, and agree with it in part -- I think, however, that saying an atheist rejects belief in any god or gods implies a rejection of God, the infinite being. Perhaps simply using "deity" or "divine being" would be simpler, but frankly, as a theist, if I saw someone described as "not believing in any god or gods", I would not assume that they believed in God. I would assume that they did not. To non-theists, God is part of the set "gods" because they do not see that the distinction between God and Zeus is significant enough to create a new set "God". I don't think it's disrespectful or inaccurate to leave things lowercase when talking about general matters like "the beings atheists reject". My vote in the poll should be taken to mean that, in this instance (and perhaps others like it), obviously we are trying to describe all beings, finite or infinite, that inhabit some of kind of divine plane and which exert influence or control over human events by virtue of their superior nature, and that "god or gods" is perhaps the easiest way of doing so. I did choose the last option because, as I said, it would be ridiculous to talk about "God, god of the Christians" in my opinion -- in monotheism in English, we've used the capitalization to note the "God above all gods". If God can instruct Moses, "thou shalt have no other gods before me", I think the use of "other" implies that God accepts definition in a set of gods, though He obviously differentiates himself by being the infinite I AM who demands sole allegiance (he is a "jealous god"). The "gods" referred to in Exodus are of course demons or idols, in my opinion, not other beings who truly are equated with God. But God refers to them as "other gods" because, for humans, all of them and Him are collectively beings thought of similarly enough to be considered part of the set "gods". Am I making any sense? I hope so. I hate sparring with a fellow believer, but I think in this instance lowercase "gods" is appropriate because atheists are generally rejecting the very idea of a higher being, regardless of nature or substance. If you wanted my opinion, there it is. :-) Sorry it's so long. Jwrosenzweig 16:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding talk pages
I will be glad to hear any advice regarding how I might most effectively manage my talk page, so as to bring as much pleasure as possible to everyone involved
- You will never bring pleasure to everyone. Whatever you do, someone will be annoyed. Just do what you think best. There are no agreed-upon rules for the use of talk pages. Some people archive, some blank, some do nothing and have 100kb talk pages! My own opinion on it is that it's a bit annoying to blank it constantly because I can't follow what I am actually replying to. You leave me a message on my talk page, but you are replying to something that you have already removed from here, so I need to go to the page history or the archive to see what I wrote in the first place. Most people leave their page until it gets to about 32kb, but there's no policy saying you have to. It might be easier to leave ongoing conversations here until they have finished rather than remove them immediately, but it's up to you. Angela. 06:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Copy it to a text editor, save it, and then look at the file size. You'll see a warning when it is nearly 32kb, like the one you can currently see on VfD. It's only a rule of thumb, not an absolute. Angela. 06:57, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
As someone who frequently gives up on my watchlist, I am unlikely to see messages left elsewhere, so I think that if you want to leave someone a message, you should do so on their talk page. However, I am aware that many people disagree. mav and Eloquence, for example, always reply on their own page. If you want to be sure someone has seen it, you should leave it on their page. Alternatively, you could write your message here, and then leave a message for that person to come to read your talk page. I do sometimes reply on my own talk page, but that's usually a sign I'm getting too annoyed with Wikipedia to bother going to other pages, and not something I generally aim to do. See also Wikipedia talk:User page. Angela. 08:11, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] regarding compliments
- Well, Wiki is enjoying you, too! Wetman 17:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] FA candidates
Well, I'll try again. You said "An article which offends a single reasonable editor is sure to offend a goodly number of the public..." You have given us no way of distinguishing offense to a reasonable editor from offense to an unreasonable editor; it is not clear that the latter will offend lots of the public.
As to consensus: Your statement "even if the majority thinks it's copacetic" [emphasis added] is immediately followed by "An article which offends a single reasonable editor is sure to offend..." [emphasis added]. Would you say that some possibilities have been excluded here? Let me explain: there can be requirements for super-majority voting, and you have omitted them, apparently from inadvertence rather than a desire to misrepresent the available choices. I was talking about that.
You know, of course, that "consensus" actions at Wikipedia, like deleting an article, are not normally defined in terms of unanimity or verto power.
Or maybe you're referring to a different passage? It's not clear from your note to me, so I had to guess. Dandrake 06:21, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Conflicts between users
Sam, just making sure you aren't attributing Vogel's comments to me in Conflicts between users. - Texture 21:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
Just a little note to commend you on your excellent demeanor with respect to mediation. Your situation, successfully resolved, is an example of how well mediation can work when two committed people participate honestly and fairly. Good work!! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Green Tea
Living in Korea I get a chance to try all kinds of interesting teas. Thankyou for reading my comments I was wondering if anyone was. It is always delightful nice to see another friendly post especially when I getso many which are not so pleasant. Have you tried Solomon's seal tea? I drink green tea here but miss Darjeeling and especially earl-grey (very expensive over here). Zestauferov 15:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
