User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive August 2004 2

New Barnstar!

You are the second recipient of a new barnstar I made. Enjoy! Mike H 02:17, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Category

How can I add a new item to the category? Dana 08:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia:Category should help. Specifically, you type something like Category:Norse mythology, but without the :, onto the article in question, towards the bottom. Hope that helps, Sam Spade 02:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to be part of the project

...but I'm sorry to say that I don't know very much about norse mythology. I haven't even read sv:Nordisk mytologi, but the structure seems to be pretty sane to me as a layman. Are you creating a new wikiProject? I would have to do a lot of research before being able contribute. My interest in norse mythology is mainly part of how it is connected to pride, patriotism, nationalism and neo-nazism in Sweden. Norse mythology is not very high on my list but I'm not uninterested, it will just take some time. The topics I want to concentrate on in the beginning are those that I have personal experiance with. I feel that it's easier to do primary or secondary research within these topics at the beginning(I have to be strict with npov though, hehe). I'm not spending that much time on wp atm but more time will be devoted when the autumn comes and weather gets worse. I might join the effort later but don't count on me. I'm grateful for your welcoming and you userpage gave me some ideas about being a wikipedian. I'm taking bits and pieces to customize them. --Honta 13:04, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Oh, thats quite alright, I didn't actually expect that you'd be interested, but I thought to offer when I found out you were Swedish. I too am interested in "Nazi mysticism", you might like to see Mysticism in Nazi Germany sometime. Glad to meet you, and I hope we see more of you come the long winter, Sam Spade 17:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The service here...

Boy, the service here is great! Odd that on a huge site you get greeted personally... User:Cap'n Refsmmat (sig added Sam Spade 17:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Well, its a bit of a gamble if I run across you and all, but a big project includes alot of volunteers, and I happen to be one who likes greeting new users (amongst dozens of other things ;) Glad to have you here, Sam Spade 17:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do you see all of the new users? Is there a page with all of them? Cap'n Refsmmat 17:54, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

No, I just go to my watchlist (or recent changes) and click on the ones w red talk page links. Prett simple really :) Sam Spade 17:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's funny is I keep getting the same message from you over and over... Cap'n Refsmmat 17:59, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thats just a note to tell you to come here to my talk page. That way our conversation is all in one place. Sam Spade 18:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Sam, there are two edits on Adolf Hitler that I want to discuss with you. I would like to remove the term Jewish from Holocaust in the first paragraph. I don't think it is necessary and it can be perceived as disparaging to the other victims (see, for instance, Porajmos, which I wrote). Furthermore, with the fall of the Soviet Union, we know that Hitler with certainty that Hitler died in the Fuehrerbunker. The term "his own hand" is a bit flowery for my taste in any event. "Committed suicide" is just as effective (regardless of whether we keep "reportedly" or not). I look forward to your comments. Danny 01:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would agree to mediating between you. Thank you for agreeing to the changes. I want to work on that entire first paragraph, but I think it will be best if we do it step by step. There are some other problems that I see. For instance "The total embrace of war by all sides." How exactly did Poland embrace war so totally? Belgium? Denmark? Norway? I happen to own a German document justifying the invasion of Norway as a response to British hostility, but it certainly wasnt because of Norway's total embrace of war. Danny 01:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would be happy to mediate that conflict if 172 agrees. There are some other issues in the first paragraph that need fixing too. For instance, the second sentence implies that Hitler was fuehrer even before 1933 ("he was also" implies that). Also, Poland, Belgium, and Norway did not embrace total war. Actually, neither did Britain and France at first, even though they declared war against Germany after the invasion of Poland. It was very low key for the first few months, until Hitler began taking over neighboring countries. Danny 01:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, his suicide was also reported on German radio before Germany fell. For an easy source, read the last chapter of Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Danny 01:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In recognition of that, I left the word "reportedly" in the text. Please let me know if you agree with the version I suggested in the Talk, or if you have any comments on it. Danny 01:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, now I can go to sleep. Danny 01:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"

Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

? I have no idea what this is about ? Sam Spade 02:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Several days ago, you commented on the entrenched editors efforts to push me off from being able to edit John Kerry. Again today, there seems to be a drive on there to silence me, the only odd-man-out. Just thought you'd like to now. Rex071404 02:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Conversation with 172

That's something to consider. I'm glad that Danny is coming up, actually. All this time, I wanted to reach the same kind of understanding that you'd reached with Danny, which allowed you to start working amicably with him. 172 05:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've been ready to start things anew with you and start seeing you in a different light for a while. (I'd been have trouble, though, because I got the impression-- perhaps the wrong impression-- that you were more concerned with the past.) I don't think that mediation is really necessary, but if you still have your doubts, it's still something to consider. 172 05:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you want to take a look at Talk:John Kerry. Rex seems to be getting in trouble again. Maybe you'll be able to help him communicate with the other users. 172 06:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. This underlines just about all conflict in one way or another. And it definitely explains the past conflicts between the two of us, I think. (It's particularly easy to get into conflicts on Wiki, as it can be difficult to get an understanding of the people you're interacting with online as opposed to in person.) BTW, thanks for helping to stabilize the situation on the Kerry article. 172 06:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LOL. Still, when you run for president, you're opening yourself up to this kind of scrutiny, so I don't know how empathetic Kerry looks. (This is by no means the nastiest campaign in U.S. history. Going back quite a long way, just consider the acid sparring involving Hamilton/Burr, Jefferson/Hamilton, or Jefferson/Adams. A generation later, John Quincy Adams was accused of being a spy for Russia. Andrew Jackson was accused of murder. The election of Lincoln in 1860 goes without mentioning. In 1884 the Cleveland/Blane contest was also particularly bitter-- the year of the "Ma! Ma! Where's My Pa?" epitaph referring to Cleveland's illegitimate child. The Democrats, in turn, came up with the story that Blaine had had premarital relations with his wife, but the Republicans hung themselves when they alienated Catholic voters in competitive Northern states after a prominent NY columnist called the Democrats the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion." More recently, FDR was accused of Communism, and the Truman/Dewey race in '48 was also particularly nasty.) Kerry entered the race as no novice in the Washington game, so he must've known what he was opening himself up to. 172 08:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is counterproductive in principle. What goes around comes around, of course. But sometimes election-day comes before the candidate best apt at slinging mud has to come to terms with his own dirt, if you catch my drift. It's certainly unfortunate, but it's a part of the game of politics that's never going to go away. 172 08:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to answer the question, but please don't take this the wrong way. I was under the impression that you weren't listening to me and you were probably under the impression that I wasn't listening to you. (Speaking from my vantage point, I thought that you were a bit too quick to run to the behavioral dispute pages and bring up charges of policy violations. This puts people on the defensive. Speaking of disputes in terms of charges of policy violations, as opposed to a mutual misunderstanding, can also possibly convey the impression that you're 'out to get' someone.) Regarding Spleeman, I've never interacted with this user, so I can't really speak for him/her. I wasn't even aware of the conflict between you and this user. 172 08:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to go through mediation at the moment. In the event that we have trouble going through a dispute again, I'll consider it. (It is probably better worth your time to go to mediation with Spleeman any. We're speaking to each other, which is a good sign, whereas Spleeman is finding the need to 'dig up dirt' on you.) 172 19:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stress-o-meter

Whilst browsing wikipedia missing people I noted your use of the term: stress-o-meter, this was most curious, at least to discover the device has made its way to wikipedia. I recall its first use at 'node 12', a squat I used to occupy opposite Leeds university with Dave Lee, and his friend Sam. I suspect this to be your good self?

Dave long ago went his own way, and I too have moved on from those memorable days, with Ray and the others, but if you are the SAM I once new it is gratifying to have found you at this great forum.

I am also informed by the evidence on your user page that animated gifs are usable at the wiki, which I had not realised, cheers!

Regardless of if you are the Sam from Sheffield that I remember, thanks for brightening up my stressful day with these points of interst...

All the best I am working on the projects listed at Faedra (Steve).

Actually that wasn't me, my real names Jack. Sam Spade is a Humphrey Bogart role, from the "maltese falcon". I'm glad to have brightened up your day tho, cheers, Sam Spade 19:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, to tell you the truth, the whole experience kind of repulsed me from the article for a while. I might attempt to jump back on it again, we'll see. It's amazing how people act sometime, attacking you for no good reason...  – マイケル ₪ 14:26, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Alot of people have alot of issues, but it only takes a level head and a kind heart to make the best of things. I'm glad to see that you at least are not a trouble maker, but rather a problem solver. Glad to have you, Sam Spade 19:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nagarjuna

Please see Nagarjuna, and Template:Buddhism to which i did "rv 203.166.96.239's vanity vandalism (lk to now deleted article) to last by Yacht", which fixes the most obvious defect in Nag. Let me know if something else needs fixing, but i urge you to look at the diffs on the template, and notice how the template is evoked, and learn from the result. (There's more than that to know abt templates, tho i'm not sure it's all working yet, but there's very little need to learn anything more complicated.) And ask me some questions if you like. --Jerzy (t) 04:06, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you refering to Template:Norse mythology in some way? Thats the only template I've recently had anything to do with... Sam Spade 04:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Help please & Wikipedia:Cleanup#July 7-8. --Jerzy (t) 04:39, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

ah, ok! Now I understand. That was in regards to User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive July 2004#Template Questions, a question I recieved. I didn't know enough to help directly, so I made those listings on cleanup and talk:Template messages to find the help that was needed. Thank you, I had forgotten about it completely :) Sam Spade 04:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put a link to here on User Talk:localizers user talk as well. Thanks again, Sam Spade 04:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good plan, especially since i, uh, looked for my keys under the street lamp. Looking now at the less obvious templates, whose locations are unorthodox even if their contents turn out to be conventional, as i expect at least in terms of template-specific facilities. More to come. --Jerzy (t) 05:07, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Entries in hist of Nagarjuna & diffs on July 21 suggest that the problems have been dealt with by dispensing with the many uses of a template to provide a single special character. Described by that editor as a "bug", the problem is probably actually a security feature: IIRC, the same template will not be transcluded more than 5 times on a page. (This limits what vandals can accomplish using templates.) I.e., they were being used for something that is not their job. So i guess that is the kind of esoteric aspect of templates that i doubted would be involved! [shrug] --Jerzy (t) 05:30, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Arbcom questions

/Arbcom questions

Thanks for participating in the ArbCom elections. Danny 00:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should I take it that the vote is in and I lost, or... Sam Spade 17:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

antifa

Sorry, that wasn't meant to be an attack on homosexuals, just fascists. I'll try to do what you said next time. Cheers. User:TPermyakoff(sig added by Sam Spade 17:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Ok, but be aware that the wiki isn't aplace to insult anyone, especially not based on politics, race, etc... fascists are people too. Thanks for your conscientiousness. Sam Spade 17:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks from Headrattle

Hey, thanks. I joined a few Months ago, and I have only noticed a few things. I really do like Wiki, but I have been hesitant to actually change anything due to my horrible writing and spelling. I also have a habit of writingthings from my point of view that isn't easily discarded.

I must admit that the tilda thing was far beyond me. I wouldn't have even suspected really... Of course, the fact that I don't really like to read instructions wouldn't help me in this area.

Still, thanks for the information, I'll use it. Sometimes I just need to get sent in a direction. Headrattle 22:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good to hear, and don't forget to be bold! Mistakes can be corrected, but its much harder to make up for the improvements you don't make due to excess of hesitancy. Sam Spade 17:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again

I just wanted to thank you again for the moral support you provided with the whole John Kerry thing. I've jumped back in, and hope that my newest efforts will be successful. See Talk:John Kerry for more details on that.  – マイケル ₪ 22:27, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I hope so too, and I'll keep an eye out. Really, the best we can do is to set a good example, which is exactly what you've been doing. Thanks for being such a good influence, we need users like you to help moderate some of the hotheads and loose cannons out there ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 17:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your vote needed at George W. Bush

Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know enough about that to vote on it. Sam Spade 17:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Sam Thank you for the kind welcome. I am looking forward to being a part of this community. Sincerely, Aloysius Patacsil 21:41, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I'll be sure to check out the links, Mr. Spade... And don't worry about my boldness, it'll become apparent soon enough, I assure you. Better I focus on not being bold, knowing my MO. :) KuriosD 08:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More Good Info for you

For the upcoming battles on the Fascism and especially the Nazism article, I plan to remove the word "reactionary" from the article. All my facts are placed here for your reading enjoyment--Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary WHEELER 16:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the welcome! I remember passing by Wikipedia a couple years ago, reading about its mission of multilingual openness, and thinking, "good luck." Now, my fascination with it has reached eminence. It has the sense of being one of humanity's most profound achievements, bold and unafraid of change. --Psients 16:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks from PhilHibbs

Thanks for that info - I have been reading through the docs, but my unrestrainable enthusiasm got the better of me and I made a few minor newbie-type mistakes.

I have contributed to other community websites such as Everything2 and Perl Monks (must create an entry for that), so I'm not a total noob, but thanks for the pointers. I've been reading up on naming conventions, categories, and other useful tediousness.

PhilHibbs 17:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Parasexual/Homosexual

Hi Sam, I agree with your inclusion of a reference to "parasexual" in Age disparity in sexual relationships, and would like to thank you for pointing out the fact. However, I am concerned that a casual reader of that article wouldn't know what parasexual means. Naturally, they would click the link to see what parasexuality is all about, but the paraphilia article doesn't even mention homosexuality until nearly the end of the article Paraphilia#Controversy – and it's controversial to boot. Many homosexuals would object strongly to being classified as "outside the societal norm". They consider the word "abnormal" a pejorative rather than the statement of fact that it is. Indeed, the majority of the population is primarily heterosexual, making homosexuality abnormal in a factual, stastical sense, and therefore arguably classifiable under parasexual. The jury's still out on that one, and to assert a position one way or the other would be POV on our part. As you said, it is POV to insinuate that homosexual is not included within parasexual. But it is also POV to insinuate that homosexual is included within parasexual. You see the dilemma. We need a better way of wording the sentence.

But please note that the Age disparity in sexual relationships has nothing to do with above debate! Additionally: the age disparity article discusses homosexual relationships, but not any broader parasexual relationships (e.g., older bondage queens who love younger men with foot fetishes). If you would like to research and add information about age disparities in the broader category of parasexuality, please do. But for the time being, what we have in the article covers only homosexual relationships. Therefore, I think it's important that we include "homosexual" in the article lead. I'm willing to compromise and add "parasexual" to the sentence, but to replace homosexual entirely is POV.

Anyway, I'm sorry for the long post, but I really don't want an edit war over something as silly as this. The homosexual/parasexual debate is certainly deserving of its own article, but the age disparity article is not the place for it. Thanks for your time, and happy editing. • Benc  • 22:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the long post, I like long posts, and consider them thoughtful :)

I agree with you. I won't be adding much of any info, as you suggested I might like to, but I certainly won't be edit warring with you on this matter. The sentence needs rewording. I knew that when I put it there, but assumed it was a less than urgent matter due to the benefits of the group editing process.

I've spent reams of time discussing the subtleties of homosexuality on here, and suppose I'll end up being obligated to discuss it a ream or two more in the future, but for now I think I'd like to refrain from comment regarding the complexities of homosexuality’s inclusion into the clinical definition of paraphilia.

In conclusion, lets find a way to word the introduction that doesn't suggest that homosexuality is, or is not, a paraphilia. The best way to do that would be to place the links and mentions of each of them in separate sentences (perhaps even paragraphs) respectively.

Thank you for your time and interest, Sam Spade 22:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've added more material to the article than I had planned – but that's probably a good thing. :-) Feel free to look it over for any rough edges where it needs more NPOVing.

Please note that I opted to devote a paragraph within the "psychology" section to the parasexual/homosexual issue. I don't feel that it's appropriate to have this in the article lead at all. As I said in my first comment, the parasexual/homosexual issue is well outside the scope of this article. Regards, • Benc  • 03:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rios Montt

Please offer some evidence or reasoning behind your claims in your edit summaries before you trigger a page protection. I would've been able to add the references had you not come along to start your heckling about the Rios Montt article. 172 04:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You've been having an edit war. I felt the page needed a dispute header and protection. You reverted my dispute header, so I placed the article in a state I was not disputing. Work this out w User:Trey Stone and that anon on Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt. I'll keep an eye, and maybe occasionally comment, but given our history, I'd rather see you focus mainly on reaching compromise w them. I'll go w consensus, I'm sure. Sam Spade 04:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your comments

If you notice I deleted my comment about repressed homosexuality shortly after I made it - I removed it because I thought it would just antagonise you. That you decided to dig it out and publicly display it is your action and your choice and it's interesting to speculate why you would have done that. However, I suggest you do look up homophobia, latent homosexuality and repressed homosexuality in your psychology texts and you'll see that my statement was not an ad hominem but a factual statement. Sorry if that upsets you - it shouldn't. AndyL 17:28, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:User talk:Spleeman#Vandalism

I have very little patience for this sort of white washing and codling of POV pushing, personal attacks and vandalism. You are either ill informed, or ill suited to the task of encouraging policy compliance in this situation. Please find yourself useful elsewhere. Sam Spade 00:58, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam. Sorry that I upset you, I made a bad choice of words and made an implication that hurt you. For that I am sorry. I certainly did not mean for you to have to come to my user page to tell me to find myself useful elsewhere. I merely wished to defend Spleeman from unecessary bad rap, since its quite easy for an already questionable user to be knocked further down a downward spiral. Anyways, I find myself informed enough on policy to be able to point it out to Spleeman and others when necessary. Also, I would not try to white wash or codle my POV into any article, as the main goal of Wikipedia articles is NPOV. One last idea, which of course you can take or leave, yet I've noticed you tend to edit somewhat controversial articles in what might be called controversial ways. I'd suggest that instead of reporting policy and such to everyone who confronts you, you attempt to talk it out (whcih you have at times, yes!). Overall, talking things out is the way we achieve the goals of Wikipedia, and one reason policy exists in the first place. Sometimes to keep focused on the important stuff you have to turn the other cheek to small wrongs done by others, especially when they really don't hurt anyone. If you don't respond to every little jab, they'll stop jabbing as well.

Anyways, Thanks for the message and sorry if I hurt you. —siro χ o 16:03, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

1. I want to thank you for your polite response to my rather heated statement above and on spleemans talk. I understand that you are not ignorant of policy. I do think however that you might be misunderstanding the quality and intent of this user. Let me share w you a couple of links: [1], [2], User:Spleeman/Sam Spade. This user is not a confused newbie. He is an account with a clear purpose, and less than 500 edits, mind you ;) I apologize if I came across too strongly, but in truth I think I have been very restrained considering. I hope I have helped to clarify the situation, and I assure you that I am more than willing to communicate in a frank, polite, and intellectually honest manner whenever the opportunity presents itself. Sam Spade 17:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Semantics of God

I don't know why you changed my references to the word "god" to "God" : I obviously was referring to the common conception, not the Christian entity. "God" is pretty much always used to refer to Christian concepts only. User:Franc28(sig added after by Sam Spade 19:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I don't know who you are, or what specific situation you are talking about, but you are wrong. Sam Spade 19:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I've never seen "God" used as a general, non-Christian-specific term in the literature. Do you have any examples ? ­Franc28

Hinduism, pantheism, islam, etc... Sam Spade 01:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"God" is a proper noun. It is generally used by people who are referring to a monotheistic deity. Rex071404 02:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

W the english word "God", your probably right. Maybe not tho, alot of Indians speak english. Brahma is pantheistic. But the word for "God" in other languages is harder top define. Sam Spade 03:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why?

Because I said so. Mike H 01:01, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

MikeH said so. His word is law. ;) Neutrality 04:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mental retard

Sam: Mental retard cannot be redirected to learning disability. Not all people with learning disabilities are retarded. Also, "retard" can be seen as somewhat derogatory. Danny 00:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Learning disability#Mental Retardation needs its own page. There needs to be a new page written I agree, but until then I assume its better to have it link to learning disability, the broader catagory, no? Sam Spade 00:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it needs its own page, but I dont think the redirect you propose is the best solution. Maybe you can add Mental retardation to the Most wanted articles. I am sure if someone sees it at the top of the recent changes page, they will write something. Danny 00:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do I do that? I am unfamiliar with that page and its processes. Sam Spade 00:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Go to here and stick in Mental retardation under requests. You may want to wait till one of the articles already there is written, but I would support you if you would replace an article that has been there for over 2 weeks. Danny 01:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Subud not religious

Hello Sam,

What do you mean by "falsehood?" I'd like to clarify that Subud is not a religious association, because persons of various religions, who actively practise their religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, who maintain their non-belief, are all active members of Subud. This may sound like a logical contradiction, but it isn't. Subud has no dogma or beliefs or creed. This is why I added the word "spiritual" to the athism page. Does this make sense? Let me know. Mahalo, Aliman 22:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know basically nothing about sabud, and did not mean to make any claim regarding them. My point was that atheism is not Spiritual, and an atheist cannot be both Spiritual and atheist. They may be allowed to perform certain rituals or become members of certain organizations, but they are in no way spiritual in nature. Also Jainism is not athiest, and certainly does not require strong atheism, as the article has said. Thanks for your interest, Sam Spade 22:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Atheism precludes spirituality

Sam Spade said a person cannot be both spiritual and atheist (i.e., atheism precludes spirituality). Dunc Harris said that words used to describe Spirituality are incomprehensible gobledegook. However, in order to be consistent with these views, shouldn’t the entire section on “atheist religious organizations” in the Atheist article be deleted? From your points of view such wording is unintelligible. I submit to you both that you argue that atheism precludes spirituality, and if you are successful then we can delete that section of the Atheist article that mentions “atheist religious organizations.” Aliman 12:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome pack

Thanks for the welcome pack, it's very ... er, ... comprehensive to say the least :o) I suppose I've had my toes in the water long enough, and it was finally time to take the plunge and register. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139

Glad you like it. It took me awhile to find everything, so I like to give others a head start ;) Sam Spade 01:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172

Sam, the tone of my posting on Jwrosenzweig's page was a reaction to your lack of standing when it comes to censuring me for not following neutrality policies although you yourself mostly concentrate on pushing many articles in your areas of interest in the direction of your own POV, which I find quite disingenuous. It was also a reaction to your habit of accusing users of bad behavior whenever they disagree with your edits; this has been noted not just by me but by a number of other users. This tendency turns comparatively easy-to-resolve disputes regarding content, sources, and the merit of edits into impossible-to-resolve personality feuds (hence my frustration). 172 04:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are both good users that happen to have differing political views. I trust you can work it out together … but if you can't, mediation might be a good step (I'm a mediator). </unsolicited advice> Neutrality 04:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd accept mediation gladly. I'm not sure who would be best at mediating, but that could be worked out if 172 accepted mediation as an option. Sam Spade 15:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll accept mediation this time regarding the Montt article, as it is currently locked. 172 10:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will go for mediation generally, but I hardly know anything about Montt, so that doesn't seem like a good focus. Also, at this point I think I'd be better off seeking mediation w AndyL or spleeman, or maybe even rickK. To be frank when were not edit warring and personally attacking one another we seem to get along just fine. Sam Spade 01:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad to hear. Does this mean that you'll be able to help get the Montt page unprotected and withdraw the WP:RFAr? Good luck getting things resolved with Speelman and AndyL. 172 01:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any substantive communication on Montt in the last few days, which isn't promising. Trey seems to be saying something, but I'm not clear where its going. If there continues to be no communication for awhile longer, or if he also wants the page unprotected, I suppose I would hesitantly support unprotection, but I fully expect it would need protection again shortly thereafter unless we reach some sort of concensus 1st. As far as the RfAR, we both recently expressed ourselves on User talk:Jwrosenzweig#172. I stand by what I said, do you? Sam Spade 02:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the case if withdrawn, I'll be able to adopt a more conciliatory posture, as neither of us will be in the position of defending the terms of dueling cases. Withdrawing the case would show me that you are more open-minded and less aggressive than for what I had once taken you. Thus, whether or not I'll stand by my comments depends on what you give me to work with. 172 17:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)