User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/August 2005 3

Personal attacks and legal threats by SlimVirgin

Sam - If you have a moment I would like to ask you to review a situation that has emerged between myself and the increasingly belligerent SlimVirgin. She is on edge dating back to a few weeks ago when I filed that RfC against two of her buddies over the David Duke quotes they were trying to insert into the LVMI article, and ever since has been very uncivil towards me. A few moments ago she more or less openly admitted that she has a personal agenda of blocking my editing contributions on the Chip Berlet article. As you probably know I added fully sourced criticisms of Berlet to the appropriate sections on that article. This angered User:Cberlet - who thinks he owns that article and thinks he has a right to exclude any criticisms of himself from it - so he called in SlimVirgin and her friends to expunge the critical material. Now she's attacking me openly, stating in response to my proposed edits "What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page." In the same message she also made a legal threat against me, asserting that my simple presence as an editor on the Chip Berlet article "could cause Wikipedia a legal problem" and making a threat of "taking the issue further for that reason." The post in question is located here. Any help or advise you may have is appreciated. Rangerdude 21:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Sam, I have not made a legal threat. That wasn't what I meant by taking the issue further, and I think RD knows that. My concern is that an editor with a strong personal dislike of user:Cberlet is threatening to rewrite Chip Berlet, which I feel is inappropriate for a number of reasons. It also isn't true that Chip thinks he owns the page. Quite the opposite is true: he doesn't edit it and has recently had almost no input into the talk page discussion either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with him being excluded from the page in theory. I have not been reading the talk page however (sorry, the truth is I don't have the patience for endless wiki-debate, as SlimVirgin knows from talk:Human). I am here to read encyclopedia articles 1st, edit them second, and I frankly have precious little time or energy for bitter arguments. My real life is a nice place, where nobody makes legal threats or speaks rudely to me. I digress.

Summary: SlimVirgin did not mean to make a legal threat, rather she ment that action would need to be taken to prevent one. I think she is wrong, but if she wants to pursue Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, and try to have Rangerdude excluded, that is her right. I think Rangerdude was right to be upset at the mention of legal matters on an article talk page, and right to think that there are no legal matters to be discussing (I am assuming here, not having been folowing this debate like a court reporter). If there are legal concerns, thats likely to get one or both of you in a hell of alot of trouble, as suing one another is a banning offense. Anyways, lets all calm down alot, and I'll go have a look at that talk page *suffers* ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, and RD does know this: I have not made any kind of legal threat, and have no grounds for doing so. This is hyperbole of the worst kind. Context is everything, Sam, and the context here is that RD has been repeatedly attacking several good editors for weeks now, including bringing RfCs against three of them (which all ended badly for him), accusing people variously of stalking him, harassment, personal attacks, bias, and now legal threats. It would be funny were it not such a waste of time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

From Raja

Thanks, for your words. - வைகுண்ட ராஜா

I'm no n00b!

thanks - i'm actually not a wiki n00b:) i work for openpolitics.ca - a project you might be interested in... --Katerg 02:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look. Seems interesting, but a bit canada-centric. How many people are involved, do you know? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tutti Frutti

I don't know how to break the good news but Str cleaned me off his welcome . Grateful , cept I went and quoted Cornwell . So he's wiped him right out of PPXII . Its a gas and no longer personal , just the same old litmus test . Ain't got a clue how to avoid cerberus or why I even should . Str dont seem very ,well ,... sourced . I wonder really where a source starts being a POV . Str doesnt wonder much , he just won't leave it in there one little minute . Prior to this present volcano , we were back to shaking hands and all , and still are , I stopped the agent stuff, wiping it all I could . But it's crazy out there again. Worse than ever . There's two now , him and McClenon He's the same . I say to them , man , its do what you like, not my battle or POV now, just Cornwell . But Sam ... surely you have to use source to un-source or parallel a source? I figure there's a catch here somewhere , for someone else than me . Str , well , wish I had him myself, he's just fantastic . I never seen so quick such a flood of red text as today on PPXII . See you Famekeeper 01:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stable versions

Hello Sam; perhaps you´d like to see this. Subramanian ^talk 21:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much, thank you. I'm not yet sure what I think, but I think such thoughts are an important step. Hopefully whatever changes are made increase the quality of articles, as well as the quality of interaction we have w one another. Thank you very much for your note, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JWales Final Responsibility re:Auschwitz Testimony Against Pope Pius XII etc

Sam, copy for you . For what it's worth , you have been the only reasonable person . Take care , bye and thanks .

I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place . I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).

Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ayya Vaikundar

Hi Sam, I’ve expanded the article Ayya Vaikundar. Though they says the same thing in the page Ayyavazhi mythology, I think that it is important that it should be here, because these things links to the life of Vaikundar. I was not against shrinking it but, I think each facts, especially topics, should be there.Am I right? - வைகுண்ட ராஜா

Yes, very much so! I would like to see more about Muthukutty however, and wonder if perhaps there should be separate articles, one for him as a man, and another for him as Ayya Vaikundar? If not, I would like to see more about what become of him (as a historical man), and if he had children, and etc...

Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Wikipedia

Hello I'm a fellow wikipedian who like yourself shares a liking of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I noticed your defense of the 1911 encyclopedia on the talk page and thought you might be intrested in taking part in a wikimedia project that intends to put the entire 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica on the internet proofread and in wiki format. This gives you an opprotunity to share the knowledge of the 1911 version without engaging in edit wars with modernists.

Some links to this 1911wikipedia wikimedia project are: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_1911_Encyclopedia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/1911wikipedia

I hope that you will be able to participate in this project. Even if you can not it would be most appreciated if you can spread word of this project to those who are intrested.

--Gary123 21:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this page is confusing me...

I, Redwolf24, hereby award you this star for your thousands upon thousands of contributions to Wikipedia, including helping out newbies.

| I was gonna comment at the bottom but all the random pictures and the double TOC which doesn't seem to even be right.... Anywho I was gonna drop off a barnstar. Redwolf24 09:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! You left your note just fine btw, right at the bottom of the page. I know my page is busy, but I hope its not too confusing... Do you think it should maybe be shorter, or all the images in one spot? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the extra TOC, it confused me terribly. As for your music... 30,000! And my friends are impressed by my measily 5,500 ;) Black Sabbath is my very favorite band. As for folk metal... when I heard that I thought instantly of Jethro Tull... what's in that genre anyway? Redwolf24 22:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and help out where you can, thanks.

User talk:Rangerdude#I am a Yankee, but not the sort you'd think... Bigelow 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eustace Mullins

Hey Sam. I know you must have a lot on your plate now, but if you get a moment, have a look at the Eustace Mullins article and tell us what you think. Is this article NPOV? If not, what could be done to make it NPOV? I consider you to be one of the more objective editors around here and value your opinion. Amalekite 12:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into the matter. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amalekite is a neo-Nazi. See [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536&highlight=wikipedia this Stormfront thread]. Homey 22:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I kinda figured something like that given his user name. I've been an editor of amalek for a long time, and there arn't many people who would want to call themselves one. It brings up a very interesting subject, regarding NPOV. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterton and 1984

Dear Sam, I honestly don't think the bit about Orwell and 1984 belongs on the Chesterton page. Five of the fifteen chapters of The Napolean of Notting Hill are set in 1984, and there the similarities end. The plot, style, tone and moral of 1984 are completly different from the earlier book. Futhermore I have never come across anything in Orwell's letters or journalism to suggest he was influenced by Chesterton in any respect, whereas, for example he was quite forthcoming about the influence Yevgeny Zamyatin had on the writing of 1984.

There is a note on the coincidence in dates on The Napoleon of Notting Hill page, I should say that that is all it warrants. Iron Ghost 23:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I removed your addition to the Neo-Fascism page.

The one about the Conservative organization in the US. I cannot get your version to come up, can you re-add the link you provided? Thanks!

Thanks

for the welcome notes - much appreciated! Staffelde 01:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Thanks

The welcome notes really helped. The tutorial, New user log, instructions on using my mIRC account for boot camp, etc. have really improved my experience! Suntree 08:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message

You might want to substitute that - the section header means that if anyone edits the section on their talk page, they are actually editing your template! Templates like {{idw}} are frequently blanked because they have section headers and are not substituted. Thanks, Alphax ^{τ ε χ} 09:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that a few times, but I don't entirely understand what this substiution would involve. Is there a page explaining this? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karma in Hinduism

Sam, I made more changes to Karma in Hinduism. Please take a look.

Thanks,

Raj2004

Wonderful contributions as always, thank you! I made a few minor edits, have a look if you like. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, thanks for the edits. I hope you find the article informative. I learned a lot by reading about karma on my own. People often asked me how karma in Hinduism is different from karma in Buddhism and now I know. Now you know as well!

Raj2004 21:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I have an opinion you may not like, because I think that all vedic religions are truely one (at their heart), and also that there is only one "true" religion, which is love of God. We can call loving God many names, and have many ideas of how to try to do this, but I think this love, and the studies which come from it (and lead to it) are what truely matters. I agree that some buddhists are mistaken, but also some hindu's and christians and etc.. are also mistaken ;) As for these differences regarding Karma, I think its not so much a problem to say karma is a "law of nature", as it is to ignore God, as many buddhists sadly do. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sam I agree with you. Swami Vivekananda said Buddhism was the fulfillment of Hinduism but where it went wrong, was that some followers rejected God.

Here's his speech on Buddhism: http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~kanth/jwz/mbm/sv/address5.html

Raj2004 21:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I don't know if they are the "fullfillment", but I do think Buddha was a Hindu, and also that he must have focused on God if he had any enlightenment. My guess is that he focused on God without form, and thus many confused this with atheism. I have also had this trouble, when people discover that I don't prefer to pray to a cross or guru or other incarnation, they sometimes think this is like atheism. They are of course very wrong, because my God is always here, in my heart, and in yours, I find him everywhere; but an atheist is always trying to be apart from God, rejecting him wherever he finds him. Strangely, many atheists turn to buddhism, perhaps because buddhist philosophy is so confusing and contridictory that it often seems to allow, or even encourage nihilism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was always concept of God without form in Hinduism. Buddha was a rationalist and believed that since the existence of God couldn't be proven, he didn't focus on the nature of God (he didn't say anything either way, and rather focused on karma which is more apparent as shown by the inequities in the world. I think since Buddha didn't express any views on God, there is room for atheists as well as theists in Buddhism.

Raj2004 22:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I prefer to believe he focused on God (and was misunderstood by his disciples), because otherwise I see no place for him to be a holy figure, and especially not a Maha Avatara of Vishnu. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are not the only one if Buddha was ambivalent about God. For example,followers of Dvaita, in particular, do not consider Buddha to be an avatar as he preached heterorthodox views (i.e., rejecting the Vedas, etc.) but instead accord Balarama the designation. Balarama, among the ten avatars, is different from other avatars as he is an incarnation of Vishnu's serpent Adi Sesha rather than of Vishnu himself.

Raj2004 23:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a buddhist might say the 9th avatar was both Balarama and Buddha, and neither ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]