User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive November 2004 3

Hey

Thanks for your message! I'm glad that newcomers of Wikipedia are experiencing the WikiLove! I've been lurking for awhile, but I must say, I enjoy this website!

Regards,

Aly (Thorns among our leaves)

Right on, glad to have ya. Cool user name, BTW. Sam Spade 21:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Gotta love 10000 Maniacs. Thorns among our leaves 17:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey Sam, I want to say that I have thought a lot about my opposition to your adminship. I know my humble opinion wouldn't have changed the outcome, but I would like to say that I think my opinions against you were unfounded. Whatever your (or for that matter, most people's) flaws may be, they are not large enough to make it better for you to remain a normal user. Next time around, I intend to cast my vote in your favour. • → Iñgólemo ←• 07:06, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Thats nice of you, thanks. I don't plan on doing anything like that for a year or so however ;) Sam Spade 17:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

God, again

hello Sam, I know this article is important to you, and I have been venting on the Talk page rather than interfering with your edits. But please address the points raised before making any further changes; regards, dab 18:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to respond, but I'll go back to editing shortly. You were actually what inspired me, asking what was being contested, etc... I don't like the talk page formatt you and bru were using, thats why I made my comments mainly at the end. Sam Spade 20:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

good morning Sam (I take it you are in Germany?) -- I'm sorry if I seemed annoyed yesterday. The point is that I was in a hurry, and had to type very rapidly. I appreciate that you are prepared to discuss things. My impression was that you were in a hurry, too. Please do not overuse the 'boldness' licence; for example, you removed the Negative theology bit not only before trying to discuss, but even before you bothered to follow the link to read what it was about. The proper procedure, imo, would be to announce the changes you intend to make, and if nobody objects for two days, do it. If somebody does object, try to reach a consensus first, because the alternative is just a confusing edit history, or even an edit war (not with me, I'll go away before that stage). Again, I do not doubt your sincerity when you say that you strive for a balanced article. dab 07:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I'm in Deutschland. As far as your ideas... they intrigue me, but they’re not policy, so... I'll follow them when they are ;) Sam Spade 21:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Truce

Ok Sam, I think I've been somewhat hard on you lately and sniped at you too much (it's become a habit). I'll try to lay off.AndyL 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whichever, I was mainly ignoring you anyhow (spelling criticism is legendary in its unimportance). You might want to tell User:FeloniousMonk tho, he seems to think I called you a troll, and has been defending you re: that personal attack ;) Sam Spade 19:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arhat

I have re-reverted the article, Sam. Would you care to discuss the issue with me and Nat over at Talk:Three Buddhas? (20040302 19:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Okey-doke. Sam Spade 20:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Atheism unprotection

You may be right that it was premature. I unprotected based on a reasonable request after determining that it had been protected for two weeks and I didn't see anything on the talk page that precluded unprotection. The unprotection was minutes before Skyler1534's message on the talk page; if I had seen that, which presents his take on things rather differently than the unprotection request, my reaction would have been a little more skeptical. I will take a look at the situation again. --Michael Snow 21:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful note, and enquiring stance, I couldn't ask for more :) Sam Spade 21:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

cultural and historical background of Jesus

I appreciate your comment on my talk page. It is not my business whether you are Jewish or not, but if you aren't, do youthink the answer I gave to Mpolo didn't make sense/would not make sense to non-Jews? What can I do to be more clear? Thanks, Slrubenstein

Thanks again. You are not the first to consider my contributions "highbrow." This is important to me. In the talk page/saducees and Pharisees section, I tried to re-answer Mpolo's questions again, really trying not to be highbrow. Maybe this is material that belings in the article? If so -- it certainly has to be clear and I'd appreciate your looking at it and sugesting ways to make it clearer. Thanks again, Slrubenstein

History of Jews in the United States (pre-20th century)

Thanks for the message about History of Jews in the United States (pre-20th century). 99k of text is ridiculous, and I have separated out three sections into new articles - I trust you will summarise them in the main article. They are:

• History of Jews in the United States (English Rule)
• Relationship of Jews in the United States to the Federal Government (pre-20th century)
• History of Jewish education in the United States (pre-20th century)

I hope this helps. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much thanks. Sam Spade 23:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As you can see...

I've been at Talk:Atheism. I've read what has transpired there, at least in recent weeks. That kind of baiting and taunting is appalling. I feel quite ashamed of almost everything I said to you, although I will continue to hold the position that we have to break the cycle of abuse by rising above it. Still, though, that was quite the organized smear job -- I'm sorry to see it. I'm doing what I can to raise the level of discourse....we'll see how it works. Hope your day is a good one -- Jwrosenzweig 04:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Nice user page design. :-)

I nominate Jwrosenzweig for official Wiki-sainthood! dab 07:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, I'd give him a barn star if I didn't think it was so grossly insufficient :) Sam Spade 15:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phan Lien

Thanks for the vote to KEEP Spade Can you find some more support that we have to keep this article.

I have found some references concerning Princess Phan Lien.

• Princess Phan Lien listed in the ALMANACH DE BRUXELLES She is listed under V for Vietnam
• ALMANACH DE BRUXELLES was published in 1818 as the Nouvel Almanach de Poche de Bruxelles pour 1818, by M.E. Rampelbergh, Imprimeur-Libraire in Brussels --Jimmyvanthach 14:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. Been editing minor things for a while, and thought it was time to get official... Carmelbuck 21:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Glad you have you! Sam Spade 21:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi Sam,

Thanks for the list of links. I appreciate it. I haven't been on the Wikipedia in some time, so I botched the new VfD procedure even after reading the rules. I'm afraid I screwed up the page a bit. I was trying to add 4x4 Offroaders Club Karachi to the VfD page, but only got it halfway there. If you wouldn't mind taking a look when you get a chance and letting me know where I went wrong, I'd welcome any feedback.

Thanks Chris

I tried, but no luck, so i put a note here: Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Problem. Good luck (oh, and if you decide to become an M:inclusionist instead of a M:deletionist, come join us @ M:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians :D

Sam Spade 23:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Atheism

Thank you for your kind words. The debate going on kind of re-enforces my belief that I'm better off sticking to less controversial topics: I feel my time is more productively spent working on articles rather than talk pages. You probably know the deal much better than I do, since I know you're heavily involved in a number of pages where things tend to get heated.

I'm not an admin and would be happy for you to nominate me. I'm not sure right now is the right time, as there seems to be a bit of a dispute about how many nominations at once are appropriate going on. I don't think there needs to be a limit myself, but I'd rather any discussion be based on the merits of me being an admin and not "oh no not another admin request". Maybe in a week or so once it's cleared up might be a better time? Shane King 00:12, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, I must admit I had the subject on my mind for the very reason you mentioned, and your interpretation is probably a sound one. i'll wait a week or two. As far as the heated articles, I actually try to choose things listed on WP:RfC or Wikipedia:Protected page so as to help out, but the atheism page... Theists are not the only group to posses true believers. 've often been told to neber discuss politics and religion in mixed company... and do nothing but! XD Cheers, Sam Spade 00:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that if you take any group of people with a shared opinion on an issue, you'll find that they tend to have a broad range of backgrounds and beliefs on other issues. For that reason I don't find it at all surprising that there are true believers on all sides of the God debate. People are remarkably similar, despite our tendency to heatedly disagree on some issues. It's a pity we often fail to keep that in mind on Talk: pages! If we didn't try so hard to focus on the differences, perhaps common ground would be easier to find. Shane King 00:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hyacinth

Shameless campaigning I see! ;) Not like you needed my vote, but of course you deserve it! Sam Spade 01:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I confess. I alerted you, WHEELER, and Herschelkrustofsky, the people I could remember having personally argued at, as opposed to discussed with, at one time. Upon reflection it does appeat to be a sly form of campaigning. Thanks. Hyacinth 02:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

God

Having #Theology have exactly one subhead (#Conceptions of God), which has exactly one subhead (#God as Unity or Trinity), which then has the other sections, is ugly and illogical. I suggest combining the first two into one section (e.g. #Theological conceptions of God or #Theology and conceptions of God) and dropping #God as Unity or Trinity entirely. This would look and read much more cleanly. [written by User:Whosyourjudas ]

this was you? ffs, Sam, we have pages and pages of discussing ToC, and you think it's ok to just go moving sections around without even bothering to discuss for five minutes? Yeah, it's not blatant policy violation, but it's not very nice either, sorry. dab 08:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We've been over this. Sam Spade 17:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RFA

What is your opinion of my request for adminship? --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 08:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Policy

I do follow this policy, even unilaterally, and it keeps me out of hostile and time consuming niceties. If I didn't follow this policy, you and I would be in an edit war by now, seeing that you just keep removing "historically, monotheism is relatively recent" rather than attempting to find a wording that makes clear my point without stepping on your theist toes. I would also never say things to people via email that I would not also repeat on Talk pages, because I value my word, and I stand by it regrdless of the medium that transmitted it. That said, I am willing to continue to argue with you, of course, as you are a valuable contributor, and you do follow WP policy, at least in a legalistic spirit (as opposed to others who disrespect it entirely) dab 08:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not bossing you about. I gave you my opinion, succintly but friendly, on your Talk page. And I didn't interfere with your edits, none of which were improvements in my book, with the exception of a single restoration of two sentences that you had deleted without replacement. Anyway, I am not looking for trouble, and I am quite busy editing Sumerian stuff, so I'll leave God to you now (I'll still check to see if anything about the age of Brahman turns up, though). best wishes, dab 18:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say all of them were terrible ;) — and I haven't seen all you made. Anyway, I have to run. I won't be able to discuss this in more depth until tomorrow night... dab 18:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More on atheism

Hi, Sam

Carvaka

I wanted to add one point. The major school of atheism that existed in India was Carvaka. Contemporary atheistic religion in India is Jainism, which however affirms an ethical code even though it denies the existence of God. Buddhism, by contrast, is not per se atheistic but perhaps agnostic as it does not deny or confirm the existence of God. I wanted to add Carvaka to the atheism page but I see the page is protected from editing. It is noteworthy that Buddhism, Jainism, and Carvaka were the major heterodox schools that opposed Vedanta (i.e., Brahmanism) http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_83 Also, I have expanded the Hinduism article to discuss that it is a broadminded religion that has views from monism to strict monotheism. Raj2004

I don't agree that jainism denies the existence of God, I think they merely percieve him differently. I could be wrong, but thats based on what I know of them. From what I know their theology is not contridictory to an understanding of the ultimate, or a pantheistic God. Sam Spade 18:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, unlike Buddhism which is ambivalent, I believe Jainism is non-theistic religion. http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/religions/jainism.htm#god; http://www.jainnet.com/intro.html They definitely don't believe in God as a creator, which traditional Hindus believe. In a sense, everyone has the potential to be an enlightened soul or siddha. Raj2004

a subtle essence underlying all substances, conscious and unconscious, which becomes the cause of all modifications. This is termed God. The Jain idea of Godhood is the perfected Soul (Siddha), the liberated soul (Mukta). The Jains worship these liberated souls (Tirthankaras) who have destroyed all Karmas and attained salvation, as their God

I think this makes it clear jains are not atheistic. Sam Spade 18:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Just that they don't believe in a traditional concept of God as creator.

True, but who does exactly? For example, in Hinduism Brahman didn't create existence, existence is permanant, with no beginning and no end. Now his breath and immanence sustain life, and cause us to continue as we are, but did he create us? In my cosmology, everything always was, and altho change is constant, nothing is created or destroyed. I'm sure others see things diffently, but a creator God isn't necessarilly the only traditional interpretation. Cheers, Sam Spade 19:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To Sam Spade's step-son

First off, please create your own Wikipedia account instead of using your step dad's.

Second, please use more forethought in creating and editting articles. Use a dispassioned voice. Use NPOV. Use a spellchecker and grammar checker offline. Do not add discussion text into articles.

When you have created your own account, I'll provide you with helpful and informative links. - UtherSRG 13:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply @ User talk:UtherSRG#Sorry about that. Sam Spade 17:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that. Not a problem. Carry on. *grins* - UtherSRG 19:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jesus

Could you please comment on the scope and goals of the project? It is likely this project will become the meta-mediation point for many of the currently uncoordinated discussions, which is why Mpolo suggested it in the first place. - Amgine 18:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, could you expand on what you mean by "condense" on the talk page? (pardon the pun) - Amgine 22:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phantom cats

See my minor changes to the page. The British makes it difficult for Americans to understand, so it's not just the content that's the problem.--Viriditas 10:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about the title. Maybe we can elicit comments from other people on this issue? Should I put a poll together? --Viriditas 11:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it's needed. Between you and me I think we have enough consensus, with such an obscure topic ;). Why don't you propose a new title in the talk page, and if no one argues, move the page in 2 days or so. Sam Spade 11:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Personally, I prefer to move pages only when there is a rough consensus from the community, or if indeed, it is as obscure as you say it is. However, there have been edits within the last few weeks, so I'm thinking about putting a poll together in any case. I just want to make sure the page is moving to the most appropriate title. If you know any animal enthusiasts, or biologists, please invite them to the page. --Viriditas 19:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, thats very thoughtful of you. Glad to see such concern for consensus (emphasis is for others on this page ;) Sam Spade 21:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm still in the information gathering stage. The more people we an get involved, the better.--Viriditas 04:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ron paul

Regarding the ron paul... THoese are edits by a user Reithy who has gone apart vandalizing and on a spree of rage... pay him no mindChuck F 13:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well... a "spree of rage" seems like something to pay attention to, eh? Sam Spade 13:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I've been hanging around Wikipedia for a while, decided maybe I should finally get around to registering an account. :-) Codayus 23:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Glad to have ya! Sam Spade 23:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and Image

Hey Sam, thanks for the welcome! I'm working on an article about the ESP Guitar company and I uploaded an image of the logo. I put it in the Wikimedia Commons, but apparently logos, being copyrighted, don't belong there. Where should it go, and how should I move it?

THANKS, Timbo 02:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about images, but Wikipedia:Image, Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Village pump are places to ask. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, Sam Spade 13:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Tudoreanu

I am sick of this person. Check out the history of the The Kyklos. All this man does is edit innecessantly taking all things out that I put in. I am sick of this man. That is why I am concentrating on Wikinfo from now on.WHEELER 17:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please do check out anything Wheeler shows you. You will soon find a pattern repeating itself: Wheeler writes a horribly POV (not to mention confusing and filled with grammatical errors) article, which I edit and improve. Unfortunetaly, I am certain there are many other similar articles that I am not aware of - because, despite Wheeler's paranoia, I don't follow anyone around (hell, I wouldn't have the time for it even if I wanted to). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This man has gone to my user page, went to every page I worked on and then deleted my work. He still has not answered on thing on the Ochlocracy and why he deleted the whole section on occurences of the word. He just deletes. All this man does is edit and deletes. I work hard I put up references, and this man deletes. Screw him and Screw this place.WHEELER 17:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What a cute little tantrum. I guess you haven't noticed my answer on the Ochlocracy talk page, have you? There was not a single time that I've refused to talk to you. But I guess rational discussion isn't one of your best skills. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is not a dignified way to communicate with someone who is aggrieved with you. Please refrain from reverting; it is an unnecessary slap to the face. Please utilize the talk pages instead, to build consensus. That is what group editing is all about. Sam Spade 21:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rudram

Sam, as I see from your conversation with Dab, that most people don't realize that the concept of a personal supreme Being was present in the Vedas itself. Shri Rudram described Shiva as the Universal Brahman so I have written an article about the hymn. Gayatri mantra is another ancient Vedic hymn that was initially addressed to the Sun but is now interpreted to be a prayer to the Impersonal Absolute and is chanted every day by orthodox Hindus. That mantra is part of Brahmanism.

Raj2004

"Most people" AFAIK (as far as I know) ascribe to the anti-Hindu rhetoric that all Hindu's are idoloters and polytheists. I of course go out of my way to diminish this, but it is a very real and VERY commonly believed insult Sam Spade 14:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam for your help! I am a born Hindu (born in the US)but I have attended Catholic and Jesuit schools so I am familar with Western thinking. The real form of theism present in Hinduism is monistic theism which embraces panentheism and monism. The universe is part of God and there is only one Universal Reality or Brahman which can never be described. Personal aspects of Brahman is Saguna Brahman which im Hinduism is Vishnu or Shiva. That's I say Hinduism in a few sentences. Ramakrishna, the great Hindu saint, found this same level of thinking in the nineteenth century. He found many people in Hinduism were confused and obssessed with excessive ritualism and superstitions which is not part of Hinduism. I would say that Ramakrishnawas the best exponent of Hinduism in the modern world. His disciple, Vivekanda was initially an agnostic and was one of those groups who ironically questioned Hinduism earlu as a college student and believed that science was the answer to all problems. see, http://www.vivekananda.org/biography.asp However, Ramakrishna showed him what true Hinduism was and as we know, Vivekananda became one of the greatest teachers and helped bring Hinduism's principles to America.

Raj2004

I agree with you, but would point out that some Brahman Hindu's believe lower caste Hindu's to be failing to worship God properly. I have spoken to a great many, and have even heard the (likely racist) suggestion that Hindu's below the level of twice born are not Hindu at all, but rather are a separate religion, and are not progressing spiritually nor worshipping God.

Even I disagree somewhat theologically as to the merits of / difficulty in - worshipping Brahman directly, and his personal nature. I feel that the universal consciousness (Atman) is where all prayers ought be directed, and I am very cautious about directing worship elsewhere (altho respect to all entities is important). For example, while many Christians worship Christ, I find this to be improper. Of course, I do not suggest that they (or anyone) is failing to progress spiritually, but I do feel that developing a personal relationship with he One God is vastly superior to that which can be had with incarnations, emanations, or lesser entities (angels, spirits, etc..). So while I don't think it is a debate about idolotry or polytheism, I do think there can be a valid concern about where worship is being directed, and I personally am of the opinion that it is vital to go to God directly, with as few intermediaries as possible. Sam Spade 14:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, there are some Brahmins who think like that. Notably, in the 15th century, the Brahmin guru of Kanaka Dasa, heard those sentiments and scolded them and reminded them that bhakti was the sole criterion. I agree with your sentiments. That's why I think praying to saints is a distraction but it is popular in all religions, even Islam. Thanks. Raj2004

I agree 100%, and think it is unfair that certain religions are stigmatized while others are not. Many protestants call Catholics "polytheists" for prayer to saints, and many Catholics call Greek Orthodox "idolaters" for praying to icons, and we all know some of the things Muslims sometimes say about Hindu's. Its all very foolish and unfair, and distracting from the true purpose of religion, which is to grow spiritually to be a more altruistic and goodly person, closer to God, rather than a bitter and exclusionary person, far away from God. In my eyes, at the core of all good faiths is a desire to be kind to ones neighbors, to protect and care for them. Unfortunately this is an idea that is too often the first to go when people begin reading their own desires into their doctrines. Sam Spade 14:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, it's that kind of thinking that has caused so many wars. No one has seen God but yet we are fighting over the Universal Reality which can never be defined. Raj2004

Sam, I wanted to point out a good Vedanta web site, http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/ It is interesting. Raj2004