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

Nightscream block; need assistance

We are having some problems with this guy at the Wolverine (comics) article. He has been violating the 3RR rule consistantly. His additions to the article have been considered by consensus on the discussion for that article to be innapropriate, yet he ignores the discussion and continues to revert. ScifiterX 15:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Users: ScifiterX (myself), SoM, T-1000, and GingerM are all of like mind concerning this user. Please see Wolverine (comics) discussion.

You'll need to make use of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I'm not an admin, just so you know, so I can't make the block. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

A Poor Example

On this page in a section called "RFC on SlimVirgin", I find I happen to think you're an asshole who fucks up everything he touches, you foolish, time-wasting bully!! [...] go ahead and complain about me if you want. It Is A Poor Example By An Ed. A Laughably Poor Example. 4.250.201.29 01:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I am very confused and dismayed by my experiences w Ed Poor, have you seen Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log/Sam Spade? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's one of the reasons I put the above here and at the village pump (misc I think). I agreed with your comment "Look, if you think I have violated the NPOV policy, explain to me where. Give specific links. I don't see it." I notice Ed chose to neither provide any specific example before or after your request nor to admit he was wrong. Kind of like Mel at Human. (I think Mel reverted me because he disagreed with the contents I deleted, thinking i was adding them. After finding out he was confused he made like he believed what I deleted "widely agreed upon by scientists" couldn't find a single scientist quote and now edits away elsewhere in spite of his be right back promise like jesus made ... but I digress). On another issue altogether ... learn to say "I'm sorry" even when you believe you did nothing wrong. Its a useful social skill. I'm sorry. (See how easy that was?) 4.250.177.52 17:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your right of course, it is utilitarian. I sorta (the 1st time in name only, I admit) tried to apologise, twice now. I am even able to give a sincere apology, so long as it is worded properly, when I mean it, but in my experience even that is of little value to the sort of people who hound me on the wiki. BTW, I'm happilly married, so I know full well how to apologise to someone I care about, even when I have no idea whats going on ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in general "even that is of little value to the sort of people who hound me on the wiki". However, here we have a specific case of a single person at a single specific site set up to air the difference between you two and he goes on record saying all I want is for Sam to say XYZ. I'd say XYZ (period). Then if and when he demonstates his word is worthless, I'd call a spade a spade. Or something like that. Not that you need ME to suggest things. Sorry about that. 4.250.168.127 23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I love you suggesting things. Supposedly your mean to slim virgin, which I take a mighty amount of offense to the idea of (esp. given her name! ;) but since I've never seen you be anything other than helpful and insightful, I'll keep on agreeing w you ;) As far as this apology, see [1] and [2]. I have apologised, what little good it does. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

Requesting an advocate

Sam Spade, I got your name from the Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries page. I am writing requesting an advocate involving an ongoing problem with another user(s) that has engaged in repeated personal attacks against not only myself but other editors to the Jehovah's Witnesses article and some related pages.

Tom Haws, a WP administrator, had been assisting me in this matter, but Tom has taken a Wikiholiday and so unfortunately cannot presently assist me. But prior to that he had warned the user(s) regarding his behavior, first on July 7th, 2005 and again on the 14th. (See Tom Haws comments for those dates in Books Critical of the Group)

Additionally, Tom suspected that the user Central is also using a sockpuppet. Per his suggestion I wrote to User talk:Tim Starling on 18 July 2005 requesting a sock puppet check. I am still waiting to hear from him regardng the suspected accounts:

• Eyesopen
• Central
• Elenap

I am trying to familiarize myself with the Dispute Resolution process and apply it as best as I can in this situation. Others as well as myself have tried reasoning with this/(these) individuals as best as possible to no avail. I conducted a survey regarding the issue in question to try and reach a consensus. The issue has been primarily about the Books Critical of the Group section of the JW main article. The results were 3:2 in favor of short descriptions for the books. Central obviously doesn't like this and has used that to justify his repeated and extended personal attacks. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. --DannyMuse 19:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the first step is to begin an RfC. I'll be glad to help set it up, if thats what you'd like to do. We would need 1 other user, besides yourself, who has experienced difficulty w this user, and has unsuccessfully asked them to make the needed improvements, (perferably on the users talk page). User:Cobaltbluetony has done this, btw, so you may want to see if he is interested in helping. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. I'll read the RfC page and contact User:Cobaltbluetony and maybe also Duffer. It's too bad Tom Haws had bid WP farewell! He could have been a great help. --DannyMuse 05:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Number of Visits

Hi Sam,

Thanks for your welcome a while ago. I've been recently exploring the vote for deletion pages. I have two questions I haven't been able to find answers for (I've been poking around help pages). The first is how long does a vote for deletion vote last? The second, is there a way to find out how many times a certain page has been visited? This information might be helpful in establishing how useful a certain page is in relation to others.

If you have answers or can direct me in the appropriate direction taht would be great. I don't mind doing my own research but I just can't quite seem to find the information. Thanks! Granite T. Rock 01:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Number of Visits. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A Case for Libel

I have reason to believe that admin Jayjg has commited libel against the spiritual leader of the Ebionite Jewish community, Shemayah Phillips. In brief, by falsely labeling him as a former Baptist minister, and repeatedly restoring this misinformation when others tried to correct it, admin Jayjg allowed this to be propagated across the internet. Mr. Phillips was finally forced to come onto Wikipedia and put a stop to it, but the damage to his reputation remains. See my detailed arguments and documentation on the Ebionites Talk page. I have contacted Mr. Phillips privately so that he is aware of all the facts. Please look into what I consider to be a very serious matter. --Ovadyah 03:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Hi Sam. Someone requested a message be removed from your talk archive so I've edited it out. I hope you don't mind. Let me know if there's any problems with that. Thanks. Angela . 15:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've replied by email. Angela . 22:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your signature

I like your new signature. What does it represent? - Tεx τ urε 22:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Magic maybe? Or a wave? I'm not for sure, but I like it. Also it allows people to easilly write me by email, and has the added benefit of confusing certain "haters", since its harder to tell that its me ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

My only objection would be that taking individually it looks like you are frowning. (Especially on this page where you get one black frown between two blue ones.) How about making it smile? °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º° or even just a wave ¸,ø¤º°°º¤ø,¸,ø¤º° (one and a half) - Tεx τ urε 17:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Taken that way, perhaps its an indicator of my wiki-stress! I do feel a bit antagonised, not by you of course. Indeed, if you'd like, feel free to stop by for a free lunch sometime, today I had oat bran ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ayyavazhi Related Topics

Hi, this category is listed as deletion as per Cfd. I am just removing them as maintenance. I did not recat, yet, as I have to find an appropriate cat to place them in, and the stub, should serve as a sem-cat'ing now. Is there another reason you want the cat there? Thank you. ∞Who ?¿? 06:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello Sam, could you please help to resolve the dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ted_Kennedy ? I am a single contributer who is under attack by a group of editors, one of which proclaims his hostility in his profile . JamesMLane has clearly stated in his profile "Hostile to the right wing" I have had to seek protection for the page and it is now under protection. Thank you for any assistance you can give.

Hello again Sam, Thanks for keeping the Ted Kennedy page under protection. I wish the editors would negociate on this issue but they are very set in their ways, this might take a while. I have noticed that Jmabel was able to fix a typo after the page was protected. Could you also fix a typo? There is a rogue colon in this line, http://www.fatboy.cc/: Ted Kennedy photos, audio, info Could you remove the : after the / ? Thanks for your help.

Hello Sam, I am having a problem at the Wolverine (comics) article. Basically, there was an editor who was making changes that the other editors did not approve of. We attempted to discuss the matter with him to come to a resolution and he attempted to start an edit war. As a result of his actions he was temporarilly blocked and the page was locked to prevent him from modifying it. However, an administrator has become involved that, by my estimation, is not being objective. This person is telling people what they should say and what there opinions should be and essentially not making a lot of sense. On top of that someone called them a pillock and when that happened they became completely unfair. Its kind of a mess and I would really appreciate it if you could look into it because I have a high opinion of your resourcefulness, objectivity, fairness, and diplomacy. ScifiterX 20:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Brahmanism

It is Smartism which incorporates Advaita philosophy. The great saint, Ramakrishna, during his spiritual quest, studied under an Advaitan scholar, Totapuri to experience Nirguna Brahman. "Totapuri teaches advaita maarga for Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. Ramakrishna cuts ‘Devi’ (the form) with the sword of ‘viveka’ (discrimination). Why does he do this? To reach the state of ‘nirguna’ (formless state) that is beyond the state of ‘saguna’ (form). Here, the sword of ‘viveka’ is only a ‘bhaava’. He cuts asunder the very form of the god that he had been worshipping for so long with the sword of discrimination. Only then is he able to go to ‘nirguna’ (formless state). Devi also desires only this. This is the reason that Devi sends Totapuri to him" http://www.madhuramurali.org/swamigal/essay/devikalotram/ji_devikalotram12b.html

Practical Smartism, also includes the Ishta Deva concept. Ramakrishna concentrated on God with form, Devi but also experienced the Nirguna Brahman. A good reference to read Ramakrishna's experiences of Nirguna Brahman, experience of Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Jesus Christ and the Islamic experience is detailed in the 1005 page book, Gospel of Ramrakrishna. I read some of it but it's a long book. available at http://www.sriramakrishnamath.org/books/Elist.asp?ProductType=MA01

Hope this helps. Raj2004 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Smartism includes both forms of worship, worship of the impersonal Absloute and Saguna Brahman, God with form. worship of Saguna Brahman, according to advaita philosopy is a conduit for realizing Nirguna Brahman. This in contrast with Ramanuja and Madhva, who stressed a personal God.

see, http://www.nalanda.demon.co.uk/vedanta.htm#The%20Theist%20Revolt Even in Advaita, and smartism, saguna brahman is seen as conduit to nirguna brahman unlike the more strict theistic philosophies.

Raj2004 23:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC) More info: swami sivananda said,

"Sankara’s Supreme Brahman is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.

The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.

Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika)."

from http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_95

More info about Smartism:

"Shankara Vedaanta, also called Advaita or Non-dualism thinks of the Supreme God as Para-Brahman and even in Bhakti mode feel free to visualize this Ultimate as any Ishtha Devata (favorite deity). The philosophy is that each one of us is the Ultimate God, but yet unrealized. It is Maayaa or illusion that makes one feel distinct from others. All is one – there is no two: is the Advaita philosophy. In South India, Advaitins are sometimes referred to as Smaartaas or non-Vaishnavas or Ayyars (sometimes written as Iyers, which is a Tamil corruption of “Arya”). Much mistakenly they are also referred to as Shaivites, which is a popular misnomer. Shankaraacharya was truly very broadminded. Even though he believed in the ultimate supremacy of reason and knowledge (Jnyaana), he attached great importance to devotion (Bhakti), temples and rituals. Accordingly, he incorporated the Shanmatas or six worship practices [of Ganapati, Kumaara or Subramanya, Surya (Sun), Shakti or Divine Mother, Shiva and Vishnu] under the aegis of his Advaita-Brahmavaada and introduced the Smaarta-panchaayatana Pooja system for his followers."

from http://www.ssvt.org/Education/Hinduism%20FAQ.asp (another great site!)

Please let me know if this helps!

Raj2004 00:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Its all very confusing to me, but yes, your are helping, and I appreciate it. Does anyone have Brahma or Brahman as their Ishtha Devata? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No. Brahman, by definition, is devoid of attributes and hence no one refers to Nirguna Brahman as ista devata. Istha devata refers to God with form. That's why for most people, Brahman-reliazation is dfficult for persons with embodied bodies. (i.e., humans) we have difficulty comprehendhing something that cannot be defined. Even the most absrtact concept of God in Judaeo-christian tradition evokes human characteristics. what totapuri took 40 years to realize Nirguna Brahman took Ramakrishna a mere few days!

Raj2004 00:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Because my God is both formless and personal, absolute and immanant. I respect other entities, but worship only the one God, that God which is the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be, but he is also our own soul. I find Tat Tvam Asi to be a very helpful quote on the subject. Hinduism is very agreeable to me on the matter, but I'm curious as to which organised group is nearest. Perhaps the Theosophical Society of India, or Arya Sarmaj? 00:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Saivites also believe in your ideas. They believe Siva is formless and personal, absolute and immanent. That's why there is no murti of Siva and they worship Him abstractly in the form of linga. Following quotes about the linga:

"Sri K. Thirugna Sambantha, in his excellent web site of Saivism, [1], explains that the Siva lingam is the ruparupa aspect because it is neither a manifested form of Siva, nor is it formless, because the linga is a tangible piece of stone, and an symbol of God. Thus, it is intermediate between the formless Absolute, Parasiva, which is beyond the sensory perception of man, and the many manifest forms of Siva.

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains in the lexicon section of his book, Dancing with Siva, that "Sivalinga is the most prevalent icon of Siva, found in virtually all Siva temples. It is a rounded, elliptical, aniconic image, usually set on a circular base, or peetham. The Sivalinga is the simplest and most ancient symbol of Siva, especially of Parasiva, God beyond all forms and qualities. The Peetham represents Parashakti, the manifesting power of God. Lingas are usually of stone (either carved or naturally existing, svayambhu, such as shaped by a swift-flowing river), but may also be of metal, precious gems, crystal, wood, earth or transitory materials such as ice. According to the Karana Agama (6), a transitory Sivalinga may be made of 12 different materials: sand, rice, cooked food, river clay, cow dung, butter, rudraksha seeds, ashes, sandalwood, darbha grass, a flower garland, or molasses."

Swami Sivananda,states that the linga represents the formless, attributeless Nirguna Brahman or the formless Supreme Being Lord Siva, who is the indivisible, all-pervading, eternal, auspicious, ever-pure, immortal essence of this vast universe, the undying soul seated in the chambers of your heart, and the Indweller, innermost Self or Atman and who is identical with the Supreme Brahman.

Saivites believe in the following:

"Nirguna Brahman: God "without qualities (guna)," i.e., formless, Absolute Reality, Parabrahman, or Parasiva--totally transcending guna (quality), manifest existence and even Parashakti, all of which exhibit perceivable qualities. --Saguna Brahman: God "with qualities;" Siva in His perfections of Parashakti and Parameshvara--God as superconscious, omnipresent, all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful." http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/b.html

I think arya samaj, like saivism believe in similar things. But I don't think arya samaj believes in a personal God. That's one key difference. Hope this helps.

Raj2004 00:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

also, I do think your beliefs are more similar to theosphical society than arya samaj.

Raj2004 02:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, I have read some books of theirs which I found very agreeable, similar to the bhagavad gita. Krishna is a nice Avatar, but while I am reverent and respectful to all holy beings, I have a strong instinct to worship only the Atman as a whole, rather than any one incarnation. This is why I could not be a smarta, while at the same time I am respectful towards each of the deities.

Perhaps my monotheism comes from having a christian background, but even there, I do not feel comfortable worshiping Jesus, or any manlike god. I have respect for their status and believe in each of them, but I think as in chapter 8 of the Gita, that all prayer is to one God who is all, the foundation of being. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

smartism holds brahman or atman is the supreme but for embodied human beings, can be conceived as saguna brahman, or God with form. In a sense, smartism is midway between theosophical society and Christianity and other religions.

I am an attorney with interest in science. (i.e. technology attorney.)

That's why in smartism, the form of God is irrelevant because they like, theosophical society believe in the Ultimate. (nirguna brahman)

I think I have a good understanding of religion as I was educated in a Jesuit school and have personal knowledge of smarta hinduism from parents and self-study.

Very impressive, I could tell that you were well educated, but you knowledge of religion is so great I assumed that was your area of specialization!

Am I right to think that smarta has some similarities with catholicism, its reverence for Ishtha Devata very much reminds me of the Roman Catholic reverence for saints, and the Vigin mary, using them as an intermediary / focus for worship of the greater God who is in all things? I hope my questions don't tire you, feel free to take as much time as you like, I find the subject endlessly fascinating :) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No. Smarta Hindus, in general, do not venerate saints, only forms of God. Only exception. Madhva followers use saints as a conduit to God. Saguna Brahman (God with form) and Nirguna Brahman, as you term the greater God are one and the same. Smarta Hindus, like the Theosophical society believe in the Ultimate Formless, Brahman. Saguna Brahman is used to realize Brahman. Ayya Vazhi seems to go one step further. although they recognize Ishta Deva and do incorporate mythology, they stress worship of God without form exclusively. Smarta Hinduism allows for both forms of worship.

The difference between the two forms of Brahman are best told in a saying by Ramakrishna:

Water and ice are one and the same. God with form (ice) is easier to visualize than God without form. Here's the quote:

"As water when congealed becomes ice, so the visible form of the Almighty is the materialised manifestation of the all-pervading formless Brahman. It may be called, in fact, Sat-kit-ânanda solidified. As the ice, being part and parcel of the water, remains in the water for a time and afterwards melts in it, so the Personal God is part and parcel of the Impersonal. He rises from the Impersonal, remains there, and ultimately merges into it and dis­appears"

It is interesting to note that Ramakrishna experienced the formless absolute as well as God with form.

Your questions don't tire me. I wanted to understand the intellectual basis of Hinduism rather than the mere "popular" hinduism practiced by the masses. I doubt most Catholics, for example, have read Thomas Aquinas, for example. Popular Catholicism is the one catered to the masses. Hinduism couldn't be around for thousands of years if it didn't offer something intellectual satisfication.

Since you respect both Hinduism and Christianity, some would call you a Neo-Vedantist. It's not a popular term but seems to fit your philosophy.

"Neo-Indian religion encourages Hindus to follow any combination of theological, scriptural, sadhana and worship patterns, regardless of sectarian or religious origin. Extending out of and beyond the Smarta system of worshiping the Gods of each major sect, it incorporates holy icons from rom all religions, including Jesus, Mother Mary and Buddha." from http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/n.html

Yes, you are very correct, I would be a Vedantist. I read [3], and found it extremely agreeable.

well, specifically Advaita Vedanta. Vedanta also includes Dvaita. Since you believe Brahman can take form and be without form, then your views are in line with advaita and smartism. I believe theosophical society and arya samaj only focus on Brahman without form.

Raj2004 23:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go even further to say that he is every form, and allows every form. The "enlightened" / avatars / incarnations are of course more pure and perfect forms (as would be a particularly beautiful and holy tree, temple, Rudraksha etc...), but being forms I prefer to worship only the atman, which is beyond form. Thank you so much for the wonderful discussion, I have found it very helpful and progressive. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, again that's what smartism holds. every form in the universe is part of God. Relevant quote from Gita to support your beliefs:

"The Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna, causing all beings, by His illusive power, to revolve as if mounted on a machine", Chapter 18, verse 61

also see, http://www.chinmaya-chicago.org/gita/topic_1.htm

God is also beyond form. That's why the verses of Vishnu sahasranama or Vishnu's names are non-anthromorphic.

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Sahasranama "Interestingly, the first few names, in particular, do not describe features of Vishnu in detail and hence are not anthropomorphic in nature and instead focus on His inherent nature or characteristics such as pervading the universe and as destroyer of sin. While Vishnu is commonly portrayed with human features, Swami Tapasyananda, in his book, Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, reminds readers that Vishnu pervades everything and is not anthropomorphic. He has no particular material form but can manifest in any form, and is a center of all force, power, will, auspiciousness, goodness, beauty, grace, responsiveness, etc.

As Swami Tapasyananda said, "Vishnu is the Indwelling Spirit in all beings and the whole cosmos constitute His body." As Vishnu is the all-pervading Spirit and the Supreme Personality, anthromorphism is deemphasized in Vishnu sahasranama."

Raj2004 15:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Raj2004 15:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding mythology, I love mythology, and have studied it since I was able to read, from all cultures, greek, norse, egyptian, celtic and etc... With so many deities, so many rituals required by each... I focus on the Ātman, or Brahman, both with and without form. For me, this is simpler, and more correct. Each book and mythology and guru offers wisdom, but I think the purest truth comes from within our heart, our inner light. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine

Hi. Thanks for your email and your time. I do not really mind an arbitration case if it can break the stalemate on the articles. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Ultramarine 22:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper

I see that in June you tried to reason with Famekeeper. I am a patient man, but have given up on him, and have posted a formal Request for Comment about his conduct. Could you do Wikipedia a favor by visiting the RfC, and signing it if you agree? Thank you. Robert McClenon 19:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

RE: user talk:FeloniousMonk

While I agree that FM's comments had no place on talk:human I do not approve of you calling him an asshole when you did so. Its truth value aside, its rather close to breaching WP:NPA, or breaching it clearly, depending on your interpretation. I generally don't care so long as its not continued harrasment and off the article talk pages, but I am not impressed. I do hope you will either recind or apologize for that particular comment.

I have no opinion on any previous interactions between you and FM, or you and anyone else. Barring my observation of further conflict, I will continue to do so.--Tznkai 20:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, it was not the best comment I could have made. I suppose I could try to delete it, but I doubt he would appreciate that, given the history. Anyways, it was not an ideal response on my part I do agree. As far as your opinion of me, I most certainly would like you to form one, and I hope it can be a positive one, despite the efforts of unamed parties. I feel confident that if you look into my Contributions, you will see that that I am focused on bettering the project, providing quality content to our readers. Inter-editor personality conflict should not be part of that, and I have done my very best to 1st take my conflict off project (the one email he recieved), and then to remove it from the article talk space. I agree my comments to him have been less than ideal, but I also would point out that I would have put up with far less from another, with far greater response, had this been a in-person volunteer experience. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. I think its best for all involved if I ignore the history for now and focus on future interactions.--Tznkai 20:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Distribution of Islam.jpg

hi Sam -- the image as it is now is alright; check the upload history; The former version may have been modified in good faith, but the modifications were unsourced and qualify as original research (and I have my doubts about their factuality). Bottom line, it is unproblematic to use the image now, although I think Image:Islam by country.png is nicer (but it does not contain the same information, exactly; the jpg has better geographical resolution while the png has better proportional (percentage) resolution). dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

FYI

Ed Poor says "Since I am the most well-known Moonie at Wikipedia, I hardly think Adam has an excuse for this remark. Indeed, I am the only Unificationist who dares to use his real name here. Possibly the others are daunted due to this sort of treatment, and who can blame them? I know at least 4 who post under pseudonyms only." at [4] 4.250.177.214 17:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)