User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive August 2004

links

Many thanks for the links Sam! I shall visit them and contact you if I have any doubts.

Richard Ponce-de-Leon 04:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful :D

Glad to be of assistance, Sam Spade 04:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers!

Really thanks, it's good to feel welcome in the community. I'm still working my way into the Wikipedia, but my fingers are sometimes faster than my conscience, which means that I've already tried a few edits (of course, I've chosen subjects that I was familiar with, and took care not to copy any copyrighted material). I hope that it will stick into the pages... until someone improves upon them, that's it. User:Carribeiro (signature added after by Sam Spade 17:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Was I doing something wrong?

Just got a list of links from you. Was I doing something wrong, or was it just a welcome note?

Ieshan 15:41, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks =)

Oh, thanks =)

And, your "Be Bold!" link should have "Audendum Est! Fortes Adiuvat Ipsa Venus!" (Be Bold! Venus herself favors the brave!) from Tibullus. =)

The information was useful- Ieshan 02:56, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

172

After all this time, I have the urge to bluntly ask you this. You seem to follow me around and try to provoke conflicts between other users and me. What is it that you want from me? What can I do to get you to leave me alone? 172 21:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An insightful question. I only want one thing from you: for you to obey policy. You are a very good writer, producing far more bulk content than I. I appreciate this. You have been here a long time, and have done allot of good for the project. I applaud these efforts. However, you have done a number of things which I have found unhelpful, such as revert warring, adding POV content without clarifying it as such, incivility in talk pages, personal attacks (like calling me a troll) and so forth. That stuff is bad. I don't want you to go away. I'm not going to go away. I want to produce a high quality encyclopedia, and I think you do as well. You are not the first to misunderstand my intentions, and I sincerely apologize for any unhappiness I have caused you. I do not want you to be unhappy. I want you to try harder to conform to the rules and guidelines here. Let us be intellectually honest, willing to politely debate, and accepting of the diversity of opinions necessary to make this an even better encyclopedia than it already is. I want you to be an editor here. Sam Spade 21:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I have made mistakes, along with just about every user. (You have been accused of all the things of which you're accusing me right now.) I think that at the root of the problem between the two of us is a degree of mutual mistrust and suspicion. Because of this bad history, we are both probably inclined to interpret our actions as evidence as bad faith, which thus enflames all these situations unnecessarily. I think that it will minimize disruption if I stay uninvolved in your behavioral disputes and you try to avoid my disputes with other users that don't concern you directly. (This was the mutual understanding that ended my series of disputes with VeryVerily) In turn, I can stop stating or implying that you're a troll if you can stop setting out to demonstrate over and over again that I'm a rogue sysop; the withdrawal of your arbitration may also be a positive step. (BTW, I will concede my share of the responsibility for the bad history between the two of us. I suppose that I was condescending toward you on a few occasions. Given my background, I'm not used to the egalitarianism on Wiki; and I'm used to having the final say on things. For this I'll apologize to you.) 172 21:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is appreciated and understood. I will place a mention of this dialogue as evidence in the current case request before the arbitration committee. You are right to think that I see you as an archetype of the "rogue sysop", right up there with User:RickK. I will not step out entirely, but I will maintain a backseat position. I will also let you know that I strongly oppose a permanent sanction against you, and any blocking. I do feel you have done a great deal of harm over time, mainly thru setting a bad example to other users and sysops. The idea that actions such as you have been known to take are acceptable or to be condoned and expected is IMO the greatest danger to the project whatsoever. Vandals and troublemakers cause precious little harm IMO, and are easily weeded out or reverted. Respected and well-known users such as yourself however simply must set a good example in their conduct. Of course mistakes will be made, but that is not the current problem. Due (in my assessment) to your sense of empowerment and difficulty accepting the egalitarian nature of the project, I feel that you have vigorously acted against the projects best interests at times. I do not think you did this in bad faith. I get the impression that you feel what you did was for the best, but I (and many others) clearly disagree.

What is the conclusion that is best for the community? Surely not removing a generally beneficial, long-term member of the community such as yourself. Rather I seek a primarily symbolic response from the arbitration committee, letting you (and most importantly the community in general) know that admins are to be held to a similar standard as the rest of us, and that they can and will be held accountable. My thought is that temporary desysopping would be for the best, not so much to punish you, but to make it clear the community position is solidly in favor of egalitarian policy enforcement. I will also mention that any public penitence or apologies would likely be well received by the community, and would be an important part of the forgiving and forgetting process. I hope my thoughts on this matter are well understood, as I mean you no distress. As I have been saying, you are a valued community member, and it is vital that you both understand and obey community policies, and that you remain an important member of our community.

Sam Spade 22:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I think that your interactions with all users, including myself, will be more constructive if you focus not only on how you see other users but take into consideration how other users see you. Once again, aren't you aware that many users accuse you of all the things you're accusing me of now? So, in this sense your preoccupation with "holding me accountable"-- for what in specific that hasn't been resolved I'm not aware-- strikes me as unreasonable. Neither of us is in the position to throw stones; so we both should stop throwing stones.

It will be better for the community if I stop going around from page to page, attempting to mobilize support for efforts to sanction you and if you do the same. There is a bad history between the two of us, which makes us both prone to misunderstand each other. I likely see you as more disruptive than you actually are and vice versa. This makes us prone to overreact to each other, thus enflaming the situation and making it harder to resolve conflicts. Thus, the community will benefit if I stay uninvolved in your disagreements with others and vice versa. (Other users are perfectly capable of entering the fray if they disagree with what we are doing; and others are far more likely to get either of us to come to an amicable, reasonable agreement with other users.)

In short, I don't want to be a perceived threat to what you want to accomplish on Wikipedia and vice versa. I can start off with a clean slate if you can. 172 10:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with this line of reasoning is that my motivation has nothing to do with self-protection. I am motivated by my concern for the project. If you feel I am in any way behaving in a manner detrimental to the project, I ask you to bring the specifics to my attentions. If I should fail to improve my performance, I shall encourage you to utilize Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as a process to achieve what is best for the project. I assure you I am not "going around from page to page, attempting to mobilize support for efforts to sanction you" and I have no plans to do such. In truth, you are less the problem than the idea (held by not a few admins) that your policy violations are acceptable.

I will however give you a way out. If you apologize on the arbitration page for past policy violations, and avow at minimum to strive to become an example of how other users might maintain a policy abiding status, I will see that as an acceptable conclusion to the matter, and will withdraw my request until such time as it would again become necessary, in hopes that the occasion shall never occur. Again, I mean you no ill will, but rather only insist that you conform to the ideals of the project itself, and the Policies and guidelines which allow it to exist. A good day to you sir, God be with you.

Sam Spade 17:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am uninterested in rehashing disputes that have already been resolved. I am especially uninterested in rehashing my disputes with other users that did not concern you with you. You are perfectly aware that I can accuse you of everything you're accusing me of above; and you're perfectly aware that I can document this and provide evidence. (I can revive Danny's arbitration request against you just as easily as you can revive VeryVerily's arbitration request with me.) However, this will just be a major distraction accomplishing nothing. That's why I offer you the choice of settling this 'out of court,' so to speak. (BTW, you have a libertarian bent-- you of all people should realize that this is better settled by dialogue between the two of us, not a slow, cumbersome, bureaucratic committee.) 172 18:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To that last I will at least partially agree, not that I am a libertarian (I'm likely to vote libertarian in the upcoming U.S. presidential election it is true, but mainly as a protest vote. I am also far from decided. My political views, as I understand them, are listed here, if you are interested.) but that these matters are best resolved via communication between the concerned parties. It would appear that you are more comfortable speaking to myself than with User:Lir or User:Plato. I am willing to act as some sort of intermediary with them to explore their thoughts on the matter, which hopefully would result an actionable solution. The problem is that it has come to this, the second loftiest tier of Wiki-Hierarchy (next to a direct appeal to Laird Jimbo himself.) for us to communicate. I am confident that our communications, if continued amicably, will result in an amiable conclusion. But what is there in our history that assures me of such a continuation if I were to unilaterally drop all requests for intervention? You (and a handful of other admins) have regularly deleted my statements on your personal talk page(s), and ignored my statements on article talk pages (or responded to them rudely) for some time. I don't want to go back to where we started again. I don't want to repeat this downward spiral. What I want is for us to be intellectually honest (i.e. being civil, accepting diversity of opinion, and willing to accept NPOV). I am open to any logical solution, but dropping everything without resolution and retreating is not one of them. Sam Spade 22:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You (and a handful of other admins) have regularly deleted my statements on your personal talk page(s), and ignored my statements on article talk pages (or responded to them rudely) for some time. If you have evidence that any administrator has abused admin privileges (e.g., inappropriately protecting pages, blocking users, deleting pages), please submit a request for arbitration, a request for comment, or otherwise to take action on the matter. Without any evidence, I don't understand how your scores of conflicts with other users can be explained in terms of the fact that many of these users are admins while you're not an admin. (My impression is that your comments suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be an administrator. Administrators are not vested with any powers that you lack. Wikipedia:Administrators are simply normal users who are trusted to use the few additional responsibilities they are given. They are not "leaders" or editors; indeed, admins cannot act as admins on pages they have been actively editing.)

Your statement begs the question of why so many other users have ignored your statements on article talk pages or have responded to them tersely. I think that you're making me a scapegoat for this. This is quite unfair to me, as I have only had a handful of interactions with you; and I am listening to you respectfully right now. Rather than blaming me for the problems you've had with other users, I think that you will become a more constructive user if you start considering patters in your own behavior and work that are at the root of the problem. 172 11:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In order for us to maintain a useful dialogue, I ask that you read over your above statement (as of 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) ) and realize its irony. Sam Spade 16:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do you think that the "administrators" are conspiring against you? 172 19:19, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cough, choke, chortle...

My gracious no!, lol... Ok, let me see..

You say "Your statement begs the question of why so many other users have ignored your statements ... or have responded to them tersely"

This would seem to relate to your current predicament, begging the question of why there is so much conflict surrounding yourself, no? Despite your obvious attempts to redirect the discussion to one focused on my own failings (which are many and egregious, to be certain ;), the subject at hand is yourself. Have you pondered as to why you are surrounded by so much conflict?

You say "I think that you're making me a scapegoat for this"

Heavens no, I'm trying to make you an example, from which other rogue admins (and potential rogue admins) as well as lay-users might learn.

and finally you say "start considering patterns in your own behavior and work that are at the root of the problem"

To which I respond Please do! :D

Really, I didn't mean to make such a comedy out of this all, but I had thought my mention of irony would have reaped more productive results. I admit I am a man of somewhat merry disposition, and jokes all too often fail online, but how you read conspiracy in, I don't know. In truth I am grateful, your previous statement had irritated me somewhat, and this comic relief has been refreshing. No hard feelings I hope? Shall we resume our journey towards enlightened policy observance?

Sam Spade 22:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I can see that I am going to have no luck encourage you to be less disruptive. I am going to revive Danny's arbitration request against you. There's no need to respond to this; this conversation is obviously over. 172 23:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To my opponent

I wish you the best of luck in this month's Arbitration Committee election. May the best Wikipedian win! _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 10:30, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think at least two of us will be winning, no? Perhaps even more, there has been talk of "reserve members" and all other sorts of foolishness ;). In any case I appreciate your kind thoughts and words, and wish you all the best, Sam Spade 18:15, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

! Reserve members? It'll be like baseball! _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 22:46, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

The importance of my contributions

The reason I stress my contributions and protect authorship is that they are the only proof of my expertise. I don't have a college degree that I can point to. Most of the contributors here have college degrees and can point to that as a matter of substance. I am a second class citizen and I have nothing. The only way to gain honor and respect is the quality, depth, and significance of my contributions. This is in lieu of a college degree. My submissions are a sign of my learning and professionalism and are necessary for my honor and respect.WHEELER 17:17, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are no second-class citizen to me. Indeed you are one of the very best amongst us here in citations and verifiability. Your weakness seems to be in the interpersonal aspects of the group editing process. For example, if you want to protect your authorship, the wikipedia is perhaps the worst place to be putting it. Are you familiar with the GNU Free Documentation License? I suggest you read that, along with M:Foundation issues and contemplate if this is something you want your writing to be associated with. I hope you decide you want to continue to donate your writing to the project, but you need to be aware that is what you are doing when you hit that "save page" button. Keep in touch, Sam Spade 17:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't get tired of them

Keep those haiku coming. :-) And thanks for your comment. I considered leaving out the sentence you noted, but decided that if I was too nice to have it be necessary, it wouldn't harm anything, but if I was ever wrong-headed enough that someone was offended, I'd want it there. I'll probably tweak that statement a little, however, given time and thought, and I'll keep your comments in mind. Thanks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not *that* new here :P

I've been doing numerous minor edits for a while, beginning before I registered. :)

Nevertheless, thank you for the welcome.

Jonathan Grynspan 00:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And thank you for being here :) Sam Spade 00:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks also from me. I appreciate the links: they look very useful. --AlexG 21:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 revisited

As Fred seems to be hinting here, it is obviously not in your interests to expose yourself to the arbitration committee. While I'm not afraid whatsoever of the request by you, Plato, and Lir regarding New Imperialism (by the time that case comes up Lir will have likely been banned already, making it effectively a dead case), my request will quite possibly be your day of reckoning. It is in your interest more so than it is in my interest that we both withdraw our respective cases. I am willing to withdraw my request if you are willing to withdraw yours, though, because I feel that this is an utter waste of time. In short, I am willing to reach a détente with you, as User:Danny did when he withdrew his case, if you will allow me to do so. 172 15:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Day of reckoning? Wtf? Next time, come correct if you want me to respect what you are saying. Sam Spade 18:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look, we can either have dueling arbitration cases or we can just ignore each other/avoid crossing paths with each other. I certainly prefer the latter, but this is not possible without your cooperation. 172 18:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to cooperate, and to communicate. You have seen my demands. A formal, public apology for past mistakes, and a vow to at minimum "strive to set a good example of policy observance". Short of that, I will maintain my RfAR. Lir or Plato are a side issue, and banned or no, will in no way take away from my request. I will continue dialogue w you, but request that it be polite and respectful. I will accept mediation if you, or the arbitration committee requests it, but I am not currently of the opinion that it would meet w success, nor that you would accept it, so I am not myself requesting it. I agree w Fred that you are beginning to overburden the arbitration system w spurious requests, designed to protect you rather than to better the wikipedia. You revival of Danny's request is a perfect example of this.

"I am withdrawing my complaint against Sam Spade. I think it is unnecessary, and that a modus vivendi with Sam is possible. I would also ask that no one cites me as a reason to complain against Sam. This does not mean that I agree with everything Sam does, but that I believe that with patience and good will we can find common ground to cooperate. Danny 01:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)"[1]

Take a long look at what he said. The attempt to distract matters and make me the villain will only bring more hardship. I strongly recommend you do as Fred suggested and search for examples of my failing to utilize talk pages. You will find that I copiously comment about controversial edits, and never engage in revert war without discussion. There is no smoking gun. Have a look:

Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

I'm afraid you are reading a bit more into my comments than I intend to communicate. I see both of you as vulnerable as you are both bull-headed, that's all. Fred Bauder 18:56, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Practically every user makes mistakes. Are you going to demand now that every user who rubs you the wrong way is going to have to make 'formal, public apologies' on RfAR? This is absurd. You of all people lack the standing to demand an apologies of anyone. 172 19:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Heh. My request is spurious while yours is "designed to protect Wikipedia." Sure. 172 19:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mix egalitarian premises with insinuations of my lowliness and lack of standing. I find this a confusing mix. Are you sincere in thinking the problem here is one of interpersonal difficulties between the two of us? Shall I refer you to User:Sam Spade/Clients? Sam Spade 19:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is an interpersonal dispute. We don't work well together and should avoid crossing paths, let alone dwelling on the past. 172 19:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't like that conclusion, but may be willing to accept it. What about the larger concerns about your edit warring and POV advocacy? Sam Spade 19:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And what about your... That can be addressed in the future by other users who will disagree with either of us. Neither of us should be self-righteous. We should just leave each other alone. 172 19:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this straight: You suggestion is that we drop all RfAR regarding one another, and avoid one another (i.e. no mediation, or continued dialogue). If one of us does anything to warrant it, someone else can RfAR regarding them if and when necessary. Is this a fair and correct summary of your proposal? Sam Spade 19:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and I should try to stay uninvolved in disputes between you and other users and vice versa. If worse comes to worse and we are in a disagreement, we should both stay focused entirely on the content, not the personalities. 172 19:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But isn't that a mutual failure? Or perhaps even worse, a failure solely on my part, and a victory for yourself? I, for example am profoundly unfearful of the mediation attempt against me, (altho I admit it is rather unflattering to be accused thusly), other than the possibility of it annoying the overworked and understaffed arbitration committee. Actually I see it as a much-needed opportunity to explore admin abuses, the atmosphere of incivility on the wiki generally, as well as a method of publicly proving myself innocent of all charges via acquittal. I have long had an ugly stigma against me on the wiki, and I see the opportunity to explain myself publicly and be analyzed before the arbitration committee as perhaps the most effective method of validating my contributions. Also, I am honestly concerned that withdrawing at this time would give you a mandate for continued "POV crusading" and rule bending (I mean no offense by this last, only trying to be sincere in my clarity).

Additionally, doesn’t this ignore the obvious fact that we so often edit the same pages, and that a policy of avoidance is therefore unrealistic? And with both of us accusing the other of some misdeed or another, isn’t it clear that at least one (if not both) of us is misbehaving in some manner deserving of correction? In what way is the community best served by either of us hiding from the light of arbitration?

Sam Spade 20:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should avoid finger-pointing. If disruption is avoided, this is a "victory" for everyone. 172 20:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no reason for us to go to mediation. We're not disputing the content of any articles right now. That means that there is no dispute, barring these arbitration cases. 172 20:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If we both withdraw our arbitration requests, this will indeed to more to end this "ugly stigma against yourself" than these dueling arbitration cases. 172 20:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. We haven't really had a conflict over editing since Fascism, which was months ago. VeryVerily and I cross paths far more often than you cross paths with me, and VV and I have been able to avoid conflict with each other since we agreed to our detente. 172 20:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am honestly uncertain about the best way forward. I'd be interested in hearing some an advice from an arbitrator, if that is at all possible. Sam Spade 18:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The other arbitrators cannot give you advice. I can only because I have recused myself. (This would be totally unacceptable in the practice of law, any judge who recused themselves and then offered advice to the litigants would be off the bench in a flash). My general advice both in real life and on Wikipedia to to avoid litigation, it is a damaging and aggravating thing, of course, the means of avoiding litigation is to avoid conflict. This nice idea can only be carried so far if one is to edit with integrity. That said, I think you could both pledge to patiently communicate and negotiate with one another should conflict arise and to both go to mediation and in good faith attempt to work things out before you make arbitration requests. Fred Bauder 21:30, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

OK, in light of Fred's kindly and appropriate advice, I will agree to withdrawing my request for arbitration if 172 agrees to do likewise with his, AND agrees to attempting mediation. Sam Spade 21:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mediation for what? There are no edit wars between the two of us. There will be no conflict if we can ignore each other. And believe me, I want to ignore you. 172 23:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well? Are we going to withdraw our dueling arbitration requests and reach a détente or what? 172 16:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I have said all along, I am uncomfortable with the idea of simply ending things here, leaving them as they are. I have thus far offered two compromises, both of which you have declined. I will offer one more, and then I am going to step back from all of this for a bit. I suggest we consolidate the cases, making things easier for the arbitration committee. You are allowed to make a counter-claim against me anyways, so there is really no reason for a separate case. I suggest you merge your request against me into the existing case against you, making the whole process more streamlined. Sam Spade 17:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your "compromise" is going to mediation. Why are you interested in going through mediation? 172 17:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, do you have a reason for wanting to go through mediation? We are not fighting over the content of a single article right now. That's why I can only assume right now that your motive is wasting my time because I rubbed you the wrong way months ago. 172 18:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe mediation is designed solely for article content disputes. Our dispute is in regards to what I see as your policy violations, and I assume what you see as my POV? I'm actually not very clear as to the reasoning behind your RfAR against me, it might help if you explained it better. Perhaps mediation might accomplish that? Sam Spade 20:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please put this in perspective. Just about every active user has made mistakes. This includes both of us; this includes just about every admin. Frankly, you're making what should've been a non-issue into a huge burden for the arbitrators and both of us. These dueling arbitration cases started when you decided to second Lir's request regarding New Imperialism, a dispute that has never concerned you. Yet, we have not really dealt with each other extensively. You are just bringing up old disputes (resolved disputes) I have had with other users in order to undermine my credibility; and I am just bringing forward disputes you have had with other users in order to undermine your credibility.

To be honest, this struck me as an attempt to settle an old score because you disagreed with what I was saying on fascism and on FAC regarding critical theory. If you are indeed still fuming over our past encounters on these pages, I'll pledge to treat you respectfully, with the same benefit of the doubt that I afford, say, the professional academics on this site, but that is if (and only if) we are both able to withdraw our arbitration requests. If we don't withdraw our cases, I won't be able to accomplish this, as I'll be in the position of defending the terms of my case and vice versa. (I'll reiterate this pledge on your talk page so that you can have it on record.) With these dueling arbitration cases, there's no way of us avoiding further disruption and bad blood. 172 21:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't recollect anything about FAC critical theory, are you sure that was I?

The area I have found myself in conflict w you has been as a largely silent observer of copious policy violations (mainly wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and Wikipedia:Revert). I think I've been very clear about the importance that I place on this.

Are you agreeable to consolidating our two RfAR for the benefit of the arbitration committee? Sam Spade 02:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you're not interested in settling this like an adult, so be it. I cannot force you to do so. I already frittered away too much time dealing with you and your puerile games anyway. See you in arbitration. 172 03:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greek Sperm

Hi, would you mind telling me where you get that stuff about the Greeks believing sperm to be the source of knowledge. Primary sources would be best. Thanks. --Haiduc 01:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I got it from History of homosexuality#Ancient Greece, and have heard a number of things from various sources of a similar bent over the years, such as the word origen of "seminary" being something to do w the mixing of semen, and something about greek men putting their hands on their testicles when testefying in court being the origen of the term "testify". I am not an expert on this however, and am less than eager to spend long hours of research investigating the particulars of ancient greek views on semen ;) Sam Spade 18:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

actually, they held the testes when testifying, but that is the origin of 'testify', it was akin to the modern 'swearing an oath on a bible', (and apparently the testes held a similar level of importance to the greek culture) as you state sorry... I can't help further off the top of my head.Pedant 02:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanx for the input. Sam Spade 02:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wiki: Babel?

Thank you for welcome message

Would like to compliment someone for this (Wikipedia) initiative (who?)!

I consider contributing also for the Portuguese edition. But have serious doubts:

-the entries do not seem to bear even a resemblance in e.g, English and Po. Is not this terrible duplication (/multiplication) of efforts?

I understand a language is a culture is a world; still...

Do you have any info (I missed) or suggestion? Yours

Csaba Deák 23:00, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is foolish to have distinct articles between the the langueages, but the problem is we haven't enough multilingual users with the interest to merge and standardize them. Perhaps you can help? The best is to translate good information from one to the other, back and forth, IMO. Thank you for your kind thoughts, Sam Spade 23:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We do have a project here at Wikipedia:Translation into English that attempts to translate articles from other language Wikipedias. Perhaps you would consider both volunteering to translate articles into English here from your native tongue, and also starting a similar project at the Portuguese Wikipedia? This is only a suggestion. I hope it is helpful. Thanks for your interest in the site, and your desire to contribute -- Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome msg and suggestion. I do plan making occasional intercourse between the two langages, although in a non-sistematic/regular way, as told in more detail in my answer to Sam below. Deák 23:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

In some cases articles in the Esperanto Wikipedia seem to have been translated from English articles, or articles in English were translated from Esperanto (e.g. Sidney S. Culbert). In many cases, though, the articles were independently written by people not aware of the other article, not having time to translate the whole of it, or not considering the whole text relevant to the interests of the other language community (e.g. I don't think any of A. E. van Vogt's works have been translated into Esperanto, so I did not think it necessary to translate the whole article about him). I suppose the same situations apply to all other language-pairs. I agree that it's a good thing to check the articles in any other languages you can read and use them as sources to improve the articles in any languages you can write competently. --Jim Henry 20:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam, since you did not answer my first Q I assume it is yourself who is to be congratulated for Wikipedia. It is a stupendous idea, which created something like a 'collective brain'. Regardless of how exactly it will work in its maturity, it is certainly worth finding out. Personally I see two major problems: the accomodation of actual conflicts, which you already addressed, and dealing with the multiplicity of languages. A minor problem is that the permanent state of flux of everything contained in Wiki makes difficult (impossible?) its use as a reference, both for external and internal (through internal links) use, except with a date/time tag ('according to Wiki.Entry, on Y/M/D,...').

On the 'languages problem' (Babel) this is what I came to think so far. It is not only a question of having (enough) people to do translation. The various languages are actually verious worlds (that's what I meant with "a language is a culture is a world" above). Maybe an entry like 'Pi' or 'Elton John' is virtually unproblematic (although in the latter case interest in it and therefore level of detail required may vary greatly, as between England and China, for example). But 'local' differences are bound to be more pronounced as the entry touches closer upon specific countries' history, culture, folklore. Thus maybe what we can do is something like what happens really among the cultures: each has its own life, but this includes getting into contact with other cultures at various levels of frequency, intensity and hierarchy. This would translate into multintongued wiki-ers picking occasionally material from one language and transpose (the relevant bit of) it into the other, whether in the form of a new entry or revision of an existing one. But it is only a sort of inoculation; the effect of which will spread further in its new context independently of the evolution of the same info in its original milieu. Until a new (unplannable) contact is made ... Anyway, my plan as of now is to do precisely this: make occasional forays from En to Pt and vice-versa.

I promise not to come back with such long elocubrations in the future. --Csaba Deák 23:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Quite alright, you can feel free to say as much as often as you like :). I am not the site founder, simply a volunteer here, if I misunderstand correctly. The site founder is User:Jimbo Wales, and he is generally too busy for greeting people ;) As far as your thoughts I generally agree, but personally would like more uniformity and less ethnocentrism. Glad to hear you are interested in putting your multilingual abilities to good use. Cheers, Sam Spade 23:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Entry needs attention

Hi Sam. New entry Alice cleaver needs dealing to by an admin, speedy deletion maybe. It is inaccurate because it combines info about two different Mary Cleavers. I believe it is a deliberate hoax. It has exactly the same odd formatting as previous hoaxes which have been deleted in the past, even down to the curious lower-case first letter for the surname. I'd put it on VfD myself but my softeware is having trouble handling it. Cheers ...Moriori 00:12, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

I copied your note to Talk:Alice cleaver, and put a note on Wikipedia:Cleanup as well. Have a look and see if it is all to your satisfaction :) Sam Spade 00:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the links

Much appreciated. Lots of useful information there!

LeeHunter 01:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Place of dialogue

I am at a loss where to pursue a dialogue (here, on Babel): you seemed to do it on your pg, but answered me one mine (where the Q is not there). Deák 02:49, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Lets talk @ User talk:Sam Spade#Wiki: Babel?. I have copied some from your talk page, I hope it helps. Sam Spade 02:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your comments

Spade, I don't mean to be offensive but stop playing dumb! The link keeps getting removed not because the article was associated to a banned user, who may or may not be a good acquaintance or even friend of yours.

I am the one who keeps removing the mention of "cosmotheism" from the Article and will keep doing so every single day if necessary.

These statements are offensive. Please review Wikipedia:Civility, and refrain from such statements in the future. You do not own this, or any other page, and will not be the sole decision maker. It would appear you are a relatively new user. Please view this as a positive learning experience.

Sam Spade 23:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spade, you wrote me the following in my talk page:

These statements are offensive. Please review Wikipedia:Civility, and refrain from such statements in the future.

I clearly said that my first comment was not meant to be offensive. If it was, I apologize. However, I was making a valid point since you seem to be feigning ignorance of an issue that was directed to you and fully addressed on a previous occasion.

You do not own this, or any other page, and will not be the sole decision maker.

I have and will never make such a claim. I was simply stating my intention to preserve the integrity of a particular page I care about.

It would appear you are a relatively new user. Please view this as a positive learning experience.

Whatever...

Loremaster 17:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you intend to "preserve the integrity" of the page in a manner in accordance with policy, than you are required to discuss reverts and other controversial edits which you make to it, without making personal attacks of other acts of incivility. Sam Spade 17:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have discussed the controversial reverts and edits on several occasions. As for making personal attacks, I've already explained myself so this "dispute" is over for me. Loremaster 18:00, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Intention is not the key factor in a personal attack. See that you do not do it again. Using all bold font is unfriendly, BTW. Sam Spade 18:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please read my last update to the Talk:Transhumanism page Loremaster 23:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Welcome to the Wikipedia

Thank you, Mr. Spade. Edgarde 18:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message. I've been making edits for over a year, [2] though I only created a user account for myself about 25 June 2004. --Jim Henry 20:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

plain_regular_ham 16:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Its what I do :) 16:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Sam, I appreciate it, I also use the program Sam Spade, if I have any questions I'll be sure to ask. If you need anything from me (computer related or whatnot) I'd be happy to help, have a good one. User:Tajas1 (added after by Sam Spade 22:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))

How kind. Maybe you might be interested in improving the Sam Spade article? I don't know much of anything about the computer program myself, what does it do? Sam Spade 22:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Immortality

I saw you had been having some problems with transhumanism. I think you might want to take a look at Immortality as well, which is also a featured article candidate, just to make sure NPOV is followed. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:19, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

That article (Immortality) is going to take alot of work, and is quite far off from FAC material. I plan to work on it periodically, but am not terribly optomistic due to the intensity of obvious POV I am finding.

Would you mind lending a hand Re: Talk:Transhumanism / Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Loremaster? I understand this is not an area in which you possess a technical expertise, but IMO the problem is much more one of user conduct than technical content. Thank you for your thoughtful note, Sam Spade 20:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I don't know how much help I'll be--philosophy not my strong point, I'd rather not have an argument unless I actually knew what I was talking about. Best, and good luck in the election, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:37, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Haha!, good point! "I'd rather not have an argument unless I actually knew what I was talking about" I wish everyone were so thoughtful ;) Thanks again, Sam Spade 18:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome. I have made some comments on talk pages before and signed them with my email address. All the administrative stuff seems very complex, and seems to have almost no effect as far as preventing people from acting like goons. Weed Harper 14:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well sometimes it’s the administrators who act like the goons ;) All in all tho, I think the process is reasonably well written. Have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if your having a problem with a particularly intractable user. Glad to have you, Sam Spade 18:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

post-Soviet Russia

Your objection to the post-Soviet Russia article on FAC is transparently personal and in bad faith. (Yet, I am not the sole author of the article.) This shows a total disregard for all the work that A. Shetsen, Andris, Dan Gardner, Paranoid, and others have put into the article, including all the work that they've devoted to bringing it up to featured status. Furthermore, the motivation behind my nomination was a desire to help build a community of users working on Wiki's so far underdeveloped articles on postcommunist Russia, not personal valediction. A feature on the main page will bring in yet more users into the fold on post-Soviet Russia. People interested in Russia will see the article on the main page, start editing the article, and start working on all related articles linked to the page that are still languishing as stubs (e.g., all the articles on the Russian prime ministers, the oligarchs, parties, political institutions). Please find a way of dealing with users you dislike working with (Loremaster, AndyL, me, etc.) that do not thward efforts to help develop the encyclopedia. 172 20:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How does me complaining about style errors and lack of prose interfere w your ability to improve the encyclopdia? Sam Spade 21:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. You wouldn't have looked at the article had I not been involved. Like your request for arbitration against me and your request for comment page against Loremaster, this is just a part of your pattern of behavior of stalking users and doing whatever you can to get back at them [3]. 172 22:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, I know full well that even if links are added gratuitously, your objection will not go away. The objection only stemmed from my involvement in the page. 172 23:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Havn't you noticed that I am regularly involved on FAC? Part of the RfAR you have against involves my involvement in the Gay bath house attempt. What actually happened (as if it matters) is that I saw your comment on Mav's talk page, and decided to read the article. So, in the sense that your involvement made me curious, you are correct. But it was while reading the article that I noticed the awkward prose, and unusual linking. Russia is the 1st word, but its not linked? The first usage of the word is the one to link. And what kind of prose is "(For backgrounding see the main article on the dissolution of the Soviet Union.)" or "The conversion of the world's largest state-controlled economy into a market-oriented economy would have been extraordinarily difficult regardless of the policies chosen. (For backgrounding on state economic planning in the former Soviet Union, see Economy of the Soviet Union.) The policies chosen for this difficult transition were (1) liberalization, (2) stabilization, and (3) privatization, which were based on the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" of the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department."? Thats no way to make links, nor to explain things in a readable fashion. I'd spend some time working on it, but you;d just revert me. Sam Spade 23:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)

1) Pro - Meritocracy: Most left wing ideologies do not support any kind of heirarchical structures for insitutions. I myself do not believe in Meritocracy because it basically says that those a the top are at the top because they are the most capable or most fit. Bullshit. This completely ignores the fact that not everyone is born into equal circumstances. A kid from Harlem and a kid born on the upper west side in Manhattan do not have the same oppurtunities. The kid from the upper west side has thousands more chances to suceed, most of them completely unrelated to how fit that person is. What I'm saying is all that meritocracy and heirarchy do is enforce structures where the people at the top stay at the top and those not at the top get fucked. It's wrong and evil and has been used to justify evertyhing from Fascism to Reagan's so called "homeless by choice" approach to fighting poverty.

2) Pro - Non racial eugenics: When was eugenics ever a good idea? I doubt you'll find any lefties who even consider eugenics a legitimate theory much less one that should be furthered. This I find kind of frightening to be honest. People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics.

3)Anti-equality, anti-affirmative action, anti-choice, anti-communism: Well you'll never find a left winger against equality. I love equality. I wish we loved in a society where everybody was equal. Anti-AA? Nope sorry, lefties arent against AA. I'm not going to argue with you on this one because I don't want to get into it. Anti-choice? Nope wrong again. I'm the most hardcore feminist male ever. And you better believe that most leftists view a woman's right to choose as something that they will fight to the grave over. Your stance is decidedly right wing. The last one, anti-communism actually kind of baffles me. If this were the cold war I'd understand. But whats the point of even saying your anti-communist now? There's that sad guy in Cuba who plays dress up in military fatigues and that crazy midget in North Korea. If you're gonna say you're anti-communism why not say you're anti-trancedentalist or anti-British loyalist. It's such an outdated idea. Oh and then why not say you're anti-fascism as well, fascism is a horrible ideology that killed millions of people as well. You're not pro-fascist are you? StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1) Meritocracy isn't a way to explain why the poor are poor and the rich are rich, it's a vision of a better world, where people who excel are promoted, and people who are unmotivated or incapable end up w subsistence positions, regardless of heredity. Its kinda the opposite of AA, since nobody is promoted based on their race, or given a special advantage due to a disability.

2) I think so. Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we? ;)

3) equality = serfdom, AA = racism, choice = baby-murdering, or more broadly, the option to do what is wrong, and communism = ...well, serfdom again ;) Feminism makes about as much sense as chauvinism, and gets less respect from me. Why? Because I'm male ;) Why would I point out my anti-communism? Because the "new-left" is very much like the old left, as in leaning towards revolutionary communism. Have you seen (or participated in, knowing you ;) those anti-globalism riots? Communism is back in chic, and I for one like to remind people of Stalin, Pol Pot, the "Great leap forward", and other such "humanism". The reason why I don't think I'm right wing is that I like clean air, socialized medicine, and everyone’s basic needs being met (food, shelter, medical care, job counseling... ;) When I think right-wing, I think laissez-faire, or worse yet, corporatism.

Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)