User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive November 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Militia[edit]

Sam, you removed my comment regarding swiss collaboration with Nazi Germany. I realize I did not make the connection clear, but certainly did not mean it as a smear against Switzerland. Many people dismiss the militia's role as a deterrent, suggesting that the collaboration was the reason they maintained neutrality. Did not want to reinstate/expand without discussion. Comments? EllisWyatt 02:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was concerned that it took a stance as to Switzerlands neutrality during WWII. I feel we can express that they were widely considered safe from, invasion, have never been successfully invaded, etc... w/o a potential (albeit unintended) smear on Switzerland. All that said, great additions! Please keep up the fine work :) Sam Spade 13:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My troubles[edit]

First, I work from a library computer. I don't have much time and there a lot more people using the library now than before so I am very constrained.

My notebook is broken and I am working part time at low wages so again---not much there.

I wish that I could spend more time in helping out.

Milneau Trudenau is a thorn in my side. My user site got vandalized, the site of Eric von Kuehnelt got vandalized three times and Milneau Trudenau edits the the classical definiton of republic all at the same time. I couldn't take it anymore. What gets me is that Mr. Trudenau doesn't know nothing about the classical world or subject. In his contribuiton list has no classical contributions to it. Yet, He deems himself worthy to edit something he has no clue on what he is doing. I wrote an article with 40 reference quotes. Do you think I know what I am talking about.

Milneau Trudenau has gone through and deleted Eric von Kuehnelt from numerous articles I have written. Most of the information that I have, came from von Kuehnelt; He should get the credit. If it wasn't for him, Wikipedia would not have so much information. Milneau Trudeneau, I feel, doesn't add anything but stir up trouble and he is very immature. All he does is edit, deletes. I am the only one who quotes and he deletes. I do hard work and research and all Trudeneau does is delete things.

I can't help it--I am burned out and depressed.WHEELER 17:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Second Point, I liked your picture and went to the linked sites to read more. How can I trust what I read when there are no quotes, no references from where this all comes from? This is where I go off---Much of the contributors don't reference, don't quote and think that they can edit without having no reference material.WHEELER 17:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk... it's not nice to talk about people behind their back. Especially when you can't spell their name properly - or at least learn to use the copy & paste function. I hope you won't mind if I crash this little party.
You are as much a thorn in my side as I am one in yours, WHEELER - I hope that gives you some comfort. If you can't take it any more, perhaps you should try editing articles in good faith for a change rather than pushing your own POV as much as possible. As for your claims to intellectual superiority, I have already told you on the Talk page of Classical Definition of Republic that a quotation is not necessarely POV. "The ancients", as you call them, have their own POV. An article that endorses Aristotle's opinion on a subject is a POV article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Milneau Trudenau is a Communist / Socialist or whatever. She edits from this POV, trying to enforce this viewpoint, (which is also the view of Liberal Academia, a big part of the wiki). One reason why your such a great editor here, is that you cite and verify information, giving proof. Others hate this, since it defeats their feeble opinions, and so they remove the truth.
For the record, I am a communist. To be more precise, I am a Marxist, part-Leninist and part-Trotskyist. And the only viewpoint I try to enforce is the idea that Wikipedia should not endorse comments to the effect that "communism is evil" - an idea which you seem to find intolerable, perhaps because you believe Wikipedia should endorse capitalism and rant against all non-capitalist systems as much as possible.-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fortunately, they can't blot out all the truth, and what they do remove will find its way back in time. Perhaps you aught to take a vacation, and come back to editing refreshed. One thing that would help alot is ignoring AndlyL, he just wants to make you unhappy and upset, and isn't focused on whats best for the articles or the readers. God knows you do alot of good work here. Take some comfort in that. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure you strongly believe that the truth is on your side, but you seem to have trouble understanding that others disagree and that your opinion is not The One, Holy, Ultimate Truth that everyone should bow down to and worship. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If she (I believe Milneau Trudenau is a she) is a Communist and edits from POV, then, by extension, you could be labled an anti-Communist (Cold War Warrior) who edit from POV, also. So you cannot accuse her of this without specific evidence (of course, this is simply a discussion on a talk page, but for the sakes of argument...). At any rate, the deletions/revisions may have been sound, aggregating all of these as POV without noting the precise reasons for each, is, well, possibly POV. Secondly, Eric von Kuehnelt is not nearly as notable a theorist (though certainly not un-notable and should have his own article) — so mentioning him on a wide veriety of topics (which he might, indeed, had written on in some capacity) might not be so prudent (i.e. in terms of what role he played in either the scholarly or popular debates on these respective issues). Then again, I would need to see the specific changes to make an educated comment beyond that. AndyL's approach is more questionable. While I tend to agree with his position intellectually (that Facism is also reactionary, which I have argued from day one), his style in presenting these in Wheeler's talk page is problematic. El_C

P.S. Sorry for the length of this, but the point I am trying to get accross is that, in all fairness, it works both ways. As an aside, references are no indication that one knows what they are talking about (I'm the epitome of that example! :p ). Best wishes for less trouble in your life (something we all need, I think).

User:Mihnea Tudoreanu is a difficult editor, a bit of a page nazi even, see Talk:Collectivism, where she reverts to her prefered POV in defiance of all comers. WHEELER cites facts, which gives him a trump card in my book. He may not always be right, but he's able to cite somebody on the subject instead of just voicing his POV, and that makes for a good article. Always good to hear from you El_C (is that short for El Cid by any chance?), would you mind joining in at Collectivism? Cheers, Sam Spade 20:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Allow me to explain the situation over at the Collectivism page in the simplest terms. The edit war goes like this:
Phase 1: Sam adds comments to the effect that "collectivism is evil".
Phase 2: I remove those comments.
Phase 3: Sam puts them back in and asks me to prove that collectivism isn't evil, while accusing me of POV-ing the page.
Phase 4: I try to explain the meaning of POV and the fact that the burden of proof rests on the person making the affirmative claim.
Phase 5: Repeat phase 1.
-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. No, not related to El Cid, but as mentioned elsewhere, does sound much like it, minus the dh :p. Unfortunately I am rather pressed for time for the forseable future. As well, I somewhat of committed myself to a host of articles. 172 asked me quite sometime ago to look into an article (a vast hugely problematic one, mind you) and I feel bad I yet had a chance to even accord it the cursory glance promised. My Southern Rhodesia article languishes, etc. But since you asked, I will look into it. I take from your description that the edits are relatively recent, which sounds like a far less daunting task than the above, so I can bump you up on the priority list as it involves one editor within a fixed timeframe. Perhaps I will approach her directly. At any rate, I will at the very least will be back here to let you know whether I agree with her position intellectualy and her edits wikiquette-ually.

Best regards, El_C

P.S. I can provide insight to, at least, her last edit though you may not like my answer. Marxist theory does not treat collectivism under capitalism the same as collectivism under socialism. Dialectically, the theory maintains, under capitalism (due to its contradictions) individualism is actually a form of collectivism (in a negative sense). But under socialism it is a collectivism on a higher level, one in which greater individualism (in a positive sense) is transcended; which is to say, for the final phase of Communism, at least, both collectivism-and-indvidualism at the same time. How one could explain these subtelties of Marxist theory in an article about collectivism though is, at the moment, beyond me ( See also http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/n.htm for an overview, esp. response to Max Stirner). But, to your credit, The word came into the language in the 1880s as a direct result of the work of the First International, originally as a synonym for common ownership of the means of production, so Marxists certainly have used that. Nevertheless, note that their theoretical use of it has been commonly distorted in the West as monolithic and un-libertarian, which is flase.

Perhaps, but at least your aware of the common use. Your speaking to someone who has read Marx, and thinks his theories are just as broken and contridictory on paper as they are in practice. Regardless, Marxism has no monopoly on collectivism, Nazi's and others felt a need to work as a single unit, kultur expresses that well. I invited you to the article as perhaps a reasoned voice of opposition (to my own position perhaps ;) so on't worry if you feel a need to take a stand, I'm far from the unreasonable edit-warrior some make me out to be. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are correct to observe that I have read Marx (extensively), I do not though think his theories are broken and contradictory, but it took me many years of reading him (and not just others' intepertations of him) to realize this. Of course, I can juxtapose myself before and clearly see how I would view the statements I just made on collectivism as hyperobole, utopian, internally-contradictory, etc. So that is some thourough brainwashing, you might say — from a man dead for over a cetury, no less! I have been in academia for countless years, as an historian and social theorist, so I am rather accustomed to dealing with various viewpoints diplomatically (I have not heard it all, but I have heard a lot of it). I know I am not going to turn you into a liberation theologist (though one could hope!), but this should not prevent us from reasoning together (even if we end in disagreement, which is likely). I will look into the article, but as said, I cannot promise anything appreciable beyond the current dispute. Best regards, El_C

Well, for the record, I am actually a he. In addition, I wanted to say that I would also welcome your involvement in the Collectivism dispute, El_C. It's about time we moved forward in the dispute resolution procedure, and a voice of reason is always welcome. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To Mihnea Tudoreanu, I am sorry for mispelling your name, couldn't you find an easier moniker. Because spelling that and remembering the spelling is a mind twister. Can I suggest an easier moniker because I will continue to mispell it since I am not French and understand French language. I use voice to help me spell and that name escapes me.
To Sam Spade, Mr. Tudoreanu deleted all the occurences of the word "Ochlocracy" for the article when I provided actual examples of the way the word has been used. He deleted them all. Even I used two examples from the OED and found more examples myself of the historical usage of the term. Mr. Tudoreanu doesn't like the historical usage of the term and he deletes this all. This is unreal. WHEELER 17:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also difficult to correct. I'm not sure what to say, I have had my oen slow progress w mr. Tudoreanu. Speaking of Ochlocracy, I have been thinking of moving Ochlocracy to "Mob rule". What do you think about that? I think its a more commonly used term. Sam Spade 18:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The OED has "Ocholocracy" in its dictionary. It should stay as "Ochlocracy". It is a technical political term. "Ocholocracy" does not really mean "mob rule" it is the aspect of the dengeneration of democracies. My vote is to keep it at "Ochlocracy" because people should learn the term and use it as such.
Furthermore, could you transfer the page history on Kultur because I would like to be shown as the author of the article.WHEELER 18:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea how to do that, but you can mention it in talk, and edit the page in whatever manner you see fit. I just moved the page and edited it, I didn't write it, of course. Sam Spade 18:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Get laid[edit]

Do you really consider it appropriate to issue a Welcome to an editor whose sole opus is a vandalization of my Talk page? Rick K 07:07, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure, in hindsight. I don't review the edits of people who I welcome normally, I simply click red user talk links and copy paste my welcome. In this situation I doubt its of a whole lot of value, since clearly he's not a new user to the project. That said, maybe the links to wikiquette or WP:Policy Library might be useful to him, but if I had thought about itlooked into it more I prob would have given him some advice as well. Sam Spade 13:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I just wanted to say thanks for giving me the references to the newbie articles all in one place. It is really helpful Aleph0 22:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem, welcome to the wiki :) Sam Spade 00:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Many thanks for the nice welcome. I'm afraid my english is not good enough for taking part in wiki.en. I'm mainly adding wikilinks to wiki.it and perhaps correcting some pages about Italy and Europe. And obviously stealing pages from wiki.en and translating them for wiki.it ;-D Civvi 16:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

your english is very good, have no doubt. far better than my Italian ;) Sam Spade 18:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Thanks for the links - Wikipedia is a new discovery for me and I'm still getting acquainted with how it works. Have confined myself to some minor copyediting so far. Crebbin 18:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC).

great! Slow but steady wins the race ;) Glad to have you, Sam Spade 18:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your distress[edit]

Sam, please understand I completely agree with your objection to the recent edits to pages about Jesus. I'm doing what I can to rectify that situation, although of course it is difficult (particularly since, as my userpage proclaims my personal faith, people often seem to think it's okay to dismiss me as "obviously biased" when in fact I think it's fairly clear that it is they who are more interested in advocating their own beliefs). I understand your anger and am in fact struggling a little to remain calm myself. But I think it is worthwhile. Bless your enemies, after all, and do good to those who persecute you. I'm not saying you're wrong to challenge the user that you are, but I urge you to focus those energies on the proper channels. Inciting a dispute with CheeseDreams at Talk:Jesus doesn't look as productive to me. I'm not going to tell you I don't understand your emotions -- I understand them very well, I think. But I'm also doing my best to be honest with you when I think your emotions are getting the best of you. I hope that I'm not increasing your frustration, and if I am, do tell me. I'm just trying my best to advocate a neutral position on a topic that is very close to my heart (and yours also), and that's a very difficult thing. I think if we can stay focused on the facts involved and not the people, it will be easier for me. I of course respect your right to defend yourself, however, and I personally wish Spleeman and IZAK would stop slinging mud your way. But I can only take on so many fights at once. Again, I'm sorry if I contributed to your distress -- let me know if I can help make things better. Confusingly but well-meaningly yours, Jwrosenzweig 23:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Socialist spin[edit]

I think you might be interested in recent changes over at the Nazi Germany article. Looks like socialist apologists are at it again... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazi_Germany&action=history

GeneralPatton 01:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I made a repair, and commented here. Sam Spade 02:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your POV[edit]

Sam, I know you disagree with representing atheistic or rational views on certain subjects, but I suggest you read NPOV again. Deleting viewpoints you disagree with is not NPOV. All sides of the debate should be presented, according to NPOV. You cannot just delete things you don't like, especially when they are completely valid arguments. Please stop presenting only your POV.The Rev of Bru (edit - moved to lower portion)

NPOV Policy[edit]

By the way, I have not reverted anything which was not POV, biased or in some way violating the policies of Wikipedia. You have. Please swallow your pride and review the NPOV policy. Constantly deleting or reverting other peoples valid contributions is not how we like people to edit, Sam. The Rev of Bru

it would appear attempting dialogue is not going anywhere. Sam Spade 19:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is a shame you are not prepared to discuss the problems others are having with your POV edits.

Why do you hate others irrationally?[edit]

Sam, I'm sure a lot of people have noticed your frequent and hate filled pronounciations against atheists. Why do you hate them so much? How do you justify your bigotry and hate?The Rev of Bru 12:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) BTW: a Bigot is someone who is 'unreasonalby intolerant' - anyone reviewing your past comments on atheists and how you 'revile' them etc would come to the conclusion that you are a bigot. I am not name calling. The Rev of Bru

No Personal Attacks[edit]

Sam, I am again asking that you cease making personal attacks on me. Regardless of whether or not you hate Atheists, you should not call others names, revert any articles without reasoning, and endlessly claim I am attacking you. I have not attacked you; you have attacked me. Please stop, or a Rfc may be required. I ask you once again to read NPOV and civility. This is a seperate occasion than the others, so I resent your moving the section around. However, its your talk page, so its up to you. The Rev of Bru 13:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

God[edit]

Sam, I am particularly sad to see you stalked this way, because it seems at least some of Bru's concerns I would bring up myself, without all the abuse of course. "All the fools are not in the other camp", and I imagine he is very young. My suggestion to "refrain from editing" was of course meant to include a truce with Bru, i.e. agreeing with him to stop editing until you have figured out what exactly your differences are, and hearing opinions of others. As it is, I can understand that you have lost hope in actually making this a productive dispute, as Bru does not seem to be able to discuss actual points of the article calmly. I don't know what can be done about it. If you cannot find out what exactly you disagree about, the dispute will lock down the God article. I will drop a note on Bru's page asking him to remain calm (again), but I doubt it will change much. But let me know if you think I can be of service in resolving this. dab 18:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

concerns — please don't misunderstand me. I have no concerns about you at all. I may have concerns about specific edits of yours, but that's just WP business as usual and can be sorted out calmly. If I say "Sam may or may not be a bigot" to Bru, I am merely giving his view the benefit of doubt, i.e. I'm saying "even if Sam were a bigot", because I don't know you personally, and have not reviewed your edits, but I have no evidence to make me think anything of the kind at all. regards, dab 18:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spleeman[edit]

I don't know Spleeman at all and I don't really know you that well. I had been told that the edits might be controversial, saw the edit history and noticed that Spleeman had differed with you on the page recently, and thought a second opinion might be useful. I'm rather dismayed at the way you jumped down my throat on that; please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As a gesture of my own good faith, I'll remove my comments from that page. Jayjg 18:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User Viriditas suggested to me yesterday on my Talk: page that your edits on Nazi Germany and related pages were POV. I went to the Nazi Germany page today, noticed you had made previous edits in August, and noticed that Spleeman had disputed them. I didn't look at the edits themselves, as I'm not really an expert in those areas and have enough on my plate as it is, but I thought a second opinion might be useful so I went to Spleeman's page and suggested he/she look into them. As far as I know I've never interacted with Spleeman before, or even edited any pages that he/she has edited; I certainly don't recall doing so. In fact, I know nothing about Spleeman; indeed, if I did, then I guess I would have known that Spleeman no longer edits on Wikipedia, and wouldn't have bothered posting to him/her, would I? I've obviously brought up a sore spot with you, and I had no intention of doing so, but again, please assume good faith. Jayjg 19:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've glanced through the history you showed me, and I see now why you were upset. Again, my apologies. Jayjg 19:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hawstom[edit]

Thanks, Sam. What is the proper procedure? Tom - Talk 23:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again, Sam. Those are good suggestions. It is a miracle to me how many people (with strong opinions!) end up voting on some RfAs. I just couldn't fathom how so many people with so many opinions could show up to vote. It still seems incredible to me, but based on what you and Cool Hand Luke suggested to me, I guess I will just help out by joining the ranks of those who check RfA twice a week or so. And Village Pump, that's a place I haven't frequented. I guess I have been more into articles than community for the past year. Tom - Talk 14:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pursuit of Nazi collaborators, Organised persecution of ethnic Germans[edit]

Sam, I'm affraid your contributions to this topic are not based on enough knowledge. You said on User:Get-back-world-respect talkpage - I am no expert, but I watched a documentary program on this subject recently, and there were alot of horrible abuses (raping, people nailed to barns by their ears, random shootings and murders, etc...) after the war, and often against german speakers who had lived in e europe or russia prior to the war (as well as others of course). I assumed the article had been written by the same folks who redirected it, because it is so sparse, when so much material is available. Like I said tho, I'm no expert, I've simply seen a documentary and a few scarps of info hjere and there over the years. That doesnt seem to be good introduction to this topic. Almost every view in this conflict can be "supported" by emotional images of atrocities of the "evil side". And the most voiceful side today are descendants of "victims" of German origin, as can be seen also on Wikipedia. There are dozens of articles about expulsion of Germans, terror against Germans etc. You can guess how many articles are devoted to e.g. Nazi rule in Ukraine - zero. Except fate of Jews and Germans every other side is higly underrepresented. Which may lead to preception "there were peaceful Germans, then some Nazis came, killed the Jews, and then local Slavs and Russian massacred the Germans". Which is not true. --Wikimol 09:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree there is an under-representation of the suffering of some. Why that should detract from an accurate depiction of the grave misdeeds perpetrated against ethnic germans after WWII I can't imagine. As far as your evaluation of my knowledge / abilities, thats difficult to respond to politely, so I will refer you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks / M:Foundation issues. If the wikipedia starts requiring resumes from contributors, I'll send mine in right after you send yours. Sam Spade 12:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I opposed your view the suffering of Germans is underrepresented on Wikipedia and some folks (e.g. me) are by selection of facts contributed to "Pursuit..." etc. anti-German biased. I commented about your contributions not about your knowledge. I cant find any other reference to sources supporting your views/disputes/... in your contributions other than mentioned documentary (and you were asked for them). On the other side you are mentioning "raping, people nailed to barns by their ears,..." frequently. It was not meant as personal attack, but if you want to take it that way, ok, I appologize. If you like to send me to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, no problem. As I will avoid talking to you directly, you can be sure it wont repeat. --Wikimol 20:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)