User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Juni 2005

Dreadlocks

Toward your edits: There is no concensus on this issue and it is in the process of being heavily debated, with the removal of the second, amateur photo losing 3-2. If you have an opinion, please post it on the talk page and don't simply re-add the photo.--The Grza 09:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page? Sam Spade 09:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have, in fact, I've made many a comment on the talk page. The issue has not been resolved and your edits are in opposition of any concensus there may be.--The Grza 09:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

According to you there isn't any concensus, not for removing the image nor anything else. Sam Spade 09:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

rebetika

Hello Sam, i write to you as you are a member of AMA. it's about the article "rebetika". the initial name was rebetiko. A user (can't recall who) had started it and i wrote most of the article. i used info from the book "rebetika minors" by Hlias Petropulos a Greek author (whom i mentioned of course). the user Jpbrenna changed the "shape" of the article (didn't add any info or add info from his head-can prove that) and renamed it to "rebetika". he redirected the article and neither me nor any other contributor seem to exist. it's like a theft to me.. will you do something about it? thanks.--Arberor 11:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The "thief" responds:

• Yes, I moved it - and it should be moved right back. You should have referred to the discussion page for my reasoning (which I'm now going to elaborate on).
• There was no mention of this Hilas Petropoulos anwhere in the page as I found it.
• Contrary to your assertions, I also made some substantial modifications to your - quite frankly - unintelligible prose. User:Mel Etitis has suggested further changes.

--Jpbrenna 04:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves#23 May 2005. Cheers, Sam Spade 15:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

i see my article but i don't see my signature. why? you should have discussed first and then redirect it. shouldn't you?

• i wrote the name "Petropulos" in the "edit summary". You can see that on "my contributions". back then i really didn't know where to put him. i still don't know where you put your sources. in the main article? please inform me. Petropulos is a writer that i respect and plan to make an article on him if i continue. maybe you didn't see him. i give you that.
• let us see your modifications. let us see the previous edition and compare it with yours. let us see the new info. but where is the previous edition? vanished! the contributors? vanished!
• if it was "unintelligible prose", please expose me. let us see it and laugh at it. but why were you interested at it then? ...
• have many things to do with my time. with a pc or without it..--Arberor 19:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Primate

Thank you for your note about the photograph, Sam. I'm glad you think it improved the article, and it's nice to get positive feedback. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Censoring talk pages

Well, it looks like you can censor your talk page, but it's frowned upon. To wit:

from Wikipedia:Talk etiquette FAQ:

Can I blank my talk page whenever I want?

There's no hard-and-fast rule that says you can't, however many people will suspect that you are trying to hide something or ignore other contributors if you do it too often. Most users do archive their talk pages periodically to a personal subpage -- either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation.

In the past, attempts at reasoning with certain problematic users resulted in their use of this tactic. In that case, the removal of material on a talk page is viewed as a kind of vandalism and incivility, which combined with other issues may be grounds for a case before Arbitration.

I certainly frown upon it, and it's clear that some of your removals of comments are problematic, but as the rules stand currently, you're safe, it looks like. Besides, the legitimate complaits against you that you deleted are still in the version history. --Zantastik 22:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with the applicable policies. I would prefer it if you didn't continue to discuss this matter with me, I am unhappy with you and your actions here. Sam Spade 22:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No worries -- the issue is closed, as far as I'm concerned. We've covered it and your request that I no longer discuss it with you (unless something new comes up) is perfectly reasonable. But you needn't be so prickly; life's too short to get unhappy over so little. --Zantastik 00:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I have a new signature now: --Silversmith Hewwo 17:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool, me too~!

Click here to report admin abuse 19:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Are you a part of the welcoming comittee on Wikipedia? Kaschner 11:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am. Sam Spade 19:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tips. I'm starting to get the hang of this. It's not all new to me, but just the interaction with other Wikipedians is encouraging. I've picked up a fair amount of how to edit just from using Wikipedia for my own purposes, but, now that I've began participating, I'm really getting into it.

-Recnilgiarc

Mediation

I have filed for formal mediation. Please stop communicating with me directly. --Cberlet 22:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds to me like a contradictory statement, mediation requires communication. Sam Spade 22:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL.--AI 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Siva Linga

Sam, it's been a while since we last spoke. I agree with you with there are people in wikipedia who try to denigrate Hinduism and try to present an one sided view. For example, I made extensive changes to the linga article. Here are some of them: "According to Swami Sivananda, although the Agamas do not derive their authority from the Vedas, they are not antagonistic to them but are all Vedic in spirit and character and are hence authoritative. According to rules of interpretation in Hinduism held by many religious scholars, anything that contradicts the Vedas or is inconsistent with its spirit is not deemed authoritative or is treated as secondary. Accordingly, according to this interpretation, the Puranic and Tantric views, are subordinate to the Vedas and the Agamas which are vedic in spirit. Hence, such views are secondary and are not deemed as authoritative by many religious scholars. With this point of view, then the view of the linga as a phallic symbol does not carry much weight.

Accordingly, many traditional Hindu scholars simply explain the Siva Linga to be an abstract symbol of God. 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 pitha. The Sivalinga is the simplest and most ancient symbol of Siva, especially of Parasiva, God beyond all forms and qualities. The pitha 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, dharba grass, a flower garland or molasses."

As Shri K. Thirugna Sambantha, in his excellent web site of Saivism, [1] (http://www.geocities.com/shivaperuman/main.html), explains it, the Siva linga is the ruparupa aspect because it is not any manifested form of Siva, nor is it formless, because the linga is a concrete piece of stone, which is an emblem of God. Thus, it is intermediate between the formless Absolute, Parasiva, which is beyond the sensory perception of man and manifest forms of Siva. Siva manifests Himself in form for the grace of the embodied human devotee."

I find some of the comments posted as insulting. One can then argue any religious symbol is a phallic symbol. Swami Sivananda explained the siva linga nicely in this site, http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_110

User:Raj2004

You are quite correct, a crucifix could be seen as a phallis, or a sword, or any object longer than it is wide. These ideas are based on Freud, a notorious pervert ;) Sam Spade 09:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. I agree with you completely. Raj2004 10:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Vishnu

Vishnu article is another example of mistaken views taken over. Mr. DBachman said that the entmylogy of the word Vishnu is unknown. That's a hard to believe statement. Vishnu, means enter into, indicating All-pervading One; so says Vishnu Purana. Please help support me! Raj2004 02:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

People erase without giving any support for their views when they are clearly wrong!!!

To remphasize, there are lot of people who are unaware of different things. For example, in the Vishnu article, they said the meaning of the Lord's name was unknown. Vishnu always meant All pervading. I find there is a lot of ignorance. Raj2004 09:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Raj2004 02:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made a note @ Talk:Vishnu. I am sure DBachman's ideas have some source, and thus can be included as one idea among many, once we discover where they come from :) Sam Spade 10:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I sometimes wonder whether Dab is anti-Hindu. I don't think he is but he is free to express his opinion but ignores my opinion. Time and time again, he is stubborn in citing Western scholars are notoriously anti-Hindu. There are lot of anti-Hindu Wikpedians out there. Raj2004 18:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This is what I replied to dab:

Dab, it's absurd to say that the meaning of Vishnu is not the all pervading one and simply the meaning given by one guru. You call my comments simply wrong without citing anything. There people who write nonsense in wikipedia without citing support. We had similar discussion about Rudram. Entymology, or the historical development of the word may or may not be known but the meaning is settled. You simply didn't read the link I sent you.

For the etymology of the name, "Vishnu" please see the meanings in this site which explains meaning of Vishnu, the second name in the Vishnu sahasranama. It quotes Vedic and Puranic verses. http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/ Please click on page 01 in the Links to slokams.

Read the whole link. Many great scholars, such as Sankara have explained what Vishnu means and the conclusion is all pervading. The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. Sankara, from the cite stated:

yasmAd vishTam idam sarvam tasya SaktyA mahAtmanah | tasmAd vishNuriti khyAto veSer dhAtoh praveSanAt || (Vishnu Purana 3.1.45) "Because the whole world has been pervaded by the energy of the great Self, He is named vishNu, from the root viS - to enter or pervade." vyApte me rodasI pArtha kAntiscApadhikA sthitA | kramaNaccApyaham pArtha! VishNuriti abhisamgj~nita: || (Mahabharata. 350.43) "As I have pervaded the horizons, my glory stands foremost, and as I have measured by my steps the three worlds, O Arjuna! I am named vishNu". Quote from the scholars and summary: "To summarize,

- the nAma vishNu refers to the guNa of bhagavAn in pervading everything He has created, including all sentient and non-sentient objects from a blade of grass to brahma; - His pervasion is because of His Sakti; in other words, He is the power behind everything that exists; an instance of His Sakti is illustrated by His measuring the three worlds with His Foot; - His vyApati is indicative of the inseparable relation between Him and everything else outside Him, in the sense that nothing exists without Him. - His pervasion of everything is of the form of His enveloping and showering everything around Him with His Mercy. It is not just His sausIlya that is indicated by this nAma; all His powers including that of creation, sustenance, His Lordship, etc., are to be understood by this nAma. - It is because of His pervasion of everything in this universe that things (for example the constellations, the planets, etc.)., are in their respective positions without colliding with each other."

The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. If you want, you may write entymology may be unknown but the meaning is well-settled.

Also you cite a Western scholar. So-called Western scholars are notoriously anti-Hindu. It's fine if you disagree but you ERASED my work without reading any of the links. Ask any Hindu and Vishnu means all pervading. THat meaning is overwhelmingly the predominant one. Who cares about what an unknown scholar thinks when the overwhelming majority consider Vishnu meaning to be all pervading. (I.e., Vishnu Purana) If you cited Sankara or other giants in Hinduism, that would be authorative. Read the story of Narasimha which illustrates the Lord's omnipresence.

To satisfy the 1% of you who dispute the meaning of Vishnu, I put in the article, Most Hindus consider Vishnu to mean All-Pervading One but a minority attribute other meanings and even some suggest that the entymology of the name is unknown.

You may it think it' semantic to call Vishnu a Hindu god versus God but how would a Christian feel if someone call Jesus a god instead of God. The same would go with a Muslim. Judging by the conversation with (Oxy2Hydro 2) it appears that you may have offended some.

Person's feelings about religion are a sensitive issue and that's what we must strive in wikipedia to tread careful waters.

Thank you.

Raj2004

Raj2004 21:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again Sam as always for your suggestions for contributing a NPOV article. I always find you to be fair and balanced. Dab simply removed my statement regarding "all pervading" and then accuses me of having no business of removing his minority viewpoint. At least my (if any) fault) was removing a minority viewpoint. His "crime" was greater; He removed a majority prevailing viewpoint. Raj2004 23:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

No fault at all, you took a stand, and then later compromised. That is a sign of your good character. Cheers, Click here to report admin abuse 23:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Neofascism and religion. If you feel that this block is unfair for any reason, please contact me or another admin by e-mail. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. Sam Spade 11:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sina

Why should the name of an internet troll be included in Wp , just b/c he runs an Islamphobic site ?? I am talking about this Ali Sina. Farhansher 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I am a M:Inclusionist, so I think we should have an article on every verifiable human being who ever lived. Click here to report admin abuse 19:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Quote discussion

When speaking with a friend about his day, he is acting as an eye witness (the least reliable form of evidence). When reading the news, we are hearing from someone we don't know, who is at best (indeed rarely) reciting 1st or second hand information. When we are reading contemporary history, the lens is that much darker, the opinions and paradigms expressed by the author that much stronger, and the telephone game that much more distant from the source. But when we are talking about history 100 yrs old or more!... we honestly can't interpret it as very much more than a sociological or psychological insight into the author and the translators and historians between them and us.

Frankly, history is far removed from a hard science, and even the best intellegence gathering regarding the most pressing of current events (like WMD in Iraq for example) compiled by the most reliable of experts... isn't very reliable at all ;) In summary, take all such fairy tales, from the newspaper, from your history books old and new, and yes, even from your closest friend discussing his exciting day... with about a pound of salt ;)

(me, on Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica 14:07, 10 Apr 2005)

Herodotus, Polybius, Tacitus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Marco Polo, Froissart, and Mark Twain (his travels in and around Europe) all recorded what they saw and heard. Herodotus recounts a tale of sea travelers who went around Africa and at its southern tip saw the sun in the North part of the sky. Herodotus records it and says he does not believe it. Yet because he faithfully records the sun being in the north, it becomes evidence the event happened. Read these, please. You'll be amazed. They haven't been painstakingly saved generation to generation for nothing. They are truly interesting. And you might begin to get a better opinion of "history". 4.250.198.44 22:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It is an art, if thats what your getting at. Click here to report admin abuse 19:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats not even close to what I was trying to communicate. My fault for spartan language. Sorry.

"When speaking with a friend about his day, he is acting as an eye witness (the least reliable form of evidence). When reading the news, we are hearing from someone we don't know, who is at best (indeed rarely) reciting 1st or second hand information." True. No disagreement so far.

"When we are reading contemporary history, the lens is that much darker, the opinions and paradigms expressed by the author that much stronger, and the telephone game that much more distant from the source." No, not at all. Contemporary HISTORY is information validated from many sources, not just one eyewitness who told a stranger , who told a writer who wrote it and you read it. And like in a court case, scientific evidence is often available; and as we agree, better than eye witness evidence.

"But when we are talking about history 100 yrs old or more!... we honestly can't interpret it as very much more than a sociological or psychological insight into the author and the translators and historians between them and us. Frankly, history is far removed from a hard science" Completely in error. There is solid scientific data as well as many eyewitness accounts that we have an original copy of. Original Egyption and Mayan and Ur (and more) writings on stone and clay that we can translate. Whole libraries of detailed accounts, inventories, detailed tax records, letters between kings, on and on. The material is overwhelming in quantity and quality. DNA testing on mummies, pollen found in prehistoric camp sites, microscopic analysis of fibers (read about that guy found frozen in the Alps from thousands of years ago?), science done at the molecular level , on and on.

" and even the best intellegence gathering regarding the most pressing of current events (like WMD in Iraq for example) compiled by the most reliable of experts... isn't very reliable at all ;)" Current political data in undoubtedly no more than current political indoctrination and propaganda. It's not history. Julius Caesar's book on his victories in Gaul is the same, and historians know this.

"In summary, take all such fairy tales, from the newspaper, from your history books old and new, and yes, even from your closest friend discussing his exciting day... with about a pound of salt ;)" You appear to confuse the science of history with the science of propaganda and throw the baby out with the bathwater. That would be like me thowing out ethics, love, compassion, and love of truth just because I no longer believe in God. "Without love, the ability to move mountains is nothing" I Corinthians 13. 4.250.168.100 23:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a very long argument, email perhaps? See also - User talk:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases#Of God and Logic Sam Spade 00:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. At least not now. I only wished to provide you with evidence concerning the value of history. Do with the evidence as you will. I have no current interest in debate on this subject. Be happy. 4.250.33.185 17:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Question for Sam

How can you have so much knowledge and simulatneously maintain so much bigotry? What is the motive? User:168.156.88.232 10:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

What bigotry is that? Have you been reading User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases? Or more to the point, who are you, and why are you trolling me? Click here to report admin abuse 19:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you feel that you and those who agree with you are qualified to evaluate the truth and/or validity of opinions that differ from your own? User:71.35.121.203 20:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, I guess so. People who agree w me tend to love God, and seek to obey him. Loving and obeying God assists one in evaluating / discovering the truth. Click here to report admin abuse 21:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Sam. Please change the signature back to Sam Spade. The new signature is only going to piss off people and cause unnecessary fights. I don't believe that is what you really want to do. Sometimes it is best to swallow our pride and show how we can take what happens to us with dignity. This is not the way to do it. Danny 00:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree w all of that, but w you and others I respect insisting on it, I will comply. Sam Spade 00:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Danny 00:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It's because we care. :) --Silversmith Hewwo 01:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Rogue admin stuff

Hi Sam: I came here to say several things: one has been pre-empted by your change of signature, for which I thank you. I feel uncomfortable about your Rogue admin abuse on at least two counts but I do not see such discomfort as a useful contribution to the public general forum of VFD. I do, however, think that I should make you aware of my concerns so that you have the opportunity to allay them.

I am uncomfortable with a page of this nature being a user page. I find that such placement feels personal; that is, this feels to me like your "hitlist". I do not believe that you are waging personal vendettas; I do think that you seek the communal good. So I conjecture that holding this as a user page misrepresents your intentions and reduces your effectiveness at achieving your aims. Your witty private detective agency has the same problem to a lesser degree but its targets are less overt so the issue is smaller.

I find the page name emotive and aggressive. The agression towards an observer is mild but I imagine that it must feel pretty harsh to the named admins. "Rogue admins" would be too personal (such a list is ad hominem) and inappropriate because you are (I hope) trying to change behaviours rather than people. "Admin abuse" is ambiguous (is the admin the subject or the object) so I can see why you sought a modifier but the combination of "rogue" and "abuse" seems too strong. Ultimately, you have created an RFC on admins so "Admin RFC preparation" or something similarly neutral may be better.

Ultimately, however, I see such a page being divisive because it is too easy to infer an agenda from its existence. I hope that this helps. --Theo (Talk) 09:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Such an inference would be correct. My goal is pretty clear, to create a process of deadminship at least as intensive as the process of user blocking. There is no good reason for the double standard admins benefit from, it is against the ideals of the project as well as the spirit with which the policies were written. Adminship IS a big deal, especially when policy violation by an admin is dismissed as trivial, while policy violation by a user results in blocking. Sam Spade 09:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

By "it is too easy to infer an agenda" I meant that in my opinion many readers will infer that you are pursuing a personal vendetta against the named admins. I think that I understand why you appear to believe that admins are being treated more gently than other users; I suspect that it is easier for many editors to assume good faith by admins than by others because those admins have been through a public review process. You say (and I paraphrase to test that my understanding is correct) that you seek to create a more overt desysopping process than that which already exists, and which has been exercised. I believe that this is more likely to succeed as a public policy page that is not associated with any individual cases before its acceptance. I think that, regrettably, your public statement of individuals that you wish to demote makes you appear too partisan to propose such a policy with any real success. --Theo (Talk) 18:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Sam Spade 00:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I am greatly warmed by your apology to El C and your deletion of those pages. --Theo (Talk) 10:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Some more appreciation from me for your considerate action over the VfD, Sam. Best. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice

I am notifying you formally that I have requested sanctions against you from the Coordinator of the AMA for your maintenance of the Report rogue admin page. I am also notifying the Coordinator that I have done so, and I have placed my objections on his talk page here: Wikipedia talk:AMA Coordinator#Sanction request.

Yours,

Wally 03:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither, dear man, do you

See above.

Wally 16:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Signature

I wonder if you'd consider a redesign of your signature. Presently it's extremely obtrusive. It says something like Click here to report admin abuse and, on my browser at least, tends to overwhelm whatever it is you're trying to say and obscure who is saying it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh never mind I see you have already changed it back. Thanks for being considerate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I changed it, based on polite suggestions such as yours. I'm obviously agravated with what I see to be a problem with a number of wikipedia admins, but that needn't be a burden on beneficial and amiable contributors such as yourself. Cheers, Sam Spade 12:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Rogue admins

Sometimes, I feel like reporting dab as a rogue administrator. He consistenly imposes his preconceived western view of hinduism.

Raj2004 15:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is an awful dynamic, wherein people become admins due to having a network of allies (people who share their politics, culture or other demographic relationships), and then proceed to protect one another based on that. Therefore its not very safe disagreeing with an admin, much less complaining about them. For ordinary users like you and I, the only safe answer is to avoid conflict, and focus on making friends, and distancing oneself from rogue admins. I have likely gone too far, and may disappear at anytime. Such is the result of publicising corruption. Sam Spade 16:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam I didn't realize how intense this things can get. When I joined wikipedia, I simply thought it was a community portal for exchange of ideas. Guess I am partially wrong. Raj2004 16:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Its organisational. The project was founded with high ideals, and good policy. Unfortunately the owner, developers and so forth allowed a rather organic and hands off "democratic" method of determining admins and new policy. After the project exploded in size, this has evolved into a circumstance which can be found in most legislatures worldwide: cronyism, corruption, and abuse. That said, there are still many fine qualities of the project, not the least of which being the opportunity I have had to meet excellent people like yourself. Sam Spade 17:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Sam You are also a great guy. Raj2004 18:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Dab conceded. see the talk in Vishnu but he's a still can be nasty when it's not his own belief. Raj2004 11:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the excerpt on Talk-Vishnu. It's quite interesting that Dab may sound anti-Hindu and even contradicts himself. "Also, it's worthy to note that Monier-Williams is anti-Hindu. His goals for study were for the purposes of denigrating Hinduism. The wikipedia article states, " Monier-Williams declared from the outset that the conversion of India to the Christian religion should be one of the aims of orientalist scholarship." Raj2004 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC) It is a well known fact that many Western scholars used to have an extremely biased view of Hinduism and that this only gradually and slowly improved. Older Western sources should hence be treated with suspicion. I dunno about Monier-Williams though. Andries 11:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC) he was a Christian. That is irrelevant. He was an extremely competent scholar of Sanskrit, and you couldn't show his Christian bias from the pages of his scholarly publications. The "denigration" part is a ridiculous ad-hominem charge by the Hindutva. Attack his scholarly views, if you can, not his religion. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be irrelavant that he is a Christian and it is irrelevant when he is a good scholar but it is notoriously difficult not to be biased when describing other people's or your own religion. I also wrote this at cult (after reading the description about this phenomonenon as described by Dutch religious scholar Wouter Hanegraaf.) Even scholars show bias when describing religions. Andries 11:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No. It is relevant but his biased view mars his credibility. Raj2004 11:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, but fine. Why should he care (biased as he was, for argument's sake) if the name was derived from this or that root? It would have been all the same to him, except for scholarly (and encyclopedic) interest. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not true, Dab you're ignoring your own precedent. We had a similar discussion about verses in Rudram. You had argued that a Vedantist would interpret certain lines in Rudram to indicate that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same while other scholars would interpret śipiviṣṭāya differently. So one can't argue that educated scholars can't be biased. With religion, one could always interpret lines to support one's particular point of view. Does the Bible support slavery or would God support slavery? I don't think so. In the nineteenth century, American slaveowners interpret certain lines in the Old Testtament to support slavery.

Who says people or scholars aren't biased. It's all a matter of interpretation. Raj2004 18:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)"

Raj2004 18:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Sam, I've reverted my revert of your admin abuse page because I don't want to get into a silly game. However, most 3RR violations are punished without a warning being issued once the violation has occured. You know the rules, and I think you knew you were breaking the 3RR rule when you broke it despite your rationalization and don't need to be warned about a 3RR violation the way a newbie would be. It's been well established that when a specific word is in dispute, reverting that word four times is a 3RR violation regardless of motivation and regardless of what else you do in the edits. Since, according to well established precedent, what you did is a 3RR violation the entire basis of your complaint against "rogue admins" who called you to task for your violation is extremely fragile and your allegation of admin abuse is specious and I think the fact that you've taken the route of complaining on your talk page rather than initiating an RFC or an arbcom complaint shows that you know this.

Your actions look like sour grapes to most people, I would think, and I don't think you're helping yourself or your reputation. AndyL 17:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

adding: To call an admin a "rogue" for enforcing the rules and not allowing special treatment is a contradiction. Try to look at this outside of yourself and you'll acknowledge that, I think. AndyL 17:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly thats not my appraisal of the situation, nor is it that of all knowledgable parties. What pised me off was Mel's revert of David Gerards unblocking, per Wikipedia:Controversial blocks. Sam Spade 17:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If no consensus has emerged after several respected Wikipedians have reviewed the matter, the user should be left unblocked.

Also Sam, I think the fact that you initially included me in your list of "rogue admins" in your report of this incident despite the fact that I didn't actually use any admin powers (let alone abuse them) and simply reported a 3RR violation shows that your true motivation here is spite for having been caught out and punished. Your initial impulse, therefore, was to retaliate against all involved, regardless of whether or not they violated any rules. That, is very revealing of what's behind your recent actions. 17:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well duh... No great insight there. What I would say is more telling is how I have focused on legitimate cases, and set aside those based sheerly on vitriol. I'd also like to think that my avoidence of article conflict, particularly the article in question, since my unblocking, might reflect well on myself. Sam Spade 17:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

What I would say is more telling is how I have focused on legitimate cases

But your complaint re the 3RR block is not legitimate. You violated the rule and a 24 hour ban is supposed to be automatic. Mel acted appropriately. If anyone acted inappropriately it was David for prematurely lifting the ban. AndyL 18:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It is just so weird how everything the hate Sam squad does makes perfect sense if you begin by assuming Sam is evil. Leave out that assumption and none of it makes sense. Like Andy using this unspoken assumption to prove it was wrong to lift the ban rather than noticing that lifting the ban is proof the ban was wrong in the first place. 4.250.33.185 17:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The temporary unblocking of SS proves only that SS cynically manipulated a hopelessly naive arbitrator. SS gets upset when he is blocked for breaking the 3RR. What a suprise, I don't know any editor who has been blocked who has agreed with their blocking! No double standards for SS, sorry. If only SS had used his 24hr block to reflect. *sigh*. So now, like your email to FM, this 3RR block is merely added to the litany of your unrepentant un-wiki behaviour. --CarloGiuliani 19:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are you editing with a sockpuppet? Sam Spade 22:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Funny that a sycophantic anon ip doesn't get any questioning about their motives from you SS. Not funny, predictable. --CarloGiuliani 23:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

If this is El C, check your talk page. Sam Spade 00:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Not me. I have never used, nor will I ever use, any other account except this one (with the possible exception of uppercase i EI_C). El_C 04:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I applaud you stepping up and doing the right thing by apologizing to El C. I'd love to put our ongoing strife behind us as well and archive my Talk page; I'd welcome the apology for your email that I've long sought-after. How about it? FeloniousMonk 03:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You'd have to consider the context, and the specification, of the apology I gave El C. Essentially I became convinced that him leaving in that manner was creating a bad atmosphere, and was hurtful to the community. While I think your railing on about that email is creating a bad atmosphere, I don't think it is particularly hurtful to the project. For example, my suggestion that you were committing a copyright vio with it, that could have set a bad precedent, and been hurtful to the project (threats of lawsuits being frowned upon). You also need to consider that I was sincere in what I apologized to El C about. I actually was wrong to place him on that list, since I have no knowledge of him misusing his admin powers. I do not however feel wrong in having sent you that email, sincere as it was. There is of course a possibility of you making such a good impression on me that I would regret those statements, but that hasn't exactly happened. I suggest you focus on the positive, rather than the negative, as I am trying to do. Sam Spade 14:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

That all sounds very reasonable, except that your repeated refusal to apologize for your personal attack by email belies any notion that you're "focusing on the positive" and your statement that you feel you were not wrong in sending me the email only renews and reaffirms the personal attack it contained. As for my making a good impression on you: Why should a victim reward an attacker for attacking him? The issue here your personal attack directed at me and how you will either atone or eventually be held accountable. Predictably, once again you disappoint when given an opportunity to do a morally right thing. FeloniousMonk 17:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The page you asked to be deleted

You forgot the talk page. It might be a good idea to add a {{delete}} there too (the content that made you want to delete the page is also on the talk page). --cesarb 00:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that would be proper, and was worried someone would think Iwas covering things up, or not allowing a place to discuss the matter. If you disagree, please delete it, you certainly have my permission. Sam Spade 00:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Kim Bruning 00:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, and what about the subpage (the one with the emails)? (Sorry for not asking together above, I just noticed it right now while cleaning my watchlist.) --cesarb 00:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Kim Bruning 00:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of consistancy, I suppose that would be best. Sam Spade 14:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Sam, thanks for proving what a great guy you are. Some of us knew it already of course! ;) And I hope such positive things will continue, from everyone. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)