User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/November 2005
Current time: Wednesday, August 27, 2025, 01:37 (UTC)
Quote
- " And in the process of realizing that I realized that in the process of being in the streets, as I left I felt a void, and I realized what that void was. And that void was that, yeah, we went in and talked to them and tried to encourage them and tried to influence them but we met no needs. We didn't create jobs. We didn't help the young girl that was pregnant through her problems. We didn't help the drug addict get off drugs or the drug dealers to stop dealing. We didn't help anyone.
- We just went in with a message that really had no credence to it, and from the process of that I began to realize that there had to be opportunities that were created, and those opportunities created as a minister I wouldn't have to go in and preach because the people would come in to us and our message would be able to get over to them the way we wanted to by helping to meet their needs.
- I realized really in reading the Bible, that really before Jesus told anybody who he was he met their needs first. He cared about them first and he tried to understand them and tried to get them to understand him by his love for them, and I began to realize that you can not help people if you don't care about people, if you don't have a compassion for them. " Reggie White, Wednesday, March 25, 1998 before the Wisconsin State Assembly [1]
Art
User:Sam Spade/Art and artists
New Article
Sam,I've created a new article Kosas.Please have a look. Thank You.
- Ok, I'm there now :) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have made many edits, have a look and see if I did ok? :) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the welcome. As I said on talk affirmative action That other person may not be reasonable but is not incredibly unreasonable. Race Reality 20:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I am less sure. Are you banned yet? See USer:Amalekite. Tasks you can do 00:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
hinduism
Hi Sam, allow me to introduce myself, i'm Dosey. Subramanian to me you are the one who mainly deals with the writing of the hinduism article. I was reading over the different views of God. And i felt that it was too long and sometimes unreadable. If you have the time, i was wondering, how many views do you think we need? I really felt some where uncessacry and inappropiate for a synoptical article. I'm a Hindu, but i really felt uncomfortable with the terms in the article. I was hoping you could perhaps give me a helping hand, so to speak.
Cheers
- I made an edit, have a look. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Vivekananda
Sam, The fact that Vivekananda only after visiting swamithoppe, wear head gear is a major claim among some of Ayyavazhi, particularly among old people.The old people says that their father had seen Vivekananda in Swamithoppe.In that time, during the late 19th century wearing head gear is a matter of pride and low castes were not alowed to wear that.But in Ayyavazhi Only with that one will be allowed in side the worship centers.It was ment by Vaikundar to propose that all people were kings to rule. I think that this fact is closely related to Vivekananda's way, Advaita. On the other hand on my point of view, in this matter of Vivekananda's head gear the reason preasented by Vedantha society is too hard to digest.In one of their book I read that he first worn it,by a suggestion from the king of Khetri, during a desert journey, and from that he found it more comfort and thereby continued.You might have heared about Vivekananda.Though he was a saint undoubtfully he was a man of extra-ordinary thought. And all my suggestion is such a skilled man dosn't do any thing without reason.
Also the main teaching of Vivekananda is to bring Advaita in practice or Practical Advaita. In Ayyavazhi the practice of wearing headgear, the worship in front of mirror are seeming match to practical Advaita. Then the philosophy of Ayyavazhi is mostly monistic which was similar to Advaita. Then the date which was presented on which Vivekananda visited Kanyakumari (24th December, Tamil month 'Margazhi- 9, saturday.)is the 16th day of the 'seventeen day festival', Thiru Edu Vasippu in Swamthoppe.(Thiru Edu Vasippu is the festival of melodiouse reading of Akilattirattu Ammanai and completing). Then with the headgear he went to Suchindrum Temple. There he was asked to remove the head gear. When he refused he was not allowed to enter the temple. So Vivekananda called Kerala, (This area is thaen the part of Travancore,Kerala) as 'tent of mads'. This is a proof that when Vivekananda leaves Kanyakumari he had gear in his head. Then the opinion of Vivekananda is, it is from a thought all the uiverse originated. In Akilam several times the same thing repeated that by 'destroying the thought' all will become one. Also, I've read many speeches of Vivekananda and found, many concepts of him revolves around the thoughts of Akilam, especially the concept of origin of time and place. All these created a deep thought in my mind that Vivekananda must be influenced with Ayyavazhi.
Besides all these few days before I found that Dr.C.Poulose in his research book 'Advaita Philosophy of Brahmasri Chattampi Swamikal', had notted that Atmananda Swamikal was a deciple of Ayya Vaikundar, and he learned the Marmavidya in Sidha vidya and ghecherividya (Chinmudra) from Ayya Vaikundar. And Atmanada Swamikal taught all these vidyas to his disciple Sri Chattambi Swamikal. When Swami Vivekananda was arriver in Ernakulam, Sri Chattambi Swamikal taught this chinmudra to him. He also noted that Narayana Guru, Sri Nilakanta Tirthapada and Tirthapada Paramahamasa were all the disciples of Atmananda Swamikal. But none of them were mentioned in Akilattirattu.
By here as Raj2004, I think that Vivekananda was indirectly a disciple of Ayya Vaikundar.
What is your opinion? Can we use this as reference in the article Vivekananada and show his influence to Ayyavazhi? Please place your opinion.
Also this was discusssed with Raj2004 earlier. - வைகுண்ட ராஜா
- Yes, you can certainly cite Dr.C.Poulose in his research book 'Advaita Philosophy of Brahmasri Chattampi Swamikal', and anyone can believe him or not as they wish. You have done a very good service with your attention to rigour, providing some proof even when it was not needed. This is very good of you, and should go in the article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
I see you left me a welcome message at my talk page (either that or I'm terrible confused by this Talk Page business. Since you can tell I'm new in this place - I've been using Wikipedia for some time and only recently began contributing. I would like to thanks for the links to pages and all that. It makes one feel rather at home.
-Bigsleepj
- wunderbar! Tasks you can do 00:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hate Speech
Sam, your edits to Opposition to Mormonism regarding hate speech are unusual. Specifically, that the use of the LDS Temple garment displayed by Anti-Mormon protestors at General Conference is a form of hate speech. I may be ignorant of some of the broader definitions of the term, hate speech, but I agreed with a previous editors change to it being sacrilegious. Their manner of display, waving the garment in the air, at times passing it between their legs as if wiping their backside is offensive to the majority of LDS people. I think I must have a more narrow defniition of hate speech; it is used to denigrate or defame a people, but not a specific belief. Although many LDS people hold the cloth of the garment sacred, I believe most of LDS people place a greater value on the covenants made that the garment represents. For another who has no understanding of the covenants, their abuse of the garment is more sacrilege than hate speech. I would appreciate your thoughts. Storm Rider 17:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't believe in hate speech at all, and find it a spurious concept. I only made the edit6 under the assumption that mormons felt that way. If they don't, then it was wisely replaced. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ha. Exploding Boy 22:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
from Talk page of Existence of God
I can not understand how God can exist. The whole concept of God is full of holes, clearly it can be realised that God is a man made idea. If it is a man made idea, then it must be fault as all truth asserts itself. - unsigned
God is Santa Claus for scared adults who want a daddy in the sky; a government lie to get people to fight to the death; an anthropomoriphication of nature (the sun is trying to make me hot), and a social institution with a useful social role for a superstitious species. WAS 4.250 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Thats absurd, God is a synonym for existence, the foundation of being, the breath of life, the absolute infinite. See monism, pantheism, brahman, etc... Why did you feel a need to say this here tho? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is it absurd? Why do we need a synonym for existence? While existence is surely the foundation of being if not a synonym for "being", how is it the breath of life? I thought oxygen filled that role. And not all life breathes. If you are being poetic, then is not God a poetic way of saying "nature"? Define "absolute infinite". I was responding sympatheticly to the prior contributor. Do you feel my expression of my beliefs on the talk page of the existence of God concerning the existence of God in response to a prior contribution is somehow out of place? If so how? WAS 4.250 00:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's alot of questions, forgive me if I miss a few answers! His question and your reply were not focused on editing the article, and so were not the best use of an article talk page. That's not a huge deal, but it can go south pretty fast, as in this case. Absolute infinite has an article, so you can have a look at that, but I like to say "the sum total of everything that ever was, is, or ever shall be, even that only imagined". Yes, nature is a part of God, and depending on how you define "nature", God is nature, yes (see pantheism). Breath is meant in a far more poetic sense than simply air, see Prana. God's breath is our life, and in much the same way he causes us, or a rock, or a dead person to exist. My God is not anthropomorphic, but people often understand him in an anthropomorphic way, which isn't so bad. God is within us all, so a squirrel might think of God as a super-squirrel, and a rock might think of him as a perfect stone, and etc... I kind of like the tree of life view of him, but my favorite is inner light. Many Hindu’s will say "our entire universe is but a cell in the embryo of God, in the womb of nothingness". Disprove that ;) Tasks you can do 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for having this discussion here on your talk page rather than elsewhere where the trolls play more freely. (While someone somewhere may find you trollish, I almost always find you engaging, amusing, informative, and very funny).
- I forgive not answering specific questions. (Of course!!) I was concerned you might be evasive, but your response is entirely to the point, so the details are beside the point.
- "not focused on editing the article" True.
- "the sum total of everything that ever was, is, or ever shall be, even that only imagined" Good answer. Let that be our definition of "the absolute infinite", "God", "nature", "reality" and the "universe" for this discussion. OK?
- Can you in this current context respond to "Why is it absurd?" WAS 4.250 02:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I can not understand how God can exist.
- (thats absurd, Zeus could be dancing on mount olympus right now, for all we know, plenty of stuff that one fails to understand never-the-less occurs.)
- The whole concept of God is full of holes, clearly it can be realised that God is a man made idea.
- (well, the word God, surely, and the holy texts and such are made by us, bibles don't fall out of the sky, if thats what you mean... but where did we come from? perhaps if you gave some insight into how you recieved this "clear" revelation?)
- If it is a man made idea, then it must be fault as all truth asserts itself. - unsigned
- (?)
- God is Santa Claus for scared adults who want a daddy in the sky;
- (I agree santa is some sort of pop-culture diety, but God comes more than once a year, he is our everything)
- a government lie to get people to fight to the death;
- (what govt. invented my God? Certainly not rome... )
- an anthropomoriphication of nature
- (maybe santa, but again, not my God, I don't worshop haile sailasse)
- (the sun is trying to make me hot)
- yes, it is (I'm a bit of an animist too)
- and a social institution with a useful social role for a superstitious species. WAS 4.250 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- (at least you admit that love for God is efficient! I'm half way there!
Pascal would toast your health. Tasks you can do 02:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I tried to explain how the CONCEPT of God makes sense even if the existence of an actual God didn't make sense. Understand, I was talking to him not you.
- I think all three of us reject the "Bible/Koran is God's letter to us" position.
- The point of connecting Santa Claus with God has nothing to do with "coming once a year". First, you can can leave my ex-wife out of this discussion if you please, and second you know very well I was referring to a mythical figure noone ever actually sees but many believe in and can tell the good from the bad and provides goodies accordingly.
- YOUR God is not the one that is referenced by the phrase "a government lie to get people to fight to the death".
- (Your_God = Assign_Human_Attribures_To(Nature) ) You find this false why? I'm not accusing you of saying God has a beard. I'm saying you think nature gives a damn. The evidence says nature doesn't give a damn. WAS 4.250 03:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: Sacred texts, I think they're all of value, and if one wants to be broad minded, every piece of information we perceive is a "letter from God". As far as "nobody see's God", on the contrary, I see him always, as do a great many others. The number of people I have met or heard of who have had a direct revelation is rather extrordinary. As far as "does nature care about us" Teleology would seem to contradict your proposition, as would every revelation, vision and spiritual experience that anyone has ever had. To be frank, metaphysical research has rarely come to an atheist conclusion ;) My prayers are answered, and I see miracles every day... Tasks you can do 12:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Do I understand you correctly; that you perceive a mind with human like qualities in the workings of nature - where I perceive the complex dynamic consequences of the laws of physics? I know the mind of nature that you believe in is not a "human mind", yet it must share some qualities with the human mind to be identifyable as a mind at all. What qualites are those? Let's identify these qualites of nature's mind and discuss whether the evidence warrents such a conclusion. For example: It rains on the just and unjust alike. Therefore God (a.k.a. the mind of nature) doesn't care about justice? (To simplify this discussion, let's let the physical world be thought of as the body of God and the Mind of nature as the mind of God or simply "God" as our disagreement is not about the nature or existence of God's body (nature) but on the nature of the coordination of the parts of the body - the "mind" or "nervous system" if you will.) WAS 4.250 14:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't embrace a dualist paradigm, not even the idea that the physical and mental are separate. In my conception all things are conscious and emergent, from the smallest specks and quarks, to the largest stars and planets in God's wholism. Mental events are physically real, having a substance (no matter how small in mass or evidence). As far as God's mind, no, it's qualities arn't any more humanlike than rocklike, or starlike, the best way to describe it would be "sum total of everything-like" ;) God is only like a man in the sense that God is like everything, being our consumation. Every man is the result of God, and each of us contains his "dust". As far as warranting conclusions about the intelligence of nature, how do you warrant a conclusion that a given pebble is not sentient? I see no reason to make such a leap, and see everything as a living, sentient soul. Regarding "the problem of evil" and the rain which falls, see karma, I can think of no more perfect justice. So, in conclusion, using your own proposed paradigm as a basis, our difference would appear not to be so much one of theism and atheism, but one of dualism and monism. Tasks you can do 15:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
What does a "quark" is "conscious" mean? WAS 4.250 16:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I only mentioned quarks because they are small, anything else will do. By conscious I basically meant "sentience". As in everything is alive, aware, and emergent at every increment, great and small, all the way down, and all the way up. From atoms to solar systems, from you to God, from a rock to a blood cell, each a spiritual entity enabled to exist by the immanent God.Tasks you can do 19:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Fine. Answer for quarks or electrons or atoms or molecules or whatever "small" thing you wish. What does it mean for such a thing to have "sentience"? WAS 4.250 02:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- It means alot to me, but you'll have to decide what it means to you. Tasks you can do 19:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I take your evasive response to mean you give up trying to defend such nonsense as "quarks are concious". WAS 4.250 22:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
pantheist or panentheistic
Hey, Sam are you pantheist or panentheistic? I lean towards panentheism because of my interpretation of certain verses in the Gita.
Raj2004 15:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Placing users in danger
Sam, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)\
Anal sex
Sam, what on earth is your issue with this page? We have discussed these issues before, and your constant reverts are simply restoring information that is unnecessary and contradictory. Why do you persist in editing this topic about which you have very little knowledge and a personal disgust? Leave it alone. Exploding Boy 16:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you persist in your attempt to own wiki pages? Move on, if your point has any validity someone else will surely make the needed revert. Tasks you can do 19:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Question oh how to proceed with a page I consider biased
I was reading the page on Michael Manley and the tone is anything but neutral but I particularly objected to the line "Manley was Prime Minister when Jamaica experienced a significant escalation of its infamous political culture of violence. In a bid to achieve political power, his opponent Edward Seaga actively supported and funded many of Jamaica's vicious street gangs. Manley soon found himself drawn into the hostilities as supporters of his People's National Party (PNP) took up guns in retaliation." I wanted to edit it but in all honesty felt that someone who would write that an think it a neutral point of view would simply revert my edits. What would be the best way for me to proceed? Annet 16:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- You've done the right thing in coming here. Make the edit, I'll keep an eye on the page. Tasks you can do 19:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
RE: your ever-changing signature
Wikipedia user names are intended in part to assist in identifying registered users. This is partially for your own protection, but it's also, in part, so that other users can be aware of the edits a particular user makes. Your last several signatures really make this difficult. In particular, your most recent one makes it appear that you are not Sam Spade at all. I am requesting that you immediately alter your signature to clearly reflect your user name, and use it to sign your posts. Exploding Boy 19:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I thought of making a colorful counter-request, but I've decided the proper thing to do is simply to tell you "no", and ask you to go away. Tasks you can do 19:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Typical. Well, you may wish to make your views known at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User name games. Exploding Boy 20:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Sam:
I always highly respected you for your objectivity and intellect. Please change back to your old signature, Sam Spade.
I understand if you don't want to change. It's your signature, but perhaps exploding boy may have a point.
What do you think?
Raj2004 01:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I like this signature. I chose it because someone complained about last signature (¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,) You may wonder why I chose these signatures, despite the complaints. I have alot of reasons. The most important is that I provide more options for those who read them. Another is that, at least on talk pages, a certain amount of self expression is allowed. Similar to other users, I make use of that option. My expression in this case is clearly to advise other users to find an encyclopedic task to work on. That is particularly applicable because I see that often volunteers are judged by who they are seen to be, rather than what they do. A simple way to put this is "judge the edit, not the editor". There is little opportunity to commit an Ad hominem when you don't notice who it is that is making the edit.
- Exploding Boy has been stalking me ever since I opposed his nomination of gay bathhouse for Wikipedia:featured article status. We got along perfectly well before that, but ever since he finds reasons to persecute me. This is only the latest in a series of events. For that reason alone, I am not prepared to make any change regarding my signature, at this juncture. Tasks you can do 01:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Sam, thanks for the detailed explanation. I appreciate your explanation even though you had no reason to explain. Those reasons are very good reasons to continue what you are doing!
I did not know the dispute with exploding boy.
Thanks,
Raj2004 01:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, do any of my significantly edited articles qualify for featured article status (i.e., Madhva, Karma in Hinduism and avatar?
I do not know if they are good enough.
Raj2004 01:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Sam the problem with the template sig is that it doesn't identify you. A signature should identify the person who is signing, otherwise it's not a sig! Why not include the template as part of you sig but also have something that links to you user page so we know who you are? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
With regard to this: ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Bravo for creativity. Bravo for individualality. Bravo for standinding up to group think. Bravo!!!!!!! Contributions should be judged on their own merits and not on WHO is making them. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION It's a shame you brits don't have a constitution. With regard to this: Tasks you can do A signiture that doesn't identify isn't a signature. WAS 4.250 02:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sam's claim that I have been "stalking" him because he opposed the FA nom for gay bathhouse is false, and amounts to the type of personal attack he frequently accuses others of making. I do not "stalk" anyone; I have better things to do. We did not get along perfectly well before that; Sam has always been a controversial editor. My problem with Sam's latest signature is that it neither identifies him nor links to his user/talk/email as all other user sigs do. This is clearly not acceptable. I'm not against having a little fun with sigs--I always enjoy Theresa's, for example. I am against this sig, because it's very misleading, makes it difficult to know who is posting, and makes it hard to contact the user. I also have a problem with Sam constantly changing his sig for the same reasons. If you want to give people more information, as you claim, you can easily do that on your user or talk pages. Exploding Boy 03:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Fin
,_Zanz%C3%ADbar,_Tanzania,_2024-05-31,_DD_32.jpg)
Pardachirus marmoratus is a species of flatfish in the true sole family Soleidae, native to the western Indian Ocean from the Red Sea to Sri Lanka and along the east coast of Africa to Durban. It is found in shallow, coastal waters where the seabed consists of sand or mud, often near coral reefs, and feeds mainly on benthic invertebrates. The bilaterally symmetrical and highly compressed body is convex on the eyed side and flat on the blind side. Its colour is frequently whitish, pale brown to pale grey with a scattering of irregular dark brown ring shape markings and many dark brown spots on the head, body, and fins. Pardachirus marmoratus's colour provides camouflage when it rests on sandy or pebbled seafloors. This camouflaged P. marmoratus individual was photographed in the Indian Ocean near Zanzibar.Photograph credit: Diego Delso
To include this picture of the day on a page, add the text {{pic of the day}}. |
Bureaucratship
I'm letting you know that I've just nominated myself for bureaucratship for the second time. If you didn't care to know about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Andre (talk) 02:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Please sign your posts
It is a proper wikiquette to sign your posts on the talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users to understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. It is also a requirement for your votes to be counted in polls. Thank you. -- Naive cynic 18:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- And it's arguable that it's a violation of wikiquette and the spirit of wikipedia to sign your posts with a confusing or misleading signature. Several users have weighed in on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User name games. I'm once again requesting that you change your signature back to your user name. Exploding Boy 21:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Article Vivekananda
Sam, Please take a look, Swami Vivekananda. Is it enough or need more? - வைகுண்ட ராஜா
- Very nice! I think it is good, but time will show what ot hers think, of course. Cheers, Tasks you can do 21:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Featured articles
Sam, thanks for the praise. Yes, I think the title, Karma in Hinduism is fine but reasonable people can differ. Karma(Hinduism) is also a good title.
Raj2004 20:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- My self I think the best is something a reader can easilly find. Tasks you can do 01:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
nazipedia?
Hi, Sam. Just curious, what is a "nazipedia", and what vandalisms did Wikipedians do to it? Func( t, c, @, ) 00:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
pseudodoxia is the name, here is a discussion of it on Vanguard News Network Forum, here a couple of links to threads where wikipedians discuss their vandalism of it [2][3], and here is a link to it (altho its now down)
Tasks you can do 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for the info, Sam. I keep wondering if it would be worth it to join the wikien-l mailing list, or if it would just waste my time like my other mailing lists. ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 02:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
It really depends on how important the wikipedia is to you, and in what way. If you are mainly interested in editing articles, and don't feel a need to discuss or be intimately aware of major policy decisions, there’s no reason to join. If, however, you'd like to hear Jimbo's opinions directly, and say things he might read or even comment on, joining might be a good idea. I did it because I have had so many unpleasant experiences w wikipedia admins, and decided it might be wise to jump ranks a few steps and discuss w the "cabal" directly. So far, I've found them to be more thoughtful and reasonable than the average loose cannon admin, but sadly possessed of the same general ideas at bottom, such as: IAR's is a good policy, admins are almost always right, and NPOV and other foundation issues have exceptions (like in the case of banning nazi's). While I may not always like what I hear, I occasionally enjoy knowing whats going on, and placing my opinion before the old timers whose opinions really matter here. Cheers, Tasks you can do 15:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)
- Dear all,
- Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
- Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.
- The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29
- The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
- We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.
- Best regards,
- Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
- I sterbinski 01:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm am currently write a speech on racism and and ended up on this sight i think it's great that there are sights like this acessable for people like me that just need some help!
A HUGE THANKS HOLLY HEART!
Vishnu sahasranama, a featured article
Sam, do you think the Vishnu sahasranama could be a featured article?
Names of God in Judaism currently is a featured article.
Raj2004 14:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I think Vishnu sahasranama is very close, I suggest submitting it for Wikipedia:Peer review. I think some sections might be a bit bigger, and there could be more images, but it is extremely close, I agree. Peer review not only helps get ideas, but often encourages people to come and help w edits and etc... Cheers, Tasks you can do 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam
Raj2004 19:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for the welcome Devin
Vivekananda
Sam, there's a counter to Ayyavazhi's influence on Vivekananda. See, the talk page - Vaikunda Raja
Re: Your signature
Sam, so you're aware, I've added your actual user name back to the welcome template you place on new users' pages. I'm asking you for the last time to alter your signature back to your user name; I will proceed with a Request for Comment if you refuse, because this is an important issue for obvious reasons, in particular when you're placing comments on the pages of new, inexperienced users. Exploding Boy 17:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)