User talk:Spleeman/Sam Spade
RickK
[edit]Sam [Spade] 02:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gay stuff
[edit]if he's so bothered by "gay stuff", why does he edit so many gay-related pages?
- I have stopped editing these topics, if you havn't noticed. I've taken any of them that had been on my watchlist off due to the overwhelming bias here. Sam [Spade] 02:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Atheism
[edit]there was no "3-revert rule" at that time. Good job finding the innaccurate edit summary tho, I'm impressed. I suppose one of those is natural, every 1,000 edits or so? ;) Sam [Spade] 07:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for the info. I'll remove "broke wiki policy". -- Spleeman 07:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]Sam, in my personal wiki dealings with him, has most often been kind and considerate, though I have seen him be purposefully insulting. He brings up POVs which would likely not be brought up for long periods of time without his idiosyncratic world view/beliefs/ways of thinking. This is positive, regardless of slight problems with the manner in which he brings up these POVs. I would be shocked if Sam was considered a great threat to Wikipedia while other registered and anonymous users are consistently disrespectful, use personal attacks, and add POV in a purposefully counterproductive manner. I would argue that User:WHEELER is much more intent on adding POV as NPOV, insisting that his POV be treated as THE POV. User:Mr. Treason is just randomly destructive and mean. Compared to them Sam is a grouchy old eccentric.
Sam's biggest drawback/downfall is that he never cites sources. Talk page discussion revolve endlessly between his conservative POV and a liberal or superliberal POV, frequently leaving the article and becoming debates for debates sake. Sam seems also to be listening (unlike some), and any inconsistenties in Sam's arguments, in my opinion, may not be used against him, but are simply the product of (1) furthering pondering on his part, (2) repeated arguing on his part, and (3) repeated arguing on others parts.
Any POV problems, mainly definition by fiat (taking a POV as THE POV), with Sam I attribute to his lack of the habit of citing sources, not with an actual misunderstanding or disagreement with the neutrality policy.
Wikipedia:Cite sources. Hyacinth 22:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I thank you for your comments, thoughts and concerns, Hyacinth. I am assure you I am neither old nor grouchy, but rather am a jolly 27yr old. I likewise assure you that I do cite sources, and encourage doing so. I would refer you to Amalek, Bible and reincarnation and atheism for some examples of me having cited and verified extensively. You are quite right that I am pondering, but you are unfortunately misunderstanding "definition by fiat".
- In order to communicate intelligibly, we must accept a given definition of a term, if only temporarily. I am willing to take alternate definitions of a term into consideration so long as a) it is one definition at a time, and b) they are well defined in a manner mutually agreed upon. I come from a logic and psychology background, and insisting on one agreed upon definition (even if only temporarily) is a basic component of my communication style.
- I will admit to being decisive (absolutist) and aggressive (dominant) as these are as much personality traits of mine as they are philosophical foundations from which I work. I am also however open-minded, intellectually honest, and altruistic, if you have not noticed. I believe strongly in presenting all verifiable POV's on a given subject in order to achieve true NPOV, and would find the mere presentation of my own POV w/o mention of the diversity of opposition unacceptable. I simply ask as much from others.
- Regarding certain arguments on articles related to sexuality you have had a month or more to find sources, for example on 1 Jul 2004 I disputed a statement originally at Heterosexuality moved to Prevalence of heterosexuality, see Talk:Prevalence_of_heterosexuality (moved from Talk:Heterosexuality). (you may point out I have not cited sources, but the burden of proof is on the statements being made, which I have left for lack of sources refuting those statements) Politics and religion seem to be your thing, but if you are unwilling to do what is necessary to cite sources concerning sexuality than you should probably avoid that topic. In addition, you have not "stopped editing these topics", as you yourself stated above. Hyacinth 23:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nice Page
[edit]I didn't even realize this page existed until recently. Anyway just thought I might throw some things at you, see what you think, etc.
As far as Sam Spade's conflicts with other users I think you might be able to add myself, Kev, and Miguel (I don't know how extensive an argument has to be before you add it).
From my user page (deleted by myself, but you can check the history):
- I find your comments offensive, I suggest you behave better, or I will begin the process of conflict resolution. Sam Spade 01:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- How am I to take that? You feel offensive? I'm sorry if your arguments didn't hold up, but this is about whats good for the articles, not our egos. Just mind the wikiquette, your ad hominem attacks only make you look foolish. If you want to make me look foolish, say something factual. Say it and cite it. No one deserves to hear the sort of stuff you have been spewing, particularly not a 7 year old. If you spoke to my 12yr old that way I'd whup yer arse ;). Sam Spade 02:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I can read, you loudmouth sock puppet. Sam Spade 03:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) (appearently he can't read too well; my comment was about him not understanding what he read, and not about being completely illiterate)
and more on his user page: here
That argument started on talk:libertarian socialism
Sam Spade has also had conflicts with Kev and Miguel: here and here. I'm sure you can find more if you look.
He has also refused to use feminine pronouns when refering to someone who self identifies as female: here. Again you can probably find more on that if you look.
Just for notification, I think something might be brewing on the atheism page in recent days. I reverted Sam Spade's changing of "god" to "God", and again he's one of the few pushing to use the wiki as a soap box for evangelism.
Personally I find nothing wrong with what you're doing, its well documented after all! By my own personal admission, the only reason I ever registered a user name was to vote keep when Sam Spade put libertarian socialism up for VfD, since people ignore anonymous votes (see:User talk:Bryan Derksen). Before that I had been an anonymous user for months. In fact, I think its the rules of Wikipedia that have allowed Sam Spade to get away with his bullying for so long, and, that, really haven't helped the users that have had to put up with his ego. He reminds me of those schoolmates of my youth who would bully others, but would run and tell the teacher whenever someone would actually fight back. millerc 03:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
...and you might want to put something on the page about his run-ins with Bryan [3] millerc 03:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's nice
[edit]Right. Sam Spade is a valued contributor, and propagandizing my talk page isn't gonna change my mind one bit. ugen64 14:32, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)