Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 4 April 2005 (→[] email: copyvio). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive - Oct 2004 & earlier

Archive - Jan 2005

Open Issues

Outstanding issues remaining from previous months:

Sam Spade's email

Sam, you misused the "E-mail this user" wikipedia email system to send me this:

An editor has launched a copyright investigation involving this section. The text under investigation is currently hidden from public view, but is accessible in the page history. Please do not remove this notice or restore blanked content until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk, or volunteer response agent. The purported copyright violation copies text from place Private EMAIL (Copyvios report); as such, this page has been listed on the copyright problems page. Unless the copyright status of the text of this page or section is clarified and determined to be compatible with Misplaced Pages's content license, the problematic text and revisions or the entire page may be deleted one week after the time of its listing. What can I do to resolve the issue? If you hold the copyright to this text, you can license it in a manner that allows its use on Misplaced Pages. You must permit the use of your material under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Explain your intent to license the content on this article's discussion page. To confirm your permission, you can either display a notice to this effect at the site of original publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under CC BY-SA and the GFDL. See Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that articles on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources; consider whether, copyright issues aside, your text is appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. You can demonstrate that this text is in the public domain or is already under a license suitable for Misplaced Pages. Explain this on this article's discussion page, with reference to evidence. Misplaced Pages:Public domain and Misplaced Pages:Compatibly licensed may assist in determining the status. Otherwise, you may rewrite this page without copyright-infringing material. Your rewrite should be placed on this page, where it will be available for an administrator or clerk to review it at the end of the listing period. Follow this link to create the temporary subpage. Please mention the rewrite upon completion on this article's discussion page. Simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be cleanly removed or the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. (See Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing.) For license compliance, any content used from the original article must be properly attributed; if you use content from the original, please leave a note at the top of your rewrite saying as much. You may duplicate non-infringing text that you had contributed yourself. It is always a good idea, if rewriting, to identify the point where the copyrighted content was imported to Misplaced Pages and to check to make sure that the contributor did not add content imported from other sources. When closing investigations, clerks and administrators may find other copyright problems than the one identified. If this material is in the proposed rewrite and cannot be easily removed, the rewrite may not be usable. Steps to list an article at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems: Add the following to the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2025 January 10: * {{subst:article-cv|User talk:FeloniousMonk}} from place Private EMAIL. ~~~~ Add the following template to the talk page of the contributor of the material: {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=User talk:FeloniousMonk|url=place Private EMAIL}} ~~~~ Place {{copyvio/bottom}} at the end of the portion you want to blank. If nominating the entire page, please place this template at the top of the page, set the "fullpage" parameter to "yes", and place {{copyvio/bottom}} at the very end of the article.

]

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an apology, Sam.

Related links:

1. Sam deleting my response. .
2. Justifying his email.
3. Admiting his actions were an intentional exploitation of a policy loophole intended to side-step the incivility policy.
4. Refusal to apologize.
5. Sam demanding (and receiving) an apology from an admin for performing his job in good faith , then a few hours later refusing to apologize himself. .

Comments of other editors

Is that what the "E-mail this user" link is for? Can this even be true? I don't know what to say. And Sam Spade is still an admin and a user in "good" standing? Brrrr; makes me shiver. Tom Haws 22:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is true. I can forward this email with full headers to any interested parties. Futher, reading Sam's comments linked to above he doesn't even deny having sent it. Sam Spade is not an admin as far as I know, and as for an editor in good standing, that is a matter of opinion, there's an ever-growing number of editors very familiar with his ways that strongly feel otherwise.--FeloniousMonk 18:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade is not now nor has he ever been an admin. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Might I also take this moment to state that sending such an email is a great disservice to all that is good in what we do here in Misplaced Pages. Let me express my condolences, FM. No argument you have ever made on any page I have seen would justify anyone sending you such an email. It is wrong. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments Deleted by Sam_Spade from his Talk page

• February 7, 2005:

About your actions at the Atheism article today

Sam, your attempt to rewrite the atheism article to suit your POV undoes months of consensus and good work by earnest, responsible editors. Repeatedly insisting on inserting POV and undoing reverts correcting it is vandalism. Since you hold yourself up elsewhere to be an allegedly responsible and trustworthy editor, isn't it time to 'walk the walk'? If you're going to edit the article, please try make an effort to collaborate and be a positive influence on the article. We'd rather not have to protect the article again because of you resisting consensus, it would make it the eighth time in 12 months that your actions result in the page being protected.--FeloniousMonk 18:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Issues

Could you add these two pages to your to do list, there is some extremely POV editing going on by TBSDY

• 1 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -
• 2 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there - , , and most of all

Also note that the critical books removed are the more respected of the group, but the ones left in more dubious. The same goes for trying to tie all of the aspects to people like Hislop, Freke, and Gandy. Also note that Freke & Gandy's book was regarded by the Daily Telegraph as "an erudite and well researched book stuffed with controversial ideas", and so inserting only the CNN viewpoint is a heavy and POV attempt to discredit it.

Here are some links you might find useful for commenting on TBSDY

• WP:RFC
• WP:RFM
• WP:RFAR

Thanks. Good luck. And don't give in. And just to check what is going on

• WP:AN

I've just seen this. Please, feel free to review my edits! Also be aware that this is most likely CheeseDreams commenting, however she has been blocked for a day for editing articles related to Christianity (and thus violating the ArbCom order) and then blocked for a week for using someone to edit for her as a proxy. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and also I suggest that you carefully look at the edit history. I did not remove the book reviews that talks about the "erudite and well researched books (etc)" comment. That was another user, not related to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Atheism

Yes, Sam Spade was wrong in editing without discussing, but POV edits are not vandalism. I'll try to keep an eye on the article, but I won't protect just yet. Mgm| 18:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, POV edits are not vandalism. But 12 months of ignoring consensus and obstructing progess is. Sam knows the rules and the situation in Atheism, he chooses to ignore them.--FeloniousMonk 23:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The S.S. Problem

Thanks, I see what you mean — I was pretty sure that his claim never to have had such problems with other users was either deliberate dishonesty, amazing lack of self-awareness, or memory failure. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When dealing with him, be aware of the fact that he's adept at exploiting the system, and policy loopholes specifically, and that there are enough admins unaware of his history of shenanigans similar to those now at Dembski that he can usually find someone gullible to fall for disingenuous cries of foul and get a page locked, etc. He's also quick to rush to RFC/RFA, as seen at the Dembski and Darwin articles.

Best to meticulously make your case with as much credible support as possible, build consensus. By doing this anyone who doesn't respond on the points but instead flames or insists on a particular unsupported POV becomes superfluous- a non sequitur. --FeloniousMonk 19:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I liked your latest edits to the Dembski article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I see he's invited you to view the contents of his user talk page for evidence of other conflicts. That's not surprising since my experience has been he quickly deletes any unfavorable comments left there without response or justification. I suggest taking him up on the offer, but use diffs of the page's history to review what's he's deleted. You'll see that the majority of comments left by me there were immediately deleted; I'm sure I wasn't the only one. What the braggart attributes to a surfeit of evidence, is clearly owed to a want of honesty.--FeloniousMonk 01:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the Dembski article. Stirling Newberry 01:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No Stirling, thank you... You were there long at it before I was. Your asistance there now in maintaining NPOV would be greatly appreciated. And thanks for taking the time out to leave this note.--FeloniousMonk 01:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV calls out for a more thorough coverage of his critics. Given the current state of the page, and the nature of the ID poves, it seems unlikely that this will happen any time soon. Stirling Newberry 02:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's no valid argument against including appropriate and balanced coverage of critics and their positions in an article. That nature of the ID POV is one of the criticisms that needs to be included. We just need to thoroughly research all the arguments and select the most salient and well documented criticisms and make the case on the Talk page. I'll assist with whatever I can. I'll be adding criticisms to specified complexity over the next few days as well; consider dropping in to assist. Also, take a look at the article I created for the Wilberforce Forum, a group Dembski belongs to.--FeloniousMonk 03:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but given a chance to research something, it isn't high on my list of priorities. And dealing with the perpetual bad faith of ID is tiring. At the same time that Spade is promoting Dembski to Newton of Information Science, ungtss is busy denying that Dembski has said what Dembski has said. I will certain try and help keep the page headed towards NPOV, but, truthfully, there is a break down of the wikiprocess here. Stirling Newberry 04:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You've just described their strategy; wearing you down with tendentious and specious arguments. The wikiprocess will always respect factually correct, well-researched and supported arguments. When we are right in our arguments we have the facts in our favor, and with that, you can show spurious claims for what they are no matter what the tactics or strategy of those who hold them might be. So it becomes a matter of reading extensively, understanding the field and the background, picking and choosing your battles, not being afraid of being pedantic, and most importantly, not letting them wear you down. Giving up out of frustration only guarantees that their POV will prevail in the article.--FeloniousMonk 04:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel that is the break down, instead of editors attempting to come to an NPOV consensus, we are back to "balance". And after reading Dembski write nonsense such as :

"Probabilities by themselves, however, are not information measures. Although probabilities distinguish possibilities by the amount of information they contain, probabilities are inconvenient for measuring information. There are two reasons for this. First, the scaling and directionality of the numbers assigned by probabilities needs to be recalibrated. We are clearly acquiring more information when we learn someone was dealt a royal flush than when we learn someone was not dealt a royal flush. And yet the probability of being dealt aroyalflush (i.e., .000002) is minuscule compared to the probability of being dealt something other than a royal flush (i.e., .999998). Smaller probabilities signify more information, not less. "

I don't really feel that our ID poves are deserving of the special treatment they are getting. Someone making a similar boner in pursuit of holocaust denial would not be given the same kid glove treatment that Idpoves are. Stirling Newberry 06:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Flaws in Dembski's work are well documented. Again, editors can ill afford to dismiss well-supported, cited, and accurate arguments that represent prevalent, or at least notable, points. I've found Ungtss open to accepting edits directly counter to his pov as long as I've made the case for them with cites to authoritative, credible sources. Herr Spade is another story. I'm not sure he always reads the material provided based on his subsequent replies, or if he does, he dismisses it lightly. That behavior is self-limiting. The person who chooses to ignore credible, compelling evidence that others accept, or at least consider, eventually creates their own irrelevancy. And editing that ignores or acts against talk page consensus/majority opinion can be considered disruptive and so does not have to be indefinitely accommodated or tolerated.--FeloniousMonk 17:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Appeal for help with Creationism article

Hi there, I don't know whether you remember me or not, but I made a few changes to the atheism article a while ago, including removing a number of samspade's trolling efforts. Anyway, I recently read the creationism article on wikipedia, and was alarmed at how totally uncritical the article was. I have added a 'criticism of creationism' section to the article, and have added a small amount of content to this. However, I am appealing to you (and to a number of other people) to help me both extend this criticism, and to make sure it remains inside the article, as there are quite a large number of creationists who are trying to prevent such changes. Anyway, hope you can help. Thanks Aaarrrggh 21:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I had a look at the previous version and it was definately one-sided. I'll be looking for ways to add some balance and valid criticism and keeping an eye on the article. Thanks for the heads-up. BTW, of course I remember you... --FeloniousMonk 22:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok cool. Thanks for helping :) Aaarrrggh 13:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Ah, thanks for editing back to "analyzable" in Dembski, FM. Of course it's a barbarous spelling, but if the national style set already has to be respected (as SlimVirgin has now advised me as well), then I'll respect that. Of course, the article has such a turbulent history that it is hard to determine such things. Often the style seems quite heterogeneous. And I did check for other instances of "analy*" in the current version, for consistency. I will, as you suggest I do, become more familiar with the Manual of Style. As for the Dembski article itself, it needs some grammatical and stylistic fixes, but I won't touch it any more. It would be like writing on sand in a cyclone! --Noetica 09:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, too, FeloniousMonk. You write: "I hope you don't mind being challenged". No, I love it! Misplaced Pages is clearly one of those sites where we can contribute and benefit at the same time, provided only that we are reflective and open to challenge. (Sort of like living well, yes?) Part of this is being forced to justify one's position, as you point out. I've already done a fair bit of forcing others, and I have laboured to "show my working" also. This can only be good, provided it doesn't waste too much time. What has stopped me from editing in certain other domains in Misplaced Pages is an apprehension that it will be completely futile. I fear that articles like the Creationism and Dembski ones are pretty intractable, and I will not touch them, despite my having some "official" expertise to assist with them. --Noetica 22:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, you seem better suited than many to contribute to the contentious topics, and a voice like yours, reasoned and knowledgeable, would certainly be a change and welcome, regardless of whatever your personal POV on the topic may be. Please consider dropping by the article for Human and adding your insight to the debate on the intro.

BTW, it's spelled labor. ;-)--FeloniousMonk 23:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took a longish look at Human, decided there was a lot that needed to be done, looked at the talk, and decided not to attempt to do it! See my comment there though, supporting your use of the words factious and unitive. My source was the OED, and if we can't trust the good people at Oxford, who can we trust? (!) --Noetica 01:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any quarrel with the existence of the words, it's just that I don't think we should use words that won't be understood by the average (or even above-average) reader without recourse to a dictionary. The O.E.D. (in common with other dictionaries) contains thousands of words that wouldn't be recognised by most people. In my own areas of expertise there are words that I find familiar and everyday (such as 'conative', 'compossible', 'syncretic', etc.), but which I'd not use in a Misplaced Pages article (at least, not without explanation). Noetica's comment seemed to imply that he or she had to look the words up in the dictionary; I certainly did. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good point that I hadn't considered. I'll defer to you on this. Go ahead and change the phrase in the article.--FeloniousMonk 16:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Easier said than done (my first attempt was poor). Would 'divisive' and 'unifying' do what you wanted? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi FM, and hi Mel.

Well, I was moved to comment as I did by this of yours, Mel:

There was one phrase that I didn't understand; looking at it again today, I suddenly clicked — could you check it to make sure that I've understood correctly?

Myself? I simply checked in the OED for currency and first use. However all that may be, no doubt there are many ways of presenting the thought that will be understood more universally. The sentence as a whole might be re-worked with profit:

Religion, as a manifestation of collective spirituality, has led to division as often as it has led to unity; but humanism arose as an alternative that transcended the boundaries of local moral codes and religions.

Or similar. It will depend on precisely what is meant!

--Noetica 21:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like that; is it OK with the Monk? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human

FM, how do you feel about a compromise I've suggested for the introduction? See here Best, SlimVirgin 21:43, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Monk! I'm coming over from the "other side" in the hopes of having a friendly chat (not to convince you of anything, don't worry :-) about the Human article. Your talk page remarks, and in particular an edit summary, have got me thinking.

Truth is the non-contradictory identity of reality. Assertions that states or imply spirituality's role is anything other than behavioral is not factual.

Are you asserting as fact that "spirituality" is to be understood purely in behavioral terms? And does this mean some sort of (fruitless? self-deceptive) pursuit by material beings of something which certainly is not there? If so, that would help me understand where you're coming from a bit better. I wouldn't want to waste time arguing at cross-purposes.

Is there, in your estimation, nothing more than the material world? And are humans nothing more than the flesh of their bodies and brains? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I have no idea if there is anything beyond our physical reality, and I put it to you plainly that neither you nor anyone else does either. That being the case, my position is that spirituality like every other epistemology is a mental construct. There is no objective evidence to believe that it exists independent of us. In evaluating any mental construct that claims to grasp an aspect of reality (which spirituality does), a rational epistemology is required in order to be able to determine the true from the false, by determining a proper method of evaluation. A rational epistemology is needed in order to use and obtain knowledge of the world around us. Those operating without a rational epistemology can not think. More specifically, we have no reason to believe their thinking was productive or correct, as opposed to mere notions. An incorrect or irrational epistemology is unable to distinguish truth from error. The consequences are obvious. The degree to which our epistemology is correct is the degree to which we could understand reality, and the degree to which we could use that knowledge to construct meaningful articles on wikipedia. Flaws in epistemology will make it harder to accomplish anything.

A rational epistemology acknowledges that our senses are valid, and the only way to gain information about the world. Reason is our method of gaining knowledge, and acquiring understanding. Logic is our method of maintaining consistency within our set of knowledge. Objectivity is our means of associating knowledge with reality to determine its validity. Concepts are abstracts of specific details of reality, or of other abstractions. A proper epistemology is a rational epistemology.

Does that explain my POV sufficiently to help you here?--FeloniousMonk 21:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes! Thank you, good sir. :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm gettting really fed up. How about you? SlimVirgin 22:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Sometimes I wonder if every theist with an agenda or ax to grind on WP latches on to this article at one point or another. It's becoming apparent that there's some blatant culture jamming going on. What's amazing to me is that no other credible or neutral encyclopedia includes what they are asking for in it's introductory definition of human. That's a hard, cold fact I've verified personally. Yet it still does stop some from trotting out just about any misbegotten notion or special pleading to justify including spirituality in the intro. It's not like they already don't have a significant portion of the article's real estate dedicated to spirituality in the appropriate section.

On a more fun note, I'm having a new George Nelson Coconut Chair delivered tomorrow. That's some small compensation for all this, I guess ;-).--FeloniousMonk 00:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're getting some compensation for all the aggravation. (Which reminds me of an old joke: Two Jewish women are talking, and one says: "My son is going away to attend college in another state." The other replies, "Nu? What are you going to do for aggravation?" ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Same could be said for all of us too, I'm sure. Thanks for the much needed humor.--FeloniousMonk 19:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at that particular talk page today or most of yesterday. I'm going to get up my courage shortly and have a peek. I hope you're firmly ensconced in your beautiful new chair! SlimVirgin 20:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you can get up now: back to work. ;-) I've written out the various compromise intros (another one was suggested today) at Talk:Human/draft, and have said who supports what. I've also put up an RfC. Please check the compromise version I said you supported, and check that you do support it, and if not, change whatever is stopping you from supporting it. We'll get there in the end ... Best, SlimVirgin 22:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm back in. I'll go have a look.--FeloniousMonk 17:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

FM, thank you very much for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I really do appreciate your support and kind comment. ;-) SlimVirgin 00:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

It was my pleasure.--FeloniousMonk 08:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great comment

You said: "Perhaps you fail to realize that the problems with overemphasizing spirituality the article (as found in its pre- 3/1 content) will not go away even if you silence those like me who object. This article, like every other article on WP, must reflect reality. Get used to the idea that others will insist upon it even if I don't. People are free to believe that spirituality exists independently outside of man. But they are not free to assert or imply in this article that it is a fact. If they want that POV aired in the article, it can be presented as an attribution." Great comment. I wish more editors understaood this. See my response at Talk:Human. Tom Haws 15:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate and support your most recent suggestion at Talk:Human. Thank you for sincerely groping for a solution. Carry on. Tom Haws 20:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Reply re SS

That's OK, I quite understand. I was relieved that he voted against me, though; if he hadn't, the whole process would have seemed, I don't know, an empty sham... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Email

I suggest you remove my email. I do not, and have not given you permission to publish it, upload it to the wiki, or in anyway use it in a manner other than I (as the owner of it) intended, namely for you to read. I won't sue you, but I will force the matter of need be. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)