| Revision as of 18:42, 4 August 2005 edit61.2.235.47 (talk) New Article← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:42, 5 August 2005 edit undoRangerdude (talk | contribs)3,171 edits Chip Berlet articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| I've created a new article ]. Please have a look Thank You. - ] | I've created a new article ]. Please have a look Thank You. - ] | ||
| == Chip Berlet article == | |||
| Sam - thankyou for your input on the ] article. I hope you will consider reviewing this article and the discussions about the Horowitz section further. It's an unfortunate circumstance for wikipedia, but in my recent experience with several of the involved editors here I have come to discover that there is a very strong personality ] around Mr. Berlet and 3-4 other contributers. These editors frequently work in tandem to insulate each other from individual editors who lodge objections about their violations of WP policies and guidelines no matter how valid the case or, in the case of Mr. Berlet who has an article here about his off-site identity, to insulate him from any revisions to that article that introduce critical material, no matter how sourced it may be. | |||
| As you may know, I recently made several major revisions to the Southern Poverty Law Center and, in researching their political controversies, found that they had been involved in a very vocal public spat with David Horowitz over an article that the SPLC published by Chip Berlet. It was basically a below-the-belt smear piece by Berlet that accused Horowitz and dozens of other people he disagrees with of being racist KKK-types, and Horowitz naturally responded with some very strong criticisms of Berlet. While adding the section on this to the SPLC article - complete with sourcing and everything - I concluded it would be proper to add a corresponding section into the Berlet article as well. When I arrived at it I quickly discovered that the ] article was basically a friendly puff piece on Berlet, much of which had been directly lifted almost word-for-word from a favorable biography of him on his own webpage at that interest group he works for. Given that I decided that the Horowitz material would bring much needed balance to the article. I added it to the appropriate section with full sources and even quoted Berlet's rebuttals to give him equal time and to fulfill the NPOV policy. | |||
| Well, a couple days later Cberlet showed up and was outraged that Horowitz had been quoted at all, so he plastered a note to all his loyalists entitled "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page" (as if he personally owns the article about him on wikipedia!) to try and get it removed. Shortly thereafter he even filed a mediation request against me and another user, Nobs, claiming that we were "personally attacking" and harassing him by adding critical material to his wikipedia biography article. Within a few hours all the usual suspects (SlimVirgin, Willmcw, Jayjg) responded to his call and have been relentlessly attempting to sheild him from criticisms ever since. This is the clique I was talking about, and it seems they travel in a pack around wikipedia covering each others backs. When one gets called out for violating a policy on an RfC or mediation, the others show up and try to vote it down. When one gets into a talk page dispute over their POV-pushing, the others show up to support him and beat the guy who called them out into submission. The only thing normal editors who get caught in the crossfire of this group can do is stand their ground and keep pointing to the applicable policies and guidelines. Thanks again for your help. ] 06:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:42, 5 August 2005
Current time: Thursday, December 26, 2024, 00:55 (UTC)
Leave a message
User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive
Art
User:Sam Spade/Art and artists
Ayyavazhi and Hinduism
The Article Ayyavazhi and Hinduism had been Completed and please have a look - Vaikunda Raja
- I have begun some edits, but I am nervous about them, and would appreciate you keeping an eye. I'll ask you in advance to forgive any mistakes on such weighty matters! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hinduism rewrite
Hi Sam, Aum namah Sivaya! I´ve been trying to help on the rewrite of the Hinduism article and I´ve written both the introduction and an overview. I thought others would jump in to help, but things have been rather quiet there. Thre is absolutely no problem in doing it slowly - I´m just taking a deep breath before doing the most debated parts of it, in a very ahimsa and conciliating way - but I´m not a native speaker of the English language and, though I try hard, it´s not the same. So, could you help us, once in a while, checking and correcting awkward sentences? Thanks! Shanti, Subramanian 16:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely! I apologise for not being able to provide more of the bulk content, but I am a student, rather than an expert, of the Indian variety of Sanatana Dharma. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Sam, I thank you for being one of the greatest defenders of Santana Dharma in wikipedia. Many people who are ignorant try to tear it down but you have been a great supporter.
Thank you.
Raj2004 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- You are always very welcome, and I agree about some discrimination I have seen. One thing i don't like is when people have been rude, or even deleted some ayyavazhi articles because they didn't understand them right away, or saw some typing mistakes. For me, I think we are very lucky to have multilingual editors, because this means more articles and more learning. One important reason I am here on the wiki (and also here in this life :) is to learn. Deleted articles and rude people don't help me to learn. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ayyavazhi Trinity
I have created an article Ayyavazhi Trinity .Please have a look. this article right from the time I started editing were warned for Speedy Delition. Please find what the problem is and tell me the way to rectify. - Vaikunda Raja
- Who is making this warning, and where? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know who did it. It was once deleted, though I suggest in the Talk page, the reason. And I created it once again. Anyway Thanks a lot for comming immedietly for help. Again a request;there are chances that any users fing similarities between this article and article Ayya Vaikundar and some times they use to merge it. So in such case I need your help in explining to the Users about the variation. - Vaikunda Raja
== Vaikundar ==
Changes made in Ayya Vaikundar please have a look. - Vaikunda Raja
Ayyavazhi and Hinduism
Reply for your questions in Talk:Ayyavazhi and Hinduism. If there is any thing fault please forgive. And still there is any thing to be clarified, please ask but in simple English. The article Ayya Vaikundar had been expanded, provide more Information, Thank You.- Vaikunda Raja.
Thank you
Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I look forward to making a positive impact in the future of the Misplaced Pages. JogCon 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wonderful, glad to have you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Fin
Picture of the day
Amphipoea oculea, the ear moth, is a moth in the family Noctuidae, with a wingspan of 29 to 34 millimetres (1.1 to 1.3 inches). Its range includes southern England, where it is widespread and common, as well as Ireland and continental Europe, with the exception of Albania, Greece and Turkey. Adults are found from June to September depending on the location, with one generation occurring per year. At night the moths come to light and flowers, seeking honeydew and sugar. During the day they feed at the flowers of thistles and ragwort. This female A. oculea moth was photographed feeding on field scabious in Keila, Estonia. The photograph was focus-stacked from 22 separate images.Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus
Archive – More featured pictures...
To include this picture of the day on a page, add the text {{pic of the day}}. |
=rfc things
that wasnt particularly helpfull... Gabrielsimon 05:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- I felt it was just the right timing. Edit summaries like "reverting POV of SAM Spade, no offense dude, but come on, most other editors revertyour change of this nature, please stop operating from achristina pov." and talk page discussions like Talk:Mysticism are more than unhelpful. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
it was true. you seem t o be perating from a religious pov...Gabrielsimon 05:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
What is sbst
Using {{subst:User:Sam Spade/Welcome}}, rather than {{User:Sam Spade/Welcome}} will paste the contents of your template rather than embedding them. This would mean that the last edit link on the talk page will no longer lead to your template page, and you won't have people editing your template by mistake any more. Like many people, I use the last edit link to add a section to a talk page, finding it taking me to a template page is annoying - especially when I don't notice until I've saved!
Using subst also means that changes you make to the template, will no longer change all previous uses of the text - something that saves on server resources and allows you to update the template without changing old talk page messages. -- sannse (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
of interest
please check thebottom section of my talk page( least i think its the botom) the section called problems... Gabrielsimon 09:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
New Article
I've created a new article Boons Offered to Kaliyan. Please have a look Thank You. - Vaikunda Raja
Chip Berlet article
Sam - thankyou for your input on the Chip Berlet article. I hope you will consider reviewing this article and the discussions about the Horowitz section further. It's an unfortunate circumstance for wikipedia, but in my recent experience with several of the involved editors here I have come to discover that there is a very strong personality clique around Mr. Berlet and 3-4 other contributers. These editors frequently work in tandem to insulate each other from individual editors who lodge objections about their violations of WP policies and guidelines no matter how valid the case or, in the case of Mr. Berlet who has an article here about his off-site identity, to insulate him from any revisions to that article that introduce critical material, no matter how sourced it may be.
As you may know, I recently made several major revisions to the Southern Poverty Law Center and, in researching their political controversies, found that they had been involved in a very vocal public spat with David Horowitz over an article that the SPLC published by Chip Berlet. It was basically a below-the-belt smear piece by Berlet that accused Horowitz and dozens of other people he disagrees with of being racist KKK-types, and Horowitz naturally responded with some very strong criticisms of Berlet. While adding the section on this to the SPLC article - complete with sourcing and everything - I concluded it would be proper to add a corresponding section into the Berlet article as well. When I arrived at it I quickly discovered that the Chip Berlet article was basically a friendly puff piece on Berlet, much of which had been directly lifted almost word-for-word from a favorable biography of him on his own webpage at that interest group he works for. Given that I decided that the Horowitz material would bring much needed balance to the article. I added it to the appropriate section with full sources and even quoted Berlet's rebuttals to give him equal time and to fulfill the NPOV policy.
Well, a couple days later Cberlet showed up and was outraged that Horowitz had been quoted at all, so he plastered a note to all his loyalists entitled "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page" (as if he personally owns the article about him on wikipedia!) to try and get it removed. Shortly thereafter he even filed a mediation request against me and another user, Nobs, claiming that we were "personally attacking" and harassing him by adding critical material to his wikipedia biography article. Within a few hours all the usual suspects (SlimVirgin, Willmcw, Jayjg) responded to his call and have been relentlessly attempting to sheild him from criticisms ever since. This is the clique I was talking about, and it seems they travel in a pack around wikipedia covering each others backs. When one gets called out for violating a policy on an RfC or mediation, the others show up and try to vote it down. When one gets into a talk page dispute over their POV-pushing, the others show up to support him and beat the guy who called them out into submission. The only thing normal editors who get caught in the crossfire of this group can do is stand their ground and keep pointing to the applicable policies and guidelines. Thanks again for your help. Rangerdude 06:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)