Jump to content

User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Dezember 2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Sam Spade | - archive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 4.226.111.104 (talk) at 15:16, 12 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Current time: Tuesday, December 24, 2024, 07:06 (UTC)


Leave a message

User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive

Quotes

(archived @ User:Sam_Spade/Quotes)

  • "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."

Art

User:Sam Spade/Art and artists

Footer

Traveling through my brain from top to bottom!

File:Tortoise-Hatchling02.jpg
A newly-hatched marginated tortoise
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is an American silent film directed by Stuart Paton and released on December 24, 1916. Based primarily on the 1870 novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas by Jules Verne, the film also incorporates elements from Verne's 1875 novel The Mysterious Island. This was the first motion picture filmed underwater. Actual underwater cameras were not used, but a system of watertight tubes and mirrors allowed the camera to shoot reflected images of underwater scenes staged in shallow sunlit waters in the Bahamas. For the scene featuring a battle with an octopus, cinematographer John Ernest Williamson devised a viewing chamber called the "photosphere", a 6-by-10-foot (1.8-by-3.0-metre) steel globe in which a cameraman could be placed. The film was made by the Universal Film Manufacturing Company (now Universal Pictures), not then known as a major motion picture studio, and took two years to make, at the cost of $500,000.Film credit: Stuart Paton
Archive – More featured pictures...

To include this picture of the day on a page, add the text {{pic of the day}}.

Ford Foundation grants to Political Research Associates

Sam, if you are still wondering why Ford gives the big bucks to PRA, you need look no further than Gatekeeper (politics). In fact, your participation in the debate on the talk page of that article might help to sort things out. --HK 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Bund_maadchen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bund_maadchen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric universe Mediation

I think we "crossed messages in the post". Thanks again for your help. I was wondering whether you might tackle another NPOV policy issue to which I have yet to have resolved, I can open another Mediation page with a description? --Iantresman 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it requires formal mediation? I can get more done as an ordinary wikipedian than as a mediator ;) Sam Spade 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Bill of Rights

Hi, I'm soliciting Wikipedia:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with a new Wikipedist

Hello there! it's being a while since the last time that I requested your help. I have this new user in this article, Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, that is creating a lot of controversies:

  • He is clearly attempting to push his own POV (that is, an Ecuadorian POV in this war)
  • Has made editions without having reliable sources
  • Started a flame war with me previously, and now he is treating me to cause even more trouble, namely accusing me of being the trouble of the page.

Please, read the last discussion and drop some ideas to calm this new user. I would gladly appreciate that. Cheers! and I hope to hear from you. Messhermit 02:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature with Template:Vip

I just wanted to let you know that on the talk page for ISKCON you've signed using the Vip template, but you gave your user name as the "user" parameter, while the template assumes it will be an unlabeled first paratemer, i.e., {{{1}}}. I'm not sure if the template changed since you started using it, but I just wanted to let you know because your name doesn't actually appear anywhere in the signature unless you view the wiki text and see the template call. bmearns, KSC(talk) 11:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats true in afew places because they deleted that template or some such. I don't really care tho. If you think its a big deal you can change them to say my name or something, but I won't bother. Thanks for the note tho, how is the ISKCON article doing btw? its been a long time... Sam Spade 16:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you're not worried, I'm not worried, I mostly just wanted to let you know so it didn't keep happening on accident. I didn't read all the way through the article, I just needed a copy of the mantra. bmearns, KSC(talk) 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Jack2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 09:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. The page is too long. I would suggest archiving. --Bhadani 06:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After finals, my friend ;) Sam Spade 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done! Wish me luck! Sam Spade 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot

As requested, I've looked at the history of Bund Deutscher Mädel and at your talk page. I see nothing wrong with OrphanBot's editing: the image should have been deleted on the 10th, but becuase Urshyam flooded Category:Images with unknown source with pictures on the 3rd, many of them incorrectly tagged, it's taking a while to sort out that particular batch.

I'm glad to see that the "never notify someone about an image more than once" code is working. If you don't want to ever be notified when the bot finds a no-source or no-license image that you've uploaded, I can add you to the list, but most established users like the notifications - it lets them know when someone's vandalized the description page of an image they've uploaded.

If you choose to edit-war with an infinitely-patient bot, it's not my problem, but I think there are more productive things you can be doing with your time. --Carnildo 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I don't understand copyright very well, but I don't like you using this bot in this way, and would like to see it stopped. I guess I'll have to hunt down the appropriate page for complaining about bots. Sam Spade 08:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, OrphanBot does a lot of good work, why don't you just tag the image? It's a scan of a US Army ID isn't it? You can just tag it {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} then stating it is a scan of your ID picture you did yourself. --Wgfinley 14:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about my picture, which I'd rather see deleted than tagged. I don't want any pics of me in the public domain, or in any other lack of copyright status for that matter.

Instead this is about several incidents where orphanbot was doing alot of bad work, removing images before they have been deleted, including some images that never should be deleted at all. See Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Complaint. Sam Spade 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a history of mature knowledge

Hey Sam how are you? My name is LoveMonkey ooo eee. Hey your History of Gnosticsim has some problems with it. I don't feel too keen on editing it so I will not do too much. No disrespect but you missed some stuff. Hey I am no scholar but then.........www.theandros.com/emoore I don't speak for the Dean Professor Moore speaks for himself. Anyway the article is a very one but we can tug a war on it awhile. It is OK to disagree. But ask and I will provide you with sources to back the edits. Good luck and great writing.. LoveMonkey 13:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't write that at all! I made that article out of content from gnosticism, which had gotten too big, and wasn't really helping explain gnosticism to people. Please feel free to help edit! Sam Spade 10:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Alle_10_jaahrigen_zu_uns.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Alle_10_jaahrigen_zu_uns.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 01:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe again

Hey, Sam,

Your Mediation Cabal case on Electric Universe (concept) seems to be spiraling out of control -- would you mind looking in again? zowie 16:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies for any offense I've caused at Talk:Human

I offer this olive branch and an apology for some needlessly undiplomatic, aggressive, and even insulting language I've heedlessly spouted out recently on Talk:Human. I meant no offense whatsoever, and harbor no ill will for you despite our disagreements; I just get way too wrapped-up in disputes sometimes, and don't always consider the consequences of my hyperbole. I hope that we can continue to discuss possible solutions to the disagreements on human's content without so much divisive vitriol getting in the way of the exchange of ideas; I'll do my best, but if I screw up again, please feel free to reprimand me, vent, or whatever you wish on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to respond to some of my "rants" in such detail. Here's hoping we can sort out some sort of solution; if people from perspectives as wildly different as the two of us can reach some sort of acceptable compromise in time, there's surely hope for peace in the Middle East, or even resolution to the userbox conflict. ;) -Silence 05:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, thats very nice. As far as I'm concerned we can start over at square one. No hard feelings as all. Cheers, Sam Spade 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redshift mediation

One of the other editors had finally brought the Redshift article to mediation. I think your experience with two of us, and a familiarity with the subject, would make you a fair candidate to do the mediation. I haven't suggested this to the other editors, but if you offer to take on the case, you ought to declare this invitation so the others do not feel there is a conflict of interest. --Iantresman 20:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if I did not, since I have already formed an opinion on the matter. I am glad to help, but feel I am unsuited as a mediator on this particular. My apologies, Sam Spade 21:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahavatar Babaji

Greetings Sam! I seem to recall from way back in the recesses of my obsolescent memory that you are interested in East Indian philosophy. There is a dispute going centred on the above page and Talk:Mahavatar Babaji that I haven't been able to help much with. I was wondering if you'd mind having a look in on the discussion there. I will understand if you don't want to step in it! ;-) Cheers, --Fire Star 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, but I don't know what to do... these guru guys make me suspicious, but I think they deserve neutral articles. I'll help however I can, but I might need some specific advice ;)
Sam Spade 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know much about it, either. There was some reasonable discussion going on for a short time. My suggestion was to make citations short and dry, unsensational, but people kept wanting to either promote their guy or remove any mention of the other guy. Now I've got one editor threatening me! I guess he missed the bit about my being a professional martial artist... Anyway, thanks for your input and thanks in advance for any ideas that may come to you in future. --Fire Star 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats?!? Where is that at? The wikipedia really is abit of an insane asylum, I've never had people treat me so badly offline as they do online... Sam Spade 10:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1] and [2]. I thought yoga students were supposed to be friendly, tolerant people? I have had exactly the same experience online. The seeming-safety of the computer coccoon has a weird effect on people... --Fire Star 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stepping in a big pile of seth

Hey how is "Commonly, the Sethian cosmogonic myth describes an intended prologue to the events of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch, which by its emendatio" an explaination to edit out apophatic theology from greek christianity? Even in an article on them sethians.LoveMonkey 04:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatz a madda Yu? Why can you not reponse to antaganizms? Hey anyway I think your articles are actually pretty d@mn good. Good luck. Mr Sam. LoveMonkey 12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your pretty swell too. I didn't respond because I didn't know what to say. I don't know much of anything about sethians. At first I thought it had something to do w the Temple of Set, but I don't think so... Their article says they are some sort of jewish / platonic fusion.
Anyways, the edit I made was mainly ment to be gramatical rather than substantive in nature.
Cheers, Sam Spade 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Lucas didn't like 'em either but he called em sith. LoveMonkey 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY if you need a laugh and a long but fantastic read..Check this out.. HAHAHAHA. http://www.mastermason.com/hiramdiscovered/gnostic.html Good luck and God Bless. LoveMonkey 15:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, God be with you, you have my blessing as well :) Sam Spade 20:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Help

Sam, will you don't feel difficult Can you help me by bringing to my knowledge any users who can translate the Ayyavazhi article to other world major Languages. - Vaikunda Raja 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try some of these links:

Cheers, Sam Spade 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing picture

Hi, this is User:WHEELER. Well, I haven't been here for awhile and I have suddenly noticed that my picture on my user page has been deleted. It was deleted off the beard page also. Don't mind that but it was deleted off my User page. Why is that? The HTML code is still there but the picture is not. Why. And why do people delete stuff without ever telling the originators of the pics. I have had other pics disappear as well. What is going on around here at WP? WHEELER 01:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more question, a User:Oliver Twist added this to my user page "<div align="justify">". What is this?WHEELER 01:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have gone crazy deleting images. I've been complaining about it, but nobody seems to care. See what they did to my pic: User:Sam_Spade/Contact/pic.

As far as the justify thing, it seems to be HTML code and probably makes your page look better or some such. Have you asked User:OliverTwist about it? Sam Spade 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks verymuch for you help. And in the matter of personal attacks, Internet have innumerable merits and a few demerits. And one of the later is this. It is really wonder that how such personal enemity broke out merely by the usage of alphabets between two person unknown for each other from two cornor of the world. And yet another wonder is how such personal enimity broke out on discussing public matters. - Vaikunda Raja 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSN

Sam, would you mind coming over on MSN to talk for a while? -- Nikodemos 11:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the socialism article more in-depth, I have concluded that it needs much more restructuring than just in the one section about other ideologies including the word 'socialism'. I've also noticed that, curiously enough, we have short descriptions of those other ideologies but we don't have short descriptions of the universally accepted branches of socialism (like social democracy and communism). -- Nikodemos 12:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolicon straw poll

There is a straw poll about how images should be included on this page ongoing until the end of March. kotepho 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hasbara

hello, i am writing a grad school paper for a linguistics class on the subject of hasbara.

is this discussion still open?

DW

I'm not sure what you mean, but I suggest you look @ hasbara. Sam Spade 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism

Please respond on the talk page before making any further edits. Thanks. -- infinity0 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... Sam Spade 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page, btw. -- infinity0 22:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. [3] is interesting - it's hypocritical of you, since you are the one refusing to discuss the reasons behind your reversions of my edits. -- infinity0

I find talking to you upsetting. Sam Spade 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I remember you vaguely from last September when we edited Existence of God, but can't think of any other things I may have upset you with. -- infinity0 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean always, I ment at that time. I removed the 3rr thing, and will slowly try to discuss this w you, now that I'm less pissed off. Sam Spade 09:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath talk

Sam, I'm really distraught right now because of what's going on on that YGS page and discussion. I really feel that this article needs more extensive mediation. It is very difficult for me deal with editors that call me a vandal baselessly and hypocritically (on my personal talk page) after I've made numerous attempts to be civil and create discussion despite there being massive tension beforehand. This is unbelievable to me... I'd rather have YGS article removed completely rather than there be false "conflicting views" that have no merit in reality. Please step in and let us know what you think. Please do read my latest talk page edit thoroughly if you can - I have delineated a lot of issues that need to be addressed there. Thank you in advance. Hamsacharya dan 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, the conflicting view are not false - they are other outside views of your subject. Did you imagine that everyone would take YGS literally? I tried to warn you about this. I pointed out this page, WP:AUTO, from which I quote:
"Note that anything you submit can be edited by others. Several autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors. In some cases the article is kept even if the original author requests otherwise. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic."
This applies to your attempt to put excerpts from the autobiography of your Guru on WP. It has already been listed for deletion and it was voted to keep it. You do not have sole control over the article, like I tried to warn you. I advised you to put only verifiable facts into it, but you ignored me and kept trying to promote your Guru rather than simply stick to verifiable facts. How you feel is just how it felt to us when you kept putting you promotional language into Mahavatar Babaji, Kriya Yoga and Nath. Did you think about our feelings then? —Adityanath 03:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Adityanath, be civil. I ask you to re-read your statement above, and remove anything you think might be unhelpful. Sam Spade 10:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I hope that is better. —Adityanath 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks! Gracious consideration of others feelings, and the ability to make amends go a long way in my book! One thing I have found at the core of all holy paths is a love for ones neighbor. Going the extra mile to help someone your disagreeing with feel respected can make all the difference sometimes. Cheers, Sam Spade 15:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't feel at all respected - I'm nonplussed by how things have gone. The conflicting views were put up in order to counterbalance someone's idea of outlandish claims. I've offered numerous times to remove both of them, but these guys are utterly intractable. The conflicting views themselves are full of conflicting views. That section of the text is becoming larger than the main text of article, itself. Is there any precedent for this at all on wikipedia?
And what's with citing me with different incident review boards when you and your friends take the exact same actions and only fuel the fire? I decided not to cite you despite confirmed sockpuppeting, because you asked me not to, so I acted in a spirit of civility and towards resolution. Instead, you've taken the opposite approach and only exascerbated the problem. That is not respect nor does it demonstrate any sign of trying to look for resolution. Hamsacharya dan 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I've pointed out to you the biography of Yogi Bhajan as an example of what you should be writing if you don't want conflict. Why not write a bio in that vein on a temp page Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Temp, get everyone to verify that it is neutral, and then have an admin move it into place. —Adityanath 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Dan, you haven't EVER offered to take ANYTHING out of the article. If you did, please cite where you did so. You write so much circuitous gibberish that it's hard to keep up with you. —Adityanath 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for you Adityanath: [4] [5] Both times without any response from your or Chai Wall or Baba Louis.... it appears to me that you are trying to discredit someone with your POV original research, rather than cite verifiably, reliably sourced views that directly address Yogiraj Gurunath. Hamsacharya dan 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, those weren't addressed to me. Also, they were offers to discuss, not offers to remove. If you want to remove your outlandish claims, just do it! Oh, and this is not my talk page. Please leave messages for me on my talk page. I am taking all other user talk pages OFF my watch list starting now. —Adityanath 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon guys, lets try harder to assume good faith. Sam Spade 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi. This is my apology for being short with you yesterday. William M. Connolley 11:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! That was nice of you. I admit the WP:DICK reference was abit over the top, but I was in apissed off mood at the time because of my conflict w infinity. I removed the 3rr notice for him too, if you hadn't noticed. No hard feelings, cheers!
Sam Spade 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a bit OTT, which was why I over-reacted in return :-). Then I came to my senses! William M. Connolley 12:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully everybody is getting along much better now, I even chatted w infinity over IRC. While we didn't agree about everything, we seemed to have ended on a positive note.

The wikipedia can be a very stressful place. If I were Jimbo I'd outlaw (non-vandalism) reverts entirely, and make civility, neutrality and the citation of references a more quantifiable aspect of each editors experience. One way or another, we need to to find ways to compliment each other more than we criticise.

Thank you again for your thoughtful notes, Sam Spade 14:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My God Sam, now that is poetry. I am just stupefied by how these gray areas can cause such unbelievable conflict. There needs to be much more regulation of highly controversial topics. They can be a huge waste of everybody's time. Hamsacharya dan 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IM

Do you use IRC? -- infinity0 11:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't seem to do very well w IRC (altho maybe I should try again, do you know agood free client?). I use google talk and MSN. Sam Spade 11:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mirc.org/ - free client, still useable after 30-day trial. If you have problems with it, send me an email and I'll go install googletalk. -- infinity0 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on irc://irc.freenode.net/ -- infinity0 11:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm logged in, now what? Sam Spade 11:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your nick? -- infinity0 11:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SamSpade

Sam Spade 12:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk:human

There appear to be server issues going on which are making older drafts of some pages appear. JoshuaZ 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YGS discussion

Sam, my latest discussion post reflects (hopefully) as clearly as possible my POV on biographic entries and what should and should not be included therein. I would certainly like your comments and input, when you get a chance. It is a bit lengthy, for the reason that I'm trying to be as clear as possible - if anything seems vague or unclear to you, please let me know and I will attempt to clarify before other editors reply and potentially misinterpret me. Thanks again for your involvement. Hamsacharya dan 08:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks :) I'm glad that you accepted my compromise - I really hate to work against other editors. I hope we can sort this out as efficiently as possible (ie. without further disputes). -- infinity0 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I didn't agree w your edits! I was thanking you for your talk page candor, and obvious good nature. Sam Spade 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's wrong with my suggested replacement? -- infinity0 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... what's wrong with the suggested replacement? Could you give the reasons? -- infinity0 16:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up to my last comment, and address my concerns. Telling me rhetoric is different than actual practice and that you don't consider soviets to be socialists isn't a satisfactory answer. Syndicalism is where fascism came from, so that info can be put there under fascism. All this page formatting is making my head spin, but there are plenty of comments you can read (from myself and others) if you just look around. Sam Spade 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I don't consider soviets to be socialists; please read my comment. I answered your point by changing "demands ignored" to "did not act on most". Please state why the disputed version is better than the suggested version. Why is my answer not satisfactory? -- infinity0 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider posting on the talk page, instead of here. You must explain your thoughts clearly, and also explain why the disputed version which is currently on the page is *better* than the suggested version. There is one editor who wishes to remove the section entirely. Think about accomodating for that. -- infinity0 16:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, could you explain your reversion on the talk page? Nobody else had a problem with it. -- infinity0 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Portal

Sam, I've created a new portal, Portal:Ayyavazhi. Please take a look. Thank you. - Vaikunda Raja 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic Metal

Yeah, don't worry about it. Edit wars happen everywhere on Wikipedia. The thing to remember is that there's always some sort of middle ground. Leyasu is, from experience, very knowledgeable about metal music and the modern metal scene, and she tends to have very predetermined desires for development of articles. But, just like all other Wikipedians, she's smart and eager to compromise when necessary. Anyway, glad to help. - CorbinSimpson 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I'm sorry for being short with you on Socialism yesterday - I was a bit stressed, not only from that article. But in future, please, please, could you discuss things (extensively) on the talk page first? Thanks. -- infinity0 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gudis_Argenteus.jpg

Hi Sam,

I came across your page User:Sam_Spade/To_do_list/God, because it uses the Image Gudis_Argenteus.jpg. That image is using an obsolete PD-Tag. Is there a way to sort that out in a way that makes it possible to put it into commons? I would like to use that image in the nds-wikipedia.

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really have no idea at all. Copyright is really not my area... sorry... Sam Spade 20:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I told you so...

When you started editing the socialism article, Sam, I warned you that nothing good would come out of it. I have mostly stayed out of the debate so far, and will probably remain in this position for a while longer, because (a) I am short on time, and (b) it has clearly become impossible to work together as we originally agreed. You are obviously angry and you're making some edits just to illustrate a point (for instance, you should know as well as I do that controversial forms of X don't belong in a template about X). If you have time later today or tomorrow, I'd like to talk on MSN. -- Nikodemos 19:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not angry at all. In fact I'm very focused on a speech I'm giving this weekend regarding environmental and social influences on infant development. As far as the article in question, I wish you had been more involved, Instead of you and I working together, infinity and I found ourselves working at cross purposes.
Re: the template, I agree we need to resolve the article first, and then decide which disputed forms belong on the template if any. If a good title can be provided, an article devoted to the distinctions within socialism would be a good addition to the template, as that debate is far bigger and broader than simply the nazism / fascism angle, and really should be discussed at length somewhere (the Socialism article might be the place, I don't know...)
The problem in question is really only the tip of the iceburg, there seem to be about as many definitions of socialism as there are socialists. My only goal is neutrality, and whatever achieves a factualy accurate, NPOV article is alright by me.
I'd be glad to speak to you when we can find a mutually satisfactory timing, but I won't be able to devote my attentions to the wikipedia in any great depth (other than child psychology) for awhile (possibly even a month, I have alot coming up, I'm visiting the states for acouple of weddings and etc...). Sam Spade 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Purusha sukta

Sam, Dbachman and I created an article on Purusha sukta. As you are an excellent editor, please take a look if you have time.

Thanks, Raj2004 22:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, Purusha in contemporary Hinduism, is now interpretated to describe Vishnu. The all pervading description is usually mean Vishnu. The Purusha sukta is regularly chanted in poojas.

Thanks for the edits.

Raj2004 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleMe and Serial Vandalism

User GoogleMe has engaged in serial vandalism on articles, especially Children of Bodom, in regards to the liking and disliking of the band by himself. Myself and other members of Wikipedia Project Metal Music have reverted this user several times for his unjustified attacks against users and vandalism on articles, being warned against this by Ruud [6]. GoogleMe has however ignored this and is now using his user page to directly insult every and all users who reverted him, labelling them Dorks [7]. The user also vandalised my user page [8], and blanked his talk page of personal attacks and vandalism warnings twice after being warned not to, [9], [10]. This user is also refusing to follow WP:NPOV and WP:CITE and has threatened to vandalise the policy pages. Immediate action is required. Ley Shade 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Violation

That's pretty funny coming from you Sam. You might want to take a nice long look in the mirror. Besides, was anything I said untrue? I think not. I suppose the comment above mine was better (even though it said the same thing).

As for incivility, " 06:47, 27 March 2006 Sam Spade (revgert, stuffed down at the bottom is as compromising as its gonna get)" and 18:15, 23 March 2006 Sam Spade (good grief, read consensus, will ya?), "10:54, 21 March 2006 Sam Spade ({{NPOV}}, read talk page before lying)" and "14:52, 18 March 2006 Sam Spade (rv, the article needs to be neutral, or have a dispute header, end of story)".

Then of course there's misrepresentation, as seen here: "11:38, 29 March 2006 Sam Spade (restore compromise version)" -- there was no compromise -- and your multiple placements of the NPOV tag and the insistance on reinsertibfg the spirituality section. In fact, in looking oveer the edits, a majority of the editors have made various comments about your edits, some far stronger than what I said. Think on that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and then there's the God page, an edit of yours caused the generally calm KC to post, "08:36, 4 April 2006 KillerChihuahua (Sam, did you even read dab's post? You have no consensus; you have no support for your US-centric, inaccurate intro)" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to join you under the eye of policy scrutiny. Mediation would be the next step. Sam Spade 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the next step is below. You've now got bigger fish to fry. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hey, I've started your RfC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade - feel free to respond now, but the main point is for you to take in comments from other editors, not all of which have commented yet. -- infinity0 17:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

I'd like to express my concern at your comments on User talk:Bishonen. Coming to user talk pages and "chastising" someone for their comments on an RfC, calling them "part of the problem" and then going ahead to seemingly threaten harassment unless they remove the comment isn't an appropriate thing to do, especially after you've been asked to keep your involvement on that talk page to a minimum. Neither is trying to claim an RfC viewpoint you disagree with is "abuse". I consider such things to be at least worryingly close to violation of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Editing your previous comments to remove portions someone has criticised is also generally considered inappropriate, for that matter, and please bear that in mind. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note you added "I apologize for having tried to speak to you as another human being. I will try to avoid such an error in future" while I was typing the above. That's clearly a personal attack. There's just no excuse for this - please don't make them in future - comment on the content of discussions, not on the users involved. Consider this a warning. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your involvement or interpretations of this matter. If you have been asked to intercede in this manner, I ask that you make your formal status as advocate known. If you are acting on your own behest, I advise you to rethink your stance. Good day. Sam Spade 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message on my talk page, users can be blocked for personal attacks if they're considered to be disruptive, which I personally believe the above-discussed user talk page edits could be considered to be. I am indeed not an admin on wikien, but that's not particularly relevant to me warning you on this matter. If you'd prefer a more 'normal' warning, I'll use the template, which I think mostly just restates what I said above..

Information icon Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made a personal attack. I have not disrupted the wikipedia. I have not threatened anyone, or otherwise violated policy to my knowledge. I find your comments here, and particularly your usage of the above template intentionally provocative and offensive. Please explain your presense here. Are you acting as a formal advocate, and if so, for whom? Sam Spade 19:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(afer edit conflict, take two) Nonsense. You know an editor does not have to be acting in any "formal" position in order to post a warning on a user talk page. I find your attempt to place Fuzzie on the defensive questionable. I concur with Fuzzie that your clear implication that Bishonen cannot be spoken to "as a human being" a personal attack. I find your claim that you don't have time to respond fully to the Rfc, while clearly you have time to post such comments on a respected Admin's page, "chastising" (!) them for their participation, telling. Perhaps if you spent less time attacking others and more time trying to understand what they are saying to you, you might gain from the experience. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I have blocked you for 24 hours for continuing despite warnings. See ANI for more details. --Cyde Weys 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an involved admin. Please find an uninvolved admin (someone who at minimum is not a party to the RfC in question. Sam Spade 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nonsense. Cyde posted his block on AN/I. If anyone thinks you were blocked inappropriately, you will be unblocked. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, just to let you all know, he has been. Andre (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unfortunately I can't actually edit for whatever reason (the note I get says the autoblocker is to blame), but thats not a big deal, I'm going to bed pretty soon here. If at all possible it would be cool if I could explain myself at AN/I, I'd like to say a few (polite) things. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try now, I lifted an autoblock. (And please do stay off Bishonen's page for the time being, as asked - the RFC or its talk page provides an appropriate venue for discussion, if she chooses to discuss.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to avoid everything as much as possible, thanks. She did what I asked by deleting the thread and making clear she didn't want to talk, so I have no reason to contact her that I know of. As per the RfC, I don't know what I can say to help that situation... Anyways, thanks much. Sam Spade 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New

Sam, Please take time to take a look into the newly created article, History of Ayyavazhi and do anythings if needed. - Vaikunda Raja 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look into the Israel Shamir article pls?

Users Chip Berlet and 2 militant Jewish nationalists, Diderot and Jayjg, have taken over the role of "gatekeepers" on the Israel Shamir article and are behaving in a highly unethical manner. They demand that all rejoinders to the attacks on Shamir must come from well-known persons, and engage in continuous reverts. The horrible, disgusting article has been endlessly edited to reflect Wiki policies of NPOV, etc, but these worms keep reverting back to their horrible version, which they watch over like hawks. I also want to request arbitration into the behavior of Chip Berlet and possibly these other clowns. The behavior of Berlet and his cohorts seems in violation of Wiki policies to say the least. Thx man. Robert Lindsay 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Unfortunately fighting hasn't been going very well for me lately, and I think I'll have to opt out. I have the busiest month of my life coming up, and the busiest 18+ years shortly after that ;) I suggest you try WP:AMA, or maybe you'll get lucky and someone reading this will want to help? It looks like a long, hard, tough fight to me. Chip Berlet is a wiki-celebrity, who specializes in editorializing on such matters.


as far as I'm concerned, I think I need to focus on quiet pages and places for awhile, if I am going to be editing at all. Sam Spade 22:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement

alt text
alt text

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! Sarah crane 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thats very thoughtful. I have decided to rethink my role here, and to focus on improving articles which are free from conflict. The wikipedia has a bad system for resolving differences of opinion, and I have spent too much time experiencing that. It does however have alot of good people (such as yourself) and positive aspects. I plan to spend what little time I am here interacting with pleasent people and unconflicted pages for the foreseable future. Thank you again for your note, Sam Spade 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

Hi! I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this case brought forward by Hgilbert. If you could respond at that page, it'd be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Keitei (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_genres

Hello, I'd like help in classifying the group Smokers die younger, as well as find some resources to substantiate their notability, if any. They seem to want to defy classification, and I'd like to see resources for them, but can only find what appears to be several similarly worded reviews of them. Since you're listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_genres, I thought you'd be better suited to have a go at it. - CobaltBlueTony 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks very muc, im currently writing about things, which i know alot about, but not posting vanity articles. any tips on writing longer articles, i always find that i say everything about the given subject in one sentence.

Not sure... If you know alot, you must have more to say than 1 sentance? Maybe you should try some sections and article structure, to help produce at least 1 sentance per sub-topic ;) Sam Spade 12:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of street gangs

  • Mr. Spade,
I greatly appreciate your help with the list of street gangs. I've spent a great deal reverting questionable edits and other contributions. Do you think it would be a better idea to reganize the list by coutries or time period ? MadMax 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I want to agree about what to do rather than fight about it, thats for sure! I am pretty open minded, and I am confident that a few of the redlinks (possibly even most of them) are fictional, but undoubtably some of them are real... Researching gangs, secret societies, cults and fraternal organisations has been an interest of mine for decades, and 'd like to see a good structure put in place to help articles to grow.

I really appreciate your pleasent approach btw, it is refreshing and reflects well on your character. Sam Spade 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi mysticism page

Dear "Sam", I believe I did raise the points in question various times, both on your talk page and on the talk page for the article in question. The discussions there went nowhere, and you reverted any changes. It seems to me that mediation might be helpful, and is the only way forward in a situation like this.

Hgilbert 09:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sam,

You asked what I would wish for the article. Wiki policy is only to cite published works. Significant parts of the article are referenced to web-sites only. I would like the article to be cleaned up of all dubious content. In addition, much of the material is considered essentially loony by most historians; if mentioned at all, it should be made clear that this is a marginal viewpoint. I would prefer that it simply be removed. Hgilbert 12:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still have a copy of the skybridge pictures?

I never got to see the topless skybridge pictures, and they've been deleted now. I was hoping you'd saved a copy and would be willing to share. You can e-mail them to mercatur@gmail.com if you don't want to post anything else about them on Wikipedia. 4.226.111.104 15:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive/Dezember_2006&oldid=48124482"