{{AMA alerts}} Current time: Tuesday, November 12, 2024, 02:29 (UTC)

(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."
  • Ambrose Bierce

User:Sam Spade/Art and artists

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]

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 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]

• User talk:OrphanBot#Please stop using orphan bot to remove images

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]

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]

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

• Wikipedia:Translators available
• Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
• Wikipedia:Translation into English
• Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

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

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :) 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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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. •Jim62sch• 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)" •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 21:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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..

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

• 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]

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]

From the sounds of it you are editing the wrong articles. I'd like to know how you define considered "loony" by historians? What historians? You don't seem to be considering any experts in this area, like these ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_mysticism#References

Can you cite one historian saying any of these claims are "looney"? Sam Spade 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.    GUÐSÞEGN   – U T E X – 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found some despicable stuff done by the controlling editors of the Socialism page. I just wanted to let you know that you have a friend. I am currently being bullied by the controlling editors of the Democratic Party (of the United States) article.

Also I just added some comments to the article talk page and if they don't respond or do something to clean up their page, I am going to put some code on top of their page, like npov, that they will not like.

in freedom Thewolfstar 23:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hang around where I'm not wanted. Your enemies don't want me involved. Now I find you out that you don't want me involved. Fine, I'm out of it. Good luck. I've always liked you. (And you are thinking ... "Funny way to show it.") WAS 4.250 16:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its obvious you ment well, I was just pissed off by some of what you said (like that the rfc was justified, or that there needed to be "teeth" applied to my statements), and honestly didn't understand the half of it. I'm starting to feel the same way about being where I'm not wanted, so I hear ya there. No hard feelings, Sam Spade 16:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to chime in if you want, but I'm afraid I don't have the cycles to spearhead anything or advocate. Sorry to hear about it, though. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam,

I'm the author of a treatise titled the Ultra-Space Field Theory. Every once in a while I google the USF theory to see if its found a home on any new websites. I came across a message from someone warning a Wikipedian writer to stop pushing the Ultra-Space Field Theory and that all future references would be sent to Melchoir.

The Ultra-Space Field theory is an alternative model to the current particle theory paradigm and is generally ignored by the scientific community, so I'm not surprised your organization wants nothing to do with it. (My own brother, with a Bachelors in Science, called it 'whacked', though he could find no fault with its conclusions.) From what I can tell, it is a historical truth that scientists (being the busy people they are) detest new science models. Many of the assumptions in physics we currently hold as truth took decades to overcome locked mindsets. For example, a huge number of physicists describe magnetic fields as an illusion, though there is no evidence supporting this conclusion and the Earth's magnetic field protects us from billions of electrons being ejected by the Sun every minute.

I would like to request Melchoir be given an opportunity to read the treatise. If Melchoir will e-mail me a snail mail address, I would be happy to send him a copy.

Can you place a copy of the tools, other links that are in the toolbox on my userpage on your toolbox ? Then you'll have all of the tools as well. Martial Law 09:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Sam,

I need help with a dispute over at the Earth Day page. I'm close to computer illiterate so the conflict resolution pages weren't much help. An individual who uses earth as a screen name is deleting facts that he doesn't like. He's also adding insulting paragraphs under the "miscellaneous" heading. He is an ideologue and refuses to work with others towards a resolution.

Thanks, Jeff Bargholz www.bargholz@cox.net

Hey, yeah, we need a third person. Just to give the other side, I deleted statement that are related to WP:No original research which is part of WP:NOT and also WP:Weasel. Also added Template:NPOV and Template:fact. When I asked for citation, he's unable to do so and I deleted it. Also, as you may have seen, he's doing a couple personal attack too. __earth ^(Talk) 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but your going to have to look elsewhere (try the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal maybe). I am about to take a 2 week trip to another continent, and have alot going on with school and family, not to mention a rather egregious dispute of my own (Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sam Spade). I appreciate the compliment your request is to my mediation skills, but now is not a time for me to be taking on new tasks, I do apologize. Sam Spade 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extremely quick reply. Mr. Earth has already enlisted a friend as a third party. He's seems to be about as reliable as Earth, although he definitely has a better handle on his sophistry. I'll try the mediation cabal as you suggested.

Cheers, Jeff Bargholz.

P.S., I've always liked Dashiell Hammett's stories (I've read them all - they fit into one hardback volume I used to have.) It's one of the reasons I chose to ask you for help. I also checked out your past mediations, of course.

If you need an advocate (and I certainly do!), you could try WP:AMA. They don't always work out, but sometimes you get lucky and find a good member to help you with your case! Sam Spade 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed this, maybe it can help? Sam Spade 19:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently coordinating a team of advocates re: my RfC for harassment by user:woggly. I welcome you to be a member. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her harassment and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your consideration. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sam. I'm about to post a request for arbitration against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Bishonen | talk 03:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

In dealing with wood, there are many situations, needs, goals, and skills that can be involved. For example, in joining two pieces of wood together there are considerations of cost, movement, durability and so forth with methods of nailing, screwing, gluing and so forth. Experience, knowledge, and access to the proper tools and materials is important in maximum success in dealing with wood.

In dealing with people, there are many situations, needs, goals, and skills that can be involved. For example, in protecting one's ego there are considerations of strategy, tactics, defense mechanisms and so forth. Experience with a variety of defense mechanisms is important in maximum success in dealing with people. The not so funny thing about defense mechanisms is that we tend to use what we know best and we know best what we use most. Maybe the key is to practice defense mechanisms we are not good at in safe environments. WAS 4.250 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I know you were involved in attempting to mediate the dispute with Hamsacharya dan where he kept removing material he called "original research" even after the section had been approved in mediation, Perhaps you could add your comments to this RfC? Thanks. —Hanuman Das 13:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, I'm also requesting you to please leave your comments and endorsements on that page. Sorry for the waste of your time (not my idea to create this ridiculous RfC). Hamsacharya dan 19:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, What the heck has happened to Parapsychology? Its history and everything else has vanished. I had some good history and sources in there, they took me a while to dig up and write. Is this the way things work around here? If I enter the state of Michigan is in the USA, or the Confederate States of America lost the Civil War, is that not a NPOV? Can someone complain about the history of the past? I don't like Michigan being in the USA or I don't like that the Confederate States of America lost the Civil War. These things are not neutral. Please reply soon,User:Kazuba 7 May 2006

I'd like to attempt to try the "95 Rifles" dispute. I used to love that series. --V. Joe 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 00:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, by any chance, the guy who's been posting to rec.aviation.ifr as Sam Spade? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, I've never heard of that. Sam Spade 10:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, Happy Memorial day to you. I think you are American? am I right? It's been a while since we last colloborated together.

Cheers,

Raj2004 02:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about affirmative action, there's a big controversy: Reservation in India, This is wrong. What people need are mentors, not just a band-aid. Caste has been overabused.

Raj2004 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am no longer editing because of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. You might like to email me if you want to keep in touch.

I also disapprove of affirmative action or positive discrimination, I think it is the result of racist thinking and is disrespectful to those it claims to help, while creating anger among those it discriminates against. The right way is to simply create more jobs and schools to meet every demand, not using racism to decide who can have the few positions available. Sam Spade 21:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I am sorry to hear that. I hope that the arbitration ends smoothly.

Regards,

Raj2004 13:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi do you know what external growth is ??????

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm new here. Usually I learn just enough to do what is needed, and since the chlamydial definitions needed updating, here I am. I may be back with questions at some point.

Some of the definitions I'm adding are rather abbreviated. I will encourage some of my colleagues to expand on these entries.

Karin Everett PhD

Thanks,

It was good to add a word (intracultural), I am working towards my PhD so hope I can add a short article in the future,

best regards, Bruce Hubbard 03:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, can you help me. See what is happening in Ayyavazhi related article. See the talk page of Ayyavazhi Vaikundar etc.. - Vaikunda Raja 22:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone is posting anti-ayyavazhai information in the article. This might be ok, if they did it neutrally, but they did not. Be very careful not to have a fight, even if they are rude. Wikipedia has a very bad system for problems like this. The answer is to always be polite and respectful, and bring lots of friends to help.

I no longer edit articles, but am always willing to give advice to friends. You may want to use email, it might be easier to find me there. Sam Spade 00:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

Michael D. Wolok 18:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am a bad choice. I suggest you simply avoid conflict, as the wiki-court process is broken and biased. It is very unlikely to be arewarding experience to engage in. 19:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! We filled a request for comment concerning the conduct of User:Irpen. Your comment is kindly invited.--AndriyK 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[11] -clearly you were the only one with insight. Zeq 16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but people like him run this place, dontcha know. Sam Spade 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a problem accepting complaints and criticism on his talk page; he thinks he owns his talk page and has the right to delete them. He is a notorious POV-pusher throughout all articles he is fixated with. Common "hot buttons" are words like "Right" and "Conservative", but may entail a slew of tangential disputes. See [12] and User talk:Lord Loxley#Histrionic? for my attempt to warn him about having a "mission" on the Wikipedia, because I have noticed off and on, just how obsessed his article editing has been with being a vigilante for the Left and trying to portray the Right as wrong. I'll bet all that I have that most of the edits by him are politicised; I believe he should see this here: [13]. Lord Loxley 14:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm no longer active, mainly because of systemic bias on the part of wikipedia's movers and shakers. My advice is to avoid conflict and focus on improving obscure pages and making solid, reliable friends. Sam Spade 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to pick up sticks and leave. Check my userpage for more info, but thank you for being a fairly rational admin. Kade 18:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing is I'm neither an admin nor an active wikipedian myself... No wonder this place is such a mess! Anyone with any sense departs as soon as they experience "the cabal". Sam Spade 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answers.com is a handy source, and has him down as a dictatorial leader. Myself, I'd call him the worlds ugliest elvis impersonating munchkin, but thats just me.... Sam Spade 15:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

— 28 October 2005, Kim Jong-il talk page

You're funny! Thanks for the laugh, I really enjoyed it! See you around. Aaрон Кинни (t) 00:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but not here, I no longer edit. Good luck, Sam Spade 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign next to your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer active, partly due to the lack of advocacy. Good luck. Sam Spade 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone needs to know anything they can ask. Sam Spade 10:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you indicate so on your user page and/or your talk page so that everyone can see? 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your AMA statement was deleted apparently carelessly from the AMA statements page (see this edit)if your statement needs to be restored, the text is at User:Pedant/AMA error Pedant 01:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help and orientation. I understand clearly now why my article was subject to speedy deletion. I'll try to write it better later on!

Zettai_mu

This person keeps going on over a dispute of which I already tried to settle but he continues on and on and on and on and....well you get the point. Please help. --Qho 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was my apology to him.....

HEY

I AM SORRY BUT I DID NOT MEAN WHAT ALL I SAID.

CAN I HAVE YOUR VIRTUAL HAND SHAKE?

AND IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT PLEASE ADD YOUR ACCOUNT TO MY FRIEND LIST.

--Qho 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And this was his response...

I still don't understand what the problem was. Of course you don't expect me to just say "oh, it's nothing" after making such obvious threats by suggesting you supposedly know my identity. The only resolution i can accept at this moment for this vehement attacks is a face to face meeting to iron out this problem (that should not be a problem for you as you seem very eager to that). however, current circumstances render this meeting very unlikely to occur in the near future and even it will, i'm afraid you won't survive it. And also i would like to know if you would be that brave if i'd be standing next to you as you type, pluck your teeth and use them to enhance your keyboard. -- 89.32.1.82 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ALong with many other comments

Please respond on my talk page.

I think your going to want to ask someone else for help, I am no longer an active user. Sam Spade 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Everclear.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howch e ng {chat} 17:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a chance to thank for the welcome message you left me; I didn't login much in the last few years and I didn't notice your message :) Bogdan Butnaru 13:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, it's too bad you are not editing anymore. Another editor, Vaikunda Raja, who wrote such nice articles on ayyavazhi quit too. He said: "I've stopped editing on english wikipedia a month back. Some problems there for me. One by one a bunch of editors find fault with me. They don't like cross referencing Ayyavazhi to other articles.Generally I show interest in Ayyavazhi related works. They don't like that. May be mistakes on my side. But in many articles we discussed and solved. But once they warned that they will take administrative actions against me. Was I am a criminal to have administrative actions taken against me? I feel hurt. I remember User Sam Spade saying again and again, "in midst of any problem don't break friendship". I quit simply.

Any way I really thank you and Sam for a long term help in wikipedia. Though my wiki experience is some what worried me in the end I will not forget you two, friends. Thank you very much beyond words."

Too bad.

Raj2004 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is how things are going here, because the people at the top have no social sense, no understanding of training or management. People had problems with Vaikunda Raja because he donated lots of time and effort. They didn't like him putting in all that hard work, and instead of helping him, they prefered to erase what he had done (many, many times). It was not a matter of him being rude, or inventing false stories. He simply had imperfect english. Instead of putting in a bit of work to make minor changes to his articles, they prefered to delete them, and the links tothem, so that they won't be of good to anyone. That is exactly the sort of ignorant short sidedness that disgusted me with the administrators here. If you are not in their circle of friends, you have no power here, no matter how hard you work or how much you do (and Vaikunda Raja did ALOT of good work).

The wikipedia might be a source of information worth reading sometimes, but it does not seem to be a place worth investing time or money in. These petty tyrants and the system which enables and supports them (instead of common users) see's to that.

It is sad really, because the obscure articles such as Vaikunda wrote are what makes the wikipedia worth reading. They seem to be killing themselves slowly, driving off generous and friendly people like Vaikunda, and encouraging those (like User:Mel Etitis) who bully them.

I consider you both friends, and am glad to hear from you any time. I simply refuse to spend time and effort benefiting such a disreputable project as this one.

p.s. please send an email sometime.

Sam Spade 13:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, thanks for your reply. Sad but true. It's too bad that excellent contributors like you and Vaikunda Raja had to quit. we all have differences of opinion but just because it's not your point of view, we, like you and I, respect other's opinions so long as it is verifiable. Likewise, I consider you and Raja my friends. Please feel free to e-mail me at rajunyc2003-sivah@yahoo.com

Thanks, Raj2004 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment you made a couple years back is being discussed on Talk:Anarchism under the title "Failed Featured Article". I would appreciate if you could maybe check it out and explain what your objection was at the time more fully, and perhaps say what you think is wrong or right with the article now. Thanks. Ungovernable Force ^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am no longer an editor here. Sam Spade 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you leave a message on either your user page and/or your user talk page to indicate that you're no longer active. 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you not be no longer active - I've always said you're a good editor, and your presence is a plus for the project. Or, if you've had it with the 'pedia, we could always use a hand on Wiktionary or Wikiquote, where the controversies are much less... controversial. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who needs to know can pay attention to me and find out, I'm not hard to get ahold of or talk to. As far as volunteerism, I'm doing other things now because I don't like the way things are run here. I am considering working on Larry Sanger's new wiki-project tho, and I encourage others who care about encyclopedias or research to find other places to do it. The wikipedia is rotten to its core, with things steadilly declining in regards to training and affirmation of constructive contributors. Forks and other alternate projects are the way to salvage what is good, and leave the mess. Sam Spade 11:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted for: alex756 (Alex T. Roshuk, Esq.), Arno Lagrange, Cimon Avaro (Jussi-Ville Heiskanen), Evrik (Bruce Andersen), Improv (Pat Gunn), Kim Bruning, Linuxbeak (Alex Schenck), Oscar (Oscar van Dillen), Ross.Hedvicek (Ross Hedvicek), Zuirdj (Juan David Ruiz)

Some of those people I doubt would make good representatives. Others I don't know who they are. The important thing is that people like Kelly Martin are removed from positions of power. The wikipedia has alot of potential, but it needs a serious trimming if it is to remain relevant. Sam Spade 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to advise you that the project page you created above is being considered for deletion. Please follow the links for the details. Thank you. Badbilltucker 23:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be deleted, being that it genereated no interest and I am no longer editing. Of course it would be nice if someone wanted to revive it, but that seems unlikely. Sam Spade 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Spade,

My apologies for disturbing you, however I was wondering if you could give me some advice regarding a dispute over an image of mobster James "Buddy" McLean I recently uploaded in September. An anonymous user has recently claimed this image, which I had photographed and uploaded from T.J. English's 2005 book Paddy Whacked: The Untold Story of the Irish-American Gangster, belongs to the website http://whiteyworld.com. While I concede the two photographs are similar, I believe this user is mistaken that they are in fact the same photos.

The image in question, as stated in the book, is a photograph belonging to the Boston Police Department (which as far as I am aware falls into public domain) and is used under Wikipedia's fair use policies as "a historically significant photo of a famous individual" and "used only for informational purposes". My view is, as far as I can tell, the photo was taken indoors as I note ceiling tiles and a doorway to the far right in the background. However, the user continues to insist the whiteysworld photo is taken outdoors (noting the trees and street corner) and the present one are from the same photo and has claimed to be a copyright violation. I'm not sure exactly what I should do at this point. While I feel the user is well within his or her rights, I would rather avoid an argument as this conversation seems to be sliding in that direction. MadMax 20:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right to want to avoid an argument, they rarely end up improving matters. The best thing to do in situations like this is to retreat once it becomes clear you cannot achieve amiable resolution. The more heated things become the less pleasent your editing experience here will be, and the more likely wikipedia policy processes are to become involved. Trust me, you want nothing to do with the conflict resolution processes here, they are especially bad. Much like in the court system of many nations, the process itself is often the punishment. I strongly suggest that you find something more enjoyable to do than argue with this unknown person about that image. Worst case scenario the wikipedia looses out on a single photograph. If you keep arguing w this person however, you may end up wasting valuable hours, hours you can never get back ;)

I'd be willing to step in and help you directly, but I am no longer editing. Sorry about that,

Sam Spade 07:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry to hear about that Mr. Spade. I'm certainly grateful for the advice however. Thanks again. MadMax 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Spade,

I noticed on the Association of Mergist Wikipedians page that you're a mergist and an inclusionist. I have been writing an article about the letter t, but editors have begun to break it up into nonsensical entries, like Abbreviations and symbols of T. So, I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor and possibly give your opinion here? If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.

Best wishes,

Macaw 54 06:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm no longer editing and am uncertain what opinion I might have about the T article if I was... Good luck, my advice is to find another page to edit, wiki-debates tend not to be productive, due to mismanagement from admins/the cabal. Sam Spade 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hinduism Project editors,

There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. HeBhagawan 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the word "videography" http://videographyblog.com

As such I have spent much of the past 35 years studying the archaic use of the root vid and it's Greek & Latin derivatives. At a recent conference on Language & Genes at the University of California Santa Barbara, I came across a new book by University of Cambridge entitled "Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages". In the book there was a chart showing that of all the European language trees the Danish was the only one that did not make "vide" archaic.

Could you please advise me as to the meaning and roots of "vide" in Danish.

Thank you,

Bob Kiger Oceanside, CA, USA

Hey, Sam Spade. I always liked Dashiell Hammett and you seemed to carry some of the charme that I associated with his stories. You were the one who welcomed me to Wikipedia and sometimes I checked your page to see what you were doing. I saw you were doing a lot of editing, you were involved in harsh disputes and in a lot of mediations, and were always helping others. I am a bit sad that you're gone. Maybe, if you find some other thing which is worthwhile, you could post it on your user page. --Ben ^T/_C 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, SqueakBox 20:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice you had jumped ship before I officially mentioned my own departure. I'm not sure if you'll read this, but I always liked our yammering on my user page (even if it was somewhat brief). If there's any way I can contact you I'd love to consider you a casual acquaintance, my own AIM is Kade Shaderow if you'd rather take the initiative to contact me. Kade 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is trying to delete an article I wrote, can someone please tell what I can do so it doesn't get deleted? I don't know if this is the place to post this question or not, but the person doing this to me seems like the are just hell bent on getting articles deleted. I really appreciate any help.

The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Pierce

My talk page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JimmySmitts

Thanks!!!JimmySmitts 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This issue has been resolved through the removal of Speedy tags and the addition of clean-up temos. John Reaves 11:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi I have some info about sufism but I really feel That i am missing something I saw your coment on the sufism article so I want to ask you for more resourses the subject of my search is sufism but also art if you know anything please letme know thx. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bepo a (talk • contribs) 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Editors of the article Anti-Fascist Action are now arguing about whether the British AFA had many skinheads amongst their numbers, or simply some skinheads amongst their numbers. I added a citation needed-tag and went to look up who the statement in the first place. It turned out to be you. Do you know where you got it from? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|no known reason for block}}

You are not blocked. What message are you getting? - crz crztalk 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Essjay for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

This IP address has been blocked temporarily.CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address is being used abusively;the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse.If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock}} on your talk page, with a notereferencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message).Administrators: Please consult with the checkuser who placed the block before unblocking.

Your IP address is 84.166.40.18.

Sam Spade 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've been unblocked a minute ago by another. - crz crztalk 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. any clue what happened? Sam Spade 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least, actually. - crz crztalk 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, well I'm blocked again. any guesses why I'm not an active editor? ;)

Sam Spade 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same message? - crz crztalk 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sam. I've reblocked you. I saw your message, and saw that according to your block log, you were not blocked. I then saw the end of your message, where you gave the IP. The IP had a clean block log, and I assumed that this block was therefore an autoblock resulting from the block of a logged-on user. I undid it. I then saw that it was a checkuser block placed by Essjay. I don't feel I have the right to undo a checkuser block, so I have, with reluctance, reblocked. I'm sorry about that, because it's probably more frustrating for you than if I hadn't blocked in the first place. I should have looked more carefully at the notice on your page. Also, I wasn't sure how long Essjay's block was for, so I blocked the IP for 48 hours. I'll post a message to Essjay immediately, asking him to consider unblocking because of collateral damage, but since it is a checkuser block, I'd rather the decision came from him. Sorry again. AnnH ♫ 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad. The wikipedia system is extraordinarilly disempowering for lay users, as this makes clear. Thanks for any and all assistance. Have a good night/day. Sam Spade 00:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good now. - crz crztalk 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]