User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive July 2004

Thanks for your welcome

Hi Sam,

I guess this is why Wikipedia has won awards for Best Community. Thanks for the useful links, and your greeting. I feel like a "real member" now :).

A question: How did I come to your attention?

Thanks and Regards, FNN

Cancerous vs Malignant

Hi Sam. The word cancerous is extremely imprecise, and has been abandoned completely by the research community. Cells become tumour cells (and form a neoplasm when they proliferate without check, and they become malignant when they destroy other tissue (invasion) and spread to other locations (metastasis). I do not pretend that cancerous is wrong, but as terminology for the biological behaviour of a cell it has been superseded. Most of the terminology is simply on the cancer page; see also malignant (although there is also "malignant hypertension", "malignant otitis externa" and so on). JFW | T@lk 08:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Danny

You're welcome. Sam, the truth is that I disagree with much of what you write. Nevertheless, under no circumstances will I approve of anyone acting in such an insulting and berating manner to you or anyone. Danny 11:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I am glad that you feel that way. I think reconcilliation of differences would be ideal. I also believe that it is legitimate for us to have disagreements over fundamental principles and beliefs. I do not believe ad hominem attacks are acceptable, though I also believe that sometimes people feel provoked and respond in kind (that might well include both of us). If you would like to discuss any of the issues between us, I would be happy to, and hope to find a modus vivendi that addresses both of our concerns. Danny 22:57, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am taking a little rest now, but when I wake up, I will go through the Hitler changes for you. Danny 23:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it's the next day and I havent gotten back to you. I haven't forgotten. I was at work till 11:30 tonight, and tomorrow i have to go visit a friend whose son died suddenly, but I promise I will. My apologies. Danny 04:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

What made me decide to make a few contributions is that yesterday I wanted to refresh the chemistry I learned in high school a little, and after going to some other sites from a Google search, I found that Wikepedia contained the best information. Since I'm a firm believer in the "free" model of software development and in sharing knowledge freely, I thought I'd make a few contributions and see what happens.

I think Wikipedia is a fantastic idea, and the user interface strikes me as very well designed.

Thanks for the links.

Cheers, Hyperion 17:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the help, the articles were very helpful for a Wiki-newbie like me.

Plex 21:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of Pantheists

The "List of Pantheists" posted on the Wikipedia site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pantheists#Ansel_Adams

is essentially a copy of my work "Pantheist Panorama"

http://home.utm.net/pan/panorama.html

"Pantheist Panorama" reflects many hours of my research and writing.

It is lifted from the Pantheist Association for Nature (PAN) website without permission and without attribution --an infringement of copyright.

Please remove it. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gary Suttle

pan@utm.net

---

I listed this here. I assume you are correct, but someone else will have to look into this, it's not my area. The content originated (as far as I knew) here [1]. You may want to bring this up at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Sam Spade 19:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Favor to Ask

Hey Sam, do me a favor and check out the latest AMA requests for help. There was a post there by User:Stirling Newberry about an issue with another user regarding the supply-side economics and gold standard pages. I was initially planning to look into it, but not only am I not sure it's my cup of tea - the articles themselves are a bit more complex than I'm equipped to wade through - but I think I might've inadvertantly overstepped my bounds by contacting not only the requestee but the other disputant and the proposed mediator and querying them about it, letting them know I was available for questions, giving them a once-over on the system, etc (that being the Coordinator's job and not really mine, as I see with some embarassment now - they seem to know too, as none have replied! :[ ). At the very least I would mind you looking at what I said and letting me know if you think I overdid it, and if the case strikes your fancy maybe you could pick it up.

Alternatively, there's a new post about the ever-interesting Lyndon LaRouche page, accusations of shoddy editing by John K and Adam Carr. I was thinking I might volunteer, but I felt the matter might initially require a little more experience and seniority than I have, and your name came to my head. Get back to me! Gracias! Wally

RfC - where is it

I need some assistance. I know what a wiki VfD is, but what is a wiki RfC and more importantly where in the wiki world is this page? All I get for RfC is a disambig page. I'm trying to find out what happened to the discussion on Ted Kennedy's Driving Record which has been VfD on the June 26th. The discussion has disappeared from VfD (on day 4, June 29) and I can't find anything about it in the archives. I think it could have been moved to RfC, I see references to RfC in unrelated discussions but never a link to this mysterious page. Thanks Buster 17:26, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

Can I count on your support for this Early National Socialism/draft it has been put on the deletion page.WHEELER 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Portraits of the Presidents

I have been replacing the photos of the presidents with the official protraits of them found at www.whitehouse.gov.

I am new at wikipedia. Yet i believe it much more elegant to have the portrait of the president since this is the tradition of the White House.

If I ahve done something wrong or if you think this should not be done, please feel free to tell me since I am new here.

Thanx....Sincerly, User:Coburnpharr04

Re: List of Pantheists

Thank you for your response.

This page appears to be the origin of the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism/listing_of_some_Historical_Pantheists

I would be grateful if you would add it to the "Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation"

(I've been unable to do so).

Sincerely,

Gary Suttle pan@utm.net

Is this what you had in mind? I also put a note here, and put a copy-vio note on both pages. Let me know what you think. Sam Spade 01:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Road Goes Two Ways

The road goes two ways buddy. I have not put one POV comment out in an article, and those which have been contested I have always discussed with amenability. You need to get off your high horse and realize that you're the one who began this whole mess by making inappropriate and unfounded accusations and insulting comments. Good day.

WHEELER's anti-Semitism

I stand by what I said. I agree with you that contributors should be civil. Personally, I think a lack of civility combined with an inability to work on improving pages constructively should be enough cause fo a soft ban, and on these grounds alone I think WHEELER should have been dealt with in some formal way a long time ago. But I know that most people here do not share my view, so I never made a point of it even when it was clear that WHEELER was simply wasting other people's time without making useful contributions. After all, one wikivirtue is patience and I always hoped WHEELER would learn how to be an effective contributor. In any event, I think hate speech goes beyond basic lack of civility. What WHEELER wrote in no way contributes to improving the article (the purpose of talk pages) and thus misapproriates wikipedia as a platform for anti-Semitism. Thus, I stand by what I said. Slrubenstein

I am glad you understand me now. The reason you don't hear me saying POV is grounds for banning is because I have never said such a thing. I believe that one of the best ways to achieve NPOV is to provide multiple POVs. However, Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays, and the POVs we present in articles are not supposed to be our own. I suppose once can say that as we discuss the form an article page should take, each contributor will express his or her point of view concerning the article -- but this is not what "NPOV" policy is about. Certainly a good discussion in the talk page should involve many different points of view, but they should be well-informed and presented in a civil way. As for including an anti-Semitie and talking to him as a way of trying to change his mind, perhaps that might work some times. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not the place to do that. If you want to talk to WHEELER in an attempt to change his views or way of presenting his views, more power to you -- but you should do it through private means of communication. The purpose of Talk pages is to discuss how to improve an article, nothing more or less. Slrubenstein

List of Pantheists

Thanks very much for your help. I appreciate your alacrity and Wikipedia's good response to the "List of Pantheists" copy vio.

I will recommend Wikipedia to friends based on my experience.

Sincerely,

Gary Suttle pan@utm.net

172 and VeryVerily

I have decided to withdraw my request for arbitration regarding these two users. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Withdrawal of request for my explanation. Since you added your own request along with mine, I thought you should be informed. If you feel it is appropriate, I would appreciate your support for this withdrawal. --Michael Snow 03:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I did observe that your request was different from mine, and I have had some exposure to 172 and the complaints about him specifically. As I said, if you feel it is appropriate - if not, then I respect that. I also simply wanted to notify you, since it's quite likely your request will get lost in the shuffle. Personally, I think this is also not the time for a specific request regarding 172, since the furor there has died down. If new disputes arise, perhaps it would be appropriate to raise the issue again. But this is only my opinion, and as always you are free to take your own counsel as to how to proceed. By the way, I wish you success in resolving the various disputes you're trying to deal with, particularly Lyndon LaRouche. --Michael Snow 04:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your comment on my talk page. Basically, I just stormed out over deletion policy. It bugs me that just because discussion gets stalled, an article gets kept, that probably shouldn't have been kept, nor would be if more time was given to discussions. Well...that, combined with frustration with the acts of certain users. Ambivalenthysteria 04:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER page

Sam, the "Response" section in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:WHEELER is for the respondent (Ie WHEELER) to write his response - not for you to post links. I've moved your comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:WHEELER and clarified what the purpose of the "response" section is. AndyL 04:53, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nutters in general and LaRouchies in particular

I don't agree. First, this is an encyclopaedia, not an adventure playground for nutters. In my view only those with a demonstrated commitment to building an encyclopaedia should partipate in this project. Nutters should be discouraged and if necessary banned. Secondly, LaRouchies are not just nutters, but malicious, slanderous nutters, and frequently violent as well. Proved LaRouchies like Krusty should be banned on sight. I don't expect many people to agree with me about that, but if WP wants to become a real encyclopaedia, it will have to deal with these issues eventually. Adam 10:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is wikification?

Hi Sam, thanks for the message. Here's a question; what constitutes a wiki or un-wiki article? I've looked at some articles that needed to be wikified, but i don't know what's wrong with them.

Thanks again, Jad 20:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Newcomer or not newcomer?

Hello Sam Spade, and thanks for welcoming me in such a warm way. But I am actually not a newcomer anymore, I have been sysop on ku for six months now and contributed to four Wikipedias. If you like to, visit us at the kurdish Wikipedia [2], the first encyclopedia ever written in that language. Erdal Ronahi 20:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gentle persuasion

It's preferable but not always possible. I have tried to be reasonable with WHEELER and tried to gently persuade him as have legions of others with very limited success. To be frank he shows definite signs of mental illness and it's unlikely anyone could seriously deal with him over the internet. He needs face to face contact and a lot of it, probably with a trained professional and we just can't do that here, nor is that the purpose of wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a mental health agency. AndyL

Ahem, that's what I said above, and you disagreed with me :) Adam 04:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

<jk>Maybe you guys should give him an arse whup, or maybe try to get him institutionalized?</jk> hehehe... Sam Spade 05:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Browser problems?

Looks like I have some issues Sam, thanks for catching this! Will try to put it right! Mark Richards 16:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[3]

I replied on my talk page. Mike H 19:46, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

So, I'm only allowed to believe one thing? There were different things one could vote for, and Larry Sanger had voted for support and e-mail. Those are my opinions as well. Mike H 20:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I'd tell him I thought his vote was wacky, but he left the project when they stopped paying him. Oh the humanity...! Sam Spade 20:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I saw. I went and read his user page. Mike H 20:28, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Right on. I'd do the superbowl shuffle to celebrate, but I'm too full of green tea and oat bran. Sam Spade 20:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow. And ew. If I don't ever taste another cup of green tea again, it'll be too soon. Mike H 20:32, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm shooting for a gallon a day. I have a 1.5 liter tea press, and a 1 liter tea cup. I like the tea, but the oat bran can be a bit hard choking down. I can't really handle more than a few cups at a time. No way I'm getting a$$ cancer tho, eh? Sam Spade 20:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True that. A$$ cancer would suck, well, a$$. Mike H 20:37, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

The tea prevents cancer too, dontcha know. Health food rocks! Sam Spade 20:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Your Welcome Message

Thank you for your list of Wiki links. Was their something that I did in one of my edits (or my article contribution for Frank Belknap Long) that led you to believe I needed to read them. I ask, because if I made some specific errors, I would appreciate if you could point them out. I believe I've read all of the links you listed, but there is a lot of information for new contributors to digest, so any specific critiques would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again for your welcome.

Carl Henderson 02:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Frank Belknap Long

Thanks. I'm not yet completly comfortable with my understanding of the Wikipedia rules for what is a public domain image and what is fair use. I've read the relevant sections, but there seems to be a lack of a general consensus on fair use.

The earliest photo I have of FB Long in any of my sources is post-1923 (taken in the 30s), so while it is unlikely the copyright was renewed on that photo (as was required back then), theoretically it could still be under copyright.

Carl Henderson 03:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverts

Eek. Sorry. :( Snowspinner 14:36, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hey

Heya,

thanks for your message, I'm new here but getting addicted quite quickly :)

The amount of information is just awesome, I just wish the servers could handle it a little bit better!

cheers,

Solitude 19:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

barn star

Barn Star: Thanks. Christopher Mahan 17:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I was wondering about the signature thing...

Template Questions

When i was looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna I noticed that a few of the Templates didnt actually get converted to what they are supposed to look like. It appears that someone tried fix a few in the history page for Nagarjuna.

I did a help section search for anything on Templates, but I couldnt find anything related to the kind of Templates the Nagarjuna page has. If you could either point me in the right direction or give me an example of how the Template's should work, I would really appreciate it and get to work on fixing some of the links.

Here is a snippet of the what the page looks like (direct copy and paste from above link):

It is worth noting that Lindtner considers that the MTemplate:AhaprajñTemplate:Aparamitopadeśa, a huge commentary on the Large PrajñTemplate:Aparamita not to be a genuine work of Template:Nagarjuna. This is only extant in a Chinese translation by Kumarajiva. There is much discussion as to whether this is a work of Template:Nagarjuna, with some original comments by Kumarajiva, or an original work by Kumarajiva based on the philosophy of Template:Nagarjuna.

Thanks for any help you can give. --Localizer 03:25, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

signature

Every time I sign an article, someone comes along and removes my signature. jim User:Jdevine (added after the fact by Sam Spade 03:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC))

extreme silliness

Thanks for the clarification on my talk page. I thought you were being both sarcastic (in the contents of your remarks) and serious. This is because I think the logic of your sarcasm (someone who disagrees with you is somehow not allowing any dissent) is structurally similar to your suggestion that anti-semites constitute a stigmatized group, which I (like others) took as a serious remark. Slrubenstein

exactly -- sanction deeds, actions!

Punish the deed, not the idea, is precisely my objection to hate speech. I am absolutely against making an identity (what one "is," what you call "being") illegal, and of course I am against regulating "thinking." I have made this clear in my explanation for why I am against hate speech. If you aren't sure what I mean or why, just read over what I have already written and posted. Slrubenstein

thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome. (Hopefully the large list of links to WP policy wasn't a subtle hint about something I'm doing wrong ...) — Danc 04:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome...

... I am already a sysop in the german Wikipedia and one of the founding members of the german Wikimedia Verein eV.. Here is a picture of me standing next to Jimmy in Berlin [4] (scroll down for the names I am Paddy) in the c-base during the Wizards of OS 3. There are a lot more things I have done for or with the Wikipedia so I am quit familiar with WP ;-) But thanks for the friendly greeting. --Paddyez 13:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV reverts

I wasn't offended by your comment simply confused. What did you mean?

Happy edits Hyacinth 23:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you completely on one point:

1. Half of heterosexuality should not be taken up with discussions of other sexualities. (just half any article should not be taken up with other subjects which have their own articles)

However, I think you are missing two important and subtle points:

1. The results of sexual activity between people of a different gender, procreation, does not equal heterosexuality.
2. There are always other ways of thinking and talking about things (which may ostensibly be "the same thing").

Your line of argument seems to resemble the following this:

1. Heterosexuality=Procreation
2. Procreation has always happened and been important
3. Thus heterosexuality has always happened and been important
4. Thus wikipedia should only discuss procreation in the article on heterosexuality

You are defining heterosexuality by fiat. Hyacinth 00:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So the good news is we have at least located the point over which we disagree (rather than randomly arguing in circles). You seem to be using an ahistorical/objective/essentialist definition (I really don't want to argue about the three terms I just listed, I meant none in a bad way, I'm trying to clarify my understanding of your opinion).

However theoretical and popular usage includes more, less, or other meanings. I think that your POV, the "ahistorical" definition, needs to be well represented in the article, possibly taking up a great deal of space. However, you're choice of one definition among many, and attempts to exclude all other definitions, is what I see as definition by fiat.

To overexplain: For example, some people which you would label "heterosexual" according to the "ahistorical" definition, do not consider themselves heterosexual.

My female friend Janette is the proud mother of a two year old boy. She is recently engaged and shopping for wedding rings with her husband-to-be, and she even stays home and takes care of the baby and house as a homemaker.

However, she considers herself bisexual, and always speaks of herself this way, whether talking with friends, her mother, or Seventeen magazine (however, 17 labelled her a lesbian, she wrote and complained and they explained that bisexuality was too complicated for their readers).

You yourself have described heterosexuality with outside of the, "does she have sexual intercourse w males, and/or would she in some circumstances," box. For instance, you're invoking of sterile married couples living the heterosexual norm. In fact, even the addition of "norm" to heterosexual goes beyond the box.

I completely sympathize with the urge to objectively identify things, and often the ahistorical definition of homosexuality, as an example, is useful (for instance, ahistorical definitions allow us to compare features between different eras which either would never have thought of the feature, would not have found the comparison appropriate)...

But, its not the only way to think or talk. Hyacinth 04:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please feel free to respond to the above message, but after that I think I will leave our discussion alone, just take a break, until we can re-ground it in the article. I don't mean to imply that we should end what I find to be an unpleasant discussion, I am actually very much enjoying talking with you, regardless, even, of its benefits to wikipedia (I imagine this is ungrateful, as I can think of no other context where I even have a possibility to thoughtfully discuss abstract issues with someone I disagree with). I just feel that I have no new points to make or no better way of expressing myself until we start dealing with specifics of the article. Hyacinth 04:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response

Hi Sam, please take a look at [5]. I find a bit strange that you take such offense of an ironic comment in an edit summary of my user talk page - I never read talk summaries. I should have replied to your second message, but I found rather strange that you commented on a user talk summary rather than on the discussion itself, where I replied appropriately. I was too involved in the respective article page itself, and I would greatly appreciate if you could take a look at them as well and tell me if you can see my point. Get-back-world-respect 23:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

trolling counts

(37 / 27 (21+12-6) )

• 37 for
• 27 against, consisting of:
  • 21 No
  • 12 "it's unhelpful"
  • -6 for double votes under both No and It's Unhelpful

I didn't quite make this up myself by the way, see the edit history to see how all the cruft accumulated ;-)

Kim Bruning 22:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

?

See: Talk:Sexual orientation#Is classified as Hyacinth 20:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ulysses (novel)

thanks for the links. FYI: I started the Ulysses (novel) page a long time ago (and with an account I lost the password to!).

User:Bobn / User:Rnewson

no personal attacks

gedday Sam, thanks. yep I'd support strong action against personal attacks. What were you thinking? the disruptive behaviour policy already incorporates it - so that means two warnings, eight episodes and time out for a day. and then progressively less tolerance. This seems like a good start, but clearly room to do better than that.

People that launch personal attacks, i guess tend to be more:

1. frustrated
2. inarticulate
3. pick-ed on
4. misunderstood

than "disruptive" or "antisocial". So how do we enforce the NPOV no personal attacks policy? Am i right in thinking it's just the AC at that can currently enforce it? Erich 03:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

sorry Sam, my brain slipped a cog... I meant personal attack... especially "how"... you know the nuts and bolts... Erich 04:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

well... in that case, what do think about this as a strategy:

1. get the WP:DWDAE policy through.
2. encourage people to ask offenders to read the no personal attack policy
3. fall back on warnings etc when they failed...

Do you think there is something else we can do? (I'll have a re-read of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy myself now! (did you notice the preamble I added to WP:DWDAE?) Erich 04:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from "Experienced Wikipedians encourage others to regard this policy as a safety" on, in WP:DWDAE#Background. I thougth you may wish to edit or expand what I'd written Erich 06:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)