User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Februar 2006

Current time: Thursday, November 21, 2024, 20:48 (UTC)

Right

User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive

Quotes

(archived @ User:Sam_Spade/Quotes)

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

Art

User:Sam Spade/Art and artists

Footer

A baby marginated tortoise free of its shell

Picture of the day The red-lored whistler (Pachycephala rufogularis) is one of nine species of whistler occurring in Australia and a member of the family Pachycephalidae. It resides in the low mallee, spinifex, cypress pine and broombush woodland in the desert of central New South Wales, north-western Victoria and adjacent south-eastern South Australia, preferring low mallee woodlands or shrublands with open canopy, above a moderately dense but patchy scrub layer. The male bird has an orange or buff face and throat, a grey breastband extending around the neck and over the head, and rufous underparts with pale yellow or olive edging to primaries. The female is similar but with a paler throat and underparts. While it is often seen perched in trees and shrubs, the red-lored whistler feeds, for the most part, on the ground. Little is known about the movement of this species, although it is thought to be sedentary, with some movement possibly after breeding. It builds a substantial, cup-shaped nest made mostly of coarse bark and mallee leaves, neatly woven around the rim in low shrubs and lays two or three eggs. The species's limited range has seen it listed nationally as a vulnerable species. This red-lored whistler was photographed in the Nombinnie Nature Reserve in New South Wales.Photograph credit: John Harrison To include this picture of the day on a page, add the text {{pic of the day}}.

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany is being replaced by a category

Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarized!

Hi! Thank you for your welcome note and link collection. I liked them so much I started using similar ones in fi.wiki. I hope that's ok, --[boxed] 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hoorah, I love it! I wish I had those neat boxes tho... Sam Spade 22:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Petition on Bullying in Wikipedia

Hi Sam. I have compiled a petition to send to Mr. Wales with respect to my views on bullying on Wikipedia, which I think is a very grave problem on Wikipedia that Mr. Wales needs to address: User:Benapgar/Bullying. Please sign it if you agree, and if you can think of other people who might agree please let them know about it too. --Ben 02:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your petition better if it gave a clear answer to the problem, or at least a suggestion (like no more popularity contests for positions of power). Sam Spade 11:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It is still a work in progress (some others have similar concerns.) I'll let you know once it is more polished. --Ben 02:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy time with Crazyeddie

My email is acting up so... Why does 2+2=4? Well, I'm personally am a Skeptic (philosophical skeptic, don't confuse it with the everyday meaning of the word), who is anti-Foundationalist. The reason that 2+2=4 is that the whole of mathematics is founded on certain axioms that remain unproven - they have no known truth-value one way or the other. As a Skeptic, I believe that it is impossible to know the truth value of those axioms. I believe that the only thing we can know for sure, beyond a shadow of any doubt, is that we exist. (See Descartes' proof of this.) Everything else is just probabilities.

Well, there's a little more we can know - you can take a set of axioms and demonstrate that they are in logical contradiction. That way, you can prove that the reality that that set of axioms describe is false - that it is DNE (Does Not Exist). But there is no way of doing a truly positive proof - the most you can say is that given these axioms, this ought to be true. If reality disagrees, it's time to re-examine those axioms.

At any rate, "2+2=4" is not one of those foundational axioms of mathematics, but is a result of them. I'm not enough of a mathematician to tell you what the foundational axioms are, but I do know that much. (That is, to the extent that I know anything :-) ) So, I would say that the answer to the question "Why does 2+2=4?" is basically a combination of: 1) Because we said so, and 2) Are you sure that 2+2 really does equal 4?

Hope that the above proved entertaining enought to be worth reading! crazyeddie 06:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I define God as existence. See monism, Pantheism, tat tvam asi, etc...

2+2 might not = 4, but that seems very unlikely, and would involve some rather extreme violations of ockhams razor. For example an omniscient, omnipotent demon could be attempting to confuse us regarding many important particulars, but how likely is that?

On the other hand God is as obvious as can be, depending on how you define him. If you define him as a giant space jew hiding behind the clouds and occasionally tossing lightening bolts about... thats pretty unlikely. If, on the other hand, you define him as the foundation of existance, the breath of life, the soul in our heart... Thats not overly complicated at all, indeed its the simplest answer to all the big questions ("who am I?", "why are we here?", "where did we come from", etc...)

Sam Spade 09:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

<<but that seems very unlikely, and would involve some rather extreme violations of ockhams razor>>

Ockham's razor deals with probabilities. Such probabilities are the foundation of science - it could be said that the current theory of the day is the simplest theory that has yet to be falsified. It is the most likely theory to be true, given what we "know" about reality. But I am speaking as a philosopher, not a scientist, so it is my job to be concerned about certainties, not probabilities. For example, what is true even if an omniscient, omnipotent demon is attempting to confuse us regarding many important particulars.

<<2+2 might not = 4>>

Given my admittedly limited understanding of the mathematics of it all, I think that if you have the number two, then 2+2=4 is true by necessity - 2+2=4 is embedded in the very concept of twoness. But what if the very concept of twoness is false? Consider: "two" is an abstract concept - you will never see a free-range two in the World of the Senses. "Two" is only applied to objects, it is not an object itself.

But what monumental arrogance it is to say that there are "two humans"! To say that there are two humans says that those two humans are interchangable, that they can both be put in some cosmic parts-bin labelled "humans". Yet it is clear that those two humans are different. Even identical twins are not completely alike. Even if you did have two humans that were completely alike, they are still different because they occupy different locations in space-time (otherwise, you'd have one human!). Even the "same" person, at two different points in their life, is not the same person, not interchangable.

Logic, mathematics, language - these are all attempts to reduce reality down to something understandable. They are useful, but, by necessity, they are not true.

<<On the other hand God is as obvious as can be, depending on how you define him.>>

I define God as a person of unlimited power and unlimited knowledge. Or, failing that, then a person of the greatest possible power and knowledge that is within the limits of logical coherence. God is a benevolent version of Laplace's Demon. (And how likely is that :-)?) I picture Him as being somewhat like Kilgore Trout. Because God is a person, he is complicated. If you are self-aware (which is the definition of personhood, at least according to my private dictionary), then it seems to me that you already have the concept of two - you have the "I", and you have the "Not-I". And we have already discussed why the concept of two is absurd.

God is an easy answer. But He is not a simple one.

<<who am I?>>

You are you.

<<why are we here?>>

A cypress tree grows in the courtyard.

<<where did we come from>>

We have always been here. crazyeddie 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There are very few certainties. I know of 2. I exist, and God exists. They can actually be described as one single certainty, tat tvam asi, or "thusness". That is the premise from which my logic flows.

Two is what you define it as. Two what? We agree about people, I am no utilitarian with their brutal equality, defining humanity by numbers. Quality supersedes quantity, as a general rule. No two apples are equal, and certainly no two people, not even twins, not even us and ourselves ten minutes ago. Here we appear to agree.

Logic is true, and exists. Viscosity is true, and exists. These are more than simply labels or ways of understanding. Once we conceive of something, it becomes physically real (even were it not before). Everything, even that imagined 1000's of years ago and forgotten before another could be told, even that is physically real, as you and I are.

Your God is not my God. Your God sounds like Zeus, or a space Jew. Your God is an individual person. My God is you, me, and the kitchen sink. Everything that is, was, or ever shall be. Even that only imagined. God is All. The absolute infinite.

• "who am I?"
  • I am

• "why are we here?"
  • To learn to love

• "where did we come from?"
  • We have always been

Sam Spade 11:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Sam, thank you for your welcome, two years ago! Best MarkDilley 05:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have you, Sam Spade 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates and the Nazis

Gone, gone with 2 votes only, both delete. Can we retrieve the sourced info? I wrote to babajou who deleted it, but I am frankly re-amazed. There's a red link from german businessmen on Hitler. I start to wonder why people like you bother . Bye EffK 09:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

why did you replace my picture?

this picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Races_all.JPG contains persons of all racial divisions, Australoid, Capoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RaceMugshots.jpg This image does not have a Bushman or an Australian which are of the Australoid and Capoid race.

They don't describe them properly either, white should be European and black should be African and Asian would more specifically be East Asian.

And why does it have hispanic? Those "Hispanics" would better be described as Amerindian/Mestizos - as Hispanic is more a linguistic and cultural category.

Anyone would agree that my picture is an better improvement over the FBI mugshots.

all right, give me one good reason why that FBI mugshots is better than my picture?

Your labels are outdated and offensive to many (not so much to me, but to many). The FBI images are in usage today, and constitute an expert source. Obviously anyone does not agree w you, as I do not agree w you regarding this matter. I may however agree to including both images, but race is a contentious matter, and labels like "mongoloid" piss people off. Have a look at race. Sam Spade 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do You still consider the FBI "Mugshots" better?--BorisFromStockdale 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Than what? Sam Spade 02:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Close down AMA? Did I say that? I don't think so...

Sam ~

In regards to the comment on my talk page, I think you might have misunderstood. I was suggesting that if people were going to make it into something that was at odds with its original principles it might have outlived its usefulness, and that they should start a new organization to do what they wanted to do. I think that that AMA is fine the way it is, why is it everyone thinks that if pages on Wikipedia are not constantly edited that nothing is going on behind the scenes? I think this is a pig-headed approach. Alex756 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My feeling is their are lusting for false power in their desire for the co-ordinator position. if they wanted to get something done, they should do something. It would help if you were more involved tho. Maybe you could help us appoint ourselves to the various tasks needing done? Sam Spade 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam. I thought it over and I decided to resign and call for a new election. I think it is clear that my mandate as coordinator is over. It has been way more than a year, and I think a new election would bring someone forward who could move the organization along. I am against all these proposals to adopt changes before there is someone in charge of the organization that has a clear mandate to go forward. Are you interested in running for the position or know anyone that might? I am not sure that I am going to nominate or endorse anyone but that might be a good way to get the point across regarding the true value of the AMA, which I think you recognize. I would hate to see someone become coordinator that does not understand what the AMA is all about. Alex756 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for the reputation of the AMA. I think it is a useful group and I don't think it should be dissolved, but if people are saying there is no good reason for it to exist, it should be disbanded IMHO. Alex756 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What pisses me off is how hard wikipedians try to take away from any respect I might have for the work I do here. I had just gotten my first article to feautured article status when people started to demand its removal. Then I was thinking of asking for adminship when they decided to take me to arbcom on insane charges, resulting a censure. Now their telling (2 now former arbiters thus far) us that all the work ever done by the AMA was for naught. I am very sick of these people. If this was a job, I would have loudly quit long ago. As is... I love encyclopedias, and there are alot of good people here, yourself included. I just don't know what the hell to do to make this a better place...

Sam Spade 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Sam. Wikipedia is like a raw jewel, needs to be studied, cut and polished. It was easier when there were fewer contributors, not it has become chaotic. Perhaps too many cooks spoil the broth? There are too many forces pulling at Wikipedia. Perhaps this will eventually strip it down of useless stuff as there are a lot of people (and I include you in that category) that are making valuable contributions. I have learnt in my professional life that often when people criticize you it is because they are themselves inadequate. I prefer to find the good in others, Wikipedia is a wonderful place that knowledge can be amassed without the secrecy of Google or the control of Microsoft. Remember Sam, we are the pioneers, we were forging new lands. When they start putting up the shopping malls you think they will remember us? Only the encyclopedists will remember. Long live the encyclopedia! Alex756 06:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merge of Combatives and Close combat

Howdy Sam! What an amazing set of user and talk pages you have. I especially love the animation today.

I bopped into Combatives and reverted the redirect to Close combat with no change whatsoever at Close combat, so that this can be done more in accordance with the Wikipedia:Merge guidelines. While I appreciate the various arguments on both sides (and the understandable pride the USMC has in having maintained the discipline admirably for decades, I think there are some pretty good points to be made for both terms while maintaining clarity of language and distinctions. There was a similar proposal made over at CQB to merge that into MOUT which is a redirect to Urban warfare, currently under discussion (for similar reasons). See you around, I am sure! Cheers. - Rorybowman 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Which animation, the human brain scan?

What at Wikipedia:Merge#Performing_the_merger indicates a different course of action? Are you concerned w merging the edit history, or some such. I'm sorry I don't understand. Sam Spade 14:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The brain scan. That is just cool! As I understand it the standard way to do a merge of one entire article into another consists of at least three pre-merge steps:

1. Placing a merge-from tag on the target article (to announce discussion)
2. Placing a merge-to tag on the source article (also to announce discussion)
3. Discussion of the merge on the talk page of the proposed final article

The procedure is slightly different when two more-or-less equal articles are being proposed for merger. The opposite of merger (when an article seems to be getting large) is a "split." My understanding is that a variety of terms for hand-to-hand combat have emerged here on Wikipedia, with a finer and finer distinction between terms such as "H2H" (no longer used), "Close Combat," "Close Quarter Combat," "Combatives," etc. For the most part, Wikipedia seems to lean toward more and finer distinctions, with tighter attribution, which is why the merger procedure is so important. A lot of times a term is used differently in different areas (disciplines, parts of the world, etc) and the merger discussion makes this explicitly clear. Does that help? -Rorybowman 15:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. We disagree about the proper proceedure for merging stubs, but given that you have concerns, I agree the merge should be put on hold and discussed. It would help if you had some specific, non-proceedural concerns however. Am I right to assume you prefer the articles to remain separate, or would you perhaps like them merged, albeit in a different manner?

Regarding the brain scan, it is ment to be seen in concert w the turtle hatched from his egg. The egg is like our head, the brain ment to be reminiscent of a turtles shell pattern. The hatching and upside down awkwardness are ment to allude to the difficult nature of achieving and mastering enlightement and transcendance. Transpersonal psychology is a subject (one of many ;) which interests me. Sam Spade 15:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow. And here I just thought they were two cool pictures which looked cool together...

Yes, I do have a content-based view on the merger, based on the principle of simplicity, clarity and distinction. There is also a certain amount of distinction implied in the history of the articles. If you look at the history of the two articles close combat was originally about what is now called combat sport and then quickly incorporated references to the video game before moving to the current (rather ambiguous) article it was at the end of 2005. Combatives was originally a semi-vanity page by a private martial arts instructor, which mostly seemed to promote specific instructors without any reference to military history (un-encyclopedic). While I understand and appreciate the phrase "close combat" and its use within the USMC it is not as clear or precise a technical term as "combatives" (as mentioned above). Also, for non-native English speakers, a substantive use of an adjective (noun combat becomes adjective combative becomes technical term combatives) is much cleaner and more comprehensible. Given this article history and the linguistic advantages, that is the gist of it. I can provide mind-numbingly more detail if you like, but this is how the current distinction came to be. Having been part of the general move to modify combatives into a more-or-less, technically precise article which included a general global history of the term and concept, I may not be entirely objective, but that is the gist. Does that make sense? Looking at it from a global, historical view, the term "combatives" just seems more logical and precise to me, especially with the advent of the video game and the history of the two articles on Wikipedia. Rorybowman 16:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You have done a good job of explaining your paradigm, and the premises from which your have arrived at it. I will attempt to do likewise. I am interested in hand to hand combat, and have been scouring the wiki trying to find a decent page on it. The combatives page was well done, a good read, altho all too short. Another problem is that it is an odd term, one I had never heard before, and one which a search of google clarifies as being quite obscure. I was lucky to have ever stubled across the link to it at all (from mixed martial arts).

So... my goal is to help readers like me who want to know more about military style hand to hand combat. I don't feel there is enough distinct material on the marine corps or army (or US military for that matter) variations to warrant separate articles at this time. IMO the best way for readers to find the info they desire in this situation is to merge all relevant stubs into one hub article, from which smaller articles can be split off and linked from when it grows too large in size and scope. The end result i would like to achieve is a reader typing an obvious term (like "hand to hand combat") into our search bar and finding an extensive, high quality article on the subject. Sam Spade 16:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now THAT would be a great idea! Something like this was recently done at hybrid martial arts. Why not change hand to hand combat from a redirect page to such an article? That would be a logical place to link the various specific articles (such as MCMAP and pugil stick) to more general articles (such as combat sport and hybrid martial arts) while still maintaining precision in each of the more specific articles. This was largely what happened with articles such as martial art and horse which have become entire Wikipedia sub-sections of their own. I'd say grab hand to hand combat, remove the redirect and do what you think is best. My experience is that such things usually work pretty well here on Wikipedia. I know that I would certainly welcome such a change. The earlier hand to hand combat was just a redirect to close combat anyway, so probably deserves a real article of its own. I suggest you grab that and be bold! A win-win for all... Rorybowman 16:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been after it, have a look. You may want to use my contributions to help you see what all I did, as it was all pretty complicated.

Feel free to let me know if you have any concerns, and please lend a hand at Hand to hand combat, which can certainly stand improvements. I do think close combat and combatives should both link to hand to hand combat, but I will not press the matter if you disagree.

You can also feel free to reverting my merger of CQB and disambiguation of Close combat if you disagree, I simply did what seemed best to me. I deleted no content, btw. Sam Spade 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Hand to hand combat looks great! You are quite quick. I've spent enough time procrasting this morning but will swing back by and try to set up links. A good article at H2H has been needed for a while, but the previous articles on close combat, combatives and combat sport were the closest we had. This is a great addition to Wikipedia and I look forward to watching all of it grow in quality and distinction. Cheers! - Rorybowman 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Next time you redirect CQB you might want to discuss it on the talk page first. I reverted it. Swatjester 19:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I have a curious problem where I am involved in editing an article (Cartesian materialism) with one other user and we have got involved in an edit war. We have both tried to involve other users but cannot get any third party input. Where can we go from here? Should we just log in and revert the other party's work whenever we turn on the computer?

History:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cartesian_materialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind#Final_mediator_recommendations_by_Nicholas_Turnbull

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cartesian_materialism

I thought of you because of your evident interest in psychology and Wikipedia experience. loxley 10:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oi... I'll have a look, but it'll be slow... review Wikipedia:Truce if you will. Sam Spade 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

It was a comment made in a particular and light-hearted social situation at the wikimeet. Phil Sandifer 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not trying to make anything more out of it than it was, but it still begs the question: do I truely have such a peculiar status, and how have I achieved it, perhaps even how might I rid myself of it, if I do indeed possess it? Am I more special a case than yourself for example? Both of us are controversial, and yet both of us recieved about 1/3rd of the wikipedia's support in the arbiter elections...

In any case my interest is sheerly out of curiosity, with no malicious overtones. I certainly did not take it as a personal attack, as tomer was so clearly concerned regarding. Quite the opposite, I see it as a fascinating oportunity to gain some insight into how I am viewed in the comunity, and where my strengths and weaknesses lie.

Cheers, Sam Spade 14:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV

Please see responses on my talk page. Thanks...KHM03 18:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, we'll go to Arbitration instead. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, thats the kind of disruptive threat I was talking about. Don't do it. Sam Spade 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Essjay hasn't acted inappropriately at all. I think your tone was (and remains) troubling. As one of the finest administrators on Wikipedia, he takes this kind of thing quite seriously (and he should). I'm happy to forget about all this and move on; just please watch your tone in the future...and it wouldn't hurt to review WP:CIV. Thanks...KHM03 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think a block warning and threat of an arbcom case was a reasonable response to these particulars, I think you need more time. Sam Spade 22:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your edits in Nazism-Socialism

Sam, you constantly interject your biased views into this article. Your remarks also demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the issue.

I'm not even going to get into how seriously flawed your logic of "Well the Nazi's called themselves Socialists so they are Socialists" is.

Please...Do us a favor and stay out of that section.

Thank you.

No. Sam Spade 12:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand. You must realize that your bias is plaguing your judgement when you edit that section. What's even worse is your lack of knowledge about certain aspects of the political specturm. You actually said that the war economy of the Nazi's is indictative of socialism.

The war economy has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. The war economy indicates an Authoritarian style of government, not a socialist one.

Perhaps you view the political specturm on a single left-right scale? If that is the case, educate yourself about it.

Your assumptions are way off. Have a look at political compass. Thats a bit in the direction of how I envision things, not that it matters much. There are plenty of experts I can cite who have the views you insult. Try reading something by Ludwig von Mises, or better yet the road to serfdom by the nobel prize winning Friedrich Hayek. Heres a cartoon version. Sam Spade 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A bone to pick with you . . .

Other theories involve Hitler having escaped to the Antarctic, where he joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race, with whom he now travels inside UFOs underground, generally beneath the South Pole or throughout the center of the hollow earth, but sometimes to a Nazi moon base as well. (See Miguel Serrano, below.)

Why does this have to be at the very beginning of the article? Just because there is a book about something doesn't mean that everything in that book is true. Nazi mysticism is paradigm-bending enough without stuff like this. In all honesty, I've trolled the web a lot and I've NEVER come across this. As you know, for every grain of truth there is a sand-dune of falsehood.

The place for this material, if any, is further down the article under "other," or perhaps in a separate article.

We definitely don't agree. I began that article as a place for such informations, and dubious or not they are plenty well cited (by alot more than just one book, altho Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke is the most credible source of information I know on the subject).

I reviewed your edits, and we have alot of interests in common... out side of Kate O'Beirne that is! I hate network/sensationalist news, the closest I come is the Jim Lehrer news hour ;)

p.s. I'm getting alot of anon criticism about nazi stuff (scroll up a thread), is their something I should know? Sam Spade 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is something you should know. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Nazism.

It sounds like your not interested in civil dialogue. Go read an introduction to logic. Sam Spade 07:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You should read an introduction on the rebuttal, since your reply obviously wasn't one.

Hi, I'm the original poster. It's not that I can definitively "prove" that those claims are dubious. For all I know, they're all 100% true! I guess my concern is more along the lines of someone looking at the page, seeing the bits about dinosaurs and Antarctic bases, and then just writing the whole thing off; kind of like how people write off certain truths because of the fringe elements that associate with them . . . of course maybe the fringe elements are right. Peoples' minds need to be opened gradually. Nobody can disupte the fact that the Nazis were influenced by the occult . . . and yet the occult itself is a taboo topic, even when talked about in context with of the Nazis. If some ventures as far as to research the occult influences of the Nazis, they might first go to Wikipedia, and then be "shocked off" by the dinosaur / UFO thing. In any case, most "history" books contain elements of fabrication in them. It is amazing what people have gotten away with [i.e. Mencken regarding the inventor of the toilet; Weems and George Washington's cherry tree {examples from The Book of Lies <<sorry, I forgot the author>>}]; and regarding current and recent past events, still get away with. So I guess my argument boils down to arranging the article on a believability or credulity spectrum.

BTW - I had never even heard of Kate O'Bierne unti that book came out. Then, when I read her wiki profile, I became irked by the use of "liberal" and "counterpoint;" as though mainstream beliefs run counter to the delusions of the sociopathic hooligans who currently control the TV media. Peace Out.

I see your point, but I created nazi mysticism for this information! Its obviously not ment for the nazism page, or the mysticism page, and its quite well sourced. Miguel Serrano is not some lone nutcase calling in to art bell, nor is Savitri Devi. These people (along w dozens of lone nutcases, to be sure[1]) provide a great deal of outlandish informations. Anyone who is curious enough to read our nazi mysticism article is clearly desirous of extreme and edgy info, and I feel there is little danger of them being frightened off by descriptions of the more dubious data. Sam Spade 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AMA

I have resigned from AMA, I'm going to go coordinate MedCab. Kim and I are talking about some other Cabal ideas, look me up when you get a chance. --Wgfinley 03:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

well that kinda sucks... Sam Spade 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Jews...

Please, when someone reverts something (which wasn't rejected by anyone for months) only because it does not fit with his/her POV and then someone else comes and reverts this sudden edit, do not revert back to this sudden POV only because you think you know. It is ridiculous when you doubt that I (or any other Jew) could have a cite for this statement ("Most Jews..."). The problem is not having one, the problem is to narrow it down to one which would reflect the opinion of most Jews. Of course, you knew that. hasofer 09:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

?What?

Are you asking me not to remove contentious statements because they are unverified? Sorry, i don't follow your reasoning at all... Here on the wikipedia we WP:CITE verifiable informations... Thats what reference sources do... Sam Spade 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please reread my statement. Fortunately the latest edits saved what you could not leave on that page. Concerning sources... again please reread my statement... hasofer 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I had no problem reading you statement. Please make a new one, and/or accept the changes to the original research I reverted. Sam Spade 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Human: Psychology subsection

Hi,

I'm just wondering why you changed the psychology section of the Human article (here) to focus on psychoanalysis, which is not mentioned once in the main Psychology article on wikipedia.

cheers dr.alf 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to have a look at the psychology article, doesn't it? Sam Spade 12:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief, here's wundt again, in the intro no less! This is going to take some time. Is all this wundtification your doing, or some others? Sam Spade 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow that article is a shocking mess... I made some improvements to the history section, but this is going to take alot of time and work from some expert editors. Care to lend a hand? The Psychology#Principles_of_psychology section is an absolute horror. Sam Spade 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the picture of Freud on the Psychology article (within the history section) with the one of Rudolph Goclenius, who is credit with creating the term "psychology". I think it is a lot more fitting for a psychology article than Freud who does not deserve to have his picture on a pscyhology article (lets face it, his contribution to scientific psychology is non-existent).

dr.alf 12:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome message

A new feature has been created to help new users. It's {{helpme}}, organised by Boot Camp. As the {{Welcome}} explains, it can helpful to new users and ideal on welcome messages. We would like you to include these intructions on your welcome templates User:Sam Spade/Resources/Welcome and User:Sam Spade/Welcome. Is that ok?--Commander Keane 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd really rather not. Where is this being discussed? Sam Spade 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Danny is really behind it, and Jimbo knows about it. We discussed it in #wikipedia-bootcamp, there is also discussion going on at Template_talk:Welcome - I guess waiting on the outcome of that discussion is appropriate.--Commander Keane 06:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, see Template_talk:Welcome#A_welcome_should_mean_something. Sam Spade 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I need help creating a template

I have created a template called Platonism. However, for reasons I don't understand, when I attempt to install it on a page, it spreads out to the entire width of the page, instead of behaving itself over to the side. Do you have the technical knowledge to explain to me my error? Or, can you refer me to someone who does?

How are things going otherwise? --HK 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a note @ Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#assistance_needed. My best advice is to look at other templates, and make changes accordingly. Thats what I do. I usually just copy some other template entirely, and reword it for my purposes.

As far as me, I seem to have some problem connecting the power switch when building a PC, I am having that problem for the second time now. BTW, I'm rather interested in neo-platonism, being a monist myself. Sam Spade 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. CBDunkerson and I have given the template some tender care. Please see if it suits you better now :-) --Fred Bradstadt 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Great thanks! Sam Spade 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto! --HK 07:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)