User talk:Samfreed

Welcome!

Hello, Samfreed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! FloNight ^talk 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Request

The template you requested has been created as {{Globalize/USA}}. --CBDunkerson 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I really enjoy the work you've done on driverless car. It's fascinating to read about and your attention to detail and devotion to fleshing the article is commendable. --Habap 15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Way (Palestine)

Hello, thank you for your note, but, well, I´m not quite sure that I agree with your statement "Some description, even unsourced, is better than none". At least, not when it comes to contentious areas, like Palestine and/or Israel-articles. I looked at the contribs of 80.178.209.14 (all three of them!), and (s)he had added a similar "editorial" to Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which was reverted at once (..I copied the edit-line..). The edits to Third Way (Palestine) stayed, for some reason. I was thinking of trying to NPOV it, but I really did not know where to start. As it was, it was very POV. Having said all this; I don´t feel very strongly about the matter. Regards, Huldra 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm reasonably experienced - I've been registered since 29 June 2004, an administrator since 14 January 2006. If you have any questions, {{helpme}} usually gets results - you put it on your user talk (discussion) page and someone will show and ask what you need help with. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User might be something you'd be interested in. And you can always post on my talk page - I will help however I can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A non-fiction book article you may want to look at is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - note that the summary is not the entirety of the article; that many statements have independant sourcing; that the book is mostly described not summarized - and unfortunately I could not find a better article, because its not all that good. It might show you what direction to take your article in, however. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a revert war but....

I have been working on What Computers Can't Do for a while, and intend to continue. It is a difficult topic, that I dare say few people understand. The article recently survived an AFD discussion, and now along comes an editor, DXRAW, who all but deletes the article anyway. I reverted, He reverted my revert, what do I do now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samfreed (talk • contribs) 08:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One of the criticisms of the article was the book summary length. As seen in this diff, the summary has actually grown since it was nominated for deletion, and User:DXRAW has removed it completely. If you can summarize the summary and add it back into the article, that may be an ideal solution. If you think there may be a problem with that, discuss it on the talk page. Wodup 09:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree DXRAW 12:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that - - - I should stop everything else I do and fix the article as a top priority? Please, if you can improve the article, then please do. If you can't, then I will, when I have time. Meanwhile, it is "work-in-progress", and your blithe disregard to the AFD debate is not helping. About the growth, YES, as I mentioned in the AFD debate, I need to first summarize the whole thing before I can "summarize the summary". Again, the subject matter is not easy, and if anyone else can do a better job, please do. The deletion of my work serves only to discourage contribution! --- Samfreed 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, Then that is up to you. Your work did not get deleted it's still there In fact to help you out i have made a copy of it on your userspace, which you can find here DXRAW 09:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Cargo Ship

~~Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Cargo Ship page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you~~. --Bryson 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be mistaken, I was reverting vandalism. Or maybe I was confused, or the system, in which case, my apologies. --- Samfreed 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I apologise, my fault I mistook your edit. I am sorry. I did not remove all vandalism with my edit.--Bryson 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CoverOfWhatComputersCantDo.jpg

Hello, Samfreed. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:CoverOfWhatComputersCantDo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Samfreed/Dreyfus. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

Explain why you fully reverted a GA/FAC version of the article to the days when it was B-class? Alientraveller 15:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, was busy reverting advert spam. Sorry. 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

removing bus routes

Thank you, Samfreed, for removing all the bus route information. I've tried to get rid of it before, but my edits keep getting reverted.--Gilabrand 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent life

I did not delete an article. I reverted an edit that appeared to be unencyclopedic and blatant self-promotion. I may have been wrong. I suggest that if you change a page in the manner that you did that you link more conspicuously to the material people are expecting to find, and that you include more information testifying to the new article's notability.--π! 08:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion it is not, since I am not The Economist. I consider it notable because of the reputation of The Economist Group. You will note that I added a reference to extraterrestrial life. In any case, I think a redirect should only be used when there is no information whatsoever to be had about the term used, and the only possible interpretation is the other article, e.g. WWII -> World War II. Samfreed 09:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carob

Hi. I didn't write the text you referred to. I think what happened is that I found a duplicate page, redirected it and just merged the text. I actually know nothing about carob. Deb 15:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and expansion of What Computers Can't Do

I'd like to make some changes to the article What Computers Can't Do. I know you've been heavily involved in this article. My draft is at User:CharlesGillingham/Drafts/Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence. Would you like to comment at Talk:What Computers Can't Do? I won't go ahead until I have your okay. ---- CharlesGillingham 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking very good. Most of the argumentation is from "What Computers Can't Do" - so will the resulting article be under that name, or under "Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence"? I suggest to make "critique" a redirect to "What computers", since you mention explicitly when you are quoting his other works.

In any case, excellent work - maybe we should put in a touch more work on the sections needing it before releasing it to the public. Samfreed 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking. I still want to write the "reaction" and "vindication" sections, since I have historical sources on those, but now I'm caught up in something else (of course).

I thought it would be most logical if Alchemy and AI, What Computers Can't Do and Mind over Machine redirected into a central article. Dreyfus' critique of AI is a terrible title, I know, but at least it's accurate. Maybe What Computers Can't Do is alright: at least it doesn't have an annoying hanging apostrophe. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008#samfreed. RFRBot (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no good reason not to grant you rollback, so I am doing so. Use it only to revert obvious vandalism.--Doc^{g - ask me for rollback} 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Johann Martin Chladenius) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Johann Martin Chladenius, Samfreed!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This is reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.