User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Oktober 2005

AMA Advocate

I saw your name on the list at Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries and would like to have your assistance. I filed [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Onefortyone/Anon 80�1.et al]] and I see that today (September 26), Fred Bauder posted that it was Accepted. There is now a link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence. I have no experience in this area and would greatly appreciate having some assistance with the process. If you would be good enough to take a look at this and let me know if you can guide me through this process, that would be appreciated. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 16:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, theres not much to be done. One of the arbitrators has already asked for your evidence to be concise. You simply need to follow the formula @ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence, providing them w links to particular misdeeds by your opponent, w as little discussion and trivial incidents as possible. Frankly I'm suprised they took the case, and my short investigations havn't turned up much, but see what you can find. Let me know if your having any trouble, I'll try to keep an eye on that page. Sam Spade 16:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Civility or lack thereof

I read what you said on Dunc's talk page. If you will refer to his backlog of discussion archives, you will see that he has crossed the line of civility on more than one occassion recently; do you have any suggestion as to how this should be addressed? He is blatantly ignoring polite requests to extend respect and courtesy to fellow Wikipedians. Bahn Mi 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your next step in the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution process is a RfC. I am a Members advocate, and would be willing to help you w that process if need be. Have a look at the above pages, and let me know if you need help or explanations. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Take a look

Sam, please take a look on the expanded articles Swamithoppepathi and Ayyavazhi.- Vaikunda & Raja

Mediation Filed

Hello, I saw your mediation filed at RFM. I have been cleaning it out and I'm wondering if mediation is still desired. I can assign a mediator or allow Grace Note to, whichever is preferred. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, I guess Ed Poor has been mediating. Nevermind then. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

?!?What?!? What mediation are you talking about? I assume you mean this mediation, which Ed Poor attempted to make a mess of (as usual) until both I and EB rejected him, asking him to have no involvement whatsoever. EB also rejected User:Grace note due to past troubles w him under the name of User:Dr.Zen. We currently have no mediator, but are almost finished ;) If you'd like to come lend a hand that might be ok, but please be careful, and make sure EB accepts you before getting too involved. I personally would accept you, assuming you read up on the matter abit more ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 16:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The Inner Sound

What?

Just kidding. ;-) Do you follow any of the movements that have been getting worked on lately? Thanks for everything you do too! — RDF ^talk 23:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a perennial philosopher, and a psychology, yoga and Yang style Taijiquan student. My studies in psychology are broad, but I tend to focus on behaviour modification, analytical psychology and hypnosis. I tend to agree with Carl Jung more than other famous psychologists, and often invoke his paradigms, such as Archetype, Collective Unconscious, and Synchronicity. I also find Vedanta, and especially Advaita Vedanta very agreeable, and I study the vedas and other religious texts often. Have you seen sacred-texts.com? Thats a great website. For more about me, have a look @ User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases#Religion.

How about you? As I recently said "the only thing I like discussing more than other peoples opinions are my own" ;)

Sam Spade 00:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

We have a lot in common. I have a "BS" in psychology - Acing pidgeon lab! :) Jung is a buddy of mine, I've practiced Nath Yoga, Ashtanga Yoga, Hypnotism, Reiki, Prana Yama, and Surat Shabda Yoga. See my user page. — RDF ^talk 00:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen sacred-texts.com. Check these out (I'm "Richard"): Carl Jung and the Individuation Process – Self Realization Web Sites for PW Forum Participants Web Sites for PW Forum Participants II

Cool, thanks, I will! Sam Spade 01:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose my preference is for Hatha or Karma yoga, but Reiki and Prana Yama sound an awful lot like Taiji, which is cool. I esp. like the common threads between practices ;) Sam Spade 01:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've proposed merging Inner Sound into the Shabd!!! What say you? :-) — RDF ^talk 18:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I have an opinion. If you'd like to, I won't object :) Sam Spade 13:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

ECK master

I see you've rearranged the ECK master article, and I was wondering, besides the order, what do you think of the article overall? What else is it needing? I've been looking at some books and was thinking about a section on how to become an ECK master; I was also thinking of a "Critique of the ECK master concept" section, since I've drawn some inspiration from the Xenu article. Anything else? CanadianCaesar 02:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought "wow, this is some wild stuff!". I'd like to see more content generally; eckankar, and esp eck master's are extremely interesting to a guy like me who researches obscure faiths for fun. If there is to be more criticism (and is it really needed? C'mon, one of em lives on Venus! XD it should be from someone a bit nore motable than Ford Johnson, andf a bit more substantive than "plagiarism". I mean, what Religion can't fairly be accused of plagiarism? Theres not many... Have you heard of the Yezidi, btw? 02:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are some wild and crazy guys. Paul Twitchell did "borrow" a lot of stuff from the Sikhs, (e.g., Ek Onkar), the Sufis (e.g., "HU"), Sant Kirpal Singh with Sant Mat, and Surat Shabd Yoga, etc., then "embellished" things a bit. :-) The group has experienced a lot of inner turmoil and divisiveness. My prediction is they'll eventually collapse under their own weight. — RDF ^talk 02:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

All I know is I hope an eck master shows up next time my car breaks down ;) Sam Spade 02:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

At least the one in charge of them! ;-) — RDF ^talk 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Existence of God Reorg

We're having a discussion on how best to reorganize the Existence of God article. We currently have two competing plans. One version is being sandboxed here, and is being discussed here. The other plan (mine) is being discussed here. Since I remember you being interested in this article, I'm asking for your input. (This is being copy-and-pasted to several people.) Thanks! crazyeddie 19:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have an opinion, outside of what I've just said on the talk page, and done in the article, except that the article is sliding towards a NPOV dispute. I doubt people are intentionally biasing things, but I do think the statistically abnormal level of atheist contributions need to be balanced out abit more, if nothing else by more "writing for the enemy", and a more inclusive talk page environment. I found much of the discussion at Talk:Existence of God so unpalatable that I avoided the article for some time after. There is a reason I contribute to an encyclopedia instead of some random lowbrow forum, and its not hear how stupid people are for loving. Speaking of which, you have been consistantly polite, which I think you for. Sam Spade 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Eckankar

Your edit to ECKANKAR of 21:55, 26 September 2005 is under discussion. Would love to hear your viewpoint! User:Controltheweb (sig added by Sam Spade 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

Hypnosis

This article is in terrible shape, largely due to an eternal edit war I am a participant in. I have found my self reverting to a relatively neutral, but low quality article, in opposition to a "hypnosis doesn't exist and is pseudo-science" article, which is even worse. Essentially everybody agrees the article sucks, and needs a rewrite. Would you be interested in lending a hand? Sam Spade 12:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm by no means an expert, and I haven't actually seen a "resolved" edit war in my short time here, but I'll take a look. :-) — RDF ^talk 13:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Anything you can do, or if you can steer someone towards it. There is good content mixed in w the rest, but it needs to be kicked around and reworded from top to bottom. I had just started to do that (made a couple of modest edits really) when the revert war began, so… Sam Spade 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Enough said. I'll see if I can find any "highest common ground" worth standing on. :-) — RDF ^talk 13:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

However, you should be aware (though I have no doubt you will be soon if you look into it) that Sam is, to put it bluntly, lying. Whatever the defects of the article version that existed before Sam's "modest edits", it was not, as Sam misrepresents it, a "hypnosis doesn't exist and is pseudo-science" article. It was an article that acknowledged that many people 'do' believe in hypnosis, and described the effects that they attribute to it, and that have been attributed to it in the past, but also acknowledged that the existence of hypnosis and the extent of its effects are still debated. Sam, on the other hand, asserts that to say hypnosis may be a social construct is a "smear job" and that the only "NPOV" way to write the article is to take the existence of hypnosis (and brainwashing and mind control, as he introduced in this edit) for granted, and not disclose until much later in the article that there is dispute about this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I always take everything with a grain of salt. If you think some sort of "mediation" would help, let me know. — RDF ^talk 19:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Needless to say I fail to concur w Mr. Feldspar regarding the article in question. Considering the conflict has now spread to RfC of all places, and there has been precious little dialogue of any redeeming value betwixt myself and Mr. Feldspar, I do think mediation is in order. If you'd like to tray to help, that'd be great, but if not I'll be requesting mediation formally soon enough. Cheers, Sam Spade 19:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you both are interested in something informal first, I'm willing to give it a go. — RDF ^talk 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer that, but its up to him. Thanks for the thought either way, Sam Spade 19:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I planted a little mustard seed. Based on the following edit to the article, I'll wait and see what comes of it before I bother putting much more energy into that dynamic. — RDF ^talk 14:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats the problem w edit wars... Sometimes there are so many users involved that a good article gets powered thru anyways, but they tend to discourage edits, and w articles of lower quality and fewer editors.. that can be quite unhealthy. Sam Spade 15:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Jfdwolff

Assistance Requested With User:Jfdwolff

Thank you for volunteering to help with disputes.

I recently added the section on the Genzyme Test to the Gefitinib (Iressa) page. User:Jfdwolff is a Dutch physician who repeatedly removes a reference that I added.

I included a reference to an article from the Wall Street Journal, because it was a good analysis that would be understood by patients. I also included the press release from the drug company. Jfdwolff continues to remove the Wall Street Journal link, he feels that the press release from the drug company is enough.

I asked him if he had read the article and he said he does not have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I don't think this was a good reason on his part and also I think that Wikipedia articles should be helpful to the lay person, as well as the professional. A patient with cancer would go to the library or spend the money to read this article -- it is a good article which mentions other similar tests for current targeted therapies.

Would you please help resolve this issue?

I have started a section on the talk page for the article...

User:209.178.169.94 September 29, 2005

I'll look into it, but slowly, I have to go to dinner ;) Sam Spade 15:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so very much!

And thank you for your tireless work welcoming newcomers!
Joaquin Murietta 29 September, 2005

I appreciate your comments, but I am perplexed with a. how to handle his dismissive and rude behavior. He did not comment until you got involved. He just kept reverting. This is not a good way to encourage newcomers to get involved. And, b. is there a hard and fast rule about not citing to the Wall Street Journal? My concern is that cancer patients (as opposed to physicians) actually need the reference to the WSJ article. We have used up more space talking about it, so its not a bandwidth issue...

Onefortyone

Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 00:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Under 19 September you inserted about me purchasing the book but forgot to insert the edit by Onefortyone about the book. As such, I put it in with a note that it was my insertion. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#16 September 2005 Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 13:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I intentionally left it out. I almost left out the entire matter of the book, but I thought you showing the good faith to actually go out and get the book reflected well on you. If you think its necessary to have both to complete the picture, I think we'd be better off w neither. The arbiters are going to be mainly interested in his article name space edits and the pattern they reflect. More minor issues (like stuff he says on atalk page) prob. isn't going to help your case, and can be distractingly inconcise. Sam Spade 15:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My view was that the Earl Greenwood book emphasized Onefortyone's never-ending insertion of complete fabrications. Remember, this guy "seeds" Wikipedia for Google and inserted this about the Greenwood book because the article itself was page protected but knowing the Talk page still comes up on Google. And, it shows a continuation of his pattern of inserting fabrications in his edit wars with others. See what User:Wyss said here about how Onefortyone forced her to do endless research to disprove his fabrications. This same thing happened to User:KeithD. - Ted Wilkes 16:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see this as a strong suit of the case, its perfectly possible to assume good faith, and simply take Onefortyone as simply advocating a POV. Being mistaken doesn't display bad faith. I think your stronger case is the repeated insertion of "X is gay based on rumor Y" against consensus, and since the arbiters specifically requested the case be concise, in no uncertain terms... Sam Spade 17:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone can be mistaken when quoting a book. However, fabrications to support POV is the issue - Ted Wilkes 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for your information. I stumbled across this discussion thread which is very interesting indeed. It seems as if Ted Wilkes's false assertion that I am fabricating texts is confirmed by this contribution by user Wyss: [1]. Significantly, Wilkes didn't cite my reply to this claim. Here it is:

The anon now confirms the "Grace" quote is from the Advocate (which I had to uncover on my own a few days back). The anon originally claimed it was from Lambert. For more information on this (including the anon's admitted interest in seeding misleading keywords into Google), please see User:Mel Etitis's talk page. Wyss 20:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What is your argument? I didn't state that the quote is from Lambert. I only said, 'She was called "the 'Grace' to an army of Hollywood 'Wills'.' By the way, I have already cited from the Advocate review on the Talk:Nick Adams page some weeks ago, long before your claim that you had to uncover this source. But this shows how carefully you are reading the discussion pages. Such reviews are indeed valuable sources. Many Wikipedia editors regularly use reviews for their contributions. If you do not agree with the facts I am presenting you must support this with evidence. I am frequently citing my sources. 80.141.204.148 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See [2]. In addition, here are my contributions of 1 June and 10 June 2005 to the Talk:Nick Adams page including the reference to David Ehrenstein's Advocate review: [3] and [4]. For this review of Lambert's Wood biography, which includes the statement that "Natalie Wood was the 'Grace' to an army of Hollywood 'Wills,' including James Dean, Tab Hunter, Nick Adams, Scott Marlowe, and Raymond Burr," see [5]. By the way, this review proves that gay historian David Ehrenstein has no doubt that Nick Adams was gay. I hope that the arbitrators will have an unbiased look at my contributions and statements and all the sources I am citing to support my opinion. Onefortyone 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

For what its worth I don't personally believe your fabricating these things or trying to influence google counts. My guess is your simply advocating a POV. I personally don't feel that is contrary to our encyclopedic purposes, but the arbcom does. The case involving LaRouchites sets a clear precedent in a similar case.

Sam Spade 20:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

KeithD

Would it be more appropriate if you rather than me communicated with User:KeithD to encourage him to give evidence as to his involvement on the Onefortyone arbitration case? See: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence. - Ted Wilkes 13:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like, sure. Sam Spade 15:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and communicate with User:KeithD. He was a sincere contributor who went out of his way to accommodate Onefortyone but got severely stung. Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 16:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

RE:

• 19 September 2005
• Revision as of 19:54, 19 September 2005
• User:Ted Wilkes purchases book in question and disputes its content

I'd appreciate it if you would reword your comment. It sounds like, and in grammatical terms actually says, that I'm disputing the books content, instead of Onefortyone's fabrication. Thanks again. - Ted Wilkes 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I see User:KeithD responded to you on his Talk page. Do you think based on this comment they might be another to approach for input?

Just as a matter of interest, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect/Evidence is 3,275 words. - Ted Wilkes 20:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

New article

Sam, here's a new article. Plese take a look into Tatvas. - Vaikunda & Raja

Bible and Reincarnation

Sam, thanks for cheering me on. I really feel that there is a lot that people should know and they should grow. Experience is a painful teacher, why not Fast Forward and evolve? I was rasied a Catholic, preached Christianity and discovered Edgar Cayce and Reincarnation. I will soon be adding to the article Resurrection about resurections in India. --Jondel 04:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Puranic Vishnu

Hi, Sam, it's been many weeks since I have seen the Vishnu article. Apparently, someone has refuted Dab's assertions that Vishnu is an inferior deity in the Vedas.

"Some points missed by the author:

1. Purusha Sukta of Taittiriya Aranyaka(3.13.2) also refers master of Hri and Lakshmi(Visnu) as Purusha, the Supreme GOD.

2. Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda(10.82) refers to Visnu indirectly as the Supreme GOD.

10.082.06 The waters verily first retained the embryo in which all the gods were aggregated, single deposited on the navel of the unborn (creator), in which all beings abide.

3. Aitareya Brahmana: 1:1:1 mentions Visnu as Supreme.

Agni is the lowest among devatas and Visnu is the highest, all other Devatas(anya devatas except Lord Visnu and Agni Deva) occupy positions inbetween.

So the author's conclusion that Visnu was inferior Deity in Vedas is unfounded."

I wanted you to see it.

Hope all is well.

Raj2004 22:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you posted these to Talk:Vishnu? Sam Spade 17:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I didn't feel the need to put the comments in the Talk-Vishnu as we are more specifically arguing over the meaning of the word, "Vishnu." If you feel that we should place these comments in the talk-Vishnu in addition to the article, please feel free to add them.

Thanks, as always.

Raj2004 18:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I checked again and agree with you placing the comments in the talk-section.

Raj2004 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your welcome. David Kernow 15:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have you! Sam Spade 17:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Useless

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for rolling out the welcome-wagon, Sam. ;)
Matthew king 03:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And thank you for your contributions here. Sam Spade

My RfA

Mr. Spade-- Thank you for your kind words and support in my RfA. While it appears this may end in "no consensus", I hope you might think about supporting me again in a few months. Cheers my friend. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I did nothing other than vote my conscience. Its ridiculous that people try to make such haughty judgements of non-admins, when admins in good standing make the most vulger of personal attacks w impunity. If and when I gain my adminship I intend to use it to hold them to the same standard as ordinary wikipedians, and I hope you'll do the same. Cheers, Sam Spade 14:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the links. They were very useful. User:TearAwayTheFunerealDress (sig added by Sam Spade 14:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC))

Certainly, and please make sure to check out our heavy metal and death metal articles! Sam Spade 14:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)