User talk:Samboy/Archive1

Vandals

Thanks for giving us a heads-up on those vandals you reported. I blocked 61.149.223.228 for 3 hours (long enough for him to tire and decide to goto bed without too much collateral damage). 205.188.116.200 is part of an AOL block that lives at 205.188.0.0/16 - we prefer to block these for very short periods (15 minutes or so) in cases of serious vandalism. As you can imagine, we see an awful lot of vandals come in from there.

Thanks again!

-- Clockwork Soul 08:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Afshar etc.

Thanks for playing a constructive role in this discussion. I did notice your comment about the need for an illustration and agree fully with it. You also offered to provide a gimp-made illustration; if need be I'll volunteer to make an XFIG illustration (which would be sketchier of course) since my artistic talents never really motivated me to learn to use the gimp.

My own personal view on the Afshar experiment is a great deal of skepticism. But that discussion really got personal and vitriolic, so that's one reason why I appreciate your efforts.

Thanks!

CSTAR 14:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a great deal of skepticism. That's an understatement. --CSTAR 17:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have noticed, I have edited the Afshar experiment page; please see my comments at Talk:Afshar experiment. My edits are extremely conservative, and I have stopped exactly at the point where I would have to explicitly write down what's wrong with Afshar's experiment (based on the formal definition of complementarity based on consistent histories). These discussions are pointless.

I would appreciate it if you had a look at the page and make necessary stylistic edits. This episode is another lowpoint for the wikipedia experiment. This should serve as a case study. --CSTAR 22:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up chess. You may also want to check out origins of chess, as it needs some work too. That could, possibly, be merged or VfD'ed if the information is duplicated somewhere. Oh, and when you clean something up, check to see if it's still on Wikipedia:Cleanup. Sometimes people list stuff there, sometimes they don't. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have put chess on Wikipedia:Cleanup, since it's probably on a ton of users watchlists, but it was just a force of habit. Take care, and thanks again. CryptoDerk 02:27, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Samboy

I saw your beef elsewhere - won't mention names - but if you look on his Talk page you will see a User agreeing with him. I suspect that it is one and the same person who is using different names to wage various wars which are all pointless. However, the tactic he uses is to accuse the other person of what he is doing himself. He turns every factual discussion into a personal attack and then he denies that he is doing so and attacks those who then point this out. I am sick of it (like you, apparently.) I do my best to ignore it except when it appears that he is getting away with his own POV because no one wants to tangle with him. MPLX/MH 18:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your apology

As you have finally delivered the apology I requested from you on 10 August, 2004, I am willing, in the spirit of reconciliation, to cease further pursuit of the historic unpleasantness between us. --Gene_poole 22:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not apologizing sooner. Samboy 06:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Angela

Well, it looks like whether the article is deleted will actually depend on votes this time, so it would probably be best if you voted the way you thought. silsor 05:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Double-voting sockpuppet?

Yes, I've checked some edit logs and it seems rather suspicious. I'd suggest you inform User_talk:Jayjg, he is presently looking into it. Yours, Radiant _* 21:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Thanks for your offer of support. The most useful thing you can do is drop by regularly and revert the article to my most recent edit, so that I don't have to do it and get banned under the 3R rule. Adam 13:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's page

I like what you did with the top panel: the new contrast is pleasant. – Clockwork Soul 03:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict Style discussion

I wasn't sure if you realized it but the comment that Whig deleted (that was being referenced in the duplicitious comment that you rightfully reverted) was the 1st and 2nd reversions - although borderline the original paragraph contained alot of detail and the personal attack could have been deleted without deleting the entire paragraph. The reversions of duplicitous comment came later. Trödel|talk 02:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson

Yes, I know. I suggested as much. I visited Thomas Jefferson and made separate subheads for the Hemings controversy and the conflict of ideals posed by Jefferson's advocacy of freedom and the natural rights of "man" and his slaveholding, but haven't had the time to do much more than that. I suppose I could cut do a referral to the MLK talk page for those interested in following up. You, perhaps? :) Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 01:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RUSH

There is another issue, and/or a point of contention: RUSH to my knowledge never released any singles. "Tom Sawyer" is there biggest hit, and know doubt had it been released as a single would have been number 1. But Spirit of Radio, Closer to The Heart, Limelight would have also been big singles sellers. There were two factors here:

ONE) Rush was not a "Pop" group and they were NOT trying to target the pop market. They were a progressive group, and targeted the album-orientated rock stations, the ones that played songs off albums, not singles.

TWO) By the time RUSH made it big was the late 1970's. 45's were headed to the graveyard at that time; CD's weren't going to be around until 1988, single cassette tapes were never very popular. Bands like RUSH, Boston, Yes, Kansas, etc, were NOT going after the singles market, they wanted long songs, on albums, and long concerts. So part of it is the market. Who the bands were targeting, and who the consumers were that purchased the music. I either purchased the full LP, or the full cassettes, I thought cassette singles were a waist of money, and most of my friends did the same thing. We also liked to listen to the entire album. Radio stations back then would play an entire album every night at 11:00pm, and then again at 2:00am. Many stations would have a 5:00pm drive-home, focus-spot-light, for an hour on one band, then do another one from 8:00 to 12:00. Also shows like the "King Biscuit Flower Hour" and Don Kirshner's Presents" or "Don Kirshner's Rock Concert" were big back then, they would do two-hour radio shows at night, with interviews and some live tracks.

I guarantee you if RUSH wanted to target the "POP" or "TOP 40" demographic, which is: bubble-gum chewing, 15-year old girls, love songs, market, they could have done so with fifty Top 40 singles. But this was not RUSH. WikiDon 03:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you can copy+paste (or cut+paste) over my information above and add to the "one-hit" talk page. But, RUSH was NOT a one-hit band, no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it. And if those guys know the music business they would know it too. I have no doubt that Alex, Geddy, and Neil could have done anything that they had wanted to. If you took every rock band out there, and broke them into parts and rated & gave points for each individual part, like this: Bass, Lead Guitar; Drums; Lyrics; Melody; ability LIVE; Bass lead; etc., RUSH would have one of the highest scores going. Alex is a top guitarest, Geddy is a top bassist, and Neil is a top drummer and lyricist, and it is contemporary rock artist that say so. Also here is a couple of quotes from Neil (who wrote 99% of RUSH's lyrics; they may not be exact but close) about how he felt about the "pop-love song" market: "I think that love songs are actively harmful. They invent this fantasy that people expect their own relationships to live up to and when they don't they result in divorce, or worse suicide." and "I've always shyed away from love songs and even mentioning the word in songs because it's so much cliche..." This guy wasn't Barry Manilow, and the band wasn't Airsupply!

In the early 1980's I was listening to RUSH, the 15-20 y/o girls were listening to Michael Jackson, and look at that guy...

Bryan Ferry and Psychedelic Furs

"Slave to Love" didn't chart on the Billboard Hot 100. It charted on Mainstream Rock Tracks chart though, and peaked at #19.

"Pretty in Pink" peaked on the Hot 100 at #41. Carolaman 02:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Pretty in Pink" only charted in 1986. Carolaman 04:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon

You're welcome, Samboy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

One-hit wonders..

You could add the following bands and musicians to your Bands and musicians with only one hit who are not one-hit wonders list: Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Ted Nugent, Janis Joplin, Faith No More, Weezer, Radiohead, Cypress Hill, Beck, Ella Fitzgerald, Richard Harris, and Iron Butterfly. Carolaman 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've done everyone except Janis Joplin, Weezer, Radiohead, Cypress Hill, Beck, Ella Fitzgerald, and Richard Harris. Samboy 03:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've now done everyone except Weezer, Radiohead, Cypress Hill, Beck, Ella Fitzgerald, and Richard Harris, none of whom I can assess off of the top of my head. Samboy 03:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

issues

Samboy, I'm sure you're well meaning, and a nice guy in reality, but if we are going to get along here it is really essential for you to stop assuming bad faith on my micronation edits, and accept that writing about things that I know about and have researched at length - whether I have some sort of direct association with them or not - doesn't constitute "advertising" - no more than my contributions on other subjects about which I've written, and which I possess "insider knowledge" of constitutes advertsing. I think you'll find everything I write about is well written, presents a very balanced point of view, and is backed up by references, so what I write can easily be checked. It's also not good to be making common cause with Wik, if that is in fact who NoPuzzleStranger is (and I'm 95% certain it is) - that really doesn't make you look good at all. I'm sure we're both mature enough to settle this in a civil manner, which is much preferable to hours wasted in name-calling and pointless edit-wars. --Centauri 07:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I think the question on the micronation talk page needs to be expanded a bit so that people understand the context in which it's being asked. For example, I think people should see the paragraph directly above, and the full proposed content of the paragraph with the bolded text as a comparison, otherwise they might not see that voting no will mean that 1 paragraph describing one event includes a list of attendees, while the next one describing another similar event, doesn't.

Also, just so you know, I've been looking at expanding the section on Australian micronations, as there certainly seems to be a disproportionately large number of them here, and I think the article needs to explore that more comprehensively. As part of that I will be proposing to list all the ones discussed in this university paper (which is quite an interesting read BTW). I will post a notice of the proposed content on the talk page before uploading it, so people can discuss it beforehand. --Centauri 09:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations Article

Thank you very much for bringing this matter to my attention. Also, I commend you for the patience and civility you have shown in addressing this issue. If you have no objections, I plan to continue this discussion purely on my talk page, as what I have to say is relevant to both you and User:Centauri. I plan to post more this afternoon, after I have had some time to more thoroughly examine the situation. --L33tminion (talk) 15:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek Request for Comment

You have shown some interest in Dominion of Melchizedek, so I wanted to let you know that I created the following RFC. Bollar 13:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

Hi. Now that the Dominion of Melchizedek article has been expanded a bit (there's a lot more to be done) I'm going to restore some cut-down information about Melchizedek to the micronation article. It really needs to be mentioned there as it is by far the best known modern micronation fraud, and has been the subject of international media coverage and official US government intervention. --Centauri 23:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing valid Melchizedek links (e.g. at Jerusalem)? Melchizedek is a Bibilical figure who has nothing to do with the micronation, but does have something to do with Jerusalem. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Melchizedek editor

I do not have experience with RFC. (I do some with WP:RfAr which deals with offenses, the experience is that it is slow, but it doesn't apply on the Melchizedek). Pavel Vozenilek 21:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samboy - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.

If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi there! Maybe you remember me. Im that crazy guy that invented persivic (www.geocities.com/robotkarel). Now I'm a wikipedista, obviously in the spanish wikipedia, and have my blog too (robotkarel.blogspot.com) I try to put a comment in your blog too, but I dont like to sign up at too many blogs and wikis and mails! I'm glad to see ya again and want to congratulate because all that GPL job that you are doing. --Robotkarel 07:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DOM Mediation

I will gladly add your name to the mediation list if you support what I'm after, which is to stop Johnski from trashing articles. On the issue of Gene Poole and Centari, I honestly don't buy they are two seperate people. That's an issue between those two users and yourself. I'd caution you against making such statements on either the DOM page, because Johnski is using them against us and it may weaken our argument. My goal is to stop the vandalism on the DOM and related pages so I'm looking for as much help as possible. Davidpdx 19:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solkope

I noticed that you were the last person to edit Solkope, yet you did not remove the DOM content. Why did you keep this content? Samboy 08:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove the content, go ahead. This was something I was doing to lay down the law in terms of the junk Johnski puts in the articles. I didn't remove all the content, but edited it back to a version I had added to the article as a something Isotope and I agreed would be a good alternative. I have no problem with it being removed. Be ready to be attacked by Johnski after he logs on. Davidpdx 08:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Samboy, you noticed I've been reverting the Solkope article since we've had the other conversation. Thanks for catching it and reverting again. Keep up the good work :) Davidpdx 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dude, you look like a nice boy, Sam, so why are you so unfriendly without getting to know me first? SamuelSpade 05:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation poll

Samboy, I understand your concern. Certainly your problem with Gene Poole is exactly the same problem I have with Johnski and all his sockpuppets. It is frustrating to feel that way. I don't really have much knowledge of the "micronations" in general, except that I've tried to learn as much as I can about DOM. I appreciate your stance.

My goal is to try not to get involved in the dispute. At the same time I would like to try to persuade both of you to put your diffrences aside to work for a common cause, which is to get this problem with DOM taken care of. It's a balancing act. I really want to go forward with mediation against Johnski/KAJ/Samuelspade/etc. and show him we mean business in terms of his reverting articles against consensus.

I hope you can appreciate my take on this. I think together we can stop this nonsense and maybe get the people responsible banned for awhile. Thanks for listening. Davidpdx 11:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case [1] Davidpdx

Actually

Removing valid (i.e. not vandal) comments from talk pages is against Wikipedia guidelines. It's what ultimately got BigDaddy777 banned indefinitely. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]