User talk:Dave souza/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Thanks for the crumpet!

A very sweet thought. (apologies for the terrible pun.) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 11:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User and User Talk Deletion

Dave - Thanks again for your comments. I was wondering if you you could assist me one more time. I am attempting to delete both my user and user talk, but it says I need to contact an administrator first.[1] In advance, I appreciate any assistance you can provide.


Not sure what's going on, but this Nlu admin keeps reverting my talk page whenever I archive it and he deletes my question of why he is doing it whenever I ask it on his talk page. Can you speak to him on my behalf? Thanks. Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Editors 22:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Markyu, playing games with pushing the link to the bottom of an otherwise blank talk page wasn't in the instructions I pointed out to you, and your sig is lacking in tact and diplomacy. While you're blocked you can try drafting productive polite edits that make a positive contribution to Wikipedia: Nlu has rightly pointed out the consequences if you can't manage that. ..dave souza, talk 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design suggestion

Your prose looks good to me. --ScienceApologist 13:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dave, I wanted to note that the words "still embraced" implies there were a significant number of adherents in Paley and Darwin's day. There were not, of course, so I changed it to "embraced today" along with a syntax change and clarification of what "it" referred to, which was a supernatural designer.

I've appreciated encountering (and more recently interacting with) your well considered perspectives and summary analyses of what actually is going on with many of these issues...Kenosis 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and for clarifying that sentence. ..dave souza, talk 15:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Thanks a lot for your productive "mediation". I am quite happy we are getting somewhere! Regards, Asterion 13:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to say so, though I've been rather too partisan to call it "mediation": constructive negotiation's probably better. As long as the article's improving, ..dave souza, talk 13:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Municipal Buildings

Yes! Ta. I feel that it is nice to have something non-Edinburgh&Glasgow, especially at the opportunity given by the Subdivisions section. And what better than the wonderful architecture of Greenock? --Mais oui! 18:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tricky getting the Victoria Tower in. You'll note the Argyll hills with a topping of snow visible over the Mid Kirk, and the black Orchestra Of ScottishOpera van at the muni buildings tunnel. Rather a nice day. ..dave souza, talk 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Link Image:Greenock muni blgs2.jpg in case anyone wonders what we're blethering about. ..dave souza, talk 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I like this new image much better than the old Greenock picture, so I will not be adding back the George Square picture now! I think Mais_oui's point about getting a non Edinburgh and Glasgow picture also makes sense. Regards Astrotrain 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A star for you...

The Original Barnstar
For excellent no-nonsense edits to the Evolution article that illuminate the topic and reduce tension among editors, I award you this Original Barnstar. Mikker (...) 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to move it... Mikker (...) 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, my first! I'll display it with pride. ...dave souza, talk 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's about time! And I think the evolution article is indeed evolving in a good direction... Anyway, regards, Mikker (...) 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation - User:Owain

An investigation is now underway, at my request:

Other relevant material at:

Please keep an eye on the progress of this: any additional information you can supply would be highly valued, but I really just want some calm heads to watch this situation. I intend to also post this notice at the Talk pages of some other Admins, eg Morwen (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, it seems to be getting sorted out ok. ..dave souza, talk 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ruchill Church Hall

Hi Dave, what a great wee building!! I was completely unaware of this in Mackintosh' repertoire. Nice bunch of images to go with it too. I particularly like the "eyebrow" hooded lintels over the high level windows on the curved end - brilliant stuff. I also see that you uploaded a bunch of images for the Willow Tearooms which, shockingly, doesn't have an article. Do you want to do it, or should I? Nice work with the neds as well :-) Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here - thanks Dave. I've never come across this building before, either. Thanks for the contribution - much appreciated. Regards Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 12:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like it, it's a nice wee building working hard in a rather deprived area of Glasgow. A cafe was on the go in the front committee room some years age, then that stopped. Recently the outside's been done up and had scaffolding up till a couple of months ago, and now it has the billboard and a big sign to the canal side announcing the tea-room which appears to be run by church volunteers: a worthy thing to visit. Having gone along the canal walk a bit to get a picture, it was a slight relief when the youths proved friendly, asking if I was photographing the church and saying "take our picture" which I did, though one sensibly kept out of the picture. They were happy with the result, and I didn't quiz them about neds: Cactus.man, did you just think they looked like neds? See Talk:Ned (Scottish) for discussion: most people here think they shouldn't be stereotyped, though one was quick to react to the picture as neds. It'll be a great help if you can put together a Willow Tearooms article, I've a Miss Cranston article draft on the backburner and will try to bring that forward. ...dave souza, talk 16:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll work up a Willow Tearooms article, good luck with putting Miss Cranston on the front burners! As for the young lads, I'm afraid that they fit the visual sterotype - baseball cap, shell suit, white trainers, hanging about drinking (not sure what though, it looks like a soft drinks bottle and the contents through the cup look sort of orange - Irn Bru? The less charitable would assume Buckfast decanted into a disguised bottle!). They could be straight off the set of Chewin' the Fat.
You're right though, it is inappropriate to jump to such conclusions. They could be perfectly decent young lads, I've no idea. There was an interesting series of programmes on Radio Scotland a couple of years or so ago, not long after the Rosie Kane affair, which took the form of a series of "radio diaries" presented by a young lad frustrated by such automatic stereotyping. He spoke like the sterotypical comedic representation of the ned, but was a highly articulate and intelligent young man. Maybe Rosie Kane was right? --Cactus.man ✍ 07:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, will try to get Kate C. restarted. The ned outfits are very similar to the stereotypes on the Karen Dunbar Show, though there they have white outfits which is something I've noticed around here lately. Shifting fashions from the old Burberry days! ..dave souza, talk 10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tiktaalik picture

I think drawing a new version of Image:41525972 fish transition 416.gif is a good idea. Personally, I'd like something with land/water indicated on one side or axis and millions of years ago marked on the other, just to make it as informative as possible. Maybe it could include some side branches and "dotted lines" leading to modern lobe-finned fishes, amphibians and reptiles. . . you know, give a broader evolutionary context for this animal.

Best, Anville 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Will try to get sketches started, but don't think this should get too big. ..dave souza, talk 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this shouldn't become too detailed, attractive as the possibilities might be. Having had a look at the online Nature article I suspect that the BBC image was itself "inspired", as it is derived from the article's drawing (which is itself copyright to a third party...). In any case the Nature article is probably worth a look (as drawing from one source is plagiarism, but from two is research...).
Given the convoluted nature of the (double) copyright image on the Nature article I think the clearest way forward is to draw a fresh image.
Regarding the picture itself, I think making a horizontal timeline is a good idea, with maybe an indication of the sea->both->land transition. The inclusion of the elbow and wrist is clearly a significant evolutionary indication, with the rest of the limb being fins rather than fingers. I note that the rear part of Tiktaalik has not been found, and that the BBC image is therefore only best-guessing at what the back of the animal looks like.
I note that the articles Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega also have (independent) images of the animals. Could these be useful? The indication of date in the Nature article is 385 - 365 million years ago.
I've put Tiktaalik on my watchlist, and look forward to seeing your picture! Cheers, Sliggy 18:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've belatedly been looking at these line drawings, and now propose doing a new line drawing of Tiktaalik to replace the photo of the skull. This line drawing could be incorporated with the others in a vertical table so that the names could be live links, or could become part of a horizontal gif as above. Get me pencil out tomorrow. ..dave souza, talk 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Just another quick thought - is it worth mentioning what you intend to do on Talk:Tiktaalik? Cheers, Sliggy 19:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking, have done now. I've a rough pencil sketch together, will refine things in the morning. ..dave souza, talk 22:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pic done, can be improved if needed: anyone good at tables could arrange this with the others in a vertical table with links to articles. In the next couple of days I'll try arranging them in a horizontal png timeline. ..dave souza, talk

See my reply at Talk:Tiktaalik#Image_proposal. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-08 22:26

Good picture, like it! Sliggy 13:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

fishapods
fishapods
Right ho, one timeline. Can edit if requested. ...dave souza, talk 08:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture request

Hi Dave, today was supposed to be Willow Tearoom start day, but you went and posted Bud Neill which completely blootered my plans. What a great find! Being inspired by what I found, I've expanded the article, but am having trouble finding freely available photo's of the statue. There are lots available on Flickr, including some nice shots, but they mostly have restrictive licences. The only one with a free license has a traffic cone on top of bajin's heid - not quite what the article needs. Any chance you could get along there on a nice sunny day and get some good pics? Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well actually Bud was a spin-off from the fish with legs and alligator jaws pictures as above, since it reminded me of Mr? (or is it Senator?) Kraw K. Dile and needed a link. As well as Lobey's the wee boy, I've Further adventures of the wee boy and Bud Neill's Magic!, so intend to scan the covers. Will be in Glasgow in about a month and was just thinking of heading along to the statue with the camera, weather permitting. Hope Elfie's tail's been restored. The one with the cone should do until then, ...dave souza, talk 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC). Just looked - brilliant work on the Bud Neill article!. ....dave souza, talk 17:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha! That's why this place is so bloody addictive - a few clicks can separate a crocodile-like fish extinct for 375 million years from a Scottish cartoonist and bronze statue in Woodlands Road with a traffic cone on it's head :-) I've added the traffic cone picture as an interim measusre with some text about vandalism to make it relevant. Some book covers would round off the article nicely, but might need a new section with a brief discussion of the books to keep on the right side of the "fair-use police". --Cactus.man ✍ 08:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pictures Dave. I've replaced the traffic cone version with the one that shows Lobey's face best. I think you're right about keeping the traffic cone version so I've added a wee gallery with that plus two others that give the context of the statue's relationship to Woodlands Road and the Halt Bar. Not sure if that's too much, what do you think? --Cactus.man ✍ 07:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I've tried tweaking the headings a little to give a bit more info: the one looking west along Woodlands Road shows a handcuff on Rankie, and he's reaching for Lobey's gun. The road name in the main caption seemed superfluous as it's clear from the text. Hope that suits, ..dave souza, talk 18:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fishapods, again

Hi. I made a new version of the Coelacanth image which would fit better in Image:Fishapods.jpg. The current Coelacanth looks like an alien among the other fishes. :-) bogdan 19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks a bit better: still a bit different, but has lost the dayglo blue now. ..dave souza, talk 20:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Fishapods.jpg (yet again)

Is it supposed to say "Acanthostego", as opposed to Acanthostega? —Gabbe 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Thought I'd corrected that typo, done now. ..dave souza, talk 23:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Did You know - Bud Neill

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bud Neill, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--A Y Arktos\talk 01:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Forwarded to User talk:Cactus.man with a wee note on progress on references to the cartoon books. ..dave souza, talk 10:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I nominated it for DYK after a request on the talk page. The article's looking good Dave, the cover scans and extra commentary on the books fill it out nicely, great stuff. BTW, there's a signed 1st edition copy of Bud Neill's Magic! going for £100 on eBay if you're feeling mad enough :-) I'll pass on this occasion. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty awesome! I guess you let FM know that he was now semi-famous as a cartoon? •Jim62sch• 17:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hullo

Hey Dave, I came to say how much I enjoyed your illustrations on the Tiktaalik page. I've nominated it as a Good Article. I also now must compliment you on your user page - there aren't too many that make me grin like that. If you do drink have a pint on me! Cheers. SeanMack 13:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins...

Howdy Dave. Hope all is well. A couple of other editors and I are working on getting Richard Dawkins ready for WP:FAC. Could you please have a look? Richard_Dawkins#Evolutionary_biology is unsatisfactory, IMO and stuff needs to be added about The Extended Phenotype. Help would be appreciated! Mikker (...) 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (note: I'm also asking Guettarda to have a look...)

Thanks for the invite. Things are a bit of a rush just now, and from what I can see it looks pretty good, but will try to find time to help if I can. ..dave souza, talk 19:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the butterfly wikilink... It's amazing there is an article on it! The wonders of Wikipedia... And, thanks for having a look. When you have time, if you can help with the substantive content issues (as you seem to be very knowledgeable about evolution) that would be great. Hope more relaxing times soon follow... :) Mikker (...) 16:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Fishapods.jpg

I award you this Sword-billed Hummingbird for your great work on the Fishapods image!
I award you this Sword-billed Hummingbird for your great work on the Fishapods image!

Nice work! —Pengo 06:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much: images to order, but please give plenty of notice! ...dave souza, talk 19:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

re New

Thanks! They were great. One thing irks me...I stuck an essay on my user-space on Wiki saying a similar thing about religion and got jumped all over. I mustn't have the right connexions. •Jim62sch• 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


I see the Joan of Arc and George Washintin statues every other Saturday. Philly has a few other equestrian statues that aren't pictured, but I never have my camera when I go past.
Where is the Lobey Dosser statue? In Scotland, I guess? •Jim62sch• 20:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It's quite near Glasgow University, and giving my son a lift back to the flat he's sharing gave me the opportunity to grab the requested photies between showers. There's obviously local interest and pride: an elderly man stopped his car and asked if I knew what the statue was about. Apparently he knew Bud Neill, and often stops to help and enlighten puzzled tourists...dave souza, talk 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Greyfriars Kirkyard, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 08:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cavalier

Thanks for the support. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delighted to see the page in its right place :) ..dave souza, talk 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Catherine Cranston

Excellent article Dave, nice work. Great photos of Kate and the waitresses as well !! You should nominate this on DYK. I have added a {{main}} link to the Willow Tearooms, but will let you do the trimming and fixing of discrepancies as you have the hard copy sources to hand. I have found a bit of a problem with the elevational study for the Willow however. It looks like the drawing was not by Mackintosh, more likely some architectural student, as the source site has numerous other studies of various buildings all in the same style. It's probably a copyvio therefore and I will remove it meantime, pending possible agreement for use. You don't have any suitable Mackintosh elevational drawings in your printed sources do you, I haven't found anything online? --Cactus.man ✍ 07:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC) rein

Woa Dave, woa, keep Elfie on a tight rein there!! Leave everything as is for now. The problem is not with the Dug Out drawing which is a valid Mackintosh published original (pre-1923), but the main facade elevation. I have removed it meantime. The original Miss Cranston and waitress photographs are probably OK, but I will do some further reading on the issue of dates of "publication" v "creation" in relation to US / non-US sources. Will get back to you. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, have listed it on DYK along with a miniature of the portrait in hopes that's OK. Will now look through the books for ext. elevs., but not too hopeful. ..dave souza, talk 11:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Hmmm, who'd be a lawyer? I usually refer to the Cornell public Domain Guide for these things, but the key question here, as you say, is probably "were the images published?" No doubt you have read the same or similar material. It is probably reasonable to take the view that these photographs were published, at least in the UK at the time, as a result of the press interest that the new tearooms seem to have generated, particularly the Willow Tearooms. That being so, I think there is a pretty solid case that they are public domain as works published outside the US prior to 1909. I'm not sure if your book sources shed any further light on the question of when they were actually first published, if at all? All thoughts appreciated. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. Firstly, no sign of a drawing, but a photograph of the elevation with reasonable verticals / lack of perspective problems "Provided by T & R Annan and Sons" which as a commercial photographer might be expected to publish, given international interest at the time. They're also credited with other pictures which, like the portrait and waitresses, were by J. Craig Annan, son of the photographer Thomas Annan, Hope this helps. What I read was the guidance on Wikmedia, which tends to leave me more baffled than when I started. ..dave souza, talk 12:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
From what you say Dave, I think these images are almost certainly Public Domain, as images published before 1909. I would leave the excellent Miss Cranston images as they are, and substitute the Willow Tearooms facade image with your historical one. But, as they say, IANAL --Cactus.man ✍ 12:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the JC Annan image Dave, it's absolutely perfect for the job, which is great as the copyright holder for the previous drawing has declined to grant permission for use. I've added the photo in to the facade section of the article. I'll leave the other adjustments to your fine judgement. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad it suits, it certainly illustrates the text very well. Will try to get back to the rest reasonably soon, had better pause to clear a backlog of housework now! ..dave souza, talk 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr, Souza. I should have guessed that you were responsible. When I read the article I was so impressed that I had to see who the author was. Thanks for adding another fine article to Wikipedia! -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ta! ...dave souza, talk 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Miss Cranston, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

The (skating) Rev.

There's definitely a connection in there somewhere. Duddingston Loch is well known for skating and curling in the 19th century. The Tower is also reputed to be where the rules of curling were first written down, and Thomson was a contemporary of Raeburn, mixing in the same circles. Warrants further research. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your DYK wording sounds pretty good to me, perhaps with a slight tweak to clarify that he was a former minister. Please go ahead and add it if you think it's worthy. I also like your addition of the community website anecdote about the numerous, variously sired children giving rise to the phrase! He was obviously a randy old bugger for a Reverend
I've also sourced some Scotsman material that provides a bit of a link between Raeburn and Thomson, plus a nice quote from Turner: "By God sir, I envy you that piece of water". Still working out how to work it into the article properly, so the skating Rev may yet still make an appearance - watch that space :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 12:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Dave, I've expanded the Reverend John Thomson article a bit and worked in a reference to the Skating Rev. in a trivia section based on the strong connections with the Loch, studio, skating, curling etc. Would be grateful if you could give it the once over and comment on the worth of inclusion. I am worried that it's still too remote from the article topic. Comments welcome. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, good advice as usual. I've tweaked the article as necessary, and you're right, Wikipedia is just electrons and magnetic storage. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)