User talk:Dave souza/Archive 9

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 8 |
Archive 9
| Archive 10 →


Contents

Not the best timing and much stupidity

Hmm... it seems my recent set of actions on Wikipedia were not exactly well thought through, the timing of the proposal and the phrasing of some of my comments are uhm somewhat idiotic to put it mildly, and so my intentions have been far from clear. Now, since you made an edit to the proposal, I want to make sure you can accept that it was not written to make a WP:POINT, and the somewhat ridiculous sentence you corrected was not meant to be entirely so ridiculous. I have had this kind of ideas in mind for a long time. The proposal suffers from extreme instruction creep, but it was not in any way a sarcastic essay. Perhaps, there is a fundamental flaw in that it tries to propose "Be reasonable or you will be banned". I guess it might be stupid, but it is not ill-intended. Much paranoia abounds, but the real reason I wrote the proposal comes from being tired of seeing the same discussions again and again, I have stopped editing some articles because it is just tedious and impedes progress. Having now experienced being in the minority, I'm even more convinced one should not edit against consensus... I don't think this is so unreasonable, but in any case I came to Wikipedia because I realized that I learn very much when I summarize scholarly opinions on the Wiki, I don't really know why I'm addicted to the MediaWiki namespace, I think I need to take a short break, and then go back to writing articles! --Merzul 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to me to be making a useful comment, though obviously I'd a reservation. It's worth thinking about how to do things here, but the continuous subtle shifting of rules and guidance can be more nuisance than help. It's difficult to legislate good common sense. A bit of simple contributing is probably the best tonic, but I keep finding contentious articles to turn to ;) ... dave souza, talk 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

'Theory'

Thanks for the explanatino re the word 'Theory'. I disagree that the word implies scientific reasoning, but if that's the consensus then I will bow to it. --Jezmck 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it a rather loaded word in many contexts. ..dave souza, talk 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about

with regard to your comment on my page. Did you read the discussion? How would you summarize my argument? Then could you relate my argument to the comments you left on my talk page, because I can't follow them. Thank you.Tstrobaugh 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC

Take a break, and try to study Wikipedia policies and guidance in a constructive way. .. dave souza, talk 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that address the problem. The problem is I don't know what point you were making. I'm attempting to communicate by seeing if you understand what point I was making. Can you summarize my argument? Understanding is the key to communication. Thanks.Tstrobaugh 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New editor in search of a little guidance

I've noticed through my short time so far here at WP that you seem to have quite a knack for talking with editors who appear to be pushing a POV. I was wondering if it would be possible if you could give me a few pointers regarding my current discussion with an editor about a certain creationist that has spilled over onto my talk page. I realize you are quite a busy man, so any advice would be much helpful as I try to better my editing skills on WP. Thanks and Cheers!!! Baegis 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your enquiry. I've commented at the article talk page, and it may work best if you delete discussion from your talk page in order to focus attention on the article talk page. Both of you are free to delete discussion from your talk page, or if you prefer, archive it. The particular misconception is mentioned at Second law of thermodynamics#Complex systems and touched on by Entropy (energy dispersal) as well as Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy. .. dave souza, talk 12:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you help. You were able to sum up all my points in a much more diplomatic matter and without getting angry. I wish I could be so patient. So, in the future, should I refer to WP policies instead of getting into my convoluted explanations? Cheers!!! Baegis 13:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has their own way, and it's not necessarily a good idea to refer to policies too early. However, it's worth getting a good understanding of all the policies, as people often misunderstand what NPOV actually means. Similarly, WP:NOR is also very important in this area, and the WP:A attempt to combine the policies gives a very good summary. Explanations are always needed, but generally others will join in to avoid articles going off on a pseudoscience tangent. In my opinion it's a good idea to be conscious of WP:CIVIL and ettiquette so that you don't give your "opponent" ammunition to use against you, and indeed politeness can help to reach an outcome that's acceptable to all. Hope that helps! .. dave souza, talk 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jazz

Funny, Dave, that we both seem to think that each other suffers from POVs - re "Jazz". And the even more worrying thing is that we both might be Scotsmen - or at least Scottish-interest men!! Funny old world..... All wishes 81.156.1.40 22:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the thing about WP:NPOV is that it's not one neutral stance, but a proportionate statement of both or all POVs, subject to minority povs not having to be stated. As for Scots interest, I was just thinking of Josh MacRae, Scottish blues guitarist of note who took his first (stage) name in honour of Josh White :) ... dave souza, talk 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely not the "Messing About on the River" Josh Macrae, both of us in Glasgow in the ....1960s was it? 81.156.1.40 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at that time Glasgow was a strange and foreign land to me, as I was living in the far east (Leith) and saw Josh MacRae along with Hamish Imlach a few times in Edinburgh folk clubs. Had no idea he'd anything to do with "Messing About on the River", and it seems a bit out of character from the versions I recall – mainly remember him for blues, the Dundee Ghost song, and Hairy Mary :) .. dave souza, talk 10:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

Do you think protecting this template is likely to make the specific group of editors involved discuss the issue? If you haven't ever read User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts, you should; that is one of the motivations for using a 0RR rather than protection when the editors involved are all experienced enough to know not to edit war. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant to point out I posted about this template on WP:AN this morning: [1]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's continuing discussion, which I'd hope will reach consensus, if not unanimity. I've read it, and this is what I noticed – "Take a common-sense approach. If an experienced editor who understands how collaborative editing works makes a mistake, a block is unlikely to do anything but alienate the editor, and is unproductive." . ... dave souza, talk 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverting after someone puts an explicit note on your talk page warning you not to continue reverting is quite a mistake. This afternoon, I blocked Odd nature, but was ready to immediately unblock him, and did so as soon as I heard from him. I thought for a minute before blocking, but when I checked I saw that Odd nature has reverted that same thing 3 times before in October. I also thought about the fact that I left a note on his talk page to make sure he was aware of it. He could have left a note on the template talk page without also reverting the template, to make his point that several people are in favor of his version. But he immediately reverted the template while leaving the note, which is exacty the ongoing problem on that template. So I blocked him, but waited to make surel I could unblock him if he agreed not to continue reverting. I also asked another admin for a block review, but Odd nature had been unblocked before the review could happen.
Unless there is some impending harm that the protection is meant to address, I would like to unprotect the template. I'm watching it closely enough that the protection isn't needed to stop the edit war. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Barring any compelling reasoning to keep the template protected, I'll unprotect it later tonight. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I do realize I upset a group of edit warriors upset by calling them on it, but in the end that isn't too surprising. I appreciate that Odd nature may not have realized he was edit warring, but I did unblock him immediately when he said he would stop, which ensured that the block was preventative, rather than punitive, in the sense that he was only blocked for a couple minutes but (hopefully) will refrain from edit warring for a while. My interpretations about blocking for edit warring are neither extreme nor unusual, as evidenced by the fact that when I left a note on AN about it long before blocking Odd nature, nobody thought it was out of the ordinary. I am willing to let the matter drop immediately, but I am also willing to defend my actions if asked about them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have my opinion. ... dave souza, talk 12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
He's gotten a few opinions on it...not that it much matters. •Jim62sch• 13:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Place names

Dave, coming out from a few conversations with others, I've created a Gaeilge task force to coordinate translations of Irish place names and other Irish-language related work. Since you seem to have an interest in this stuff, you might want to get involved. I'm sure there's plenty to do even without a knowledge of Irish. Some bright ideas (which I know you're capable of) and an outside view, might alone be a significant contribution. Do you know of any related Scottish project? Maybe starting one, or linking up, would be possible?

Maybe drop a line on the talk page so that we can all "get to know eachother" as the man might say. --sony-youthpléigh 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm a bit out of touch and completely do not have the Gaelic, also have rather much in my in-tray already. Have tried a check over at Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board and its talk page, but no sign of anything relevant at first glance. Trust all goes well, .. dave souza, talk 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference footnotes

Hi dave, I know it has been a while but would you be able to add reference footnotes to the information you added to the architectural theory article a while ago? I am researching now to expand that article in the next month or two, and would greatly appreciate more references in the text. As you know a featured article tends to have some 5 or 6 per paragraph, and to FA is where I may take the article eventually, so if you could add as many as you can that would be wonderful. Otherwise, I will add some to those sections myself, as I will probably be editing those sections but the less I have to do the better. The time frame for me is still open a few months and as much referenced text as possible is most desirable. Regards, D. Recorder 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ps - I know I haven't been using footnotes on that article myself, but I will when I expand soon.D. Recorder 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the edits I made[2] removed a speculative anti-modernist rant and referred to some of the main figures, I'm not much up on architectural theory but will try to have a look for relevant sources for these points. There's no need to overdo references and often one per paragraph should suffice, with more where different sources provide different viewpoints or it's a particularly contentious statement – the main thing is to ensure that all the statements are properly attributed to a verifiable source. The first thing is to decide whether you want to cite page numbers in reference books (as the one inline cite does already) – if that's the case it's best to use Template:Citation in the Bibliography (which is often called References) and Template:Harvard citation no brackets (harvnb) inline, between footnote ref. tags as Wikipedia:Footnotes. The alternative, shown at Wikipedia:Citation templates, doesn't work so well with page numbers. Let me know which option you prefer, or if you've any queries, and then I'll have a go at providing appropriate references for the bits by me. .. dave souza, talk 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Whichever is easier for you. For the footnotes I add, I'm going to include the whole book at the first instance in the footnotes and then a short version with page numbers thereafter. When the same is used multiple times I'll use the refname = code to repeat. Use whichever you are more comfortable using, I'll try to adapt for what I work on. Regards, D. Recorder 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

Hi, Dave. It's been a while, eh?

Thanks for undoing my hasty text move here. The last thing I want to do is violate NPOV accidentally. --Uncle Ed 23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good show, hope you're finding the reference useful. .. dave souza, talk 13:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Mnemonic fair use

Yo Dave, just stopping by to thank you for keeping the copyright wolves from the door at Johnny Mnemonic, much appreciated. Skomorokh incite 12:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to do something to fight off these packs of wild bots trying to chew up good images ;) ... dave souza, talk 13:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"berserk deleting categories" anon

Hey, I noticed you blocked the IP User:81.133.14.182 for one hour. Just wanted to let you know that this user has been using anonymous editing to avoid a 3 month block (that was given to User talk:212.158.244.124 by Maxim a month ago). Not only was the user doing "berserk" things with categories, the editing pattern was often POV and when confronted or reverted, the user would turn to personal and homophobic attacks (edit summaries like "fuckin gays have sex with a woman OR love your mother" and "Stop vandalism fuckin gay EALacey") and often stalk the users (see User:Andrev c for me and User:EAGacey for User:EALacey). The user has also gone by User:Goodmann and User:Bad as a child and at last 16 different IP address (that all point back to England and for the most part BT broadband). The bad part is that the dynamic addresses are so varied (81.130.x.x to 87.74.x.x with a few in the 21x.x.x.x range) that a rangeblock is not feasible based on the number of affected users. At this point, the 3 month block seems pointless because the user knows how to evade the block, has not shown any interest in communicating, the personal attacks have not stopped, nor the disruptive editing. Just letting you know the background of the situation. Do you have any ideas on how to more successfully handle this user (through dialogging, blocking, or even contacting the ISP?)?-Andrew c [talk] 22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, bit late for me tonight but if you could put a report at WP:AN/I that seems to me the way forward. Thanks again, ..dave souza, talk 23:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles Darwin, about agnosticism

Please refer to the Charles Darwin talk page to discuss the use of the word Agnostic in this article. Thanks. --Xer0 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species

Hello Dave, I got your message, but not sure what it is you want me to do? Which other page is it on? thank you.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, got it, and will take care of it as soon as I figure it out and get a minute.
Also, I need some help! I have to change the "E" into a lower case in Ahl-E Haqq, but it says there is already a page there and will not go through. Can you please make it lower case or tell me how?--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Dave, I've weighed in at Talk:Ahl-E Haqq#Page move. Unless I've missed something, it might not be as bad as expected. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Dave, okay, wow, so I just spent a few hours trying to correct the "On" on all the pages you asked me to. I did it on a few, but 95% of all the pages that linked into "On the Origin of Species" already use "On", so I did not even have to add anything, but I checked most of them anyway.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, there still seem to be plenty still to tidy up. More than half of the Pages that link to On the Origin of Species link through the redirect, and can be seen directly under Pages that link to The Origin of Species. No doubt we'll get them all sorted out in the fullness of time. ... dave souza, talk 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a big problem on the page. "Francis Schonken" keeps moving the page back, and now is bulling me with threats. I have provided citations and proof for the name.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned to provide context prior to the central events of the case. Your contributions were also mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought FAC

I have just nominated History of evolutionary thought for FA. Your participation in the processs would be very welcome. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of Wesley R. Elsberry

According to this, Wesley is a party to the dispute. Consequently, Wesley citing Shallit via a blog (in which authentication may not be performed, as is typical on blogs in general) with an axe to grind is not exactly reliable. Do you disagree? CruftCutter (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that it's a contribution by the reputable researcher Wesley R. Elsberry to Panda's Thumb, which is one of the reputable ScienceBlogs, and is a reliable statement of Wesley's claim. He is representative of the mainstream science response to the "dispute". It's not a source for Shallit, who is cited to the pdf you've linked, as I understand it. .. dave souza, talk 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Good enough for me. There are blogs and there are rantings. This is a real blog.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:PSTS Elsberry's post is a suitable reliable primary source of what Elsberry has said. 66.92.182.62 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Elsberry is a notable expert in this field. Elsberry self published material is a reliable source then according to WP:SPS.--Filll (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I don't have many names. I had persianhistory2008 and changed it to Octavian history. Only change and only name I have--Octavian history (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, apologies for my absent minded flippant remark. .. dave souza, talk 19:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoffman evidence

Hi there. I've commented on your evidence in the Hoffman case. See my comments here. Please feel free to respond there. Out of interest, I noted earlier that only Nascentathiest made sockpuppet allegations in the initial thread. I think it is a point in favour of the other editors in that thread that they (mostly) responded to the substance of what Hoffman was saying, rather than commenting on the editor. Where do you personally stand on those sockpuppet allegations? Did you give any credence to Nascentathiest's comments at the time? What do you think now, after all the subsequent discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, some new evidence! :-) The block and appeals timeline is good, and more extensive than my attempt earlier. One thing I did notice was that you didn't include the talk page comments Adam left. Namely this one (the initial block notification) and this one (the initial unblock commenting putting Hoffman on 'probation', later struck through) and this one (the strike through and the new unblock comment further down). One thing that grated somewhat was the tone of "oh, all right, I'll unblock, but I'm not very happy about it". That may have not helped. In particular: "it looks like there's no call for an indef block, provided you are not a sock. Sorry. However, do try to cut back on the rants". Setting conditions after an unblock needs to be handle diplomatically and with care, and it wasn't in this case. Dunno how to express that in evidence, though. I got all the diffs from here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, too many distractions here but I'll try to incorporate these points and give it a look over, probably on Boxing Day. Enjoy the solstice celebrations! .. dave souza, talk 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lobey's the Wee Boy.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lobey's the Wee Boy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Waggers, Dave and Padraig - a while back you left some messages on my talk page supporting the idea of me going for adminship ... well I thought about it and if your support is still there I think I'd like to run the gauntlet of the process. I'm not sure whether to self-nominate or whether one of you would. In either case, would you still be supportive of the idea? --sony-youthpléigh 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sony, glad to support. I see Waggers has beaten me to the nomination, and will be glad to co-nominate or support, whichever works best. .. dave souza, talk 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that it is any of my business, but self-nomination strikes me as a bad idea in the current climate.--Filll (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Filll, it's appreciated that there's an increased pressure on admins to take great care, but that aspect is unlikely to be a problem. Sony has consistently shown a cool head and an even handed approach in some pretty contentious disputes. .. dave souza, talk 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, Dave. I've completed the request. --sony-youthpléigh 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Expelled

Thanks dave for helping out on Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope it helps, eventually. Thanks for your assistance with the article. .. dave souza, talk 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

I have replied on my talk page to your welcome DudeatBish (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DudeatBish? Oh, no! Please don't tell me Bishapod has created a sock of his own, too! I despair! Bishonen | talk 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
Now, now, don't BITE the newcomer, Bishonen, and for goodness sake make sure Bishzilla doesn't! Thanks for the message, DudeatBish. Bishopthorpe looks like a nice place, in the land of John Smith's Magnet Ales if I recall correctly. Will contact you with further reminiscences. Never mind all these Bishapods, they're really rather cuddly and fun. .. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Hi, *many* thanks for the insight that 'notability' is not meant in the context of/confined to WP:NOTE. I wish someone had explained that to begin with.

Anyway, rather than splatter your talk page with my response (which I almost did), I've posted to WT:NOR at NotabilitySignificance is central to OR

I'd really appreciate any views you might have. Many thanks again. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks, Dave, for both your comments during my RfA and on my talk page. The request was made on a whim - I genuinely don't see it as a big deal - and my skin, as you probably know, is thicker than all that. None the less, you're right, a learning point it was. If the mood takes me again in a couple of months or so, I'll drop you a line. Hope it was a good Christmas. --sony-youthpléigh 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Christmas went well though things got really hectic for a couple of weeks beforehand, glad you're able to take the stushie the right way. Hope all's well with you, and if you do feel the urge again we can try to make sure all is better prepared. Have a good new year, .. dave souza, talk 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

aaargh! blam blam blam!

i noticed you finally responded to my discussion of the chaos in the battle of britain. you obviously disagree. however, you're evidently a likable person, and a patriotic scotish atheistic scientist. i'm a patriotic english atheist, but I thought might drop you a note to say your biography is interesting. I have no idea what country we may have ended up with if Bodicia had defeated the Romans, but I'm a big fan of Scotland, and having cycled from Lands End to John o' Groats twice (the locals who work in Carlise - possibly the most devided city in Britain - always beep when they go past it) it's always a great moment to see that "welcome to Scotland" sign at Gretna At least for the brief period that it takes to realise that you're only a day past half way and that Scotland is a pretty big place. Don't know how far north you've been, but I was rather entertained by the "community" in Dingwall. The best restaurant served me macaroni cheese - and chips! wow. All while the "entertainer" sang old favorites to a midi synthesisor playing midi versions of famous Cliff Richard hits. It was very cute. Anyway, hope you had a good Christmas, and have a happy Hogmany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.244 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaaargh! Not the Cliff Richards hits!!! While I deny everything, thanks for the kindly words. Wan o' Brutain's hardy sons, .. dave souza, talk 18:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scottish national identity

I have nominated Scottish national identity, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish national identity (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was quick! The article has problems with nationalism and pov, but it's a real and significant subject. As it happens, my start at Wikipedia was inspired by the request of an English friend with a Norwegian wife who'd emigrated to Norway and was doing an OU course. His thesis considered parallels between the construction of a Scottish identity and similar, if later, developments in Norway. .. dave souza, talk 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User Fila3466757

Have a look at User:Fila3466757 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), especially his talk page. Given the type of edits he is making, I suspect (s)he is the same user at User:Farlack913 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and User:ScotRail421 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Recent language on the talk page makes believe that this user is not was Wikipedia wants. --Stewart (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page about User:Fila3466757 and socks, sorry to be so slow to respond, I've been a bit snowed under. The various similar pages suggest sockpuppetry, you could consider filing a Suspected sock puppet report or possibly a Request for checkuser. There don't seem to be many warnings on the talk pages, it will help if, whenever appropriate, you can add warnings, possibly using the templates from WP:VAND or making appropriate reference to WP:DE. If disruption gets excessive, file a report at WP:AN/I. Again, sorry that I don't have time to go into detail on this just now, all the best, ... dave souza, talk 13:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I have a feeling that he will reappear and this time I will be more pro-active with respect to the edits. --Stewart (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This editor reappeared a couple of days ago and I made a suspect sockpuppet entry - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila3466757. Failed to let you know at the time. I also found two other probably redundant accounts whhen this user responded on a talk page of one of the sockpuppet accounts. --Stewart (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for fixing my user page. It's not something I've dealt with before, let me know if the problems don't get fixed. .. dave souza, talk 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Added another potential sockpuppet today (Greenock125). Actually I guess this is the user account that is doing the edits which are being reverted and images being deleted that the Fila3466757 is now complaining about. Greenock125 is now re-adding images that were deleted for Wikipedia in the past week or so due to copyright violations. Maybe not be Fila3466757 but I now have a suspicion in my mind.
Have you any idea what will happen with my sockpuppet submission and when? --Stewart (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Afraid I don't know, this isn't an area where I've any experience. Suggest checking if the copyright problems have been addressed by providing proper permissions and rationales, not sure where that should be reported other than WP:IFD, could be worth putting a brief report with links to other reports up at WP:AN/I. .. dave souza, talk 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, the first image I looked at, Image:Bogston (2).jpg, appears to be a legitimate upload from Geograph and the licensing looks ok – perhaps check it with a specialist or raise it at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Did you have specific images in mind? .. dave souza, talk 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the upload logs. These images were previously tagged due to copyright infringements, and subsequently, another Admin - User:Mecu - (rightly or wrongly) deleted all the remaining images uploaded and posted a warning on the users talk page. I then noticed immediately prior to the recent batch of uploads by Greenock125 (in the order of a minute or two) - Fila3466757 - posted another comment about images being deleted from railway station pages. Examples of re-uploading of images include Inverkip.jpg, Langbank.jpg and Woodhall.jpg. There does not appear to be anything different on the image details this time over last time. --Stewart (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If I have mis-attributed the behaviour of Greenock125, I am more that willing to retract. --Stewart (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the Inverkip image, "The photograph is licensed under CC Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic." has been added to the summary. It would be worthwhile letting User:Mecu know about the images and the sockpuppet report – do you want to put the info on Mecu's talk page, or would you prefer me to do it? .. dave souza, talk 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you contact Mecu please. One other point, the {{geograph}} template has previously been drawn to the attention of Greenock125 by Pyrotec, and I have reminded him of this. This template provides a recognised way to enter geograph images into wikipedia, and subsequently get into commons. --Stewart (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added an explanation at User talk:Mecu. .. dave souza, talk 17:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Dave - Can you please have a look at my talk page. Our friend is vent his spleen in my direction including threatening to get me banned. I have responded in moderate language on his talk page. My patience is now wearing thin and would appreciate your help. --Stewart (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Move of Scottish kings

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Background to the dispute, discrepancy in time of opening RfAr" section -- it was very helpful and I'm sure it took a lot of your time to research and put together. --A. B. (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help, I really don't like to make assumptions before I've seen all the evidence. .. dave souza, talk 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I just sent you an e-mail through the Wikipedia e-mail system to test the time-stamp question. I hope this helps. --A. B. (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Darwin's finches

Since you seem to have the topic more at your fingertips than I do, I was wondering if you might have something to add here. Thanks Guettarda (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust that suffices, have added a ref from On the Origin of Species to Darwin's finches to emphasise that he referred to them in relation to his theory. ... dave souza, talk 12:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not fight about intelligent design

Dave, I'm not denying the sources, I'm citing them. Please don't keep reverting my identification of the mainstream as scientists and judges. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller is a reliable secondary source for the statements under oath of a range of witnesses, including ID proponents. Read it. .. dave souza, talk 16:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that. I had been looking only at pro-ID websites and hadn't delved that deeply into the judge's ruling.

  1. Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700).
  2. Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. (38:97 (Minnich)).
  3. Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural.

These elements ought to be mentioned in the article, as they explain more clearly why academia (i.e., the scientific and legal world) reject attempts by ID proponents to have the "must have been designed" contention considered separately from the "Oh, yeah, then Who designed it?" question. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe they already are in the current article. Sure some more references and citations could be added and might be welcome. But there is plenty of discussion about naturalism and materialism and the supernatural in the article. We do not discuss the reasons WHY science is naturalistic, but we just do not have room for everything. It is too long already. The basic reason is that if we discard this requirement (which goes back a few centuries), science will be destroyed. The Muslims tried it about 1000 years ago, and ruined what was the most advanced scientific and technical culture that existed on planet earth at the time. --Filll (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to live in a society that rejects materialistic naturalism, try many of the Muslim countries, or maybe some Amazon tribe with witch doctors or something similar.--Filll (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think Philip E. Johnson should stop taking any of his medications and should be forbidden from seeking any treatment from the medical establishment for his medical conditions and the aftereffects of his strokes, since he is relying on methodological naturalism by doing so, and revealing himself to be nothing more than a hypocrite.--Filll (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Ed has a good point that its not just regarded as tosh by "evolutionists and an activist judge" as the DI would have you believe, but educators, theologians (notably the archbishop of Canterbury who regards ID as "a category mistake"), historians of religion, historians of science, um, and scientists, and probably others I've not thought of. The EU for example. We don't want to lose Phil Johnson - just read all the great quotes he gives about how ID is religion, and has no real theory. .. dave souza, talk 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
But Mr. Souza, surely you don't mean to say that ID is considered a religion? ID simply implies that a superintelligence created the universe. How is that a religion?

Thanks, Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are we to argue with Johnson when he says "the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God"? [footnote 50] See also s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism for a detailed and well-sourced assessment of this point. .. dave souza, talk 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you afraid of saying that both Johnson and the Dover School Board are incorrect? I don't mind saying that I believe they are both in the wrong on this issue. intelligent design is not a religion because it does not claim to know what superintelligence created the universe, only that some superintelligence created the universe. This site is a good resource.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Einstien's ghost (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 January 2008
Your belief carries no weight, and that's not a reliable source. .. dave souza, talk 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by it carrying no weight? And how is a reliable source determined? --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:V is a core policy which tells you about reliable sources, as is WP:NOR which makes it clear that you can't just put your own ideas in, and the weight given to different views is determined by WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ policy. Hope that helps, . . dave souza, talk 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
it helps some. --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the award

Thanks for the award. I try to be nice to everyone and hope that everyone else tries to act the same way to each other. There's no need for all this fighting, blocking, and other stuff if people would just calmly try to improve an encyclopedia. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to oblige, there is a certain amount of discord between verifiable scientific truth and The Truth as revealed to some, but I'm glad to think of Easter Bunnies symbolising Eostre and the Spring equinox in a splendid ancient fusion of religion and the science of astronomy. A festival to look forward to! . .dave souza, talk 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your welcome

Hi dave, thanks for your welcome. I am only just trying to learn how to contribute to WP, having used it so many times for my own benefit. Mjharrison (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your assistance is much appreciated, sorry the process here has so many pitfalls! .. dave souza, talk 17:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

We may have a concensus version of the problem paragraph. Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This user helped promote the article Introduction to evolution to featured article status.

Thanks for your help. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you and to RR for making it happen. .. dave souza, talk 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo!

Never thanked you for the welcome and the advice. It might just be standard protocol, but thanks anyway.VatoFirme (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Glsd it helped, you're welcome! .. dave souza, talk 12:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Calming influence

Good work! Can I suggest you and a couple of others work with Amaltheus at a user sub page? Far more chance of working with civility there. From experience, I know how it feels at that talk page - there's too many editors jumping on critics of the article. --Dweller (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm more comfortable with discussing points on the article talk page if possible, and it shouldn't be so much of a problem if ideas are seen as positive proposals for improvement rather than criticism. Will try having a word with Amaltheus. .. dave souza, talk 16:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

From one left coast to another, thanks! There does seem to be much confusion at the intro to evo page. I think it is settling out now. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought

I am thinking of putting history of evolutionary thought through FAC for a 2nd time. I would like to know if you have any issues with the article that have not been addressed or if there are any other improvements you think need to be made. Your input would be very much valued and if you want to leave any comments on the article talk page or on mine they would be appreciated. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I had too many diversions on to help last time, will put this to the top of my todo list. .. dave souza, talk 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your valuable input. I hate to say it but you are right. The level of detail in both the lead and the main article are too much. If History of biology can fit into 75K History of evolutionary thought should fit into less than 60K I will try and break out detail into child articles. I can already see "Evolutioanry ideas of the Enlightenment" and "Eclipse of Darwinism" (or perhaps just "Alternatives to natural slection") coming. I also see a bunch of detail moving to transmutation of species, and there is probably too much overlap with Modern evolutionary synthesis now as well. You have given me quite a bit to chew on. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution resource

Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

I also messaged Adam and Filll. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

This clearly proves that I should not be editing any articles that you edit. I can't even get the right answer! Baegis (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at aaal, your response is fine, and some people don't approve of too much reference to policy acronyms :-/ Your work is great, for goodness sake don't stop! .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please no vandalism

You said to see the talk page but you removed others' comments from the talk page. If there is an explanation to why that's not vandalism, let me know. The article can be written in a non-biased, all sides represented fashion. That's what wikipedia is all about. Fairchoice (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairchoice, Dave was simply moving your comment to the bottom of the talk page in a new section, where it should have been along. See this edit for proof. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ioeth, I've just popped some advice on Fairchoice's talk page. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will concede

I will concede to your changes to the Duane Gish article. I guess it does clear things up a bit. I guess I should stop passing immediate judgment on the edits of people who have checkered pasts and read them first. That being said, could you take a look at the recent changes to the On the Origin of Species article. I am not familiar enough with the work to know if the contribs from this anon should stick. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The Origin edits have some truth in them, but confuse a paragraph about the reaction – OM's already reverted, I'll try to get some of the idea included, but the whole section needs going over. Even "creationists" were recognising a succession of species by 1859, and finding it hard to put together a coherent non-evolutionary explanation. .. dave souza, talk 19:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Email

Hi Dave. Dr. van Wyhe from Darwin Online would like to get in contact with you by email. Could you let me know here or by email what your address is, or contact him yourself at jmv21(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

deletions

i ve posted my rational for the deletions for bacteria, it should be the last 2 discussion sections, the first one i hadnt logged in sooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've responded. Background to a historical development is often useful. .. dave souza, talk 10:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Posting at ANI

It's really good practice to notify involved users when posting to ANI. I assume it's just an oversight but it's pretty tough for people to defend their actions when they have no idea there is a discussion taking place. the_undertow talk 05:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it's not something I've done often (or can recall having done before), it was after midnight and I forgot about seeing notifications given to others in the past. Ooops. .. dave souza, talk 07:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on AN/I, Deskana sent an email to ArbCom mailing list. About 4 CU looked at the situation independently of Thatcher and came to the same conclusion. Based on CU evidence and other on site evidence, I do not think we have made an error. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 18:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Race" vandal.

Hello, Dave souza. You've blocked ELNUMERO1 before due to his or her "race" issue. I must state that it has become apparent that this user will not stop his or her damaging edits, and needs to be blocked permanently. All one needs to do is look at this user's contributions, and how he or she took right back to damaging Wikipedia as soon as his or her block expired. Any further assistance you can provide in ridding this "editor" from Wikipedia would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've no problem with his or her "race" issue, but removal of information without good reason and discussion when it's reverted is vandalism, and leads to escalating blocks as you suggest. If there's no improvement the point will be reached where an indefinite block as a vandal only account will be appropriate, but to some extent it's a content dispute so I'm not rushing. .. dave souza, talk 08:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your help, Dave (don't know if you mind me calling you Dave, but thanks again). Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Free French Memorial Greenock.jpg

Hi, I live in Greenock and spotted a piece of junk mail for a estate agent using your photo (with no attribution). Just bringing it to your attention. Contact me at enolgay[at]ntlworld[dot]com Prij (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Fila934 (aka User:Fila3466757)

Hi Dave, Following two previous cases of Sockpuppetry this user has re-appeared as Fila943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This edit (latest outburst) shows that any attempt at coaching is not getting anywhere. You may recall in the past you warned this user about his behaviour. Where do we go now? --Stewart (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty clear it's the same, we have a breathing space as Fila943 was blocked by Alexf42 for 48 hours from 14:14 today. If you could put a brief report up at WP:SSP then I'll review it and extend the block. That ok? .. dave souza, talk 15:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Others have submitted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila943 and an indefinite block has been applied. --Stewart (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's better. ... dave souza, talk 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Now as user User:Fila7345 (aka User:Fila3466757, etc.)

This user has re-appeared. WP:SSP raised by others at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila7345. He is removing sockpuppet tags from current and block user pages, pattern of edits are the same as before. --Stewart (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. .. dave souza, talk 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Dave, this user has returned as SignalheadSucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the name alone being a clear attack on me. Please also see his user page. Signalhead (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, have indef blocked for Attempting to harass other users: vandal-only account, appears to be sockpuppet of User:Fila3466757. Have added to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fila3466757. .. dave souza, talk 11:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt action. Signalhead (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Thanks not sure of my way around, but thanks for the tip. I need all the help I can get. Divine Science and Religious Science are important to me.JGG59 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the thing is you have to find reliable outside sources showing the significance to others. .. dave souza, talk 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on my talkpage about Schweitzer and the T-rex "soft tissue" issue. Still getting into the swing of things here, and can't find a way to come to consensus on this. I think the whole edit should be scrapped, but I'm not sure how much creationist opinion is acceptable on their own pages. It's a much easier call on the science pages... Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks to me like undue weight to yet another long discredited claim. Nice Smithsonian article, though. .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

Wow, sorry, my edit was actually a complete mistake, I thought I was doing exactly what you actually did. I misread your edit summary "useful to its environment > useful to it in its environment", thinking the ">" meant "is better than", as opposed to using it as an arrow, so I assumed you were doing exactly the opposite of what you were actually doing. CarpeScientia (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, sorry that was rather ambiguous. Soon mended! Thanks for taking an interest, .. dave souza, talk 21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)