User talk:Guettarda/Archive15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guettarda is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.
Archives
What, not even a picture of a cat? El_C 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What, not even a picture of a cat? El_C 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, other people may want to use the bed.
Um, other people may want to use the bed.
Are you even listening to me?
Are you even listening to me?
One good cat deserves another.
One good cat deserves another.

Contents

[edit] Archiving Talk Pages

Please note that archiving talk page discussions, while they are in progress, could be taken as misleading and/or hostile and at the very least violates WP:ARCHIVE which states you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page. Please allow the discussion to finish before archiving it. Paul Cyr 23:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no ongoing conversation with you. Someone who engages in personal attacks while lecturing others about personal attacks is just trolling. We have no ongoing conversation. Please lay off the harrassment. I'm trying to take a break. I don't have the patience for the regular crap - I certainly have no patience with your harrassment. Guettarda 01:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to end the discussion that's fine. However getting the last word in then quickly archiving the page is what the my could be taken as misleading comment appies to. Compounded by the fact that when you restored the archive to your liking, you also deleted my reply to one of your comments. Paul Cyr 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Article? Think you're a bit confused. Deleted your comment? It's still in the page history - don't get so attached to your own verbiage. Guettarda 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a liar[1] is a clear personal attack. While your initial personal attack may have been unintentional, your refusal to address my concerns suggests that it was intentional. Your next personal attack seems intentional, since you made the same sort of statements which, when made by me, you called a personal attack. I wouldn't have considered it a personal attack, but based on your logic I assume you meant it as one. However, your latest accusation was an unequivocal violation of out policy on personal attacks. You have now violated two separate policies in the course of your attacks on me. In addition, by simply deleting the comments (which detailed your policy violation) you have done what you scolded me for doing. Stop your nonsense. As I said before, try editing articles instead of going on policy-violation sprees. Guettarda 23:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought you said you have no ongoing conversation with me and told me to stop replying (or harrassing as you said)? Yet here you are days later bringing the issue up again - seems like your accusation of harrasment is quickly turning around towards you. And if you read WP:NPA you would have seen that saying someone has lied or is lying is not a personal attack. In any case, I'm off to the movies and will be posting a RfC against you when I get back so that other parties can get involved. Paul Cyr 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You have a remarkable ability to twist the truth, don't you? Calling me a liar is a clear personal attack on your part. To begin with, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, said anything that was false, let along intentionally false. Your accusation of "lying" is both false and it makes statements about me as a person. So no, you are incorrect when you say that you have not made personal attacks.
As to your statement "I thought you said you have no ongoing conversation with me and told me". I had no ongoing conversation, which is why I archived the page. I raised a separate issue, which was your ongoing harrassment on me, your false accusations and your ongoing personal attacks against me. So no, this is a separate issue - your harrassment, personal attacks, and ongoing false accusations against me. Which I have not archived, in case you didn't notice. "[H]ere you are days later bringing the issue up again" - you keep engaging in personal attacks and making false accusations against me. As soon as I became aware of your latest personal attacks, I replied to them. Guettarda 00:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't worth my time anymore because of a personal attack you on another user. I have removed your comments from my talk page and have no interest in discussing the matter anymore. Feel free to get the last word in and then archive this conversation. The facts are in the history; I will let others make their own conclusions from it. I am not worried about my actions. Do not comment on my talk page regarding this issue again or I will simply revert on sight. Paul Cyr 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Given your complete disregard for policy, I think you should be worried. I find it amusing that a person who cannot accumulate 350 mainspace edits in over a year and who cannot follow the rules they scold others about takes it upon himself to try to drive people who actually contribute encyclopaedic content out of the project. Guettarda 05:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep cool

Just a word of support. Don't let anyone bait you into acting in a way that doesn't well reflect your integrity. Be well and calm and confident in your contributions and you'll be just fine. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. You're awesome as always. I'm far too stressed (real life and WP), I'm trying to take a break. Hopefully I'll get a chance. Guettarda 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of 3 revert rule

You have violated the 3 revert rule on the AIDS dissidents category page. Please undo your changes and see the discussion underway on the talk page, and participate if you feel you have something to add. --Wclark 05:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? I have two edits to the page in 24 hours. Please stop adding nonsense to my talk page. Guettarda 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some help needed

Hi Guettarda, long time no see. Hope all is well. I am just writing to ask for your opinion on an article I am writing. It is currently in my Sandbox. Some sections are a bit out of my area of expertise and someone with a more solid background in Caribbean biology could provide some help/expertise/enlightment. Joelito (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you can give me is fine by me. The article still has two to three days before I move it to main space. You can give your advice after it is moved to Fauna of Puerto Rico. Joelito (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Hi, asked a while ago if you'd read over G. Ledyard Stebbins, if you're not too busy could you take a look. Thanks. --Peta 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Are you Afro-Trinidadian, Indo-Trinidadian or mixed of the 2.

[edit] Requesting your opinion

I wrote the article Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act, the first bill in history that contains an article from Wikipedia. It appeared on DYK and right away somebody "tags" it for deletion. I inviteyou to express yourself here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act. Thank you Tony the Marine 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godless discussion

WOuld you care to comment here about your reversions? We've been discussing this material for several days, and it would be nice if you would add your input if you continue to revert our changes. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Have been talking in circles, you mean? FM and JZ have said all there is to say. You have ignored their rationale and continue to revert to a less accurate version. Are you saying that if I add "listen to JZ and FM" on the talk page you will suddenly see the light? What is the point of adding snide comments here anyway? Guettarda 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teacher evals

I suppose my underlying concern comes from my experience with teaching evaluations. Student evaluations can influence hiring, tenure and promotion for faculty and teaching assistants. Getting good evaluations pays off, getting bad evaluations can hurt you. I believe that this is a major driver of grade inflation, which lowers the overall quality of tertiary education. There are enough forces which limit your fearlessness as an admin. While there are a few people who are too fearless, starting people off like that seems to be a good way to produce cowed admins. Guettarda 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why at my law school, evals are collected pre-final exam, pre-grade. This is a big problem incidentally, since in the final exam is often the only piece of assessment, accounting for 90-100% percent of the grade in the vast majority of exam classes. So if a professor taught well, but designed an awful exam (say, way too easy, which is a big problem, given the mandatory curve), there is no way to reflect that in the ratings. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The solution has to be a professor eval before the exam and an exam-only eval after the exam. But they're not doing it despite suggestions... - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Weyrich

You are editorializing, period. It is not permitted to attempt to get inside someone's head or say what they intended to do. I cleared up the inaccuracies that your edit restored. Considering that I know Mr. Weyrich personally, I feel I understand his views better than you do. --Pravknight 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit you make has inaccurate information. Stop inserting inaccurate information and people will stop reverting you. Oh, and try to keep your edit summaries accurate. Guettarda 03:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, it's hard to figure out what you mean by editorialising. You say you speak for Weyrich, but you are altering what TheocracyWatch had to say; your assertion that Wiccans are satanists is inaccurate; and the language you are inserting is less neutral and more opinionated than what was there before. If you know Weyrich well enough to speak for him then you probably shouldn't be editing the article anyway - if you are too close to the issue to be objective then I suggest that you stay on the article's Talk page. Guettarda 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Armando/Daily Kos

I'm chipping in as a mediator. IF you agree with me working on the case, please drop a note stating so on my talk page. -- Drini 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Lee-Chin Article

Hi Guettarda

As you are obviously taking in interest in the Michael Lee-Chin article, I thought I would ask for your input into a discussion myself and the other editors are having. Please see the talk page and contribute whatever you want. Thanks Blowski 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, friends, this is it...

I'll be moving to Connecticut tomorrow along with my family. I'll be leaving Wikipedia for a while until everything gets set up at our new home. It all depends on my Internet access, but I'll be seeing you in a week or two. Bye! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wealthy black people

As you reverted my move of Black billionaires to Wealthy black people, I expect you to at least make a comment at Talk:Black billionaires or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black billionaire (2nd nomination). --Ezeu 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved everything back to Black billionaires pending consensus. --Ezeu 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your worthy comments

Greetings, my friend! I have appreciated and relished your thoughts and careful analyses.

But that evolution happened (and continues to happen) is an observation.

I would agree with you. But I also think I understand why I agree with you. I agree with you because my act of what you call "observation" is inescapably shaped by the mechanics of my cognition.

Separate from my cognition, I would say, is "fact"--which the standard English dictionary defines as "Information presented as objectively real." And what is "objectively real" depends critically on the experience level of the audience. I can present something which for me and for other informed people is "objectively real"--but if my audience does not have the experience within which what I say is "objectively real" for them, then I have failed to score a "fact" with that particular audience.


And what I observe from my experience is that, yes, Stephen Jay Gould presents evolution as "fact"--that is, he presents evolution as "information that he presents as objectively real." But Stephen Jay Gould's presentation does not score as "objectively real" with the creationists because the creationists do not have the cognitive apparatus and experience within which the presentation could ever in a million years--without enormous evolutionary advancements of the creationists' cognitive apparatus--score with them as "objectively real."


From a very secular viewpoint in which there is no God, never has been a God, never will be a God, Stephen Jay Gould is in the same secular situation as the Christian missionaries when they confronted the heathen on whatever shores they fulfilled their mission. One religion presents as "fact" what the audience cannot ever accept as "fact" unless they convert and believe by faith what they cannot--with their limited experience and cognitive ability--ever see as "objective reality." --Rednblu 22:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Or

"Or" is non-exclusive [1] Guettarda 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, "or" is exclusive in normal English language. In logic, the concept of "or" is a little bit more tricky. See here and here for more info. Do you actually have problems with my edit? --Roland Deschain 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
While or is exclusive in boolean logic, it definitely is not exclusive in English. So yes, the rationale for your edit is mistaken. Guettarda 13:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I gave you two sources to back up my view point. Please provide some sources for yours. However, if you have a problems with my edit, please take this up in Talk:Evolution.--Roland Deschain 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesser Antilles

  1. Hi Guettarda, I've followed the list in Lesser Antilles. Correct if you think it is wrong. I've been doing this while cleaning up Category:Caribbean islands, you may want to check this category as well, to check for mistakes. There's something I'm not sure of: I thought the Antilles were only a part of the Caribbean islands, but it appears all of the Caribbean islands are also in the Antilles. What do you think?
  2. At the moment the category tree would be
  3. Maybe the Antilles category could be removed, it only has three childs at the moment. Lesser and Greater Antilles would be direct childs of Caribbean islands then. Also, maybe the Leeward Antilles could form a subcategory.
  4. I'm still working on it, I think most of articles in the top category will go to a subcategory (it's already down from 86 to 23). The tree is not perfect yet, but I think it was necessary to bring some order into this category. Feel free to check, correct or help out :-) Basically every island should be as low as possible into the tree. Also this tree should be for the islands, not for countries / cities / etc. Piet 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to Talk:Lesser Antilles. Piet 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weyrich/First Amendment

Please see Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Controversial_section. Sorry this has gotten lost amidst the bickering, which I'm not especially interested in. If a sentence says "Paul Weyrich is orange, and the sky is pink" I'm not going to hesitate to challenge the statement that the sky is pink even if I have no opinion on the hue of the article subject.-choster 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is it that...

you can explain something in a few words that the help article couldn't explain in something longer than a thesis?

Thank you :) Blowski 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I believe you should learn to use your privileges in a positive way

Edits like this [2], protecting user pages full of insults don't transmit anything positive about you. Some of those insults have been posted by you, like "[...] is awarded for going beyond the call of duty to protect the article "Javier Solana" from attack by rather 'strange' people". "Strange" isn't a word to use in reference to any person and far less in the Wikipedia. Ah, and be more clever. SqueakBox is accessing the Wikipedia from an IP, it's been proved, and you and nobody has blocked him. Your bias against me is evident. So, if you repeat your attacks against me I will start the process to have you desysoped.

Remove SqueakBox's insults from the user page you've protected. Hagiographer 06:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is, "restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints." when Hagiographer means exactly to "write about saints" isn't a direct attack? I'm the first who would like to forget SqueakBox forever but I can't do it while he's insulting me right now. So, please delete that personal attack as WP:NPA recommends or at least recognize it's difficult not to believe you're helping SqueakBox to insult me because he helped you in the past to harass other users. (You can remove your own personal attacks from that page, if not I might post in my own user page that you're "strange") Hagiographer 14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to call me "strange" on your user page, if you lay off picking fights with people. If that's what it takes for you to settle down and stop obsessing about SB, then be my guest. Guettarda 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workshop

That's why it's called the Workshop. Feel free to add additional names with representative edits. Fred Bauder 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causation and the limits of science

Hey, buddy, one last question before I'm banned for life. ;-)

You wrote:

  • there is no possibility of having experimental science or hypothesis testing in a system which fails to exclude the supernatural

Can I get a source for this? And does this include Dr. Raymond Moody's research into survival of bodily death? --Uncle Ed 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favor

Could you delete the email containing section on my page? I seem to always screw up when I try to just delete specific difs. Thanks. JoshuaZ 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Shermer

Thanks for pointing out my error. I think it has been corrected. I have found scholarly credentials are commonly copied from one place to another. They are sometimes very difficult to track down to the original sources. When I am very suspicious, you must have some knowledge about the subject, I contact the learning institution itself for verification. So far I have been correct in my suspicions. The subject gets upset when you show them they were lying. There is a paranoid claim like "you were out to get them." When really all you sought was verification, because things the subject wrote or said sounded "fishy". I wouldn't be surprised if Shermer's credentials are a "teensy bit" exaggerated. Critical historians are very suspicious of autobiographies. If the author likes themself they have a tendency to make themselves look good. User:Kazuba 1 Sept 2006

[edit] Hello

Yeah, it was my intention to make it sound like Slim Shady. It is nice to hear from you again. How are you? - Darwinek 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good. I have just returned from the mountains and starting next semester in the middle of September. It will be tough I think. :) Btw, I have uploaded some photos also from mountains to Commons, you can check them out. - Darwinek 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could I ask a favor?

There's a dispute over Natural Selection on the GA review page, but the problem is I don't know how to evaluate the source someone has provided to argue that the page isn't sufficiently broad by leaving something out about bacteria resistance or something, could you take a look? It's at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review. Homestarmy 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

Can we move to close the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, stop your personal attacks.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hagiographer 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Guettarda 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strike

Thanks, can't think where <str> came from, perhaps I just don't do enough crossing out. Rich Farmbrough, 12:55 5 September 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Someone is posting not to positive things about you

Someone is posting not to positive things about you, and want to bring it to your attention.[3] Arbusto 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for rving to the one I meant to rv to on the Ross article. JoshuaZ 05:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olympic medalist categories

For something like an Olympic medalist, I don't think that it's wrong to have a small number of people in that category. For consistency sake, I think it's important to have all the countries represented. If consensus turns out not to be the case, it's easy to change the categories and reorganize. --Sue Anne 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I sometimes venture into articles dealing with Guyana, Trinidad, and Suriname. Mainly I looked at Basdeo PAnday and Naipual. Is there a stub marker for Trinidad bio? I tried a load of combos but it did not work.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re PZ Meyers

Huh? Why not? How else? That's what the people wanted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments, I count 10 who desired Merge, 6 for all other solutions... It was an entirely separate article, it seemed (in this case) to make sense to make it an entirely separate section -- if it doesn't scan well or there are artifacts, go ahead and fix it. I think just deleting the material negates the community consensus on the AfD, which after all was Merge and not Delete. Herostratus 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The article PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments was up for AfD here. and ten user agreed that (1) the article should not exist as a separate article, and (2) on the other hand the material should not be deleted, and (3) therefore the material should be moved into the article PZ Meyers. While I appreciate your faith in my ability to do everything, I don't have the temporal resources to close AfD's and edit the merges to complete satisfaction. You can't just recreate the article when a large number of your fellow editors don't want it on the Wikipedia, nor delete from PZ Myers since a large number of your fellow editors want the material (which someone did hella work to compile) to exist in the article. However, I did stop my work on the AfD backlog to fix the text, which you could have done and saved us all extra work. In the future when something like this comes up, maybe consider just fixing it yourself. Herostratus 07:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? "recreation of deleted article"? You closed the article as a Merge. In the world of AFD, a merge is a keep. So no, you're wrong there - I did not "recreate a dfeleted article". Please don't make false accusations of policy violations against me. That is highly offensive. Guettarda 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Err, um, OK, not to split hairs. Anyway, on consideration, I realized you right about the whole thing. I slapped myself with a trout, and it hurt like hell. Herostratus 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] race

please police an anonymnous editors "summarizing" the Race article; I reverted once and want others to check it before I do it again. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello Friend?

Hello friend? I do have a question. Now that the pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pentecostal_Mission#sent_an_email_to_author has been deleted, and now that we are asking for permission from the authors of that book why do we have to contact them? See we have our own book about the churuch, maybe that could help you out to do something!! Please do let me know. Thanks.rencin24 08:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks but how?

Hey Guetterda thanks a lot for sending the needfull, and also thanks a lot for those words of help you said but listen what I have is the book that has been printed by the organization itself so will it be ok to put those details as it is? Because as you see I can reffer to these books for more clear detail. And about permission the organization does not have any such rule or authorized person or lable to get permission from it is free to do so. Will that be ok. Thanks a lot from my heart.Will suerly do the needful as on outsider. Rencin Matthew.rencin24 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RV on nobel controversies page

Odd, how all the RV's, that I get come from the same group that hangs out on the evolution pages. What are the chances out of about 1.4 million pages on Wikipedia, all the reverts, RFG's, etc. I get are from a small group of people who post to a few common pages? I am beginning to think you-all are sockpuppets. Anyway, cut it out. Sorry if I stepped on some toes with the anticreationists by supporting Raymond Damadian. Funny thing is that I am a well-known figure in human evolutionary biology who discovered one of the few real examples of classic Darwinian evolution in humans[4]. Not a creationist at all. Pproctor 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that often people are interested in the same subjects? If you look at the Astronomy pages, you will see the same names again and again. Same for Abortion related articles, Religious and mythology related,etc. Accusing established editors and indeed Administrators of sockpuppetry is completely unacceptable, as is your habit of telling everyone with whom you disagree to "lay off" or "cut it out". Who the hell are you to order Guettarda or myself what to do? I've had about enough of your attitude.
Consider this a formal warning to cease harassing editors with whom you are involved in a content dispute.

KillerChihuahua?!? 15:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recat

Huh? Guettarda 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Biota of Lithuania? Guettarda 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Dozens of countries have such a category. Greg Grahame 01:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Trinidad and Tobago

Hello ... noted, but the same could be said of your comments. Please be more discerning in the future. Cogito ergo sumo 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? What comments of mine are you talking about? Guettarda 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I meant exactly what I said. When you format commentary using italics (must) and characterise it as such, you actually imply that said editions are neither. I've added content (at least to the Trinidad and Tobago article) regarding its overall geographic location that was not present beforehand, only to have it reverted because of 'legalistic' niceties. I have taken your comments under advisement, but you could be a lot more productive by copyediting instead of reverting useful information carte blanche. Again, please be more discerning in the future. Cogito ergo sumo 14:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove "useful information" - first I removed factually incorrect information, and then I removed horribly written trivia. Wikipedia is hypertext - there is no need to explain that the Lesser Antilles are part of the Caribbean. More importantly, if you feel the need to insert trivia, don't insert in into the middle of an existing sentance. It's just bad writing. Guettarda 03:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Page Done

Hey man I just finished creating the page. Now can anything be done on this? if so please do let me know. It will be of great help to know how to let the page to be brought to its initial stages.Thanks buddy.rencin24 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC) rencin24 The link for the page is here da. Please do the needfullNew Page.