User talk:Guettarda/Archive18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guettarda is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Template:Catneeded
This article needs more cats, preferably if the pictures are free, FREE I tell's ya. Hisss.
This would enhance navigation by listing it with other articles in the Category:cats.
Please help Wikipedia by adding more cats to articles.

Archives: Archive 1 (August 29, 2004-March 3, 2005) - Archive 2 (March 11, 2005-March 28, 2005) - Archive 3 (March 28, 2005-April 17, 2005) - Archive 4 (March 20, 2005-June 6, 2005) - Archive 5 (June 6, 2005-July 4, 2005) - Archive 6 (July 4, 2005-July 26, 2005) - Archive 7 (July 30, 2005-September 26, 2005) - Archive 8 (September 27, 2005-October 13, 2005) - Archive 9 (October 14, 2005-November 18, 2005) - Archive 10 (November 18, 2005-February 12, 2006) - Archive 11 (February 12, 2006-February 17, 2006) - Archive 12 (February 18, 2006-February 26, 2006) - Archive 13 (February 26, 2006-May 13, 2006) - Archive 14 (May 13, 2006-July 31, 2006 ) - Archive 15 (July 31, 2006-September 20, 2006) - Archive 16 (September 20, 2006-October 30, 2006)- Archive 17 (October 30, 2006-January 13, 2007) - Archive 18 (January 13, 2007 - October 3, 2007) - Current











Edit

Are you even listening to me?
Are you even listening to me?

Contents

[edit] regarding your posts here

- regarding your accusation that i attacked you, i did not. perhaps it was someone using this machine; - regarding posting TriniMuslims, yes it is a bulletin-board now, but we are using it to gather information on Islaam in Trinidad and Tobago; it is not spamming; but perhaps when it evolves into a complete portal, we will repost it onto wikipedia.

- regarding the TM logo, please advise then how Wikipedia allows for trade-marked logos to go onto the encyclopedia

(TriniGeeks)

[edit] Re Fauna of Puerto Rico

Sorry. I am glad you have corrected my errors. Rintrah 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary

Thanks for the note of levity on this article. no problem. i actually considered it still as stub until today. Today ive doubled the size of the article and its certainly no stub now. :) cheers. Anlace 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Message

Hi

This is to let you know that I have responded to your input on my usertalk page: Rfwoolf and as an admin I would value your input/opinion.

You may delete this message at your discretion.
Rfwoolf 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John C. Gifford Arboretum

Have you noticed John C. Gifford Arboretum? I see that you are busy, and I don't know how much you want to work on botanical garden articles, but this one has bothered me since I first saw it a year ago. Unfortunately, it has never risen anywhere near the top of my todo/interest list. There's no urgency, I just thought I would mention it. If you have any suggestions, I can try to work on improving it. -- Donald Albury 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fact tagging

Please see what I wrote on talk. Not only are the sources provided inadequate, the sources show the opposite. In his book, Behe constantly indicated the opposite of what the article addition claims he did. HKTTalk 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Regardless, the statement was sourced. This is why we have a policy against original research. Not only did you miss key statements from Behe's book, you also misinterpreted the material you did quote. There is a reason why secondary sources are better than primary sources. Guettarda 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admins

you are right. Anyway, does this mean that you would like to join me and jossi in turning this into a guideline, or that you think that is a bad ideas? it is one or the other, because if I follow jossi's suggestion I am not going to do it alone. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Feliz Cumpleaño

Happy Birthday ....
Happy Birthday ....

Guettarda, You are one of my best friends here and I wish you the best. I know it was yesterday, on the 26th, but it's never too late. May God bless you and your family always! Your friend, Tony the Marine 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oops! Oh what the hell, you know me-always ahead of my time (smile). Tony the Marine 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Clarke

No problem. As for the larger issue: I guess I was taking my cue from de.wiki, which in turn used rulers.org as a source. That's usually quite reliable, though I haven't found other references to him acting as President. Biruitorul 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense - even if, let's say, Williams was in office for six days, he wasn't elected, and probably didn't do much during that time. But as long as we mark him as "acting" on our list, that should make things clear enough. When did the others act, by the way? Was it while the president was incapacitated? Because I don't see any other gaps in the list. Biruitorul 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving my comments

I didn't edit your comments. I added my comments in the middle of yours (in an existing paragraph break) in such a way that my comments were very clearly demarcated and isolated from yours. My comments were added in a manner that would avoid disrupting the flow and meaning of your comments. Adding clearly isolated comments within someone else's comments (as long as it is in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the other person's comments) is common and perfectly acceptable. Further, I placed my comments specifically to respond to only one thing that you had written. They were not intended as a general response to your comments. Your movement of my comments substantially affected their intended meaning. Your moving my clearly isolated and signed comments (again) could constitute vandalism, but I'll continue to assume good faith for now. Please see WP:VAND regarding "editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning." Nevertheless, if the placement of my comments still bothers you so much, I'll find another way to indicate that those comments are only intended to respond to one point. HKTTalk 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy, I already wrote that I won't. But you are wrong. Please stop characterizing placement of my comment as "editing others' comments." And please read WP:VAND. HKTTalk 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your turn...

...to improve this: Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID edit war on Junk science

Good call about the edit war and the 3RV rule, thanks.

Still, as a sidenote, I'd like to point you out that I made the first edit, and that FireWeed reverted it without any discussion. That's how it started, at least.

I wont argue more on this issue. I'd just like you to think about how is keeping the ID mention out of the page not a perfectly neutral and acceptable solution?

Regards --Childhood's End 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory

Hi! How are you? I do hope things have settled down for you and are happier now. I have finally got around to writing the article on the old Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory as you encouraged me to do a long time ago. If you can spare the time I would be very grateful if you would read it and give me any ideas you might have to improve it (or add them yourself). With all best wishes, and thanking you in advance, John Hill 04:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dude, chill

Please leave it be (with ExUC). I've looked over the interchanges, and I think you two are talking at cross purposes. He isn't actually accusing you of dishonesty. Give it a rest, and if "another problem" occurs, notify me instead of him. I think I'll be able to straighten it out. --Uncle Ed 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ed. At least where I live, "honest opinion" is a common enough phrase and doesn't necessarily constitute a suggestion that someone is being dishonest. From the looks of it that debate is heated enough without arguing over the intended meaning those 2 words...--Isotope23 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As I replied to Ed on talk page, I will honour his request, not just because he asked me to (although that's really reason enough), but also because it's a sensible request - there's nothing to be gained from pursuing that issue any further. Guettarda 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your repeated false accusations quoting statements I never made

You have repeatedly falsely accused me, attributing statements to me (and even setting them in quotation marks) that I did not make. I consider these claims, that I have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy, to be an attack on my character. Instead of apologizing for making false claims about what I said after I explained that I meant no criticism personally or of your edits, you have continued to repeat the same false accusations over and over. Instead of confining the discussion to the relevant Talk page, you have continued to attack me as a violator on my personal Talk page, out of context. You then continued to do so after I asked you not to. I do not appreciate repeatedly being falsely accused, especially after explaining that I meant no criticism. -Exucmember 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, regardless of whether I was right or wrong to take offense at your original comment, this edit of yours is unacceptable, and this message is hilarious. Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Guettarda 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[Long rambling post from ExC removed unread - if anyone cares, it's in the page history. Feel free to to let me know if he has figured out that it isn't ok for him to call me a "blatant liar"]

[edit] Re: New antisemitism

Hi. I see you have protected the NAS article, and I understand why. However, the main issue with the article (as I percieve it) is that some editors have "owned" it for a long time and are acting disruptive when a group of editors are trying to make it less POV (this is, of course, my opinion). This followed a RfC process. Hence, by locking it, you are supporting the "owners" (I use quotation marks since I am not really accusing them of violation of WP:OWN) and rewarding their possesive behavior that is challenged by numerous users. As you will see in the talk page, the article is regarded as promoting a POV by several users, but almost every change sets of an edit war. Though I agree that it was correct to protect it, I think maybe the protection should be accompanied by an NPOV tag. I think,that would be a good compromise for now. pertn 09:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missed!

Hey dude,

Nice to know I'm missed, but - I decided I need to graduate ASAP, and so I signed off. I suppose I should update my page saying I'm on hiatus. I'll be back in a month or two when I have a doctorate. :P Graft 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race and intelligence - favor?

could you consider making a comment at the talk:Race and intelligence page? If you go now, you will see at the top my proposing to mediate a conflict, followed by some discussion by participants in the conflict, followed by a Request for Comment, followed by more discussion by participants in the conflict. It should take you 20 minutes or so to read over it, and I think it would mean a lot if you then left whatever comment you have under the RfC space. The portions I wrote (A second attempt to move ahead, and RfC) are needless to say my own take on the conflict. But if you want the basic empirical data on the conflict these two sections say it all: [1] and [2] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist Orchard

You supported the deletion of the article creationist orchard. Would you mind reviewing the related content which was added to article common descent under the section Common descent and Creationism? Pbarnes 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help in reverting Evolution and my talk page. Quite a nasty vandal. I'm semi-new to the vandal reversion scene, and I noticed your edit summaries are standardized. I've just used "rvv" for "revert: vandalism", however, I was wondering if you use a script in the "monobook.js" file in order to produce this edit summary. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's me again, you'll find this handy: ' Well's education at both Yale and Berkley was funded by Moon's Unification Church. ' http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/15/112257/411

[edit] 3RR

I have not reverted 3 times. I have made a good faith effort to clarify in various ways to anonymous user 151.151.73.166 that Wells' PhD at Berkeley was not funded by the Unification Church. But to show even more good faith (something that was astoundingly lacking from you earlier), I have reverted myself. -Exucmember 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Five reverts on one article and three on another is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the 3RR. And your continued incivility doesn't help either. Guettarda 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Very sorry if I offended or annoyed you with my comments, please see the reply on my talk page and respond, thanks. --JamesTheNumberless 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis vandal back on Evolution?

Hello Guettarda. I noticed your block of a previous vandal of the Evolution article. This is the latest diff that I saw today: diff, by User:Harehawk. EdJohnston 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Francesa pic

can you sort it out for me? i am not good at this wiki thing. i'm just trying to keep the information current. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crushtheturtle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

no i did not. it's from zen's promotional pics. the reason i put this instead of the old one is that the other is more than 10 yerars old while this was taken last year. Crushtheturtle 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Descent/Universal Common Descent

These two articles have existed in their split state for months unattested. Why do you feel you should merge them without a discussion just because there was no consensus months ago? If you think they should be merged, you should add a pretty little merge header because it seems like a quite a few people don't feel there is a problem in their current state. Pbarnes 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It appears a merge is inevitable. I at least spent the time to make the article seem less cut-and-paste and more encyclopedic. You should try that next time! Pbarnes 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guettarda 1500, Icons 0

Wow, pretty big cut. I hope you'll add in something about what Wells means by an "icon" and give at least one example. The peppered moth is probably the easiest one to explain. Or Haeckel's embryo drawings. --Uncle Ed 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Recapitulation theory: Unfortunately, some older editions of textbooks in the United States still erroneously cite recapitulation theory or the Haeckel drawings as evidence in support of evolution without appropriately explaining them as being misleading or outdated. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icons 2

Well, you're off to a great start at Icons of Evolution. I appreciate the fact that you are beginning each "icon" with a short statement of Wells's position. Apparently (unlike some of us) you have actually read the book! --Uncle Ed 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Okay fine!

Is it that big a deal? futurebird

[edit] St. Louis, MO IPs

FYI, since you were the most recent admin to block Justas Jonas/Ptmccain/et al. Keesiewonder talk 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Ah, sure. I knew, of course, to link the original, but didn't realised there was a prescribed form =) Adam Cuerden talk 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well. It's linked. By the way, am I right in thinking that, despite Henrygb's claims, this is clear copyvio? Adam Cuerden talk 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to set up a merge request, particularly on dead pages, so that it'll actually be looked at. Adam Cuerden talk 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant

I was unaware that you are a plant :) However I hadn't gotten all the way to Z yet anyway. You're welcome to edit that page, too. >Radiant< 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome message

Hi Guettarda,

Thank you for greeting me. I am new to the project. I am still trying this... discussion? "talkpage"?!? I hope this is the way to get in touch.

Dracaena draco 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Erstwhile Bureaucrat is a ....

moth. Or a caterpillar of the same. My close friends call me "Hy" for short. Cheers! Cecropia 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Shame about the "erstwhile" is all I can say. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

Thanks. Check your e-mail, too. :) - Darwinek 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope it didn't end in the spam thrash. :) - Darwinek 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed on Conservation Biology

Hi There,

I saw that you took an interest in the Conservation biology article awhile back. I was hoping you might come back for awhile and work on the article. For awhile now it has just been two editors, myself and another, and neither one of us has the expertise to substantively improve the article beyond a certain point. Also, there is disagreement on a few things, and without more qualified editors involved, it may become difficult to resolve some of the disagreements, and there is a risk that it may start to look like one or the other of us is trying to own the article. It seems like a situation with too few cooks, and I would like to see more qualified editors join in for awhile. The article has been substantially improved since you last posted on its Talk page, but still has a long way it could go.--Margareta 21:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing too major, but see the talk page. Mainly, they think the article is "basically done" (and hence they won't allow an "Expert" tag on the page), while I think it still barely addresses the topic. Also, they were upset awhile back that I cut a lot of the extraneous material--the unreferenced stuff on biological conservation (not conservation biology) that you and other editors had complained about earlier. Many of their recent edits have been to restore bits of what was cut, albeit in better and more-referenced form. What is there now is fine, I think, but the article risks becoming off-topic again if the existing sections are expanded any further without addressing more about the practice of conservation biology and the disciplines that compose it.--Margareta 01:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing... A lot of the new material appears to be OR or POV, or at least not up to WP:V guidelines--things like using Plato's Republic as a citation for the statement "origins of concern for the destruction of the natural environment by man can be traced to Plato," or the tesxt of the Endangered Species Act as a reference for the statement "The first country to pursue aggressive biological conservation through national legislation was the USA..." I've been critical enough lately and I don't want to be the one to bring it up, and I certainly don't want to discourage a good, interested editor, but I hope this is something that can get cleaned up over time. Right now, though, I think it's more important to add more relevant content.--Margareta 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thesis committee

She worked in the same area of Costa Rica as I did, and in similar habitats. I had been corresponding with her back and forth for a couple of years with various questions, and when I needed a third reader she seemed like an obvious choice. At my school it was traditional to have your third reader be from another institution. Do you know her?--Margareta 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

She's great, though you probably know that.--Margareta 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B. epica

Thanks for the comments; I'll see what I can do to fix them as soon as I get a spare moment. Can you explain "it also (unnecessarily) speculates that the first record of the species was the first sighting of the species" please? Hesperian 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Eyre was the first European to explore the area, so if he saw B. epica at all, then he saw it first. I see how this sentence would read funny to someone who didn't know that Eyre was first. Hesperian 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Guettarda 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Motmot pix

Thanks! Glad you like them! Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

I hate to be a bother, but could you look at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy and give me your opinion? I feel like I'm being driven mad by an editor who keeps beating us over the head with one single source, but I'm not sure, as he does seem to be honestly working hard to try and help the article. But he has some bizarre interpretations of NPOV, and... well. I could use a fresh pair of eyes and guidance from a neutral party. Thanks! Adam Cuerden talk 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: You ca probably see most of the parts that annoy me by searching for "Larson". Adam Cuerden talk 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been driving me mad for a bit; I disengaged for several months a while ago, but now that I'm back, well... I don't want to say anything until you've had a look. Adam Cuerden talk 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, signalling in plants is really cool. Bah to your pro-animal mindset! *gets the placards, pitchforks, and torches ready* =P Adam Cuerden talk 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If yer ain't with plants, you're against plants. Heh. Seriously, though, any thought on that talk page... thing? Adam Cuerden talk 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA and Ruddigore

Ah, well. Seems that despite all my work on Gilbert, I forgot a crucial bit:

If you wish in this world to advance,
Your merits you're bound to enhance:
You must stir it and stump it and blow your own trumpet
Or trust me, you haven't a chance!
-Ruddigore

Adam Cuerden talk 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I am happy with your news about my articles. Thanks --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

...*sigh* Guettarda, I need to ask your advice. Should I open a request for comment about Creation-evolutio controversy, being, of course, entirely polite and respectful about this, just to try and get this sorted out? Because, frankly, I don't think that article's going to move forwards very far if good-faith edits are going to be shouted down as vandalism. That said, though, I'm not sure what to say about it, since it's a complicated situation, and I don't want to be rude about it, even if he, evidently, does. Any thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

YES YES YES, please do. StudyAndBeWise 05:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

...Well, I've made the RfC, but suspect it may have gone a little far for that to really be useful now. We shall see. Adam Cuerden talk 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curry Chicken: Your valued opinion

Hello Guettarda,

I am a new bee at wikipedia, hopefully I can continue to learn and contribute to this magnificent encyclopedia. I have created an article titled Curry chicken, to explain the dish, and some historical aspects of how/when the dish was created. Users, have commented that the article should be placed as chicken curry, and that it should go in the curry section. I have thought about it, but the content has become too large (and none can merely be deleted as it is all very interesting and sourced) to fit in the curry section. In addition, their is a subtle difference between the two in which the article points out. I envision this article becoming even greater once various other historical research is done to establish various other cultural beginnings of this dish.

The point is, I strongly believe there is merit to this article and that the reasons for this merit is not being judged fairly. Since you are admin, I would truly appreciate your objective opinion.

Thatopshotta 05:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta

[edit] Stillwater Area High School

RfC doesn't seem to work any more (and anyway, thre's no category into which schools obviously fit); I've tried to attract other eyes to this article by posting both at RfC and at the relevant WikiProject, but so far without success, so I'm reduced to pestering individual editors. Could you have a look at this, and say what you think? An editor is insisting on adding large quantities of school-yearbook-style coverage of the school's sports teams. A third pair of eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis vandal back on Talk:Evolution (eight accounts)

Hello Guettarda, this is just an FYI, since all these vandal accounts now seem to be blocked.

User:Golden two, User:Crab or, User:Eel eat, User:Plaster of (blocked by Steel359 as Genesis vandal), User:Dial lean, User:Boo Wall, User:Fen zero, User:Tile join. I just went back as far as February 20 in the edit history of Talk:Evolution to find these. There seemed to be a new wave of Genesis vandals that started then. EdJohnston 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Attalea crassispatha, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] data?

Say, I'm doing a project on international bio-diversity conservation strategies. I seem to recall you were doing some academic work on conservation. Data on agriculture/forestry land costs or property values in various regions would be really useful. Know where I might get any for the Caribbean? The usual suspects: World Bank, FAO, etc seem to be useless. I've got a small bit of private purchase data from a conservation group, but would really like to supplement it everywhere around the world I can find something more. Thanks. Or is this my version of Japan? Derex 08:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reminder of the human side is well taken and well spoken. I find it's something forgotten far too often at Wikipedia, even with the subject of articles. I see young people involved in minor scandals getting Wikipedia articles written about them, and it makes me cringe. Even though I really detest D Brandt for what he did to Katefan, I think some of his spite is because basic humanity was forgotten in dealing with him. As to Essjay, I think many people were very frustrated with Jimbo's dismissal of concerns and promotion to arbcom, and felt the need to make the case that this went beyond a bogus cloak. I can totally see how he got caught up in a silly lie starting as a total newbie. And I feel terrible for him at the human level. Jimbo has now made the right call, and I hope that's where it stops. Derex 07:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago

The only references I found to it during a Google search were from a CIA report on government elements in Trinidad and Tobaga, with this group listed under the "Communist" section. Taken from WP:ORG, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Individual chapters of national organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. So basically, it's not notable unless it has sources, according to the notability guidelines... Logical2uReview me! 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I might have read the page (and cited it in my argument) too fast. I apologize. It is a national party, but it still has to follow the general criteria: An organization or group is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works. If it doesn't meet something along those lines (Frankly, I'd be happy if there was a citation of their placement in any election), stuff needs to be done. This then opens up a new can of worms when we get into all the other political groups, especially in Canada, which has at least a dozen... The more specific organization criteria also necessitates independent sources. The remedy for failing to meet these criteria is supposed to be cleanup, then if all else fails, deletion (the type of deletion depends on which page you look at) for groups that don't meet it. Logical2uReview me! 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Regional variants of English

Regarding Robert John Lechmere Guppy, I only made the change to avoid a redirect, not primarily to "Americanise" the text. I guess a better way would have been to change [[palaeontology]] into [[Paleontology|palaeontology]] instead, thus fixing the redirect while maintaining the original spelling. My mistake, and I’m sorry: it will not happen again. ~ Tommy Kronkvist 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fazal Mohammed

I noticed you edited this article in the past, so you might be able to find some sources for it. Take care, trialsanderrors 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Replaceable" fair use

As you can see in my edit to the Image page, I said: "there are already other pics that are presumed to be free in the main article so no need for a fair use one." The two other images are presumed to be in the public domain and it seems to me it's reasonable to assume so. However, for the image I removed the PD-Russia template from I did so since the man is in a more advanced age in that photograph and there's no strong basis for an assumption that the author of that photograph died before 1954 (therefore the image isn't in the public domain and is fair use, hence the replaceable fair use tag). Hope I explained this well but I'm guessing I probably didn't as it's 6:50AM here so if you didn't understand anything or my reasoning seems bad let me know and I'll try to re-explain when I'm more competent to do so. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, my judgement\math wasn't very good at 6am. They all probably aren't PD. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belmont dab page

I have added a link to the Belmont dab page for Belmont, Port of Spain. I didn't think there was a need for a link in the other direction, but if you disagree, please feel free to revert. CarolGray 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think someone in the future will create a whole article for Belmont, Port of Spain, then the heading for the section should be changed to [[Belmont, Port of Spain|Belmont]], or [[Belmont, Trinidad and Tobago|Belmont]], or whatever. Then the link would be red, making it clear there is no article at present. A bluelink (back to the dab page) misleadingly suggests an article already exists. CarolGray 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I can find four articles which contain "Belmont, Port of Spain" and seven with "Belmont, Trinidad and Tobago". I would be happy to fix all of these links, either to [[Port of Spain#Belmont]], or to whichever (redlinked) article name you think is appropriate, if you are confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. CarolGray 11:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am very sorry to have caused offence. You have misinterpreted the tone of my message. I was trying to be helpful. I did not intend to be rude. I apologise. CarolGray 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disproven→disproved

Why is the bot changing this? And why is it changing words within quotes? Guettarda 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it didn't show up in my dictionary, and I must not have noticed the quotes in the article you've seen. I've checked the Oxford English Dictionary, and it appears disproven is in fact a valid variant of disproved, so I've removed it from my bot's list. My apologies, CmdrObot 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tilman

You're right. Thanks! I found a citation. I'll fix it. I had no idea ... sure LOOKED like vandalism (especially as the place of birth should not have been deleted as it was in that edit). CHE 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] invasibility→invisibility

No, invasibility is a valid term (related to likelihood of invasion of a habitat). Guettarda 02:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated my bot with this. Cheers, CmdrObot 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall of Honor

Just wanted you to know my old friend that I have inducted you into the "Wall of Honor". Here is your plaque, Cheers! Tony the Marine 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wall of HonorGuettarda
Wall of Honor

Guettarda

[edit] My adminship

I'm terribly slow in thanking you, for which my only defense is that I was ill around the time the adminship closed. I hope I've been managing it as well as any - I must admit to having to close an AfD I started early when I found Copyvio, and just know there's going to be consequences from that as there was a big meatpuppet event around it, but, oh well. It was very clear Copyvio - the starts of sentences were replaced with synonymns, but otherwise identical, and I encouraged the contributors to Homeopathy to remake it if they thought it right (I trust them to be a pretty sane lot) sans copyvio, if they thought it came under WP:BIO. But I babble and have 63 more people to thank, so.... Adam Cuerden talk 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for kindness

Thank you for your words of support and kindness. I apologize for instigating an argument on Samsara's talk. I am being overly sensitive but my ire was already up and I am frustrated with Wikipedia. It was a bad edit!!!I just didn't appreciate the wise crack. I am sure I will rally after a break. I surely don't want people to argue over something idiotic. GetAgrippa 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Berlinski

I'm sorry but I just can't seem to understand how you believe that this "The scientific community, however, regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[1] The ruling in the 2005 Dover trial held that intelligent design is a form of creationism[2] and that the intelligent design movement is a political rather than scientific movement." follows what the article talks about. Please understand I hate these ID guys, but this needs to be in a new section or (more probably) taken away from that section which talks about his relation to creationism and not creationism itself. If it were an article about creationism I would understand making the fact that it is considered a pseudoscience known, but anyone who wishes to read about the pseudoscience that is ID may do so on the ID article. This Encyclopedia need not be one huge article.--209.137.175.59 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 58

Well, if you feel that way, feel free to block him. I won't object...JoshuaZ 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TT cricket

Well, no I don't actually, but I understood that that was the normal way of describing the people of the country. The people of Trinidad are Trinidadians, and Tobago are Tobagonians. Per Trinidadian English. Its like saying, the national ream of Australia is the Australian cricket team.

You would know and perhaps I've been a bit bold. Could you advise? —Moondyne 13:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I should have made enquiries first. I will revert the changes but have to go out now and may not get to it for another 12 hrs or so. I hope you won't mind. —Moondyne 13:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID

No problems. -- Michael Johnson 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How are they "newbie" warning templates?

I have never heard of such a thing. Can you give me a "WP:..." which says that warning templates shouldn't be used on established editors? Also, I used {{uw-npa2}}, not {{uw-npa1}}, which is indeed for new users. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Homeopathy

Guettarda, could you have a look at here? I put an article on a Homeopath up for deletion, and someone put a note about it on at least one homeopathy sites, and now all the people brought in have taken it upon themselves to harass me, ignore or twist anything I say, and so on. What t'do? Adam Cuerden talk 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. It's up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry_and_Attacks
Damn. And I thought the Jean-Thierry Boisseau situation was bad. Adam Cuerden talk 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, god help us all: It seems Althea Kuhn, Aristos Antoniadis, and Maria Chorianopoulou are all the same person. Check the last three edits on Talk:Homeopathy by Special:Contributions/213.5.44.117. It was pointed out to me when I made the meatpuppetry statement. Adam Cuerden talk 10:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent MFD vote

Just letting you know that I've added two addition subpages similar to the first, User:Otheus/notes and User:Otheus/aa, to the MFD description. FeloniousMonk 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonable?

Whatever happened to Don't template the regulars? You were giving that advice up you talk page. SA is merely POV pushing- he doesn't ever have any sources to give for his statements that X is pseudoscience. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for watching out for me. Good catch on my talk page. El Cubano 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not again!

Who is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Langan

Familiarity with the 3RR policy is indeed worth knowing. I draw your attention to the following:

Other exceptions to the rule include the following: [...] Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material. [...] Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)

Substantial arguments have been put regarding the material in question, arguing that it is both libelous and poorly sourced. These arguments have not been rebutted. Clearly this means that my edit is neither vandalism, nor susceptible to the 3RR rule. Furthermore, your own actions and those of Arthur Rubin do constitute reverts, and are susceptible to the rule. FNMF 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That the material is not libelous is your opinion. Others disagree, including the subject of the entry. And those who disagree have given extensive reasons why they disagree. These reasons have been for the most part utterly ignored. All of the other arguments about violations of Wikipedia official policy in relation to living persons have been ignored. The fact that some people have "discussed" the material and do not think it libelous does not make it not libelous. In such cases, policy advises caution, conservatism, sensitivity. Instead, the opposite approach is pursued by yourself and Arthur Rubin. This is itself a breach of official policy. FNMF 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"You can't simply declare the arguments invalid by fiat without bothering to address the issues." Not only have I argued extensively from official policy regarding living persons, and not only have these arguments been utterly ignored, but the arguments for potential libel have been extensively argued by others, including the subject of the article. The continued failure by editors to even attempt caution, conservatism, or sensitivity is clearly an ongoing violation of the official policy. To then accuse someone of vandalism, or threaten them with blockage, compounds these violations. FNMF 03:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN3 report

So it seems! Though, it appears that the editor has taken the advice to stop edit warring and seek dispute resolution, so I would be alright with sticking to the warning and issuing a block if there's any more reverting. Your thoughts? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye. If he continues to refrain from edit-warring there's no need for a block anyway, if he pulls it again, then it's obvious he knew what he was doing and chose to anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know the feeling, trust me. That's why I generally encourage people to use article RFC. If they're as right as they think, people will agree with them, if not, at least hopefully having several more people disagree will end the conflict. I don't personally know the first thing about the situation, so can't really comment anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ASJA

Some kind of external source (perhaps a news article) that explains it's a reasonably big organization as opposed to just a bunch of politically-minded students. I'm sure it isn't actually the latter, but that's far from clear from the article. >Radiant< 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff

This edit confuses me greatly. I don't really understand it at all. I think I must have misunderstood something or you must have misunderstood something, and in any event I am very sorry and did not mean to upset you.--Jimbo Wales 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Guettarda,

just noticed the above - thought i'd pop by and say thanks for the patience you've always displayed with me on the Intelligent Design article - you do a great job at answering clearly, and you definitely help keep the article in great shape. Saw that you blanked your page, and thought maybe you were a bit pissed off - i've no idea what's going on above... it's confusing to me, but i thought i'd pop in and offer a cup of tea.... (execpt i don't have the clever wiki skills to put the photo or anything here, so you'll have to imagine it... mmmmmm......)

hope you're good - cheers Petesmiles 00:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


A strawberry ice cream to thank Guettarda for the great work he has done on Wikipedia. ElinorD 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A strawberry ice cream to thank Guettarda for the great work he has done on Wikipedia. ElinorD 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can do better than a cup of tea! Here's an ice cream. I've seen you around, and I've been impressed, so just want to say hope you'll be back soon. I hope this doesn't go against your wish to have the page blank. If you want to remove it, I won't be offended. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No no. Mango sorbet. It's better tasting, and better for you.--CSTAR 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Seriously Guettarda I'm very upset at this and also want to thank you for you persistent efforts at maintaining a level of scientific sanity on WP.--CSTAR 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby please don't go

Baby please don't go
Baby please don't go
Baby please don't go down to New Orleans
Y'know I love ya so
baby please don't go

I dunno, Muddy Waters seemed fitting. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


What's going on? Adam Cuerden talk 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Guettarda reacted very personally to something Jimbo wrote and blanked all his sub pages (check his contribs and this thread). We all get frustrated sometimes and I'm just hoping he comes back soon! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It was this [3]. •Jim62sch• 10:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
See also here and the preceding section. Guettarda is wise in stepping back from this for a bit, hope to see him contributing again in his own good time. .. dave souza, talk 10:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Back!

A flower for you (there's more where that came from)! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] Award

This Defender of the Wiki Barnstar is awarded for going beyond the call of duty to protect wikipedia over these last years
This Defender of the Wiki Barnstar is awarded for going beyond the call of duty to protect wikipedia over these last years

SqueakBox 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!

Arr, was worried we had lost yer, I was! Adam Cuerden talk 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, good to see you back in full colour! .. dave souza, talk 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back! :) El_C 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Guettarda welcome back.

I tried to think about Wikipedia's Caribbean articles without you around and it seemed well, kinda bleak.... I hope you're back. I am..... CaribDigita 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another smile

Otheus has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

We had disagreements in the past, and I'm trying to patch things up.--Otheus 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, Guettarda! I appreciate it. It's good to see you too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you also a party to this dispute?

Since Guettarda has provided an unsolicited statement here, can I ask, does Guettarda wish to be included in this dispute? Guettarda is apparently an administrator. The willingness of users like myself to spend many hours making scholarly contributions to Wikipeida is partly conditioned on our perception that the administrative process will be fair to us if we are ever in a dispute.

Guettarda showed up several times early in the process, always supporting ZayZayEM, and then suddenly appears, unsolicited, to give testimony, after having apparently examined the record of the entire case. Will Guettarda also accept sanction from the arbitrators who examine this case, should they find in my favor, since he appears not to be a neutral administrator. I have placed a notice on Guettarda's Talk page asking him to respond yes/no whether he is also party to this dispute, indicating that to me he appears not to be a neutral administrator. --Metzenberg 11:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it with some people and their complete lack of ability to provide context? I got one of those on my talk page a while ago, making vague accusations but failing to say about what. Adam Cuerden talk 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for compromise

I have entered a proposal for compromise at Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. I have stated that if ZayZayEM answers yes to all five questions, and you answer yes to question #1, then I will withdraw my request for arbitration. --Metzenberg 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Ages America

Forgot this one - a good friend got an advance copy of this last year and raved about it. I'm reading his copy. Of course, he's a complete pessimist but hey. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life zone diagram

Thanks for the big ups. Now if only I had time to piece together an article about it. I'm still trying to understand the thing myself really. —Pengo 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

P/PET ratios are simple enough, it's the biotemperature that's the problem. Holdridge assumed that there was no metabolic activity below 0 C or above 30 C, so any temperatures above 30 are equal to 0 when calculating biotemperature. Of course, he was completely wrong when he assumed that 30 = 0, so most people who do life zone maps use some other number...what they use gets confusing. But it gets really confusing when you factor in all the transitional zones. By the time you get to transitional zones you really start to ask yourself "is any of this meaningful?" If you can walk from one life zone to another and not see any change in vegetation that couldn't be better explained by soils...you realise that you need to take Holdridge life zones with a grain on salt. But it's definitely useful on a broader scale. Guettarda 17:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a doctor, Jim, not a...

Hahaha...did you like that? I just couldn't resist! Though I suppose it was slightly rude. Hope he didn't mind. You know, though, he has a point. I'm going to post another comment there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!

Yes, it has been awhile—I haven't been active as much lately as a result of other things... been trying to increase my involvement at Wikisource and especially in the last month or two keep up with my reading. Last year's Wikipedia output helped cause the number of books I read to drop by half (compared to most years), so I've been trying to keep it all balanced. Fortunately, now that I've finished alot of books, I should have something to write about =). We shall see though. Hope things are going well for you! --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism

  • Weyrich: A convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.
  • Farah: Baptist and Christian Zionist.
  • Olasky: Amillennial Presbyterian who is anti-CR.
  • Wildmon: United Methodist, the opposite theological pole
  • National Religious Broadcasters: broadly Evangelical body
  • Free Congress: nonsectarian and led by Weyrich

Stop calling these people CRs. These people would consider the accusation slanderous. Claims about living people must be supported. This sort of name-calling without facts is simply negligent. I hold no brief for the movement either, but at least get your facts straight. Yakuman (数え役満) 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that while Dominionists may see John Cotton et al. as their forebears, that does not mean that {{Dominionism}} should be on their pages. I don't object to them appearing in the template, but I don't think it's fair to so closely associate them with a movement that they had nothing to do with. In short, the presence of an article in a template does not justify the presence of the template in that article (compare, e.g., {{Lutheranism}}, which includes a link to Christianity but which does not appear in said article). --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please lend your thoughts to Template_talk:Dominionism#Christian_reconstructionism. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please see...

my reply and apology... [4] --Otheus 06:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors on various Evolution and Creationism articles

Every time I read what certain editors are doing, I think back to that article you sent me. I'm now highly suspicious of anyone trying to invoke NPOV and it's clear that they are representing only one POV. I blame my current paranoia on you!!!!!  :) Orangemarlin 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are you? We need your sage commentary! Talk:Intelligent_design#Final.3F


[edit] Xtraterrestrial life

Hi! When you have time, maybe enjoy the news posted at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_October_2#Taxonomy_for_Extraterrest#rial_Life

(Kindly delete the extra sign inserted in the penultimate word) Best, MS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.42.29.237 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair

I see you were a recent contributor to the Sternberg peer review controversy article. I have added a section to the talk page proposing that the article be moved to and renamed "Sternberg-Smithsonian Affair". If you would like to see the rationale, please visit Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Proposed_move:__Sternberg.2FSmithsonian_Affair, and leave your thoughts there. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errorstock

Hi - that user had created some pages which fall into the db-attack type, see below (obtained via show contributions by Oscarthecat, show logs).

  1. 2007-04-29T20:14:54 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby rapist" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
  2. 2007-04-29T20:14:44 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby raped" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
  3. 2007-04-29T20:14:34 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby rapings" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
  4. 2007-04-29T20:14:24 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Errorstock (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Attempting to intimidate or harass other users) (Unblock)

Hope this clears it up. --Oscarthecat 06:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sternberg peer review controversy

Regarding your [Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Proposed_move:__Sternberg.2FSmithsonian_Affair opposition] to the proposed move, based on your reasoning, Dave's help, and a google search, I have to agree with you. Since I made the request that I now oppose, is there anything else I should do (except cast an oppose vote)? ImprobabilityDrive 06:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your tone on Tom Harrison's talk page

It seems to be unnecessarily confrontational and borders on personal attack.[5][[6] Wheel Warring should also be avoided especially when it might contribute to BLP problems and I believe your desire to unblock should have been discussed prior to undoing Tom's block. This user did not place an unblock request on their talk page. Errorstock has a history of disruption (from above) so I'm not sure why you felt Tom Harrison's block should be reverted without discussion and why your tone would be so confrontational. --Tbeatty 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted to ANI here as this doesn't need to escalate to a wheel war. --Tbeatty 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blanking

I need some advise on a content dispute. How do you handle it when an advanced user comes in and wipes out a whole well cited NPOV section on the grounds that he does not think it is notable (dispite the fact, ironically, that the same advanced user was the originator of a whole wikipedia article on the same subject)? I reverted him once, and he reverted me. There isn't much left to tag since he blanked the entire section. If I continue to revert him he will win on the revert rule. This seems like an abuse of wikipedia policy. Also, his assertion that the section is not notable is contradicted by an NPR program. Thanks for your attention. ImprobabilityDrive 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the time to provide advice. ImprobabilityDrive 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check user advice needed

Guettarda, I would like to know if I am either allowed and/or expected to respond to this checkuser request on that page, or on its talk page. ImprobabilityDrive 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Email

Please check it when you can. Orangemarlin 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Guettarda's Day!

Guettarda has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Guettarda's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Guettarda!

Love,
Phaedriel
01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

PS. Sorry I didn't get the chance to reply your beautiful message, dear G - I'll drop you an email tomorrow, I promise! Hugs, Phaedriel - 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's celebrate, it's Guettarda's Day! bibliomaniac15 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you guys so much. I'm really touched. Guettarda 04:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, congrats on your day!!! Could not have happened to a better person. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 04:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also congrats. I understand that the Puppy is giving up his steak to you in celebration!!!! Orangemarlin 05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ignore the funny-colored fish. Steak mine. Guettarda have a happy day, but you're not getting my steak. Fish is delusional. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
<Using whiny voice> You're being mean. You're using an uncivil tone with me. I'm going to tell Jimbo about you. I'm going to take you to Arbcom, file an RFC, and generally treat you with contempt. However, you give up that steak, and I'll reconsider all of the above. Orangemarlin 06:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ImprobabilityDrive

Please note: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd) Orangemarlin 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Thank You All

It is kind of funny because it really isn't my birthday. It was on March 9, but thank you all for your kind words and support.

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [[7]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friend a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 23:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Whatever you said

My mistake, I didn't notice the connection or the time differences, I thought it was random spamming. No one's being attacked here, watch what you say. John Reaves (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

My friend, I would like to thank you for being there for me. It is amazing the support that I received. I had no idea that so many people thought highly of me. My admin powers were restored yesterday. I did learn my lesson, I had no idea that a hacker would waste his time with Wikipedia, I changed my password. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About DoubleRedirects, again

redirect.py doesn't pick and choose what it fixes - besides, it's not just my bot that's having problems - I suspect MetsBot is having problems too. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 05:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot just gets the content of Special:DoubleRedirects, parses it. Your subpages will keep on coming up on the list and it'll waste time. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 19:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
And I gave a response, two days ago. Look up an indent or two. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is on AN. Seems like you're the only one who didn't get what I was on about. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, "jerk" and "dick" were personal attacks. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Teamflag1.png

Hello, Guettarda. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Teamflag1.png) was found at the following location: User:Guettarda/old FAC. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MetsBot

I just stumbled across the discussion about MetsBot and fixing double redirects, and am sorry that there's been a big conflict. I'll no longer fix double redirects in User: and User talk: space. If anything like this happens in the future, just contact me on my talk page, and I'll make sure to address your concerns. —METS501 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gracenotes' RFA

Please note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution FAQ

Regarding [8] is it a good idea to have a redirect from mainspace to talk space? JoshuaZ 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Puerto Rico

Hey! The Puerto Rico Portal page has been revamped with additional content, including a Selected series of Articles, Pictures, and Biographies related to Puerto Rico. However, maintaining a Portal is no easy task. As a member of the WikiProject Puerto Rico, please consider helping out in one of the following tasks:

  • You can add Puerto Rico current events and news to the In the news... section as they occur.
  • You can participate in the discussion of Nominations for content nominated to Selected status.
  • You can nominate content for Selected status in the Nominations page.

Your help and contributions are greatly appreciated. Enjoy the Portal! - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an automated message for all WikiProject Puerto Rico participants.

[edit] RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Creatianism

Guettarda, on the AfD on Creatianism you voted

Delete or Merge per Flex...it's a minor, archaic spelling variant that didn't even make it into the OED.

Can you come back and review your vote, as it self-contradictory. Flex didn't vote Delete or Merge but Keep. Please indicate your actual view.

Str1977 (smile back) 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil and don't shout at me. I will do nothing of the sort. You can go back and cast a proper vote saying that you either want this thing deleted/merged or that you agree with Flex and want to keep it. You can't have it both ways. Str1977 (smile back) 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, civil. Not WTF and bullshit and ordering other people around. I struck your vote because it is unclear - I didn't struck the other votes I disagree with, no matter how ignorant I might find them. So please clean up your own mistake and cast a vote (or not, if you wish). Str1977 (smile back) 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is you who is aggressive. It is you who is using foul language. I will not undo a justfied action. This has been done countless times in AfDs and never to my knowledge has someone made such a fuss about correcting his own mistake. Str1977 (smile back) 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not vandalise anything. I will bring this to ANI, if you wish. Str1977 (smile back) 13:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You engage in highly aggressive, shockingly rude behaviour, all to further your article in an AFD...and you have the nerve to lecture me about my reaction? What amusing nonsense. Guettarda 13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I am shocked about your behaviour. I haven't been rude at all. I was puzzled by your vote, struck it as contradictory and informed of this so that you could make the proper correction so that we all can know what your vote is. That is not rude but forthcoming (and has been done many times in votes). I have not struck it because I disagree with it but because it was unclear. It is you who is using foul language all the way "WTF", "bullshit" "vandalism", "nonsense" - this tells me a lot about you. Str1977 (smile back) 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You valid struck comments in an AFD, you edited my signed comments. Repeatedly. To further your POV. That is shocking. That is incredibly aggressive. It is terribly rude. That is vandalism. Guettarda 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to further my POV but to ensure clarity of the vote. Something you fail to grasp by voting incoherently. Clarify your vote. I am not aggressive. It is you who are rude to the extreme. And it is not vandalism (my striking was clearly indicated, I did not change what you wrote). Read the article on that. Str1977 (smile back) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is simple. If you do not want to create such a fuss, cast your vote unambiguously. And if you do, don't try to drown the messenger in foul language but simply clarify your vote? Str1977 (smile back) 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting absurd.

You cast an unclear vote. I informed you of it.

And to enlighten you: my article was not a POV fork (or a fork of any kind) but an article on a concept that did not exit before. You may not grasp it as you have never even considered the issues at hand but what do I care. Stop polluting my talk page and clarify your vote. Str1977 (smile back) 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, I have sought advise on this and had to find out that striking your vote is not considered appropriate. However, I have seen it countless times and hence was under the impression that it was acceptable on a temporary basis (i.e. until you came back and clarified). Please believe me that I was acting in good faith and did not wish to supress your vote, quite independently of my opinion of your vote. So I do apoligize for your anguish and hope you can find it within yourself to reconsider your words (not just regarding our conflict but in general). Str1977 (smile back) 14:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Puerto Rico June 2007 Newsletter

The WikiProject Puerto Rico Newsletter
Year I - Issue 1 - June 2007

Hello, Guettarda. This is the WikiProject Puerto Rico Monthly Newsletter for June 2007. Enjoy!
News
  • The first issue of the Wikiproject Puerto Rico Newsletter was delivered! Please help with the newsletter by suggesting content to be included on the newsletter by leaving a message on Boricuaeddie's talk page.
  • Special thanks to R Delivery Bot and its operator, R, for delivering this newsletter.
  • Eljohnson15 joined the project on June 22. Welcome!
  • Portal:Puerto Rico was revamped with additional content, including Selected series of Articles, Pictures, and Biographies related to Puerto Rico. Please help maintain the Portal. Thank you, Mtmelendez, for all of your help with the Portal!
  • History of Puerto Rico, one of our Featured articles, was displayed at the Main Page on June 18. Thanks to all of the users who helped by reviewing and improving the article and reverting vandalism done to the article during its display. Special thanks to Joelito for all of his work on the article.
  • Special thanks to Mtmelendez for keeping us updated on all things related to the project.
  • See or edit the current tasklist here.
Users who helped with this newsletter:
Useful links:


You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Puerto Rico. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, please contact User talk:Boricuaeddie. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My block on ConfuciusOrnis

Thanks for your comment on my talk page.

The "repetitive comment" is the simple fact that the talk page and Archive 12 now contain essentially the same material. That would have been avoided if the editors had taken my advise to selectively re-insert any live comments, rather than re-inserting the whole archive. The editors have re-inserted all the material from archive 12 into the talk page. It appears from talk:Creation sciencethat they have decided that they will now selectively delete material they are not using. Perhaps this will have much the same result as my suggestion of re-inserting the material selectively from the archive, but of course leaves much of repetition in place, but perhaps it is a better solution for them.

On my talk page I have set out in detail the actions I took. I was not engaged in an edit war, as you suggest, over the appearence of the page. Rather, I was following wiki procedure by archiving a page. CO copied it back into the talk page, twice, despite extensive explanation and two warnings, and without deleting it from the archive, thus creating a large quantity of repeated text.

I maintain that the block was appropriate. Banno 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not appropriate based on the policy you cited, and yes, you did block to win an edit war. That's your definition of "appropriate"??! Guettarda 05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago) featured article review

Hey Guettarda. A featured article that i believe you were fairly involved with has been requested for a featured article review. The following concerns have been raised about this articles quality:

  • Its very very short
  • It has a complete lack of inline citations
  • It has only 1 image
  • It lists only four references, and doesn't incorporate the references into the article with inline citations
  • Excessive red linking
  • Most sections are only a paragraph long

All in all not what i would consider wikipedia's best work --Hadseys 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to read this message, Hadseys 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notification

Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, I have left a message for you regarding incorrect information you posted about me at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject intelligent design

Use of Template:WikiProject intelligent design on category talk pages is causing the talk page to be listed in the category. Category talk:Intelligent design parodies is in Category:Intelligent design parodies, and Category talk:Intelligent design movement is in Category:Intelligent design movement. Can you fix it? PrimeHunter 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:BasdeoPanday.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BasdeoPanday.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 11:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Puerto Rico July 2007 Newsletter

The WikiProject Puerto Rico Newsletter
Year I - Issue 2 - July 2007

"Sería borincano aunque naciera en la luna..." - Roy Brown
From the editor

Hello, Guettarda. This is the second issue of WikiProject Puerto Rico's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members to keep up with the latest news relating to the project. Please help with the newsletter by suggesting content to be included on the newsletter by leaving a message on my talk page. Enjoy!

Yours sincerely, Boricuaeddie 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Users who helped with this newsletter
Other areas where you can help
An image for you!
Project News


You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Puerto Rico. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, please contact Boricuaeddie. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Animum Delivery Bot 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hassanali.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hassanali.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. Rettetast 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)

Hi Guettarda. The review for this one was left in the FAR period an extra two weeks, into the middle of this month as you'd asked for. I've just moved it to FARC but it can be extended further. Let us know on the review if you'll have time for it. Cheers, Marskell 09:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You may be interested

Hi Guettarda, you may be interested in checking out the comments of the following: [9]. Take care Tony the Marine 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I could use your help if you have time

When you have a chance, could you look at White people, especially the lengthy discussion (you ought to read the whole thing, although the most salient points are toward the end)here? I am especially concerned with Fourdee. The underlying issue is whether races (in this case, obviously, the white race) are biologically real or social constructions. I feel very confident in my grasp of both the sociological and genetic research and know that Fourdee is wrong, but I have tried very hard not to engage him on this. Instead, I have tried, consistently, to make the discussion about compliance with our core policies. Fourdee has been (in my opinion) consistently courteous. But I believe he is a racist, and it seems obvious to me (and my question is, will it be obvious to you too as you read through the discussion, and slowly see slight changes in his position/rationale) tht he is nothing more than a POV pusher who wishes to use Wikipedia articles as his own soap-box. I do not know if the situation is appropriate for an RfC. But I would (1) like to know whether you think my reading of him is right, or whether I am over-reacting, and (2) if you do think I am right, I would appreciate whatever support you consider appropriate. You would need to read through the article (it isn't too long) and then this part of the discussionclosely to be able to express yourself authoritatively, if you so choose. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Domenech

There is no need to discuss the specific plagiarism examples on the Regnery Publishing article. They don't have anything to do with Regnery Publishing. Please, if you need a battle to fight, !vote in the stupid AfD someone's started on Domenech's article. FCYTravis 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, as you did to Regnery Publishing, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. THF 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (formally retracted with a third humble apology, after two informal apologies 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Awww...how cute, Mr Big Bad Conservative "Think Tank" has moved from whitewashing to issuing threats. Of course, I explained why I don't think BLP applied, so your calling this vandalism is a violation of WP:NPA. Look it up, learn something new. Guettarda 14:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what am I thinking...logic, conservative think tank...that would probably get you fired, right? They don't allow logic in places like that. My apologies, I wouldn't want to get you fired. Bluster away, I understand, it's a job requirement. Guettarda 14:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
From BLP:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles'
Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption.
Again, please read WP:BLP, as you have violated it three times, and should have been blocked. Your violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA has also been noted. THF 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you managed to quote the policy. Now, normally I'd expect a person to go back and try to explain how it applies in this context. Saying "BLP, BLP" is not an argument - you need to connect it with the material - something you have failed to do. But I understand your constraints. Guettarda 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you knock it off, please. Arguably THF began the provocation by gratuitously templating a long-term regular but there's no call for upping the ante. Raymond Arritt 14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right - it's mean to make fun of people's disabilities. I'm a horrible person. Sorry. Guettarda 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that THF boldfaced the wrong part of WP:BLP. The fact that Wonkette is not self-published kind of eliminates the clause THF cited from having any relevance in this instance. Ossified 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus of several admins at WP:BLP/N agrees that the material was inappropriate. THF 17:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. But I wouldn't want you to lost your job by being forced to speak the truth. Guettarda 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THF

You may want to make a statement at ArbCom on User:THF's edits: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#THF_.2F_Michael_Moore
--David Shankbone 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Puerto Rico August Newsletter

The WikiProject Puerto Rico Newsletter
Year I - Issue 2 - August 2007

"Pa' lante siempre" - Filiberto Ojeda Ríos
From the editor

Hello, Guettarda. This is the third issue of WikiProject Puerto Rico's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members to keep up with the latest news relating to the project. Please help with the newsletter by suggesting content to be included on the newsletter by leaving a message on my talk page. Enjoy!

Yours sincerely, Boricuaeddie 15:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Users who helped with this newsletter
Other areas where you can help
An image for you!
Project News


You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Puerto Rico. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, please contact Boricuaeddie. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 03:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] THF attacks

Dear Guettarda,

Please forgive my intrusion

I have recently become aware that you have had difficulty with THF. I have been attacked maligned and harrassed likewise. I would urge you and anyone reading this to tplease take decisive atcion to stop THF.Tidalenergy 11:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Benicio Del Toro to Benicio del Toro

Seeing as you're a participant in WikiProject Puerto Rico, I wish to invite you to participate in the survey at Talk:Benicio Del Toro on whether the article on Benicio del Toro should be moved from Benicio Del Toro to Benicio del Toro. Timeineurope 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosalind Picard

Hi G.

Could you come over and look at Rosalind Picard and see if you agree with or disagree with my enforcement of WP:BLP's policy on blogs as sources for commentary.

This is getting way out of hand for me. I'm only a lowly undergrad student.--ZayZayEM 06:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Given your pressing of POV issues, I hope that Guettarda assists in this article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is WP:NOR is a WP:BLP issue. On a BLP we should be particularly vigilant about allowing possible OR into articles. There also was a BLP issue regarding the use of a blog as a source for the commentary. Now that source has gone, meaning there is no source for the commnetary synthesis, making this predominantly a OR issue now.

I don't totally disagree with the assessment that Picard is outside her field and that the petition is a really botched appeal to authority - but I am worried that the way it is being presented on this article really violates wikipedia's policies on what to include in wikipedia. The more I look at it the less it seems likely it was intended with encyclopedic value rather than just another excuse to lambast someone associated with DI. I mostly want a genuine discussion to take place (rather than two sides telling each other to shut up they don't know what they are on about (I'm still not sure what User:Moulton is on about sometimes)) and I'm gonna be quite happyto abide by consensus either way.--ZayZayEM 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book cover images

My decision to remove the book covers was based on current Wikipedia policy on book covers and non-free images in general. Please do not revert my decision. Take the issue to deletion review, RFC or ARBCOM and once I am overruled the images can be added back. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no deletion to review. You closed the IfD as a Keep. You obviously don't understand fair use or Foundation policy. Go educate yourself about the issues first. Guettarda 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Irreducible complexity

You recently made an edit in the ongoing dispute over the appropriateness of Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg on this page. Please join debate at Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg#Use of this image in Irreducible complexity. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to override my admin decisions or deleting the images or to leave rude comments on my talk page. But I'm tired, so you can have it for today. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You abuse admin privileges, utterly ignore the blocking policy...and you complain about my rude language? You're joking, right? Guettarda 03:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

Your name came up on this thread at ArbCom as someone who attacked THF and who was not given a warning about clearly wrong behavior. I am not familiar with the situation, but you may want to make a statement. --David Shankbone 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Care to explain

Whether I close the discussion and remove the tags or remove the tags and close the discussion, it does not matter. Please quit whining about this on my talk page and take it somewhere else. There is a forum to discuss admin abuse of power so take it there or leave it alone. -Regards Nv8200p talk 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see - so you not only make pronouncements about what can and can't be in the encyclopaedia, you're also defining "free speech zones". Hilarious. Guettarda 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
{{non-free book cover}}
The non-free book cover copyright tag says the image the tag is attached to should only be used to illustrate an article discussing the book in questions. I believed the articles I removed the book covers from did not discuss the book cover. They mentioned the books as being about the subject of the article or in an article about the author of the book but that was about it.
The dispute over the images is settled and on the side you support, but please use my talk page as your free speech zone. Stuff you say may there may be useful in the future. I'll listen if you want, but will probably not respond again on talk pages. I need to get back to one of my Admin duties which actually is to make pronouncements about what can and can't be in the encyclopedia. Every closing Admin on WP:IFD or WP:AFD does this whether it is a keep or delete. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have to tell you this but "mak[ing] pronouncements about what can and can't be in the encyclopedia" is most emphatically not your job. You are a clerk, nothing more, such decisions are made by consensus. ornis (t) 02:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
<shakes head> Douglas Adams is right, of course - the people who gravitate to jobs like that are always the least suitable people. Guettarda 03:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was Murphy. This has a nice double-edge to it, "Stuff you say may there may be useful in the future". Civil yet not, polite yet containing a potential veiled threat. As for the rest, it's just mere piffle, and let's be honest: the dude isn't going to change. Yet. •Jim62sch• 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attack sites

I am not sure whether you know about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Workshop but I think - when you have time - yours is an important voice that needs to be added there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

Regarding this edit [10]: can you show me even a single discussion in which there was consensus that the image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC? I have been unable to find one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D. James Kennedy edits

Please stop. Your mindless reversions are deleting important additions to the article (e.g. Wiki brackets and fact tags).

In regards to that "War on Science" ref, it's nothing more than a second-hand repeat of the source ahead of it. It's not needed. Jinxmchue 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jason, we sorted this out months ago. Your personal incredulity doesn't count as a reliable source. Guettarda 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with me, and I would thank you to assume good faith. I would also thank you to actually look at the references and see what I'm saying is factual and accurate. The "War on Science" link is a second-hand account of the AU link and the Coral Ridge link no longer works due to changes to the Coral Ridge website. Jinxmchue 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why should I be that stupid? See WP:SPADE. First you insist that your opinion trumps sources. When that fails you take you stick in "purported". As I said - your personal incredulity does not allow you to ignore or override sourced material. And that's not going to change even if you throw another temper tantrum, like you did last time. Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia policy, whether you like it or not. Guettarda 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You lack any direct evidence that Kennedy supported ID - i.e. no statements from him that say anything like, "I support Intelligent Design." All you have are accusations made by others (actually, just one other, as the case is). That being the case, his support for ID is only purported (look up the word in the dictionary sometime), not absolute. Jinxmchue 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I love how you are just bent on violating WP:AGF. Jinxmchue 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes Jason. Obviously you missed the link to WP:SPADE. You had contempt for our sourcing policies before your "break", and you have shown that you still have contempt for them. WP:AGF does not require that a person check their congitive abilities at the door. Guettarda 03:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you just not see how mindless your reversion was here? Look closely and also review the references. First of all, in your excitement to revert my legitimate edits, you unnecessarily removed Wiki brackets for dates and a fact tag. You also re-added a link to the Coral Ridge Hour website that doesn't work anymore. Furthermore, the "War on Science" reference is nothing more than a second-hand repetition of the Americans United reference, so is it really necessary? Why clutter up Wikipedia with unnecessary, repetitious references? Finally, your edit summary - "your personal incredulity is not a reliable source" - has nothing to do with the edits I made. For one thing, THE INFORMATION ABOUT ID REMAINED IN THE ARTICLE. I only removed one reference that was unnecessary and another that was defunct. In regards to what the Coral Ridge website sells, anyone with half a brain could easily see that the "intelligent design books and DVDs" that they supposedly sell is limited to one item (available in DVD and VHS). Go to the reference link and search for the phrase "intelligent design." It is only used in regards to one item (with separate entries for DVD and VHS versions). Then search for "creation[ism]" on that page. It appears many, many more times in many other diverse items. Thus, my edit describing the ID material that Coral Ridge sells as a single video was completely accurate and factual. Jinxmchue 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for my addition of "purported," it is completely legitimate to use that word when there is a completely lack of a direct statement by Kennedy about his support or lack thereof of ID and only one person's statement regarding his alleged beliefs. Many notable people (with PhDs even) consider President Bush to be a retarded moron, yet if you try to put that into his article as absolute fact, you're asking for a lot of trouble. Jinxmchue 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The source was one of the leading experts on the ID movement. No source says otherwise. You can't insert "purportedly" simply because you don't agree with it. Your incredulity doesn't warrant mention in an encyclopaedia article. Is that really so hard to grasp? Guettarda 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A notice

See here. Jinxmchue 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So how would you describe your actions back in June? I don't have a better descriptor, sorry. Guettarda 03:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Frustration. Jinxmchue 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that isn't an adequate descriptor. Guettarda 02:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rainforest

Thanks for your input there. Always nice to have someone with access to the literature to check, and the ability to read it. Will be interesting to see how EA responds William M. Connolley 08:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schaefferia frutescens‎

Hi Guettarda - I've just deleted a page of this name which was copyvio. From a fairly quick checkup the genus looks to be monospecific so I restarted it at Schaefferia, but only with info I got from USDA-GRIN and USFS which may not be complete for the whole range (including perhaps additional species? - ipni lists more, but of course gives no hint on current acceptance or not) - can you check it over, please? - thanks, MPF 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Can I leave it in your hands to move it to the species and put together a genus page with the others? I basically know nothing about the genus and only did the stub because of having deleted the previous copyvio version - MPF 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Puerto Rico September 2007 Newsletter

The WikiProject Puerto Rico Newsletter
Year I - Issue 4 - September 2007

"La razón no grita. La razón convence." - Luis A. Ferré
From the editor

Hello, Guettarda. This is the fourth issue of WikiProject Puerto Rico's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members to keep up with the latest news relating to the project. Please help with the newsletter by suggesting content to be included on the newsletter by leaving a message on my talk page.

Enjoy! --Agüeybaná 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Tribute to "the Marine"

I would like to pay a small tribute in this edition to Tony "the Marine". Editing since May 24, 2004, he has been one of our project's most active editors and has become one of Wikipedia's most recognized writers. He has authored over 400 articles, including 4 Featured Articles, 1 Featured List, 10 Good Articles, and 28 DYKs. His name has appeared in newspapers and magazines and has been mentioned by politicians and artists. He has brought Puerto Rico's history and its people to the web. He has shown the world that Puerto Ricans have done much more than just be gangsters and drug dealers. He has shown the world that we have contributed to history and the world just as much as any other group of people.

On September 29, 2007, Tony announced that we would not be writing for Wikipedia anymore. We, the members of this project, are sad that he will not be able to continue to spread the word of Hispanics' contributions here on the web, but I, for one, feel honored that he has entrusted us with the duty of continuing and improving his excellent work.

Tony, rest assured that your contributions, your wisdom, and the help you provided to all of us when we were new users will be remembered for generations. Que Dios te bendiga, Tony, y que tu recompensa sea grande en el Reino de los Cielos.

Viva Puerto Rico libre. —Agüeybaná 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who helped with this newsletter
Other areas where you can help
An image for you!
Project News


You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Puerto Rico. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, please contact Boricuaeddie. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC) .