This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dave souza. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Mr. Souza- could you please inform me why it would be "template spam" to put the "this article is highly disputed" image at the top of the macroevolution article? I mean, isn't macroevolution still widely disputed?
dear mr. souza,
i'm sorry for what i did, i shouldn't have done it, this website is very helpful to me,i won't do it again
Free French Memorial Greenock.jpg
Hi, I live in Greenock and spotted a piece of junk mail for a estate agent using your photo (with no attribution). Just bringing it to your attention. Contact me at enolgay[at]ntlworld[dot]com
Prij (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it's a bit of a pest but as you can guess it doesn't feel very urgent. It is possible that they've taken a very similar picture themselves, there's actually a path worn in the rocky bit above the road at the top of Lyle Hill to the spot where I took that shot. Suppose I should really chase them to provide attribution, but it's all a bit tedious. Thanks again for letting me know, anyway. .. dave souza, talk16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Reminder to me!
Please see the discussion on my talkpage about Schweitzer and the T-rex "soft tissue" issue. Still getting into the swing of things here, and can't find a way to come to consensus on this. I think the whole edit should be scrapped, but I'm not sure how much creationist opinion is acceptable on their own pages. It's a much easier call on the science pages... Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The horror. A movie critic airing his own opinions
Wow. Thanks awfully, that's an amazing honour. I shall treasure it and cling onto it, even though it feels rather undeserved as there's so much hilarity in the sources. It's getting hard to tell where the ID ends and the parody begins :o) . . . dave souza, talk21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dawins and Haggard.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Help
Perhaps you can help. You described a pro-homeopathy pile-on on AN/I. I submit that Filll is the initiator of the diversion.[1] Your help and/or insight would be appreciated. Anthon01 (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about anyone initiating a diversion, and note that the diff you provide postdates my comment. ... dave souza, talk16:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"Race" vandal is back at it.
He or she is back at it. As I stated before, this person obviously won't stop. Just removes sourced content that even proves the "race" of people all because he or she doesn't like it. Ridiculous. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, as you've probably noted from my comment one edit seemed quite useful, but then it was the same nonsense so that's another longer break for the editor to think it over. .. dave souza, talk16:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, you say the nicest things! Unless it's some sketches I've forgotten about, suspect you mean bishapod (which actually was an attempt at a serious reconstruction of Tiktaalik but looked silly and got hijacked) and FM. Not to worry, .. dave souza, talk16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry to be terribly pedantic – an ancient Scots habit! That explains all, do it myself all too often. Must get to be at a sensible time tonight, .. dave souza, talk17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I was just in the process of editing your talk page to say no problem! Thanks for the comment, hope you're cool with my version. Seeya, .. dave souza, talk22:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey thanks, I've only been blocked once and that was by myself when I was rushing about trying to fight off the vandals on a featured article on the main page. Bloomin' cheek :-/ .. dave souza, talk22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I'm completely new to this and I'm kind of worried I'm breaching wiki etiquette in all sorts of ways I'm unaware of... you seem to be the Darwin guru around so if you see me making changes I shouldn't or anything please just let me know!
I was thinking about adding a page for Darwin's book on orchids, though perhapsVariation is a bigger priority.... can I go ahead and do this or should I recommend it to someone more seasoned?
You're very welcome, I've added some handy hints to your talk page. No need to worry as long as you're reasonably polite, and I'm not an expert on Darwin but have read a couple of books and continue to find more interesting things out about him. Look forward to these new articles! .. dave souza, talk10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not, the level of vandalism is still pretty low for a featured article, and there's an idea that we avoid protecting such articles so that we can showcase the "anyone can edit" idea. If it gets really bad it can be semi-protected for a short time to give us a break, but best to avoid that if possible. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of such, what the hell was OrangeMarlin going on about User_talk:Orangemarlin/Archives_6#Cretaceous.E2.80.93Tertiary_extinction_event here? I was not aware of any personal attack or uncivil behavior on my part, and completely unaware of editors I have driven away from the project on account of my "behavior" there? That he called for my warning or blocking is something I consider to be a serious breach in civility, and I would absolutely want an apology (or at least, an explanation) which so far has been unforthcoming. - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a mind reader. Since you've asked him, see what he says. A clarification or a gracious retraction would doubtless resolve things, for goodness sake don't go around suggesting that you're demanding an apology which needlessly raises the temperature. .. dave souza, talk15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess an apology is too much to ask, even if I did nothing to provoke the attack or uncivil statements. I'd be tempted to let this die out, but am concerned that this seems to be an issue w/Orange that I am completely unaware of, and don't want it cropping up in some other article that we happen to cross paths in. That he also asked an admin to block me without letting me know what I had done wrong is deeply troubling. If I don't report the aberrant behavior, it might grow stale and I would be unable to access it in an admin report should the behavior re-occur.
He has replied after my request for clarity without really supplying me with any info. He isn't really listening or responding helpfully at all. Dave, I am not sure, but I am thinking that this might need to be pursued, so as to not bite me on the ass later. Your thoughts - as always - are invaluable. - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought that was a bit too much detail. Although in fairness, mentioning the phrase "public school" in a conversation with any of my family in this day and age would more likely evoke an image of Fettes College rather than East Kilbride Comprehensive or wherever (imho). Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, just kidding a bit. The "public school" thing in some parts of Scotland is a bit antiquated, and has probably fallen from common use. However, it did give Billy Connolly a good line about going to public school in Govan or wherever, and last I looked there were still some nice stone buildings with Public School nicely carved on their frontage. I gave the Beeb reference and the County Council ref. as neither seems to call it a "state school", though it's sort of implied. The system's changed so much in the last few decades :-/ .. dave souza, talk19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the reasonable thing for an editor to do when witnessing someone headed for a bad ending? I tried to nicely say "Hey, this is how what you're doing appears."(Diff of Starfire's deletion) No templating, no gratuitous WP: links, tried not to accuse too much (though between the lines returning user", etc. Ï just keep hoping an outside 'reflection' on behavior will give pause. Is that just impossible? Anyway, was my comment a 'rant' do you think? Shenme (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've commented on your talk page, in my opinion your good faith attempt to be conciliatory fell on barren ground and I've personally found it best to give short messages with links to relevant policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ, WP:V and WP:NOR as appropriate. Thanks for trying, there's always hope that a more personalised approach like yours will work well as being less antagonistic, but some editors will take offence at anything. .. dave souza, talk09:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Essays and Reviews
You wrote at Essays and Reviews:
We seem to have further reading rather than references. Several points, particularly those related to Darwin, were taken from Desmond & Moore's Darwin, and there are some other details in Janet Browne's Charles Darwin: vol. 2 The Power of Place. Want these added as references, and want harvard referencing in a notes section to give page numbers? ... dave souza, talk12:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I was just trying to build up potential references by putting them in the 'Further reading' section for now. But, yes, please add - as Harvard ref - the references (page numbers) from Desmond & Moore, and Janet Brown. Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV dispute
I would like more reasoning behind why it's so dangerous to have "explicitly refuted" changed to a more neutral wording that makes the same point, "declared false."FreedomFighterXL (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Read Kitzmiller. It's an explicit point by point refutation of ID claims, not a vague declaration that their claims are "false". Note well that other editors disagree with your view, feel free to take it up on the article talk page, but you'll need consensus to make the change you propose. ... dave souza, talk12:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, as Deacon says above the move was made by another, sorry about the confusion. I think it likely that all of the non-Scottish links were to places named after Scotland, that sort of thing is very common. .. dave souza, talk18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the other two seemed to be dormant but that one appears more of a nuisance so I've blocked it and FilaNoBlock. Not quite convinced about IloveTrains, will think it over. .. dave souza, talk21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm unwatching this article; I take it you'll be keeping an eye on it? I presume others are watching it to but want to make sure someone will be looking after it. Richard001 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a bundle for your occasional edits this article. I have one request however: I'm looking towards GA in the future, so it's necessary that I keep the refs in a single standard format. Otherwise, thank you again! VanTucky00:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
btw, I put that block tag on the main user page, not if it's needed there know. Or what should be there. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up about this, the tag really belongs on the user talk page, where you've added it – User talk:212.248.245.18. Note that a whois found the IP to be a school network or the like, so that's influenced the length of block. WP:VAND gives advice on all this, your assistance is much appreciated... 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a new user Mynym who added a boatload of questionable material regarding biology (and of course, Darwin) to the page. It's beyond my meager abilities to sort through, so if you can check it, I'd surely appreciate it. You were the only one of the pro-science editors that I'm familiar with who I can see has edited the page, so you are the lucky recipient of this notice. Thanks...--Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, without looking it's an area I'm just finding my way into. Too much else on, but will look it over fairly soon. The joys of reality based editing :- / . . dave souza, talk21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have to pick on you...I haven't gotten all the pro-science people's specialties sorted out, especially when it comes to PRATTs. But thanks for your help. This "documentary" has brought us lots of new cause-pushers scurrying everywhere it seems...luckily I had no plans for the weekend. :P --Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks muchly, the sentence didn't really add to the point already made apart from making a vague reference to Darwin, giving his influence undue weight. Given that the Nazis cited Arthur de Gobineau who published just before Darwin published his Origin, and they banned Darwin's books, the connection looks somewhat implausible. Of course the Nazis opportunistically exploited and distorted many ideas, but their own slant contradicted rather than followed Darwin. So, I've removed it. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The "Expelled" Page.
I'm not saying we should delete any of the criticism. I'm saying that we need to give it its own section. The sections "Overview" and "People in the Movie" have a back-an-forth structure that fails WP: STYLE. Please, be reasonable, I don't want to delete anything, I want to give the reaction from outside groups their own space, so that the reader of the article does not get confused with what is in the movie and what is outside the movie. Paladin Hammer (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to ask again, but Orangemarlin and Guettarda continue to make POV edits, and claim that my NPOV removal of them costitutes POV itself. I began a discussion of the edits in question here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you where you can watch the Imagine clip right now? I'm not, I can do this tonight but I think we ought to include how Stein uses Imagine to make a point about PZ. I added a bit about where the song is inserted and all but I think the reader will be interested in what Stein is saying and showing leading up to the song. Thoughts? Angry Christian (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Dave when you have a minute would you mind taking a peak at what I wrote here and chime in? I think I've done a better job of framing my concerns and have managed to do so in a manner that doesn't look like I'm a crazy person. Major strides! Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Quick note to say thanks for your reply. I want to sit back and wait for others to reply before I respond. I've been yapping alot on the subject so for now I'm in "listen" mode. Also, I noted the edits you've done to the section in question and you're doing a very nice job. I admire your ability to ignore the riff raff and sarcasm/drama and instead quietly improve things that people are sharing concerns about. Maybe one day I'll learn to do the same :-) Angry Christian (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I find it's often a good idea to be patient and let others get their word in rather than rushing to answer every point – don't always manage to restrain myself, though ;) . . . dave souza, talk19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've replied with what I think are my closing comments on the subject. The Lauri Lebo quote in that section is good (I promise I'll figure out how to format these damn refs). We might want to consider adding a few more from prominant critics since they too frame it as Stein having "science" in their crosshairs. I'm usually busy with my family on the weekends but I might try and improve that section a little more when time permits. Angry Christian (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
... I would be seriously depressed about Wikipedia. Many of the "NPOV-editors" on Expelled seem to have defined themselves to be the NPOV editors and anyone disagreeing is by definition a civil POV-pusher. You were the only one, who felt compelled to actually dignify my comments with a serious answer. And that's all I ask for, ever, actually. I have never imposed my will on an article, even when I'm one of the main contributors.
So what makes an editor an NPOV-editor and what makes an editor a civil POV-pusher?
Am I a civil POV-pusher?
I'm a bit sad, haven't mastered WP:DGAF quite yet, and I would be deeply depressed, if it wasn't for you. You truly are an NPOV-editor, not by definition, not because you are an admin, but because you take opposing views seriously and reply to them competently. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, your comments are much appreciated. As an architect I learnt early on that, though it's tempting, writing site meeting minutes to suit your own viewpoint merely leads to lots ot tedious correspondence and ill will. So it's best to reflect fairly as possible what each "side" is saying, and note disagreements. Mind you, in one case there was so much disagreement from the contractor that I ended up writing out the minutes during the meeting, and reading each section out before going on to the next part of the meeting. It meant the meetings got very long, but saved me time afterwards so I didn't care ;) .. dave souza, talk09:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Dave, I have been informed that you "clearly saw" Expelled "POV pushing". Since Nightscream isn't willing to clarify his statement, I thought I'd see if you had any idea what the heck he was talking about. Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I've looked through the Edit histories, and I believe the comment in question is this one on Guettarda's Talk Page: "By contrast, I have explained how your edits are POV, and three or four other people, such as Dave Souza, clearly saw the same thing I did." Both Guettarda and Orangemarlin were engaging in the same POV pushing, but with respect to the "clearly saw the same thing", that was specifically in reference to this edit, in which you properly reverted Orangemarlin's revert of my edit. Although both Guettarda and Orangemarlin were engaged in such behavior, the comment about you specifically referenced Orangemarlin. Sorry for the confusion. Nightscream (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, seems to have been some confusion and I didn't notice this till now. From memory, I didn't actually revert OM's reversion of your edit, but rather went through the issues and agreed with some but not others of the points. Hope that's put things to rest. .. dave souza, talk20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
message moved from below - answered on user talk:Nightscream
Thank you for your message. What precisely do you feel constituted a "personal attack", and what edits of mine do you feel gave undue or equal weight to ID? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that his version is more NPOV and mine is not. Both he and Guettarda have accused me of POV pushing, which they (and you) apparently do not consider to be "personal attacks". Why is it a personal attack when I opine that he is doing this, but not when they do? Is it simply because I used less euphemistic language like "looks like a hatrack"? When you look at the discussion between me and Guettarda and Orangemarlin, who you do you see engaging in more personal attacks, them, or I? As far as the "selected by the producers" bit, I can't know which editor originally placed each bit of wording in the article, but he was reverting it to include that, so I directed my statement to him. And yes, that wording is POV, unless it was the accusation of one of the film's critics, and the accusation is explicitly attributed to them. Not doing so gives the reader the impression that the article itself/Wikipedia itself is making this point. If the sources do not make this point, then no, we cannot convey it, even if we know this to be true. In any event, I agree that the POV has been reduced, and I appreciate your calm participation in this editing process. As to the lead section, I responded to your concern on the Talk Page, and made an edit to that section in response. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Robert J. Marks II: Violation of Wiki policy biographies of living persons
This guy User:98.169.241.244 had his rant archived on the Talk:Intelligent design page, and has since gone on a mad streak archiving actually relevant talkpages on ID and the "Expelled" page. He's jumped to two other IPs to do so; he was blocked on one of them.
His last edit was at 13:46, 26 April 2008, and the edits were dubious rather than blatant vandalism. I've left a comment along these lines,[4] and will block if there's any resumption of the same behaviour. Hope that helps. .. dave souza, talk19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Dispute on A.R. Wallace's page
Dave, there is a dispute on the Alfred Russel Wallace article and I think it might be helpful to get your opinion on it. Another editor added a 1980 book by Arnold Brackman called A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace to the further reading list. I deleted it because, I bleive its central premise, that Darwin stole a significant part of his theory of natural selection (the idea that it drove the divergence of species) from Wallace's essay, is now considere a fringe theory without any mainstream support among historians. I explained my reasoning on the talk page but the original editor did not agree and reverted my edit. I am guessing that you have read so much material on Darwin that you have likely run accross this issue and have an opinion. If so I would appreciate if you would weigh in on the talk page so that we can hopefully reach a consensus rather than have an edit war. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Bishapod! Delighted to see you're back in the swim, hope the chill's worn off and you're not feeling too frosty ;) . . dave souza, talk09:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Fila sock again
Hi, the 'Fila' character appears to have resurfaced as User:ShakespearesZombie. His bio on his user page matches, along with this priceless statement: "Dave souza, I am not a sockpuppet because i got adopted by Diligent terrier". --- Dreamer8408:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, had a look and was wondering if a clean start might be appropriate, but was held up elsewhere and now it seems that a checkuser block has been applied. Guess that confirms the correctness of the earlier blocks. Thanks for the info, no doubt another will turn up :-/ .. dave souza, talk13:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Expelled and Box Office Mojo
The info concerning the ranking of Expelled as the 12 highest grossing documentary of all time is completely appropriate in the article. It is often used in Wiki pages about movies (as it is in the An Inconvenient Truth page). It is not "spin", it is fact. Please don't erase contributions — that many users have been working on — without some discussion on the article's talk page, simply because you feel something is "spin". Thank you. Supertheman(talk)11:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
A few of us are planning a wikimeet in Edinburgh and would love to invite you along :-)
Currently, the meetup is planned for Saturday, 7th June starting at around 1pm.
We have a planning and suggestions page located here as well as a space to sign up as an attendee/possible atendee.
Hope to see you there,
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite, I'm afraid that my duties here mean that a pretty tight timetable keeps me from getting away for more than three hours at a time. Sorry to be unsociable, but there it is. Noticed the venue ideas; The Horseshoe in Glasgow is a nice art nouveau pub, don't know the Edinburgh one. My suggestions would be the Abbotsford, the Caff Royal or Bennetts, but these ideas are about forty years out of date! All the best, anyway, and trust it goes well :) . . dave souza, talk17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I have noted that User:Ted Ted is creating mass redirects to UK railway stations, from xxxxx train station and xxxxx station. There have also been several specifically Ardrossan Harbour (which he has created from the US spelling of harbour (harbor)) and Argyle Street (Subway Station and Underground Station. These instances I have tagged for CSD. In amongst this he has updated his edit count - which will no doubt be increased by the creation of all these redirect articles. Could you have a look at this. Many thanks, --Stewart(talk)23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have paused at 20:15, 25 May 200, I've left a warning about disruptive editing with a suggestion of talking things over with you, and can start blocking if this nonsense resumes. Will see how things are going in the morning, . . dave souza, talk23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Not the response I expected from User:Ted Ted, however he has decided to give up on Wikipedia due to the threat of blocking from what he considers to be legimate redirects. --Stewart(talk)11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Very saddening that Wikipedia will just have to do without Ted. From experience I won't be surprised to see a return, but that should reduce hassle for a while at lest. . . dave souza, talk12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I know you are more of a biology guy, but it seems we have a FRINGE issue on the pages Expanding earth theory and Growing Earth Theory. I've noticed that one editor is using his personal website as a source. I've asked Geologyguy to look at it, but he doesn't seem interested. Is there a project page that you know of where I could ask for more hard science guys' eyes to watch? Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Tricky. I'm just an amateur historian, with an interest in Darwin that's taken me on to biology and early ideas on geology, but this is way beyone my knowledge and I'm rather busy with things just now. No ideas spring to mind, guess you could look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism for participants since that's at the top of the page, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology would also apply. Will make a comment and try later to get some idea of the problems, let me know if it gets out of hand. . . dave souza, talk18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
British Isles
Hi. Just a short note. You're being accused of "nationalist motivations" and "anti-encyclopedic POV" for your suggested lead sentence on the British Isles (which is still the suggestion with most support). You can see it here [6]. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm so vain about my internationalist motivations that I don't take any notice of such comments, hope the discussion results in a good consensus. . . dave souza, talk09:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think you'd worry much. Still, you can add it to the list of sticks-and-stones-that-have-not-broken-bones, or somesuch. More recently you're "anti-British" as well. Just goes to show! Wotapalaver (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's excellent news. It's on my watchlist, but I've not been paying much attention to it lately. One small step towards consensus! . . dave souza, talk12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave. I'd thought of soliciting your help. Please feel free to begin editing those pages I started however you see fit, not that things have to be carried out there. Gnixon (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Encouraging comment
Dave, I found this comment very encouraging. In fact it has reminded me that I've been too quick myself at various times, including in the Picard discussion and its aftermath, to jump to unjustifiable conclusions about specific comments based upon the grander sense of displeasure I was feeling. We could all use a step back and some critical self-reflection here. More words of this nature are sorely needed on all sides of this mess. Thanks, and sincerest apologies when the behavior I alluded to above involved my rash judgments about your own commentary or POV.PelleSmith (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it is indeed difficult to avoid getting rather carried away in the heat of debate, and I'm probably too cautious about saying anything when a friend whose work I respect appears to be going a bit astray. I do appreciate your concern for precise meaning, and feel sure we can work together to try to clear up the mess to everyone's satisfaction. Your words are much appreciated, .. dave souza, talk22:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I want to echo some of what Pelle said. The diff he gave and your statement here both mean a lot to me. I hope we can repair our communication so we can continue trying to resolve our differences. Demonstrations of good faith can be very valuable here, and I hope I can reciprocate what you've started, regardless of any disagreements we have. Gnixon (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I wanted to say thanks for the open mind you've kept throughout all these discussions (you know which ones). I'm sure it'll help in the long run. giggy(:O)11:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, it seems SirFozzie has already changed protection level. Not sure what you mean, see AN/I for discussion. .. dave souza, talk08:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that intelligent design is written from a non-neutral point of view, and more importantly, some articles on its proponents give undue weight to their errors. It is also my opinion that all of the alleged conduct issues surrounding the editors are related to content. Am I the only one who believes this?
Let's close this RFC and take it to formal mediation. I think the only aspects of this dispute worth "hours of editor time" are "Is the intelligent design article written from a neutral point of view? If not, how shall we fix it?" and "Do the intelligent design-related BLPs give undue weight to negative information about the article subjects? If yes, is that a problem?"
Bwrs (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The ID article itself has been severely tested and obviously is still subject of continuing discussions to comply fully with NPOV: Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ policies, as well as the guidance of WP:FRINGE. These apply to all articles, and mean that the mainstream view is clearly shown when describing fringe or pseudoscience viewpoints. In the biography you cite, at the end of last year the person concerned made it clear that she is not a proponent of ID, but her views appear to be fringe, and her name is still being used to promote ID anti-evolution. Complex situations which are best discussed on each article's talk page. Where proponents are notable for their fringe views, the mainstream view of these views is shown. Ideally this will come over as neutral in the Wikipedia sense, but it is unlikely to be as sympathetic as supporters of the subject would like. WP:BLP requires us to take particular care with sourcing any information that might be seen as negative, but articles still have to be reasonably informative in themselves and unbalanced flattery is clearly inappropriate. Obviously the exact balance in each case is a value judgement, and editors' opinions on where to draw the line will vary. If agreement can't be reached about specific issues on talk pages, mediation provides an option, but I think the area of disagreement has to be adequately defined. . dave souza, talk16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Your user page top code
I saw the top gimmick on the top of your userpage, the replication of your username. And I went to look at the code, it seems very complicated and there is absolutely no way I can memorize it. How did you do it? Chimeric Glider (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone did it for me! This sort of cleverness is completely beyond me, and if I recall correctly the editor who did it has departed. Sorry not to be more help! . . dave souza, talk16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to comment on the same thing because the gadget doesn't display correctly in Internet Explorer and Opera. I also wonder what the effect of high resolutions will be on it (I'm using an old LCD screen with a maximum resolution of 1024x768). Perhaps you should take a look at my version. I've tried it in every browser on different computers on every possible resolution, and it works good. Well, sorry for this blatant advertisement ;-). Cheers, Face19:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Moulton pages
Hi Dave. I understand Moulton's user pages were deleted because they revealed a user's identity, however I'm concerned that this eliminates some useful evidence in the ID discussions. Particularly, User_talk:Moulton/Answers is now redlinked at the ID RfC talk page. Would you have any objection to me linking this archival version instead? It may have been redacted, as I can't find any mention of the user's identity there. I'm also concerned that the evidence Filll linked to has been deleted, but I hesitate to contact FM about it directly. Gnixon (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I found a copy of FM's evidence that was linked to by Filll, but I haven't looked through that page to see if it reveals personal info. Gnixon (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
A big difference is that Moulton has steadfastly rejected the principle of anonymity of everyone on the internet and Wikipedia, including himself. He has been very open repeatedly about his name and other personal details. However, I and the other editors I know have not repeated this information that Moulton has revealed about himself. If he wants to advertise his personal details that is fine, but I personally do not think it is a good idea and I decline to assist him in this effort of advertising his personal information on the internet and Wikipedia if I can avoid it. That does not mean that links that are necessary to discuss Moulton's activities will always be devoid of this sort of information, because of his irresponsible wantonly cavalier attitude.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You have a right to have your anonymity protected to whatever extent is reasonably consistent with your preferences and behavior. Thus I don't think we should link to material that gives your name as discovered through emails. Is the material above okay in that respect? Gnixon (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Filll, can you please link me to where Moulton revealed his full name on Wikipedia? Because it is my understanding that it first appeared on a subpage of FeloniousMonk's userspace, which has now been deleted, placed there by FM, not Moulton. Certainly I could be mistaken, however, so would appreciate your assistance in this matter, as you seem to be fully aware of such things. LaraLove|Talk01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts are that this isn't information I put up, and so I'm not in a position to authorise its restoration. Not sure who's the authority on these things, sorry can't be much help here. . dave souza, talk16:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection, Moulton has repeatedly linked to his blog where he reveals his name, or to his Wikipedia Review posts where he reveals his name, or to articles of his where he reveals his name. I believe that Moulton has also directly posted his name in late summer of 2007 on Wikipedia. I also found this post that revealed his name: [7]. I am sure there might be many others if a person was willing to diligently search out all the potential posts and links on Wikipedia since Moulton has never made a secret of this. I challenge anyone to show me any post or writing by Moulton where he has claimed or even suggested that this is a secret or should be treated as as secret.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dave. Thanks for this comment. I have concerns over Firefly's editing over a large number of articles (generally on very old and apparently obscure books relating to Science & Religion) that he is creating. Given my past history with him, and the results of my one attempt to point out the deficiencies of one of them (Science & Religion: A Symposium), I think that any further intervention on my part would simply throw gasoline on the fire. Could you (or some other editor who is less blunt/curt/acerbic than myself) take a look at them to see if there is some way to suggest to Firefly that they might be turned into something more than unencyclopedic and uninformative lists of (and quotes from) reviews, that generally do not even explain what the books are about? The articles to date are:
Looking back still further, he also appears to have created a number of stubs on academics, with no indication as to why they meet WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria:
Aydin Sayili (over which I've also tussled with him)
At least some of these books/authors are probably notable -- but their 'shotgun' creation without establishing notability is bad practice -- as would be the 'shotgun' AfDing of them all, which currently would appear to be the only way of forcing editors to establish their notability. HrafnTalkStalk08:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Ludwig, etc.
Dave, I've struck my comment temporarily, in response to your request, until I have a chance to review things. You could help me with that task. I'm having trouble getting past this post, which seems incredibly condescending toward Ludwig, whose posts (it seems to me) were intelligent and articulate, and never obviously inconsistent with any policy. Can you explain? I can understand to some extent if you had "limited time" to read carefully what he said, but especially in that case, isn't it rude to be so dismissive? I'd be happy to discuss with you by email if you think privacy would help keep this conversation constructive. Gnixon (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Gnixon, you're welcome to discuss my actions, but any accusation or implication of dishonesty is a personal attack. I'm disappointed that you don't seem to understand that.
My post that you're having difficulty getting past was a sincere attempt to impress on Ludwig that unsourced original research cannot be accepted. To achieve his aims, he must comply with WP:TALK and meet verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."
My "limited time" enabled me to read carefully what he said, sufficiently to see that it was unsourced original research and included factual errors. It did not allow me to provide a detailed critique of his speculative arguments, and indeed that is not what talk pages are for. Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; that is somewhat helpful. Given that we've been able to converse in the past with a reasonable level of civility, perhaps I should have brought my concerns directly to you before posting them more publicly. Along those lines, can you see how your post could have seemed condescending? Note how Ludwig said he thought
"a good number of people are sore because they feel they haven't been heard, and a whole lot of others are unwilling to listen because they're sore over having to argue for everything,"
to which you echoed
"a good number of people are sore because they don't understand Wikipedia's core policies, and don't want to understand these policies."
Ludwig has said (ID RfC talk) he thought it was a bit "snarky," and I agree---I'm reminded of when you replied to a serious question of mine with "Surely we should 'teach the controversy;'" I also recall that you've made similar comments toward others that I thought were deliberately derisive. I can understand if you made those comments out of frustration---my own was at a high level when I posted about "dishonesty"---but can you see why they seem inappropriate to me? Gnixon (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I should clarify, as I did to KillerChihuaha, that I was accusing you of using dishonest debate tactics, not of being a "liar." That accusation is not a personal attack, and if accurate, is entirely fair. I apologize that my comments came off as more personal than they should have---I admit I was worked up. In any case, as I said at the RfC talk, I'm in the process of re-evaluating that accusation out of respect for your generally calm demeanor. Gnixon (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to keep this conversation between Dave and myself. If you'd like to discuss the issue with me, let's do it on my talk page. Gnixon (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Gnixon, I'm in the middle of a respite break just now and have not had the time to give this the careful consideration I think it merits. The fact that you have struck the comments is appreciated, though your comment at that time looks a bit like a non-apology apology, and evidently you're awaiting the outcome of this discussion before going further.[9] My request is simply that you withdraw any implication or suggestion that I have acted dishonestly, and accusing me of "using dishonest debate tactics" clearly carries that implication. . . dave souza, talk03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I may feel a break coming for myself. It's true my intention was to strike the comments without yet apologizing for or defending them, in order that I might have time to give them due consideration. I'm hopeful that a conversation with you might resolve things to our mutual satisfaction. If you prefer me to resolve the ambiguity before we can talk, I'll do so as best I can in good faith.
My feeling about the so-called "carpet-bombing" has softened upon review, but it's tangled up with frustration over people tarring their opponents with abbreviated policies like WP:DE, WP:OR, and WP:NPA, which seems to "soften the battlefield" for later attempts to have them blocked. On a related issue, I'm not "sensitive" to incivility per se, but I've become quite sensitive to smear tactics because they can be such an effective tool for marginalizing ones opponents in this medium. When I complained about being called a "whiny little creationist," I was angry about being smeared as a (POV-pushing) creationist at evolution-related pages. Being called "whiny" just made my eyes roll.
I've also become sensitive to people crying "personal attack" at every opportunity. In retrospect, I don't think you were using "personal attack" as a tactic, but at the time I was pretty worked up, and the shoe seemed to fit. Most importantly, neither of those things ("dishonest" and Orangemarlin) were intended as personal attacks. The "non-apology apology" came about because I realized my post about you sounded more personal than it should have, yet I wasn't ready to retract the accusation that you were being intellectually dishonest. Calling you a "dirty liar" which I don't intend to imply would be a personal attack (an attack on your character); accusing you of improper behavior is something else.
What I should have done was to come to you and say, "Hey, Dave, you can't do that. It's intellectually dishonest to "help" a new user by linking a bunch of policies in a way that (a) makes him feel less welcome at the page and (b) suggests to others that his comments can be dismissed." You could have assured me your posts were sincere, perhaps accusing me of WP:ABF (also not a personal attack), and we could have worked through the issue.
I said "hogwash" to make sure you understood the offense I took at having my Orangemarlin post labeled a personal attack (the second such offense from you in quick succession). My intent wasn't to attack Orangemarlin's character, but to caution the community about trusting his promises. My anger stemmed from the impression that you were attempting to deflect attention from my valid points with a specious allegation of "personal attack." I was particularly frustrated because I had taken pains to express my sincere appreciation of his statement. It's true that I could have interpreted past events more charitably toward Orangemarlin (failures instead of insincerities), but it hardly would have altered the thrust of my post. I retract the interpretation that OM was insincere, since I've not disproven that he failed to abide by sincere promises. However, I maintain my warning to the community that Orangemarlin has broken prior promises to reform his behavior, and I maintain that the concept of "voluntary cessation" bears careful consideration.
It has to be possible to accuse others of improper behavior, when necessary, without necessarily being guilty of a personal attack. I think we can agree it's proper to point out bad behavior when one perceives it to be relevant. We can also agree that I should have done a better job avoiding personalizing those two accusations.
I see I haven't directly responded to your request. Will you indulge me by assuring me that the post I referred to as "carpet-bombing" was sincerely intended to help a new user, not to tell him to "buzz off" or suggest to others that his comments could be dismissed? If so, I'll immediately remove any suggestion of dishonesty, with apologies, and we can continue discussions at our leisure.
This is now a much longer post than I originally intended, and it's rather late, so know that I'm hitting "save page" without looking carefully back over it. Gnixon (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack??
Regarding this post, which I just noticed: hogwash. Identify for me the "personal attack" in what I wrote, wherein I sincerely praised OM's statement before pointing out the fact that he has failed to follow through on past promises to remain civil. Gnixon (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, please let me keep this conversation between Dave and myself. We can talk about this separately on my talk page if you like. Gnixon (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
For one so sensitive to any hint of incivility, Gnixon, your abrupt statement of "hogwash" appears rather sarcastic. However, it's been pointed out to me that there's no rule against sarcasm, so no problem there. I do not doubt your sincerity or honesty, and your failure to meet the standards you've set for civility simply shows the normal human failings which we all have. In the same way, OM's past failings to meet his expressed aims does not show in any way that he was insincere when expressing those aims. Your accusation of insincerity was a direct attack on his character, and although it has now been deleted along with the rest of the proceedings, an expression that you retract that accusation would be appreciated. . .. dave souza, talk03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Gnixon, you have used every means possible to demean and insult me--I might deserve some of it, but you have crossed the line of civility. Your comments above are typical of your continued uncivility, with the "I'll be nice, but really mean at the same time" type of commentary. I don't know why you are so obsessed with me, and frankly I don't care why because you are irrelevant to my life. However, you have moved on to insulting other editors like dave souza. Dave is probably one of the most fair individuals on this project, and even though I see eye-to-eye with him on several key issues, he has reprimanded me publicly for my behavior. I am mature and profession enough that I don't whine to him about what his pointed warnings, I just take his advice and move on. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to keep this conversation between Dave and myself. I'm sorry it necessarily involves talking about you. We can discuss it on my page if you like. Gnixon (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, dude, but if you want privacy, email him. Unless there is a specific rule about others getting involved in this conversation, especially when you have unnecessarily attacked me personally, I will remain involved. If Dave says to me "leave", I will. Thanks for answering. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Henry Huxley
If you can spare time, please give your opinion on the THH talk page!
A user has deleted the 'Quotes' section near the end of Thomas Henry Huxley, and I would like some opinions on this. The content is listed on the Talk:Thomas Henry Huxley page (section 18).
Obviously, such a section is unusual, but there are good reasons for having it in the case of THH. It improves the biography by making it easier to understand the man: this would not be true of most scientists, but it is true of Huxley. I don't think it contravenes the 'Wikipedia is not a directory' policy, and if it did I would argue that policy should be a guide, not an absolute. Options, it seems to me, are:
1. section deleted, as now is
2. section reinstated, as was
3. section shortened and reinstated
4. create a linked page 'Huxleyana' to put it in, flagged on the main page
5. put it in Wikiquote (I am against this, both on grounds of remoteness (being on a different system, and little used, and on grounds that Wikiquote has developed into s place for longer excerpts taken from web sources)
6. Or, are we into a more comprehensive reorg with a view to shortening the article?
Same user changed character of the Biographies section. This is a less significant change.
I did notice this, and have now added my tuppenceworth. Will comment further when time permits, thanks for the heads-up. . . dave souza, talk03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
ID
Dave - I've done a revision of the lead and overview for the ID page, here, per various requests. mostly it's shuffling things around for tone and structure, plus a couple of points I'd like to delete, and one that I'd like to repatriate, but can't quite figure out where, yet. tell me if you don't think this makes for a more neutral read. if I can get your feedback (and the feedback of the others I've copied this notice to), then I'll take it over and offer it as a suggestion on the ID page.
I know you see me as a pain in the you-know-what, and I can't really object to that, all things considered; but I do think you will give it a fair chance. --Ludwigs222:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I'll have a look at it on my return. I don't see you as a pain in anything, it's simply that concise well supported statements are the best way to put over an argument or point of view, as I've found through bitter experience! . . dave souza, talk03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notify him because I'd assume he would have ANI on watchlist. Though, to be honest, the easiest way to stop the cabalism complaints is to avoid editing the same articles as each other. When a third of the sum of all your edits are to the same pages, it does look a bit suspect. Doubly so when you seem to always support each other. Sceptre(talk)17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this situation at all. Sceptre is allowed to freely accuse you of what is essentially meatpuppetry, through the veiled criticism of being a part of a cabal. And why does he do a study of my edits? I'll bet 75% of my edits are in areas that lack any interest by any of the so-called cabal, but that's ignored. Of course, if we are looking for cabals, there are probably 10 very good editors who have joined me to clean up AIDS and Alzheimer's disease. I'm proud to be in that cabal. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing I miffed Sceptre. I'm also guessing that he thinks that the ID Cabal meme still has traction (and I'm sure it does among the contra-cabal crucifiction choir). Whatever. •Jim62sch•dissera!21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Expelled as a propaganda film
Hi. You reverted my edits removing the category Category:American propaganda films from articles about Expelled with the comment "see RSs on main talk". I'm not sure what you were telling me to look at, presumably something on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? In any case, I couldn't figure out what you wanted me to see. That talk page has 12 pages of archives, and skimming them I didn't see any sections titled RS, Reliable Source, or something else which seemed to touch on why this page should be included in the category (which, apart from this movie, includes nothing besides actual propaganda films produced during, e.g., World War II, and designed to get, e.g., Americans to buy war bonds, which is a much more restrictive use of the word "propaganda").
Anyways, please let me know what you were suggesting I look at, and I'll go look at it. In the meantime, I'll explain my case for why Expelled doesn't belong in a category about propaganda films:
Including a film in that category is telling the reader that Wikipedia says the film is a propaganda film. This is very different from the claims in the article itself, which say that prominent scientists and scientific organizations consider the film a propaganda piece. Since the scientific establishment itself is criticized by the movie, they can hardly be considered an independent source to back up a claim of fact that Expelled is propaganda. Either the category needs to include every film criticized as propaganda (which it certainly does not; for example it's not hard to find third-party sources which characterize Michael Moore's movies as propaganda), or it needs to include only films which are considered propaganda by independent experts (e.g. American WWII-era films produced by the US military). The way the category is currently being used is definitely not NPoV.
I have no problem with devoting large amounts of space in the Expelled article to criticism of the movie, evidence of deceit by the filmmakers, reports of claims that it is propaganda, as these are valid, backed up by evidence, in-line with WP:UNDUE, and encyclopedic. I have no problem with devoting large amounts of space in the article's about Michael Moore's films to critical acclaim and awards won by his films, as this is also encyclopedic. I think that this paints a fair picture of the difference between a film like Expelled (a creationist propaganda documentary with terrible production values which makes its points dishonestly, engages in deceit, quote-mining, and outright lies) and a film like Bowling for Columbine (an anti-gun propaganda documentary with excellent production values which won multiple awards). What I have a problem with is when a category of propaganda films is applied in a PoV manner, because that is not encyclopedic and undermines Wikipedia.
-- 75.21.74.124 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed a while back, numerous film critics describe the film as propaganda. The categories are there to help people find the article and not to place a value on the film, and indeed propaganda films include many excellent films, covering subjects as diverse as health issues and the post office as well as wartime films. Sources are shown in the article. If film critics describe Columbine as propaganda, take that up on that article's talk page. . . dave souza, talk23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you know where the discussion was? I couldn't find it and I think it would be helpful.
Anyways, it wasn't hard to find two prominent movie reviews of Fahrenheit 9/11 categorizing it as propaganda: LA Times, Slate (for the record, Slate is a left-leaning internet magazine). I imagine if I wanted to try a bit harder I could find similar reviews of Bowling for Columbine, although it's possible I'd have to turn to media sources with a more conservative editorial stance. But the thing is, I don't want to get any of Michael Moore's films added to the category, biased as they may be. I think the category is much better suited to films which can uncontroversially be described as propaganda, and not simply heavily biased documentaries of recent years. If you look at the subcategories and the majority of films in the category, it is clear that the purpose of the category is not to include films such as Expelled. What I think makes much more sense is to remove Expelled from the category and to establish clearer criteria for inclusion in the category so it can't be used in a PoV or PoV-pushing manner.
Originally I noticed that the category was being used in a PoV manner, and tried to make it more consistent. Then I looked on the talk page for the category, and in response to the posts there, I decided it made more sense for it to be solely used for films that can be uncontroversially labeled as propaganda films.
BTW, the citation links you added to the The intelligent design movement of that page are not working. Thought you'd like to know. -- DannyMuse (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{resolved}} and {{stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The spirit is willing but I'm rather overloaded just now, why not try announcing a cut off date on the talk page then archiving all discussions that were last edited before that date? Must archive this talk page now :-/ . . dave souza, talk19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol. I'm sure that would get some discussion going! We're doing well so far down to 65 or so and counting. We seem to be leaning towards auto-archiving the page once a thread has sat dormant for 45 days so it's all getting sorted. No worries either way. Banjeboi22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dave - Could you have a look at the article Duncan Hawthorne which was created by User:Brad Razner a few weeks ago. This user appears to have copied wholesale an article form a North American magazine. I attempted to improve the article by adding some "early years" info and section headings. Another user added the COI and advert tags, which Brad Razner keeps removing without explanation or editting the article. I am getting more reluctant to continue to revert the removal of these tags. No edit comment is being provided, or response to the comments I have added to his talk page or the article talk page. I am starting the think that this article should be deleted as breach of copyright but would welcome your thoughts on the matter. --Stewart(talk)17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've not checked the copyright issue, as there wasn't an obvious source to the relevant source or I've missed it. More significantly, all the sources seem to be effectively self-published, and the awards referred to seem to be of very dubious notability. So, I've added that question, see how it goes. . . dave souza, talk19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello dave, I understand were you are coming from, but lalans or not, I know I am Scots and not Scotch. I know we were called Scotch many moons ago, but nowadays I consider it an insult when English people call me that, on a par with Jock and sweaty sock. Jack forbes (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Nae bother, I'm well aware of the objections to "Scotch" being anything other than whisky (plus hopscotch being peevers, and butterscotch a sweetie) and for a long time have thought them rather silly, a bit of a '60s posh Scottish sort of thing. Oddly enough, my brother in law from Penicuick lived for most of his adult life in Cambridgeshire where he was called Jock and seemed well pleased with it. Don't recall them calling me that during the decade I lived in Hertfordshire, but my accent's not so strong unless ah'm pittin oan street Leith. Did get irritated at times with the common question "Yewre Scots aren't yew?" but that was because I regarded myself as British as anyone, and didn't want to be pigeonholed. Scots and British, but don't like crude stereotypes which is where the "Jock" used as an insult comes in. Such is life. . . dave souza, talk07:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave, your bias is so transparent it's strange that you can't see it. I told you in plain, clear English that the link I used was from the Richard Dawkins page, NOT original research. I encouraged you to change it to a more acceptable source, but alas you did not. It appears that you really object to the CONTENT, but were not courageous enough to state that. Shame on you. I will modify the source for you. DannyMuse (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Danny, I looked for the link but only found it on the page for The Blind Watchmaker, where I removed it. If it's on the Dawkins page, it should be removed. The original research is your interpretation of a 21 year old programme, from what I listened to, Dawkins was using the term to refer to natural selection and not to evolution as a whole. The term is used in various ways by various people, and misused in various ways by creationists. . . dave souza, talk22:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave, YOU have now reverted ME 3 times. I know you got the OrangeFish involved to screw with the numbers, but let's be honest, you are not willing to engage in civilized conversation you just want to force your opinion down the throat of anyone and everyone. That's obvious to anyone that is unbaised. Let's not be cowardly, talk to me like a man if you can and discuss this openly and honestly. My talk page or yours, either way is acceptable. VTY, DannyMuse (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You are invited...
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. DannyMuse (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on user talk:dave souza. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. DannyMuse (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in the following:
A July 18, 2008 Times-Online interview with Richard Dawkins discussed an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin", which will air in the UK on Channel 4 from August 4. In the interview, Dawkins specifically states that his film is about Darwinism.
Given Dawkins' high profile in this controversy, it should be informative to watch and see how he currently uses the terms: Darwinism, evolution and natural-selection. Enjoy! - DannyMuse (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the heads-up. I'd probably have missed it as I'm rather allergic to adverts and didn't even realise that there are two Channel 4s now. Interestingly, the title now appears to be The Genius of Charles Darwin. So that's the viddy set, something to look forward to. . . dave souza, talk19:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Did they change the title? It seems that way!?! Since I'm here in the outlands, I guess I'll have to wait for it on YouTube or wait for the DVD release.
BTW, I watched a clip of the show on Richard Dawkins' page and it both begins and ends discussing "evolution". Not surprising, but the association is interesting to note. -- DannyMuse (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Statement Section
No problem, I just don't like "criticism sections". If someone can check out the other sources, there's probably a fair amount of positive stuff about him in these stories. . . dave souza, talk23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
