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.
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)
I think our friend Fila / Farlack / etc has reappeared. I was not sure for a while and the behaviour was more restrained, however there have been warnings given of late in the talk page. The user has also requested for Admin status, which has been terminated as present. Given the history I feel he should be watched. There is nothing as serious as earlier in the year. I have posted a message on his talk page. I would appreciate you keeping a watching brief here. Many thanks. --Stewart(talk)19:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added my own friendly word of advice and the page is now on my watchlist, but can't guarantee to keep him under any scrutiny, so it'll be a great help if you can let me know if things seem to be getting out of hand. Thanks again, dave souza, talk19:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I really hope I won't have to. You've been given good advice, and in particular if you remember to find and show good verification for any changes you want to make, you'll do fine. Hope to see you around for a long time, making good contributions. All the best, dave souza, talk11:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Dave souza, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA, and I very much appreciated your suggestion regarding Q7. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Look forward to seeing you around, and feel free to get in touch if you think I can assist with anything, though I'm sure you'll do just fine. . . dave souza, talk18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, that looks more sensible than blethering about it on OM"s talk page. As always, extreme politeness and care is a good idea when trying to get some traction. You say on OM's talk that Flavius Vanillus was a very good editor whose diffs you frequently use as reference sources, I'd be interested to see a diff other than the one edit made by an open proxy. No commitment that I'm going to spend any significant amount of time on this issue, I've got an anniversary to deal with, but it's interesting enough to have a quick look. Thanks, dave souza, talk21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I have recorded nearly all Flavius' comments on another site. Feel free to read through. It's long (10 months of prolific editing) but it is rewarding as he is a witty and entertaining editor. Also (more to the point) very informed about the subject and would be a useful contributor if ever could be enticed back. I'm not sure he would come back but he should be offered a posthumous pardon, in my view. Peter Damian (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Due to my concerns about the use of the category generally, which was sparked by the inclusion of Expelled, I started a discussion on it here under categories for discussion. Since I know you feel strongly about the inclusion of Expelled in this category, I wanted to give you a heads up, and encourage you to participate in the debate. skeptical scientist (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Lying accusation
<undent> Cla, while I'm willing to believe that this accusation was made in the heat of the moment, it's clearly a personal attack on an editor's integrity and grossly uncivil, as well as being an obvious failure to assume good faith. Your response does nothing to correct that incivility, so I strongly urge you to strike that original accusation and add a statement that you accept that JoshuaZ made an error in good faith. . . dave souza, talk21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If it was the only instance of lying, then you would be right that my reaction was too strong. Unfortunately, however, there's a history. Here [2], on Wikien, he states, "Spend too much time on WR and you'll forget what these people have tried to do to Wikipedia and the lives they've ruined in the process." Whose "lives" have been ruined? If you prefer the term gross exaggeration, that's an example of another one. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this user is sailing close to the wind. He is threatening Breadandcheese with being block for reverting the edits regarding the the location of Edinburgh. Might be worth you prompting him that this is not the behaviour that we are expecting from him. --Stewart(talk)08:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have reverted a few of this user's unexplained edits over at Balmoral Hotel, and have removed a number of comments of his from my talk page per WP:NPA, including a rather cheerful of a lynching. Can't say I'm particularly bothered by it, but just thought I'd let you know. --Breadandcheese (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, it's a tedious nuisance and the user will have to start behaving in a properly civil manner. . . dave souza, talk20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The is trolling. Please block him. He refers England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "subnational" (which is wrong) and is removing flags per WP:FLAGS (which is nonsense with subnational because Ohio is a subnation England is not). 89.242.19.188 (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Are 46 citations to the topic (a book)'s own index excessive?
Silly question I know, but User:Firefly322's latest effort, Issues in Science and Religion really takes the cake. What does one do when an incredibly thin-skinned editor insists on repeatedly creating incredibly badly written articles on topics that in many cases would survive an AfD (as their topics meet the bare minimum of WP:NOTE), but contain little if any useful information? I don't see how the creation of such articles is in violation of policy (though his incendiary defences of them against attempt at correction of their deficiencies often are), but nor do I see such articles doing more than cluttering up wikipedia. HrafnTalkStalk11:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It's actually an interesting topic, so I've added a request to improve the article so that it actually tells us something more about the book than just the index. No doubt there'll be a response. . . dave souza, talk14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Dave - This user has been indiscriminately uploading railway related images from geograph in a wholesale manner. The images are not always apporpriate to the article.
He deleted the comment I put on his talk page and ignore the issues I raised. I have put the comment back and expanded it, stating that I was going to refer the issue to an Admin. Could you take a look at his activity and let me know if my concern is real or imagined. --Stewart(talk)20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the images look pretty good, while others are of very dubious relevance. I've tried a suggestion, more discussion on article talk pages about how and when to use images could be a good way forward. . . dave souza, talk08:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!
Would it be appropriate to speedy-template User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal as an WP:Attack page? It certainly seems to meet the "list of everything bad that some user ever did" prohibition in that policy. Further, the contents of it (content and civility disputes) seem to be specifically excluded by AN/I's "Are you in the right place?" header, the page contains little in the way of difs substantiating her accusations (which generally likewise have no basis in policy) -- rendering it unusable in any dispute resolution forum, nor does she appear to have any intention of doing anything with it in the near future, other than continue collecting spurious "evidence" (as can be seen at User talk:Catherineyronwode#Dispute and legal threat. I don't want to further inflame matters, but see no good coming from allowing its continued existence. HrafnTalkStalk11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Such a nomination would quickly lead to wails of "help, help, I'm being suppressed" and her list is so bad that it seems more likely to damage her reputation rather than anything else if it's put into a dispute resolution procedure. However, the idea of repeatedly waving it about at AN/I is a bad one. What do you think of me trying to point that out to her and inviting her to delete it herself rather than going through the deletion procedure? She's likely to continue to waste her time in private, but guess that's probably better. . . dave souza, talk12:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You can try, but I sincerely doubt if it'll have any effect. She appears to consider any contact whatsoever with me to be evidence of involvement in some evil conspiracy, as evidenced by her comments about yourself, Orangemarlin & Jim62sch on that page. I suspect she'll consider any action short of burning me at the stake to be 'suppression' of her grievances. Additionally, we already have Firefly322 bringing up the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society, so I rather doubt if it's going to go away or die down of its own accord. HrafnTalkStalk14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've tried some tact and diplomacy,[6] and if that gets an uncooperative response, tagging it for deletion will be appropriate. . . dave souza, talk14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, found a couple of articles I'd contributed to, and left a comment. The joys of having articles and talk pages on your watchlist :-/ dave souza, talk22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you know anything about this, but is the 'T. W. Wood' artist in books by Darwin and Wallace (see Commons:Category:T. W. Wood) the same fella as Thomas Waterman Wood? They are both artists, and both have the same initials and surname, so it seems a pretty safe bet, although the latter is an American, so I'm not 100% sure on this. Richard001 (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, sorry to be so slow about this. A search in Darwin Online shows drawings by Wood, Thomas and some correspondence.[7] I've not been able to find any letters in the Darwin correspondence project, but their advanced search beats me. However, Darwin Online includes a couple of images, and one is of a letter with a drawing on it.[8] The address seems to be 221 Stanhope Street, Hampstead Road NW. From the Thomas Waterman Wood article he seems to have been permanently settled in New York at that time, so it seems most unlikely to be the same guy, but who can tell. Will try to keep an eye open for hints. . . dave souza, talk17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, if you read this, I don't intend this to attack you, nor do I want this talking around you/about you to be offensive. I mostly just want to mention something to Dave that could help him/help you. This came to my attention. I don't want to get into it, as it is too much to really comprehend based on its lack of structure. I just wanted to point out that Hrafn can sometimes be very aggressive on certain issues (strictly by the book) and it can cause some newer people to get upset. He is quick to demand information that might take time to produce or clarify, and people don't immediately understand that the world doesn't end if the article changes or lacks information until it can be properly sourced/verified. I tried to step between Hrafn and Irving Hexham a while back because Irvin was new and didn't understand. I hope it gave both the chance to not see each other as enemies and instead try to work together.
I am only posting this to mention that about 95% of the problems that I see result from people not understanding where Hrafn is coming from. I think a little bit of diplomacy and helping people understand the Wikipedia process before rushing right into the rules and guidelines would help them understand. When I first came to Wikipedia, people were changing things to conform to Wikipedia, and I didn't realize it. Instead, I thought they were doing it to cause harm. My feelings towards them changed immediately when I discovered what was going on. I could and probably should say more, but I can't really think right now (after trying to parse that huge thread and related material). I hope this helps. Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for writing that, a big difficulty is that we have many different cultures all trying to relate to each other with what are often rather different undestandings of English language. Hrafn can definitely be rather abrupt, but that may just be honest plain talking to him and having got over the intitial shock, I've considerable respect for his work. Catherine also appears to have a rather sharp way of writing, and seems to have been in attack mode by the time I joined in. With luck each will get used to the other's approach, and I'm hopeful that they can work well together if they remember WP:NAM :) Anyway, your comments are much appreciated. . dave souza, talk18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I realized that some of the problems is the gearing up for war on both sides (in general). In the Picard problem, I jumped in too abruptly and angrily. I softer touch would have been better. I think one of the best ways to handle problems is to tell everyone to shut up, leave it behind, put up the problems line by line, put up what the various rules say, put up the pluses and minuses of various possibilities, and trying to get it to conform to Wikipedia (and not to individual views). Controversial material has a place, and that place involves properly sourcing, citing, and stating it clearly. Primary sources have a place, which follows the same. Users need to realize that it should be individuals reacting to pages, not individuals reacting to individuals. I've chastized Moulton about his approach heavily, because I think it damaged the process by not focusing on the issues. I don't think he will come back and not fight, because he has been set in his way based on some of the influences he was under while not here. One of the problems with WR is that they breed hate instead of reform, and that the two are very different. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of the problem there is that gossip breeds lazy stereotypes which influence the way actions are perceived, and it's all to easy for all of us to jump to conclusions or base our expectations on labels we've put on people. No-one's perfect, but my feeling is that Wikipedia is at its best when editors with very different views can cooperate in arguing and finding sources to work towards reasonable NPOV, and this seems to work well on the most hotly debated topics. It can be a harsh environment, but can produce remarkably good results. Anyway, gotta go now for a bit, thanks again. . . dave souza, talk18:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
When you first responded with Guettarda over at Picard, I thought you two were the same person, because you were responding to responses I submitted to the other (sometimes happens when people rely on multiple accounts). I asked. I received two responses: 1. that you two are part of a "cabal" and 2. that I was an idiot for thinking that you could be the same person. The logical response was to say 3. that you two are part of the same project and the project was involved in the page, and that you obviously watch list the page and respond to issues that you feel confident in responding to. Instead of originally recognizing this, I lost some valuable ground fighting and bickering. I didn't think of you two as possibly being able to understand what I was thinking about, so I undermined my whole stance. Thats what people don't seem to understand. When you stereotype against people, the people stereotyped and attacked wont listen. The only way things can happen is if people listen to each other. My enemy of my enemy is not my friend, because my enemy does not actually exist. I came to Picard because I wanted to make a great page, and people don't seem to understand that such a thing should be the primary concern. If other people stand in your way, then take what you can, and move on to another area. Fighting in the trenches and acting like its some kind of epic war is just silly. I'm really bothered by some of the melodrama that seems to build up when people stop realizing that hey, we are normal people and we act like normal people. Perhaps people are too bored of reality and want to have this become some kind of fantasy land. I'm an editor and I try not to be anyone's "friend" nor their "enemy". I talk to anyone and I try to listen to everyone. Sometimes its hard to remember that. Sometimes its hard to remember that we are editors. There are a lot of people who seem to be too busy fighting. Thats probably why we need so many admin. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Caballegations
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I think "ID Cabal" is as good a term as any for putting a label on the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. From now on, I'll simply spell it out in full as "the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests". You can start Wikipedia:Banned words of Wikipedia" so that all editors become aware of the words they are not allowed to use here. --JWSurf (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
JW, as I expressed over at Wikiversity, I wish we would focus on issues and not people. Labeling individual members as the "ID Cabal" takes away from this and is equally as disruptive as the existence of one. I don't like people being labeled by others in a way they have not blatantly stated. I think it should apply equally. Black marks are black marks, and I would ask you to politely keep them off Wikipedia. Please? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that, Ottava. I don't have to start any new guidance about using words, JWSurf, the restriction on labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is covered by no personal attacks. Sorry if you find civility too onerous. I would just point out that my belief is that my work is in Wikipedia's interests and in conformity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, though of course they keep getting subtly modified. If you've a particular issue you'd like to discuss, please be specific and provide diffs, but don't think that some broad brush label says anything about me or about those I work with when editing. . . dave souza, talk18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
That's the best part. If you accuse people of being in a cabal, you don't have to provide diffs. You don't even have to do anything wrong yourself. You are discredited immediately without evidence. Ain't it great? :P Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" You are, of course, free to put your fingers in your ears when people discuss the problems of Wikipedia. If you want difs, I'd be happy to provide them. You can start here. A very experienced Wikipedia editor created a throw-away account in order to create the Picard BLP. The bulk of the BLP was copied from Picard's online professional biography. The purpose for which "Tempb" created the Picard BLP was to label Picard with "Intelligent Design Support". The statement Picard agreed with is, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Of course, the fact that Picard agreed with this statement does not mean that she is a supporter of intelligent design. However, the team of Wikipedia editors who invented this mistaken original research claim has spent years trying to keep it in Wikipedia. If you take the time, you can read the talk page "reasoning" that motivated this POV-pushing editing team. This is a good place to start. User:Hrafn states that he believes anyone who says, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" is "anti-science". Why is it anti-science? "they knew that they were expressing an opinion in contradiction to the scientific consensus". I doubt if even Hrafn believes that "expressing an opinion in contradiction to the scientific consensus" is anti-scientific, but this is the type of bogus "reasoning" that was thrown at Moulton and provided as the excuse for keeping obviously false original research in Wikipedia. Examine the edits of the team that has struggled for years to keep their false original research in Wikipedia and decide for yourself how to label them. I suppose little will change until each member of this editing team is marched before the ArbCom. one down. --JWSurf (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
(sorry for using your talk page for this Dave, but it is better than the AN right now). Okay, okay, stop, okay? Both sides. We all know that there is a wikiproject called Intelligence Design. Like all wikiprojects, members join up because they share interest, and use the projects to find related pages. This does not mean that there is anything nefarious, unless you want to consider me as part of an evil 18th century Literature cabal (apparently, there would be three of us, and we don't work together so well :) ). I think Cabal is a really poor choice of words. It implies a merging of identities which is clearly not the case, at least for group as a whole, which is implied above. The term Cabal is misused. I believe that there is some concern about the wikiproject as a whole, but I haven't seen much of more than one or two people at a time editing in a specific area, so its not as if there is an en masse swarm of 30 members attacking and destroying everything like locust. The mellow drama that comes from use of the term "cabal" is pointless. Adam Smith was allowed to use the term in his Theory of Moral Sentiments because he applied it to a very small group within literary criticism that worked as a tightnit group towards the end of promoting their own works and destroying others. Anyway, I'm losing focus and I forgot what I was going to say. It basically boiled down to the overuse of a term which could easily be applied to a "Republican cabal", a "Democrat cabal", a "US cabal", a "UK cabal", etc. Its silly. Its nonsensical. And it avoids any complaint that could be made. Lets focus on specifics people. Lets not turn into rabid conspiracy theories.
JW, the term is in poor taste. If you have a complaint, make the complaint about individual pieces. Focus on editing. Don't treat it as "us vs the cabal". Too often, you'd enter into a Quixotic state in which you are busy tilting at windmills. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Dave souza: You seem to have stopped talking to me in the original discussion thread about Moulton. In that thread you said, "Labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack". As a scientist I use labels with care: as a means of communicating efficiently. In this case, I have stated that my goal is to draw attention to the edit history, not dismiss someone's views. An accurate description of the history of bad editing by a group of editors who came into conflict with Moulton (in this case, editing that violated Wikipedia BLP policy) is not a personal attack. My description of the editing history related to the blocking of Moulton is part of a good faith effort to draw attention to a problem in order to repair the damage and prevent similar problems in the future. I did not originally know the depth of antipathy towards the term/label/name that I used to refer to the group of editors who came into conflict with Moulton. I've agreed to stop using the label that has been objected to. Maybe you feel so strongly about this label that you want to remove it from my original discussion thread post. Feel free to do so. I have no particular attachment to the term beyond the fact that everyone seems to know what it means and I know of no existing alternative term for me to use in order to discuss the group of editors who came into conflict with Moulton. --JWSurf (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
How do you define that group? "In conflict with Moulton" could be those who certified the Rfc; those who supported the block; all Wikipedia editors; be specific. What "bad editing"? On the Picard article, which many of those you have attacked never even edited? Moulton's page, including those who tried to help him? Seriously, think this through, If you are going to gorup people together logically you must decide what the defining factor, or factors, is or are. KillerChihuahua?!?21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your agreement to stop using the objectionable label, JWSurf, that's very decent of you and I can appreciate that the problems with it may not have been apparent to you before our discussion. As KC says, defining vague groups isn't straightforward, and really it's best to be specific about the situation rather than lumping people together just because they took part in one incident. In a similar way, some editors who discuss things on Wikipedia Review took part in some of the discussions and editing of the Picard article, but a very diverse group of people chat at WR and it's completely wrong to label them as though they're a hive mind. It can make things look more complex, and humans are great at producing simplified approximations to model reality, but in the cases we're discussing reality is far too complex to fit with a simple label or two. As you'll appreciate I don't think our perceptions of the Picard story are the same, and in terms of repairing damage, the current consensus has been agreed with a wide range of editors. Obviously opinions will vary on just what to include and exclude from such articles, and BLP policy is always open to discussion about a change in the consensus as to what is permissible. However, these are things to discuss on the appropriate talk pages and not here. As for removing the label from that particular post, it will be archived soon enough and there are many earlier examples so I don't think that's necessary. However, the offer is much appreciated. Thanks again, dave souza, talk22:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
On deleting unsourced claims
At WikiVersity, Jon Awbrey used a phrase I did not know the meaning of; so I looked it up and read Kleene star. The article has no external links and no sources and no footnotes. Should I delete it? Should someone place a fact tag after each claim? This is common among our math articles. Perhaps Jon used a sock to create a hoax math article? I think we should not delete all unsourced claims. I think we should only delete claims that we have a reasonable suspicion of being false. I do not have a reasonable suspicion that any claim in this article is false. What do you think? WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
See WP:V. Try looking for sources, and add such reliable references as you can find. If you can't find any, put an unreferenced tag on the article for a reasonable time, but balance the delay before RfD against the policy that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. . . dave souza, talk09:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
We appear to agree on the proper approach. I saw no evidence that this approach was used in the deletion of large amounts of encyclopedic religious data. Instead there was an appearance of gaming the system. I could be wrong about that; and in fact I assume that he sometimes followed the correct procedure as you outlined above (the trying to find sources is the key part). People should edit stuff they have knowledge about. Otherwise often one does not know where to look for data; nor know which sources are reliable. When people edit things they have contempt for, the appearance of gaming the system is almost ensured because they will think they have reasonable suspicion that the claims are false with very little effort put into a search for confirming data. Perhaps something like that occurred. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Diffs please. What I've seen is articles which have been tagged as needing sources for the best part of a year being scrutinised and put up for deletion after no reliable sources could be found. When I've checked and found sources, I've added them and debated the significance of the sources, but some are extremely marginal subjects with the only sources that could be found being selfpublished, incidental passing mentions, or brief mentions in selfpublished sources from other unreliable non-notable organisations. Hrafn, in my opinion, put a lot of effort into finding and evaluating sources. Cat's evidence is very unreliable. . . dave souza, talk10:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn mentions some redirected articles that have since been reverted and sourced showing that the problem may be that unfamiliarity with the subject led to them not knowing where to look for sources. If one adds a request for sources on too many claims all at once, people will simply not be able to provide the sources in a short time. This is what is claimed. Having dealt with this group of friends in the past, I believe the claim. But you generally impress me as an unbiased person, so your claim to the opposite deserves respect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
If you have a good look at the history of the articles presented as examples in that RfC you'll find that the descriptions are simply wrong, at least in the ones I've looked at and I don't claim to have examined them all. Claims have to be carefully checked. As it happens, I've just been looking at Talk:J. C. Massee and you might find the discussions there illuminating. . . dave souza, talk11:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if you read the section above this you'll notice that it's not a good idea to work on assumptions based on vague labels. Past experience may justify a critical and careful examination of work or statements, but it doesn't justify assuming bad faith and not doing that examination or making judgements without asking to find out the defence case. Obviously, I don't think my friends are as bad as they're painted. . . dave souza, talk11:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop abusing Popper and don't re-add this section into the article. The source you use is incompetent. Popper strongly disagreed with naturalism; in fact, his whole work initially developed as an opposition to naturalism and positivism. PS: I actually read the works of Popper. Did you? --rtc (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, Rtc, I've restored the info and templated the IP for vandalistic removal of properly sourced information. You're not a reliable source, TOA is recognised as a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The IP was me, I forgot to login. Did you read, for example, the article "Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status" in its entirity and not merely the quotations that were taken out of context? In this article, Popper does not, as the title and the quotation suggests, merely discuss whether natural selection "is" a scientific theory or not, but he discusses the underlying problems of why species look created, and that he agrees with the creationists that naturalism shows its failure here, and he explains why he thinks this is so (according to Popper, the species are created to a large degree, however not the way creationism claims they are. The creator is merely the species themselves as they existed yesterday, and evolution to higher species is partly a byproduct of their active problem solving by trial and error; apart from that he thinks that as far the interplay between mutation and natural selection is concerned, naturalists get it quite wrong, see "evolution and the tree of knowledge" on that issue, you can find it in the book objective knowledge). And did you read "In Search of a Better World", chapter 1 "Knowledge and the shaping of reality" where Popper sharply criticizes the naturalistic dogma of the "selfish gene"? Did you read "Knowledge and the Body-mind Problem" where Popper further develops this view on evolution, and where he calls it "the spearhead theory of evolution"? On the issue of god: did you read "popper on god, the lost interview", where he speaks out against "arrogant" (as he calls it) atheism? The section, as it is, is not wrong (how can it be if consisting almost entirely of quotations), but heavily biased and suggestive. It is suggestive because of what it does not say, because of ignoring all the work of Popper on evolution and because of not descibing his views, but only the (compared to the rest) irrelevant fact that Popper thinks that natural selection is a scientific theory. If these facts are improbable to you, you should put your understanding of Popper to the test and you should read his works. If you also want to read a secondary source, I recommend "The use and abuse of Sir Karl Popper" in J. Biology and Philosophy. I generally recommend you to read more journals and books instead of relying on amateurish talk.origins archive websites. TOA is not a reliable source, it is a naturalist think tank and not any better than a creationist website. --rtc (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So what should I see in there? Neither may one write something into the article merely because one has a source for it (for example, if talk.origins describes Popper's views poorly and incompletely, it is not a good source to use), nor does one need to cite a source for every claim one makes (if it is knowlede you can find in the standard works on the topic without effort, it's not necessary to make a citation after each such claim). From what I have told you above you can easily check what I said. Please don't justify keeping the section of the article with a false interpretation of these policies. --rtc (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you please also stay away from Critical rationalism if you are incompetent about the subject? Just because Critical rationalism sounds bizarre to naturalists such as you, it does not mean it's incorrectly described. Please read The Logic of Scientific Discovery, where Popper stresses ad nauseum that it is the least probable theory that has to be preferred. you should especially read footnote *2 in section 43. It is not necessary either to source every statement of the article. These things are standard knowledge on the subject and can be seen by reading the basic works. Just because critical rationalism is different from what most people believe does not mean we have to put a reference after every sentence. --rtc (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
See, it's not my first edit on wikipedia, and I have read these policies. I know what they mean. Would you please give a real argument? --rtc (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
He once denied that some anonymous edits that I believed were his could have been made by him, by leaving me an anonymous message using a different IP address. He has now admitted that he has a dynamic IP address. Thanks. –Signalhead< T >22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
All the edits from the anon were to do with this, including personal attacks, so I've given it a brief block, and have given IBW some advice. No doubt you'll keep in touch. One thing I noticed was that the info IBW added which has been kept is unreferenced, and referencing for the article could be improved. . dave souza, talk09:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The so called 'history' consists of a single disgreement over an article some time ago. A more recent article edit has hardly been within the scope of a problem as most of my edit stood with some relatively minor corrections by signalhead. However Signalhead does appear to have attitude problem with edits made to his articles as the nature of his edits and comments are vitriolic at best. The Wikipedia premise is that if you don't like your articles edited mercilessly - don't contribute. It says so at the bottom of this very page. Signalhead does not seem to be able to cope with that. In fact his comment above suggests that including info that he deems to be wrong is some kind of Wikipedia crime.
It is hard to avoid edit wars on an open forum such as this, but I have probably endured more vitriol from Signalhead in two edits than I have endured in the rest of Wikipedia put together. That he is having a problem with another user comes as no surprise. I B Wright (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced information can be aggressively deleted, per WP:V, and the way to resolve things is talk page discussion, not a succession of IP socks. You're aware of the report on alleged sockpuppetry, don't do it. . dave souza, talk11:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the report, and as I have responded to Signalhead, it is tenuous at best. Signalhead seems to be persuing a vendetta against someone else he has had a problem with and somehow assumed it's me. As I have pointed out the response to the nature of the edit conflict (if you could call it that) is hardly proportionate. I B Wright (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Dave, what do you make of this? User:I B Wright claims to have received "an email from Wikipedia" [9]
regarding a matter of Wikipedia policy. The whole thing seems made up to me. For one thing, the
statement that "It is completely unacceptable for a user to just delete material that he or she disagrees with" contradicts WP:Verifiability which says that "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" (as you've stated above). This user is becoming increasingly nasty in his crusade to discredit me, while his sockpuppetry case is still pending. –Signalhead< T >18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
VirtualSteve has given a sensible response to the "vandalism" allegations,[10] these accusations should sink there but obviously keep a watch out to see if any attempt is made to find diffs which need explaining. The purported email looks most unlikely, and as you say it seems to reflect I B Wright's misunderstanding of WP:V and of the need for talk page consensus. The comments on your talk page look as though they're verging on harassment, and can be reported as such if they resume. Let me know if that happens . . dave souza, talk19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I've taken your comments into consideration and revised my earlier statement. Please address Mange01's arguments directly and leave my editorial comments in place. Feel free to disagree. DannyMuse (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I just finished reading your reference to WP:OWB (item 17). Are you insinuating that I am a jerk? Wouldn't that be a personal attack? Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite?
How 'bout you take some of the advice that you are so liberal in dispensing in an unsolicited manner. Whilst you're chewing on that may I suggest you go review #11. #19 is good too! - DannyMuse (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I made a simple removal, which falsely referred to Creation Research Society 's creationist publication as peer-reviewed. Then User:Christian Skeptic immediately reverted it and wrote long diatribes claiming "evolution isn't science" and very rude responses to my subsequent replies. I dug a little deeper (see his talk page) and realized he wrote an article in that publication and is a member of the group. I believe that is a WP:COI.
I just wanted to bring this to your attention because I noticed you have had trouble with this editor to and maybe he has been violating COI on those articles. Something to keep an eye on. Best. We66er (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've posted a reminder about policies and a link. Haven't put too much emphasis on the COI yet, but it's interesting that he is pre-committed to a creationist belief that all of the Bible's "assertions are historically and scientifically true". As if we hadn't guessed. . dave souza, talk20:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you have another look at the page? I'm getting attacked by that editor, who for the record has no clue about my education level. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between a RS and his own opinion. He's confusing wikipedia for a forum and as of late has been very nasty. We66er (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
To Blog or Not to Blog (Reliable Sourcing Issue)
Dave, would you mind taking a look at this. It's been pointed out by many different editors on the DB talk page that blogs are NOT reliable sources and yet we've got an editor that wants to insist on using them as sources. Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, Danny. I notice that Odd nature has made the case that there's more to the use of these sources than you suggest, so will keep an eye on the situation. . . dave souza, talk08:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Glad your monitoring the situation. I completely disagree with Odd Nature's opinion. Also, I contend that this type of behavior only substantiates my claim that there are editors working in this area that are frequently guilty of Wikilawyering, misapplying and twisting WikiPolicy to suit there POV. On 9/25/08, Jim62 wrote that, "blogs are rarely considered to be good sources" and made the observation of hypocritical editing practice by stating "unless of course they cite them, then somehow they are. No one knows how this works, it just is. (See the article David Berlinski, search for "Cows into Whales, Sandwalk")." To test the waters, I removed the blog citations on that page. Now you see what happens. Have you read those blogs? In spite of the fact that the use of them as sources is contrary to WikiPolicy as I have explained on the DB Talk Page, they are really un-encyclopedic and un-scientific. Moran calls Berlinksi an IDiot then says, "cows didn't evolve into whales." Duh, Berlinksi doesn't believe that. He was using an illustration!
I'm calling for sources in keeping with WikiPolicy, encyclopedic standards and a sense of decorum. I for one cannot understand why that meets with any resistance at all, let alone the reaction that it invariably causes. Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Danny, but as ON points out, not all "blogs" are equal. Regrettably anniversary commitments prevent me from getting involved in greater detail right now, but trust that a suitable consensus will be reached. Will try to review it when time permits. . . dave souza, talk19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Your wedding anniversary? How many years? In the meantime, get to those commitments and enjoy yourself. What on earth are you doing wasting time here!!! - DannyMuse (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
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.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Mar castle 1991.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Mar castle 1991.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Mar castle 1991.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a polite note to say that I disagree with your block of Amwestover(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). His reverts were to remove scurrilous material of dubious relevance from a biography; the fact that he didn't have sufficient wikipedia experience to know that he could assert that his edits were exempt from the three-revert-rule does not mean that the exemption should not have been granted him. His basic understanding, that we don't write tabloid newspaper articles on living people, is in the spirit of WP:BLP even if he cannot quote the letter. CIreland (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, my reasoning was set out at AN/3RR and you will have noted that the block had expired by the time you expressed your opinion here. . dave souza, talk08:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying: Yes, I realise that the block had expired; I also, whilst disagreeing with the block, view it as simply a legitimate difference of opinion. I'm not, by any stretch, calling for your head or anything, I just wanted to make you aware that the block was not uncontroversial. CIreland (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You commented twice to that AfD using much the same text - presumably one of them should be stricken? The debate was just opened yesterday, so no rush. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, thanks for the heads-up. My original comment was essentially a response to other comments after a brief look at the article, then I wasn't sure where to put my "Delete" statement after a detailed search for sources, and pasted twice by accident. Hope that's clearer now, thanks again, dave souza, talk15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
NOR
I posted some proposals for the policy, some in reaction to changes that seem to have crept in over the past year, on the talk page - perhaps you would want to comment? Slrubenstein | Talk16:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Dave, thanks for all of your points, I appreciate them. I agree in general about your point concerning discretion. I do think it is very common to provide information about a source of the sort available from Amazon.com ... and in this particular case, it was another editor, not MathSci, who made the suggestion that the editor was also the author. Do you think we need to work on our COnflict of Interest Policy to give clearer guidance to editors in these situations? Slrubenstein | Talk15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI guidance "Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest." covers the situation in principle, the caveat that "COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing." comes back to WP:OUTING, and hence a question of whether the editor had voluntarily posted "this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves." The editor had provided a job description on their user page, and had added a large amount of text as well as citing the book the text came from, giving ample information for a search of publicly available information to show up the description of the author on an online booksellers. It's a bit of a legalistic argument as to whether that counts as "links to this information, on Wikipedia", but the editor had clearly posted user page information claiming expertise similar to that of author he had cited, putting editors suspecting copyright violation in a very awkward position. Difficult to think of any way of improving it without adding instruction creep. . dave souza, talk17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Dave, for me the issue always hinged on, and continues to hinge on, whether MathSci outed Mervyn. On the RfC page you provide what I believe is a factually accurate account of events. But it is unclear to me what your purpose is in providing this account. Do you believe MathSci outed Mervyn? Do you believe someone else outed Mervyn? I feel this needs to be clarified before I could make any meaningful comment. I agree with you about COI. Slrubenstein | Talk18:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Dave I do not mean to be argumentative, but perhaps you are being too subtle for me, or I am missing something. I want to respond to your comment on the RfC but I need clarification, especially of the following, first: "By giving an inadequate reason rather than stating that a reason was available on request, Charles Matthews created a situation where an admin reviewing the circumstances would be misled." I am not sure I was misled. Based on your summary of events, it seems to me that MathSci did not out Mervyn. In this matter, Charles's block explanation, which claimed that MathSci did out Mervyn, may have intended to mislead but did not in fact mislead me as I looked over the evidence and saw there was no outing. Or are you refering to the eliptical allusion to past behavior? I still do not think I was misled because the past behavior didn't justify the block. Maybe I am not sure what you mean by "inadequate reason." To me, it implies that there was an adequate reason for blocking mathSci, but Charles failed to give it. If you believe there was adequate evidence to support the block (i.e. that MathSci had outed Mervyn and thus violated our harassment policy) can you say so? The thing is, I agree with virtually everything you wrote, but I either completely do not understand this quoted sentence, or I completely disagree with this one sentence ... either way it prevents me from responding. I'd like to respond, accurately or appropriately, and would be very grateful if you could clarify your point. Is it possible you do not feel that responding on-wiki would be constructive? If so feel free to e-mail me at slrubenstein at yahoo dot com, but I would like to believe that you could clarify this matter on the RfC page, in a constructive and seemly way. Slrubenstein | Talk19:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I've tried to clarify things a bit.[13] Mervyn outed himself if he is the author of the book, it's a value judgement as to whether Mathsci was right to point out the question at ANI, though he clearly left it open as to whether Mervyn had outed himself or was an anonymous editor who just happened to portray himself as having similar credentials. By claiming that there was a hidden reason, Charles has indicated that the stated reason is inadequate for the block and on that basis you were right to lift the block. Sorry I'm not at my finest, let me know if you think I need to say more. . . 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I added my own clarification and signed on to my agreement with what you wrote. If you feel what I wrote underneath your account is inappropriate let me know and let me know what changes you wish me to make and I will make them, Slrubenstein | Talk22:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Bit tricky – as it says on the image infobox, I uploaded this in good faith as it appears to be an 18th century image, but that wasn't made explicit in the book it was scanned from. If you can find another source giving a date for the image that could cover it, but they've toughened up the Commons rules to "any works with unknown author or copyright status (license), will ultimately be deleted. Please don't upload them." . . dave souza, talk12:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
YEC
Dave, I was not edit warring. One particular user encouraged another user who had an axe to grind. Read this here -- then you will see who was edit warring. I was actually trying to get the anonymous IP's edit to stand and to stop an edit war, when someone else came in and started another one. TBergDrop a Line ޗ pls23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Dave this is the proof of this false accusation of gaming the system: Here is TBerg reverting Orange Marlin and inviting him to the talk page at 16:27 today. At 16:40, 13 minutes later I also invite OM to the talk page. Then TBerg accuses me of bringing in "uninvolved" OM to game the article. Hopefully the accusation will be retracted and I won't have to make my case anywhere else. I hate having to deal with this sort of crap. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Hi; responding to your last statement here rather than ANI because it seems undesirable to drag out the discussion there. You raise an interesting point relating to the target of Wikipedia articles on med topics: should they be written for patients and their relatives, or for a wider audience? I think there is sort of an MD-vs-PhD divide here. MDs like OrangeMarlin tend to write for patients, and want to avoid saying anything that would encourage a patient to try a remedy whose effects are not well understood -- which is perfectly understandable. PhDs like me tend to write for students and other scientists, and want to direct attention toward interesting questions whose answers are not known. It seems to me that Wikipedia somehow has to find a way to compromise between the two approaches -- there are bound to be readers of both types.
There is another aspect to this that I thought was too complex to bring up on ANI: I don't actually see this as a CAM-related issue. We're talking about drugs here, and 5-HTP is a powerful drug with well-understood CNS effects: it is the metabolic precursor for serotonin. By a bizarre fluke, it happens to be extractable from a plant (the seeds of the African shrub Griffonia simplicifolia), and therefore can legally be sold as an herbal supplement, but I can't see why that justifies treating experimental data differently than for any other drug. (Note that L-DOPA, a drug that plays a similar role in dopamine synthesis, is a mainstay of treatment for Parkinson's disease.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
So, knowing the common effects of depression, do you tell students that it is better than placebo without noting the explicit safety concerns in the source? That might do in academia, but it's unsuitable for Wikipedia. . dave souza, talk19:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with noting the safety concerns, or even omitting mention altogether. What I'm not fine with is misrepresenting the conclusions of the source. Looie496 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Looie496, I certainly hope that medical students and other graduate level students, as well scientists are not using Wikipedia articles as a source of information for their studies. User provided content is no alternative to peer reviewed texts and journals.
We need to write for our main audience which is the general public. If a co-worker, friend, or relative gets diagnosed with a disease or has medical tests, it is now common for people to do a Google search for information. Most likely the Wikipedia article will be a top hit, so we need to make sure that the information provided gives a thorough explanation of the disease and treatment, including realistic outcomes. Younger students, like the general public, need widely accepted basic information that address all aspects of the disease. I agree that mentioning experimental treatments should not be done except when the research has progressed to the point that it is broadly available as a safe alternative to conventional treatments. There are exception to this, but they should be the exception not the rule.
Although it is tempting to use Wikipedia for secondary reasons, we need to continue to make proving information our mission and guard against allowing secondary uses. Alternative motives for contributing such as advocating for funding, investigative reporting, collecting fan trivia, or promoting intellectual curiosity are well intended, for sure. But each has the potential to make the article less useful by introducing biases into the article. My 2 cents, FloNight♥♥♥20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Not 100% sure of the message here, so this response may be off the mark, but here it is: I'm completely opposed to talking down to people, in the sense of giving information that one knows is inaccurate because of a feeling that people are too stupid to handle accurate information correctly. I believe AGF applies to readers as well as editors. Not mentioning a treatment is fine -- misrepresenting the literature is not. Concerning level of presentation, I think it is best to let it vary by topic. An article should always have a lead that can be understood by a bright high school student, but articles on technical topics may have material in the body at the college student or in some cases even graduate student levels. Concerning medical conditions, we had better make it clear that people ought not to be using Wikipedia to decide which treatment to use. The aim is to provide background information, not to replace a physician.
Concerning reasons, I think it is important to realize that pretty much everybody who contributes to Wikipedia has some motivation beyond simply increasing the mass of information there. The results need to accord with Wikipedia's goals, but if they do, we shouldn't inquire too deeply into people's motivations. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Starting with your last point, Looie496, we should assume good faith which you signally failed to do when, instead of accepting Orangemarlin's reasonable concerns about an inaccurately credulous portrayal of a dangerous medicine, you jumped to accusing him of "intimidation". Looking again at our discussion on ANI and related posts, it's clear that Orangemarlin was concerned that a semi-favourable review had been cherry picked when other published information should also have been taken into account. I've tried to correct the misrepresentation of that one review,[15] and will ask Orangemarlin if that's satisfactory or if it should be modified, either by referring to other studies or by deleting it altogether. Please remember to take more care to reflect sources accurately, remembering that we're writing for a general audience whose safety should concern us all. . dave souza, talk14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The passage I quoted was not an expression of reasonable concerns, it was a temper tantrum. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that after a while here, people lose the ability to tell the difference. Anyway, I have no problems with your edit except some grammatical issues, but somebody will presumably fix those. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't share your interpretation of a statement which is clearly focussed on content and not a personal attack, unlike your inaccurate claim of intimidation and a non-existent sanction. Focussing on content issues is more productive. . . dave souza, talk18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
←I'm kind of insulted by Looie496's interpretation of the world. MD's lead and perform research too, as they have an advanced degree in a science. But if he has that kind of "us vs. them" attitude, no wonder he's pushing CAM POV in various articles. Oh well. Of course, if your bias is that medical education is inferior to a doctorate in a science, there isn't much I can say other than "wtf????" As for the stupid people who do come to this place to get medical information, it is our ethical requirement to given them the best information supported by scientific research. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If there's one group more at risk from such dodgy snake oil than stupid people, it's depressed stupid people and we really must ensure that the article is not in any way misleading. Any informed advice or edits to that end will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My personal physician rips Wikipedia on a regular basis, because he says that patients come to him and ask him why he's not prescribing this or that after reading it here. Or the cases where severely diabetic patients swallow a bunch of useless solutions because they read they worked here on our fine project. How many times does that happen? One day, not too long from now, I'll bet that someone will end up suing Wikipedia because they believed that some compound or plant cures something or another based on what was written here. As opposed to Looie's illogical statements promoting CAM solutions to real diseases, we have an ethical obligation to write what is supported by the best science, not one article written by an obscure scientist in Italy. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You're attributing beliefs and behaviors to me based on remarkably little evidence. "Pushing CAM pov in various articles"? Have you ever even looked at any of my contribs to anything except MDD? Let me try to say what I actually believe about these things. (1) The vast majority of things that are believed by proponents about "herbal remedies" and other CAM approaches are baseless because there isn't any good experimental data. Most of the justifications people give for CAM remedies are scientific nonsense. (2) There are lots of plants that contain powerful drugs or poisons, e.g. atropine, muscarine, etc. (3) Most of the things that are sold as herbal remedies are not very potent in any respect, but a few are. The three I'm pretty sure of are St John's Wort, 5-HTP, and yohimbe (which is really nasty stuff). All of these have clearly measurable CNS effects. Let me note that I think it's very unlikely that tryptophan is potent enough to do any good. (4) The only basis for saying definitively that a given drug does or does not have a given effect is experimental data. Without good data, it's an open question. (5) Lots of "herbal remedies" don't get properly tested because it's very difficult to run a large-scale test without funding from a drug company, and drug companies won't fund studies of things they can't patent, so in many cases ambiguous evidence is all there is. (6) "CAM" is a bit of an anomalous category, because it mixes together things that can't work, such as homeopathy, with things that might work, such as many herbal remedies.
Concerning how to present things in Wikipedia, I have to come down in favor of trying to convey our best understanding as clearly as we can, and letting the chips fall where they may. I sympathize with the problems this can create for physicians, but I'm just not willing to spin a story because of that -- the ultimate cost is too high. Looie496 (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Louie, your idea of "our best understanding" appears to be rather inadequate. Your change from "Tryptophan and 5-hydroxytryptophan appear to be better than placebo" to "appear to have significant effects in some situations, but have not been subjected to enough methodologically sound studies to allow strong conclusions to be drawn" is definitely an improvement, but falls well short of "The researchers reported that the symptoms of depression decreased when 5-HTP and tryptophan were compared to a placebo (non-drug). However, side effects had occurred (dizziness, nausea and diarrhoea). They also reported that tryptophan has been associated with the development of a fatal condition. More evidence is needed to assess efficacy and safety, before any strong and meaningful conclusions can be made. Until then, the reviewers propose that the use of antidepressants which have no known life threatening side effects remain more attractive. The review sets out the required methodology for effectively studying these substances in proper controlled studies." Orangemarlin, "no effect beyond placebo" is terse but not very informative, in practice it clearly has bad effects and no proven good effects. Links here. I've no comment on the CAM assertions, other than the obvious point that CAM proponents commonly cherry pick nice bits out of studies. No idea what other work Looie496 has done in the area of unproven medicines. . dave souza, talk09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Conventional antidepressants are pretty dangerous too if the dose is not carefully controlled -- they can cause serotonin syndrome, which is potentially fatal. It's a case of "the devil you know". Anyway, maybe I can point out that I didn't make the changes you describe above. I haven't touched this part of the article since a couple of months ago, when OM and I had a disagreement about this issue, which I allowed him to win. Then last week ImperfectlyInformed made a corresponding edit, which OM reverted, leading me to complain about OM's behavior on the talk page. That's all I've done here. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
All you've done is introduce an inaccurate red herring when complaining about a post which was factual and directly related to article content. Waste of time. Focus on the content, think twice before interpreting a post as "indimidating", and don't try to run people off discussions for making a valid point in a forceful way. . dave souza, talk19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As you've seen, I've added a helpful reminder to IB's talk page. Since you've felt the need to address the substance of IB's assertions, you'll appreciate the need to take care to avoid confrontation and hopefully let IB realise the need for civility. . . dave souza, talk19:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The law in Britain is that media coverage after somebody has been charged cannot contain information likely to prejudice a fair trial. This covers both editorials and factual coverage, so in the Peter Tobin case the British media couldn't mention his previous convictions in the reports before he was convicted, since they were not presented as evidence in court. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was mentioned on the news that the jurors did not know of his previous convictions. That's what I was thinking about, does it mean that on official request we should edit such articles to remove all mention of previous convictions, and full or semi protect the articles. There were anomalies, in that the BBC did not remove Angelika Kluk articles from its website, and we made no alterations to our article so the information remained available on WP. If anything, deleting the Tobin page made it more likely that the Kluk case would show up on a search. In principle I think your proposal of extra care over BLP standards is right, so this issue boils down to whether WP is legally regarded as media coverage, and whether it applies to old pages equivalent to the BBC archive coverage. By the way, our sub judice page makes no mention of Scotland, and no guidance showed up on a bit of searching but this case indicates that it does apply. . dave souza, talk18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom Talk page "policy"
Hi, I have made a comment at AN, relating to ArbCom practice if not policy. My comment is motivated by what happened during the Thatcher/lar/SV case - I cannot deny that - but I really see this as a matter that can arise in the future and we need an abstract principle for handling it. [16]
I do not want discussion of my comment to get bogged down in the past. I think ArbCom needs some kind of clear (transparent) principle to guide it in the future. Could you comment? Say wahtever you think - just please push the conversation in the direction the future, not the past. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I've posted my tuppenceworth about future guidance and principles to consider. Some forethought would have helped. . dave souza, talk23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It says there is a new message (last change) and it shows a revision by you but I can not find anything knew written by you on my talk page so...?Sfvace (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and sorry for the delay. I don't think any claims or advice is ok when against my using science or logic itself to confront any fallacies in things lol, even if it's the popular Darwin's theory. Well I'm kind of giving up anyhow with wikipedia on this lol I went into a bit more detail on creationism-evolution controversy talk (last edit as of today, 1 hour ago) you can view that Sfvace (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't recall, did you vote in the recent elections? I feel kind of blindsided by the appointments. For some reason, I was under the impression there were seven seats open, and I made my voting strategy accordingly. Two of the additional appointments are going to be trouble: I see one as a mini-FT2 and the other as a every troll's favorite pushover. It probably wouldn't have helped, but I still feel irritated by the whole experience: a familiar feeling regarding Arbcom unfortunately... :P Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Certainly did vote, but left it late and tried to review the answers carefully, and was also working on the assumption of seven seats. My votes tended to be negative, as some candidates didn't seem to understand policy, at least from my viewpoint, but I didn't feel they were entirely bad and don't feel that unhappy with the outcome. It may be ignorance on my part, but there definitely seemed to be strong support in the election for people I respect. Like you, I've reservations about a couple of the appointments, but am hopeful that they'll behave well and that voices of reason will be a majority in discussions. At the least we should get away from the "make an example of good contributors who are a bit rude occasionally" mentality, but we'll just have to wait and see. Guess I'm pleased because it could have been much worse. The joys of pessimism. . dave souza, talk09:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Law of the United States
Did you even look at the list for "Further reading?" Does not appear so from your comment. I have no objection if somebody wishes to edit my contributions. But "editing" is not the same as "deleting the whole thing," is it?
If it is the same, then there is absolutely no point in attempting to make any contribution whatsoever. Whoever thinks they "own" a page really will own it.
If you want people like me to make ANY contributions to Wikipedia, you need to come up with a better song than the one you are singing. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
My, you do seem to have a rather high-handed tone. I did look, and can see a good argument for leaving this list out of the article. If you want it kept, the best idea is to present a reasoned case that it's a good idea, and meet WP:V and WP:NOR by presenting sources showing that the list is recognised as essential reading when learning about US law in general, while ensuring that reading material about specific areas of law is presented on relevant pages rather than the main page. Better still, cite these books as sources for parts of the article so what they say is clearly linked from inline citations. I do appreciate that an established author can be used to having things their way and so find it hard to work within Wikipedia policies, but that's the song you've to sing. . dave souza, talk23:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to sing any song here. I can find other things to do with my time. Sorry, but I'm a bit tired of being attacked, trashed and ordered about here every time I try and make a contribution.
I've placed the annotated list on the talk page of the article with a request that anyone who pleases assist in figuring out which individual items may be appropriate for "Further reading" for this article and which are not. Let's get down to specifics and see if we can come up with something besides conflict? I'd like to see specific reasons why each source is bad, not just sweeping generalizations. Discussion of edits, after all, is about specifics. Politics is about generalizations. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Better, but the page is already 31 kilobytes long and the long list invites a WP:TL;DR response. If you can pick out four books that you consider essential reading for someone wanting an overview, that would be better. However, why not pick up on Elonka's suggestion and use the best of the books as inline citations for paragraphs in the article. You'd get the list you want if you, in agreement with other editors, can change the referencing system to Harvard referencing with inline Template:Harvard citation cites linking to a Notes section to show page numbers, then a separate References section with each book listed alphabetically using Citation templates. That way the reference/page number in the "notes" links down to the relevant book source, and you get a nice list of references. See Charles Darwin for an example. . . dave souza, talk13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
So, the principle concern is about length of article rather than content? Funny how so many proprietary editors find it so easy to make work for somebody else rather than stepping forward to do some work themselves? In my opinion, the burden is on somebody to address the concerns identified, rather than on me under WP:Bold--unless one wishes to be merely obstructionist. I'm not here to give somebody targets to shoot down. I'm all about content. Are you? Easier to pick out four paragraphs that don't need to be included in the article at all. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that comprehensibility should win over content. Long lists (and long articles) quite frequently lose readers, unless they have sufficient structure (headings etc) to provide a 'roadmap'. The proposed 'Further Readings' section would appear to be a textbook example of what to avoid. HrafnTalkStalk05:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
In reply to your comment on another talk page, please explain how one assumes good faith on the part of one who repeatedly and condescendingly suggests one is a moron? Did you even read the first paragraph of Coolcaeser's most recent post?
Yes, I have noticed a rather condescending tone in some of your comments as well, and the two of you need to address each other as editors without pulling rank. Anything's possible, and I'm glad to note your much shorter list. Do try to discuss the pros and cons in a collegiate way without bothering about taking offence. All the best for the New Year when it comes, . dave souza, talk20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Darwin is always interesting. However, I did prefer his grandfather, Erasmus, who came up with the whole notion. :) Keats once said that the philosopher/scientist killed the rainbow by explaining it. I tend to think that explanations gives me more reason to stand in awe at the process in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
How thoughtful you are to send your Kitzmas greeting, as it's an American holiday! I'm touched. Thank you so much! And you have a Happy or Merry Christmas or Solstice or Yule or Saturnalia or Whathaveyou. :)
An interesting question. Of course many Scots are Brits too, though that's a bit of an old argument. Christmas wasn't really a Scottish custom for the last few centuries, as the Kirk frowned on such pagan festivities but seemed to be ok with Hogmanay. So the traditional season's greeting was on the lines of "a guid new year tae ane and aw, and mony may ye see", as the song puts it. However, since the 1950s the English custom of prezzies for the kids has expanded into us having a full-blown American style shopping experience, complete with Coca-Cola trademark Santas and the standard greeting "A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year". Nobody says "Happy Holidays", not least because holiday has acquired the meaning of going away for what you might call a vacation. But I digress. Season's Greetings! . . dave souza, talk15:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Thanks! After going to Guettarda's beach, the Galapagos would be my next stop! What a great graphic! Wishing you seasons greetings, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
And HNY from me. dougweller (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Gah, I'm slow and dim today. Have dropped a hint, if only to point it out to anyone who, like me, looks at the talk page before checing contribs. Must have an early night. Thanks, . dave souza, talk22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. Sometimes people ask for your oppinion. But here it's just bugging you..... If I contribute to the discussion I'm just gonna agree with GV....--Marhawkman (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'd noticed. Was considering complaining about it somewhere, but figured it wasn't worth my time. Thanks for the thought though. --zandperl (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Since (I believe) Hrafn is willing to listen to you, could you please try to talk to him? He needs to stop with the aggressiveness as it only causes content problems to become disputes between users. Sure, there are problematic people on these articles, but his approach is to attack them instead of going through the proper channels. That only makes it harder to clean up the messes in the long run, and these articles are sensitive enough without everyone bickering all the time. I offered him advice, but it is clear that he feels that I am only out to get him. I don't want to see him blocked because of Battleground or start some mess which will end up at ArbCom. There is enough of that now. I'm going to stop responding in the thread because it is clear that my presence is only aggravating him. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've commented here and think you're both right, but misunderstandings have got in the way. Hrafn tends to be very straightforward at the expense of diplomacy, and can mistake genuine good faith edits as having some ulterior motive. Myself, I'm so vain that I just assume that no-one's going to take accusations seriously. Now I've got to watch Adventures in Booga Booga Land and The Adventures of Marty the Monkey and Gerard the Giraffe (the articles, not the ghastly series),and have tried to round off the ANI discussion here. Just shows the importance of AGF. . dave souza, talk10:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Dave, thanks for the kind words on my talkpage regarding the TO Archive situation. And thanks for making many contributions here over the years. --Armchair info guy (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind response! As you'll have noticed if you've looked at user:dave souza it's all a bit of an addiction. Have asked on your talk page if you can help to unwind the ToA revisions, a bit tedious but the temporary change was invaluable in dealing with a glitch that went on unexpectedly long. . . dave souza, talk10:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, but looking at the link given, this seems to involve coding which is completely beyond me, and as indicated above I'm in rather a rush with other stuff just now. Perhaps try raising the issue again, this time as a new item at the bottom of the Template talk:Tnavbar page, as the template talk:tnavbar#Design improvements section dates back to 2007 and the regulars may have missed it. . dave souza, talk13:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that information (not sure how you came across that discussion so long after the FPC closure!). You mention as a source Desmond and Moore - is that their excellent Darwin bio from the early 90s? If so I have that book, but don't think I actually checked it out for info on that photographer at the time of the nom, though at the time I did have a look in there for any relevant images that may have confirmed/denied the likely date. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the further information. I'll have to have a read of the van Wyhe article. I had been fairly convinced about Darwin's delay, but haven't read much on it for some years. I was a big fan of Stephen Jay Gould's writing (well still am I guess), and I think he alluded to the delay a number of times as well. --jjron (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you don't revert good faith edits like that. I made many copyedits in between, fixed sentence, etc. [Help:Reverting]: "If only part of an edit is problematic, consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit(s)." Secondly, the article, especially the lead, focuses solely on criticism of the article. Now, criticism has its place within articles, but never should more than half the lead be negative things regarding the film. In contrast, An Inconvenient Truth has nothing negative in the lead, even though it was equally controversial. And the fact that it states, "One of the few positive reviews appeared in Christianity Today" does not "give balance." The article, and most especially the lead, needs a lot of work to be presented in a neutral point of view. TheAEtalk/sign19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. You may not have noticed that I gave consideration to your various changes, and kept some and not others. Your main edit appeared to be a whitewash, misrepresenting the clear majority expert view of the film as well as breaching WP:NPOV/FAQ requirements, but you are of course welcome to present your case for changes on the article talk page. . dave souza, talk20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Leadership University
Could you please take a look at Talk:Leadership University (web portal). FM and I are butting heads yet again, and I'm hoping that what appears to me to be a cut-and-dried issue (CLM is notable, it's LU website clearly isn't) can be resolved without the wikidrama of a RfC or similar. FM and myself seem always to rub each other the wrong way, and never seem to agree on things (we've previously gone head to head on Talk:Intelligent design movement & Talk:Free Speech on Evolution), and it never seems to get resolved without calling in calmer heads. HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, at first glance I've suggested a compromise way forwards. Either way, it seems that the article should note the rival Leadership University of Nebraska, though that seems to be a non-notable correspondence school. . dave souza, talk09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a compromise so much as a deferment of the conflict. (i) I create a new article on CLM (which is what FM wants me to do). (ii) I nominate LU for merger into CLM, FM vehemently disagrees. (iii) Assuming the merger goes through, the question would be how much material from LU to merge -- I would tend towards nothing/nest-to-nothing (it is all information of marginal significance), FM towards all/nearly all (as he disagrees with my assessment). How is this less wikidrama than an RfC on a rename/rewrite? HrafnTalkStalk(P)09:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose one way around (iii) is to ask the merger consensus for guidance on how much to merge, should it be merged. Another likely scenario is that (ii) ends in no consensus, so step (iii) becomes an AfD on LU. HrafnTalkStalk(P)09:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not prejudging FM's response. He may find a source that establishes notability, or may be amenable to a merger which adds information to the combined article in a way that all can agree on. Secondly, Leadership University appears to me to be a useful disambiguation page and if the articles are merged it would logically link to CLM, which must then make the position of LU sufficiently clear. Best to give this a couple of days to develop before jumping at anticipated problems, in my opinion. Gotta go now, dave souza, talk10:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
ID images
Hi, could you explain this undo and this comment, specifically in regard to how the book cover images pass WP:NFCC#8? I have already asked on the ID talkpage, but perusing the archives I still don't see an answer to the question. Thanks, Black Kite21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Rather busy at least until 12 February, have put an immediate response here. While I appreciate that you may want a rushed response and have tried to assist, note that this was re-raised just 22 hours before you posted this question here. . . dave souza, talk10:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I am very involved in the discussion on the talk page, and I am also discussing the issue elsewhere. I am continuing to remove the images on the (standard) grounds that, until there is consensus for inclusion, images should not be included. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the images- see the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I am discussing this, and I removed the images per the fact that there is no consensus for their inclusion, per the non-free content criteria. There's nothing wrong with either of those actions. I've really got no idea what you are talking about. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
you warned my thug![17] I was amused and waiting to see what he'd say next. Probably unfair of me.... I should have blocked him already no doubt, but as long as I'm the only one he's attacking, and I get a laugh out of it... Yeah ok, you were right. *sigh* KillerChihuahua?!?17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I intruded, seemed a good idea to give an outside view, and I note the clear implication that Scijournalist has been sockpuppeting.[18] Hope that nonsense all stops now. . . dave souza, talk17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You think? I thought I just had two very rude people who didn't understand BLP, NPA, RS, V on my hands, who both had a strong interest in Gareth Penn, Alan Cabal, and Zodiac Killer, who edit during the same timeframes and on the same days who have the same views. Oh hey, you might have something there. KillerChihuahua?!?17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you've neutrally contributed to it in the past, I thought you might want to look in once more on the article's present state and current RfC. arimareiji (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you familiar with this particular user? His is an old account that edited with a pro-creationist POV who retired his account and is now editing under a shifting IP that starts 67.135.49-. Now from what I understand about legitimate alternative accounts is, they apply to accounts, not to a shifting IP, and they apply only to editors in good standing, which I'm not convinced this user is.
The IP is now edit-warring on Creationism and Strengths and weaknesses of evolution to retain his POV on the pages. He claims he is not editing anonymously to avoid detection, but obviously it makes it harder for any editor to see what he's doing which I'm sure he is aware.
We've seen this fom him before, and as I recall Jinx was aupposed to say who he was on the talk pages of IP's he was using. I've dropped him a tactful reminder, anyone editwarring can find themselves blocked for 3rr but I think he'll probably back off. Thanks for raising this, I'm no expert on sockpuppets but this one's probably more of a nuisance than a big problem. . dave souza, talk20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Highland_soldier_1744.jpg){kind=link}
