User talk:Dave souza/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

ID timeline

To get the hang of its origins, I'm jotting together User talk:Dave souza/ID timeline. Lets hope this is useful..... dave souza, talk 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I give up on this article. People have read the original version of the lead o much that they're completey blind to any faults it has, and are starting to make personal attacks on anyone who tweaks it. I'm giving it a few months to see if it settles down. There's also a bit of a WP:OWN situation. Vanished user talk 11:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to leave it be for a while – it's extremely sensitive, and while obvious vandalism is easily dealt with, a great deal of effort and patience is needed to make any changes. If you're at a loose end, Alfred Russel Wallace is heading towards FA and I'd appreciate it if you could look it over. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 11:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Flood Geology

Actually, since you brought up my belief, I believe that the rainbow was first seen after the first rain ~6000 years ago. I have little insight into God's timeline for the laws of physics. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." - Acts 1:7 Dan Watts 12:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so. Belief, and particularly such belief, is the antithesis of science. ..... dave souza, talk 17:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I had no notion that science delved into the timing of the return of Christ. Dan Watts 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the note on the UK National Curriculum

We are pretty much exhausted after getting the WPCD up but I am happy to change the schools website within a few days. Is there much difference? We could always do a Scots version. Ironic that according to UCLES the UK curriculum is used in more than a hundred other countries but not Scotland mind you. --BozMo talk 06:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Inappropriate tone

Thanks for making the change! I hope that will make things clearer for people who find that articles they've worked on have been tagged. —Celithemis 09:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cradle of Life

Can't hurt. Vanished user talk 09:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This Prozac is doing a bit of a number on me today. But I'm told the side effects should go away in the next two weeks. Vanished user talk 11:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the offer

To talk to the curriculum people in Scotland and see if there are other things we should add or change. I would be very grateful if you spoke to them and will try to accomodate any suggestions they make. --BozMo talk 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

/ID timeline

This in article space yet? Vanished user talk 12:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, my aim would be to trim it down to brief summaries for each "date", probably putting parts of the "quotations... etc" in footnotes along with the reference they come from , keeping my own page as a scrapbook: feel free to move it and work on it insitu if you prefer. Got any good ideas for the title? Could be History of intelligent design or Intelligent design timeline, at a guess. ... dave souza, talk 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"Intelligent design timeline" sounds good to me. Vanished user talk 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Smaug123

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Smaug123 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help, no doubt the 24 hour block on our anon friend will have to be repeated and extended sometime. Thanks for fighting vandalism! .. dave souza, talk 16:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

USians?

ROFL. •Jim62sch• 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Me thought you'd like the advice on procreation and travel, which is a variant on a polite UKese euphemism for an expression often referred to using the initials of the Foreign Office... :) ... dave souza, talk 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Clever devil. Do you eat picalilli in Scotland or is that a Brit thing? •Jim62sch• 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a pickle, and my enthusiasm for suchlike runs out after beetroots and chutney. Some folks like it, dunno if it's more of an English thing. If it's an obscure pun, 'fraid you've lost me there. Onywey, Broon's oor new leader noo, his chats with the chimp may less chummy than his predecessor's. A son o' the manse, just hope he disnae turn oot tae be anither o they christians... dave souza, talk 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Be nice....

Talk:Evolution - It *might* be a valid question. There are, after all, interesting fields of research we possibly could include. Vanished user talk 21:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just the way that they say it... Got your message as I was trying to post a somewhat embarrassed follow up. Maybe needs a new sub article! ... dave souza, talk 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I do think there's a case for a third evolution article along the lines of Further exploration of evolution or Evolution (Part II) that goes into more detail about the more complex concepts, like Hardy-Weinberg, epigenetics, level of selection, etc. Vanished user talk 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right, but this is way over my head. I'd have thought developments in research on evolution or something would fit. Am currently trying to get my head round the theology of creationism, and don't want to post a half-bodged effort there. Time for a break, ta for the comments. ... dave souza, talk 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That works. Also gives it a nice focus. But perhaps later. Just helped bring Ediacaran biota to FA, got a couple images through WP:FPC and the commons equivalent, and other such things. Probably should really be doing Natural selection and all the other sub-articles first. Vanished user talk 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for being so supportive of my concerns. I was beginning to think that no one cared and no one wanted to listen at creationism. Is there any advice that you can give for how I can make myself better understood? --Fradulent Ideas 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. The best advice is probably to be patient and polite, and try to understand the concerns being raised by other editors in good faith – quite often they're picking up on an aspect that you've not appreciated, and a compromise covering that aspect as well will result in an improvement to the article. It's a difficult balancing act, especially on socially controversial articles, but it usually works out in time. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

rtc, Popper and a bonfire of inanities

We've got to do something about rtc, an RfC maybe? •Jim62sch• 10:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got to go out for a while now, was thinking perhaps a reference to WP:TALK then archiving all that drivel if he starts up again. Maybe then report to WP:AN/I proposing a short block for WP:DE, or perhaps better RfC. Ironically, you'll note that my suggestion means deleting all mention of "verifiability" from the article and referring to the NAS and AAAS statements etc. at Kitzmiller, which are what counts in explaining what essentially is a stratagem for evading earlier legal rulings. Mus' go walkies.. dave souza, talk 10:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh...I'm not getting whay you're saying about verifiability. •Jim62sch• 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Blast, my typo – meant falsifiability which was a criterion at McLean v. Arkansas, but not mentioned at s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science and so seems to me to be an unnecessary distraction. It should be possible to get an attributed list out of that judgement – NAS, AAAS etc. – then add other prominent arguments which have good sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Step into it

Or leap?

Hopefully you didn't misinterpret my posts. From what I've read of your responses in other threads, we seem to be on the same page.

My response on B's page was intended to lighten the mood and reduce stress, as are many of my remarks. All too often, my remarks are mis-interpreted by individuals lacking a sense of humor. To wit: I'd love to come back with a witty response to your Christian comment, but have no doubt that at least 357.667 people would misunderstand me. So, you're welcome to imagine that I've done so and chuckle to yourself. ;)

When I made my first post on wikipedia, I had absolutely no idea that there was an entire community behind the scenes. I almost wish now that I'd never found out. For all that we (wikipedians) espouse to AGF, I've found that as often as not, people here assume wrong doing and then set out to prove it, rather than the reverse. Some have even designated themselves as official 'wiki sleuths', and toss out accusations like candy, based on circumstantial evidence and coincidence. It is, indeed, disheartening.

Perhaps an essay: "Was it really THAT bad? Why can't we all just get along?"

Happy editing. Peace.Lsi john 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope we're on the same page, your potential witty response to my Christian comment sounds intriguing, and if others would take it wrongly, do please email it to me. Sorry if my sarky Scottish sense of humour offends. For context, see Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Jesus is truth. Perhaps by coincidence, the Gospel of John includes "love one another" and "If a man abide not in me...they are burned". The latter part of which, that well known theology student Charles Darwin thought a "damnable doctrine" due to his concerns about other family members. All of which is, we hope, irrelevant. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
For info, someone wanted references on his views, so Charles Darwin's views on religion#Darwin's loss of faith now has an expanded explanation of this topic. .. dave souza, talk 11:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor Orangemarlin 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I HATE 'suspicion' pages. Peace.Lsi john 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to comment. If you look at my record with sockpuppets I'm like 10 for 11. I'm almost certain this will be 11 for 12. I rarely take administrative action against anyone, except for a couple of sockpuppet masters and one anti-semitic diatribe that an editor started. I don't like suspicion either. Orangemarlin 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's nothing personal, my friend. If we 'must' have them, then I think they should be tucked away somewhere privately for admins-only. Making 'suspicions' public on a 'formal page' grates against every fiber in my being.
Even if someone is 10-11. a) There is one potentially wrongly accused who has been 'marked' .. and b) The next person may not be nearly as 'good' as you. Peace.Lsi john 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Valid points all. And there are many editors who violate good faith and use these processes to cause trouble. I was accused of being a sockpuppet of someone in Washington, DC, whereas I'm sitting in my office in California. That one got thrown out in a minute. But sockpuppet trolls have got to be controlled, or we will have anarchy. My point for being 10 for 11 was not to brag, but only to point out that I bring a case only when I'm sure (and in the 11th of 11, I'm still sure I was right, but I couldn't prove it). I'm suspicious many times, but I don't do anything. I do agree that only admins should see it, but in a "community" like this one, people need to be able to comment. Otherwise, admins will run this place, which isn't how the project was envisioned. Orangemarlin 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I hadn't realized it was a formal process. I see now that there is. I have a rather bad taste left in my mouth from being called a sock and having several pages created for that purpose. I believe they're all gone now.. but *shrug* who knows when one will pop up that I didn't know about. I'm touchy about false public accusations made loosely. In the context of this situation, perhaps its not as bad as I let myself believe. (thanks for letting us borrow your page Dave). Cheers all. Peace.Lsi john 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's tedious, but then a long run of borderline trolling on related article talk pages is tedious, and several editors including me have gently pointed out the similarity on those talk pages, with the genuine hope that said editor prove our uncomfortable feeling incorrect. So it goes. Will try to look at if fairly soon. .. dave souza, talk 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bishapod

Hello little Dave! 'Zilla take final step in escaping puppeteer controll of wienie 'shonen, have created own sock puppet alternative account for when feeling frisky: User:Bishapod. So cool! Little Dave most welcome take over running of Bishapod if desired, 'Zilla easily create other account. (Hard work of making personalized welcome template already accomplished, see handsome sight on User talk:Bishapod!) 'Zilla very considerately [Bishzilla beats chest perfunctorily ] make no Bishapod edit yet. Will e-mail password if desired! bishzilla ROARR!! 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Aaaaaagh!! Bishzilla and Bishapod both roaming wild in Wikipedia! Am overawed, much honoured by welcome but fear unable to take on great responsibility as overworked, as on the FAR side below.. Also fear mighty claws and teeth of B & B, naturally. Thanks anyway, .. dave souza, talk 09:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Daddy, daddy! [Bishapod scrabbles enthusiastically with flippers at Dave.] Bishapod 10:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC).
Down, Stupid! Dave, please excuse newbie Bishapod, not very developed personality yet! Embarrassing brat! [Bishzilla goes to read wiki article Childfree, muttering.] bishzilla ROARR!! 10:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC).
I deny everything, we were just good friends!! Down nice poddie, say bye-byes... dave souza, talk 10:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Another action being taken against me

Dave, I've just come across this:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Banno. Since you have your head around what happened, I wonder if you might comment. I am attending a conference over the next few days, and will not be in a position to respond easily, nor to canvas support. Banno 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

While I was considering this, Firsfron of Ronchester added an Outside view which seems to me a fair summary, so I've signed up to it. Will keep the page on my watchlist. .. dave souza, talk 14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Hi Dave, can you help with a page move: Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment to the correct name Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment? I created the second thinking there was none, then stumbled across this oddly named page :-) Richard001 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Advise merge per Help:Merging and moving pages .. dave souza, talk 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything worth merging there to be honest, the wrongly named page can just be moved (though a lot of pages link to the original name so it best not be deleted, even though it is an odd name). Richard001
See User talk:Warlordjohncarter#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment .. dave souza, talk 13:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here can I request Habitat (ecology) be moved over Habitat? There's just one edit too many, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to have the more the 'ecology' qualifier. Richard001 04:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done as discussed. .. dave souza, talk 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology/assessment

Man, I can't believe I made that obvious a mistake. For what it's worth, I'm trying to ensure that the majority of the religion related projects get assessments done now, given the comparatively few articles that have been selected for the release versions. I will be getting to the EB assessments as soon as I get done with these others, though. Thanks for the notice, but there shouldn't be any problems whatever in correcting such a stupid error as I made here. John Carter 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it done now. These glitches happen very easily, I'm sure we've all done something of the sort. .. dave souza, talk 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

References in "Reaction to Darwin's theory]"

Hi, Dave. It is good to know from your note that Desmond and Moore is used as a general reference for Reaction to Darwin's theory. However I am wondering if future editors will be able to distinguish between material from them and unreferenced text. The usage of in-line references pointing to Desmond and Moore trough the article seems important to secure the permanence of the information that is already there and also to help new editors to improve the text... If there is certainty that *all* the text there lacking in-line citations right now came from the book you mentioned, I am probably willing to make the (potentially boring ;) work of providing the corresponding in-line reference for each relevant passage, with the caveat that the specific pages wont be provided. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you're offering... the background is that when I put the article together in the spring of 2005, it was working from Desmond & Moore as a library book. Since I'd been trying to use it as a source on various articles and was dotting back and forth, it made sense to go through the whole book, copying out nice quotes and briefly summarising the context. The set of articles then formed a basis for summary style sections in Charles Darwin. Recently the accessibility of sources has been dramatically changed by The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online, and I was prodded and hugely assisted in getting that sort of paragraph level citing sorted out on the main article. WP:CITE#How to cite sources as recently clarified (by someone else) now makes it clear that general references don't need to be cited inline. However, if you're keen the Charles Darwin article provides references for some of the main points. Perhaps more usefully, the "advanced search" at DarwinOnline works well at looking up quotes. You can just give the page number, or to be really thorough, click on the DarwinOnline page number which takes you to the "text and image" view, then the "text view" link gives a link to the exact page which can be put in the inline Harvnb reference. To get things rolling I'll do that with Huxley sharpening his beak and claws, and will copy over the relevant references from the Charles Darwin article. It's certainly a way of learning more about the subject! Thanks for coming back on it, ... dave souza, talk 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

Dave, There is what seems to be a reasonable unblock request at User talk:67.132.42.130 (its a school IP, and the kids are gone for the summer.) However, I wanted to contact you in case there was a resaon for not unblocking that I might be missing. Pastordavid 20:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem with unblocking as far as I'm concerned: adding obscenities to articles did the school's name no favours, but stopping the block now it's holiday time seems reasonable. Unfortunately, Can't sleep, clown will eat me denied the request at 20:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC), while I was out. It might be worth considering allowing account creation while keeping anon editing blocked: I've dropped User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me a note. .. dave souza, talk 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Greetings, I thought you may be interested in adding your thoughts and/or additions to the talk page of Che Guevara. An attempt to avert a fullscale edit war is being mediated by Bladestorm and I'm seeking out your thoughts as well by the recommendation of another user. Thank you in advance for your time. Gtadoc 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, tried having a look but this has been a rather hectic time and so far things seemed to be getting under way pretty well, Will comment as soon as I can, .. dave souza, talk 06:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jibed

I wandered to your page from the ID article and was reading your bio (yes, I have too much time at the moment!). Am wondering whether you really mean to say, "Irritated by something in the Charles Darwin article which jibed with his memory of a library book, ...". Cheers. Abecedare 00:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Um. My dim memory of what it means was probably influenced by the yachting style about turn, will try to think of better term. Ta, ... dave souza, talk 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, surprisingly the metaphorical (?) use of the term jibe doesn't jibe with the nautical use of the term jibe. Cheers. Abecedare 07:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Ta, have just spent far too much time bloating that bio. Cheers, .. dave souza, talk 08:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Waterbabies/Julian/TH Huxley

Thank you for this. As you will have guessed, I though about it, but the terrible quality of the scan from book deterred me. I'll get a new scan next time I visit my graphics wizard. Macdonald-ross 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, there seems to have been a misunderstanding or myth that Kingsley was satirising Darwinism, when evidently he favoured Darwin's ideas, and was casting a humorous eye on the debates of the time. The story about Julian came from the other article, if you know of a good source it would be useful to cite it as a reference. An improved scan of the illustration will be tremendous, and should give a better idea of an unusual portrait of Huxley. Ta, .. dave souza, talk 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi, just to clarify, I didn't think that comment ought to go on the project talk page. I just didn't want it on my talk page, because I think it's nonsense; I meant only that, IF that person wanted to put it anywhere, the discussion was on the project talk page.

Pistols at dawn seem to be de rigueur, unfortunately; the more trivial the disagreement, the more violence is required to resolve it, it often seems. :-)

I also want to thank you for your insightful input into the discussion. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

I have come to the end of my tether. The campaign by User:Mallimak and his countless dynamic IP sockpuppets has now descended to pure stalking behaviour. The Wikipedia community cannot allow this behaviour to continue. I am asking you, and other Admins and Users who have had to deal with Mallimak in the past, to review the situation. Please see:

--Mais oui! 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mais, unfortunately I'm a bit swamped at the moment, and haven't tried dealing with stalking problems before. Hopefully one of the others you've contacted is more able to take this on soon, let me know if you don't find help. .. dave souza, talk 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hux references

Yes, the TH Huxley refs are something of a problem area, maybe because they have a history. New to the system, and largely ignorant of computers generally, I wrote more and more, and added refs the way I always had done, name and date in the text, and an alphabetical list at the end. I discovered Wiki calls this the 'Harvard system' and that there's something called a template...

Well, after Fred.e decided to promote the page, it got read by loads of people, and I spent a fortnight going crazy chasing all the hares that were running over Hux's field. One of the brighter hares turned out to be ConfuciusOrnis, who decided the age of computers should reign over Hux, and changed all the old-fashioned refs to magic numbers which when pressed delivered one to the ref and back again.

C-Ornis hadn't quite reckoned with the old-fashioned entity that was writing the stuff, and who was unable to change gear and join the new world. So old-fashioned refs were added and we get the mixture you see now. It'll all have to be put right; C-Ornis & I seem to agree to keep the alphabetical refs at the end because they provide an overview, and are easier to access when the text is off computer. The whole thing is much easier to read when printed out, in my opinion, but then I do read books...

I've agreed to ask C-Ornis to do his stuff when I finish (which I hope will be soon!). I'm not quite sure your new idea works well enough to justify itself [the direct link to L&L of CD], but we'll all need to have a group-think about these questions soon. Macdonald-ross 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the method you've been using is indeed called Harvard referencing by the bright sparks here, and what you've done is in line with Wikipedia:Harvard referencing as far as I can tell. New cunning options keep getting introduced, and others showed me the ropes (and helped implement them) at Charles Darwin which, as you can see, has inline links to brief Harvard "Citations" which in turn link to a large list of alphabetical refs at the end. Which may well be what you're aiming at. Will try to discuss this with you and ConfuciusOrnis as soon as poss. .. dave souza, talk 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy

I'm sure you hear it often enough but great edits to this section. And thanks for correcting my mistaken belief that Spencer coined this previous to Darwin. Therefore 19:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my badly formed sig -- I had inadvertently left the raw bit set in my preferences. Therefore 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
<blush> Thanks, I don't actually hear it often, much appreciated. Am chasing round Google a bit as the relationship to Friedrich Nietzsche seems pretty dodgy – see History of creationism#Early 20th century. Will try to clarify this. .. dave souza, talk 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments on the talk page -- I think the original text (with whatever edits you make for clarify, of course) can stand if we add in "and Benjamin Kidd's The Science of Power". Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 20:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Award time!

Approximately 101 Cuddly Dalmatian Proto-Tetrapod Plush Award Fredas to Dave for original artistry in designing the cute Bishapod! Please take good care of them, and note the Toy Fredas all offer and require individual cuddling on daily basis! More than Friedrich Nietzsche can say for himself, prolly! bishapod splash! 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

[With maternal resignation. ] Please excuse Little Stupid. Newbie. bishzilla ROARR!! 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC).


My goodness!! Am astounded and most impressed by creative energy of young Bishapod! It's a long time since I read the story, but promise to take care of same and turn away Cruella deVille should she come visiting. My, this IS an adventure! ... dave souza, talk 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your expert eye

is requested at Bernard d'Abrera and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Please see if I have any improper or imprudent faux pas. Thank you.--Filll 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As an architect, I claim no expertise. Especially if liability might be involved. Have had a look over, care needs to be taken with WP:NOR, especially on the bio which must meet WP:BLP. Made a couple of minor changes, worth thinking over all the assertions in the articles. .. dave souza, talk

British

As a Canadian who grew up with a mix of American and British spellings who now lives in the US and constantly makes mistakes about which spelling to choose when, I apologize. In particular, I thought "center" was the British spelling and "centre" was the American spelling, a relic of the US Revolutionary war when many British spellings were rejected in favor of French spellings (possibly for pretentious reasons as well). For example, the British leftenant is a lieutenant in the US. I am constantly confused and getting it wrong because I have had to spell just about everything at least two different ways. I also speak French, so that makes things even worse, and the Canadian French of course is distorted by the presence of so much English around it, particularly American English.--Filll 19:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Filll, just my way of kidding. Stiff upper lip old chap. Of course Herr Leutnant (iirc) is spelt lieutenant and pronounced leftenant in the UK, or lootenant in the US. Hope you didn't mind me having some fun while moving your article, it was a valuable excursion since it brought me McIntosh's Law of Thermodynamics, a splendid article on a subject where I've long been looking for good answers. Much ta, ... dave souza, talk 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Help! I need a hand at

British Centre for Science Education--Filll 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this came after bedtime here: however, it seems to be well sorted out now. Strange how well versed in deletion policy these new accounts can be. ... dave souza, talk 09:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dave, thanks for the welcome and your words on this one - I think the article as it stands now is a fair compromise - it has a link to a critic, but doesn't indulge in personal attacks. Thanks again! (IanLowe 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Bryan, Kellogg, Neitzsche

Thanks to everybody who has been editing the Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy article on the topic of Bryan's influences.

That said, it seems to me that we're still faced with a bit of an NPOV problem:

There are 2 ways to describe the causation of Bryan's coming to an anti-Darwinian position: (1) Bryan initially hated nationalism and militarism, and only came to hate Darwinism after he became convinced that it was a root cause of nationalism and militarism; or (2) Bryan's underlying agenda was anti-Darwinian, and he used anti-German sentiment (i.e. German support of Darwinism), as a means to convince people of his anti-Darwinian agenda.

I'll admit that my personal opinion inclines to (1), and that I wrote the initial article from that perspective. As the article now sits, I think it inclines to (2). I'd appreciate suggestions as to how we can modify the article in an NPOV way so as to be neutral between (1) and (2).

Adam_sk 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BI

Hi. I know it's been a LONG time, but I'm struggling to shorten this section, as discussed on various discussion pages a while back. Before I toss the text into the cock-pit, I'm asking for input and assistance from reference hawks like yourself and Sony-youth. [1]. Hughsheehy 11:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, Sony-Youth already had a go, visible on the discussion page of the sandbox. Hughsheehy 20:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, am working my way round to this. Will drop a preliminary comment. .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi..while Sony´s version makes me realise that I´ve gotton too fond of some of the words (and could probably shorten it more dramatically), he may have made it too short....a question of finding balance between the extremes. On your comment re the use of "British" and it´s recovery with Brutus myths, I guess about one sentence would cover it - as long as properly phrased. I don´t want to get into a full treatment of the use of "British" by itself... Hughsheehy 11:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, the aim would be to keep this really concise – to some extent this section may form a useful basis for the Britain article. Rather than "recovery" with Brutus myths, my comment was about the continuing prestige in Britain (but not Ireland) of Arthurian myth and genealogy, and that must be a very brief mention. Will have a go at a third sandbox version using clues from both your and Sony's versions, and with luck we can agree a synthesis. .. dave souza, talk 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree entirely about concise. One of my concerns is that if we make it short we may tend to build a narrative into the short version...to end up making a series of datapoints into a storyline. I think that would probably become OR. Anyway, you know what OR is, so there´s no need for me to tell you about it. Hughsheehy 00:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not so much with narrative as with avoiding a false impression of continuity, have started on this. Regarding OR, the current version shows "islands of the ocean" as a descriptive phrase, and we'd need a source for seeing it as a term. More asap. ... dave souza, talk 08:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that a "false impression of continuity" is exactly what i want to avoid..that´s what i mean by not turning a series of datapoints into a narrative. There´s no support for any sort of continuous story here, at least not in any of the references we have so far. As for "islands of the ocean", don't the current references show its use? Hughsheehy 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing the incorrect warning out. · AndonicO Talk 10:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly is "ta"? Did you mean "ty"? In that case, you're welcome. :) · AndonicO Talk 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Terribly sorry about the failure of communication, it's UKese for "thanks awfully, dear chap" . . ;) . . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Katie

Nanoedit. LMAO. Never saw that before. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, could have been a picoedit ;) Article's looking good, will try to read the rest tomorrow.... dave souza, talk 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Something interesting

[2], [3] which will make a whole lot of sense once you trace the IP to the NSCE. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Project_Steve, as well as edits to the Eugenie Scott article. Daisey cutter 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta. ... dave souza, talk 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ta and ra

What do these mean? Thanks. Daisey cutter 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See #Thanks for ta, ra is the sun god but if I did it, probably a typo. Nae bother. .. dave souza, talk 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Personnel Favour

Please undo the 3rr warning from my talk page. i tried talking to that user he ignored me. i am not involved in any dispute there, because i don't even understand why he reverted it. And its not consistent of you to warn me while the other guy had done all and the same think he reverted the article in silence 4 times. only saying that it is a bad vandalised edit while i have written on my talk page his talk page the issues talk page and in the edit summaries box all the time please be fare--יודל 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both of you. Please follow the links and study the policies. .. dave souza, talk 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have studied all the links and know by sleep all the policy's. i don't believe 3rr rule applies to reverts that are openly with an agenda while done in silence. could be i am mistaken thanks anyway for your input. all the best.--יודל 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns

Please don't revert before explaining. you have said that you challenged my edit, mainly that how can creationism not be religious. i have never written this in my edits. Please tell me whats wrong with my edit. that the belief in a creator is a traditional think? you write that u don't see it as an improvement. that's why i am here to listen. Whats your issue here?--יודל 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So now you're saying it has to be "traditional". Sources are needed, and it has to be written properly – please make proposals on the talk page instead of hacking away at the article. .. dave souza, talk 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As if this is news to u... dont u read what u revert?! [4] what is it that u want a proposal don't just hack away on me all day long. Please tell me what u find bad in the edit that the belief in a creator is traditional?! is it not true? is it written bad?! why when what can u talk what do u want--יודל 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies regarding Meditation

You may not remember me, but I was your meditator in the meditation case regarding [Northern Ireland]. I, however, was affected by China's ban on Wikipedia. I apoligize for my sudden inactivity and disappearance from Wikipedia, causing the meditation case to end prematurely.

Again, I apologize.

¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, sorry to hear the reason you had to be inactive, and glad to see that you're now ok to edit again. No problem about the Northern Ireland case, as I recall a tactful compromise was reached without too much delay. Just the promise of meditation must have helped, even without going through the whole process! ... dave souza, talk 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Disco to Discovery

Somebody tries to mock the name. Please comment for speedy deletion[5]. Thanks.--יודל 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of Discos. .. Have commented. ... dave souza, talk

Moulton's long record of changing section names

Hi Dave. Did you ever wonder how the section Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism#The section whose name Moulton keeps changing to "User:Hrafn42", but is really about Rosalind Picard got its name? I got so tired of reverting Moulton's changes, that I ended up changing it to that to stop having to revert it. He went through a similar, though less extensive, pattern of changes to Talk:Rosalind Picard#Garbled sentence. I can scratch up difs if you're really interested. I really do think his continuing pattern of disruptive behaviour warrants a warning. Hrafn42 11:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

From what you say, it's disruptive editing rather than vandalism. I've already mentioned this on M's talk, as you know. Will add a brief comment. .. dave souza, talk 12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
He's at it again:[6][7] Hrafn42 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

I realize it seems thankless, but I want to thank you for all the help you have given us so far in trying to calm the waters in this area. I have been mainly staying on the sidelines and trying to gather more information on this situation, as you know. However, it makes me sad to see so much wasted time and energy on such silly conflicts, when in all likelihood, all these efforts will be made moot.--Filll 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, all part of the service. If the efforts are made moot by reliable published material coming to light, that would be the best possible outcome . . . dave souza, talk 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

You asked if sermons from Rev. Moon are appropriate on user pages. Of course not - first, they're copyrighted, and second, that's the sort of thing that should be in article space if it's anywhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. ... dave souza, talk 08:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Hi Dave. There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you forst go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope to comment soon, just trying to find out what's the problem by reading the talk / archived talk makes my head hurt! .. dave souza, talk 08:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard

Hi dave.

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

This is getting way out of hand for me. Plus I keep getting off topic about how science fields aren't stoic boxes. I'm only a lowly undergrad student.--ZayZayEM 06:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Brings me back to the item above! .. dave souza, talk 08:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone should happen to look, we have many more sources than that one blog we can use. However, with edit warring, we are unable to make any progress here. --Filll 11:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Still Game edit

Dave, I'm getting a message saying my IP has recently made an edit to the Still Game page, I've done nothing of the sort, I've never watched it. Just a heads up really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.183.23 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The only other contribution from your IP number deleted some content.[8] Don't know how that happened, the best answer is to get an account. .. dave souza, talk 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

re-The Origin of Species

Conversation with Memestream 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC), moved to User talk:Memestream . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the....

Thanks for the welcome! Baegis 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! ;) . . dave souza, talk 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL

[9]&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta, I think. Have removed same from watchlist and hadn't bothered reading it before. By coincidence was playing record of the Band the other day, just now have ska compilation on, very suitable for Bokononism. So it goes. ... dave souza, talk 12:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Which serendipitously brings me to the idea for a film titled Trollspotting. ... dave souza, talk 12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A propos link for trollspotting. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar's RFA

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreadstar I noticed this newer username which was User talk:Deedstar. Would this qualify as a username that is too similar to another and thus in violation of policy? I thought I'd ask you. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, thanks. You'll no doubt have consulted Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames "Usernames that closely resemble the name of another Wikipedia user and may cause confusion." and also noticed that Deedstar was welcomed by Dreadstar with no comment I've noticed about the name. They actually look and sound different enough to me to avoid any confusion, but that's subjective. Username disambiguation might well be enough to deal with the odd mix-up.... dave souza, talk 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it was sort of strange. The account was probably created with that intention. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution#Historical_context_in_the_Lead

Interested in your feedback, tweaking etc. - RoyBoy 800 00:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

request input re image in sexual selection

Hi Dave, I invite your input on Talk:Sexual_selection#.22Darwin_befouls_a_lady_with_lecherous_monkey_tricks.22_image. Pete.Hurd 03:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have tried, hope that helps. .. dave souza, talk 12:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

My RFA
Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Good news, look forward to being impressed with your sensible use of the tools:) ... dave souza, talk 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're threatening to block me for reverting your deletion of a dispute tag for an ongoing dispute that has taken thousands of posts on the talk page?

It's your edit war. Don't blame me. Jacob Haller 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR. ..dave souza, talk 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I made three reverts. Not four. Jacob Haller 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's advice. So you don't make four. .. dave souza, talk 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Priceless!

"One thing though: as a result of all my efforts, the request for deletion failed, and there was much ageement to improve not merge." - Lindosland

I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read that. :) Tim Vickers 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes! I;m a bit lost for words here. ... dave souza, talk 06:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design edits

How exactly were my edits pushing on intelligent design? Please tell me how removing certain phrases which no neutral and technically accurate encyclopedia should contain, 'pushes on' a bias? Please tell me how exactly could any encyclopedia state : 'the UNEQUIVOCAL consensus of the scientific, community be that intelligent design is not a science', when all that the sources backing up this statement, does is give a list of scientific societies that reject intelligent design? The sources don't and can never prove an 'Unequivocal' consensus. ( I presume you know the meaning of unequivocal)as it means that there are no opposing views in the scientific community, which is blatently wrong. Perhaps you could use the word 'unequivocally' in a propaganda article to emphasize the majority view point. However not in an encyclopedia, which has to be in technicality accurate in choice of words, and remain completely non biased. Hence was the reason I changed 'unequivocal consensus of the scientific community....' to 'several scientific societies reject intelligent design as a science '. I can't see any objection to my edit- my edit is more suited for an encyclopedia and doesn't assert anything which the sources can't back up.


The next portion of my edit was basically correcting the straw man, saying proponents of intelligent design assert to wish to change the scientific method, so as to incorporate the divine element. However most proponents of intelligent design claim they are not changing the scientific method , but rather they aim in using it to show the existence of a creator. It may seem to you that they are modifying the scientific method, but what they assert is what THEY assert. Hence the encyclopedia cannot state intelligent design (or it's proponents) aim to change the scientific method.

The encyclopedia can explain, if it has adequate sources, how ,in fact, in actuality, intelligent design proponents are changing the scientific method ( perhaps you could insert a paragraph), but it can't state that the proponents assert something which they claim not to.


ramsmenon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsmenon (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave, thank you for the recent improvements to the section on international status of intelligent design, as well as the other recent work you've done in tightening up some of the many aspects the article touches upon. ... Kenosis 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kenosis, much appreciated. I've been very aware of the need to make sure that any changes are fully supported by references. . ... dave souza, talk 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For that pinky-purple, platypus/lizard-like thing. I think.... ;) deeceevoice 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks :) Check the link – it's the original fishapod, slightly adapted for user:Bishapod....... dave souza, talk 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your confusion

I responded to your remarks. You falsely said I was "trolling, and should learn that disruptive editing is not acceptable." I think you are confused about who is trolling who[10][11]. I've been on wikipedia for more than year, I know what WP:DE, and think you should support or withdrawal your attack against me. C56C 20:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I've commented on Gwen's page. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your breach of WP:CIVIL

Since you have been throwing policies up to get your own way, I wanted to remind you of WP:CIVIL. Surely this shows you violating that rule. Also a little advice, when commenting of whether people read/speak English, you should probably write of a little higher quality.

Moreover, when claiming something violates a policy, should should explain how, in this case, a source fails to meet a particular part of a policy. Cite what part of the policy is applicable. While I read English, I can't read minds. If you think a source isn't a WP:RS then say it, and it can be discussed.

Again, calling me a troll and accusing me of not knowing English was rather poor behavior. You further breached WP:CIVIL is your response. C56C 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently I agree with neither your complaints nor your analysis. Gwen is quite right in advising you to take all further questions or comments to the appropriate article's talk page so other editors can see them and comment on them. dave souza, talk 16:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RucasHost (talk · contribs)

Why did you block him? The article on which he was revert-warring was protected a couple hours ago. -- tariqabjotu 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
From WP:BLOCK: "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior." Because the article is protected, the likelihood of RucasHost repeating the inappropriate behavior is zero. Blocking RucasHost only makes putting this issue to an end even more difficult because now he cannot participate in any discussion. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Rucashost' "participation" in the discussion has been uniformly negative. Consisting mostly of throwing around accusations of vandalism and cronieism, while completely failing to address any of the issues raised by other editors. The fact is, he should have been blocked a while ago, and now that he's not able to disrupt the article, it should be unprotected.  – ornis⚙ 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Thanks, everyone, sorry that this was rather a late night issue and today it's been an exceptionally busy morning for me. I'm certain that all concerned have been acting in good faith in a difficult situation, and obviously there are differences of opinion as to the best way to reduce the likelihood of repeated inappropriate behaviour. Hopefully we can all learn from this. .. dave souza, talk 12:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design talkpage

I see you're archiving the ID talk page, fair enough. But why are you removing the text from the talk page section by section? You can just cut and paste it in one clunk (leaving any unresolved debates) into the new archive page. What am I missing? I'm sure there must be something lol. Cheers, Rothery 08:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

I'd normally do that, but as it's on the main page and there'd been a flurry of talk comments, it seemed a good way of avoiding an edit conflict. Turned out to be a quiet spell after all, but that's it done now. Bot seems a good idea ;) .. dave souza, talk 08:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Geology subjects

TY for the suggestions. I'll take a look and see what I can add. Badgerpatrol 09:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Check your facts

You need to check your facts. I am not edit warring and I've not been violating 3RR. I was examining each instance of "claim" one by one to see if they complied with the manual of style. Where they did not, I removed them one by one. To quote you, "don't be a dick". Johntex\talk 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Intelligent design. .. dave souza, talk 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)