User talk:Dave souza/Archive 14

Origin of Species: GA review
Hi, Dave & Rusty (I'm posting a link to this on Rusty's Talk page). Right now I think it's failing, because IMO the article still falls short on the "broad coverage" criterion of WP:WIAGA:
 * Nothing about the book's place in & contribution to modern evolutionary thought. To do this properly you'd have to include a brief summary of the "decline of Darwinism" and of how the modern evolutionary synthesis developed. History of evolutionary thought is a mid-2008 FA so likely to be very helpful. IMO the basic question "How influential is it to-day?" is pretty obvious and does not require expert knowledge in order to raise it. I only became aware of the "decline of Darwinism" in about the last 6 months, so "decline ..."  may be an FA-level rather than GA-level sub-topic, but I think it fits under "influence on modern evolutionary thought". --Philcha (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to keep things concise, and we briefly take the story up to the MES but a complete history of developments post 1872 is really outside the scope of an article about this book. . dave souza, talk 12:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd missed the bits about MES. However there are still gaps, which I think wil be relavant at FA:
 * I kind of agree with Dave on this one. We can maybe add a little more but we really need to be careful. There is enough to cover here and we don't want to go into the kind of detail that history of evolutionary thought or modern evovlutionary synthesis does. However, one thing we might want to mention is the fact that Origin is still in print for both the 1st and 6th editions and that it is still a topic of academic study. It should be possible to turn up some sources on this.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, see my idea below for a concluding section that could fit into. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My impression from reading the "plot summary" and some extracts is that Darwin at least sometimes wrote as if natural selection is a generator or variation, while the modern view is that natural selection is a pruner of variations created by other means, of which mutation is the best known (others include symbiosis).
 * Darwin really had no idea what the source of variation was and he was quite candid about this although he did speculate on some possibilities off the top of his head (things like use and dissuse and environmental conditions). The inheritence subsection of "contents" discusses this. I will look at it to make sure it is clear. The truth is there was once much more material on this topic in the contents section but it was stripped out to conserve space. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwin's theory was explicitly gradualist. IMO you need a couple of sentences about punctuated equilibrium.
 * If we do we don't want to spend more than a sentence on it. Once again this article isn't history of evolutioanry thought. I will look for a good place for a brief allusion. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * D saw the Cambrian explosion as the strongest objection to his theory (see ref there). A couple of sentences are needed, Cambrian explosion will supply outlines and refs. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a section on this topic to history of paleontology a few months ago, which cites an excellent online source. I can work a brief allusion to this into the "evidence from geology" subsection of contents.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually one of several grave objections, not the strongest objection afaik, and is covered in the Geologic record section – all it needs is a bit of rephrasing and some wikilinks. . dave souza, talk 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Should mention D's other works that support, extend or use his theory of evolution - e.g. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Fertilisation of Orchids (co-evolution; his proposal that the long nectary of Angraecum sesquipedale meant that there must be a moth with an equally long proboscis was confirmed in 1903), The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. This may be more in the realm of "comprehensive coverage" as required by the FA criteria, as I had to check the titles and summaries in the relevant WP articles. --Philcha (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex is mentioned as significantly dealing with issues relevant to the reaction to this book. The others give further detail, but this is about one book, not about "comprehensive coverage" of all of Darwin's works, the most significant of which are listed in the Darwin template. . . dave souza, talk 12:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not "comprehensive coverage of all of Darwin's works" but comments on those aspects that are relevant to Origin. So although many of D's other works were about totally different subjects (not a lot of people know that :D), some defended, refined or used his theory of evolution - the orchid is a great exmaple of using it. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already also a mention of Variation of plants and animals under domestication; again we don't want to duplicate material already in Charles Darwin but perhaps some brief allusions might be in order; it must be kept very brief though. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest you two agree what your strategy for getting to FA before 24 Nov is. The obvious options are: All of these options assume significant help from a skilled copyeditor after the content's stable - I would not call myself one, but I can see places where I can improve the prose and possibly trim the length slightly. How many skilled copyeditors do you know? --Philcha (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Get as close as poss to FA at this GA review. That would require me to review in "hard bastard" mode (not that difficult) and you'll probably hate me. The worst disadvantage is that it would be basically one person's judgement, even if we get some more 2nd opinions.
 * Get to standard-level GA then go for some sort of separate peer review. That assumes you can get motivated and knowledgable reviewers together in time and that they don't squabble too much.
 * Get to standard-level GA and plan for 2 FA reviews in case the first fails. To see if this is workable you'd have check a.s.a.p. with SandyGeorgia and Karanacs and hope for a prompt reply.


 * Skilled copyediting right away along with harsh criticism will be much appreciated. I think the Content section is ready to benefit from such copyediting, don't have the time just now to tackle it myself. Any other views? . . dave souza, talk 12:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're getting the harsh criticism now >:)
 * How are you for copyeditors? --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated, will tackle soon. We seem to be completely short of copyeditors, any suggestions? . . dave souza, talk 14:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * More copyediting is always useful. My take on going to FAC, which is based on my fairly recent experience shepparding history of evolutionary thought and Alfred Russel Wallace through the process is that it is going to take two attempts before we succeed and that attempting the first try sooner rather than later is a good idea. Again based on my experience with HoET and A.R. Wallace is that this kind of article will attract a lot of attention and useful review comments, as well as the attention of a number of good copyeditors, even with an unsuccesful FAC nomination. This GA review has been quite usefull, but at some point soon we might be better off solicitinig a wider range of comments, which putting an article with this much interest up for FAC would produce. I agree that Dave and I need to coordinate to put it up for FAC (especially the first time) at time when we are both ready to support the nomination. I would be interested in hearing Dave's thoughts. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's my cunning plan for a happy ending: see next section. . . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A few comments:
 * You guys appear to be advocating different strategies, if I understand you correctly. If so, I think you need to make up your minds.
 * Dave's "happy ending" all depends on the citations he can produce. It also needs a bit of editing, as parts of the 1st 2 paras look rather WP:PEACOCK. --Philcha (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, need to tone down the niceness a bit, but the first para is very close to the source. You've raised a question, and this is a serious response which actually seems pretty reasonable to me. The principle would be the same as Charles Darwin and Fertilisation of Orchids for examples of the broad aim. If it's hated, no big deal, but it seemed to me to meet Rusty's aim of finishing on a positive note as discussed when we were considering putting scientific reception ahead of religious reception. Just a draft for discussion. Feel free to edit it as I'm heading for bed soon. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have tweaked it a bit, bedtime now, your turn. . dave souza, talk 21:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So which is it: get it to GA as fast as possible to allow for 2 x FAC, or make the GA review as thorough as possible? --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded to this question with some detail on my user page, but the long and the short of it is I think you really want to allow for 2 shots at FAC well before November, so I would hope to get this ready for a first FA nomination by late May if at all possible, which means I would hope it would clear GA in the next week or so. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine to push ahead by me, that's my main changes completed now. . dave souza, talk 09:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am strongly inclined to follow Geometry guy's advise on the tense issue, especially after doing so much work changing the text to match them. Do you have a reason for wanting to do otherwise? Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it seems a bit out of line with common usage but the past tense can work. Have replied on your talk page. . dave souza, talk 08:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the article stable enough yet for the GA to resume? I notice you and Rusty are still working like busy bees, and you have a sub-page for condensing the "Content" section. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, ready to resume GAR as I've been focussing on areas other than the "Content" and have now resolved all the points in hand. My sub-page for reviewing and condensing the "Content" can be thought of as proposals for anticipating or meeting any questions that come up at GAR, not as immediate edits to the article itself which seems pretty good to me. . dave souza, talk 09:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Analysis of text section
Dave, for reasons I made clear on the talk page I think we need reverse this change. I will try not to loose any of you other edits but I think a separate section on structure and style is absolutely essential. After I have restored it we can talk bout what changes to it might be desirable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reversed it, will comment with links so that changes can be reviewed. No problem. . dave souza, talk 20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I ended up doing was essentially taking the version of text you produced for the top of content and moving that back to a separate section, which I renamed "Structure and style" and made a few tweaks. Unfortunately we had an edit conflict. So I looked at the version you had restored and added the subsection titles you used into what I had edited. I will go back and make sure I didn't loos any additional changes you made.Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looked good to me, sorry if that trial run caused any hassle. Glad it came up when I was around to help with restoring things. . dave souza, talk 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the net result was an improvement and all is well that ends well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Plea for stability
Hi, Dave, I'm getting concerned about the volume of changes to Origin of Species that are not obviously related to review comments. GA candidates are supposed to be stable. --Philcha (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, after reviewing the lead it was essentially a minor grammar and spelling check, done now. . dave souza, talk 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern science

 * ''here's my draft for a new section to go after the three Reception subsections. A happy ending. I've got citations to hand for punk eek and the Cambrian explosion, but would have to hunt some out for the first part of that paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As the modern evolutionary synthesis became established and was further developed into modern evolutionary theory, Darwin's theory of natural selection has become the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining diversity of living organisms and their adaptation to the biophysical environment. It makes sense of the geologic record, biogeography, parallels in embryonic development, biological homologies, vestigiality, cladistics and other fields, providing reconciliation between findings in a way not achieved by any alternative hypothesis.

Developments in biological science have gone far beyond Darwin's ideas, and continuing findings of evidence for evolution have consistently supported his principle of natural selection leading to speciation from common descent. New fields such as genetics have provided unanticipated answers to problems he struggled with or was on the wrong track, and competing views still debate the details of how evolution works. However, validation of some of his original anticipations have been found in apparently contradictory concepts such as punctuated equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion.

In 2009 the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species and the bicentenary of Darwin's birth are being commemorated by worldwide events and exhibitions, celebrating the ideas which "over the last 150 years have revolutionised our understanding of nature and our place within it."

Comments
I'm afraid I'm not at all happy with the 2nd para.
 * The 2 Scientific American citations appear to be by staff rather than guest writers - see the wide range of topics in the "other artciles by ..." pages. They're not cowboys, but they're also not experts. The spirit of the passage ending in these 2 refs is about right, but the devil's in the details.
 * Confessions of a Darwinist is simply Eldredge's defence against charges that he & Gould provided a weapon for Creationists. The ideas of D that E cites (e.g. per saltum) are intermediate ones that appear in his workbooks but not in the final formulation presented in Origin.
 * Darwin's speculations on abiogenesis in 1871 show that the Ediacaran fossils described in [Darwin's dilemma gets solution would not have satisfied him in 1871. And I don't see how the Sci Am article "Darwin's dilemma gets solution" justifies " validation of some of his original anticipations have been found in apparently contradictory concepts such as ... the [[Cambrian explosion]]". You might do better to say that D accepted that the sciences of this times were not advanced enough to investigate the origins of life ("It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter"). -Philcha (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would actually like to address the Cambrian issues in a brief allusion in the contents section. It would not be anymore out of place there than a couple of the other forward looking comments already in contents, and I think it would work rather well there.
 * *I think this should actually be part of the reception section as a "modern developments" section at the end of reception rather than as a separate section.
 * It might also be good to make a brief allusion to the 1950s statement by the pope (which was quite important) that got lost from previous versions.
 * Other than that, I agree that the 2nd paragraph needs some work, but getting rid of the allusion to the Cambrian (if I can handle it within the contet section) will help. Also you might try wording like: "New fields such as genetics have provided unanticipated answers to problems he struggled with, and with new ideas such as punctuated equilibrium debate over the details of how evolution works continues."Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought some of my suggestions were not so good so I have struck them out. I would suggest calling the new section "Modern influence" or some such thing. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed the pre-Cambrian issue as well as the issue of Darwin's views on the source of variation with a couple of edits to the "contents" section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Not sure if we need to change the title, and either a section or subsection of Reception would work for me. Think it's worth adding a section or subsection to the article using only the first and last paragraphs, then look for better sources with the aim of covering the issues in the second paragraph? . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it is worth going forward with a little effort to reword the second paragraph, but having some kind of "modern impact" text would be a good thing. I especially like your allusion to the 2009 Darwin year events. At the risk of reversing myself a 2nd time I think a subsection to "reception" would be best, but I wouldn't put the word "science" as the impact of the 2009 Darwin celebration is cultural and educational as well as scientific, and if you use the work science in the subsection title (or even section title) people will wonder why it is separate from "Impact on the scientific community". We do need something like this to show that this particular book continues to have an ongoing impact.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will try to tackle that tomorrow unless you get there first. Think Modern influence would work as a title? . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the excellent improvements to Charles Darwin (1758-1778) article. I'll look for a middle name (unfortunately the famous Charles Darwin seems to be the one with a middle name). I'd like to add some links from the "Darwin-wedgewood family" page and also to the "William Hyde Wollaston" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirughaz (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV/FAQ
Where is this consensus you're seeing for NPOV/FAQ to be a policy? You personally moved the material that was causing the dispute to WP:NPOV, so you're edit warring over nothing. Dreadstar †  23:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's always been a policy, there was discussion about moving all relevant parts to NPOV to replace the "common questions" there, with some objections, and once that's done I for one am willing to discuss demoting NPOV/FAQ from policy. You're welcome to reopen that discussion. . dave souza, talk 23:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't always policy. It was originally spun off precisely because the material wasn't policy, it was "essays and chat". If anything in there is something you believe to be policy, then I suggest you move it out of the FAQ.  But we'll see what consensus says about FAQs being policies.  Hell, all FAQs may become policies, who knows...  Dreadstar  †  02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not pointless at aal, always happy to oblige. Yes, that was the statement by FT2 when spinning off the new page without a heading, just about a whole nine hours before it was tagged as policy. As requested I've reviewed the FAQ and moved the sections I consider most significant into the NPOV page. Glad to help, . dave souza, talk 11:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dave, your effort is much appreciated! I see there's still dispute over the thing, which is disappointing.  I just don't feel a FAQ should be Policy, that's all, really - and I'm amazed at the difficulty of getting this done.  I'm one for a solid heirarchy of documentation that has distinct boundaries and purposes.  I think the initial tagging of the FAQ as policy was ill-considered, but like I said - the community may feel differently - although it doesn't appear to be shaping up that way consensus-wise so far....  Thanks!  :)   Dreadstar  †  18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, it was always awkward having questions in one policy and answers in an expansion page of the policy. There does seem to be a good reaction from some I'd have expected to want to stick with the status quo, the dispute seems to be coming from those hoping to downgrade policy which they found a hindrance, as far as I can judge. No doubt it'll all work out, and with luck your initiative will have a welcome outcome. Thanks again, for getting the ball rolling! . dave souza, talk 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So Dave, now that the two sections, Giving equal validity and Making necessary assumptions have been moved to WP:NPOV proper, do you still have any further objections to changing NPOV/FAQ from a Policy to just a standard "FAQ" page? (I've even added links back to the original FAQ questions) Thanks! Dreadstar †  03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections from me, think I said that somewhere, but it's worth checking over to see if any other sections or parts of sections should also be moved over as part of the main policy. Will try to look it over and comment on that useful section you've started at WT:NPOV/FAQ. The original FAQ questions on these two sections can be deleted, as far as I'm concerned, and the useful shortcuts can become shortcuts to the sections on the NPOV page themselves. . dave souza, talk 07:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Dupe material removed from the FAQ and the links are now Shortcuts in WP:NPOV.  Dreadstar  †  16:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Clémence Royer
Dave – I have a question about copyright. On the Origin of Species had red links to Clémence Royer. I’ve therefore made a start on an article and it would be good to include a picture. The book by Joy Harvey (1997) includes a photo with the caption: Figure 3. Photograph by Félix Nadar of Clémence Royer in 1865. It first appeared in print in 1895 in an article in the Revue Encyclopédie. (Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque Nationale, from the Félix Nadar Collection, n.a.f. 24285.) Notwithstanding the caption, my understanding is that because of the time since the first publication of the photo, the copyright has expired and I’m free scan the figure and upload the image to Wikipedia. Is this correct? Aa77zz (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work! From a look at Copyright situations by country both France and the UK are life + 70 years, and Nadar (photographer) died in 1910 so there should be no problem. Ideally upload it to Commons, then it can also be used in the French article. See also Public domain. Books often include permissions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the image isn't public domain. . dave souza, talk 18:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:It Jan-Feb '69.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:It Jan-Feb '69.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lamarck &c
I've reinstated the archiving on Talk:Jean-Baptiste Lamarck that had been improperly (IMHO) reversed by Logicus. The whole thread raises issue of talk pages being more or less blocked by persistent one-issue campaigners, and hence made unfriendly for normal discussion. Not expecting a solution, just felt like airing my frustration! Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so. Logicus seems to have quietened down for the moment, which is more than can be said for harping on at Talk:Charles Darwin. Tedious. . dave souza, talk 21:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

IBW socking?
Dave, could you take a look at this please. I notice that has been editing again following his being blocked. So far he hasn't bothered me, however he does appear to have got into an argument with over edits at Analog signal and I strongly suspect that he has resorted to sockpuppetry again.

The reply to this message from IBW was quickly followed up by this message from in support of IBW.

The same IP user also left this message on the talk page of, making reference to I B Wright as supposedly being a different user.

This is a typical IBW+sockpuppet pattern of behaviour, in my view. It is exactly what I was subjected to, more than once, albeit from different IPs. Notice though, this latest IP's contributions show four edits to Looe Valley Line, which I B Wright has made edits to in the past, as has one of his earlier suspected sockpuppets.– Signal head  &lt; T &gt;  18:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks possible, but neither has edited since 20 April and it seems a bit stale. Any new activity and we can bring the question up, with a reminder to avoid behaving that way. .. dave souza, talk 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals
Dave, I added a pointer to Google Books on this Darwin biography in the article The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. You reverted it out without discussion, as "not the US edition". Is there a significant difference? Please advise.



Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The citation should be to the edition used as a reference, which in this case was the UK edition with the title Darwin. Don't know if there were any differences other than the extended title and spelling, which means that I can't cite the US version. . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, Dave. Thanks. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I've added it as the US edition under the British edition. At least that way someone can read part of the book online. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That helps, especially if someone starts using it and citing that version which has a different date. The google link didn't give me any opportunity to read parts of the book, though Amazon.uk offered some preview of both the US and UK editions. Not sure how useful the google link is, as the ISBN number gives a link to various sources of the book. . dave souza, talk 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Dave. Well, the Google Book is online and readable here. I will try to finess the citation. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Mountaineering and Climbing Project
Hi, my name is Jarhed and I am an amateur rock climber and mountaineer. I recently reviewed some of the articles on these subjects, and I believe that they could use the attention of interested editors such as yourself. I have proposed a new project on these topics and I am interested in your opinion. You can find the proposal here: Mountaineering and Climbing Project Proposal. Thank you for your time, and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, I'm a bit snowed under with other projects at the moment but will add the page to my watchlist. Not really very knowledgeable about these things, though I did do a bit of Munroing many years ago. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I want you to delete a redirect
I wanted to create a page on Santosh Madhavan but I created it on Santosh Mahavan. I redirected the page to Santhosh Madhavan but it will be good if you delete the redirect.--EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good reason, per G7, have deleted as requested. . dave souza, talk 09:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I need one more help. I uploaded a file [[File:Barack_Obama_and_Ann_Dunham.jpg]] It is a photo of Barack Obama along with Ann Dunham. I have seen it used on a number of websites but could not get any information on its copyright status. Can I put the image as public domain.--EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty certainly not public domain, as in general that only helps with images published before 1923 or whose author died more than 70 years ago, depending on country. Someone will have copyright in this image: Copyrights gives general guidance, and Public domain gives more specific information. So, unless you can find a lot of information confirming that it's out of copyright or licensed under a suitable license, we can't keep this file here and it will have to be deleted. Thanks for checking this out, . dave souza, talk 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way isn't this spam? And the page on Santosh Madhavan was previously deleted. Can you giuve me the deleted content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilFlyingMonkey (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, ok, have commented on your talk page . . dave souza, talk 18:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Darwinius
I am sorry if I have come across as offensive in the last post of the talk page of Darwinius. I just want you to know that my ire is not directed at you, but at what I see as ivory tower arrogance masquerading as science. I find your contributions to the article (and others) well balanced and valuable. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a difficult situation in that this is effectively a high pressure situation where views are fluid and we're trying to strike a reasonable balance while the scientific consensus is still in the process of emerging. There's also the story of the hype as well as the hard science. It'll certainly be interesting to see how it all settles down. Thanks also for your contributions which have been invaluable in getting the article on course to cover how the story developed. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi,Dave. As a new editor in Wikipedia over the past few weeks, I have picked a few interesting recent "editing/discussion struggles" to follow, "Darwinius" and "Tank Man" being two diverse examples. Within the Darwinius discussion, I followed the hard work you have done to steep yourself in the scientific and social aspects of the argument and guide the emergence of an NPOV article. Knowledge is its own reward, but I would also guess there was an emotional cost to your interaction with various "passionate" individuals. I really thank you for your work with that article.Middle Fork (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. It's more that the subject is fascinating, and collaboration with others who may have competing views can readily be facilitated by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular WP:NPOV which aims to show the various viewpoints, giving due weight to each. Such interaction can be fun, even if it does seem a bit heated at times! . . dave souza, talk 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Puting Origin up for FAC
I am thinking of nominating On the Origin of Species for FA next week on Thursday evening (San Diego time, which I think would be in the wee hours of Friday morning for you). It would work out well for me because I would have the next 4 days off of work. However, I want to pick a time that works reasonably well for you as well as I expect both of us will be needed to support this effort. I think the article is in pretty good shape for it, and I may be fooling myself but I have hopes that we might get it through in one try. I will watch this page for your reply, and I will spend some time between now and then proof reading and copyediting it section by section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Suits me as well as any time, I may have to do some other things on the Saturday and Sunday but will do my best to keep an eye on it. . . dave souza, talk 03:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok it is up at Featured article candidates/On the Origin of Species/archive1.
 * And thank you and congradulations right back at you. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of "Natural selection"
As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Natural selection has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  04:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Browne reference
Note 129 on the On the Origin of Species page is to Browne 2003. Should this be 2002 ie Vol 2? I haven't a copy with me to check. Aa77zz (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, thanks for that. It is indeed Vol. 2, corrected now. Much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution talkpage
Dave, don't poke the theists with sticks, it is cruel. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll teach me for being helpful and informative, agree that deleting per TALK is the right thing. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

More potential Darwin FAs
It looks like Origin of Species is about to pass first time (absit omen!!)! If so, that gives you another 6 months of 2009 to get other Darwin-related works to FA. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs and Fertilisation of Orchids are worthy of attention, and are B-class so hopefully would not be too hard to improve. The other most notable works listed at List of works by Charles Darwin appear to be The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (start-class), The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (stub), and The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom (a very short stub). However both you guys and WP may want to do non-Darwin things as well during the rest of 2009, and The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs and Fertilisation of Orchids seem the most promising candidates.

I might be able to help a little with The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, as I got Cnidaria to GA, but I know zip about botany. Other factors that limit my ability to contribute are: I'm moving house 26 June 2009, which will disrupt my activity at WP for a bit; I have quite a long agenda of my own; you guys are more familiar w the sources. However if you can stand another GA review by me ... :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably best to list them at GAN - someone else might be free to review before I am, and we should avoid any suspicion of collusion. There's still a fair chance that I'd pick them up within a month (AFAIK the approx waiting time at GAN on biology), as few editors and reviewers feel comfortable with wide-scope topics. --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you really did make it first time! Congratulations to you and Rusty, it was a pleasure working with you both. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of working with both of us. I wanted to thank you for collaborationg so well with someone who isn't always so easy to collaborate with. Therefore I award you:

Some advice wanted
Hi Dave, I'm not sure you're the right person to contact here but I'm not enough of a committed wikipedian to know better. I seem to have wandered into a wasp's nest over at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - I reverted what looked to me like unreasonable censoring of a fellow wikipedian's opinion on a talk page, but it has since resulted in User talk:Mjharrison. I don't really understand what's going on here but it doesn't feel right, and I'm still not sure what the problem was/is. Thanks. Mjharrison (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on bringing On the Origin of Species up to FA level. Over the last few months I’ve watched Rusty and yourself skilfully edit this large and complex article. It is a beautiful example of how knowledgeable editors can work together to improve Wikipedia. Aa77zz (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks! . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fertilisation of Orchids
Hi, I am reviewing Fertilisation of Orchids for GA and have completed an initial evaluation with comments at Talk:Fertilisation of Orchids/GA1. A wonderful article! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, it's a great subject and just about wrote itself! . dave souza, talk 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on full prot
I feel I'm in Bizarro world right now...so I come to you seeking enlightenment as you are my go-to admin dude.

What is your opinion on admins editing fully-protected articles? I seem to be against the current consensus that I have witnessed on AN/I whereby as long as the edits aren't seriously major or controversial, admin edits are fine, as many as one pleases, without any comment on the talkpage or consensus for the edits. I disagree, and I was under the impression admin edits to fully protected pages should be minimal and by request of consensus on the talkpage. I could be wrong, but if I am, that is a policy that needs a change. Eagerly awaiting your opinion, Auntie E (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My initial response is that I agree with you, and having had a look at Protection policy that's confirmed by "Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). Once consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the editprotected template on the talk page."
 * While there's an exemption for uncontroversial edits, it's implied that talk page comes first and in normal practice I'd consider it ok to correct a blatant spelling error WITH simultaneous notification on the talk page expressing willingness to self-revert if there were any objection. In the heat of the Michael Jackson situation errors were made in not noticing that it was full rather than semi protection, and to that extent apologised for. There's an obvious tension between wanting an article under intense scrutiny and pressure to be in good shape, and getting reports up on a talk page subject to a lot of edit conflicts as the breaking news unfolded. It's a lot to wade through, but at least three of the admins involved were contributing to the talk page about adjustments they or other admins were making, so I'm a bit reluctant to condemn. If someone did fail in reporting uncontroversial edits, a reminder would be in order. As you say, it's courtesy to make that notification, and creates a bad impression if ignored. . . dave souza, talk 09:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For info . . dave souza, talk 10:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I felt it worth a trout or two to the offending parties, but many admins thought it a petty concern unworthy of comment. And I still see the disconnect in your link to the MJ talkpage between what policy states and what is acceptable. I know, IAR is always applicable, but in any situation where it creates the appearance of a two-tiered system, it's not a tack I would recommend for the sake of comity. Every admin knows (or should know) that there has been issues with many admins seeming to be "more equal" than others, and this opinion is not limited to the rabble-rousing set. Or am I a rabble-rouser now? :) Auntie E (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't invited into this, but hope you are open to hearing unsolicited views as well. IMO this ws unacceptable. I have never edited a fully protected article without an editprotected request with full consensus on the talk page. I believe I have made three such edits; one to Intelligent design, and two to Sarah Palin (I hope you'll forgive me if my memory is playing me false.) I had no idea any admin considered any other approach acceptable, and am quite troubled by recent events. Note that I am speaking only of intentional edits to fully-protected pages; the admins who were under the erroneous assumption the protection was semi- are certainly entitled to our understanding. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, KC, my own experience of editing fully protected articles iw very limited and your wisdom on this is appreciated. Support Auntie's idea of trout treatment, where the edits were intentional. It's now clear that the trivial tidying causes more upset than the benefit of minor improvements, perhaps worth raising at WP:ANI or somewhere. . . dave souza, talk 17:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be beneficial to bring it up on AN/I. It would be considered drama-seeking. I am afraid that this show is over, move along, nothing to see... Auntie E (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Killer, I appreciate your feedback. And I remember the Palin episode and recall that the admins edited responsibly during full-protection; I was impressed with the way it worked out. That's why I was surprised at what happened on the MJ page, and disappointed by the general reaction of the admins watching. Auntie E (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no one edited the Palin article without the template and full consensus. I think there were one or two edits done by other admins at that time; but no one just "fixed" anything without having been requested to via the template. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So how do you miss that fully-shaded pink edit box? :) Guettarda (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask those who raised it here, if you think it worth pursuing. The Screen reader point does seem reasonable, guess at times of pressure it's easy to miss red lights. Not that traffic cops are sympathetic to that line of argument :-/ dave souza, talk 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest this might be best continued here. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Hey, I was just trying to suggest taking it to AN! OK, will try that first... dave souza, talk 17:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Botanic Garden
Hi, regarding The Botanic Garden by Darwin, do you have an opinion on this > Talk:The Botanic Garden/GA1? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, a bit weak on the evolutionary aspects and no mention of Charles probably having read this as well as reading Zoonomia before going to Edinburgh Uni and being unimpressed by Grant's Lamarckism – Browne pp. 37–40 and 83–86. On my watchlist, a bit more research needed before commenting. Must rethink the intro here first! . . dave souza, talk 10:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

link to Lucy
Reding this somebody my get impression that I misrepresented the truth. Google preview 76.16.176.166 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work for me, I'll accept that the US edition differs. However, I'm sure Johanson didn't write "We stod up and see other bits of bone", and it's not clear what you meant the addition to convey. . . dave souza, talk 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * just click the link and scroll down. Do you suggest to suspect forgery in Google book copyrighted material or other CSA ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply awaiting

 * and again. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, would you mind asking arcayne where he requested I stay away from his talk page? I don't find it, but he says he did. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here. To whit: "And just so we're clear - I don't need to receive a response from you on my talk page." In essence, someone who assumes the worst in me is not an ideal source of advice or input to me. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I guess it doesn't matter, as I think KC isn't really interested in when, anyway. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't need" is lightyears away from "please do not". I had no idea you viewed that as a request to not post on your talk page, Arcayne. I will consider this. I advise you to be more precise in your phrasing in the future. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pointedly - and this is a response to Dave - until KC can afford to spread the criticism a little more neutrally, I have little more to say to her. I've made several attempts to correct her incorrect assumptions, and she steadfastly refuses to consider even the likelihood that she is mistaken. I feel specifically singled out by KC's bad faith and incivility, As that creates an insoluble problem, I am unclear on how further discussion will help the matter.
 * The edit summary you feel is abrasive was taken almost verbatim from an edit summary of KC's in response to a post of mine. As for the content of that (or any other posts), I don't believe I've accused KC of being a spammer or a troll. True, she hasn't demonstrated this behavior, but then neither have I. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Hi you two, these posts occurred while I was raising the issue on Arcayne's talk page. The phrasing doesn't seem very a very clear way of saying "please do not". I'm sure Arcayne will now appreciate that he or she needs to take care not to harass other users, don't know if a detailed response is needed to the vague allegations made by Arcayne on his or her talk page which appear to me to be unsupported by such evidence as has been provided. . . dave souza, talk 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Arcayne, for someone with nothing more to say to KC you've put an awful lot of text down saying nothing. It was your post on her talk page that I thought abrasive, your edit summary is simply misleading. The diff you give from her refers to a clear notice on her talk page, asking to keep conversations in one place. Do carry on here until you feel able to leave the issue alone. . dave souza, talk 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am done with it. The snarky little bit was unnecessary. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have posted a brief reply. An end to your snarky comments about KC will be most welcome. . `dave souza, talk

Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
Thanks for your improvements to Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation Vernon White  '''. . . Talk''' 07:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thanks! Flattery will get you everywhere, struck by pangs of conscience I've added inline citations and a bit more information. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed
Hi Dave,

I just found your note on my Talk page. Actually, I haven't been active for some time now except to correct stray bits or revert blatant vandalism. I've never had any kind of trouble at Wiki until now. I do appreciate your friendliness, in contrast to the hostility of the other editor. The rules are long and complicated, but I have refreshed myself with a quick scan over large portions and close reading of the more pertinent parts regarding original research and synthesis.

What I can't understand is how merely quoting an original text constitutes coming up with a new idea. Wasn't the whole point of the SA assertion that Stein had quoted Darwin only in part? And yet that's precisely what SA does, and you are not allowing me to correct that omission. While you say, "the extended quote you propose presents a novel synthesis," I say the extended quote puts the partial quote in its proper context. I say, if Stein was quote-mining, so was SA. Why do I have to find a secondary source that quotes the primary source rather than going directly to the primary? All of this sounds very like Winston Smith rewriting history over at the Ministry of Truth: "It's not in the version the powers that be choose as legitimate, so therefore it doesn't exist."

If you follow my work here, you will see that I am much more of a historian than a scientist. I am not arguing over opinions or anyone's synthesis of someone else's assertions, but trying to set the record straight on what the person being quoted--in this case, Darwin--actually said as opposed to what a hostile press--SA--reported he said.

I'm concluding that Wiki does exert an editorial tyranny that suppresses inconvenient truth. I had not suspected that.

I bear no ill will toward you, and if the whole problem is that I'm hopelessly dense, I'm sorry for wasting your time.

Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

PS--Sorry--I had posted this on your User page by mistake. :P Yopienso (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's that we're trying to briefly summarise complex issues. The film is quote mining to support its entirely spurious claim that Darwin, and hence evolution theory, was responsible for the Nazis and so is bad. The truth is that Darwin was exploring the possible implications of his ideas in 1871, eugenics didn't get named until more than a decade later, and Darwin's views were consistently opposed to the compulsory eugenics that gave eugenics a bad name. Even in that 1871 text he summarises his views in the conclusion to the book by saying that Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known." The disasters with compulsory eugenics seem to have started in the U.S. with sterilisation laws based on the mistaken idea that the laws of inheritance were known: that was during the eclipse of Darwinism and the "laws" were Mendelian or biometric, not to do with natural selection which was disregarded at that time. Don't know if you've looked into this as a historian, it's a complex and interesting area. Unfortunately it's also subject to a great deal of creationist misrepresentation and quote mining, and WP:NPOV requires that we take care to avoid giving credence to such distortions. Thanks for commenting, . dave souza, talk 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Thanks for your kindness.  Yopienso (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking in at the Mediation Cabal page. I had understood Manning was advising the concerned parties, but apparently he wasn't, so I will leave a note at Nerdseeksblonde's talk page.  This is the first time I've gone through this process, so I'm learning as I'm going.  Yopienso (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't done it before myself, so looked things over before signing up – wasn't sure how to do that! . dave souza, talk 22:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, this has nothing to do with Ben Stein or Darwin, but I don't feel like starting a new subject when it's "just me again." :) I've noticed on my watchlist green and red numbers in parentheses.  Can you tell me what they mean?  Some are positive and some negative, ranging at least from -2006 to +2520.  I have no clue what they're about.  Yopienso (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bytes! It gives an indication of how many characters have been added or removed in the last edit, not sure about green as in my browser they look sort of grey and red. (0) can mean one character has been changed to another, or it can mean that the amount added equals the amount subtracted. Think that's what you're referring to . . . dave souza, talk 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! I just figured it out and came racing here to see if you'd replied. I'd guessed it was characters, but I'm sure you're right--bytes. Yopienso (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dave--I'd missed your 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC) post on my talk page until a few minutes ago. Thanks again. I had not noticed that what I wrote about the participants, including Shoemaker's Holiday, was up there in a box--overlooked it somehow. And removed it as soon as I realized I could. Thanks for your patience in helping me to understand Wiki better and use and contribute more profitably. Yopienso (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hope this helps. My experience is that article talk page discussion backed up by reliable sources tends to achieve more than any other way of resolving disputes. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Technical hitch
Due to technical problems, dave will be without a computer for a bit, and will be going cold turkey until snailmail brings an answer to the problem. Normal sevice will probably be resumed in about a week's time. . Davesalterego (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fertilization
One thing that I have reservations about in the article, that I choose to disregard in the GA review, is the use of what seems like primary sources to compile the article. And the use of primarily one website, although the information there is reliable. Should you not be using more third-party sources, to avoid charges of OR? It would help to add more third-party sources directly as references. What do you you think on this issue. Am I off base? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point, the article was initially based on van Wyhe's book, and biographies by Browne and Desmond & Moore. These make use of quotations, and I've tended to follow them up and cite to the original documents rather than also citing the secondary source: more secondary citations could be added to support the primary source citations. The two websites used most are Darwin Online, which provides Freeman's bibliography as a secondary source, and the Darwin Correspondence Project which in some instances provides a secondary source in the form of notes on the letters. To the extent that I've used primary source to make descriptive claims it's acceptable, if it's contested then I'll have to go over it and agree where to draw the line. Something else to tackle, think it's a priority? . . dave souza, talk 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My uncertainty stems from reading through Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-07/Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1, seeing the complexity of how WP:OR is viewed  when sources are original. Or even otherwise, such as the quote from Scientific American (although I think I see the issue there and the problems with that whole article&mdash;not the same).  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A reasonable point, though in that instance a primary source is being partially cited to contradict or discredit a secondary source: it's informative to cite online versions of sources used by books, provided they're to support the interpretation or analysis given in the secondary source. One thought, some of the Darwin Correspondence Project pages such as The correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 8: 1860 are actually the introductions to the published volumes, and are secondary sources commenting on the context of the letters. Anyway, can do a fair bit to add further inline references to the main secondary sources as needed – think I should push ahead with that? . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I may register a support, which I was going to do anyway, and see what objections arise. If necessary, then you could add. I don't usually support an article I have copy edited right out of the gate, as of course I am biased in favor. But this nomination seems stalled for one of those unfathomable reasons. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it'll be good to get the ball rolling. To try to stir things up a bit I've now mentioned it at WT:WikiProject History of Science, WT:WikiProject Biology, and have given Philcha a heads-up, not sure how quickly that'll get something happening. . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fertilisation of Orchids - FA review
Hi, Dave, thanks for the note about this FA review. I'm sorry to say that on a first skim through this doesn't work for me. My main concerns: I've started draft comments in my sandbox but haven't posted comments yet at the FAC page, as I think I need to have a big think and probably at least a 2nd pass before my comments sufficiently coherent to be useful and to avoid messing you about by changing my mind about details. --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coverage:
 * Nothing on its place in the development of D's ideas.
 * Nothing on any earlier or contemporary ideas about co-evolution - or was D. the first to think of this? I notice one quote includes "coadapted". Either the term was already understood or D. coined it and explained it.
 * Nothing on influence on modern evolutionary thought.
 * Structure:
 * I don't think the type of structure you and Rusty used in Origin of species will work here. Origin is one of the most famous scientific books ever, and one of the major challenges which that article handles well is to make it plain that the ideas in Origin had predecessors and that its impact in the first 50 years after publication was less than it now seems in the light of the Modern Synthesis. Fertilisation of Orchids faces a different challenge: most readers will never have heard of it (I don't remember hearing of it until you mentioned it to me!), and fewer will grasp its place in evolutionary theory just from its subject matter. So you might have to put some salesmanship up front to get visitors to read on - e.g. (brutal summary) "This book is important because it shows the importance of co-evolution and symbiosis, first in adapting species to co-operation and then in keeping them that way".
 * The chronological and intellectual relationships with his other work 1831-1862 are not clearly explained. I'd start with a chrono overview showing how many projects D had on the go during that period, and why. Then I'd go into the biographical details of how he got interested in fertilisation of orchids.
 * Section heading "Pastime as diversion" looks very odd, almost tautological.
 * Thanks very much for these pointers, Philcha. Several of these issues are covered, perhaps in too understated a way. Looking at sources I can see ways of strengthening aspects, and will comment further on these issues. As you say, it's a minor work but significant for developing his ideas of the importance of cross fertilisation, and of the interdependence of species that he'd explored in the Origin in terms of coevolution – an article which uses moths fertilising orchids as one of the examples without mentioning Darwin! There seemed to be value in keeping a similar structure for articles on Darwin's works, adapted for each case. Will look at your sandbox, and try out draft ideas in a sandbox of my own as time permits. Thanks again, . dave souza, talk 11:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds likely you've already found User:Philcha/Sandbox/ FA rev draft - Fertilisation of Orchids. But remember that it's only a drafty and may change a lot. Let me know where your sandbox version is when you produce one. All the best, --Philcha (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids is under way... dave souza, talk 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What I like best about this article is the way it demonstrates how empirical observations lead to scientific theory. As a "work", yes it is minor compared to Origin of species. But as a description of the process, it is wonderful in a way that Origin of species can't be. Plus it conveys a feel for the richness of Darwin's life, an autobiographical element not present in the aforementioned article. This is my personal "take" on the matter. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Thanks for that, Mattisse, it is fascinating how Darwin relaxed from his work on variation by doing some outdoor study, and reopened a field that had been neglected since Sprengel had published in 1793, transforming it through his understanding of evolution. Hope the sandbox version isn't losing that, they are relatively minor variations so far and I feel things are improving. The source I've added gives some idea of the impact of the work on other botanists so I'll work out new information for the ending and may reflect that in the lead. There's also this eulogy by Asa Gray which van Wyhe uses an extract from, and it'll be worth adding that in the same place: together they could make a new "impact" subsection. In addition, it refers to Darwin doing work on beans in the 1850s but not getting the clear evidence he wanted that cross-pollination helped reproductive success, turned to orchid studies: Huxley's obituary of Darwin mentions papers published from 1857 on the studies on other plants in the Gardeners' Chronicle, so I'm inclined to give that a very brief mention in the "Insect fertilisation of plants" section. If these changes sound dramatic enough to withdraw from FAC until the issues are resolve, will do that. Thanks again for your advice and help, dave souza, talk 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should withdraw it, as you can't plunk an article from your sandbox in it's place. At least, I have never seen that done at FAC. Plus I am a little concerned that this article has to follow a formula of history/impact/legacy etc. when you have said that in itself it was not that important. What seemed important to Darwin was the joy he took in doing the research and in conveying his thoughts. I fear that beauty of the article will be wiped out. Maybe that is the way things go. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Think you're probably right about withdrawing it, not sure how to proceed so will do it in the morning as it's 11.22 pm here, bedtime. Am hopeful that I can reshape the changes under review to keep the focus on Darwin's joy in research, and perhaps enhance that aspect. The stuff about Sprengel can be considerably tightened up, and mostly moved to a new stub article on the book with the long German title. Am very conscious of trying to keep the beauty which you did so much to assist, and will value your views on any proposed changes. Thanks for your time on this, dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Philcha that the Background section needs to be tightened and strengthened into a more coherent narrative that clearly states the relationship of the orchid research to Darwin's other work and emphasises the most important developments. I think all the necesssary information is already there, but it gets lost in digressions and looses its impact. The first subsection shows the problem particularly acutely. It jumps all over the place from Darwin's initial interest in insect pollination, to the move to Downe house, back to pollination experiments, ending with his work on a whole bunch of other books. The problem is not so much the information as the way it is organized. Most of the rest of the article (outside of background) is in pretty good shape. You could reorganize it while it is still in FAC. During the 2nd FAC for Alfred Russel Wallace I did an even bigger reorganiztion and it actually passed after I finished. However, it might be easier to pull the nomination and take your time with the reorganization. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rusty, realising it's very late for you now will try to focus my efforts on resolving the major issues today, and see how it looks later on today. Still not sure how to pull the nomination, so will review that later. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for action
My intention is to change the "cite web" to "citation" templates to meet the point raised at the FAC, then make the above changes in five six steps, one change at a time. Having done that I'll raise the question at the FAC if it should be withdrawn and restarted. Any comments or feedback welcome, I'm off for a walk and will tackle that this evening. . dave souza, talk 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Oops, forgot step six. . dave souza, talk 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have now carried out the proposed changes to User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids, which may look dramatic but basically involve five six steps:
 * 1) reorganising the background section, addimg some information to meet the questions raised.
 * 2) reorganising the influence section, addimg some information to meet the questions raised.
 * 3) changing the subsection title "Pastime as diversion" to "Botany as recreation"
 * 4) in the "Research and draft" subsection changing "He collected his own specimens, with his family and neighbours also contributing to the research." into "He collected his own specimens, tramping round the countryside with tin cans and biscuit boxes then getting his gardeners to pot up the specimens. His family joined in with the collecting, and neighbours also contributed to the research. As Darwin only has a cold greenhouse, a friend on the other side of the village who had a hot-house let him use it and gave the services of his gardener to look after the delicate specimens."
 * 5) in the lead changing "It opened up a new field of study" to "It opened up the new field of study of pollination research and reproductive ecology".
 * 6) add the formatted additional reference[s] to the references section


 * Fertilisation of Orchids now fully updated as above, steps 1, 3 and 4 got combined. Statement for information added at Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1. Memo to self: must improve the stub at Das entdeckte Geheimnis der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen a bit more. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have created a wonderful article that goes quite beyond just an FA. You have conveyed so much about Darwin beyond his work, but yet explaining and reinforcing his work. Thank you! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! That was quick! I've tried to improve the explanation about experts assessing darwin's "collections", and think "psychovitalistic intelligence" should all be in quotes as it seems a connected phrase, though the source didn't use quotes. Hope these changes work, dave souza, talk 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. think it's worth linking psychovitalistic? . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems quite a bit longer, and perhaps somewhat repetitious. I found myself becoming lost in it and having to use "Find" on Variation. Do you think it is necessary to mention so many of his other works? And so much of the history that is covered other places? It feels like it overlaps with other Darwin articles. Maybe I am overreacting.  I do think it is a great article.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will think that over, and sleep on it! Any feedback from the others would be useful, a significant aim was to tie this work into what else he was doing at the time and it was a pretty busy period for him. Will look to tighten it, anyway. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For variety? It conveys a sense of the times! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, will review how to fit it in when time permits – must pause to cook my tea now! . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, have added it with a caption based on Browne, giving a bit more detail about how Darwin spent time there. Hope that suits, dave souza, talk 23:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?
I think it's time for me to get out of my sandbox and into the real FA review - more sandboxing would just throw dust in every one's eyes (it's the way I tell 'em). Should I paste into the FAC page my comments that you've already resolved or just new ones & any that are still outstanding? --Philcha (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's worthwhile adding comments that have been addressed, except it would explain the earlier changes and give you an opportunity to confirm whether or not you're happy that the current article deals with the issues to your satisfaction. So, if you think it's something that assists the process, please do add the sandbox comments, you've got more experience of the process than I have. Any new or unresolved comments will be very welcome. Thanks for your help on this, . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have more experience of FAC than you :-)
 * However I agree that adding comments that have been addressed would explain the earlier changes and give me an opportunity to confirm whether or not I'm happy that the current article deals with the issues.
 * Here goes! --Philcha (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC) --20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, answers in progress! . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's more! :-)
 * And probably a few ECs to be expected :-( --Philcha (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll be very glad to know that I've finished my first round of comments. I'll start looking through your responses now. --Philcha (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, while I'm not keen on DroEsperanto's manner, I'm beginning to feel uneasily sympathetic with his comments that there's too much biographical icing on the scientific cake. At first I accepted it as simply a difference of style, which became apparent at Origin of Species. But here the bio and quotational icing exceeds the book report and analysis / commentary by quite a lot. The "Content" section looks very truncated - unless either it's a very short book or it's so technical that non-botanists will be nonplussed. And, as I commented at FAC, I'd like to see more about the origins of the concepts of symbiosis, coevolution and preadaptation / exaptation, which seem quite important as presented in the article. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwin's biographers say a lot about the impact the studies had on Darwin's life, and on how his methods are illustrated by the Orchid work. There's less secondary material about the book itself, which is why a concise summary is appropriate, and many aspects of the book are explained by the descriptions of Darwin's research which fit more naturally and informatively into the sequence of work relating to the book. Interestingly, it's a fairly short book but Thompson p. 25 says "its painstaking descriptions of floral morphology and anatomy make it perhaps the most difficult of Darwin's books to read from cover to cover." Must add that.
 * At first I was getting the impression that the book had little impact other than alerting biologists to Sprengel's work – the background section has since been expanded to show the origins of ideas (against DroEsperanto's preference) and I'll try to find more information in the Thompson source about implications of the book. Have added the point that Darwin was the first to set out coevolution, in the paragraph on the Origin, will find somewhere else to emphasise that point. Guess we could always move the article to "Darwin's work on insect fertilisation of orchids", but we need a book article in relation to the various other articles about Darwin and his works. . dave souza, talk 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy that the article should cover the impact the studies had on Darwin's life, and on how his methods are illustrated by the Orchid work. However I'd be more sparing with the family anecdotes and with the contemprary quotes. For example I'd rather have a modern quote on the book's influence than Asa Gray's, as Gray was already D's US sales rep.
 * I agree that we need book articles as the basis for other overviews of aspects of D's work.
 * My impression from the article is already that Fertilisation had greater impact than one would expect from a short book on a specialised subject - as well as introducing or reinforcing evolutionary concepts, it made several eminent converts to D's ideas on evolution, and launched (? and re-launched?) floral ecology. I notice that Google Scholar for "Fertilisation of Orchids" gets a ton of hits, which suggested the book is still respected to-day. Not bad for a book that started as botanical R&R! The trick is to make the book's significance clear to readers who have not spent much time reading about evolution, let alone editing WP articles about it.--Philcha (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, gotta do other things for a bit now, will review that. See what you think about the book section on the mechanism, now that I've added annotation to the image. Small print! . dave souza, talk 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Struck most of my comments as resolved, found couple of new issues because your restructurings and rephrasings made them more visible. I'm really enjoying this article and look forward to supporting it very shortly and rebutting the "dull little book" with which MF sullied his "support". --Philcha (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will look in a few minutes. Have to get my mind back on topic again! . . dave souza, talk 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you really mean to cite a Web page whose title is "Darwin's Landscape Laboratory bid for World Heritage Site : The Home of Charles Darwin, Down House : Kent : South East : Find a property by map : Properties : Days Out & Events : English Heritage"? Could Internet Archive not provide a back-up of the previous two you used? --Philcha (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it contains the same info and they're the ones organising visits to Down House so it seemed a useful link, also it has a nice picture of the greenhouses. The other new link to the Charles Darwin Trust would suffice, or I suppose we could trim the spam from the title. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species
On the Origin of Species has one new sentence describing Darwin's bias. Would you like to check that before I proceed to Descent of Man? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have looked and commented: the bias doesn't seem to be evident in the relevant small section in the book, which doesn't deal with people and covers the two cases, of male animals fighting each other for females, and of females selecting males for plumage etc. . . dave souza, talk 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Architecture
Hi Dave, I wonder if I might trouble you to read this little section on Giano's page about improving the architecture article? I think really what's needed is some input to get a good heading structure, after which I'm fairly confident the article will pretty much write itself - any news, views or opinions? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh noes, not another diversion! Bit busy just now, but have watchlisted the talk page and the article and will think about chipping in. Skimming the article, my only immediate thought was that "The Medieval builder" might be better as "The Medieval mason", but that's probably just me. . .  dave souza, talk 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * O, not another diversion! Have added my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Areas For Reform: Redlinking Wikipedians
Hi Dave, I very much like your idea to encourage red linking at Areas For Reform. I've tentatively created a Wikipedia category Redlinking Wikipedians‎ (as a sub-cat of Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy) and an associated user box. Is this idea useful?

Feel free to edit the category and/or userbox ... or to suggest deletion.

With good wishes,  Esowteric + Talk  12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Am a bit tied up to get into campaigning myself, but will add the userbox and see how it goes. . dave souza, talk 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Because

 * Thank you! At first I was nonplussed about this splendid treat, now I'm just a bit minussed. My excuse is Wikisloth, don't mind working as long as it's fun. Mostly. Your appreciation of the side benefits for the'pedia is much appreciated. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 20:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be discouraged! I think Fertilisation of Orchids is looking quite wonderful, though I am not exactly unbiased. I discovered that fungi, such as Crucibulum, reproduce in similar ways. I know nothing about plant families, but some of these fungi are as beautiful as orchids. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility, false accusations of "vandalism", thinly veiled POV pushing/censorship
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to darwinism. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at darwinism. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Do not accuse other people of vandalism just because you disagree with their edits. Its extremely uncivil and violates core wikipedia policies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopoh (talk • contribs) 08:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me to your repeated edit warring and pov pushing, warning given accordingly. . dave souza, talk 08:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ping
you have mail. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have seen and replied. . dave souza, talk 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwin family dates
I saw your recent edit. For what it's worth, Freeman's Darwin Pedigrees reproduces Burke's 1888 Darwin family tree, and gives 22 April 1851 as the date of Anne Elizabeth Darwin's death. Of course, it's possible that that was wrong, but if you have information to the contrary, I'd be happy if you'd share it. The information in my files is different in a few particulars from the information appearing in the article, and I'd also be happy if you could help me determine the correct dates or point me to an accurate source.

Darwin’s Children
 * William Erasmus Darwin	(27 December 1839– 8 September 1914)
 * Anne Elizabeth Darwin	(2 March 1841–2 2 April 1851)
 * Mary Eleanor Darwin	(23 September 1842–16 October 1842)
 * Henrietta Emma “Etty” Darwin	(25 September 1843– 1929 17 December 1927 ) - her Wikipedia article gives 17 December 1929, but she is also said to have lived 84 years (=1927)
 * George Howard Darwin	(9 July 1845–7 December 1912)
 * Elizabeth “Bessy” Darwin	(8 July 1847–1926)
 * Francis Darwin	(16 August 1848–19 September 1925)
 * Leonard Darwin	(15 January 1850–26 March 1943)
 * Horace Darwin	(13 May 1851–29 September 1928) 22 September 1928 (?possible typo on my part?)
 * Charles Waring Darwin	(6 December 1856–28 June 1858)


 * - Nunh-huh 17:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I ran a check and cited my sources at the Charles Darwin talk page, confirming the date that Hannes Röst had found in various letters. Browne and van Wyhe's book that I have didn't give the exact date, as far as I could see. Looks like Freeman is wrong on that particular date. Will try to run a check on the other dates when time permits, dave souza, talk 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I appreciate your help. - Nunh-huh 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly recommend withdrawal Orchids from FAC
I strongly suggest you withdraw Orchids from FAC. It is impossible for me, in any event, to continue to deal with it the way things are going now. It is unseemly to be making these picayune changes at this point. I have withdrawn my support from the FAC for now. I do not like what is happening. I do not agree with the points being made and can no longer continue working on the article. I am very sorry, but it is painful to me to see what is happening. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you about to overlay Fertilisation of Orchids with another version? Am I wasting my time on the current version? I am quite confused about what is going on. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have tried to clarify on your talk page, I'm not changing anything without agreement, and if changes are made they will incorporate all current improvements, and will not be an overlay or just be pasted in from the rough drafts I've done purely to illustrate the possibilities. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made some improvements (in my opinion) in the sections you are thinking of moving and changing, which I hope you will consider and not just overwrite, as I removed redundant wording, added wikilinks etc. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've considered them, they look good to me and won't just be overwritten. The possible change to integrate the "background" biography into the "insect fertilisation" section is aimed at meeting your concern about the writing quality, if you don't like it then I'm glad to leave it alone: the reuniting of the move to Downe with Orchis Bank is purely a move of paragraphs, and your latest wording would be kept. That's the one I think more significant for writing quality, again if you'd rather leave it as it is, no problem. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This doesn't quite make sense to me: "... as well as the way that Darwin dissected and measured plant experiments using simple equipment". He dissected and measured the experiments? Is there a missing "in"? As :"... plants in experiments using simple equipment"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 July 2009
 * Aaagh! Silly me, have tried rephrasing that more sensibly. Think I'm finished with the proposed changes now. . dave souza, talk 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I saw your name at the Lucy talk page. Does this prove the continent of Africa is the birthplace of humanity? Is Africa the birthplace of humanity? 209.2.60.97 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know, Recent African origin of modern humans appears to be the current theory with most support. There have been alternative suggestions. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin
Is there a list somewhere of all Darwin's works? I noticed that Fertilisation of Orchids does not seem to be referenced in other articles, not even under Charles Darwin. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See Charles Darwin and the template at the bottom of all these pages, which includes a list of the books that have articles, as well as a link to List of works by Charles Darwin which includes his main works. For others see Darwin Online, linked from that page. Many thanks for your support in this, dave souza, talk 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a citation of the article, so I could copy it and add to related topics on evolution where Darwin's contributions seem to be neglected. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it seems to be a neglected area. Was this the sort of thing you were thinking of? . . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Clémence Royer
Would you have time to copyedit the Clémence Royer article that I created it to remove a red link in the Origin article? I've used Joy Harvey's 1997 book as a source – this is the only biography of Royer written in English. I have no specialist knowledge in this area and struggle to read simple French. My main interest is in the Darwin connection and this is reflected in the article.

Congratulations on the very nice Orchid article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa77zz (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have just read over the Clémence Royer article, and it looks really great. Very informative, and your simple French is evidently much better than the little I know of the language! Perhaps some of the related wikiprojects might have editors with more knowledge of the other fields, as well as the women's issues aspect. There are a couple of minor changes I'd try out, so will edit them in fairly soon. One question, in "Darwin had been approached by the Frenchman Pierre Talandier but he had been unable to find a publisher to handle the book", does "he" mean Talandier or Darwin? As I recall, it was usually the translator who found the publisher at that time. Thanks for your praise of Orchids, congrats seem a bit premature as it's still at FAC but looking hopeful. . . dave souza, talk 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking a look. In my poor sentence, "he" refers to Pierre Talandier and not to Darwin.Aa77zz (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 06:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have done. . dave souza, talk 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave,

Can I please go into any of the articles that you have worked hard on and delete them? Why not, if I say they are "Original Research" without any proof why can I not? If you then try to put back your well researched and RELEVANT facts (see below), I will delete and delete, is this not fair?

This is EXACTLY what you are doing to my section on the article Race of Jesus.

Jesus' Ethnicity is listed as: Jewish on WIKIPEDIA

Please read that again: Jesus' Ethnicity is listed as: Jewish right on the Wikipedia article on Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

How is looking at physical descriptions of a people of his SAME Ethnicity not relevant to AN ARTICLE ON HIS RACE? This is madness. This is not Original Research at all, it is relevant fact.

You have threatened me by sending me emails saying I can not undo what was unjustly deleted. Please send my information to the Wikipedia admins, they have seen my changes to this section and had NO PROBLEMS WITH IT, only the hot and bothered "Aunt Entropy" did. She is very opinionated and I will have her removed and banned from this site. Once they see what you are doing they will remove you too.

Joel Ginsberg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to threaten me are unethical
Dave,

Can I please go into any of the articles that you have worked hard on and delete them? Why not, if I say they are "Original Research" without any proof why can I not? If you then try to put back your well researched and RELEVANT facts (see below), I will delete and delete, is this not fair?

This is EXACTLY what you are doing to my section on the article Race of Jesus.

Jesus' Ethnicity is listed as: Jewish on WIKIPEDIA

Please read that again: Jesus' Ethnicity is listed as: Jewish right on the Wikipedia article on Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

How is looking at physical descriptions of a people of his SAME Ethnicity not relevant to AN ARTICLE ON HIS RACE? This is madness. This is not Original Research at all, it is relevant fact.

You have threatened me by sending me emails saying I can not undo what was unjustly deleted. Please send my information to the Wikipedia admins, they have seen my changes to this section and had NO PROBLEMS WITH IT, only the hot and bothered "Aunt Entropy" did. She is very opinionated and I will have her removed and banned from this site. Once they see what you are doing they will remove you too.

Joel Ginsberg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs)


 * See WP:SYN. Other respected editors have reviewed the section, and confirmed agreement with Aunt Entropy on the article talk page, you're out of line here. I've avoided blocking you or requesting that you be blocked for WP:3RR so far, but will reconsider that. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, this sucks. What could have been a very helpful editor here seems to be falling along that particular route of self-destruction so common amongst academics here. It's frustrating. He doesn't seem to wish to communicate at all; I'm not seeing any evidence he's read any response we've given him. He's been blocked for 3rr now, so we have until tomorrow I guess to see how it plays out... Auntie E.  21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, have tried to communicate and show patience, but it backfired if anything. As ever, claimed credentials count for nothing here, and I'd have hoped that an academic would be more open to reasoned discussion. We shall see. Thanks for your help with this odd case. What will be interesting is if any published sources can be presented supporting the paragraph, though NPOV does of course mean that some revisions will be needed. . dave souza, talk 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Fertilisation of Orchids was promoted. Well deserved. A wonderful article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yippee! --Philcha (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks, to you two in particular for all your help in massively improving the article. Now to arrange a chance on the main page to show this example of Darwin's character and way of working. Guess we should aim for around 24 November to relate it to On the Origin of Species which should be featured on that day, must find out how to achieve that... dave souza, talk 08:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Remember, I was just helping Rusty with the Origin, but Orchids was mostly me with a great deal of help from both of you. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 13:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

weird punctuation
Dave, probably safer to leave as is, although I know User:Noetica is all for regularising quirky things like that. Tony  (talk)  16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. . dave souza, talk 16:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Scotland map
As a contributor to the original teamwork, you may be interested in: Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland

Fertilisation of Orchids Award
Thanks for the award. I admit I got quite enthusiastic about the work - shows how good the article was already.

Just one question - in the award, who's sticking their tongue out at whom? --Philcha (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's unanswerable! Anyway, it all goes back to Darwin being a great subject :-) dave souza, talk 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Darwin
Thank you for the beautiful award. It was my pleasure to work on the article, and not druggery! For me, that article is in a class of its own, levels above the typical FA. I will have to study your proposed changes it. Would perhaps a sub article be more apt? It can be a deterrent to people like me when an article grows longer and ever more complex. (I discovered some fungi use the same reproduction methods as orchids&mdash;the splatting against the glass example). Are you still interested in The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs? I started copy editing but then realised that work on it would require me looking into the concepts and probably fixing up articles that it wikilinks to (or else providing more clarification in the article. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied on your talk page. . dave souza, talk 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)