User talk:Dave souza/Archive 19

60s science fiction
Yes, I've read most of J. G. Ballard. I like his early work better than his later work. As for global warming, I'm more interested in the ability of conservatives to believe six impossible things before breakfast. They consider themselves independent thinkers because they unquestioningly believe everything millionaires tell them to believe, and consider themselves rugged individualists because they do everything multinational corporations tell them to do. Ain't humanity wunnerful? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, fully agree on both counts! Perhaps my favourite is Chronopolis which I bought in an issue of New Worlds in the early '60s. (must have been 1960, judging by our article. Bought it in the Caley when it was still a railway station) Am delighted to find that The Wind from Nowhere I've got with the Alan Aldridge cover is now worth a lot more than the 3/6d. I paid for it, but if I scan it someone will probably delete it :–( Anyway, stopped reading about half way through Crash and haven't bothered with the later works. Not sure whether you mean USian or UK Cons, but not much real difference. . . dave souza, talk 15:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman Warm Period
Are you following what is going on here, with User:Kauffner using a host of unreliable sources to deny AGW? Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hadn't been following it, looks rather a mess and the Medieval Warm Period isn't much better – though we had that wine making thing sorted out somewhere. Will try to improve these if time suits. Sigh. . dave souza, talk 19:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to draw up a list of concerns on the talk page when I have time. Shouldn't this be a redirect? Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What to? There does seem to be a legitimate climate optimum, but doubtful if it reached late 20th century levels worldwide. . dave souza, talk 10:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It originally redirected to Medieval_Warm_Period Should it not be covered there? Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Really should have its own article. Ljungqvist 2010 "This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. ad 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. ad 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. ad 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. ad 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. ... Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology." . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! The Roman Warm Period, c. ad 1–300, and the Little Ice Age, c. ad 1300–1900, saw some rather dramatic changes in mainland Southeast Asian history. As for the image of the double-decker bus: Thailand has thousands of them for charter and a few for scheduled service, that are equivalent to land yachts, with the scheduled ones having service the way it used to be in the golden age of the airlines. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting info, presumably these land yachts are not old Edinburgh Corporation buses but something rather more luxurious! . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Snark misfire
OK, noted.

I don't know if you have any contact with the editor in question, but if he keeps dumping crap on me (see, V. 23:12, 9 August 2011 ), I will be responding with a formal complaint. I'm pretty sick of it. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in that talk section, your edit there misrepresented the cited sources as though there was only one opinion piece. Please take care to check out the actual citation[s] before editing or making allegations. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution
You once p0layed a very constructive role in helping word a sentence on the shift in scientific approach from ideal-typic and essentialist to statistical and probabalistic. Thompsma deleted one of these sentences from the history section, and deleted it again after I added a reliable source. He clearly has his own interpretation of the evolution of Darwinian thought, which is fine, but we editors cannot use WP to publish our own views. All I am doing is ensuring that the article includes the view of a notable intellectual historian. Well, you have been constructive in the past, I hope you don't mind checking it out. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Will try to chip in, the more I find out the more complex this looks. . dave souza, talk 09:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have included in the reference two extended quotes from Menand which I think are the key quotes illustrating his point - in his book he pretty much traverses the territory from Gauss to Boltzman, showing how in the 19th century scientists began to realize that the mechanistic view of the universe could be expressed statistically.  His point is that there was a parallel and comparable trend in biology, where the species Linneaus had identified and defined through ideal types could be re-conceived statistically, that is, in terms of a distribution of varying traits (rather than as an ideal type).  The point, as I understand Menand, is not just that Darwin took advantage of this trend (natural selection cannot work if one is focused on ideal types because speciation occurs when samples of the species that deviated from the ideal type are now selected for), but also that Darwin's ideas took hold, and inspired a passionatre following among other scientists, because it fit in with this emerging new view of the universe.


 * For me, it really comes down to NPOV: we provide an account of all notable views from reliable sources. Menand is a highly notable intellectual historian and the book is a reliable source.  In my citation I try to provide the key quotes.  I think it is merely a question of phrasing Menand's point accurately and then placing it in the right part of the history section (which I tried again today).


 * I do not think the task is to write a paragraph non the history of statistics. I do NOT want to violate NOR by drawing on what I know about statistics in the 19th century to present my own view.  But I think that is what other editors want to do, and they do not like Menand because it conflicts with their own original research.


 * Of course, if anyone has read another intellectual historian who provides a different view than Menand's, we just add that different view. We say "Intellectual historians have different views ..."  This is NPOV 101 - when there is a difference of opinion, we provide an account of the difference.  We do not violate SYNTH and try toi come up with our own view.


 * So, I really see this conflict as being over NPOV. For me, the NPOV policy (along with NOR) should guide any solution. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is WP:SUMMARY, there's a lot of detail belonging in the more specialised articles and we must distil the main article down to the essential points: the word "statistical" seems to be a bit of a distraction, the crucial issue is a change from Ray's and Linnaeus's concept of ideal types to species as a distribution of varying traits, capable in Darwin's explanation of diversifying into new species. Think we'd be best to start again with a very streamlined section. . dave souza, talk 12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that part of the problem is the level of detail - but I suspect that this level of detail is also a form of OR i.e. using primary sources to make an argument. But look - anything that leads to the improvement of linked articles would be great!  I would love for the main history of evolutionary theory article to have a paragraph or two on the refiguration of natural sciences after the Enlightenment involving in part statistics.  But the main Evolution article should have at least a sentence or two on it.  Well, you can see what I added, it is still there - but if you think it should be rephrased by all means go ahead, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an area I'm researching, Mayr's idea that Plato et al. were idealists is common but contested, so something nuanced is needed. It's certainly true that Darwin shifted attention from the type form to the range of variations in a population species concept. It's also true that he used statistics, but the real shift to statistical population thinking seems to have followed on from his work. I'd like to find another historian covering this point, dave souza, talk 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The recent back and forth reverts on Evolution are not very productive. I personally do not like reverting edits by long-time editors of that article. So Dave, I am also imploring you to try and resolve this issue on the talk page. I think I have said all I need to say on this subject. danielkueh (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will try to resolve it on talk, but a dramatic restructuring is needed. . dave souza, talk 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "It's certainly true that Darwin shifted attention from the type form to the range of variations in a population species concept." - I agree with you that the nitty gritty work really came after Darwin. One of Menand's points is that what made Darwin such an original and major intellectual figure was his pointing the way to this approach in what would later become called tthe life sciences. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if we focus on the population aspect rather than the statistics this becomes a bit clearer. I'm more concerned about the simple claim by Mayr that Darwin's innovation displaced Essentialism. As that article notes, modern scholarship disputes that simple account. goes into more detail, discussing how species fixism was introduced by John Ray out of piety rather than essentialism. Pages 188 to 196 go into some detail on Mayr's arguments Tricky to get the right balance for a concise statement for the Evo main article. . dave souza, talk 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Fertilisation of Orchids

 * Many thanks! It was a delight to work on, with particular thanks to the other editors who helped with this article and did so much to get it up to featured article standard. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice for new Wikipedia editors
Hi, dave souza, congrats on the WP:FOUR for Fertilisation of Orchids. I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm trying to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. --Philcha (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best advice is to avoid getting dragged into things? Ooops, have added my tuppenceworth but should be getting on with other things so won't be able to add much. . . dave souza, talk 22:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Kōhei Uchimura
Dave, you're the only Wiki editor I've come across, hence I'm saying this to you! Could you have a look at the page for Kōhei Uchimura, and particularly the last paragraph, and make sure it is acceptable? It seems pretty disgusting to me, but I may just be overreacting. Many thanks 0darroch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0darroch (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, the whole section lacked a source and the last paragraph in particular was obviously contentious, so I've removed it per WP:BLP. It shouldn't have been there in the first place, and anyone editing gets plenty of warning about the policy applying. Since google news doesn't show anything about him competing in 2011, I've removed the whole section until sources are provided. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 18:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeking critical feedback in Evol as theory and fact
Hi Dave. I've been busy on leads lately, but I will be diving back into the meat of the article. I recently put together a new lead proposal for as evolution as theory and fact and I am putting out a call to other editors with an interest/expertise in this area to stop by and give some critical feedback. Your insight and comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!Thompsma (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, have been a bit overloaded with other things myself but will try to have a look fairly soon. dave souza, talk 10:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Fertilisation" notes?
Hi. When I looked at your examples of a "hybrid" form of citation at Fertilisation_of_Orchids I noticed what I consider a serious error, but also a better way of citing letters. I didn't mention it before because it wasn't really relevant to our earliar discussion (and I didn't want to by chance embarass you). Would like that feedback? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be delighted to get the feedback, it's very considerate of you to have avoided raising it at an awkward moment but now I'm on tenterhooks! . . dave souza, talk 10:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's get you off those hooks, ASAP! Allow me to start with what I consider a serious deficieny in your "hybrid approach" to citation, then segue into an approach I think would largley correct that.

Consider the citation in the first note of Fertilisation_of_Orchids. It's about Darwin, and the "citation" here is an on-line link. When I click on it I see: "Darwin wrote of this book in his Autobiography." Which is to say, this is someone else quoting a passage by Darwin from his Autobiography about Fertilisation of Orchids. (Which is a roundabout way of establishing authorship of the latter, but let's focus on just the mechanics of citation.) Keep in mind that the whole point of citation is attribution, which is to say, identifying who said or is responsible for a statement – i.e., the "author". (And generally we also want the year, where [what "work"] this was said, and also any other useful "details of publication, but author is the main one, so let's focus on that.) With this in mind you can readily see a major failing of this citation: it does not identify who is being cited.  Is it Darwin (from his Autobiography)? Or is it this other gentleman, John van Wyhe? And where did he quote this?  (Compare this to the next note, which cites "van Wyhe 2008, pp. 14–16, 31, 44–45", and then links to a complete reference: van Wyhe, John (2008), Darwin: The Story of the Man and His Theories of Evolution, London: Andre Deutsch Ltd (published 1 September 2008), ISBN 0-233-00251-0.)

Now take a look at note 54, which cites "The correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 10: 1862," from the Darwin Correspondence Project. I doubt they were around when this volume was published, and I wonder if this title is of the actual volume, or just from the web site. I also wonder if these volumes were compiled by Darwin himself, or – and this seem much more likely – by someone else. So who is the compiler? Where is the original source?

The point of these two examples is that a proper citation really should have more information, such as in note 2 and its reference. The better "hybrid" form is where short cites go into the notes, and link (via Harv) to the full reference in the list.

When you referred to Fertilisation_of_Orchids regarding this "hybrid approach" you said: 'there are also individual sources which fit better into the "notes" section rather than trying to treat them as though they were books.' I suspect that what you had in mind was the seeming simplicity of "citations" in the form of a title and a URL (like note 1). But this is illusory. The sources cited in these examples are indeed books, but presented as web pages, which some editors seem to think removes the need for all these other details. As far as I can make it out this "fitting better" is simply incomplete (and even erroneous) citation. (There are some other possible aspects to this, but this one serves to show the deficiency.)

As an example of a possible improvement, consider the various "Letter" citations. These are generally of the "title+url" form of note 1. Yet you can see that there is more information present. E.g., they are mostly from Darwin, they have dates, and I suspect there is a print source (though the Darwin Project seems rather coy about identifying it). This is the basis of a proper citation (reference).

Here is where you may find that matters get interesting. Recall how at GW we are setting up citations in the form of (e.g.) "Bindoff et al., Ch. 5 ... in IPCC ...? With these letters you could do something quite similar.  E.g.: "Darwin (1860), Letter 2770, to Hooker, in Darwin, Francis, ed., The life and letters of Charles Darwin ...". Note how the on-line link is cleverly incorporated into the title.  And if that is indeed the proper collection (I'm faking this a bit) then the reference is already in place. You can also use Harv to make multiple links the single reference.

Well, that is quite enough to chew on, and I hope I haven't seriously bent your brain. Ask if you have any questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, more information is good though I've been reluctant to go beyond the web page title when using a web page rather than the source of the web page. In the first case you cite, the reference used is quoting from Freeman (1977) so I've added that information to make it clearer. To go to extremes we could cite Freeman pp. 112–114 but that wasn't actually the source used when writing the article. I've added a note under external links pointing to Darwin Correspondence Project » The Correspondence of Charles Darwin which explains how the letters are published in book form, then published online at an interval of four years behind print publication. Harvard referencing could get pretty confusing here, or involve listing books that haven't actually been used as references when writing the article based on the readily available web pages for the letters. As that page also notes, they've been good enough to publish the introductions from each volume online, and I used these online pages: they've changed the url which confused things a little, but I've updated that. Taking your point on board, I've clarified the source given for the web page. Thus reference 54 now reads: Introduction, Darwin Correspondence Project, retrieved 2009-02-07, from The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 10: 1862 (pub 1997) ISBN 0-521-59032-9. Hope that's clearer. Note that Harvard referencing would be difficult in this case as it's not clear who wrote the introduction, and the volume was edited by Frederick Burkhardt, Joy Harvey, Duncan M. Porter, Jonathan R. Topham. Not to mention the assistant editors. By the way, if I'd been citing letters from Darwin, Francis, ed., The life and letters of Charles Darwin then I'd have said so, as they are quite likely to differ from the current online transcriptions of the letters. So many sources! . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looking better.

The only problem regarding the "Introduction" in note 54 is the lack of an explicit attribution of authorship. (Which you have to admit isn't really an issue with Harv at all.) In this case it is reasonable to attribute it to "Burkhardt et al.". Here I must admit that Harv doesn't do 'et al.' very well, so I use "and others". (One of these days I'll push to getting that fixed.) At any rate, you could do something like:,  Introduction (presumably in a footnote), which would link the a full reference such as this:

Later, when you want to cite one of the letters (I'm going to fake this), you could do something like: Darwin, Letter 1234, to God, 1862, in (again in a footnote), which cleverly links back to the main reference. So is that cool, or what? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 23:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Heads up
Keep an eye on this one... Prioryman (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very interesting. . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
DGaw (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Noticed, thanks. The article's on my watchlist anyway. . dave souza, talk 18:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy on Blogs
Thanks for your links and comments Dave! I appreciate the warm welcome... My biggest question is over the use of blogs as a source for wikipedia articles. There seems to be quite a bit of contention over policy even in areas you would think would not be very contentious like on the Shanghai page. For example, is it okay to use a blog post by an 'authority' on a subject as a source even if the blog itself may not be operating under the principles of objectivty like say the Huffington Post? Or is the preference for sources from books and peer-reviewed papers especially when it comes to matters of science? Thanks again --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. . dave souza, talk 15:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mention at science desk
FYI: An old edit you made at Neanderthal is mentioned at the science ref desk. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting to see some more scholarship there. Got it from ToA, will chip in when I've had a look at possible other sources. . dave souza, talk 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism_of_the_IPCC_AR4#African_crop_yield_projections
Are you responsible for Criticism_of_the_IPCC_AR4? (I haven't checked, mind). I seems to rely very heavily on one dodgy journo William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, Leakegate. Think I tried to include Watson's responses to offset some other dodgy claims, but not cited to Leake so not my version. . dave souza, talk 22:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm going to have to do something about this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Eli's EPA source looks useful, indeed it covers many other news issues that have been neglected on WP. . dave souza, talk 10:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing this. I should have caught that myself. :( --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm no expert, it looks an interesting paper but as one of the co-authors says in an interview, "we haven’t disproven the IPCC or high climate sensitivities. At least, not yet.  This comes down to what generalizations can be made from a single, limited study.  This is why the IPCC bases its conclusions on a synthesis of many studies, not relying on any particular one." Some informed commentary at RC. . dave souza, talk 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, havent you mentioned that blogs were not suitable for WP? Polentario (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out the severe limitations on use of blogs, particularly under WP:BLPSPS. Some use of blogs by established experts on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications is possible under WP:SPS, subject to such sources being treated with due care. . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * You're welcome, but what is this xmas card of which you write? Perhaps my xcard which was my winter solstice card of 2005? These splendid old traditions! . dave souza, talk 17:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Reason in the Balance
Could you keep an eye on ? It was recently redirected per Talk:Phillip E. Johnson, and its creator doesn't appear inclined to accept the outcome. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, have watchlisted it. Season's greetings! . . dave souza, talk 05:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

turf
Still I cannot easily grasp a curtain wall from "layered turves" but it seems you are right. Well, I learned something new today! You see, in my country turf is neither much abundant nor so thick to enable us to build dwellings from it! --Dipa1965 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have plenty of peat and turf in Scotland, and tend to think of peat as moss compressed into a black solid that can be dried out in stacks, and used as fuel. Sort of like soft coal. Turf is grass with its roots, which holds together enough to form embankments like the Antonine wall rather better than simply using the bare earth. The sections of Antonine Wall i've seen are now covered in grass, and while there are wet muddy bits in the path along the wall I've not noticed any peat bog. Must upload some pictures. Some of the outlying fortlets are certainly in more boggy areas, for example Lurg Moor is on a boggy north-facing hill slope near here. Have walked up the hill many times but haven't yet found the fortlet: must have a go at that when the weather improves! . dave souza, talk 21:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wedge strategy questions
I stand corrected (thank you for the quick response), but also confused. The usage of quotes in that article seems extremely unusual. The sentence I removed was definitely contentious and not clearly sourced. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You should probably respond on the relevant article's talk page. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have done. . . dave souza, talk 08:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI
You may have a view on this AN/I posting. Prioryman (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, semi-protection would be a good start. . dave souza, talk 12:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Collegiality
Dave: at various times you have promoted collegiality and civility among CC editors. I have noticed a distinct lack of both in your recent edits at the Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy page. I would hope that we could disagree and remain civil. From my perspective, you have a tendency to regard your personal beliefs as proven fact and/or WP policy -- and I don't understand why you are so antagonistic towards Steve McIntyre's work. For geostatistics, he's miles ahead of most professional practicioners -- including me, and I used to be pretty good at it. It's really dumb (imo) that activist climate scientists and their sympathizers disregard McI's careful work. Their loss.

Perhaps we can try harder for civility and collegiality in 2012? Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It was MastCell the Wise who said we should model the behavior we would like to see in others. That's some of the best advice I've ever seen on this site. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * True enough, and I'm going to try harder! Best for 2012, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, in iterated games, tit for tat with forgiveness sometimes seems to beat out plain tit for tat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What splendid advice! Many thanks, all, just think of it as red noise. . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, too often we think of incivility, edit warring, etc. as "what those people do, but what not what I do." We could all use more self-awareness (I'm at least as guilty as anyone, if not more so). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the real advantage of TFT with forgiveness (over straight TFT) is where communications are misunderstood, and therefore mis-signaled. An excellent reason for WP:AGF. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So, shall we try New Year's forgiveness, and then try to keep down the "red noise"? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, trust this won't prevent full and frank discussions. Orrabest, dave souza, talk 20:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Paid activists on Wikipedia
Please note that paid activists are not permitted to edit Wikipedia in categories they are paid to promote. You are not an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.198.134 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The check is in the mail. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Who knew? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What, we can get paid for this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've heard the coal lobby pays pretty good. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, Boris, "The check is in the mail"? Is that USian for the cheque is in the post? The GPO is reasonably nippy these days, but I've heard that the US Mail is terribly slow, so await this unexpected item with patience. As for coal, we used to keep it in a bunker rather than in the lobby, and certainly not in the bath. Never found any cheques there :-/ . . dave souza, talk 11:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Being paid in lumps of coal doesn't sound like much fun, but I wouldn't object to someone sending it in its allotropic form... Prioryman (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Pic
Re. Check the file history, I think a new one was uploaded, but irritatingly the filename is the same William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! Hav self rv'd. . dave souza, talk 23:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hutton Unconformity image permissions
Dear Dave,

Hope I'm doing the right thing - didn't know how else to contact you!

I'm doing some work for a James Hutton exhibit at Jedburgh Castle Jail Museum, and would like permission to use your Siccar Point image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siccar_Point_red_capstone_closeup.jpg

It would be for using on an interpretation board about Hutton's Unconformity. It's a council-run museum, free access, long-term display, fully credited of course.

I'm not familiar with Creative Commons and how to get an image license, so your help would be greatly appreciated! This is the first time I've edited something on Wikipedia, so it might be be best to use my email for contact: jules[at]texthouse.co.uk

Many thanks!

Jules Horne Juleshorne (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is good news, thanks for letting me know. The Creative Commons license basically means you're licensed to use the image, provided you give attribution: have an image credit somewhere saying "image by dave souza, Wikipedia". So if it's fully credited, that covers it and you're welcome to use the photo. The provision of "share alike" is probably not relevant – "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." So, I'll be delighted if you can make use of the photo (with credit as required), we visited the museum at around the same time that I took the photos and it's a really nice place. Still have a good memory of a fossil fish. . . dave souza, talk 16:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dave! That's very helpful about Creative Commons, and we'll caption the image with your credit. The said fossil fish will be in the exhibition, too, and we'll have a Hutton Unconformity puzzle, so do pay another visit later in the year if you're passing! Best wishes, Jules Juleshorne (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, by the way hope you've found the commons categories for Siccar Point and James Hutton. Of course you'll have your own images or pictures that aren't available here. Will try to look in, though it's a bit of a jaunt from here so will have to get organised. . dave souza, talk 00:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
You of all people should know, yet it seems I need to blue link that. My comments here should be read, understood and ideally your (irrelevant to the article) POV pushing removed. I need not, I assume, remind you about WP:SOAP either, but I'm going to. Please fix this. Pedro : Chat  20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merely reinforcing an illustration of WP:BIAS, evidently such frivolity doesn't travel well so have refactored as requested. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your use of a text only medium for sarcasm was poorly thought out (although I admit I have fallen into the same poor thinking before). I admit I was suprised, as your signature generally has some of the most insightful comments on wikipedia placed before it. Thank you for refactoring. Pedro : Chat  21:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, much appreciated. Glad that was sufficient to clarify things, British humour about political issues can be rather rude and it was a careless remark by me. Many words or phrases don't travel well, and I've seen normal UK banter causing outrage in the past. Had better shut up now! . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

you kids and your text-speak.....
Hi Dave. What's "ec" in your Global warming controversy edit summary mean? Just idly curious. I gotta keep up with my kid you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk • contribs) 13:17, 31 January 2012‎
 * Ah yes, in my young days it were all ECT, FD2, MTB, GPO, MOT and MPBW followed by DoE and PSA, he said desperately trying to remember some acronyms. As for "ec", 'tis but short for "edit conflict" meaning you'd saved your comment by the time I went to save mine. So had to try again. Sometimes editors put  at the start of the comment, but I was being idle as usual. Trust your kid is doing well, mines is looking at buying a house and is staunchly not text-speaking AFAIK. (textism for "as far as ah ken") . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Dope slap) of course, edit conflict! For a second there I thought it was "emergency contraception" .NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. The initials for that used to be FL, but technology may have moved on. . . dave souza, talk 16:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the new ID article!
Hey, I think messed up when copying some of that stuff to the new page and left out some of the changes we had made recently. Thanks for catching that... and for your wise words toward our latest ID fan. ;) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you did well. Someone, presumably the new fan, had been adding DI claims from Feb. 2012 into an older context. We really need a reliable secondary source before including recent claims, but the link isn't needed as the secondary sources already point out that the DI has published such lists. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

AGW FAQ
Hello Dave,

I just noticed that you simply reverted my edits, which were entirely neutral, unbiased, and adhering to Wikipedia standards. Your edit summary stated "more information and more accurate". That's probably your opinion on the matter. Anybody here will tell you that A2 is not-neutral. Hell, why am you telling you this? You are already an administrator, and probably knows this stuff. Then why do you still deny that A2 is non-neutral? And I saw your comment on the article talk page. If Q1 answers the question, so be it, we don't need a Q2. I'm going to delete it. Thank you! — Pewfly (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Q1 answers a different question, I've responded on the article talk page. Please stop trying to delete relevant content giving due weight to majority views. . . dave souza, talk 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear dave,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and more
I think this is the first time I've ever encountered a WP admin ordering me not to use a published university paper as a source for an article. You followed-that up by revert warring my use of it in the appropriate article within three minutes with no attempt to adjust the text or to discuss it on the article talk page. You know, we are supposed to be adding information to articles, not taking it away, right? Now, I'm going to start a section on that paper on that article's talk page with the goal of reaching a compromise. You are, of course, invited to participate and contribute towards using that valuable source to improve the article. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My advice as an editor (not as a WP admin ordering you) stands. You appear keen to push unreliable fringe sources about the 'pedia, don't do that. You are getting good advice from others, on the article talk page and on the various noticeboards where you've raised the issue. Any discussion of content issues belongs on those pages. . dave souza, talk 19:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this also the first time I've ever seen a warning being given for using a paper from a peer-reviewed, academic journal as a source. Have you ever given a similar warning before? Cla68 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's clear that it is peer-reviewed. Evidence? Prioryman (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that fringe stuff does find its way into the peer-reviewed literature. But that doesn't magically make it mainstream. Guettarda (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's a peer-reviewed academic journal, all right. Coyne's take coincides with Guettarda's. I suggest waiting to see how the journal responds to demands for retractions before inserting it into the article.
 * I find interesting the "rebuttal" the journal included immediately following Kuhn's paper. It is exceedingly lame, and really does bring into question the rigor of the journal. The author, Charles Stewart Roberts, (Who's he? LOL.) begs off answering one question because it's "beyond my present understanding," and glances through recent National Geographics to answer another. !!! He cites no one. The journal promises. "Gregory Dimijian, MD, is also preparing a full-length article on Darwinism, which Proceedings will publish in an upcoming issue." Again, let's hold tight on this and see what develops. Citing to Kuhn's paper now doesn't seem wise. Yopienso (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's a journal. No one has said otherwise. As for Roberts - I'm guessing he's the reviewer who gave it a thumbs down, and when he was told they were going to publish it anyway, wrote a response. Either that, or he was the best person the journal could find to write a response when someone on the editorial committee realised they were about to publish a creationist paper. Sure, his knowledge of evolution leaves some to be desired, but he's probably pretty typical of their pool of reviewers - most of them haven't had evolution since they were undergrads. Which is, presumably, why the article was submitted there in the first place (there's been a string of these in the past couple years, including one that ended up on my desk recently). I'm not quite sure why you're so contemptuous in your assessment of Roberts though. Presumably he's a competent cardiovascular surgeon. Sure, he doesn't cite literature - but why should he? What he's writing is neither a journal article, nor is it a Wikipedia article. He's writing an "invited comment", as a doctor, to his peers. As for Dimijian's article, I think it does what it sets out to do - educate his peers about the basics on modern evolutionary biology. Peers who, probably, haven't had coursework in biology since they were undergrads, and who like most undergrads probably forgot half of it the day after the exam. Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yesterday User:Prioryman requested evidence that the journal is peer-reviewed.
 * I had thought reviewers were greater scholars; guess not. Thanks for the clarification about an "invited comment."
 * I'm interested in seeing if/how the journal responds to demands for retraction. Yopienso (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doubt has been expressed whether the article was peer reviewed. Journals are not peer reviewed, only certain content within journals (normally research and review articles, not news pieces or editorials, and certainly not the advertisements or routine records of the business of academic societies that appear in some journals. As it clearly says, this journal offers a mix of articles, including editorials which, obviously, are not peer reviewed. As for reviewers being "greater scholars" - I'm not sure what you mean by "greater", but surely you realise that expertise in one field does not translate into expertise in another. A key element of peer review is "peer". The peers of doctors are other doctors. As a journal editor, when you receive an article you ask qualified people to review it. But you can only do that if you have a pool of potential experts to tap into. Within your field, you know who to ask to either perform the reviews, or to suggest other qualified reviewers. If you receive an article that's outside the scope of your journal, you normally reject it for that reason. If you send it for review, your pool of reviewers aren't going to be experts on that topic...though they are, presumably, experts in their own field. As for retractions - why do you expect calls for retraction? Journals don't retract articles just because they're bad. Certainly they don't retract an article simply because it covers a fringe topic. Most journals want to print the best that's available to them, because their only real currency is their reputation, which is based in a large part on the quality of articles they publish. Retractions come because there are problems with data quality, or authorship, (see Retraction Watch), or in rare cases, they come in response to major instances of of editorial malfeasance. Guettarda (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, this whole discussion arises from Cla68's misrepresentation, which is why I consider his intervention WP:DE. The question of peer review has been well covered at RSN. The further clarifications here are interesting and informative, for which thanks, but the whole issue is a distraction. . dave souza, talk 05:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Useful update. . dave souza, talk 15:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Help
Hello,

I'm leaving you a message because I saw you make an edit to the DYK page. I've nominated an article which I've written, and received some feedback that I've tried to address. However I think that the editor I was conversing with may have lost interest in the process, or perhaps has missed my response. I would appreciate if you could grant a quick look at the discussion so that it does not become stale. Thank you, Aslbsl (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First response: am a bit tied up for time at the moment, the issues raised need a bit of detailed checking in an area of pirates where I've no knowledge but I'll try to have a look over when I can, . dave souza, talk 06:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I just don't want the discussion or DYK nomination to become stale. Best, Aslbsl (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your great assistance. I've made changes and replied on the template page. Aslbsl (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, ok to go in my opinion. . dave souza, talk 17:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, glad to assist. Also thanks for all your work on DYK, I've not contributed much to it. . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. Aslbsl (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for J. Murray Mitchell
Thanks Victuallers (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, that was rather fun. Must try to remember DYK when working on new articles! . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Interested
... in helping out a new editor? I found this article on new medicine article patrol, did a bit of cleanup: User talk:SandyGeorgia. (I've decided lately to focus on patrolling new articles to try to stem some of the problems at the front end, as opposed to picking them up after new editors have created gobs of copyvios). Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a bit over my head and pushing beyond my abilities, but have added my tuppenceworth and replied on your talk page. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave ... I'm unwatching now, did all I could on stylistic things to help a new editor-- you know a lot more on that topic than I do :) Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann's infobox
What do you think about the Nobel bit in Michael E. Mann's infobox? The article has space to explain it well, but the infobox doesn't. I'm not sure it belongs in there, and if it does, if it's presented correctly. No one responded to my comment on the talk page. I don't know, but I assume none of the authors of the AR3 received so much as a certificate. I looked, and couldn't find they did. Certainly no medal.

If you do think it should be in the infobox, I suggest adding it to Rajendra K. Pachauri's infobox as well; who received it on behalf of the IPCC and to the inbox in the article about the actual recipient, the IPCC. Yopienso (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The first point is that apparently all the several hundred lead authors each got a plaque acknowledging their sharing of the prize. When I'm ready I'll provide sourced info that both Mann and Ben Santer were singled out for commendation in relation to the WG1 report, so at the least it should appear in their articles, and ideally it should feature in the articles on all lead authors. Pachauri received the prize, which warrants a mention in his bio, and of course Gore shared the Nobel peace prize. I'm not an expert on infoboxes, though I've tried to comply with their requirements, but a brief standard mention for all those bios may be the best approach. . dave souza, talk 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! I'd love to see those plaques. Most of the lead authors don't have BLPs--I checked, and IIRC, only John Christy does. Infoboxes, as I discovered when I briefly stuck my nose into musician's bios a while ago, can be a source of contention. It seems to me Mann's doesn't have the space to sufficiently explain a Nobel prize; it either comes off sounding as if he was awarded one personally, like Gore, or the explanation is so cumbersome it doesn't really fit in an infobox.
 * Also, in that box under "Known for," it seems it should be formatted like "Awards," each beginning a new line instead of separated by commas. Minor stuff to be sure, but it gives a more professional look.
 * And, is he known for the hockey stick controversy, or for the hockey stick graph? I'd say the graph--there was intramural controversy about it with Briffa before publication, but I don't know of any controversy after the report came out until the emails were hacked. But there's a lot of stuff I'm not aware of! Oh--I see our article is controversy, not graph. I've gone ahead and lined up the "Known for". Yopienso (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bit of a long running sore, it really should be the HS graph rather than "controversy", but too tedious to change. Saying he's "known for" "climategate" legitimises a smear campaign, and it was just as subset of the attacks on the HS as far as he was involved. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Christy doesn't mention the Nobel in his webpage "about", he did discuss it in the WSJ rather dismissively, with the usual inaccurate sideswipe at Al Gore. Not sure if that's a good source to add the info to his bio article. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That confirms my initial thought that including it in Mann's infobox is WP:UNDUE. I do agree with the treatment in the article itself, but I would remove it from the lede. His share of the prize, as Christy said, is tiny.
 * I follow your logic in removing "Climategate," but he's actually known for that and is inseparably linked to it.
 * Yesterday at NPR.
 * Yesterday in the Washington Times.
 * Last week in the LA Times. Excerpt:
 * He was propelled back into the headlines in 2009, when hackers broke into the computer system at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and stole thousands of emails sent by and to some of the world's most prominent climate scientists -- including Mann. Dozens of them contained phrases that, when taken out of context, made it sound as if these scientists were purposely manipulating data or trying to prevent contrary research from being published, creating an ensuing scandal dubbed Climategate by the media. Some of the most explosive of these emails were written by Mann.
 * Yopienso (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem re removing Nobel prize from the infobox, as they're very simplistic lists. For much the same reason, we shouldn't list every smear campaign that gets someone in the news, however unjustified the attacks. Especially on the basis of opinion pieces. The NPR piece doesn't say what you say it says, it describes Mann as known for "the "hockey stick graph," which came under attack during the "climategate" scandal." The Washington Times treatment is similar, though note that's an unreliable Mooney influenced source. Both the CRU controversy and the Cuchinelli email demands have their own articles, but only relate to Mann as part of the broader HS controversy. Which is where they belong in the body text of his bio. . . dave souza, talk 21:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll remove it, which is ironic, because I restored it after someone removed it almost 2 weeks ago.
 * I won't restore "Climategate," although imo it should be there. The NPR doesn't say Mann is known for Climategate and is inseparably linked to it (which is what I said) but clearly demonstrates it: the title is "Va. Supreme Court Denies State Attorney's Request For 'Climategate' Records." The first sentence doesn't even name Mann, but refers to him as "a noted climate scientist." The second sentence ends with, "put together [not is known for] the 'hockey stick graph,' which came under attack during the 'climategate' scandal." The hs graph was focused on during the CRU hack.
 * The event reported in the WA Times derives straight from "Climategate," and it's mentioned as background in the third paragraph. Please elucidate me on Mooney; I'm clueless.
 * Yes, it is the opinion of the LA Times Opinion Staff--certainly reliable for telling us what the man is known for. You will note they are entirely on Mann's side against the global warming denialists and urge us to buy his book.
 * But you're a smart man and an honest one, too; you know this. I'm not going to fight you over it in the article, but it does bear saying.
 * I don't have time now to go to the article. Maybe our discussion should be there? Regards, Yopienso (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wedge strategy
Your input would be welcome on the ongoing discussion at Talk:Wedge strategy, in which you have been a participant. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Scot(ch)!

 * Thanks, I'll drink to that sometime! Generally my tipple is beer, and malts were my preference in whiskies, but a very nice thought.
 * More as a note to myself, – the hockey pitch controversy. . . dave souza, talk 08:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture
Hi Dave. Any idea where the Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture link should point? Searching around suggests it's probably the Scottish Agricultural College, but I'm not sure enough to create the redirect (or pipe my link). Thank - Guettarda (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha. Probably: it seems to have operated under that name at least to 1967 and then in 1990 the East of Scotland College of Agriculture was merged into the Scottish Agricultural College, possibly an official change to a name used informally earlier. No direct evidence of the name change, so as a compromise have started a stub with some of the info I've found, linked into the Scottish Agricultural College article. Will add a bit more then hope someone improves it. . dave souza, talk 19:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! The college and its experimental farms such as Boghall farm on the edge of the Pentland Hills are in my old stomping grounds, so to speak. . dave souza, talk 22:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

intellegent design
Can you link to the consensus that made you revert this edit:

(cur | prev) 20:44, 24 March 2012‎ Dave souza (talk | contribs)‎. . (154,096 bytes) (+265)‎. . (Undid revision 483738201 by Mindlogger (talk) per source and consensus) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.202.85 (talk)
 * Info at article talk. . dave souza, talk 05:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrewswife
As you replied to user:Andrewswife (see User talk:Andrewswife) on talk:Greenhouse effect, I thought it best to advise that I've indef blocked the user for proxying/meatpuppetry for indef blocked user:Andrewedwardjudd. Since the thread had replies, I hatted rather than deleting it. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the term meatpuppet which came to mind at the time seemed rather ungallant, but proxying fits the situation very well. It was unwise of me to respond, your action is welcome and is greatly appreciated. . dave souza, talk 22:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And there was I thinking the mess couldn't get any worse (I've had to update the blog). Vsmith's action seems a bit harsh but in this case is probably for the best for all concerned, including A's w William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Harsh? Look closely at the edits. And what modern woman would choose a username like that? Anyway, I've added some unblock advice to her talk. Vsmith (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wallace's Dawinism
Good call. Thanks for covering my backside! --Pawyilee (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Darwinism (book) is labeled an orphan, yet says, of all Wallace's books, it is cited by scholarly publications the most. What gives? So far, besides the hatnote you fixed, I've left a note about Wallace at Clarke's first-law talk, and added mention of the book to List of examples of Stigler's law :D: "'Darwinian evolution' is an often-used name for evolution by natural selection. Yet Charles Darwin mentioned, in an annex to 'The Origin of Species', eighteen people who had previously expounded the idea, including Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, Herbert, Grant, Matthew, Haldeman and of course Wallace, who nevertheless defends the term Darwinism in his book of the same name."

I suppose that should be rephrased, too. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and for the heads-up: it's a poor example, as Darwin originated natural selection as an evolutionary theory, and wrote it out before Wallace sent him a similar theory, leading to their joint publication of On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. Although Darwin generously acknowledged his predecessors discussed here, none of them have a substantial claim to have anticipated his theory. Have tried some rephrasing, we'll see if it survives. . dave souza, talk 22:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, again, this time for "survival of the wordiest." If that holds, I should do okay.--Pawyilee (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Religion banner
FWIW, I think the only articles yet to be tagged are in the "Scholarly terms" section or below. "Science and religion" articles might, I don't know, maybe be controversial. In those cases, if any are controversial, and I haven't checked yet, I may well add in the summary something to the effect of "tagged for WikiProject Religion, based on related substantial article being included in the highly-reputable Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion". But I think for today I will be lucky to get through the "scholarly terms" section. I actually hadn't anticipated any particular negative response, having left messages on the talk pages of the various Religion-specific projects (Judaism, Buddhism, etc.) before I started. Sorry for having not thought through the possibility of such a response regarding the topic of evolution. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, as you'll appreciate in retrospect evolution has repeatedly been edited by people with religious agendas. As a result, a consensus has been reached on concise coverage of these issues. Hard to think of other articles which would be as sensitive, but a brief note on the talk page could save editors from having to check the edit history. . dave souza, talk 20:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Darwin was Nearly Right
Hi Dave,

You have made such a massive contribution to the 'Darwin' and 'Origin of Life' pages, I thought you might be interested in a recent paper by Eugene McCarthy http://www.macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf

Darwin was spot on with natural selection, and so very close on many occasions to the real source of genetic variation. This approach by McCarthy unlocks the last riddle - Saltation - which plagued Darwin's theory.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks - Derek

DerekSmith (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it may be appropriate to note that I'm not an expert, and my contributions try to accurately summarise good sources.
 * The link goes to what seems to be an online copy of a 2008 book, in which Eugene McCarthy makes bold claims to have formulated a new theory putting hybridisation and some sort of stability mechanism in place of the normal understanding of gradual evolution. There are a lot of quotations, and it's difficult for me to find what he's arguing. The source seems to be macroevolution.net which looks self-published, and we'd really need a third party expert evaluation of the ideas.
 * Are there any peer reviewed publications about this new theory, in the appropriate scientific journals? . . dave souza, talk 20:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any published review in the journals, but I have read a review published on McCarthy's site here [] However, it is anonimous so cannot be verified. DerekSmith (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dave, just been reading your contributions over on ID. There are several aspects which extend from McCarthy's work and they all seem to impact deleteriously with ID.

Darwin himself was unimagineably close to realising that the driving force for genetic variation was hybridisation, but I guess the orthodoxy of his life which held that hybrids were essentially sterile, blindsided him to the reality of this powerhouse of variation. Hybridisation is virtually ubiquitous amongst plants and fishes where pollen and sperm are broadcast onto the currents, however in copulating animals, although cross species copulation seems to be commonplace, the consequences are quite wasteful - the majority of matings are either rejected where the sperm fails to bind, or the resultant fetus is aborted. In adition, many term pregnancies give rise to non viable offspring which soon die or if they do mature, then they are sterile. However, of the numerous cross matings, occasionally a viable offspring occurs which through back crossing achieves greater fertility. These hybrids then are powerhouses of genetic variation and respond strongly to natural selection.

Darwin saw the gradual inclusion of favourable genetic m mutations creating a being more ideally matched to its environment. McCarthy by contrast, shows the creation of numerous 'mongrels', some of which quite by happenstance are able to survive and some which even have acquired a genetic advantage from the genetic admixture of the hybridisation process and benefit from the culling process of natural selection. Once stabilisation processes have increased the hybrids fertility, the 'new species' is seen to have sprung into virtually instant existance with no fossil intermediates, and remains essentially genetically stable for the rest of its tenure until extinction.

The bad news for ID is that we now have to view life as a ragbag of hybrid mongrels who mange to get by with their happenstance array of genes, the very antipathy of either intelligence or design.

Reading Darwin, I am amazed how often he returns to hybridisation, and have to wonder if he actually realised it to be the source of 'mutation' but felt that this was one revelation too far, so drew the line at natural selection. Darwin had already established his position before the notable publication. I wonder how such a momentus announcement would go down today. Certainly McCArthy has a near impossible challenge as so many 'patches' have been constructed to paper over the aspects where Neo-Darwinism simply does not have an answer - linear phylogeny for example, not to mention saltation.

If a Tweet goes out into the night when everyone is asleep, then it dies unread, no matter what pearl of wisdom it might have contained. I feel that McCarthy's work is in a similar position. No matter the quality of his research, nor the rationality of his conclusions - if no one reads it with an open mind, then the pearl of wisdom will fade into the night (that is NOT meant to infer that McCarthy's work is of the level of inconsequence of the typical Tweet...)

DerekSmith (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(",)

 * Thank you regarding your contribution to Talk:Global warming (see related Talk:Climate change). Please see wp:Tea.  99.119.131.192 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Always glad to assist, . dave souza, talk 08:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you (User:William M. Connolley, User:Nigelj, User:dave souza, and KimDabelsteinPetersen) view the usage of "global warming" as most correct for the current planetary boundaries issue, where climate change has the notice ...
 * is only for broad issues within Wikipedia. Makes sense?   99.181.147.154 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * is only for broad issues within Wikipedia. Makes sense?   99.181.147.154 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Creation Science
Hi, regarding your reply in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_Science to section dubious, post on 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Since creationism is not the same as creation science, which "specifically relates to attempts to get creationism taught in U.S. public school science classes." In regards to this, shouldn't Creation Ministries International be removed from this whole discussion? According to their website, "We would actually be opposed to any legislation to make the teaching of creation compulsory in public schools." So, what should be done?

Sincerely P.S. How do we reply in the talk pages? Thanks LimpSpider (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied on your talk page. . dave souza, talk 22:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User:JournalScholar?
You might want to look at Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and other edits by User:JournalScholar. Don't forget to look at the deleted contents of his user page William M. Connolley (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A good point, but it's unutterably tedious and beyond my skillset. Has anyone reported this in official channels, or to an admin versed in the background? . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Quinarian system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Osculate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you
Per your comments on Talk:Climate change denial you may find the wp article evangelical environmentalism of interest. Please see wp:Tea  99.181.142.25 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.140.167 (talk)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.133.138 (talk)

ID history section
About a year or so ago, I removed the first paragraph of the history section of the ID article precisely because it was causing problems pertaining to the scope of the artcile. If I remember correctly, it was you who reverted me. I propose removing it again because it is peripheral to the subject of the article, is already covered by the article on argument from design, and is confusing. North is not the first to be mislead. WOuld appreciate your input. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's an issue that features prominently in the various critiques of ID, but we must be clear that ID differs from the design argument in that it rejects designed laws in favour of empirically detectable miracles. Have tried to tighten up the section, . . dave souza, talk 13:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution: discussion about history section
Hi Dave. Do you have a moment to see the discussion which has started at Evolution?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, I've noticed it going on but am a bit tied up with other things at the moment. Hope to review the whole thing, but think it's a complex area that has suffered from over-simplification. . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviews on Mann page
I note that there are 2 reviews of Mann's book, one from Yale and one from WSJ (which of course has a well-known POV on climate science): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

Some others might be good to include, such as (among many credible sources):

Physics Today: http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i6/54_s1

Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=419764&c=1

Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7390/full/483402a.html

New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/03/the-man-behind-the-hockey-stick-graph.html

LA TImes: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/02/mann-climate.html

Geoscientist: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/page11760.html JohnMashey (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, John, since someone has started an article on The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars I've moved four reviews there. These are useful resources about the book, and when time permits I'll have a go at summarising their main points. Which will of course include the contrarian WSJ opinion, shown as such. A minor point, I'd added the Physics Today article using its doi number, which didn't automatically show it as a book review. That's now a reference for the new article about the book. . dave souza, talk 10:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm actually happy to see WSJ included (since it records the viewpoint), but the issue was the balance.JohnMashey (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

General sanctions
As a regular on climate change article could I ask for your cooperation in helping new editors to adapt to the general sanctions that apply on those articles? I refer in particular to recent warlike comments by relatively new editors that should have been nipped in the bud early. The climate change articles and their talk pages absolutely must not host such conduct, and all editors must be informed of this as soon as possible. The rest of us must set an example by taking pains to avoid even the appearance of responding in kind. --TS 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point, your response of hatting the civility discussion with a reminder about sanctions is better. . dave souza, talk 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(",)
Thank you for your contributions to Talk:Michael E. Mann and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Please see wp:Tea. 99.181.128.217 (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Of interest?
Per your comments on Talk:Climate change denial ... found on Talk:Wildfire and Media coverage of climate change. 108.195.136.11 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * US wildfires are what global warming really looks like, scientists warn; The Colorado fires are being driven by extreme temperatures, which are consistent with IPCC projections 29 June 2012, regarding 2012 Colorado wildfires and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

evolution talk
You hid my post in the talk of evolution. id appreciate it if it could be un hidden. id not really made it exactly very clear about how the article could be improved,but il be sure to add it.ThankYou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.174.80 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your post was hidden because that thread is not relevant. Article talkpages should used to discuss how to improve the page, not to bicker about whether or not the page topic is false or not because someone doesn't want it to be true for spiritual reasons.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (",)

 * Thank you for your contributions to Anthony Watts (blogger). Please see wp:Tea.  108.195.136.231 (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 07:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hockey stick controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Muller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Hi, glad to see you in the harness. Hope you've been enjoying yourself and not ill.

Would you mind looking in at the ID talk page? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yopienso, have had a pretty busy weekend and noticed the discussions but hadn't yet got round to commenting. Have now put in my tuppenceworth. Thanks for helping to keep talk page discussions focussed and on an even keel, etc. . . dave souza, talk 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks and you're welcome. Best always, Yopienso (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fictional Conference Interpreters
Dear Dave,

Thank you and sorry about Michael Frayn, I stand corrected, so much so that I corrected the year of publishing of The Russian Interpreter on the page I created on fr.wikipedia. I have now taken great pains to translate it into English.

As you seem to be a very experienced and wise wiki-contributor, in addition to being an administrator, I would humbly like to ask you if you would be so kind as to a) correct my English (not a native speaker) and b) do whatever needs to be done so that my page has a right to survive on en.wikipedia.

I haven't seen all the films nor have I read all the books, I'm relying on other kind wiki-contributors to fill in the blanks and add more details to whichever film or book has an interpreter in it.

My next great adventure will be to translate Universal translators into French, as it is missingl

Many thanks in advance and greetings from Geneva

--BiiJii (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad it helped! It was simply a recollection that the book was older than 2005 with a British author, so I looked it up in Amazon.co.uk.
 * Your English translation is very good and in general doesn't seem to need any corrections. There are a few instances where alternative wording might read better, but that's a matter of taste and should get resolved when other editors have access to the article.
 * It looks as though it should survive, it will help to have inline citations in the introductory paragraph to sources which mention interpretation, and ideally have a source describing the interpretation involved for each item in the list, though I don't think all lists achieve that standard.
 * Regarding the title, "conference interpreters" sounds narrower than the topic, my suggestion is to follow the title of language interpretation and make the title Language interpretation in fiction, or possibly List of language interpreters in fiction as it's really more of a WP:LIST and WP:LISTNAME could apply. That's an area where I lack experience, no doubt someone will advise if there's any problem. . . .  dave souza, talk 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Gee thanks! I'm amazed that a managed to do a decent translation into English. I'm rather proud of myself!

As for inline citations, is that the same as references? Whenever there is a footnote, i.e. a reference, the link does says somewhere where and how and why there is an interpreter. Whenever the title and the author are both in blue, I thought it might not be necessary but such references might be found later. As for the title, List of language interpreters in fiction might be the best solution because they are not always conference interpreters (take Barbarella's tongue-box or Begnini in a concentration camp ;-))

Well, we'll see what happens!

Thanks again for your help and good advice

--BiiJii (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, meant to reply: by inline citations I mean the reference tags forming footnotes giving the references. I think it's just Wikipedia jargon for these things, someone with academic knowledge of reference systems will know the right term. Lists often seem to lack such references when the relationship is clear in the linked article, so as long as there's a reference somewhere that should be ok, and can get sorted out in normal editing. The main thing is that the introduction has enough references to establish notability of the topic, I think you have the references but hadn't linked them from that section. Good luck, hope it goes well, . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

bad user
No i double checked the definitions. theory is generalized thinking. law will occur, under the same set of factors. evolution is built up upon many different observations and generalized to this. eg natural selection and mutation. I have no religion because i prefer to observe things. also read the guidelines. Neutral point of view, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, Be polite, and welcoming to new users. you also have caused this to be treated as spam. Congratulations,you got what you came for.

I meant to write that but discussion was closed. --178.167.194.15 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

TFA
Coming soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! . . dave souza, talk 07:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thanks, very good of you to say so. Still very much a work in progress! . . dave souza, talk 19:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for
Thank you for your contributions to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy, particularly your civility. Please see wp:Tea. 64.45.193.210 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification
In the AE case against Africangenesis [], I brought up a thread on user:Nuclear Warfare's talk page entitled "Global warming battlefield behaviour", which you particpated in. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, . dave souza, talk 09:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)