User talk:Dave souza/Archive 20

Start here..
Hi David, I recently added a small paragraph to the Dinosaur Valley State Park Wiki article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_Valley_State_Park) to describe the Delk Tracks that have been discovered at the Paluxy River and were thoroughly examined by an independent lab in 2008. The link I provided is the best source of evidence for this claim as it contains several high-definition photos of the fossil, CT scan images, an 11-minute video that describes the entire process in detail as well as a Q&A that answers objections to the CT scan findings. Within minutes of posting my comments I noticed that you deleted it citing that, "better source needed for extraordinary claims by creationists." As I have mentioned, this is the best source that I have at this time which is also referenced by the Creation Evidence Museum who is in possession of the Delk fossil. Please note that I did not alter the existing information that disputes the creationists' claim but rather added another point of view that has been thoroughly examined using the scientific method. Please allow my reference to remain alongside the other contrary views and let the readers to make their own decision. Omitting information that is contrary to your own views is not only non-democratic but is contrary to our country's founding principles of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsaada (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus on the Flood
Hi Dave, don't know whether I'm using talk alright, but let's see. You say the quote "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (Math.24,37-29) is from Jesus, not about geology.

But the section is called Biblical Basis and the quotes of Jesus are the main constituent of the New Testament, otherwise there was no Bible, only the Jewish Old Testament. The apostles in the Bible also mention the flood often, but they can err. Since Jesus in the eyes of Christians is one of the Persons of the Divine Trinity and the way, the truth and the life, He cannot lie. Thus these verses are taken by all Flood Geologists as a Biblical Basis, next to the verses in Genesis, why the Flood Story is true. This you can read e.g. at http://www.icr.org/article/jesus-flood/ or similar articles on creationist or flood geology web sites.

Furthermore Jesus talks about the flood taking all away, thus being world wide and being sudden, quick. The scale in place and time are important arguments in flood geology.

Can it be placed? Best regards, Han — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgamleus (talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for coming back to discuss this issue. This is really something best discussed on the article talk page so trust you won't mind if I move it there and give my answer at Talk:Flood geology. Also note that new comment sections should be added at the foot of previous discussions rather than at the top: I'll try to clarify the heading on my talk page! . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Magpie
I've included a long list of issues on the talk page, but it looks like I forgot to add the wattle fence issue. Yes, you are right that the source in question refers to it as a gate, however many other sources speak of just the fence, with the implication that the wattle gate is treated as a substructure of the wattle fence itself. I think your edit is accurate, which is all we can hope to achieve, but I also think that treating the gate as part of the fence may also be acceptable per the sources. In any case, please take a look at the lead and see if you can make the same change. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are a pest, I was just going to do some serious editing! Anyway, a wattle fence isn't a stile, so I've had to quickly put together Wattle (construction). Do see if you can find some references for it! . . dave souza, talk 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just got online. I think you and I are living on opposite sides of the globe! I will attempt to do some work as I can.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, was just kidding! The Magpie (Monet) is a very interesting and really nice article, just that whoever linked wattle to stile was obviously unaware of the term in its construction sense. So felt the need to be constructive, even if it's an unsourced stub. . dave souza, talk 09:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Petitions
I need your advice on something. Do you think it would be a good idea to introduce a sub category for contrarian declarations/petitions? A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, Oregon Petition, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition and so on. These all share a shockingly large number of qualified signatories. Would it past muster, or would somebody instantly zap it? — ThePowerofX 21:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know, is the immediate answer. A category for the petitions would probably be ok, not sure what it would be called. Pseudoscience petitions? A category for individuals would probably be zapped, as I seem to recall there was a fuss when there were attempts to have a category for signatories to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Note the Evangelical Decaration is a redirect to the Cornwall Alliance, that's less explanatory if less commonly used by those in the know. . dave souza, talk 21:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Pseudoscience petitions' has the benefit of being accurate. How else can you categorise a petition that lists hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals that all say the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition? But had not fully considered the issue with redirects. The 9/11 petition is also a redirect. Makes less sense now. No harm in trying though. — ThePowerofX 22:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning
Dave, are you aware of this? Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Was dimly aware, and had a look for sources but none to hand so far. I notice you've had a word at User talk:Kennvido. . dave souza, talk 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. He's very clearly in violation of WP:ARBCC's discretionary sanctions, so I've kicked the matter over to WP:AE for them to look at. Prioryman (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks! While I did put a lot of the words in, quality improvement must be credited to others, in particular Philcha and Mattisse. Much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 10:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

dangling ref
Hi, in the 2nd paragraph containing your tweaks it appears the final ref at the end of the paragraph is - I presume since I have not read it - the ref which supports your tweaks in sentences 3 and 4 of that paragraph. However, down the road I would not be surprised for someone to attack sentences 3 and 4 on erroneous basis that they are not ref-supported. If my presumption is correct (remember I have not read it) I suggest at risk of cluttering, this controversial text should be super cited, to avoid the dangling ref problem so common on controversial stuff. Caio NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, the three refs were already cited for the full paragraph and the last one included the info I've added to avoid misleading readers about Seitz. This was a bit of a sticking plaster job, there's more about what changes Seitz was complaining about. Didn't mention tobacco! Have a couple of books discussing this, but it was a diversion for me so will add more later. Of course the whole section is controversial, and it shouldn't give undue weight to vague attacks by business interests on Santer. . dave souza, talk 08:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

 * Ha! Many thanks, will shamelessly pinch this clever formatting, season's greetings to you too! . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Overcome by shame, only used it once, next year will request help as required. Many thanks for assistance and greetings, . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Cookies for you!

 * Thank you very much, a timely prompt for seasonal gluttony so will have coffee and bikkies in a mo, after wishing very merry festivities to all!. . dave souza, talk 12:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, and greetings to your good selves. . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And a guid hogmanay tae ye an yer ain fowkes! . . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Twin Christmas
Seasonal greetings to Dave from little fish forebears! See, they've evolved further, now special Christmas mutations! darwin fish 16:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC).  darwin bish  whack! 16:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC). (Special Christmas sig in honour of Darwin and cool scary santa hat! Whack with Morning Star in lieu of biting, just for the festive season!)
 * Many thanks for the greetings, your cheery hats are very festive. Surprised about whacking with Morning Star, while it's a worthy socialist paper it lacks the heft for whacking attained by The Observer and the like. Anyway, delighted to see that the season of good will to all tetrapods and fishy forebears has broken out, my best wishes for the season and for the New Year to both of you! . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change
I really want to add: "What about my barkeep? He is part of a dissenting organization and he always has reliable opinions". Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll drink to that! More to the point, I think it's worth being explicit that pseudocsientific fake organisations get a lot of publicity. . dave souza, talk 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Courtier's Reply
There seem to be problems with The Courtier's Reply, see also Talk:The Courtier's Reply In sorting these problems I think I need help from Wikipedians who are more familiar with the very complex rules and guidelines here than I am. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page as my advice has a lot of links to policies and guidelines, which you may want to have to hand. As always, you're welcome to delete or archive my post when you're finished with it, and more translations available on request. . . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You were mentioned . ..
. . . here. Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have added my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mutter
It seems I'm an "aggressive" male who likes to "complain to admins" I'm so glad you can discuss things "calmly" - I note he fails to mention you've also reverted him. Some days things bug me more than others, I suppose. :-/ Killer Chihuahua 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Poor dear seems to be rushing rather than reading sources, you've taken the brunt of it but hope J-JG will slow down and discuss it in a new section. . dave souza, talk 18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I tried, but you're so much more gentle in your phrasing... also, I reverted him first, so I guess I'm the evil edit-warrior and you and Theroadislong are simply getting the benefit of the doubt... not sure why I don't qualify for that. Ptah. I am hostile-magnet. Killer Chihuahua  18:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, went to the noticeboard and worked out a nice screed about " you changed what you were doing so it doesn't strictly look like 3RR but it's still edit warring. Hope you've stopped now, and will discuss proposed changes instead of trying to force them in. Also, please stop making erroneous assumptions about KillerChihuahua, I'm sure she will be glad if you now slow down and have a relaxed talk", but got an edit conflict with JJG getting 12 hours to relax. Some sympathy with the principle of showing the common usage at the outset, but not with the nuisance and edit warring. . dave souza, talk 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I saw EdJohnson added difs showing he'd been edit warring since November, so I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that he learn what is, and is not, allowed on the en.wikipedia. I see that the fr article has the same poor phrasing he's tried to introduce here ("The word creationism...") but up until July it was the same as ours. See here where the change was effected. Killer Chihuahua 19:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's quite possible that we'll all agree on some improvements, but JJG's edit warring was pure nuisance and distraction. Time for JJG to sleep it off and think about it tomorrow. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One can hope. Killer Chihuahua 19:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath, tho - he's been blocked 7 times, several of them for edit warring, on his home encyc. On the more hopeful side, those are fairly old, so apparently he can mend his ways. Killer Chihuahua 19:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, will aim to have a look when day dawns in France and see if we get a more helpful approach, or he'll probably get some more blocks. Enjoy the rest of your day, it's been dark here for about three hours! . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ta dear, sleep well (and stay warm!) Killer Chihuahua 19:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy thank you (",)
Thank you for your contributions to Hockey stick controversy. Please see wp:Tea. (",) 99.109.127.141 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Always glad to assist, still very much a work in progress! . . dave souza, talk 05:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Crichton
Please read the source. You are falsifying material, and I will report it to ANI if you restore it. If you want the material removed entirely argue for that. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Query
Hi Dave,

My recent efforts, you know where, are designed as a prelude to an anticipated ANI or ARBCOMM complaint. I'm familiar with the first process, but not at all with the second. My interest is in (A) converting the ed into a productive contributor, or that failing (B) the departure of the ed, or that failing (C) creating protections for anyone to simply delete soap from this ed without muss or fuss or repercussions.

Any advice on these goals, or the various procedural alternatives, from your past experiences?

Thanks, NAEG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm rather rusty with this stuff, the standard is to follow WP:DR, and WP:DDE gives sound advice. At least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem, before going on to Requests for comment/User conduct. Arbcom is a last resort if that doesn't succeed. However, this presumably comes under WP:ARBCC and the more direct WP:AE process applies. Not sure if the user has been notified under WP:ARBCC. If user page requests fail, a quiet word with an uninvolved admin should suffice: in the past, NuclearWarfare has been very helpful, but is now an arb so don't know if that affects this route. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll check that all out. FYI you yourself already posted a textual ARBCOMM warning to one of the admitted IPs for this user.... assuming text is good enough and the fancy template is not a requirement, that step is checked off. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh good, I think my wording may have been informal as I'm not sure if my position as an involved editor and admin stops me from listing the editor formally at WP:ARBCC but that would be the next formal step if the user doesn't respond well to talk page advice. . dave souza, talk 15:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) As a regular at AE I can tell you that no formal template is required; if he's been told, he's assumed to know. However, if you wish to be sure, you can always add a templated message to his talk page, followed by a note that you're trying to help him understand the situation and hopefully prevent his taking further action which might lead to sanctions. In other words, tell him again, but make sure your heart is in the right place. This is not something to cross off a list before proceeding to AE; it is genuinely ensuring the editor knows about the sanctions and can take that into account moving forward. Killer Chihuahua 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. If the future indicates a remaining problem I guess I'll prep an arbcom warning using the template, organize a list of alternate accounts for the notice to be posted to, then seek an uninvolved admin to do the (re)notification.   Alternative ideas welcome, of course....  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't have to leave the notice if you feel it would be ignored, or perceived as too combative. You can ask an uninvolved admin to do it, as Dave suggested. Killer Chihuahua 16:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dave, FYI I have requested formal clarification here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks very sensible. . dave souza, talk 20:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave, please see the ARBCC clerk's comment at the clarification request. There is followup discussion on the clerk's talk page, and I would be interested if you agree with the subjective interpretation of DS on which the clerk based their comment at the clarification request page.  If you do agree with that, then does this negate your "very sensible" opinion abovec?  I don't really know the best procedure for discussions of this sort, but it sort of makes sense to me to consolidate at the clerk's talk page unless the clerk objects or anyone has a better idea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was sensible to ask before going any further, which you did. All a bit embarrassing that I couldn't recall the procedure, and a long struggle to find the words then get the editing page to load: had too many tabs open, have closed a number and things now seem to be back to normal.
 * My memory was rather vague on all this, and it's not clear if this is an exception or a hidden rule. It now seems obvious that the aim was to log official warnings from uninvolved admins, but there was no clear indication of that on the page. The official template does refer to uninvolved admins, but has an option to remove that reference. So, better guidance needs sorted out.
 * As the mists of time clear a little, it comes back to me that the original sanctions had a page for anyone to log notification of other editors, or indeed themselves. The huge ARBCC case was in part to do with one "uninvolved admin" who was forcefully running the sanctions but, in several opinions, wasn't uninvolved. The procedures were revised, with a requirement for uninvolved admins to give a formal warning and time to reform before blocking. The heading "Notifications" for logging these formal warnings is a bit misleading, so I've suggested adding some clarifying wording. Hope that works out. As for your original concerns, if the editors are still causing problems, then tell some uninvolved admin about it, with diffs. They will assess the case and can give a warning, then block if the behaviour continues. . . dave souza, talk 19:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's certainly confusing. It would be nice to see it spelled out precisely. I hope the SPI on Elvey gets a CU soon also, one way or another. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That clarification is what I've requested, it seems to be something almost taken for granted by those familiar with WP:AC/DS which isn't most of us. As indicated above, if Elvey or socks become a nuisance, putting the case to an uninvolved admin can get quick results as long as the admin agrees with the case. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy
Greg Laden is unhappy with your article. I think he misunderstands the main point of the article (or, probably, didn't read it) but I thought you might like to know. Guettarda (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it does suffer from tl;dr and summary style is overdue, but easier said than done. Ah well, have had other things to deal with but will try to get back to it, . dave souza, talk 07:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave, fyi, Michael Mann, aka "the most hated climate scientist in the US," is on the cover of the March/April Yale Alumni Magazine. Nothing new. Article online. This is not a journal. Yopienso (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes--interesting that they call the hacking "E-mailgate." Yopienso (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd seen it but like you thought there was nothing particularly new – though I didn't notice the "E-mailgate" reference. Not sure how great a source it is, perhaps it should be linked in Mann's bio. First thing I've got to do is condense and split the existing HS info, as above. After tea! . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you've begun, with North Report. Well done. There are some broken refs in there - I hate refs, so I didn't fix them up, I'll leave that to the experts William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Broken refs?!!! Mention 'em on the talk page, and perhaps I'll take another swing through. Though there are about a half-dozen I found rather adamant. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have done so for the couple I've found broken. . dave souza, talk 08:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

MBH98 reconstruction --> Hockey stick graph not redirect to Hockey stick controversy?
Should MBH98 reconstruction redirect to Hockey stick graph, not redirect to Hockey stick controversy? 108.73.112.187 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes. Have altered it accordingly, it's a process of going through linked articles and I hadn't come across that one yet, your help is greatly appreciated. . dave souza, talk 05:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Sources which may or may not be reliable, which you have discussed here, have become the subject of a Request for Clarification of the ArbCom proceeding here. You are welcome to participate in the Request for Clarification. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Our resident know-it-all on evolution theory
Mmm, you're not open to people editing "your" turf are you..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Always glad to assist. . dave souza, talk 21:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to know a great deal about it which I think says a lot about yourself, a positive thing of course. I mean how much of the world population really look beyond their own way of thinking and society and really look at the life as a whole. I find thinking about it really helps put life more in perspective. I want to learn more about it over the next few weeks, can you recommend any documentaries on youtube to watch? I bought the book The Mind of God earlier today.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't watch online videos much, but did find Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial fascinating watching and accurate as far as I could tell. YouTube link. . dave souza, talk 22:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary judgment
Let me just say that "actually, he's best known for failing to investigate complex systems such as blood clotting" is perhaps the finest edit summary I've seen in many years. - Nunh-huh 04:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very good of you to say so. For any stalkers, it was this edit. While it applies, the more spectacular non-investigation was his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." – Kitzmiller . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In case you missed it
Hi Dave,

FYI I left you a question at GW Controversy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have reviewed it and made a suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, that wording is fine by me. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Input request
Hi, Dave. I know you're pretty conversant with the literature on Creationism. Don't know if that extends to Theistic Evolution, but if it does, would appreciate your input on that article. It looks like there is a lot of OR and synth based on primary sources, and coatracking as well. User:Johnbod is going to attempt to rewrite some of the worst sections that I deleted in whole, and could use some help on sourcing. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, am I? I thought I was reverting your wholesale removal of large chunks of the article just because, without apparently knowing anything about the subject, you just didn't like the look of them. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by this, if reasonable content has been removed it should be reinstated, if need be with tags, to allow improvement. Inevitably I've been diverted from more pressing things to have a look at sources, will comment on the talk page. . dave souza, talk 18:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity
Hi! I tried to email you that Snyder article; let me know if you got it and if it's helpful. The lack of page numbers makes citing iffy. Yopienso (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Creation science makes the front page
Thank you for correcting Biochemical Predestination, without making it worse (by showing anti-creationism personal bias in the article, just the facts, please). It was sad to see a promotion of creation science one of the few times I've ever read the Wikipedia main page. --AfadsBad (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to assist, the promotion of intelligent design was very badly sourced. For some reason they want to play down the creation science background to intelligent design! There does seem to be a recurring problem with "did you know?" being gamed for promotion of dubious articles. . dave souza, talk 12:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right that it was a promotion of intelligent design as the article stood, rather than creationism as I said, but the players are all well known creationist--shades of Kansas. Wikipedia has an article on Nancy Pearcey, also, so the lack of sourcing and failure to correctly attribute the main page quote did seem intentional. I don't read the main page, other than landing on it, and it was a bummer seeing that above the fold, but at least the article does not get to maintain its glory. --AfadsBad (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

1kyr page?
You seem to have left the 1kyr page broken. Or maybe the file was later deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both! I broke the refs, someone has deleted the NOAA file for no apparent reason. I'm in the process of getting a new AR4 file ready for upload, and will aim to fix the refs soon. Also, it should really be moved to 2kyr page to comply with AR4. . . dave souza, talk 19:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Update re pic file. . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lack of clarity on "CC in the US"?
Per your comment on Talk:Michael Crichton, there is an altered graph on Climate change in the United States called File:U.S. Temperature Record (1950 to 2009) (PNG).png which per its page incorporates Anthony Watts (blogger) and Heartland Institute. Problem? Help? 99.112.214.171 (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not a problem, as the graph comes from this response by NOAA to the surface station siting issues raised by Watts as also discussed at Skeptical Science. As shown by Menne et al. the measurable effect was small, and was the opposite of what Watts claimed. This graph simply shows that the effect of siting was small, and in so doing provides a figure produced by NOAA showing their Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) yearly data going from 1950 to 2009. I've not managed to find an alternative figure showing this without the comparison between all stations and the ones Watts claimed were poor quality. . . dave souza, talk 08:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for deleting Cla's post from my talk page. As you know, I have asked him (repeatedly) not to post on my talk page, given (a) his past threats, (b) his misrepresentation of sources, and (c) his failure to acknowledge and improve his behavioral problems. He's well aware of this, and his refusal to stop posting is, IMO, nothing but harassment. So thank you for removing it, and please don't revert yourself in the future. Guettarda (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was accidental but glad it all worked out. . dave souza, talk 18:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

from Talk:Global warming; WG1 = Working Group 1?
Do I presume correctly from Talk:Global warming "WG1" is Working Group 1? 99.181.130.67 (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (A) yes, (B) Dave,this IP is the Michigan Block evading IP sockpuppet; see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks NAEG. . dave souza, talk 08:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ID dispute resolution
As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Dave. I've just read the DNR page or this dispute. Does this explain what has happened on the Teleological argument article? Is it spilling over from ID? Myrvin (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, in brief, yes. There's a massive amount of recent discussion at talk:intelligent design in which some editors are proposing various changes so that the intelligent design article is broadened to become the teleological argument, or becomes a disambiguation page with the creationist version of the argument moved to some new title. At present, Andrew is being requested to put in a formal request to move the article, with evidence. He seems to be dismissing all the sources in the article as not being as scholarly as the sources he's found using the phrase "intelligent design" to refer to the design argument or teleological argument. Perhaps my understanding of these proposals is incorrect, the discussions seem to be rife with misunderstandings. . dave souza, talk 17:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought so. You can hardly find the word "design" in the TA article now that doesn't have "intelligent" in front of it. Why is Andrew so keen on refusing to allow the idea that the "argument from INTELLIGENT design" is recent? Does that effect the chances of merging the two articles?
 * Maybe the problem is that the TA article was originally written to be about the existence of God, rather than about general teleological arguments and explanations, with the God thing as one (big) part of it. TAs do not have to involve God. Myrvin (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ID is claimed by its proponents to not [necessarily] involve God, hence they claim it's theistic science, but their claims are rather self-contradictory. Perhaps there's a case for trimming the TA article down to the generalities, and splitting the argument for the existence of God into a new article on argument from design, which at present is a redirect. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I had thought of a "T argument for the existence of God" article, but maybe yours is better. But wouldn't it still be open for the same people to put "intelligent" everywhere?
 * BTW isn't it interesting that the Key terms section is looking more and more like one of my versions - except for the view that ID is recent of course? Myrvin (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Stunned
Dave, with all due respect this edit is the way that trolls who edit with IP addresses edit. You know that, surely? For example you made no effort to even sort out all the different edits done in different sections, being minor grammatical ones. And of course if we look at what you are doing on the talk page it is worse. I have compared you to a creationist troll on the talk page, and I did mean it. You are using the same methods. It is also clearly having a big impact on the way less experienced editors think they may act. What are you doing? This is the wrong way to help any article, and this one looks like a bomb hit it. You surely have to start allowing people with proper sourcing and rationales to edit and use the talk page without fear of reverts and drama.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read this Dave. If you want to report him, I'll back you. Myrvin (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another nice job, Dave souza. Just the facts. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC))


 * You may be interested in the post on User talk:Andrew Lancaster by me about impolite behaviour. Myrvin (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, Andrew does seem to have been getting rather enthusiastic. Best not to take too much offence at such remarks, and be on your best behaviour: Etiquette gives useful advice. If it comes to the worst it will probably end up in dispute resolution, tedious as that is. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design talk page
Dave I just want to note this: In this section (the newest at this moment) there was a very straightforward short discussion this morning, that looked like it might go somewhere. A rare thing on that talkpage. You have intervened with interwoven posts at several places. Of 6 posts you have made, only one is even arguably on topic. The others are clearly not, and they now dominate that talkpage section. This does not allow any sort of reasonable discussion, and this type of constant changing of subject and posting in the wrong place is leading to all kinds of frustrations and misunderstandings on a talkpage which was not good when I got there. You should consider just how blatant this appears. I do not wish to speculate on your intentions but I am quite confident this is helping no one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, it certainly looks like you're dominating the talk page, and it's hard to get a word in edgeways. My posts respond to points you've raised: if you don't want a response, don't raise matters. You spray the talk page with points requiring research, then if you don't get an instant response assume others agree with you, or when you do get a quick response, you complain that it's not detailed. Please take more time, focus on specific points rather than putting up an unexplained screed, and slow down to give others time to respond. . dave souza, talk 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The section I cite here was very much a simple and slow, neatly-threaded discussion before you swamped it with OT chatter, as can be shown easily with diffs. I am confident that the blatant OT nature of your sudden rush of posts is something any third party would be able to confirm. Currently you are the dominant factor in creating a frustrating wall of words on that talk page. Why not try a different approach. Please try to communicate on an AGF basis, posting straight answers to straight questions in the correct places in threads, instead of trying to bully me out. You'll find it much easier.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, please cease this WP:BATTLEFIELD stuff, and focus on making it easier for other editors to follow and discuss your proposals. . dave souza, talk 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked you first Dave, but still I certainly agree with what you say. And you will see: as soon as you stop the battlefield stuff, you'll find that there is no-one else doing it, and there never was. I just answer your posts. Let's all follow Wikipedia core content policies, and try to work according to WP:TALK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave I am not sure why you had to post on my talkpage one more time but I can only repeat, because it seems you did not read it: as soon as you stop the battlefield stuff, you'll find that there is no-one else doing it, and there never was. Let the talkpage work. Answer straight questions with straight answers. Don't spend all your energy trying to make me go away, just work with me. If I turn out to be wrong, no problem, but let's get there quicker. What are you scared of? (BTW I do appreciate your relatively straightforward discussion in the sourcing thread.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What straight questions? You've ignored the differences I've noted between your proposal and the original, and have put three posts on the talk page demanding a definition: that really looks tendentious and rather disruptive. Please focus on finding improvements. . dave souza, talk 19:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not true Dave. Your first description of an apparent difference, as requested, is this diff, phrased as a question (placed in two places, sigh: aiming to get more WALLOFWORDS animosity?). At the moment of writing I have not even posted three more posts since then - only two, one of which is my straightforward and easy answer. The other is replying to a post by MisterDub. The posts asking for a straight answer were all before any straight answer, and in response to posts which were OT (not straight). You have by the way consistently mis-described my edits in this manner and that can be demonstrated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff of my edit at 19:31, it's useful to note that this responded to your questions (to me and PM of 16:26 and to me of 16:48), leaving for PM much the same question you'd asked PM at 19:10. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, you know I've also expressed concern with you previously over your behavior on that article's talk page. It appears that I'm not the only editor with concerns.  Would you consider a voluntary month-long break from the article?  I know by experience that being deeply involved in a topic area can have an adverse effect on one's compliance with WP's policies and guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome Dave, and I also appreciate your efforts in recent days. Good to have turned a corner there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ballooning Spiders: The Case for Electrostatic Flight
may amuse in view of "A compelling example is analyzed in detail, motivated by the observed 'unaccountable rapidity' in the launching of such spiders from H.M.S. Beagle, recorded by Charles Darwin during his famous voyage." RDBrown (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Very interesting to know that research continues into examples observed by Darwin, in this case on 25 November 1832, and wrote about in Voyage of the Beagle. . dave souza, talk 17:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  evolution

Thank you for quality articles on evolution, such as Darwin's Fertilisation of Orchids, for evolution in referencing, and for inviting new articles by red links, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 265th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I feel deeply honoured. Though less active these days, my aim is to keep contributing in the same manner, and your barnstar encourages these efforts. Hope you're also doing well, . dave souza, talk 18:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Visit my talk and find out. Everything there, from Verdi (today may be his birthday) and singing the greatest music there is to arbcom restriction. I miss br'er for almost a year now, and PumpkinSky left, again. We women have to take care of the children ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So much there! Sorry about the arbcom stuff, always tedious, and reminders of missed friends. Am rather short of Verdi though must search out his Requiem, so as an immediate response have put on a recording of the Mass in B minor. Stops now to listen. . dave souza, talk 19:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Celebrating Verdi today (pictured on the Main page) - I didn't get it done sooner ;) (We sang his Requiem in 2010.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, singing the Requiem must have been marvellous! . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo for Geology Text Book
Hi Dave,

I'm working on a geology textbook and would like to use one your photos (Siccar Point). Please could you contact me

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillesvigo (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I'll get that on the go. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Temperature record of the past 1000 years
< Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined >>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years&diff=553017570&oldid=548300416 Please take a look thanks --Frze > talk  09:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, think that's all fixed now. . dave souza, talk 10:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, I'm not a great expert on this and there seems to be plenty of support already, but have braved a couple of edit conflicts and added my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

NPA accusation
Dave, I fully agree that we should not use personal attacks and we should stick to topic. With all due respect I have explained on the article talkpage already why I believe I am doing so in good faith, and why I currently have doubts about your good faith on some points, which are apparently important to you. I get the thing about leaving warnings on talk pages for the record, at the same time as you attack. Seen it all before. I intend to continue to defend myself when you attack me, but only by pointing to facts. If for example you repeat over and over that an article contains words which it does not, clearly with the intention of deceptively making me look wrong, then pointing that out is not unreasonable. All diffs available when necessary. But honestly I am not really worthy of all this venomous focus, which clearly is not making anyone happy. I want to work with you, and will not hold grudges. Just please get back on topic and stop trying to throw every discussion into a circle. When you are wrong about a source just get over it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So stop it, and assume good faith when we disagree about the meaning of passages. Please accept that I (and others) genuinely disagree with your interpretation of sources. . dave souza, talk 22:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not at all a situation where two people are discussing differences of interpretations. You literally have said repeatedly, aggressively (towards me) and insistently that there are things in the article which are not there. You have also refused to engage in any type of discussion which could justify any claim to this being a simple difference of interpretation. When I say that you show a striking tendency to avoid straight answers, I mean it Dave. I mean also that anyone looking at it will see it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you're responding to my comment on your talk page. Do you really think that "what a fraudulent remark to make" isn't a personal attack? As for "Never ever a straight answer Dave?" please accept that I've frequently done my best to give you straight answers. What I've not done is go over every point of one of your "wall of text" postings: time simply doesn't permit. You've got a tendency to be disruptive and drive other editors away, try to restrain yourself. . dave souza, talk 22:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave if you do not have time to read what you are replying to, then if you care about making this talk page work better, simply stop inserting misleading ad hominem accusations into virtually all of your posts, pretending that you have read my posts and/or sources and found things that are not there, or pretending that you have answered me somewhere else or whatever. When you do that I am in a difficult position if I do not reply. Just respond when you have time to read it calmly first. I am not attacking anyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Offtopic: it's difficult to keep up with your screeds, and I don't claim to be perfect. Back on topic: "what a fraudulent remark to make" is an accusation of fraud or dishonesty, and is a personal attack. Don't do that. I've advised you to strike it, and note that you've failed to do so. . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I pointed to dishonesty because it was being repeated over and over and could not be ignored. I do not believe this was error, because I tried several times to point the problem out more gently to you. Claiming that you have read the context of a direct quote was clearly dishonest the first time, because you could not have found that quote in the wrong article, but please remember that even after you did that, I did not make a big thing out of it. Insisting you were still right after I suggested you had the wrong source, was a second event which can not have just been error. But after that, when you clearly knew you were wrong, and you started to explain details of context around the quote which were demonstrably pure fiction how naive would I be to keep being nice about it? It is fraud. Again, this is not just a mistake. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree about whether pointing to something bad is covered by WP:NPA, which would mean that the person pointing is in the wrong, not the person who did the bad thing. I do not believe WP:NPA says this. In the meantime your posts keep flicking back to obvious thematic ad hominem disruption for a period each day which I take to be evening. I think there are various policies and guidelines which do cover some of those. But the situation remains that I have no interest in attacking you in any way, nor making you look silly, nor getting you into wikidrama, but when attacked in ways which disrupt and distort the talk page discussions, I will take at least point to the relevant facts and evidence. If that worries you, please note how easy it is to avoid. You literally had to make a very big effort to push me into making these negative observations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, your extended screed reflects badly on you. Keep digging if you want. . dave souza, talk 16:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

dave, the above should be seen as advice. I can feel confident that people know my intentions are good, even if they do not always like my words, and I reckon you would feel better in that position also. Personally, I do not think it would reflect better on me if I refused to ever give you a straight answer, or if I put the word screed in every response to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My advice to you is learn to be concise and focussed on specific article improvements. . . dave souza, talk 17:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great. I have no problem with that advice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I still agree with your post above. So just in case it helps, I would say that the new Garamond-inspired thread calling for sources for North's words is not concise, nor "focused on specific article improvements". You know North's claims about "other uses" already, but he is not demanding any edits based on those claims, and nor, in the end, is there any real world difference between what North describes in his words, and what you describe in yours. You both know what you are both referring to, you just prefer different words to describe it.
 * I came up with an explanation a while back which everyone seemed able to live with (as for example shown with the wording Garamond Lethe and yourself have proposed for Q/A#6: the two words "intelligent" and "design" come together in non-random ways, in discussions related to the same broad context as the subject of the article, but with a different signification. (We have lately been discussing the best words for the name of that broad context, and I thank you for your posts on that.) Can we not work with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave! I do appreciate there is a wall of words problem, whatever the cause, and so just in case it is helpful I wanted to register that I am still really hoping you can give some sort of comment on proposals 6 and 7, here. I would really like to focus only on such concise focused article improvement points. I am very thankful that you have made some efforts on that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann
I made a number of very innocuous edits attempting to take out judgmental language supportive of Michael E. Mann, and adding fairly important facts to the article (e.g., the false Nobel Prize claim(s) and the defamation lawsuit). Without any specific objection, you reverted these changes. Judging from other comments in the talk section, you or someone else has reverted changes mentioning these facts in the past. This would seem to be not objective editing. If you think the edits are warranted, could you please discuss each on the talk page first, as the version you put back appears to be far less objective than the edited version I created? And can we have this as a rational discussion rather than an escalating and emotional/irrational argument? Thanks ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 00:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas box..
 Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers


 * Oooh, this is so exciting that I've archived the past year's stuff! Will click on the box come Christmas Day, with excitement.. dave souza, talk 16:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)




 * Hehehehe. The poor sap opened the parcel!  darwin bish  BITE   ☠  12:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Aaaaaah! You rotten swine! You've deaded me agane! No more curried eggs for me.. . . dave souza, talk