User talk:Dave souza/Archive 6

WP:NC(GN)
I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysytalk 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary
I am leaving this same message on all the talk pages of those editors who have recently been involved in the short edit war over links in the External links section of the RMS Queen Mary article.

Two of the editors involved in that disputer were temporarily blocked because of their violation of the three-revert Rule. The article itself is temporarily protected because of the edit warring over the article. There is now a section on the Queen Mary talk page at Talk:RMS Queen Mary/Archive 2 for any editors who want to discuss the matter of which links should, and should not be in the External links section of the RMS Queen Mary article. Blank Verse 09:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD
An article you started has been nominated for deletion. Please see Articles for deletion/Scottish national identity. Thanks. --Mais oui! 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I had a look and was still pondering the issues when the vote closed as a keep. Which is good. ...dave souza, talk 09:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Clooties and Clootie Wells
Thanks for your work on these new articles! --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Really just one of them, and it's been a pleasant diversion for me. Thanks, ..dave souza, talk 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Turnstiles
Discussion archived: see archive 5.

Entropy
This was the best I could do at 6AM. ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * its energy is now more spread out or dispersed in the microstates of the considerably greater volume than its original state. 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, you gents on the other side of the pond do love your tea. ;) I'm not sure that mixing gas does not show an increase in entropy for the simple reason that as a physical action must occur to mix gasses previously held separately, and as every physical action generates heat, entropy would increase.  As I can't see any way to mix the gasses other than via some physical action (turning a stopcock, removing a partition, breaking an ampule, etc) I'd have to say that the mixing bit of increasing entropy without dispersing energy is merely theoretical.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Bingo!  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this getting deep. More tea! &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but curried what? I pretty much like most curries (although too much cumin puts me off), and I'm more partial to the Indonesian/Thai variety -- although there are quite a few Indian curries I like.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That last post was great! Time for a Guiness.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Social Darwinism
I notice you put back the section I took out without mentioning it, tho it was the point of your edit. I didn't remove it because I have a distaste for (discussions of!) Social Darwinism -- far from it. I just feel that the Charles Darwin page shouldn't be a catch-all. Also, your argument that a summary of Social Darwinism is not out of place is not out of place, except that, as structured, summaries easily bloviate into articles that rival the "real" one, since people will keep adding their two-cents-worth to it. That's why, perhaps, the "summary" should be a line or two commenting the link to Social Darwinism in the See Also section, no? — Jrmccall 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had another look and commented at talk:Charles Darwin. ...dave souza, talk 18:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We meet again
Hi. I saw you had done a lot of work on Electric Brae, and created the redlink to Electric Brae (novel). I created the article the other day, and it could usefully be developed if you felt like it... --Guinnog 05:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ichthyostega, and your tetrapods chart
As you suggested, I re-uploaded my sketch of the Ichthyostega, with a thicker outline this time. I agree that it looks alot better now. I hope you decide to use this version for the little time-chart you made, looks very good.



Meneitherfabio 05:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a trick we used to use in the days of different line width rapidographs (technical drawing pens, using indian ink which forever kept clogging up) to make drawings stand out better, and I've noticed it being used in print illustrations etc. Will have a go at the fishapod chart, if there are any other things to sort that can be done later. ..dave souza, talk 09:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU!
Tears almost came to my eyes as I just happened to log in and found your message -- and then quickly scanned Talk:Entropy for August and September. Thanks SO much for your support!! In late July I was completely discouraged and disgusted that I had wasted a month of my not-too-assured time (I'm 88) on Wik entropy and vowed to let them wallow in their offal. Scientific arguments are great but the inability of the 3 people then dominating nearly ALL discussion to engage properly in such -- as well as the egalitarian situation of a immature grad student being a deciding 'authority' -- it was all ultimately depressing. Thus, I'll respond in just a few minutes to your Gibbs -- that PAR has remarkably screwed up. (It would be easier and less publicly invidious when I adequately express my anger!! if I could email you. My email is simply flambert@att.net) And maybe tonight, I'll put everything together that's wrong in the Talk in the last couple of months :-) My chemist friends tell me to forget it; Wk is beneath me, but I so dread that students will be frustrated and waste their minutes/hours on this WKentropy when it could be a beacon of hope...You have no idea how poorly entropy is presented around the world and what an obstacle it is to the beginner. After I'm gone, I'm assured that this will change in a generation, or less considering the incredibly rapid change to date, but I'm eager to see it everywhere! FrankLambert 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments: there are clearly areas where information is needed, and hope I've not gone too far in trying to meet the concerns of those raising points: Jim's quite rightly reminding me to toe the line of policy and not accept origtinal research. At the moment the article seems to go overboard in asserting the primacy of the quantitative approach, and may be losing sight of the fundamentals under both it and the qualitative view. As you say, the article should help beginners. ...dave souza, talk 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Heptarchy
Hi, I have a confession to make as I am the one who removed mention of the heptarchy in the British Isles article. The reason why was that the DNB article on Henry of Huntingdon (who, as you almost certainly know, invented the concept) states that the idea was discredited in the 1980's (though 800 years is a pretty good life for an idea). No more details I am afraid. I realise that I should have put a note on the talk page, but it can be such a nightmare that I could not face it at the time. This note is just for information, I don't know enough to get excited about it. MAG1 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardly a confession, thanks for letting me know. Afraid that I'd not noticed how outdated the term is, though it's clearly mentioned in the intro to the article. However, as it also says, it remains in general use as a label of convenience, and it's pretty handy as a link to all the kingdoms rather than naming them individually. As a compromise I've put "the Heptarchy" in brackets and inverted commas to show it's not an official term, so to speak. It's a shame there's so much trolling on the talk page, which I too have been cautious about adding to. Thanks for the help, ..dave souza, talk 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Mediation
Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks,  ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Mediation 2
Seeing as the Northern Ireland page is pretty stable (see some of the involved user's explanation on the mediation page, most notably the last comment), I would like to ask whether you think the problem has been already solved, and should the mediation case be closed. Thanks.  ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 04:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That problem looks solved to me, and in my opinion the mediation case should be closed. However, those more actively involved in the dispute at the time might still feel differently, though that aspect of the article has remained stable. ...dave souza, talk 10:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

neds
wanty take tht pic aff your neds article coz a dnt wanty be oan the internet cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.206.118 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 October 2006
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia: feel free to remove the picture ..dave souza, talk 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: macfix
Dave, thank you for sharing all that expertise. Does any of the following information point in one diagnostic direction or another? This is a G3 iBook with OS 9.2.2. The virtual-memory section of the Memory control panel reads:


 * Available for use on disk: 8806M
 * Available built-in memory: 320M

Virtual memory is set at 321M. I've tried turning Vmem off and on, and it doesn't seem to make a difference in operation. When Vmem is on, "Largest unused block" is a bigger number, around 290 in contrast to varying numbers in the 230–250 range.

I read somewhere that an overfull desktop slows things down (Finder [= desktop] is on whenever any other program is). I've tried moving files off the desktop into the hard disk and substituting aliases. I dumped some files entirely, such as utilities to do with networking, which I'll never use. Somehow I doubt that having too much stuff in the computer isn't causing its troubles, because there isn't a lot of stuff in it.

This year I had to replace my other computer, which was even older. The dealer who sold me a new used one said OS X will run on a G3 but will slow it down. This G3 is so slow already that I decided it wasn't worth it. But you say yours runs fast!

Among the measures you described, it sounds as if the next thing to try is option-command-start and rebuild the desktop. Does rebuilding the desktop mean I'd get a blank and have to restore all the icons? Cognita 01:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a two-color clamshell. Speed is 466 MHz. It has a firewire port, which is unused. I have "install" and "restore" CDs for OS 9.0 (I assume they're for that version). I recently upgraded to 9.2 from the Web.


 * I've now rebuilt the desktop, with no apparent results. Not sure what I should have expected to change.


 * Thanks again for your help. Cognita 06:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue and white, but the case color doesn't affect loading speed, does it? Browsers are IE 5 and iCab. I don't have Photoshop or, as far as I know, any other huge byte-sucking programs. Why do I think it's slow? Well, I don't use Windows, so that's not it. Maybe you saw my report of ridiculous downloading and uploading times on ID: Discussion, but that isn't the worst problem.

Often, my first attempt to load ID: Discussion takes a long wait and produces a blank page; the second attempt (via Command-R) also takes long but does bring up the page. Sometimes, when I try to edit a long page, the editing page has a notice at the top saying how long the page is, and the Preview contains the section I aimed at plus the next section(s) below it (I have preferences set to show Preview on the editing page), and the typing window also contains this extra material until it runs out of space (I presume) and cuts off the text mid-word. When that happens, I back off because making the edit would delete text from the edited page. I learned this after doing accidental deletions twice.

So far, this last malfunction has occurred only with IE. iCab doesn't seem to do it, but iCab takes even longer to load WP pages than IE.

Once, when I clicked on the plus sign to start a topic on ID Talk, the editing page tried to give me the whole talk page, with the list of archives and everything, instead of the "new section" format. The text stopped before the bottom, so I didn't post.

Many documents are backed up on a zip drive or floppies. The mail program is Outlook Express, which can't be backed up (the program can, but not the stored e-mails; one must save each one separately). Service is broadband, but the cheapest kind, not the really fast kind.

Doesn't Disk First Aid defrag adequately, without the need for another defragging program? Cognita 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These troubles occur only with Wikipedia pages, specifically ID and ID Discussion. I haven't tried to edit any other very long pages. (I popped over to a related article on creationism, and boy, does it need help with punctuation, but it's very long, too.)


 * On a tech-help Web page, I found that Restart defrags OS 9, so let's rule out the need for defragging. [Edited from earlier version]: I increased IE preferred memory from 300 to 350. Let's see if that helps.


 * I tend to think my difficulties come from an incompatibility between 9.2 and Wiki's system, given that both browsers, not just IE, are very slow on some pages here. Cognita 01:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Darwin
Hi Dave, thanks for helping with the references. I've only just realised that you wrote all of those more detailed articles on Darwin's life. I'm quite keen to see if at least the main article can be fully referenced and go sail through FAC, because I think it's already very well written, and these seem to be the times when us evolutionists need to fly our flag. Hence my interest in doing the same for natural selection, which is a comprehensive modern look at the topic, but has had various complaints at its ongoing FAC. So grateful for any help you can give. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, well a lot of those articles: the Beagle was development of an existing article. All of them, and hence the Darwin article, draw heavily on Desmond and Moore. I've been reading Janet Browne's two volume life (still half way thro. vol. 1). There aren't huge differences but some interesting details to pick up on sometime. This link VQR Confessions of a Darwinist has interesting comments on the voyage which I hope to use in the voyage article and section: will try to tackle that soon. .. dave souza, talk 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear your opinion on Mal4mac's edit . If you decide to revert, I'll back your decision. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Forked
Please apply changes to my fork of the article, User:Samsara/Charles Darwin. Thanks! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Scottish national identity
I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, --YFB ¿  18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: modular articles
Hi Dave, I'd appreciate your comment on the new proposed wikiproject here. Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing this, I joined in too,DGG 02:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Which copy to edit?
Hi Dave, just saw your change here and wasn't sure whether you meant to edit the copy of the article that's going to get overwritten when we move the temporary copy back. Btw, have we been able to remove enough of the tags to move it back? We probably don't want to keep it branched forever... Let me know when you feel comfortable moving it back (I know how to do this, it's not difficult, but probably not entirely obvious either). Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there's a conflict between sources and it's not a major point it's probably best left out of the final version – which is looking rather large already – but didn't want to leave my error in place. Am currently rethinking the inception of the theory and engagement period, rather slow reading. .. dave souza, talk 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you should know that I think I've put in cite needed tags everywhere they need to be now, so that's that done. I'm really sorry I haven't been able to help more with the actual citations - I've been ill, and so haven't been able to get to books. But I hope I've still helped. By my calculations, we're about 2/5ths done, given we started with 29 cites, now have 70, and have 59 left to add. Of course, some of those cluster, so it'll probably be less in practice.Adam Cuerden talk 12:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the help, getting cites from D&M can be done fairly quickly, but I'm trying to check against Browne and other sources which takes a while. Very useful reexamining the evidence. .. dave souza, talk 13:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No bother! Glad to help. And I finally did a bit by citing up the Eugenics section - the Eugenics article is very well-done, so I was able to borrow from it for the summary =) Adam Cuerden talk 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

...We MUST rewrite the whole section on the logic behind the development of Darwin's theory. It's AWFUL, and doesn't explain it at all. Gould did an excellent article on it, but I can't remember in which book (curse it!). Adam Cuerden talk 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope that's a start on rewriting the inception: will review the development, but the article's a bit long to go over previous sections, and some stripping down needs to be considered. The children bit may fit better at the foot, with a brief mention of the marriage in what becomes "illness, natural selection and marriage" or something. ... dave souza, talk 22:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weel, I'm going to hand over to you for a while. I've done a fair bit of work already. Do promise me we won't lose the Marry/Not marry lists, though. Adam Cuerden talk 22:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've combined the two descriptions of his thoughts after reading Malthus, to try and give full detail of his insight (one of the things in the peer review was "not enough on the development of his theory"). God that article was full of a lot of repetition, though: I'd already removed a bunch. Adam Cuerden talk 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed I wrote "It's possibly the most possible incident in his life" for "possibly the most important", so I may be more caught in the toils of flu than I thought. Check I haven't done anything stupid, and smooth out the text? Adam Cuerden talk 13:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point: have found John van Wyhe as source and rephrased a bit to get closer to originals: Darwin's explanation is more concise, but yours explains better. .. dave souza, talk 17:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note until books are back
Hi Dave, just a quick note while I'm away from my books - keep up the good work on the Darwin article! I'll be chipping in again with more references from Browne, autobiography and Voyage soon. Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ta, with Adam's help am finding fair number of references which need to be sorted from repetitive cites to formal refs. More welcome, .. dave souza, talk 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

?
I'm not sure about the Malthus explanation: The exponential growth brings in mathematics that may not be generally understood, and aren't all that important to the thrust of the importance of the theory to Darwin's. I'm going to tweak it a little more - see what you think. Also, you added the sentence "Convinced that Lyell was right, he made numerous discoveries. " - I'm afraid I honestly can't see what you're getting at there, as it doesn't really fit with what surrounds it in a meaningful way. Adam Cuerden talk 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The linked ref makes the point that D made numerous geological discoveries, not just those listed: my unfortunate habit of trying to minimise the number of words has obscured that, will try to rethink it. D&M p 240-242 covers the questioning of farmers and pigeon fanciers, but the point about D treating ordinary folk as experts appears to be elsewhere, still having a look for it. .. dave souza, talk 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get access to Gould - I KNOW he covers it. Adam Cuerden talk 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

An award for patience

 * Agreed 100%. You are doing great work, and even if I might squabble about phrasing at times, I still think the basis of it is strong, sterling stuff.. 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for both your comments, it's hardly "my article" and it's great to collaborate on making improvements. ... dave souza, talk 14:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific friends
We're talking a lot about Darwin's sccientific friends' negative reactions to the theory, but I think we might benefit from a bit more detail - e.g. had Lyell come around to Darwin's views on natural selection when encouraging him to publish, or was he uncertain, but of the belief that it was worth researching further, or merely being supportive? A little more detail here and there might be best, as at the moment, I think we might be generalising a bit too much.

Oh, yes. The article starts to tail off away from Darwin a bit in the end, with the Eugenics and Social Darwinism sections. Do you think it might be worthwhile adding a concluding paragraph after them, about his effect on biology or something, to return the focus to his intellectual achievements? Adam Cuerden talk 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Still trying to keep things concise, but will try checking and clarifying who knew or agreed with what, as your first paragraph. I'd little to do with the Legacy section and would like to see it shortened, but it's a good idea to add a last section: perhaps make it Legacy to science or Impact on science, and if possible find another title for the present Legacy section, as it mostly involves other ideas drawing on the prestige of Darwin's name for things he often didn't agree with. .. dave souza, talk 14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Clement of Dunblane
Hi. Can you do me and wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a quick copyedit (sentences structures, unclear info, etc). I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what I take as a compliment. I've had a go at the opening paragraph, but don't expect everyone to agree with my style and would welcome feedback to see if that's on the right lines. .. dave souza, talk 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Dave. Seems fine to me. This request was made in response to User:Tony1's comments on Featured article candidates/Clement of Dunblane. Did the rest of the article read ok? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Having looked through about half of the article, it basically looked fine and very informative. However I've a lot of respect for Tony's judgement, he's rightly been very critical of some of my writing in the past. Will try to find time to go through it sometime, but have a lot on my plate with Darwin just now so can't promise when. .. dave souza, talk 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, at least you did something. Many thanks. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Architectual determinism
Hi there Dave, I remember talking to you on the tudorbethan page and could do with your input. I was asked my opinion on this - which I responded to here I was wondering if you might be able to elaborate. By the time I was in college in 1990 my tutors were negatively criting designs as being deterministic, but the history of that fall from grace is something I thought you might be able to elaborate on better than I. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Had a go, but can't say I remember the term. Just thought that it could equally apply to Ruskin's Stones of Venice and the Gothic revival. Even Chas Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is convinced that buildings affect people and their behaviour, and the vogue for "flexibility" made assumptions about desirable ways of living. .. dave souza, talk 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dave. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too, I really don't know what you were talking about though :-) Some of the vocab from the comment on my talk went way over my head but sounded interesting. My thinking about that edit to the theory page with the Churchil quote was that is was more planning than theory, sure there is some overlap, but there should probably be more discussion of modernism in that section. Oh well, maybe later. Hope you don't mind my changing your cases. DVD+ R/W 06:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thought you guys sounded impressive, and responded to the bullshit in the Architectural theory diff rather than checking what the article was about. Have never been much interested in theory, and most of these people are way over my head, but have now tried to focus the article on influential thinkers rather than wandering off into town planning. Ta for the clever edit at the top of this page. Oh, and by the way the lower case dave is an affectation from the 60s when adding capitals involved tediously turning the stencil over, so folks like archigram commonly stuck to lower case.. dave souza, talk 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Malthus on the Charles Darwin article
I still prefer Huxley's version, as I don't think that version makes the dying off clear, and ignores the r-type organism analogue. Is there any way to work more emphasis into the dying off part in, as it's absolutely crucial to the removal of unfit forms? Adam Cuerden talk 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a note to Talk:Charles Darwin – war and famine imply a certain amount of dying off, and Darwin's pretty clear about the struggle removing unfit forms in a fairly stable population. As you've indicated, the aim should be to show what he was getting out of it at the time. .. dave souza, talk 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sorry to be difficult! By the way, you'll be glad to know the article sans refs and links is only ~44kb. Much more reasonable! Adam Cuerden talk 13:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking that, I hadn't dared. Don't forget the article will be under severe scrutiny, and no doubt there will be demands for a "Criticisms" section citing Behe and Answers in Genesis. ;) .. dave souza, talk 13:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Luckily, the requirement is no *actionable* opposes. Adam Cuerden talk 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject architecture bulletin
I thought you might be interested in this, please delete it if you're not.......

WTF?
Honestly, if you're going to start reverting my changes without comment, you can just do it all yourself. I wasn't happy that the reference conversion was left to me. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that seems to have been an edit conflict and I'll try to fix it ASAP. .. dave souza, talk 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Dave—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up, that was easier than expected. Sorry so slow, things have been hectic of late. So "at the coo's tail" as usual, .. dave souza, talk 09:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

X Club
Dave, you might be interested in the new version of X Club; it's been massively expanded based on the term paper of one the students in the class I'm assisting. I tried to keep some of your prose in the merge, but I didn't keep it all. Feel free to tool around with it if you object.--ragesoss 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks very much to yourself and your student. Certainly no need to worry about my prose. I'll try to check it against my source which was Desmond & Moore: one or two points need minor copyediting or querying on the talk page, which I'll try to pick up on when I can. By cooincidence I'd just linked it from the Charles Darwin article, and the expansion's really useful. Ta again, .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin
Nearly there! Four more cites, and one that probably needs a cite. And I found a period Darwin biography. Adam Cuerden talk 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay! One more cite (and that verification needed tag I think you said actually needed a cite from Gould?) Adam Cuerden talk 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it with the Variations publication bit: D&M p 550 if needed! Someone else suggested Gould. The "probably" one is tricky, and I've been thinking of revising the paragraph a bit but haven't found the ideal source. Will have a go at that, then start tidying the cites into Harvard format as Samsara's started. Will also check through, but have no access beyond the first page of JSTOR links so someone else will have to do any checking of them :) . .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The JSTORs should be alright. I think I added all of them, and I'm generally pretty good at making sure they support me. And also....


 * A birling barnstar!! Ta very much, I'm deeply honoured. Em, maybe we've too many cites? And I've another couple to add when time permits! Soon be time to check the writing's approaching Tony's high standards, delete duplication etc. .. anyway, time for tea. Back fairly soon, .. dave souza, talk 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally think the writing's quite good. The time on the fork removed most of the repitition that damaged it before, and it's been steadily improved since. I think we're nearly done with the Harvnb push - as I told Samsara, the Commemoration section probably isn't going to be amenable to much other than weblinks, by its nature. one citation needed came up in the Harvnbing, but otherwise, I think it's about time to go for FAC: If there's anything else, they'll tell us, and I doubt we're far off. Adam Cuerden talk 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is it just me who finds that barnstar really distracting? =) Adam Cuerden talk 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's half past midnight here, and I'm not that tireless ;) Will try to go over things in the morning, and then time for archiving. ... dave souza, talk 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, a fellow Brit, I see. Or Portuguese. Sleep well! Adam Cuerden talk 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I take it you guys haven't realised that we're probably all located in Edinburgh? Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about you, but I've emigrated to the midwest. .. dave souza, talk 11:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. I hadn't yet, no! Kind of weird to think I might be passing one of ye in the street. Adam Cuerden talk 14:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Owen neutral?
My concern is that Browne does not indicate Owen being neutral towards the book at all. She portrays him as snakish when Darwin sees Owen in London (2nd volume, pp. 97-100), and the two online references also don't support the notion of him having a neutral stance towards the book. Sure, he had an initially open mind towards various versions of transmutability, but it seems that he went sour from the moment the book was published, and did not entirely hide this from Darwin. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * D&M's picture is that Darwin went to great trouble to woo Owen round by saying "he was 'inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws'", getting charming responses to the review copy and in early December Owen told him that it was the best explanation "ever published of the manner of formation of species". (p478-9).  However Owen was enraged when Huxley's reviews were published. In March 1860 "Owen was the unknown quantity. His public verdict on the Origin was still awaited," and he used the popularity of the book to tell a parliamentary committee that funds were needed to get displays of varieties of pigeons "or any of those phenomena that would aid one in getting at that mystery of mysteries, the origin of species". Then Owen's angry review in April shocked Darwin (pp 489-491). The short sentence "Owen initially appeared neutral, but then wrote a review condemning the book." is intended to cover that: note "appeared" doesn't mean he was neutral. Hope that's ok, will read Browne for bedtime. dave souza, talk 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Darwin tried to woo Owen, but fell flat on his face because Owen took offence (so Browne) that Darwin had labelled him one of the "old school". The December trip that D&M refer to is exactly the same that Browne mentions, except she gives an entirely different account of it, quoting Owen as saying, "if I must criticise, I shd. say, we do not want to know what Darwin believes & is convinced of, but what he can prove." She also has a passage of praise, "best attempt to answer this supreme question in zoology", although she leaves it open whether this passage was removed prior to publication of Owen's essay in light of new enmity. She describes the meeting as "polite", and Owen as "smoothly disagreeable". You feel that "neutral" covers this? Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Browne tells about Darwin's feelings, always rather a subjective valuation, and D&M focus more on the hopes that Owen might come round: both seem content that Owen's official position was unknown till April, so that's sorted. Thanks. .. dave souza, talk 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikker vs. FAC
I'm concerned that if we try to satisfy all of Mikker's demands before the FAC, someone at the FAC will come up with the exact opposite demands. It can be much better to allow people to butt heads with each other at the FAC. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's taking me longer than hoped to deal with the points, but they're worth going through. Your tactical point is appreciated – but it's perhaps worth at least considering the suggestions as quickly as possible. Are you happy with the answer above? I was thinking of changing it to read "Owen's verdict was unknown until his April review condemned the book." .. dave souza, talk 11:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems a better solution. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v Dover
Dave, the latest DI pr stunt has made it's way onto the talk page. Limulus has made a reasonable suggestion of how we might handle it. Would you mind dropping by and giving your opinion on the matter when you have a free moment? Cheers Mr Christopher 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd noticed. You seem to have it pretty well covered, though arguably even mentioning the point as you've done in the article is going beyond normal parctice. However it's in line with the defendant's council saying they got what they asked for. I've added some tactful and diplomatic comments which may help DLH to realise when an ad hom is relevant ;) ... dave souza, talk 11:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin (some more)
Hi Dave... any idea why this didn't work? Mi kk er (...) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, all that stuff's beyond me: try Adam Cuerden, who did something cunning to this user talk page but seems to have lost the index. .. dave souza, talk 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks. Mi kk er (...) 20:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Descent of Man
Say, lad, would you like a scan (in two parts: A3 sheets are hard to scan) of an 1871 Illustrated London News article on Darwin and the Descent of man? Adam Cuerden talk 11:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote links
The link you provided allows for quotes which are useful. Andycjp Advent 2006

Selective archiving
I'm not sure that selective archiving is such a wise idea(on Talk:Evolution). It gives the undue impression that some people's opinions and statements are worth less than others. I can understand how the removed wasn't contributing to the discussion much but you might want to refrain from such activity in the future on the grounds of WP:NPA. Thanks, i kan reed 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling or using the page as a soapbox may be deleted at any time. Some of the points were interesting enough for me not to want to delete the lot, but the archived discussion contributed nothing to improving the article. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know all that, but why not just grab it in the course of regular archiving? i kan reed 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dickens
Please refrain from making any further edits like this one:. UK English is perfectly ok in an article about a British writer. Thanks. --Guinnog 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guinnog, OK, we can leave it in the U.K. English form, if it so disturbs you otherwise. However, it's my humble understanding that U.S. English is the standard for this version of Wikipedia. --Tito4000 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If this were the case, then a lot of us users of British English would move out! === Vernon White (talk)  00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Tito4000, your humble understanding is not in accord with Manual of Style. If you wish to write in USian, you're free to do so on your own patch. .. dave souza, talk 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guinnog, Vernon, and Dave: Touché! I yield to your well referenced explanation. I'm sorry for the humble misunderstanding on my part. As Guinnog correctly pointed out, my editing was in fact specifically out of line. And Vernon, please don't move out! I promise I won't let my hand do that again when I'm on edition mode. Sorry folks, no harm meant. Happy holidays! --Tito4000 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for your willingness to accept the convention. A Merry whatever Yuletide style celebrations you're having! .. dave souza, talk 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support there Dave. Have a good one when it comes, best wishes --Guinnog 22:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delighted to have been of service. Enjoy!. .. dave souza, talk 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of MerryWhateverness, are you ever in the habit of gift giving? *puppy looks very innocent* KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution award
Hi Dave, thanks for my award! You are too kind... :). May you have a merry Yule yourself. Mi kk er (...) 04:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution vs. Creation controversy
Everything I wrote came from sources, and I distilled it. Now I've got to find the cites. Give me some time.OrangeMarlin 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I raised the point: cites are needed so that it can stand up to attempts to remove it. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Working on it!!! I started to reread some of the articles I had, and the case is even more dramatic.OrangeMarlin 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks also for the editing suggestions. I'm learning about Wiki's coding very slowly.  I think it takes time to learn how to use it, and you learn by using it.  But it is complex!!!OrangeMarlin 16:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks dave for your comments. somehow you must have gotten aware of the concerns i have with the intelligent design article. as i said there it seems biased. esp the phrase that 'all ID proponents are affiliates of the Discovery Institute' seems to imply that ID is a concoction of the DI and has no merit on its own. I really think for wiki's credibilty the article should be more balanced. I personally found ID to be a viable concept before I even knew who the DI was. I really feel using the word 'all' here is in error. As you know there are very few situtations where it is safe to use it to describe anything. Most scholars will use most, nearly all, to our knowledge etc. And there is a cateogorization error which there is no way to get 'a reliable source' for since it is an internal logic error. And it is not possible to get a 'reliable source' to show that an article has a condemning tone. this is what i see here. I think wiki should try to error on the side of neutrality above all. this should be the deciding factor in differences of opinion on articles. the prime directive. even the appearance of bias should be fervently avoided. certainly is possible to make this article have a more balanced tone without change its content

raspor 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Raspor. Earlier uses of the term ID are shown in the article, but thanks to the efforts of the DI the dominant meaning is now what they define it as. The word "all" comes from a published statement by a reliable source: if a valid source has published a different statement, please cite it on the ID talk page with careful clarification. Any condemning tone comes from both the opponents of ID and impartial judges who have been asked to investigate it. Any claim to scientific validity is rightly held to rigourous standards, and Wikipedia must report accurately on the outcome. .. dave souza, talk 21:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Uisge-beatha
You are right, McNeill spells it "whisky." My mistake. Tapadh Leibh for catching it! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as a lowlander I'll take it that that's a friendly remark! I'm a bit hesitant as to whether the Irish spelling might have been used in the Highlands at times! .. dave souza, talk 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. thanks for the interesting info about Neerday customs. ..21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

got time
Dave we have a budding edit war at intelligent design and I'm afraid the 3rr notice for raspor is not formatted correctly I am about to be in violation of 3rr if I have not done so already so for now I am just watching the show. Mr Christopher 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Orangemarlin's beat me to it, take care: no point in rushing into an edit war, raspor will learn the futility of ignoring advice about policies. .. dave souza, talk 22:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV warning
I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: --Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article at present does come over as an argument for evolution, which is not what Wikipedia should be doing: in my opinion WP:NPOV requires the aim to be to present who's putting the argument and represent it fairly. There's a lot of useful info there, but the title's problematic: one possibility might be Organisations supporting and opposing evolution. That would take a bit of work to find out which church stands where, and leaves out individual support. Extent of opposition to evolution might work better. In any event, copying long lists of (unlinked) names isn't very helpful: I'd suggest "The National Center for Science Education lists [x number of} Scientific and Scholarly Organizations and shows their statements supporting evolution. [Y number of] such bodies are listed as opposing evolution here..." or "Various creationist organisations claim scientific credibility, including AiG, the Center for Science and Culture etc, but none of these have scientific or governmental accreditation" Trust you get my drift. I think it's probably best to accept that the current article is a POV fork, and rethink the idea to give fair representation to "both sides". ... dave souza, talk 10:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the lovely chew toy. I am much appreciative of the thought and effort you put into that. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Want another? ;) dave souza, talk 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. It was a nice picture of one of my ancestors!  Intelligent trolling?  Are you mad?  :)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fork
Did you see the discussion at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution?--Filll 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Um.
You commented about my "amusing, wee little troll?" Are you saying you picked my IP off the little comment I made on Creationism once, before I registered, or are you talking about a comment I made on some other talk page? I don't ever recall adding a comment to the Evolution page or talk page.

You're going great work, though, so definite credits for that. I'm just here for the ride.~Kazu 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad boy
Yes I was bad. I keep hoping to engage this editor and turn him into a productive contributor. But that is a good answer. It is all a matter of definition.--Filll 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Very much appreciated. Guettarda 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: 2nd arbitrary section break
LOL, thanks for that. Sorry I didn't reply before! Yeah, language is lots of fun. Especially here on Wikipedia. It's cheaper to talk to people overseas rather than fly halfway around the world. Hell, maybe we'll all have the chance to experience some "cultural cross-contamination". :-p Quack 688 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)