User talk:Guettarda/Archive18

regarding your posts here
- regarding your accusation that i attacked you, i did not. perhaps it was someone using this machine; - regarding posting TriniMuslims, yes it is a bulletin-board now, but we are using it to gather information on Islaam in Trinidad and Tobago; it is not spamming; but perhaps when it evolves into a complete portal, we will repost it onto wikipedia.

- regarding the TM logo, please advise then how Wikipedia allows for trade-marked logos to go onto the encyclopedia

(TriniGeeks)

Re Fauna of Puerto Rico
Sorry. I am glad you have corrected my errors. Rintrah 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary
Thanks for the note of levity on this article. no problem. i actually considered it still as stub until today. Today ive doubled the size of the article and its certainly no stub now. :) cheers. Anlace 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New Message
Hi

This is to let you know that I have responded to your input on my usertalk page: Rfwoolf and as an admin I would value your input/opinion.

You may delete this message at your discretion.

Rfwoolf 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

John C. Gifford Arboretum
Have you noticed John C. Gifford Arboretum? I see that you are busy, and I don't know how much you want to work on botanical garden articles, but this one has bothered me since I first saw it a year ago. Unfortunately, it has never risen anywhere near the top of my todo/interest list. There's no urgency, I just thought I would mention it. If you have any suggestions, I can try to work on improving it. -- Donald Albury 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

fact tagging
Please see what I wrote on talk. Not only are the sources provided inadequate, the sources show the opposite. In his book, Behe constantly indicated the opposite of what the article addition claims he did. HKTTalk 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he doesn't. Regardless, the statement was sourced.  This is why we have a policy against original research.  Not only did you miss key statements from Behe's book, you also misinterpreted the material you did quote.  There is a reason why secondary sources are better than primary sources.  Guettarda 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins
you are right. Anyway, does this mean that you would like to join me and jossi in turning this into a guideline, or that you think that is a bad ideas? it is one or the other, because if I follow jossi's suggestion I am not going to do it alone. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Feliz Cumpleaño


'''Guettarda, You are one of my best friends here and I wish you the best. I know it was yesterday, on the 26th, but it's never too late. May God bless you and your family always! Your friend,''' Tony the Marine 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! Oh what the hell, you know me-always ahead of my time (smile). Tony the Marine 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Clarke
No problem. As for the larger issue: I guess I was taking my cue from de.wiki, which in turn used rulers.org as a source. That's usually quite reliable, though I haven't found other references to him acting as President. Biruitorul 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes sense - even if, let's say, Williams was in office for six days, he wasn't elected, and probably didn't do much during that time. But as long as we mark him as "acting" on our list, that should make things clear enough. When did the others act, by the way? Was it while the president was incapacitated? Because I don't see any other gaps in the list. Biruitorul 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving my comments
I didn't edit your comments. I added my comments in the middle of yours (in an existing paragraph break) in such a way that my comments were very clearly demarcated and isolated from yours. My comments were added in a manner that would avoid disrupting the flow and meaning of your comments. Adding clearly isolated comments within someone else's comments (as long as it is in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the other person's comments) is common and perfectly acceptable. Further, I placed my comments specifically to respond to only one thing that you had written. They were not intended as a general response to your comments. Your movement of my comments substantially affected their intended meaning. Your moving my clearly isolated and signed comments (again) could constitute vandalism, but I'll continue to assume good faith for now. Please see WP:VAND regarding "editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning." Nevertheless, if the placement of my comments still bothers you so much, I'll find another way to indicate that those comments are only intended to respond to one point. HKTTalk 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it easy, I already wrote that I won't. But you are wrong. Please stop characterizing placement of my comment as "editing others' comments." And please read WP:VAND. HKTTalk 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

your turn...
...to improve this: Advice for new administrators Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ID edit war on Junk science
Good call about the edit war and the 3RV rule, thanks.

Still, as a sidenote, I'd like to point you out that I made the first edit, and that FireWeed reverted it without any discussion. That's how it started, at least.

I wont argue more on this issue. I'd just like you to think about how is keeping the ID mention out of the page not a perfectly neutral and acceptable solution?

Regards --Childhood&#39;s End 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory
Hi! How are you? I do hope things have settled down for you and are happier now. I have finally got around to writing the article on the old Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory as you encouraged me to do a long time ago. If you can spare the time I would be very grateful if you would read it and give me any ideas you might have to improve it (or add them yourself). With all best wishes, and thanking you in advance, John Hill 04:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, chill
Please leave it be (with ExUC). I've looked over the interchanges, and I think you two are talking at cross purposes. He isn't actually accusing you of dishonesty. Give it a rest, and if "another problem" occurs, notify me instead of him. I think I'll be able to straighten it out. --Uncle Ed 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ed. At least where I live, "honest opinion" is a common enough phrase and doesn't necessarily constitute a suggestion that someone is being dishonest.  From the looks of it that debate is heated enough without arguing over the intended meaning those 2 words...--Isotope23 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I replied to Ed on talk page, I will honour his request, not just because he asked me to (although that's really reason enough), but also because it's a sensible request - there's nothing to be gained from pursuing that issue any further.  Guettarda 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated false accusations quoting statements I never made
You have repeatedly falsely accused me, attributing statements to me (and even setting them in quotation marks) that I did not make. I consider these claims, that I have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy, to be an attack on my character. Instead of apologizing for making false claims about what I said after I explained that I meant no criticism personally or of your edits, you have continued to repeat the same false accusations over and over. Instead of confining the discussion to the relevant Talk page, you have continued to attack me as a violator on my personal Talk page, out of context. You then continued to do so after I asked you not to. I do not appreciate repeatedly being falsely accused, especially after explaining that I meant no criticism. -Exucmember 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, regardless of whether I was right or wrong to take offense at your original comment, this edit of yours is unacceptable, and this message is hilarious. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.  Guettarda 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[ Long rambling post from ExC removed unread - if anyone cares, it's in the page history. Feel free to to let me know if he has figured out that it isn't ok for him to call me a "blatant liar" ]

Re: New antisemitism
Hi. I see you have protected the NAS article, and I understand why. However, the main issue with the article (as I percieve it) is that some editors have "owned" it for a long time and are acting disruptive when a group of editors are trying to make it less POV (this is, of course, my opinion). This followed a RfC process. Hence, by locking it, you are supporting the "owners" (I use quotation marks since I am not really accusing them of violation of WP:OWN) and rewarding their possesive behavior that is challenged by numerous users. As you will see in the talk page, the article is regarded as promoting a POV by several users, but almost every change sets of an edit war. Though I agree that it was correct to protect it, I think maybe the protection should be accompanied by an NPOV tag. I think,that would be a good compromise for now. pertn 09:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Missed!
Hey dude,

Nice to know I'm missed, but - I decided I need to graduate ASAP, and so I signed off. I suppose I should update my page saying I'm on hiatus. I'll be back in a month or two when I have a doctorate. :P Graft 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence - favor?
could you consider making a comment at the talk:Race and intelligence page? If you go now, you will see at the top my proposing to mediate a conflict, followed by some discussion by participants in the conflict, followed by a Request for Comment, followed by more discussion by participants in the conflict. It should take you 20 minutes or so to read over it, and I think it would mean a lot if you then left whatever comment you have under the RfC space. The portions I wrote (A second attempt to move ahead, and RfC) are needless to say my own take on the conflict. But if you want the basic empirical data on the conflict these two sections say it all: and  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Orchard
You supported the deletion of the article creationist orchard. Would you mind reviewing the related content which was added to article common descent under the section Common descent and Creationism? Pbarnes 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thanks for the help in reverting Evolution and my talk page. Quite a nasty vandal. I'm semi-new to the vandal reversion scene, and I noticed your edit summaries are standardized. I've just used "rvv" for "revert: vandalism", however, I was wondering if you use a script in the "monobook.js" file in order to produce this edit summary. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's me again, you'll find this handy: ' Well's education at both Yale and Berkley was funded by Moon's Unification Church. ' http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/15/112257/411

3RR
I have not reverted 3 times. I have made a good faith effort to clarify in various ways to anonymous user 151.151.73.166 that Wells' PhD at Berkeley was not funded by the Unification Church. But to show even more good faith (something that was astoundingly lacking from you earlier), I have reverted myself. -Exucmember 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Five reverts on one article and three on another is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the 3RR. And your continued incivility doesn't help either.  Guettarda 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology
Very sorry if I offended or annoyed you with my comments, please see the reply on my talk page and respond, thanks. --JamesTheNumberless 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Genesis vandal back on Evolution?
Hello Guettarda. I noticed your block of a previous vandal of the Evolution article. This is the latest diff that I saw today: diff, by User:Harehawk. EdJohnston 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Francesa pic
can you sort it out for me? i am not good at this wiki thing. i'm just trying to keep the information current. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crushtheturtle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * no i did not. it's from zen's promotional pics. the reason i put this instead of the old one is that the other is more than 10 yerars old while this was taken last year. Crushtheturtle 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Common Descent/Universal Common Descent
These two articles have existed in their split state for months unattested. Why do you feel you should merge them without a discussion just because there was no consensus months ago? If you think they should be merged, you should add a pretty little merge header because it seems like a quite a few people don't feel there is a problem in their current state. Pbarnes 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It appears a merge is inevitable. I at least spent the time to make the article seem less cut-and-paste and more encyclopedic. You should try that next time! Pbarnes 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda 1500, Icons 0
Wow, pretty big cut. I hope you'll add in something about what Wells means by an "icon" and give at least one example. The peppered moth is probably the easiest one to explain. Or Haeckel's embryo drawings. --Uncle Ed 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Recapitulation theory: Unfortunately, some older editions of textbooks in the United States still erroneously cite recapitulation theory or the Haeckel drawings as evidence in support of evolution without appropriately explaining them as being misleading or outdated. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Icons 2
Well, you're off to a great start at Icons of Evolution. I appreciate the fact that you are beginning each "icon" with a short statement of Wells's position. Apparently (unlike some of us) you have actually read the book! --Uncle Ed 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay fine!
Is it that big a deal? futurebird

St. Louis, MO IPs
FYI, since you were the most recent admin to block Justas Jonas/Ptmccain/et al. Keesiewonder talk 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Ah, sure. I knew, of course, to link the original, but didn't realised there was a prescribed form =) Adam Cuerden talk 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, well. It's linked. By the way, am I right in thinking that, despite Henrygb's claims, this is clear copyvio? Adam Cuerden talk 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to set up a merge request, particularly on dead pages, so that it'll actually be looked at. Adam Cuerden talk 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Plant
I was unaware that you are a plant :) However I hadn't gotten all the way to Z yet anyway. You're welcome to edit that page, too.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message
Hi Guettarda,

Thank you for greeting me. I am new to the project. I am still trying this... discussion? "talkpage"?!? I hope this is the way to get in touch.

Dracaena draco 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Erstwhile Bureaucrat is a ....
moth. Or a caterpillar of the same. My close friends call me "Hy" for short. Cheers! Cecropia 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Shame about the "erstwhile" is all I can say. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Thanks. Check your e-mail, too. :) - Darwinek 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope it didn't end in the spam thrash. :) - Darwinek 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Conservation Biology
Hi There,

I saw that you took an interest in the Conservation biology article awhile back. I was hoping you might come back for awhile and work on the article. For awhile now it has just been two editors, myself and another, and neither one of us has the expertise to substantively improve the article beyond a certain point. Also, there is disagreement on a few things, and without more qualified editors involved, it may become difficult to resolve some of the disagreements, and there is a risk that it may start to look like one or the other of us is trying to own the article. It seems like a situation with too few cooks, and I would like to see more qualified editors join in for awhile. The article has been substantially improved since you last posted on its Talk page, but still has a long way it could go.--Margareta 21:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing too major, but see the talk page. Mainly, they think the article is "basically done" (and hence they won't allow an "Expert" tag on the page), while I think it still barely addresses the topic.  Also, they were upset awhile back that I cut a lot of the extraneous material--the unreferenced stuff on biological conservation (not conservation biology) that you and other editors had complained about earlier.  Many of their recent edits have been to restore bits of what was cut, albeit in better and more-referenced form.  What is there now is fine, I think, but the article risks becoming off-topic again if the existing sections are expanded any further without addressing more about the practice of conservation biology and the disciplines that compose it.--Margareta 01:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one more thing... A lot of the new material appears to be OR or POV, or at least not up to WP:V guidelines--things like using Plato's Republic as a citation for the statement "origins of concern for the destruction of the natural environment by man can be traced to Plato," or the tesxt of the Endangered Species Act as a reference for the statement "The first country to pursue aggressive biological conservation through national legislation was the USA..."  I've been critical enough lately and I don't want to be the one to bring it up, and I certainly don't want to discourage a good, interested editor, but I hope this is something that can get cleaned up over time.  Right now, though, I think it's more important to add more relevant content.--Margareta 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thesis committee
She worked in the same area of Costa Rica as I did, and in similar habitats. I had been corresponding with her back and forth for a couple of years with various questions, and when I needed a third reader she seemed like an obvious choice. At my school it was traditional to have your third reader be from another institution. Do you know her?--Margareta 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * She's great, though you probably know that.--Margareta 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

B. epica
Thanks for the comments; I'll see what I can do to fix them as soon as I get a spare moment. Can you explain "it also (unnecessarily) speculates that the first record of the species was the first sighting of the species" please? Hesperian 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Eyre was the first European to explore the area, so if he saw B. epica at all, then he saw it first. I see how this sentence would read funny to someone who didn't know that Eyre was first. Hesperian 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Guettarda 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Motmot pix
Thanks! Glad you like them! Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Help?
I hate to be a bother, but could you look at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy and give me your opinion? I feel like I'm being driven mad by an editor who keeps beating us over the head with one single source, but I'm not sure, as he does seem to be honestly working hard to try and help the article. But he has some bizarre interpretations of NPOV, and... well. I could use a fresh pair of eyes and guidance from a neutral party. Thanks! Adam Cuerden talk 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: You ca probably see most of the parts that annoy me by searching for "Larson". Adam Cuerden talk 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been driving me mad for a bit; I disengaged for several months a while ago, but now that I'm back, well... I don't want to say anything until you've had a look. Adam Cuerden talk 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, signalling in plants is really cool. Bah to your pro-animal mindset! *gets the placards, pitchforks, and torches ready* =P Adam Cuerden talk 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If yer ain't with plants, you're against plants. Heh. Seriously, though, any thought on that talk page... thing? Adam Cuerden talk 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA and Ruddigore
Ah, well. Seems that despite all my work on Gilbert, I forgot a crucial bit:
 * If you wish in this world to advance,
 * Your merits you're bound to enhance:
 * You must stir it and stump it and blow your own trumpet
 * Or trust me, you haven't a chance!
 * -Ruddigore

Adam Cuerden talk 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I am happy with your news about my articles. Thanks --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy
...*sigh* Guettarda, I need to ask your advice. Should I open a request for comment about Creation-evolutio controversy, being, of course, entirely polite and respectful about this, just to try and get this sorted out? Because, frankly, I don't think that article's going to move forwards very far if good-faith edits are going to be shouted down as vandalism. That said, though, I'm not sure what to say about it, since it's a complicated situation, and I don't want to be rude about it, even if he, evidently, does. Any thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * YES YES YES, please do. StudyAndBeWise 05:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

...Well, I've made the RfC, but suspect it may have gone a little far for that to really be useful now. We shall see. Adam Cuerden talk 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Curry Chicken: Your valued opinion
Hello Guettarda,

I am a new bee at wikipedia, hopefully I can continue to learn and contribute to this magnificent encyclopedia. I have created an article titled Curry chicken, to explain the dish, and some historical aspects of how/when the dish was created. Users, have commented that the article should be placed as chicken curry, and that it should go in the curry section. I have thought about it, but the content has become too large (and none can merely be deleted as it is all very interesting and sourced) to fit in the curry section. In addition, their is a subtle difference between the two in which the article points out. I envision this article becoming even greater once various other historical research is done to establish various other cultural beginnings of this dish.

The point is, I strongly believe there is merit to this article and that the reasons for this merit is not being judged fairly. Since you are admin, I would truly appreciate your objective opinion.

Thatopshotta 05:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta

Stillwater Area High School
RfC doesn't seem to work any more (and anyway, thre's no category into which schools obviously fit); I've tried to attract other eyes to this article by posting both at RfC and at the relevant WikiProject, but so far without success, so I'm reduced to pestering individual editors. Could you have a look at this, and say what you think? An editor is insisting on adding large quantities of school-yearbook-style coverage of the school's sports teams. A third pair of eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Genesis vandal back on Talk:Evolution (eight accounts)
Hello Guettarda, this is just an FYI, since all these vandal accounts now seem to be blocked.

User:Golden two, User:Crab or, User:Eel eat, User:Plaster of (blocked by Steel359 as Genesis vandal), User:Dial lean, User:Boo Wall, User:Fen zero, User:Tile join. I just went back as far as February 20 in the edit history of Talk:Evolution to find these. There seemed to be a new wave of Genesis vandals that started then. EdJohnston 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

data?
Say, I'm doing a project on international bio-diversity conservation strategies. I seem to recall you were doing some academic work on conservation. Data on agriculture/forestry land costs or property values in various regions would be really useful. Know where I might get any for the Caribbean? The usual suspects: World Bank, FAO, etc seem to be useless. I've got a small bit of private purchase data from a conservation group, but would really like to supplement it everywhere around the world I can find something more. Thanks. Or is this my version of Japan? Derex 08:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your reminder of the human side is well taken and well spoken. I find it's something forgotten far too often at Wikipedia, even with the subject of articles. I see young people involved in minor scandals getting Wikipedia articles written about them, and it makes me cringe. Even though I really detest D Brandt for what he did to Katefan, I think some of his spite is because basic humanity was forgotten in dealing with him. As to Essjay, I think many people were very frustrated with Jimbo's dismissal of concerns and promotion to arbcom, and felt the need to make the case that this went beyond a bogus cloak. I can totally see how he got caught up in a silly lie starting as a total newbie. And I feel terrible for him at the human level. Jimbo has now made the right call, and I hope that's where it stops. Derex 07:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago

 * The only references I found to it during a Google search were from a CIA report on government elements in Trinidad and Tobaga, with this group listed under the "Communist" section. Taken from WP:ORG, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Individual chapters of national organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. So basically, it's not notable unless it has sources, according to the notability guidelines... Logical2uReview me! 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I might have read the page (and cited it in my argument) too fast. I apologize. It is a national party, but it still has to follow the general criteria: An organization or group is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works. If it doesn't meet something along those lines (Frankly, I'd be happy if there was a citation of their placement in any election), stuff needs to be done. This then opens up a new can of worms when we get into all the other political groups, especially in Canada, which has at least a dozen... The more specific organization criteria also necessitates independent sources. The remedy for failing to meet these criteria is supposed to be cleanup, then if all else fails, deletion (the type of deletion depends on which page you look at) for groups that don't meet it. Logical2uReview me! 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Regional variants of English
Regarding Robert John Lechmere Guppy, I only made the change to avoid a redirect, not primarily to "Americanise" the text. I guess a better way would have been to change palaeontology into  palaeontology instead, thus fixing the redirect while maintaining the original spelling. My mistake, and I’m sorry: it will not happen again. ~ Tommy Kronkvist 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fazal Mohammed
I noticed you edited this article in the past, so you might be able to find some sources for it. Take care, trialsanderrors 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Replaceable" fair use
As you can see in my edit to the Image page, I said: "there are already other pics that are presumed to be free in the main article so no need for a fair use one." The two other images are presumed to be in the public domain and it seems to me it's reasonable to assume so. However, for the image I removed the PD-Russia template from I did so since the man is in a more advanced age in that photograph and there's no strong basis for an assumption that the author of that photograph died before 1954 (therefore the image isn't in the public domain and is fair use, hence the replaceable fair use tag). Hope I explained this well but I'm guessing I probably didn't as it's 6:50AM here so if you didn't understand anything or my reasoning seems bad let me know and I'll try to re-explain when I'm more competent to do so. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, my judgement\math wasn't very good at 6am. They all probably aren't PD. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Belmont dab page
I have added a link to the Belmont dab page for Belmont, Port of Spain. I didn't think there was a need for a link in the other direction, but if you disagree, please feel free to revert. CarolGray 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think someone in the future will create a whole article for Belmont, Port of Spain, then the heading for the section should be changed to Belmont, or Belmont , or whatever. Then the link would be red, making it clear there is no article at present.  A bluelink (back to the dab page) misleadingly suggests an article already exists. CarolGray 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can find four articles which contain "Belmont, Port of Spain" and seven with "Belmont, Trinidad and Tobago". I would be happy to fix all of these links, either to Port of Spain, or to whichever (redlinked) article name you think is appropriate, if you are confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject.  CarolGray 11:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry to have caused offence. You have misinterpreted the tone of my message.  I was trying to be helpful.  I did not intend to be rude.  I apologise. CarolGray 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

disproven→disproved
Why is the bot changing this? And why is it changing words within quotes? Guettarda 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it didn't show up in my dictionary, and I must not have noticed the quotes in the article you've seen. I've checked the Oxford English Dictionary, and it appears disproven is in fact a valid variant of disproved, so I've removed it from my bot's list. My apologies, CmdrObot 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tilman
You're right. Thanks! I found a citation. I'll fix it. I had no idea ... sure LOOKED like vandalism (especially as the place of birth should not have been deleted as it was in that edit). CHE 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

invasibility→invisibility
No, invasibility is a valid term (related to likelihood of invasion of a habitat). Guettarda 02:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've updated my bot with this. Cheers, CmdrObot 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wall of Honor
Just wanted you to know my old friend that I have inducted you into the "Wall of Honor". Here is your plaque, Cheers! Tony the Marine 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My adminship
I'm terribly slow in thanking you, for which my only defense is that I was ill around the time the adminship closed. I hope I've been managing it as well as any - I must admit to having to close an AfD I started early when I found Copyvio, and just know there's going to be consequences from that as there was a big meatpuppet event around it, but, oh well. It was very clear Copyvio - the starts of sentences were replaced with synonymns, but otherwise identical, and I encouraged the contributors to Homeopathy to remake it if they thought it right (I trust them to be a pretty sane lot) sans copyvio, if they thought it came under WP:BIO. But I babble and have 63 more people to thank, so.... Adam Cuerden talk 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for kindness
Thank you for your words of support and kindness. I apologize for instigating an argument on Samsara's talk. I am being overly sensitive but my ire was already up and I am frustrated with Wikipedia. It was a bad edit!!!I just didn't appreciate the wise crack. I am sure I will rally after a break. I surely don't want people to argue over something idiotic. GetAgrippa 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

David Berlinski
I'm sorry but I just can't seem to understand how you believe that this "The scientific community, however, regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. The ruling in the 2005 Dover trial held that intelligent design is a form of creationism and that the intelligent design movement is a political rather than scientific movement." follows what the article talks about. Please understand I hate these ID guys, but this needs to be in a new section or (more probably) taken away from that section which talks about his relation to creationism and not creationism itself. If it were an article about creationism I would understand making the fact that it is considered a pseudoscience known, but anyone who wishes to read about the pseudoscience that is ID may do so on the ID article. This Encyclopedia need not be one huge article.--209.137.175.59 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

58
Well, if you feel that way, feel free to block him. I won't object...JoshuaZ 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

TT cricket
Well, no I don't actually, but I understood that that was the normal way of describing the people of the country. The people of Trinidad are Trinidadians, and Tobago are Tobagonians. Per Trinidadian English. Its like saying, the national ream of Australia is the Australian cricket team.

You would know and perhaps I've been a bit bold. Could you advise? &mdash;Moondyne 13:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I should have made enquiries first.  I will revert the changes but have to go out now and may not get to it for another 12 hrs or so. I hope you won't mind.  &mdash;Moondyne 13:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ID
No problems. -- Michael Johnson 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How are they "newbie" warning templates?
I have never heard of such a thing. Can you give me a "WP:..." which says that warning templates shouldn't be used on established editors? Also, I used, not  , which is indeed for new users. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy
Guettarda, could you have a look at here? I put an article on a Homeopath up for deletion, and someone put a note about it on at least one homeopathy sites, and now all the people brought in have taken it upon themselves to harass me, ignore or twist anything I say, and so on. What t'do? Adam Cuerden talk 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. It's up at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents


 * Damn. And I thought the Jean-Thierry Boisseau situation was bad. Adam Cuerden talk 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, god help us all: It seems Althea Kuhn, Aristos Antoniadis, and Maria Chorianopoulou are all the same person. Check the last three edits on Talk:Homeopathy by Special:Contributions/213.5.44.117. It was pointed out to me when I made the meatpuppetry statement. Adam Cuerden talk 10:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent MFD vote
Just letting you know that I've added two addition subpages similar to the first, User:Otheus/notes and User:Otheus/aa, to the MFD description. FeloniousMonk 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable?
Whatever happened to Don't template the regulars? You were giving that advice up you talk page. SA is merely POV pushing- he doesn't ever have any sources to give for his statements that X is pseudoscience.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for watching out for me. Good catch on my talk page. El Cubano 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not again!
Who is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Langan
Familiarity with the 3RR policy is indeed worth knowing. I draw your attention to the following: Other exceptions to the rule include the following: [...] Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material. [...] Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) Substantial arguments have been put regarding the material in question, arguing that it is both libelous and poorly sourced. These arguments have not been rebutted. Clearly this means that my edit is neither vandalism, nor susceptible to the 3RR rule. Furthermore, your own actions and those of Arthur Rubin do constitute reverts, and are susceptible to the rule. FNMF 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That the material is not libelous is your opinion. Others disagree, including the subject of the entry. And those who disagree have given extensive reasons why they disagree. These reasons have been for the most part utterly ignored. All of the other arguments about violations of Wikipedia official policy in relation to living persons have been ignored. The fact that some people have "discussed" the material and do not think it libelous does not make it not libelous. In such cases, policy advises caution, conservatism, sensitivity. Instead, the opposite approach is pursued by yourself and Arthur Rubin. This is itself a breach of official policy. FNMF 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"You can't simply declare the arguments invalid by fiat without bothering to address the issues." Not only have I argued extensively from official policy regarding living persons, and not only have these arguments been utterly ignored, but the arguments for potential libel have been extensively argued by others, including the subject of the article. The continued failure by editors to even attempt caution, conservatism, or sensitivity is clearly an ongoing violation of the official policy. To then accuse someone of vandalism, or threaten them with blockage, compounds these violations. FNMF 03:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AN3 report
So it seems! Though, it appears that the editor has taken the advice to stop edit warring and seek dispute resolution, so I would be alright with sticking to the warning and issuing a block if there's any more reverting. Your thoughts? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll keep an eye. If he continues to refrain from edit-warring there's no need for a block anyway, if he pulls it again, then it's obvious he knew what he was doing and chose to anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know the feeling, trust me. That's why I generally encourage people to use article RFC. If they're as right as they think, people will agree with them, if not, at least hopefully having several more people disagree will end the conflict. I don't personally know the first thing about the situation, so can't really comment anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ASJA
Some kind of external source (perhaps a news article) that explains it's a reasonably big organization as opposed to just a bunch of politically-minded students. I'm sure it isn't actually the latter, but that's far from clear from the article.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Stuff
This edit confuses me greatly. I don't really understand it at all. I think I must have misunderstood something or you must have misunderstood something, and in any event I am very sorry and did not mean to upset you.--Jimbo Wales 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Guettarda,

just noticed the above - thought i'd pop by and say thanks for the patience you've always displayed with me on the Intelligent Design article - you do a great job at answering clearly, and you definitely help keep the article in great shape. Saw that you blanked your page, and thought maybe you were a bit pissed off - i've no idea what's going on above... it's confusing to me, but i thought i'd pop in and offer a cup of tea.... (execpt i don't have the clever wiki skills to put the photo or anything here, so you'll have to imagine it... mmmmmm......)

hope you're good - cheers Petesmiles 00:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can do better than a cup of tea! Here's an ice cream. I've seen you around, and I've been impressed, so just want to say hope you'll be back soon. I hope this doesn't go against your wish to have the page blank. If you want to remove it, I won't be offended. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No no. Mango sorbet. It's better tasting, and better for you.--CSTAR 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously Guettarda I'm very upset at this and also want to thank you for you persistent efforts at maintaining a level of scientific sanity on WP.--CSTAR 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Baby please don't go

 * Baby please don't go
 * Baby please don't go
 * Baby please don't go down to New Orleans
 * Y'know I love ya so
 * baby please don't go

I dunno, Muddy Waters seemed fitting. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What's going on? Adam Cuerden talk 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Guettarda reacted very personally to something Jimbo wrote and blanked all his sub pages (check his contribs and this thread). We all get frustrated sometimes and I'm just hoping he comes back soon! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was this . &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See also here and the preceding section. Guettarda is wise in stepping back from this for a bit, hope to see him contributing again in his own good time. .. dave souza, talk 10:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Back!
A flower for you (there's more where that came from)! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)]]

Award
SqueakBox 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Arr, was worried we had lost yer, I was! Adam Cuerden talk 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, good to see you back in full colour! .. dave souza, talk 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back! :) El_C 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda welcome back.
I tried to think about Wikipedia's Caribbean articles without you around and it seemed well, kinda bleak....  I hope you're back. I am..... CaribDigita 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Another smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. We had disagreements in the past, and I'm trying to patch things up.--Otheus 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Guettarda! I appreciate it. It's good to see you too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you also a party to this dispute?
Since Guettarda has provided an unsolicited statement here, can I ask, does Guettarda wish to be included in this dispute? Guettarda is apparently an administrator. The willingness of users like myself to spend many hours making scholarly contributions to Wikipeida is partly conditioned on our perception that the administrative process will be fair to us if we are ever in a dispute.

Guettarda showed up several times early in the process, always supporting ZayZayEM, and then suddenly appears, unsolicited, to give testimony, after having apparently examined the record of the entire case. Will Guettarda also accept sanction from the arbitrators who examine this case, should they find in my favor, since he appears not to be a neutral administrator. I have placed a notice on Guettarda's Talk page asking him to respond yes/no whether he is also party to this dispute, indicating that to me he appears not to be a neutral administrator. --Metzenberg 11:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is it with some people and their complete lack of ability to provide context? I got one of those on my talk page a while ago, making vague accusations but failing to say about what. Adam Cuerden talk 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise
I have entered a proposal for compromise at Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. I have stated that if ZayZayEM answers yes to all five questions, and you answer yes to question #1, then I will withdraw my request for arbitration. --Metzenberg 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dark Ages America
Forgot this one - a good friend got an advance copy of this last year and raved about it. I'm reading his copy. Of course, he's a complete pessimist but hey. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Life zone diagram
Thanks for the big ups. Now if only I had time to piece together an article about it. I'm still trying to understand the thing myself really. —Pengo 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * P/PET ratios are simple enough, it's the biotemperature that's the problem. Holdridge assumed that there was no metabolic activity below 0 C or above 30 C, so any temperatures above 30 are equal to 0 when calculating biotemperature.  Of course, he was completely wrong when he assumed that 30 = 0, so most people who do life zone maps use some other number...what they use gets confusing.  But it gets really confusing when you factor in all the transitional zones.  By the time you get to transitional zones you really start to ask yourself "is any of this meaningful?"  If you can walk from one life zone to another and not see any change in vegetation that couldn't be better explained by soils...you realise that you need to take Holdridge life zones with a grain on salt.  But it's definitely useful on a broader scale.  Guettarda 17:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a doctor, Jim, not a...
Hahaha...did you like that? I just couldn't resist! Though I suppose it was slightly rude. Hope he didn't mind. You know, though, he has a point. I'm going to post another comment there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!
Yes, it has been awhile&mdash;I haven't been active as much lately as a result of other things... been trying to increase my involvement at Wikisource and especially in the last month or two keep up with my reading. Last year's Wikipedia output helped cause the number of books I read to drop by half (compared to most years), so I've been trying to keep it all balanced. Fortunately, now that I've finished alot of books, I should have something to write about =). We shall see though.  Hope things are going well for you! --Spangineerws  (háblame)  18:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism

 * Weyrich: A convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.
 * Farah: Baptist and Christian Zionist.
 * Olasky: Amillennial Presbyterian who is anti-CR.
 * Wildmon: United Methodist, the opposite theological pole
 * National Religious Broadcasters: broadly Evangelical body
 * Free Congress: nonsectarian and led by Weyrich

Stop calling these people CRs. These people would consider the accusation slanderous. Claims about living people must be supported. This sort of name-calling without facts is simply negligent. I hold no brief for the movement either, but at least get your facts straight. Yakuman (数え役満) 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd add that while Dominionists may see John Cotton et al. as their forebears, that does not mean that should be on their pages. I don't object to them appearing in the template, but I don't think it's fair to so closely associate them with a movement that they had nothing to do with. In short, the presence of an article in a template does not justify the presence of the template in that article (compare, e.g.,, which includes a link to Christianity but which does not appear in said article). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please lend your thoughts to Template_talk:Dominionism. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see...
my reply and apology... --Otheus 06:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors on various Evolution and Creationism articles
Every time I read what certain editors are doing, I think back to that article you sent me. I'm now highly suspicious of anyone trying to invoke NPOV and it's clear that they are representing only one POV. I blame my current paranoia on you!!!!! :) Orangemarlin 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are you? We need your sage commentary! Talk:Intelligent_design

Xtraterrestrial life
Hi! When you have time, maybe enjoy the news posted at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_October_2#Taxonomy_for_Extraterrest#rial_Life

(Kindly delete the extra sign inserted in the penultimate word) Best, MS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.42.29.237 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair
I see you were a recent contributor to the Sternberg peer review controversy article. I have added a section to the talk page proposing that the article be moved to and renamed "Sternberg-Smithsonian Affair". If you would like to see the rationale, please visit Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy, and leave your thoughts there. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Errorstock
Hi - that user had created some pages which fall into the db-attack type, see below (obtained via show contributions by Oscarthecat, show logs). Hope this clears it up. --Oscarthecat 06:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 2007-04-29T20:14:54 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby rapist" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
 * 2) 2007-04-29T20:14:44 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby raped" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
 * 3) 2007-04-29T20:14:34 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby rapings" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
 * 4) 2007-04-29T20:14:24 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Errorstock (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Attempting to intimidate or harass other users) (Unblock)

Sternberg peer review controversy
Regarding your [Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Proposed_move:__Sternberg.2FSmithsonian_Affair opposition] to the proposed move, based on your reasoning, Dave's help, and a google search, I have to agree with you. Since I made the request that I now oppose, is there anything else I should do (except cast an oppose vote)? ImprobabilityDrive 06:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your tone on Tom Harrison's talk page
It seems to be unnecessarily confrontational and borders on personal attack.[ Wheel Warring should also be avoided especially when it might contribute to BLP problems and I believe your desire to unblock should have been discussed prior to undoing Tom's block.  This user did not place an unblock request on their talk page.  Errorstock has a history of disruption (from above) so I'm not sure why you felt Tom Harrison's block should be reverted without discussion and why your tone would be so confrontational.  --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted to ANI here as this doesn't need to escalate to a wheel war. --Tbeatty 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

blanking
I need some advise on a content dispute. How do you handle it when an advanced user comes in and wipes out a whole well cited NPOV section on the grounds that he does not think it is notable (dispite the fact, ironically, that the same advanced user was the originator of a whole wikipedia article on the same subject)? I reverted him once, and he reverted me. There isn't much left to tag since he blanked the entire section. If I continue to revert him he will win on the revert rule. This seems like an abuse of wikipedia policy. Also, his assertion that the section is not notable is contradicted by an NPR program. Thanks for your attention. ImprobabilityDrive 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for taking the time to provide advice. ImprobabilityDrive 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Check user advice needed
Guettarda, I would like to know if I am either allowed and/or expected to respond to this checkuser request on that page, or on its talk page. ImprobabilityDrive 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Email
Please check it when you can. Orangemarlin 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Guettarda's Day!
PS. Sorry I didn't get the chance to reply your beautiful message, dear G - I'll drop you an email tomorrow, I promise! Hugs,  P h a e d r i e l  - 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's celebrate, it's Guettarda's Day!  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you guys so much. I'm really touched. Guettarda 04:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, congrats on your day!!! Could not have happened to a better person. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 04:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also congrats. I understand that the Puppy is giving up his steak to you in celebration!!!!  Orangemarlin 05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignore the funny-colored fish. Steak mine. Guettarda have a happy day, but you're not getting my steak. Fish is delusional. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  You're being mean.  You're using an uncivil tone with me.  I'm going to tell Jimbo about you.  I'm going to take you to Arbcom, file an RFC, and generally treat you with contempt.  However, you give up that steak, and I'll reconsider all of the above.  Orangemarlin 06:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive
Please note: Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd) Orangemarlin 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You All
It is kind of funny because it really isn't my birthday. It was on March 9, but thank you all for your kind words and support.

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friend a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 23:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Whatever you said
My mistake, I didn't notice the connection or the time differences, I thought it was random spamming. No one's being attacked here, watch what you say. John Reaves (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
My friend, I would like to thank you for being there for me. It is amazing the support that I received. I had no idea that so many people thought highly of me. My admin powers were restored yesterday. I did learn my lesson, I had no idea that a hacker would waste his time with Wikipedia, I changed my password. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

About DoubleRedirects, again
redirect.py doesn't pick and choose what it fixes - besides, it's not just my bot that's having problems - I suspect MetsBot is having problems too. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 05:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot just gets the content of Special:DoubleRedirects, parses it. Your subpages will keep on coming up on the list and it'll waste time. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 19:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I gave a response, two days ago. Look up an indent or two. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion is on AN. Seems like you're the only one who didn't get what I was on about. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, "jerk" and "dick" were personal attacks. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Teamflag1.png
Hello, Guettarda. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Teamflag1.png) was found at the following location: User:Guettarda/old FAC. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt
I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this. daniel folsom  23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

MetsBot
I just stumbled across the discussion about MetsBot and fixing double redirects, and am sorry that there's been a big conflict. I'll no longer fix double redirects in User: and User talk: space. If anything like this happens in the future, just contact me on my talk page, and I'll make sure to address your concerns. — M ETS 501 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes' RFA
Please note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAQ
Regarding is it a good idea to have a redirect from mainspace to talk space? JoshuaZ 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Puerto Rico
Hey! The Puerto Rico Portal page has been revamped with additional content, including a Selected series of Articles, Pictures, and Biographies related to Puerto Rico. However, maintaining a Portal is no easy task. As a member of the WikiProject Puerto Rico, please consider helping out in one of the following tasks:


 * You can add Puerto Rico current events and news to the In the news... section as they occur.
 * You can participate in the discussion of Nominations for content nominated to Selected status.
 * You can nominate content for Selected status in the Nominations page.

Your help and contributions are greatly appreciated. Enjoy the Portal! - Mtmelendez (Talk 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an automated message for all WikiProject Puerto Rico participants.

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)
You recently commented at Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Creatianism
Guettarda, on the AfD on Creatianism you voted

Delete or Merge per Flex...it's a minor, archaic spelling variant that didn't even make it into the OED.

Can you come back and review your vote, as it self-contradictory. Flex didn't vote Delete or Merge but Keep. Please indicate your actual view.

Str1977 (smile back) 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil and don't shout at me. I will do nothing of the sort. You can go back and cast a proper vote saying that you either want this thing deleted/merged or that you agree with Flex and want to keep it. You can't have it both ways. Str1977 (smile back) 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, civil. Not WTF and bullshit and ordering other people around. I struck your vote because it is unclear - I didn't struck the other votes I disagree with, no matter how ignorant I might find them. So please clean up your own mistake and cast a vote (or not, if you wish). Str1977 (smile back) 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is you who is aggressive. It is you who is using foul language. I will not undo a justfied action. This has been done countless times in AfDs and never to my knowledge has someone made such a fuss about correcting his own mistake. Str1977 (smile back) 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not vandalise anything. I will bring this to ANI, if you wish. Str1977 (smile back) 13:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You engage in highly aggressive, shockingly rude behaviour, all to further your article in an AFD...and you have the nerve to lecture me about my reaction? What amusing nonsense. Guettarda 13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I am shocked about your behaviour. I haven't been rude at all. I was puzzled by your vote, struck it as contradictory and informed of this so that you could make the proper correction so that we all can know what your vote is. That is not rude but forthcoming (and has been done many times in votes). I have not struck it because I disagree with it but because it was unclear. It is you who is using foul language all the way "WTF", "bullshit" "vandalism", "nonsense" - this tells me a lot about you. Str1977 (smile back) 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You valid struck comments in an AFD, you edited my signed comments. Repeatedly. To further your POV. That is shocking. That is incredibly aggressive. It is terribly rude. That is vandalism. Guettarda 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to further my POV but to ensure clarity of the vote. Something you fail to grasp by voting incoherently. Clarify your vote. I am not aggressive. It is you who are rude to the extreme. And it is not vandalism (my striking was clearly indicated, I did not change what you wrote). Read the article on that. Str1977 (smile back) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is simple. If you do not want to create such a fuss, cast your vote unambiguously. And if you do, don't try to drown the messenger in foul language but simply clarify your vote? Str1977 (smile back) 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting absurd.

You cast an unclear vote. I informed you of it.

And to enlighten you: my article was not a POV fork (or a fork of any kind) but an article on a concept that did not exit before. You may not grasp it as you have never even considered the issues at hand but what do I care. Stop polluting my talk page and clarify your vote. Str1977 (smile back) 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, I have sought advise on this and had to find out that striking your vote is not considered appropriate. However, I have seen it countless times and hence was under the impression that it was acceptable on a temporary basis (i.e. until you came back and clarified). Please believe me that I was acting in good faith and did not wish to supress your vote, quite independently of my opinion of your vote. So I do apoligize for your anguish and hope you can find it within yourself to reconsider your words (not just regarding our conflict but in general). Str1977 (smile back) 14:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My block on ConfuciusOrnis
Thanks for your comment on my talk page.

The "repetitive comment" is the simple fact that the talk page and Archive 12 now contain essentially the same material. That would have been avoided if the editors had taken my advise to selectively re-insert any live comments, rather than re-inserting the whole archive. The editors have re-inserted all the material from archive 12 into the talk page. It appears from talk:Creation sciencethat they have decided that they will now selectively delete material they are not using. Perhaps this will have much the same result as my suggestion of re-inserting the material selectively from the archive, but of course leaves much of repetition in place, but perhaps it is a better solution for them.

On my talk page I have set out in detail the actions I took. I was not engaged in an edit war, as you suggest, over the appearence of the page. Rather, I was following wiki procedure by archiving a page. CO copied it back into the talk page, twice, despite extensive explanation and two warnings, and without deleting it from the archive, thus creating a large quantity of repeated text.

I maintain that the block was appropriate. Banno 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not appropriate based on the policy you cited, and yes, you did block to win an edit war. That's your definition of "appropriate"??!  Guettarda 05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago) featured article review
Hey Guettarda. A featured article that i believe you were fairly involved with has been requested for a featured article review. The following concerns have been raised about this articles quality: All in all not what i would consider wikipedia's best work --Hadseys 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to read this message, Hadseys 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its very very short
 * It has a complete lack of inline citations
 * It has only 1 image
 * It lists only four references, and doesn't incorporate the references into the article with inline citations
 * Excessive red linking
 * Most sections are only a paragraph long

FAR notification
Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, I have left a message for you regarding incorrect information you posted about me at Featured article review/Intelligent design. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject intelligent design
Use of Template:WikiProject intelligent design on category talk pages is causing the talk page to be listed in the category. Category talk:Intelligent design parodies is in Category:Intelligent design parodies, and Category talk:Intelligent design movement is in Category:Intelligent design movement. Can you fix it? PrimeHunter 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BasdeoPanday.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BasdeoPanday.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 11:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hassanali.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hassanali.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)
Hi Guettarda. The review for this one was left in the FAR period an extra two weeks, into the middle of this month as you'd asked for. I've just moved it to FARC but it can be extended further. Let us know on the review if you'll have time for it. Cheers, Marskell 09:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested
Hi Guettarda, you may be interested in checking out the comments of the following:. Take care Tony the Marine 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I could use your help if you have time
When you have a chance, could you look at White people, especially the lengthy discussion (you ought to read the whole thing, although the most salient points are toward the end)here? I am especially concerned with Fourdee. The underlying issue is whether races (in this case, obviously, the white race) are biologically real or social constructions. I feel very confident in my grasp of both the sociological and genetic research and know that Fourdee is wrong, but I have tried very hard not to engage him on this. Instead, I have tried, consistently, to make the discussion about compliance with our core policies. Fourdee has been (in my opinion) consistently courteous. But I believe he is a racist, and it seems obvious to me (and my question is, will it be obvious to you too as you read through the discussion, and slowly see slight changes in his position/rationale) tht he is nothing more than a POV pusher who wishes to use Wikipedia articles as his own soap-box. I do not know if the situation is appropriate for an RfC. But I would (1) like to know whether you think my reading of him is right, or whether I am over-reacting, and (2) if you do think I am right, I would appreciate whatever support you consider appropriate. You would need to read through the article (it isn't too long) and then this part of the discussionclosely to be able to express yourself authoritatively, if you so choose. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Domenech
There is no need to discuss the specific plagiarism examples on the Regnery Publishing article. They don't have anything to do with Regnery Publishing. Please, if you need a battle to fight, !vote in the stupid AfD someone's started on Domenech's article. FCYTravis 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, as you did to Regnery Publishing, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. THF 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (formally retracted with a third humble apology, after two informal apologies 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Awww...how cute, Mr Big Bad Conservative "Think Tank" has moved from whitewashing to issuing threats. Of course, I explained why I don't think BLP applied, so your calling this vandalism is a violation of WP:NPA.  Look it up, learn something new.  Guettarda 14:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, what am I thinking...logic, conservative think tank...that would probably get you fired, right? They don't allow logic in places like that.  My apologies, I wouldn't want to get you fired.  Bluster away, I understand, it's a job requirement.  Guettarda 14:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From BLP:


 * Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles'


 * Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).


 * Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption.


 * Again, please read WP:BLP, as you have violated it three times, and should have been blocked.  Your violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA has also been noted. THF 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you managed to quote the policy. Now, normally I'd expect a person to go back and try to explain how it applies in this context.  Saying "BLP, BLP" is not an argument - you need to connect it with the material - something you have failed to do.  But I understand your constraints.  Guettarda 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you knock it off, please. Arguably THF began the provocation by gratuitously templating a long-term regular but there's no call for upping the ante. Raymond Arritt 14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right - it's mean to make fun of people's disabilities. I'm a horrible person.  Sorry.  Guettarda 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that THF boldfaced the wrong part of WP:BLP. The fact that Wonkette is not self-published kind of eliminates the clause THF cited from having any relevance in this instance. Ossified 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus of several admins at WP:BLP/N agrees that the material was inappropriate. THF 17:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. But I wouldn't want you to lost your job by being forced to speak the truth.  Guettarda 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

THF
You may want to make a statement at ArbCom on User:THF's edits: Requests_for_arbitration -- David  Shankbone  23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

THF attacks
Dear Guettarda,

Please forgive my intrusion

I have recently become aware that you have had difficulty with THF. I have been attacked maligned and harrassed likewise. I would urge you and anyone reading this to tplease take decisive atcion to stop THF.Tidalenergy 11:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving Benicio Del Toro to Benicio del Toro
Seeing as you're a participant in WikiProject Puerto Rico, I wish to invite you to participate in the survey at Talk:Benicio Del Toro on whether the article on Benicio del Toro should be moved from Benicio Del Toro to Benicio del Toro. Timeineurope 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard
Hi G.

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

This is getting way out of hand for me. I'm only a lowly undergrad student.--ZayZayEM 06:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Given your pressing of POV issues, I hope that Guettarda assists in this article.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is WP:NOR is a WP:BLP issue. On a BLP we should be particularly vigilant about allowing possible OR into articles. There also was a BLP issue regarding the use of a blog as a source for the commentary. Now that source has gone, meaning there is no source for the commnetary synthesis, making this predominantly a OR issue now.

I don't totally disagree with the assessment that Picard is outside her field and that the petition is a really botched appeal to authority - but I am worried that the way it is being presented on this article really violates wikipedia's policies on what to include in wikipedia. The more I look at it the less it seems likely it was intended with encyclopedic value rather than just another excuse to lambast someone associated with DI. I mostly want a genuine discussion to take place (rather than two sides telling each other to shut up they don't know what they are on about (I'm still not sure what User:Moulton is on about sometimes)) and I'm gonna be quite happyto abide by consensus either way.--ZayZayEM 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Book cover images
My decision to remove the book covers was based on current Wikipedia policy on book covers and non-free images in general. Please do not revert my decision. Take the issue to deletion review, RFC or ARBCOM and once I am overruled the images can be added back. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no deletion to review. You closed the IfD as a Keep.  You obviously don't understand fair use or Foundation policy.  Go educate yourself about the issues first.  Guettarda 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Irreducible complexity
You recently made an edit in the ongoing dispute over the appropriateness of Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg on this page. Please join debate at Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no right to override my admin decisions or deleting the images or to leave rude comments on my talk page. But I'm tired, so you can have it for today.  -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You abuse admin privileges, utterly ignore the blocking policy...and you complain about my rude language? You're joking, right?  Guettarda 03:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request
A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
Your name came up on this thread at ArbCom as someone who attacked THF and who was not given a warning about clearly wrong behavior. I am not familiar with the situation, but you may want to make a statement. -- David  Shankbone  22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain
Whether I close the discussion and remove the tags or remove the tags and close the discussion, it does not matter. Please quit whining about this on my talk page and take it somewhere else. There is a forum to discuss admin abuse of power so take it there or leave it alone. -Regards Nv8200p talk 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see - so you not only make pronouncements about what can and can't be in the encyclopaedia, you're also defining "free speech zones". Hilarious.  Guettarda 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * non-free book cover
 * The non-free book cover copyright tag says the image the tag is attached to should only be used to illustrate an article discussing the book in questions. I believed the articles I removed the book covers from did not discuss the book cover. They mentioned the books as being about the subject of the article or in an article about the author of the book but that was about it.
 * The dispute over the images is settled and on the side you support, but please use my talk page as your free speech zone. Stuff you say may there may be useful in the future. I'll listen if you want, but will probably not respond again on talk pages. I need to get back to one of my Admin duties which actually is to make pronouncements about what can and can't be in the encyclopedia. Every closing Admin on WP:IFD or WP:AFD does this whether it is a keep or delete. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have to tell you this but "mak[ing] pronouncements about what can and can't be in the encyclopedia" is most emphatically not your job. You are a clerk, nothing more, such decisions are made by consensus. ornis ( t ) 02:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Douglas Adams is right, of course - the people who gravitate to jobs like that are always the least suitable people. Guettarda 03:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that was Murphy. This has a nice double-edge to it, "Stuff you say may there may be useful in the future".  Civil yet not, polite yet containing a potential veiled threat.  As for the rest, it's just mere piffle, and let's be honest: the dude isn't going to change.  Yet.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

attack sites
I am not sure whether you know about Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites and Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Workshop but I think - when you have time - yours is an important voice that needs to be added there. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Regarding this edit : can you show me even a single discussion in which there was consensus that the image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC? I have been unable to find one. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

D. James Kennedy edits
Please stop. Your mindless reversions are deleting important additions to the article (e.g. Wiki brackets and fact tags).

In regards to that "War on Science" ref, it's nothing more than a second-hand repeat of the source ahead of it. It's not needed. Jinxmchue 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jason, we sorted this out months ago. Your personal incredulity doesn't count as a reliable source.  Guettarda 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's got nothing to do with me, and I would thank you to assume good faith. I would also thank you to actually look at the references and see what I'm saying is factual and accurate. The "War on Science" link is a second-hand account of the AU link and the Coral Ridge link no longer works due to changes to the Coral Ridge website. Jinxmchue 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should I be that stupid? See WP:SPADE.  First you insist that your opinion trumps sources.  When that fails you take you stick in "purported".  As I said - your personal incredulity does not allow you to ignore or override sourced material.  And that's not going to change even if you throw another temper tantrum, like you did last time.  Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia policy, whether you like it or not.  Guettarda 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You lack any direct evidence that Kennedy supported ID - i.e. no statements from him that say anything like, "I support Intelligent Design." All you have are accusations made by others (actually, just one other, as the case is). That being the case, his support for ID is only purported (look up the word in the dictionary sometime), not absolute. Jinxmchue 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I love how you are just bent on violating WP:AGF. Jinxmchue 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes Jason. Obviously you missed the link to WP:SPADE.  You had contempt for our sourcing policies before your "break", and you have shown that you still have contempt for them.  WP:AGF does not require that a person check their congitive abilities at the door.  Guettarda 03:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you just not see how mindless your reversion was here? Look closely and also review the references. First of all, in your excitement to revert my legitimate edits, you unnecessarily removed Wiki brackets for dates and a fact tag. You also re-added a link to the Coral Ridge Hour website that doesn't work anymore. Furthermore, the "War on Science" reference is nothing more than a second-hand repetition of the Americans United reference, so is it really necessary? Why clutter up Wikipedia with unnecessary, repetitious references? Finally, your edit summary - "your personal incredulity is not a reliable source" - has nothing to do with the edits I made. For one thing, THE INFORMATION ABOUT ID REMAINED IN THE ARTICLE. I only removed one reference that was unnecessary and another that was defunct. In regards to what the Coral Ridge website sells, anyone with half a brain could easily see that the "intelligent design books and DVDs" that they supposedly sell is limited to one item (available in DVD and VHS). Go to the reference link and search for the phrase "intelligent design." It is only used in regards to one item (with separate entries for DVD and VHS versions). Then search for "creation[ism]" on that page. It appears many, many more times in many other diverse items. Thus, my edit describing the ID material that Coral Ridge sells as a single video was completely accurate and factual. Jinxmchue 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for my addition of "purported," it is completely legitimate to use that word when there is a completely lack of a direct statement by Kennedy about his support or lack thereof of ID and only one person's statement regarding his alleged beliefs. Many notable people (with PhDs even) consider President Bush to be a retarded moron, yet if you try to put that into his article as absolute fact, you're asking for a lot of trouble. Jinxmchue 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The source was one of the leading experts on the ID movement. No source says otherwise.  You can't insert "purportedly" simply because you don't agree with it.  Your incredulity doesn't warrant mention in an encyclopaedia article.  Is that really so hard to grasp?  Guettarda 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A notice
See here. Jinxmchue 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So how would you describe your actions back in June? I don't have a better descriptor, sorry.  Guettarda 03:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Frustration. Jinxmchue 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, that isn't an adequate descriptor. Guettarda 02:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rainforest
Thanks for your input there. Always nice to have someone with access to the literature to check, and the ability to read it. Will be interesting to see how EA responds William M. Connolley 08:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Schaefferia frutescens‎
Hi Guettarda - I've just deleted a page of this name which was copyvio. From a fairly quick checkup the genus looks to be monospecific so I restarted it at Schaefferia, but only with info I got from USDA-GRIN and USFS which may not be complete for the whole range (including perhaps additional species? - ipni lists more, but of course gives no hint on current acceptance or not) - can you check it over, please? - thanks, MPF 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Can I leave it in your hands to move it to the species and put together a genus page with the others? I basically know nothing about the genus and only did the stub because of having deleted the previous copyvio version - MPF 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul H. Allen at DYK
Interesting article! I have made some suggestions as to the wording of the hook -- please review as soon as you can to prevent this being passed over. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Deeply sorry for my appalling timing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Banderas
Hello, in light of recent discoveries, I am proposing a consensus concerning the colors of the flag of Puerto Rico in neutral articles. Please see the project's talk page for further detail. Thanks for your time. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is for the most part a copy/pasted notice, but I would like to offer my condolences for this recent loss. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ID images
As I said on Dave's talk page, I am discussing the images, heavily, both on the talk page and elsewhere. I continued to remove them from the article, not because there was a clear consensus to remove them, but because there was no clear consensus to include them. The non-free content criteria are quite clear on that front- the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the images. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also a little concerned about your characterisation of my edits as "disruptive", while continuing to edit war yourself. Why do you believe the version with the images is the one we should settle on while the images are being discussed? Your assertion that "the image use appears to be in keeping with our rules" does not reflect the heated debate on the article talk page. As I have said, I feel the images should remain our of the article at the current time not because there is a clear consensus for their removal, but because their is no clear consensus for their retention, and the non-free content criteria are quite clear on where the burden of proof lies. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What? As I have said, I am involved in the discussion, far more heavily than you are. Furthermore, I have not edited the main article since you did, so there was no need for any kind of additional warning. I am not saying that I don't like it- I am saying that there is no consensus to keep the images. If you believe there is, we have a very different definition of consensus. In stating that the images appear to meet our policy, you are the one who is effectively ignoring the discussion and instead deciding what is best for the article. Do you honestly believe that there is a current consensus for the images to be retained? J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, simply stating that I am being disruptive does not make it so. Also, I do not appreciate this whole "warning" thing- I have been an administrator for over a year; I know the ropes. If you are going to undo my edits, the least you can do is answer a few questions. Do you honestly believe there to be a consensus for retaining the images? J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Our basic disagreement seems to be that you believe there is a clear consensus for the images to be kept, meaning that my removal of them is disruptive, while I believe that there is no clear consensus, meaning that my removal is valid. That would be fair enough. However, you argue that my involvement in the debate means that I cannot fairly judge whether there is a consensus, meaning that your judgement of consensus is more objective, yet, in the same edit, argue for how involved in the discussion you have been. I find that a little alarming. Unless one of us is "right" about the consensus (and, as you have argued, neither of us could be a fair judge of that) then if any of my edits have been disruptive, so was yours. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

where things should be
I'm not sure what good it will do. I've made my case that the bird family should be at bird of paradise. The page is rather disorganised at present (not helped by a bunch of people !voting at another proposal), but at the moment it seems to be in the hands of consensus. I'd try and clarify the options, for example provide three options to !vote on (at present the page is set up so that it's Una's or nothing) but since I've been strongly advocating a position that would probably make things more irritating. I'm not going to disrupt things just because I think I'm right. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole page is confusing. That's what happens in these situations (check out recent activity at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) which I barely follow just to make sure no sweeping changes happen by attrition of exausted editors. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Secondary forest
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html Fred Talk 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms
Hi, Guettarda, I've posted this elsewhere, where you will certainly see it, but I am trying to notify everyone involved most recently:

I suggest that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion should be discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally think that editing by consensus can work, which means, I value your input whether you agree with me or not. If you're just disrupting Wikipedia, I don't value your input, but that's not the case with you, even when you and I disagree.  It's not the case with most of the editors I disagree with on Wikipedia.  So, come on by, and disagree with me.  And thanks for taking the time.  --KP Botany (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:My incivility
No, I was just not happy with the method. That conversation was going nowhere. If you want to discuss my incivility, do so on my talk page with specific references to the phrases that you are unhappy with. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of herbaria
Caribbean would fit where - North America? Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only if the herbarium has a minimum of 200,000 specimens. Herbaria smaller than that are placed on the List of herbaria in North America, where they are grouped with Central America. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wild horse
Hi. I think the general opinion re Wild horse is in flux, and it may be helpful if on Talk:Wild horse you would register your view in the survey section. Regards, Una Smith (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

spellunking
You think? I know. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who hasn't sat in a read-along praying to their gods to not be called upon at a tricky passage? I use a fuzzy spell-checker that allows common alternative spellings that are found on certain types of pages on Wikipedia, to allow for British versus American English.  I wrote it for spell-checking 19th century British texts, but adapted it in part for the Wikipedia issue.  For some reason the spell checker okayed this spelling, as it sometimes does with really commonly misspelled words, but doing a search doesn't pull up lots of pages with this spelling.
 * Ah, well, I'm a really bad speller, and I appreciate everyone who tidies up after me, no matter what is being tidied. --KP Botany (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

agreeing with you
Don't worry, I'm not agreeing with you, I'm just defending the side of reason as logic... as usual... You just happen to be on that side this time. ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on the NFC fracas
I thank you for your support on John's talk page, and on the AN/I page.

I always thought block warnings only came out after at least three or four warnings except for completely egregious behavior. So it was quite a shock to be given "not a threat, but a promise" to be blocked if I made another move without being told why I would be blocked. I had never ever been given any kind of warning for my editing here, much less a block warning: I wholeheartedly back the mission and philosophy of Wikipedia. And although I'm not confident in my straight content-building ability, I do my best to support those editors who do build the encyclopedia, and I'd like to think I am considered an editor in good standing. This affected me more than I care to admit. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to note that this sort of thing is increasingly endemic on the wiki, and this is just one particular example. (I will refrain from being explicit about where else I've noticed this sort of use, or abuse, of administrative power based upon hasty or incorrect interpretations of WP policy.) WP:Consensus is policy too, and when that's threatened by administrative power plays of this kind, I'm afraid the project has reached its limits of competence in keeping with the Peter principle. It's something the community will no doubt need to discuss and deal with if it is to maintain its best possible health and vibrancy in the future. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kisten Dunst FAC
I've taken care of your concerns, regarding its FAC review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Life listing!
Thanks for stopping by! I haven't even put half the plants I've seen from Arizona there ... and I just moved to Florida. So, yeah, it's quite the personal project ^^ -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 03:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Skid cone
I looked at the Skid cone article, I think you're right and it is notable. I googled it and it appears whoever wrote it just took the first couple of commercial links verbatim, but it appears to be patented. I threw a forestry stub on it for now and a link to it from the Topic outline of forestry, will think about linking to it more later this week. I've seen them used, and I think that it could be mentioned in any one of the timber harvesting articles :) minnecologies (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

re:point
§hep Talk  01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Puerto Rico Newsletter Year III - Issue 1 - Fall & Winter 2008-09
Addbot (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann Talk Page
Hi, I know you are trying to assume good faith by requesting a source here, but as I read it, WP:BLP is extremely clear:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

As was my understanding, this applies EVEN on a talk page. WindyCityRider (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reacted, but the comment seemed so absurd as to be snide and aimed at button pushing, I deemed it having no place in our serious discussion. Perhaps I should err on the side of assuming good faith, and if he pushed the issue, I'll leave it so as to give him a chance to provide some sourcing, and then we can review if it merits discussion or inclusion. Thanks for your feedbackm BTW. WindyCityRider (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

RFCU
Thanks for the note. Usually WP:RFCU isn't supposed to be used for fishing trips, but I'm uncomfortable with making an outright accusation -- I don't have a clear idea of who might be controlling the network. In my experience, this many new or mostly-unused SPA's arriving all at once to tow a party line tend to be the work of one or two individuals. Then again, it might just be a hoard of individauls who found a thread on thelatestrightwingblogplace.com. Your observations are always appreciated. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Active disputes
While I understand your frustration, I have to point out that excessively archiving active discussions can give the impression of attempting to stifle debate (especially with an active thread). While I agree with your assessment that the latest thread could be questioned against the literal interpretation of talk page guidelines, I think it's probably best to pick your battles. Don't get discouraged, though. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
... for the backup there. I finally, with a heavy sigh, slammed shut my laptop and went to bed. Sometimes you just have to walk away ... All the best, Antandrus (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Category Carnaval rename
The other items you mention are basically singular things. While Carnival can be a holiday, like the others, its usage varies around the world. In addition you have things that are not holidays like Category:Traveling carnivals. So in this case the category clearly should be of the plural form. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mother India (book)
That's the plan (rewriting it). --iFaqeer (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever put it there; they have a point.
 * And nice to meet you again. Nowadays, my engagement with the Wikipedia is more focused/targetted. But I am around. How are things with you?
 * --iFaqeer (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Violation of Jimbo Guidelines By You
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama

You obviously are the one violating the rules. I am being perfectly within the bounds and if you can't take truth to power then I suggest you get out of the way because if you are the one deleting my mentioning of the systemic problems then you should be ashamed of your lack of following the Jimbo guidelines which should be your duty, sir. JohnHistory (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)johnHistory
 * Yeah, stop violating WP:JG you literal fascist. Hesperian 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

They sure come out of the woodwork when you are not "in step" don't they. JohnHistory (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Stop Abusing the integrity of your position
Your posts are juvenile in nature. Lets up the standard a little bit please. JohnHistory (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * Yeah, stop abusing your position by making juvenile posts! Hesperian 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LMAO! Good to see you are still active G. Doc  Tropics  18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop posting about juveniles. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooops Sorry. Got confused. LOL.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't hold your breath waiting for another comment from JohnHistory, he's just been blocked for a fortnight. What a classic bit of terminology! Doc  Tropics  19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm
Maybe I misunderstood the point you were making. You're right; I've withdrawn my response. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your advice
Several times in the past you have been able to help steer me in the right direction in difficult situations, especially where policy was a concern in article and talkpage activites. I'm hoping I can impose on you again to help me out with some advice and maybe assistance if you have time. The article Genetically modified food has long been a poorly written article with some fairly severe POV content issues, and those have recently become worse. Now I have "engaged" with an editor who has me grasping at straws and thoroughly frustrated. Could you take a look at the situation and maybe offer me a clue how I should try to proceed? If you can I'd really appreciate it! Thanks, Doc  Tropics  05:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda. It's amazing how much difference a good nights sleep and some 3rd opinions can make! Your points were well-made and taken to heart; I think I can see how to improve the article quality at this point, although it still needs attention from an expert. Hopefully the POV issues will settle down and progress will be possible. Thanks again, and have a great day, Doc  Tropics  14:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Myers
You don't suppose this was Kwok, do you? KillerChihuahua?!? 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No comment. I don't want anyone asking me to buy them a camera.  Guettarda (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * rofl! too true. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harold E. Moore
--Dravecky (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
thanks for going behind the vandal (Dystopiasticker I'm sure) and removing his personal attacks. I'm kinda short of time for the next day or two... given that he's attacking multiple editors, would you mind carrying the football and get an RFCU and ANI action request going? I hate punting to other editors, but I just don't have the time today and given his past persistence I don't know if waiting around is the answer... If you don't have time no worries. Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Game the System?
Don't threaten me. You are violating DOZENS of Wik policies including be nice, assume good faith and dont game the system etc etc. I'm documenting you and your co-liberals  disruptive practices intended to protect your liberal weenie heroes like Keith Olbermann et al. You and blaxthos are part of the team RUINING wik. And you VANDALS have the gall to tell me not to critique you guys considering the HATE you spew towards conservatives. Everyone is on to your game. Delete all you want, the edit history is there and is making our case stronger and stronger. God Bless you. Jesus Loves you. He really does...68.40.123.217 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ROFL! Love and peace, man..... dave souza, talk 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, 68 has a day to cool out. Relax! . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit of a paranoid wanker, eh? Sounds like the Inquisition is creating a reeducation list.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition :-/ dave souza, talk 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you're both on the list along with Guettarda. Smiley Jesus alohas! --Ali'i 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago
I'm sorry about that edit, it was a bit of ignorance on my part. My reasoning was that Category:Trinidad and Tobago cricketers was the same as Category:Jamaica cricketers in that it referred to the team rather than the nationality (as oppose to Category:Jamaican cricketers. I assumed that as someone was Trinidad is Trinidadian and someone from Tobago is Tobagonian, that the demonyn would be something like Trinidadian and Tobagonian cricketers. Again, I apologise and will do some basic research prior to making such edits in the future. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Trinidadian
Hi, this is regarding your article on Chinese Trinidadian. In the article that you have stated that the current President of Trinidad and Tobago, Professor Emeritus George Maxwell Richards, is of Chinese Trinidadian ancestry, without any proof/reliable sources. However, I have checked on the official website of him and the government website, it clearly says that he is of Amerindian ancestry, and no mention of Chinese Trinidadian ancestry at all. I have changed this fact on the article twice, however you have twice unchanged without any explanation or proof still. If you are doing so again, please properly source it, or just don't change it. Ttzz2003 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

That's great. Thank you for sourcing. Ttzz2003 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay (hi)
Can you please answer to me here or on my talk page? I've already asked this by 2 person but they didn't give me a proper answer. Thank you! --62.216.127.31 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm kinda rude but you're like my last hope. So please. --62.216.127.31 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No edit war
Kenosis did three reverts in quick succession, I wanted to save the text, because it is a pain in the ass to restore it. Besides, I am not very wise.Likebox (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't violate the spirit of any rule. I am not edit warring. It is an annoying form of vandalism to delete sourced material. It should be tagged, and the sources checked. Otherwise I have to retype the sources each time.Likebox (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is on the talk page now. I am not going to change anything else on the page.Likebox (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored the Kenosis version, sorry for offending you.Likebox (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

yoi
Thanks for having my back, buddy. Graft | talk 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean
I answered your question and asked another at my talk page, which I think I have an answer to now.

The Flora of the Caribbean category tree now follows the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, with three exceptions: I propose to complete the task by decommissioning and deleting the latter two. This would bring the entire category into line with the WGSRPD, which is a good thing for many reasons, not least of which is the avoidance of the temptation to nest ever deeper: you would know much better than most the way these islands are grouped into island chains within chains within chains: U.S. Virgin Islands < Virgin Islands < Leeward Islands < Lesser Antilles < Antilles < Caribbean The WGSRPD simplifies that example to U.S. Virgin Islands < Leeward Islands < Caribbean which is, I think, a good thing. Any comments on any of that? Hesperian 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Flora of the Isle of Youth and Category:Trees of the Isle of Youth, which I have nominated for deletion as overcategorisation.
 * Category:Trees of Hispaniola; the WGSRPD recognises the two countries rather than the one island.
 * Category:Trees of the Virgin Islands; the WGSRPD recognises the two countries rather than the one archipelago.


 * The Virgin Islands and Hispaniola are single biogeographic entities. I would prefer using "cat:Foo of Haiti" and "cat:Foo of the DR" for species restricted to only one country or the other, but I realise mine is a minority position.  Splitting the Virgin Islands makes even less sense to me, since they form a single phytogeographic (and presumably, zoogeographic) unit with Puerto Rico.  You often see species described as "endemic to PR & the VI".  More importantly, there's very little differentiation between the two units biologically...it makes as much sense to me as separating Dutch and French halves of St. Martin, putting them in separate cats (which, I realise, will probably happen soon enough).
 * While I can live with the splitting, I have a issue with the larger groupings. Recent phytogeographic work seems to consider the Virgin Islands to either be part of the Greater Antilles (which makes sense, since they share most of their flora with Puerto Rico; e.g. Acevedo-Rodríguez & Strong, Bot. Rev. 2008 74:5-36), or as a distinct unit (e.g. Trejo-Torres & Ackerman, J. Biogeogr. 200128:775-794), so lumping them into the Lesser Antilles bothers me.  But...I suppose some sort of consistency is better than the current anarchy.  Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How we structure our categories and how we populate them are separate issues; for heaven's sake let's not get into the latter or we'll be here till this time next year!

I agree with your comments about "single biogeographical entities", but you're missing the other side of the coin, which is that people also want to know about the flora of politically defined areas like countries, for reasonable management reasons, and for unreasonable nationalistic reasons. Hence we have the eternal problems of how to make our "flora of" categories work. Should "Flora of Hawaii" be a subcategory of "Flora of the United States"? Should "Flora of the United States" be a subcategory of "Flora of North America"? And if the answer to both these questions is yes, doesn't that imply that the flora of Hawaii is a component of the flora of North America? Etcetera.

I was struggling with issues like this when I discovered the WGSRPD, which addresses precisely this problem as manifested in herbarium databases: ""[I]t seems that most botanical databases record information related principally to politically defined countries. The same can be said for storage of specimens in herbaria, and for citation of specimens in taxonomic revisions. However, political countries vary greatly in size, from less than one square kilometre (Vatican City) to over 22 million square kilometres covering one sixth of the world’s surface area (U.S.S.R.). Furthermore, many of them include physically remote parts, particularly islands, and nearly all traditional continental boundaries are traversed by political countries. A purely political geographical system cannot, therefore, be used to meet the needs of botanists who want more biologically based "countries," regions and continents for recording botanical distributions or arranging specimens. The system offered here recognises the need for compromise and adaptability....""

The essence of the WGSRPD solution is to ensure that every finest-level category is both politically consistent (i.e. it falls entirely within a single country) and biogeographically consistent. These are then aggregated into broader and broader biogeographic regions, but nonetheless those who wish to aggregate them into countries are able to do so. For example, "United States" is not recognised in the WGSRPD, because it is a biogeographical hodge-podge. But by virtue of the scheme's design, you can still recover it if you wish, simply by aggregating the contiguous US categories with Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and the Hawaiian Islands.

Hopefully this explains why they split Hispaniola (because it would be impossible to recover the flora of Haiti if they didn't) and the Virgin Islands (because it would be impossible to recover the flora of the British Virgin Islands if they didn't).

What remains to be discussed is the issue of how much detail we should put into our biogeographic categories; i.e. whether we should include small biogeographical units like Hispaniola even though the WGSRPD haven't bothered to do so. I have mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, it would be nice to follow the WGSRPD exactly, as do most herbaria, GRIN, IUCN, etc. On the other hand, to cleave to a 2001 standard is to ignore 8 years of progress.

Hesperian 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is my Wiki Consensus Talk contribution ?
Guettarda, thanks for your response to my request to justify your allegations about my conduct in Darwin article proposed editing. At a quick glance they seem largely mistaken. But immediately, as an Admin would you be so kind as to find out what has happened to my October 2008 contribution to the Consensus Talk page ? It pointed out the policy is meaningless nonsense. But the last Archive 6 ends in July 2008, whilst the current pages start in February 2009. Thus some Archives seem to be missing. Do you know where they might be ?

Thanks. --Logicus (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Logicus, you can click on "my contributions" at the top of any page when you're logged in, and then click to see your last 500 contributions, etc.. This seems to be the relevant edit. . dave souza, talk 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Logicus, perhaps this is the archive you were refering to, not diffucult to find Tmol42 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Logicus to Souza and Tmol24:Thank you so much to you guys for taking the trouble to help me on this query. And most especially to Tmol24 who actually did locate it. I reproduce it below for Dave and others who elect to lecture Logicus on Wikipedia policies, to ponder on.


 * And for the info of Wiki Admin Guettarda, I should point out that contra Dave, sourcing Logicus’s last 500 contributions does not locate it because silly Logicus forgot to log on and sign his contribution.


 * But contra Tmol24, nor does it seem easy to find when the Wiki Talk:Consensus article fails to list Archive 8 in which it is located, ending at Archive 6.
 * contra Logicus, just took some common (wiki-)sense, happy to give lessonsTmol42 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My contribution was:


 * So what is consensus?
 * This key Wikipedia policy article as currently written crucially fails to specify what constitutes a consensus. Is it a unanimous or a majority agreement of some community ? And what is the relevant community ? Dictionary definitions of consensus typically say it is either unanimity or else majoritarian agreement. So it is clearly important to decide which it is. But such definitions also leave open the further question of whether it is at least a simple majority (i.e. at least 51%) or at least a great majority (i.e. two-thirds) of the relevant community. But the more basic problem here is the article’s failure to identify what the relevant community is.


 * Thus the Wikipedia fundamental policy of editing by consensus is surely in effect empirically empty, whatever all its rubrics about discussion and procedure ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.134.44 (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * --Logicus (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
JCutter { talk to me }    02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Welcome
Sup. Glad you've noticed me. Good to see another NAPS man to. --BigBrain22 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review of "Natural selection"
As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Natural selection has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  04:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Side-step, diffuse and refocus
If somebody seems to be getting angry, confronting them by saying "you're getting angry, calm down" never seems to work - it usually makes things worse. Instead I try to focus on the facts and the arguments; unless somebody has lost it completely, pulling our WP:NPA and the like is counter-productive. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - took my own advice and headed away from the computer. Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Trinidad eh? I do miss the ocean! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't right now. Hopefully one day.  Right now I'm bitter and angry towards it.  At least the Atlantic.  (See my user page).  Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, my condolences. A great pity when people are killed by something they love. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstandings on EAAN
Hi Guettarda,

I note your concerns on the EAAN talk page and just dropped by to assure you that I have no personal issue with you whatsoever.

Clearly I have managed a monumental stuff-up with respects to understanding your position - but I hope you can believe that I made the remarks I did in all good faith.

Please accept my deepest apologies for any offense caused.

Regards, --Muzhogg (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added an explanation of my misinterpretation of you remark "While X, Plantinga says Y" (in a new thread on my talk-page)- I don't claim my analysis of this is correct, I merely wish you to see that any mistake on my part occured in good faith. No hard feelings on the mix-up. -- Muzhogg (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: EAR on EAAN
Thought you should know of | this one... Cheers, Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Aunt Entropy - I had already advised all editors in a new thread on the relevant talk page. Regards -- Muzhogg (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Funny"
Hi Guettarda,

Thanks for your latest observations. I really do try to take people's advice on board in order to make Wikipedia a better environment for everybody, so I appreciate you efforts to help me improve the quality and tone of my edits.

You wrote;

To which I respond as follows here;

I am equally happy to discuss any specific issues here, or on under the thread "Funny" on my talk page, whatever will enable us to come to an amicable resolution,

PS: I will avoid any contributions to the EAAN article or it's talk-page for the next month, in order to ensure these issues don't escalate.

Kindest Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one...
Someone proposed a merger of Arecales into Arecaceae - discus here. I have no idea about this but thought you might...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: many weeds are redlinked too, if you wanna do your bit for the environemnt (says me who spends alot of time pulling out ^($###$@@ Madeira Vine) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Focused well on the forest
I have seen people over the years infuriate people to such a degree that they leave the projects they are working on, and wikipedia as a whole. I was beginning to see the same thing happen on urban heat island, and figured something had to happen. The tropical cyclone, meteorology, and climate projects (especially climate) have all suffered due to infighting on talk pages. So yeah, I'm quite focused on keeping more people working within the forest. The fact that one of the participants in the discussion, who is also an admin, has no interest in improving article quality by his own admission and likes sparking these types of debates by using red herrings such as typos in regards to his name is very troubling for wikipedia as a whole. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are the people who might get so infuriated that the leave the project in this particular case? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is the specific person who thought they were trying to improve the article by removing one line, which started the long talk page section which has since been archived. Bet they won't make the mistake of editing a climate-related article again.  Granted, they were more out of line in their talk page responses than William, but still, further frustrating the guy over a typo probably wasn't the wisest idea, which is why I chimed in.  I used to be protective of articles I thought were important, until I unintentionally bullied someone out of the TC project in 2007.  Now, any potential editors who might think of editing this article, and others like it, in the future who check out the archived talk page will hesitate before contributing to it.  Count me as one of them.  As of late, I'm one of very few people improving core meteorology-related articles to GA class or higher.  Before the talk page discussion became protracted, I was considering improving the article, which is why I was watching the talk page to begin with.  But not anymore.  I can see the point of "lording over the roost" of articles that are GA quality or higher, to maintain their high standard.  But a C class article?  Come on.  If people cared so much to start a revert war over this, surely they must want to improve the articles to a high standard as well, right?  William actually said he didn't care what the article's class was, which makes one wonder why he was protecting it so strongly, if he appears unwilling to improve it?  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm rather confused as to why you didn't weight in earlier then. Perhaps i'm wrong, but before the incidence with the mispelling of WMC's name, the discussion had already lots all merit. And the incivility at that point had already reached a level where i had given up. I'd be rather interested in hearing what arguments of the specific person (as you call him/her) you found convincing, because quite frankly i'm at a loss. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could care less if they had a valid point or not. Wikipedia actually has a page (somewhere) that talks about the positives/negatives of wikilawyering, and how long and frustrating talk page discussions and edit wars can be avoided.  I'm one of those editors (even though I'm a meteorologist) who learns while researching an article's improvement, hence my high edit count.  I make mistakes, revert them myself if I notice them, and then learn from them.  None of us are experts on everything.  This guy was probably doing the same thing, learning as he went along, and I don't know if I would have stuck with wikipedia if one of my early edits had been so heavily scrutinized.  I certainly would stray away from editing such an article again, for better or for worse.  Kim, you were doing a good job of remaining civil on that page, from what I saw, and kept with the script.  I understand how hard it is to do that with editors who appear inexperienced or not quite as knowledgable.  And I also understand how easy it is to slip, and make sarcastic comments on the talk page.  It's something I'm still working on myself.  =)  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a large problem with your rationale here. This wasn't a new user, or someone who was unaware of WP rules/guidelines/conduct, and it wasn't even close to his "early edits". I did check that btw., since i usually take a quick glance at user talk to see if they've gotten a welcome-message, or if there could be reason for explaining things off article space. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

has no interest in improving article quality by his own admission and likes sparking these types of debates by using red herrings such as typos in regards to his name is junk. I'm beginning to doubt Tgd's good faith. I (for these anonymous insinuations are clearly directed against me) do have an interest in improving quality. I have no interest in the classification system. And the name stuff is hopeless too; Tgd's ignoring of deliberate incivility indicates his partisanship. I could care less if they had a valid point or not - that is a weird comment. If someone doesn't have a valid point, they shouldn't be posting it, you (and everyone else) should be removing it. If you care about article quality. have all suffered due to infighting on talk pages - errm yes; this isn't strange; these are subjects that people care passionately about, often with little knowledge of the subject William M. Connolley (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have the same focus here, it now seems, article quality. You appear to be focusing on the quality of articles, and responding in a way that seems to negatively impact the input of potential editors.  I'm trying to be more inclusive and understanding of editors on here, regardless of their skill set, but still improve articles.  This is not nupedia where edits are limited to experts in their field, it is wikipedia where anyone can edit.  This is not an ivory tower.  The reason these anonymous insinuations (talk about lack of good faith) have not been posted on your talk page is because of what your talk page says on top This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering, which has prevented us from talking/bickering/debating about this on your own talk page.  If you have no interest in the classification system, fine.  But many of us do, since it is the framework which we live within on wikipedia, and would like to improve article quality but with a minimum amount of bickering.  Wikipedia is about compromise and consensus, not who is ultimately right.  Don't confuse that with not caring about quality, or I wouldn't be bothering to improve articles on here to GA and FA despite the long odds and significant amount of time that effort takes.  I'm just focusing more on people's treatment on here.  You are a part of wikipedia, and an admin.  Work well with others on here, and assume good faith regardless of people's apparent actions, past history, or penchant for typos.  A good start would be to try to work well with others without trying to paint their point of view for them, and allowing these types of debate on your own talk page, so other people like Guettarda don't get drug into these debates.  I honestly haven't formed a passionate opinion concerning global warming (like many meteorologists I work with), but if it is only minimally impacted by urban heat island, if at all, why is so much of the urban heat island page focused on this lack of connection?  Good faith indeed.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Need feedback on merger proposal
I'm still trying to clean-up the patriarchy-related articles, but I can't seem to get any feedback on this merger proposal. If you have the time, I would appreciate your input. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Regiones de Trinidad y Tobago.svg
Yes, it is very easy. Just need to change the label with a svg editor. I can do it when I find some freetime, If you aren't in a hurry. Jarke (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Forestry...
..has been created, if you're interested. Cheers, Minnecologies (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know...I spent about half an hour trying to figure out where I had gone wrong, and I started getting a headache so I decided to walk away from it for a day. It seems you fixed it though now? Guettarda, always saving the day ;) Minnecologies (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
Guettarda, I would like to apologise for the emotional, angered responses I made on the Ross McKitrick biography page. I came to Wikipedia perhaps six months ago with a hope that I could contribute positively by simply cleaning up the biography pages of climate change skeptics, living people who have been most unfairly smeared by Wikipedia. I wanted nothing more than to remove the negative material, and other distortions of the truth, and simply leave behind a neutral presentation their life. But I have found that every change on every article that deals with climate change requires the approval of a single editor, Kim D. Petersen, and his obvious lack of objectivity and often relentless attachment to some of the negative material is very difficult to bear, especially after pages and pages and pages of often absurd and fruitless discussion. I don't know about you, but I cannot help but ask myself, how would I feel if I was a distinguished academic, such as Ross McKitrick, and my life was presented in my Wikipedia page in such a negative light, and I had absolutely no recourse? Or if I was the ageing Richard Lindzen and knew that each time my name was typed into google a smear-piece in Wikipedia would come up, with no mention of my lasting contributions to mankind's knowledge? But I have reacted unfairly against you, and I am sorry. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * With your permission I would like to delete the following from the McKitrick talk page:


 * William M. Connolley in fact reverted the last edit. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please abide by our policies on civility and personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If I remove my remark & leave yours, yours will have no context, thus both should probably be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're free to strike your comment, but deleting that would remove context from the following statements. Guettarda (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Trinidad and Tobago
I noticed your work on this.

Nice.

Thank you.

Keep up the good work.

In case you hadn't heard of this one, here's a tip...

0ne way to find articles to add to a country outline is to use Google to search just Wikipedia, like in the searches below:


 * "of" and "Trinidad and Tobago"


 * "in" and "Trinidad and Tobago"


 * "for" and "Trinidad and Tobago"


 * with "Trinidad and Tobago" not at the end

If you like working on outlines, please consider joining WP:WPOOK (by adding your name to the volunteer section). We could sure use your help building and maintaining the OOK.

By the way, I also lead an advanced wiki-tools team, so if you'd like to try your hand at changing lots of stuff fast, drop me a note (no prior experience necessary - we'll get you up to speed!) The team specializes in big chores related to the OOK and in fixing problems revealed by the OOK (reverse outlines are good for finding problems in publications).

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Seasons Greetings
Thank you, Guettarda. I hope you are well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Açaí Palm / Euterpe oleracea)
Many thanks for your note. I added the request into the Talk pages. I hope I did it correctly! 85.3.251.194 (talk)

Link
Hi, a quick question, regarding this, are you really seeing a preview of the page in Google books? I see it saying "No preview available". I just didn't think it was useful for the reader to be linked to a site that doesn't display the cited pages. Spellcast (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Orchid notes
Yes, I noticed, and thank you for it. I'll integrate them in the list when I next edit it. Circeus (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire FA
Thank you for your comments with regard the the FA review of Wildfire; you have been helpful. I've made some changes but had a few questions on the review page, whenever you get a free moment. Thanks, Mr Bell  ( talk ) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made additional changes to the Wildfire article. Whenever you get a chance, could you review the edits? Thanks,  Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Nature
Heya. I'm trying to arrange a ranger-led slog through Everglades National Park. I've asked for it to be off-season in November and somewhat specialized since I assume I may be a bit more informed than most who go on tours in the park. The idea led me to think of the Wikipedia Loves Art project, where Wikipedians go to museums to help their abilities to expand and create art-related articles.

What if there was a Wikipedia Loves Nature group to go to protected areas and do something similar? I don't know how to create such a thing or if it would be a good idea or what, but if a few Wikipedians who are interested in nature also join me in my slog, there are quite a few articles related to such a trek that might be expanded. I'm asking your plant-filled opinion. I'll also ask Ruhrfisch, and I've left a note on Casliber's talk page too. Let me know if you're interested or have ideas. Thanks, --Moni3 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Project inactivity
I tagged many WikiProjects recently as part of an effort to update the WikiProject Directory. Before tagging a WikiProject as inactive, I looked at the main page history as well as talk page history. I was not looking for completely inactive (i.e. abandoned) projects, merely interpreting these guidelines. I also left notes on talk pages disclaiming my actions, and recommending removal of the inactive tag if it was put there incorrectly. Seeing as I have received now 3 complaints about these tags (out of perhaps 20 I placed), I will make my standards more stringent and leave detailed messages on each WP's talk page. Andyo2000 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the tag was applied in good faith but through bad judgement. My recent tagging has been much more stringent in its guideline interpretation. See here, here, and here. Andyo2000 (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lara
Thanks. I have just filled in my own explanation which I hope will help although I am a little skeptical. I appreciate your standing up for me while I was gone. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
Can you help me make this work: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Evolution vs. Intelligent design talk page styles
The E talk page was compact and used only generic templates, emphasizing that a list of *information* in the form of answers is available through a well-written FAQ. I find that it has a style that is more welcoming than the ID talk page, which includes a perfunctory sentence of "welcome" followed by a lengthy and rambling review of WP rules. It seems a harbinger of emo.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review Talk:Intelligent_design/FAQ. I reworded the questions as yes/no answers and then give the yes-or-no answer as the first sentence. I did the same for Talk:Evolution/FAQ. That is much more helpful and more respectful of the reader's time. While "your" messagebox is still visible as the massive (and in my opinion, off-topic) header of the talk page, it now exists as a template. See Talk:Intelligent_design/editing notes. Please consider that is you simply point the reader to a FAQ that promptly answers the question (can I add this-or-that to the article), they might be more respectful of your time in return.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Trinidad and Tobago
Hi. In response to some of your critiques:

A)
 * The Federation dissolved after the withdrawal of Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago elected for independence in 1962.
 * The Federation dissolved after the withdrawal of Jamaica, and the majority of Trinbagonians voted for independence in 1962.

There is no difference between the two except that Trinidad and Tobago didn't really vote; its citizens did. I didn't know that "Tribagonian" is "slang"- I genuinely thought it was better and more inclusive than the term "Trinidadians". Trinbagonian was also used by other editors in the article.

B)
 * Why delete "Trinidadian Whites are commonly referred to as French Creoles regardless of their actual heritage"? - sounds like unsourced cruft to me

C)
 * "While you may have done it with the best of intentions, calling Indo-Trinidadians "these people" is a little offensive." - Sorry, I fixed it.

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I changed the date format because it was inconsistent, i.e. both formats (22 March and March 22) and I wanted to keep it consistent. Must be my OCD. Obviously you know far more about this subject than I. I concede your expertise and I'm moving on. Thanks for the insights, especially that "Trinbagonian" is only a slang term. Sincerely, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago
nominated List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards : Chat  03:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice job on this! Can you update the FLRC page on what's left to do, if anything? Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Birther page
I realize the page is on arbitration, but I thought the edits in question were so POV that they were bordering on vandalism. Should I have waited? Soxwon (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, btw, I deleted this originally b/c I realized we were talking about two different pages. Hopefully they can block this IP soon, as he's not here to edit constructively. Soxwon (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort
This is being added automatically by AWB's general fixes, not anything I've specifically set up. It sounds as though botanical names are a special area where the Defaultsort shouldn't be added automatically. I believe the capitalisation of the Defaultsort value is standard for sorting reasons. Is the adding of Defaultsort actively doing any harm? If so, I'll report it on the AWB page to be corrected. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AWB doesn't add a defaultsort key where there are already other keys, I think. There was a lot of debate on the AWB pages about the circumstances where it should and shouldn't add a Defaultsort, so it might be worth adding your comments at WT:AWB too. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In future versions of AWB this will be turned off by default; see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs. Hesperian 23:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.
This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location.  Xan  dar  21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Ciao, Guettarda. You indefinitely semi-protected this article back in May 2008. I notice there was a lot of contentious editing back then, which has died down now. Is there justification for continued editing restrictions? Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  09:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Input needed
Hello Guettarda. I remember that in the past you have commented on the Race and Intelligence article. There is currently a debate encompassing the last three sections of the talk page as to what constitutes the current overall academic consensus on the subject. If you have the time and inclination, your comments would be welcome there. Thank you!--Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Magnolia grandiflora
Hey Guettarda, not sure when you'll next see this, but I did muse on getting Magnolia grandiflora buffed at some point, but it lacks any ecology-related material for its natural environment. I am not familiar with where to look for US plants so all help appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Will take a look at it. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're missing?
Hey my friend, I see you haven't been around for awhile. Hope all's ok. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me second that. It's been too long and you are missed. Doc  Tropics  20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First real wikibreak in 5+ years (hey, how come no one remembered my wikibirthday!!)...sure this place functioned - or dysfunctioned - as well without me around as it would with me around. But it's nice to be missed.  Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You took a vacation? You realize we're going to dock your pay for this, right? Heh heh. OK, so you probably did deserve a break, but it's darn good to see you back and I hope you're mentally refreshed and ready to face new wiki-challenges.
 * Here's an easy one to start you off with: I suspect that I might actually be wrong about this, but the IP editor is such a dedicated POV pusher that I need to hear it from a someone more neutral. I know this is pretty far outside your usual area of interest, but it's a simple matter of wording and I trust your opinion.
 * At any rate, I'm thrilled you're back and looking forward to seeing you around : )  Doc   Tropics  21:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, property is theft, right? In which case, all transfers of property are probably theft.  That and normal English usage of "transfer of property by force" would suggests your wording is appropriate.  Guettarda (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you brought your sense of humor back with you too, it's going to be helpful. Thanks, Doc  Tropics  21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U Logicus 2 (Draft)
I am drafting a Requests for comment/User conduct concerning the conduct of since the abortive RfC of February 2007. Since you have been involved in an earlier discussion at Talk:Charles Darwin, I would appreciate it if you would look over the draft and see whether it seems appropriate, what revisions you would propose, or what you could add.

At the moment, parts of the RfC are little more than outline points and the desired outcome is totally undefined, but with cooperation perhaps something can be put together that could make it through the process.

I had hoped that this RfC would not need to be posted, given the recent closure of a content RfC on Logicus's edits. However, Logicus's recent comments suggest that I may have been too optimistic.

Feel free to either edit the draft or submit comments on its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PA redacting
Heard your comments here. Will make a better effort, I pray I won't have too. Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk   at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Soapery
I've been involved in hundreds of articles like this, where IPs appear out of nowhere to post a quick rant and then vanish. It's just not worth it. Normally, we end up creating some sort of FAQ section in the hope that they read it, but that's usually a waste of time as well. I think the most appropriate action would be to ascertain the location of the IP and then nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention Obama articles. My topic ban of that area expires in a couple of weeks. I shall have to rummage through my weapons lockers and start cleaning my guns, sharpening my knives, etc. LOL -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not worried. I've already sent ArbCom members (including those most likely to get elected) envelopes stuffed with cash, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

←This might interest you. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I don't normally have anything to do with "radio", whatever that is. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Research Unit Hacking Incident Soapboxing
"Yeah, we're hobbled by our verifiability policy, our policy on biographies of living people and the fact that we are a mainstream encyclopaedia. It's a terrible burden." I think your sarcasm will be lost on most of the people in the talk page. I tried to talk to some of them but I really don't get anywhere at all. I find it frustrating that environmentalist soapboxing stays up in the talk page and denialist soapboxing tends to get deleted - it makes environmentalists look like they're crazy. I don't know what to do. Then again maybe I'm completely misreading what you meant. Ignignot (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Drolz09's complaint was, in essence, "we can't serve our readership if we rely on reliable sources". I just paraphrased his comment and (sarcastically) agreed with him.  Guettarda (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More importantly - that is what attracts attention? Not the point I raised just above that the article misrepresents sources in a section that attributes misdeeds to living people?  Ugh. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was just what was annoying me at the time. I haven't read that entire section, just saw the diff.  Ignignot (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that wasn't meant as a comment aimed at you specifically. But given the amount of eyes on that page (or at least fingers frantically typing on it) you'd think someone would have noticed that..  Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I laughed
My main trouble is in keeping up with the horse as I lay down the rails in front of him.Dduff442 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Did this go down badly? It was an attempt at humour re. your reply to Hypocrite and wasn't meant to be barbed at all. Dduff442 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was friendly and amusing. And I was glad to know someone noticed my joke.  :)  Guettarda (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming no longer of concern
We need no longer fear the rising of the seas. The issue has been resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to buy one, too
Where can I buy a Guettarda? Because clearly you were purchased off an auction block, else why would you be receiving peremptory orders from someone else? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Two species in Florida - G. elliptica and G. scabra. :)  Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * :-P KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that! :-)
Best observation I've spotted today. Must always read the fine print. :-) Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You too. :)  Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hello. I found the following on another user's talk page, written by you: "Don't edit-war with people on their own user page.  Not to mention that good-faith edits are not vandalism. [snip]  More importantly - people are free to remove warnings from their user page.  It isn't OK to repeatedly reinstate them." Now, this left me curious about exactly what the rules are on editing my own user-talk-page. I'd like to find and read them. Would you ming pointing me in the right direction? RobertAustin (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TPG should have all the information you need; WP:UP might also be helpful. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Response on my talk page
Thanks for the note on my talk page -- I responded -- please check it out if you get a moment. jheiv (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken your most recent comment under advisement, I apologize if I acted out-of-turn. Regards. jheiv (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: BLP
Your objection hinged on the idea that we can't "smear people based on innuendo", not the inclusion of the email itself, as seen here. Please try to not threaten anyone that makes you don't like with a block. Macai (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How does quoting the man constitute a violation of BLP? :-/ But again, your objection seemed to be on the inclusion of speculation about the man, not about the quotation itself. Macai (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're taking this just a little bit too seriously. The edit I made had nothing to do with slander or smearing. It wasn't like I was posting the man's home address or anything. Just calm down, friend. My edit got reverted anyway. Macai (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL
Can you believe the balls on this guy? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You should feel terribly slighted that he didn't include you! Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Got the mail. Swallowed some of my own bile. :::shudder::: -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

JettaMann
As you're one of the admins involved with the CRU incident article, I thought I'd let you know that I've raised the abusive and disruptive behaviour of on WP:AN/I. He has totally ignored warnings given to him earlier. Please see WP:ANI, where I've requested that he be blocked and/or topic-banned. Your views would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Pseudoryzomys
Hi, you commented at WP:Featured article candidates/Pseudoryzomys/archive1 some time ago. I believe I addressed most of your concerns; could you please have another look to see whether there are any more problems? Thanks, Ucucha 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit
here Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

I'm not going to fight you on this, but your reasoning doesn't make sense. While a discussion of the term "skeptics" might have some value, this section contains nothing useful. The opening sentence:

The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians

is a hopeless generality, more false than true. There is ZERO evidence provided that anyone quoted in the article is labeled a skeptic but is truly a contrarian, whatever that means.

There's more than enough to read in the talk page without leaving in useless nonsense like this. I think collapsing is the right balance, as actual removal would seem to be warranted, but may generate more discussion that collapsing.

Please, can we work toward improving the article.

-- SPhilbrick  T  22:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the concerns you (and others) raised in that section, I tracked down two very valuable references which address your concerns. From your response here ("whatever that means") I see that instead of reading them, you choose to shut down the discussion.  You said that you want to "work toward improving the article", but when people track down references to help you fill deficiencies in your knowledge base, it seems to me that one should take a moment to look at the supporting references, rather than try to shut down the discussion. Guettarda (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the relevant section of the first reference. It did not address my concerns. I’m not interested in shutting down any discussion that is working toward improving the article. At the time I collapsed the section, there was nothing useful. A complete waste of time. I’ve now wasted my time by reading the rest of the section. Nothing of value. Let’s work on improving the article. that section was a negative contribution to the effort. Your outline, OTOH, was a great contribution, and I’d like to see it discussed further.  SPhilbrick  T  19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor
Could you please see what you can do to block 99.151.166.95 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS) for repeatedly disrupting Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident? He is reverting every attempt to close that pointless discussion and has gone way past 3RR by now. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, being an active editor on the page, and having reverted him/her myself, I shouldn't be the one to block. Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I misphrased that - I'm well aware of the involved admin criterion. I meant to ask whether you might be able to get someone else to block him. I've reported him now to WP:AN3 for action on the 3RR violations. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit objection
Have you withdrawn your objection to this? I've been away for a few days, and I only had a chance to comment on it a short while ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Logicus
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Logicus 2. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Amusing
Very silly, but it made me chuckle: Some YouTubery -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Inhofe
I don't want to derail the climategate talk page, so I thought I would ask you here. Your statement intrigued me: ''No, Jim Inhofe is pretty fringe, and not a little loony. He claims that 90% of Americans don't believe the planet is warming, for example.'' I did a Google search but didn't turn up anything. Do you have a link? SPhilbrick T  19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Inhofe is completely out of step with reality. Just read this nonsense from 2005 for some idea of how far beyond Pluto we are talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That specific bit (the 90% number) came from a video clip I saw recently. Don't have a source.  But as a general sense - well, you see your senator on the news all the time.  I try not to, but it's hard to avoid.  Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All politicians are dumb liars. I don't think we need to remove all references to them just because everything that they say is self serving and wrong.  Even the ones that get most of it right still say ridiculous self serving crap every once in awhile (cough Al Gore cough).  To paraphrase Bohr - if you aren't outraged by what they say, then you don't understand what they are actually saying.  Ignignot (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Inhofe's in a class of his own. Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

re Thanks
Confused, um, what exactly did I do good? :P Cirt (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not being overly attached to your ideas. Not taking rejection of your suggestion as a personal affront.  It's just such a nice change on that page.  Guettarda (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

while we're on rubiaceae....

 * I wanted to grow some of these too but might be too cold here...and I ain't building a greenhouse :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend. - Darwinek (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:3RR report
Hello, since the 3RR report on Scjessey's 3RR violation is "officially closed" by J.delanoy, I don't think further discussions should be necessary in the page. On the other hand, you seem to be moderate and willing to listen to different opinions, I'll leave my stance briefly. I believe that the whole discussion has been unnecessarily prolonged because of Tony Sidaway's improper closing the report. That assessment of mine accounts for more than half of the whole discussion here. It is a clear fact that Scjessey violated 3RR, but the report was malformed, so I provided diffs. The page is protected by jheiv's good faith request for protection, not by the others involved. I don't appreciate the admin's assessment on my demand for the proper closing being bureaucratic because he could've wrapped up the report in the first place or should've deferred the matter to other admins (seemed so per his first comment). So if the report is closed by any "uninvolved admin", that would have been more than fine with me. I've seen that the accused person got off hooks in several occasions, so I also told the "facts" on continued edit-warring by the accused party. I know that people in "majority", especially "in science area" don't get blocked regardless of what they do. So I'm standing by my stance, and wish this is not falsely attributed by the admin or anyone else. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually my impression is that it's usually the anti-science editors who don't get blocked. But I realise that's just an impression.  I also really how frustrating it can be when people don't get blocked because pages are protected.  But that's the way it works.  Guettarda (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...are you a scientist? Regretfully, I disagree with the assessment on the blocking trend. :-) I'm not frustrated over the person who violated 3RR not being punished. Though, I've happened to see his intimidating opinions to his opponents and numerous contradictions in his own words. If he resumes the edit war again, as suggested by people there, he may get another topic ban from the topic. That is his call. Anyway, thank you for the reply. Have a good day--Caspian blue 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your experience is yours. My experience is mine.  And they're quite definitely biased by the AN3 reports I've cared to watch.  (It's been a long time since I tried to keep a close eye on that page). Without actually searching the last few years of AN3 reports, it's hard to say anything definitive.  Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well....., while I'm standing by my stance with my observation on ArbCom cases and AN3 for one year, I never require your "consent" on my assessment. However, at least we should respectfully and peacefully agree to disagree not to offend each other. (the "ant-science editors" is a biased labeling referring to people in minority view though)--Caspian blue 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. I respect your assessment, even though it differs from mine. We've come to different conclusions, probably based on observations that only overlap in part and that are almost certainly coloured by our own experiences here. I'm not saying you're impression is wrong, and I'm certainly not saying that my impression is right. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see "anti-science editors" as biased labelling of a minority view. There's a systematic rejection of science and the scientific enterprise by quite a few editors.  I don't see creationism, for example, as a "minority view" on science.  I think it's an outright rejection of science to claim that the earth is only 6000 years old.  Guettarda (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, I once made my friend very upset whose religious belief is much sincerer than mine when I talked about Darwinism and creationism. I bet he refused to submit the "correct answer" to the topic while taking school exams and university entrance exam. But well...when it comes to science topics being combined with religion, that tend to go nowhere until "undoubted facts" and evidences are provided. (this is a little going toward off-topic though) I may not understand scientist Wikipedians' frustration on content disputes but I just hope that people with minority views are not flatly rejected or accused of being vandals. That's all.--Caspian blue 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged theft of Climategate e-mails
Hi! Taking this away from the Talk page for just a minute. I am puzzled as to why we (all of us) are unable to agree that the use of the unqualified word "theft" is correct in relation to the unauthorised publication of the e-mails. I am sure that we all agree that the theft is not yet established as fact.

A parallel. A diamond ring goes missing, the owner says it "appears" to have been stolen. The police say they are "investigating the theft". Lazy newspapers report the ring "stolen" but any reader knows this might not in fact be the case. Do we report (OK, I know WP is not a news service, but hang in there for a moment) the ring as "stolen"? What if the ring is found between the cushions, or that the ring was taken legally? Or it wasn't a theft but an insurance fraud.

What do we lose, as an encyclopedia, by reporting the theft of the SRU docs as alleged? Nothing.

What do we gain? Well, we won't be wrong when we find out that the docs were released by an insider and that the police decide that no crime occurred.

Your thoughts? Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Climategate - removing pressmulti template
Why did you revert my insertin of the pressmulti template at the talk climategate page? No consensus is not based upon any policy. As I pointed out in the WP:BLPN discussion regarding this matter, one of the editors TS is probably angry because he is accused of doing a revert by Solomon. How can this person and his likes agree on keeping something like this? Shouldn't we mention this as an coverage because of this? Please discuss it on the appropiate page and don't do such kinds of revert without discussing it.Nsaa (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
This is the first time I've brought a whole article into my userspace for editing, and I forgot about the cats. Thanks for performing the clean-up edits. »S0CO ( talk 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It's one of those things we all forget.  Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I send all best wishes for a health, happy, joy-filled and productive new year to you and your loved ones from tropical north Queensland, Australia. Let us hope this next decade will be a happier time than the last for the world and that people quickly begin waking up to the fact that they must and can start making a real world community which is more peaceful and tolerant and much more sustainable, making a real future of hope and opportunity for our grandchildren and their progeny. Be of good cheer and hope. The Wikipedia is a living example that many people are willing to work together for the betterment of us all for no pay and little enough recognition. Thank you for all your fine contributions to this new tool of knowledge. Keep the faith! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nostalgia
I believe we used to edit the evolution article at the same time, years ago, and now we find ourselves editing the CRU hack article. Did you ever think you would wish that an article was 'only' as disputed as the evolution one? Anyway, happy new year. I hope your long dedication to wikipedia will help others and bring you some measure of happiness. Ignignot (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Coffee's botanical section
Now here's something to ponder - how big or small should a biology section be in coffee - i.e talking about species and genus etc....a whole bunch of folks are working it up for FA - which'd be good as its a food article...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will have a look at it, but probably won't have time to say much before Sunday. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Polling idea
Can I get your opinion on something like this? Bad idea? Good idea, but could be improved? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page behavior in the GW FAQ sub page
I put up the NPOV template on F22 of the global warming FAQ because F22 was utterly undiscussed, unreferenced, and was descending into edit warring. The current status where a lively discussion is happening and hopefully a consensus based F22 will eventually emerge needs to be recognized on the FAQ page or F22 should be pulled pending consensus being achieved.

What is your solution to this problem other than pulling down my minimally intrusive solution of NPOV templating? TMLutas (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have answered your own question. Generate a "lively discussion".  Using a template is not a substitute for generating a discussion.  Rather,  is an admission of failure, it's an admission that the conservation has deadlocked and there's no hope of generating consensus, so let's just wait until one side or the other gets bored and wanders off.
 * Of course, my reason for removing your template was not to reproach you for using templates as an alternative for human communication. Rather, I removed the template because it's only supposed to be used in the article namespace, not on a talk page.  Guettarda (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And right after you used it SBHB edited F22 and didn't seek consensus, which has been the solid pattern with F22. According to the admin I'm discussing the page with, no non-trivial edits should be made to the FAQ and *he* didn't find the NPOV template a bad thing. I don't give 2 hoots about the template but I care about something being put in a FAQ that isn't consensus and under active discussion in talk and NPOV templating was a viable way to avoid further undiscussed FAQ edits going in. You don't like my solution, put your own but the current status is a travesty with anybody going directly to the FAQ having no idea that F22 is recent, not a consensus position, but really just SBHB's personal opinion. If the only alternative you will allow is to ask for admin sanctions, I'll do it but I really don't want to. 173.161.30.37 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is not the complaints department.
 * It clearly says that "should only be used in the main (article) namespace".  If you want to change that, let me suggest the template's talk page.  If, once you have managed to build consensus for your proposed change to the usage of, I repeat the same action, then by all means let me know.  I would more than welcome your input.
 * "[R]ight after you used it SBHB edited F22 and didn't seek consensus". If you look down to the next section, you'll see a link to Boris' talk page.  While he may look at this page from time to time (I have no idea if he has it watchlisted or not), this is not the appropriate place to try and contact him.
 * "According to the admin I'm discussing the page with, no non-trivial edits should be made to the FAQ and *he* didn't find the NPOV template a bad thing." That's nice.  That admin says one thing, this admin says another.  Bear in mind that adminship is no big deal, and we have no special authority on the project.
 * "I don't give 2 hoots about the template". OK.  And why are you bothering me again?
 * "I care about something being put in a FAQ that isn't consensus". Once again, I have never added anything to the FAQ (see here).  All I have done is reverted your misuse of a template meant for the article space.
 * "NPOV templating was a viable way to avoid further undiscussed FAQ edits going in". No, it wasn't.  But then I've said that before.
 * "You don't like my solution, put your own". I did.  I removed your misplaced template.
 * "[T]he current status is a travesty..." When I suggested that you use discussion rather than templating, I mean that you should discuss things with the involved editors.  This isn't a very good place to reach involved editors.  I would recommend the article's talk page.
 * "If the only alternative you will allow is to ask for admin sanctions, I'll do it but I really don't want to". Sorry, I can't help you there.  I'm far too involved to impose sanctions.  Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

CRU / Swifthack
Please don't use phrases like "grace us with her/his presence" in referring to other editors. In a contentious environment that is being closely watched by the community the winner is the first side to stop making little digs at the other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I didn't do a good enough job editing my comment for 'tone' before hitting [save]. Guettarda (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tut
You broke the spell :-( [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley] (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Damn. My bad.  Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So WMC is the wicked witch and you regret playing the handsome prince? What a strange shared world seems to be running around inside your heads. TMLutas (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? See humour.  Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uk spelin yay we has drollery rite! Actually thought this thread might be about King Tut's Wah Wah Hut but almost as nice. . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What UK spelling? It's Trinidad spelling.  Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right! All the best people's spelling :) . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you never know - sometime you spill coffee on your keyboard and the key between Y and I goes dead. But then you should do like the Romans and use V, I suppose. :)  Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh, another set of people who don't get my sense of humor. TMLutas (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy vs. affair?
I see your revert of my change of the title. It's collected from the same source as the section was based upon. Is this still something people disagree about? Calling it a scandal would probably still not be a WP:NPOV term, but controversy which everyone (including nearly all WP:RS sources) is using? Just wondering. Nsaa (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Think it should match the article title. If not the same word, then something equally bland.  Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, agree with you on that. But Isn't an affair something more personal/private? (sorry for my English understanding here). Nsaa (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's one meaning, but by no means the only one...it's very middle class American (and I think a tad dated) usage. Guettarda (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. probably seen too many Hollywood movies then :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Third word - just pretend you didn't see the second word ;) Guettarda (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your use of Google
Your novel use of Google to show, for example, that Climategate only yields 700 results is wrong. You say, search for "Climategate" and then go to page 10. Ok, here it is:. Then you say to change 90 to 900. Look at that, I only see 696 results:. But wait! What's this notice at the bottom? "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 696 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." OK, well let's do that then. Now we see about 1000 results. Let's try starting with 1001: "Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query."

Here's the proof. Try a Google search on any topic in the world. I picked "Bush". Your same technique shows only 775 results for Bush. Which is more likely, that only 775 websites mention the word "Bush" or that your methodology is incorrect? In fact, what's happening is that Google takes the first 1000 results, then prunes similar ones leaving about 700 results for anything in the world you search for that has over 1000 results. Your analysis, therefore, is flawed. Oren0 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:GOOGLE has nearly identical analysis (should've checked it first): " Further, Google's list of unique results is constructed by first selecting the top 1000 results and then eliminating duplicates without replacements. Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms. For example, from the about 742 million pages related to "Microsoft", Google presently returns 552 "unique" results (as of 2006-01-09[4])" Oren0 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you search "bush" without duplicates, it (not surprisingly) maxes out at 1000. So yeah, there are more than 1000 real hits for bush. You search the other terms without duplicates, and you end up with 971 Climategate hits and 904 Swifthack hits. So by your methodology, since they still max out below 1000, meaning that there's a <10% difference between the terms.

Now, if you had done are you're supposed to and read the sources behind WP:GOOGLE (remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source!) you'd see that total numbers of Google hits are actually meaningless. The "about 742 million pages related to Microsoft" is not a statement of fact, it's simply the number of pages Google lists in its topline numbers. Which, as the sources quoted for the page say, can be off by orders of magnitude.

Numbers of Google hits are utterly useless when trying to determine usage. Even if it the numbers were meaningful, they'd be useless. We don't conduct our own research, we use reliable sources. Please try to keep that in mind. Guettarda (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still doing it wrong. There are millions of results.  "Results 991 - 1000 of about 2,360,000 for climategate".  I'm not trying to argue that the number of Google results should be included in the article, nor am I arguing that they're particularly instructive.  But you used this same logic to dismiss Google News results, which are very relevant as most are reliable sources, and currently number 1800 to 5.  Counting sources to determine WP:WEIGHT is not original research. Oren0 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

facepalm...
But of course. Now why didn't I see that (or rather, why was that not seen)? Full marks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We were taught to write "the eye was placed at bench level to avoid the error of parallax" is second form (=7th grade) physics. After six years of high school physics, that stuff's deep in my bone marrow.  Guettarda (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock RAGE
There is nothing more annoying than wasting my fucking time trying to discuss things with people when they turn out to be sock puppets. I just found out about the latest sock, and I swear I immediately threw all of my toys out of the proverbial pram. I dunno how you admin types resist indef blocking the whole WORLD when this sort of thing happens. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed. Seen a lot of Scibaby socks come and go, but this was the first one I had invested energy in.  Quite annoying.  Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda impressed that he/she still has deep sleeper accounts available. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of energy went into this account - it did a lot of editing 3 years ago. Makes me wonder if the person behind Scibaby (people?) is collecting older accounts, having them donated by someone or something...
 * BTW Kim, thanks for striking his contribs from the talk page. Guettarda (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is always the off-chance of a false positive. But some have suspected that it is more than one person. If it is any reconciliation  i hadn't seen this one coming either - and i've knocked quite alot of socks down :-/ --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A few days someone on WR gave a long tutorial about how to set up a sockpuppet army. Most of it is obvious to anyone who has ever read an httpd log file, but it's interesting to see how it's done in practice. Recommended reading. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Got a link to that? (Email, perhaps) Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems that it was a false-positive and i've reverted my self on t:CRUhi --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Still, anecdotal evidence was the cause of the suspicion. I wish people would be honest about themselves more often. I adopted this approach a while back, thinking of it as a sort of "badge of honor". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"On nicknames" edit
See your edit here (and my response here). I am genuinely hurt that you would display such a dearth of either honesty or memory. Please explain your behavior; I hope I'm missing something. Failing that I encourage you to delete both your and my comment.--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say my comment was pretty accurate, and my actions (adding a section that actually discussed naming) was in keeping with our conversation earlier. It still comes down to this - saying that the statement is "obviously true" is ridiculous.  Sure, add the words together and they aren't inaccurate.  The term is used in the media.  But to say "it's used in the media" misleading, because it causes an association between usage and the media.  It was born of, and is mostly used by, the far-right blogosphere and talk radio.  More to the point, when it's used in the media, outside of the far right, it's rarely used without quotes.  So again, without further context, "used in the media" is misleading.  So the claim that it's "obviously true" is silly.  Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also ask you to reconsider the general contention you raise in the same section. You appear to be justifying your edits to the lead on the basis of a lack of citations in the lead, where you deleted the relevant citations yourself. It's 5:30am my time and I'm going to go to sleep, because it's 5:30am my time (logic!). I haven't read your comment yet but I'll get to it tomorrow. Sleep well, or get up on the right side of the bed, or whatever. XOXOXX, etc.--Heyitspeter (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heyitspeter, you seem to be getting a bit mixed up with a couple of issues. Firstly, the lead should be a summary of fully sourced statements in the body of the article, and it's a common but not universal practice to have no inline citations in the lead, confining the citations to the body text. In cases like this, that can look cleaner and have the advantage of avoiding confusion. Secondly, a whole lot of citations to references that use the term is not a source for saying that the term is commonly used, as it's original research drawing a conclusion from the juxtaposition of primary sources. We really need a secondary source that makes that analysis for us, hope that the sources now being discussed help with that. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're misreading my complaint. I found fault with Guetarrda's statement that it is not obviously true that this affair is "also known as 'Climategate'". He/she seems to have been talking about the clause, "used in the media," which was not under discussion. Even in this case, it feels dishonest to me that someone following the controversy as closely as Guetarrda to claim that it is not used by the media in this way.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That diff is to someone else's edit, not an edit by Guetarrda, and it is by no means evident that the term is regarded as an equal synonym, as implied by "also known as 'Climategate'". Again, you seem to be demanding original research instead of finding a secondary source analysing usage of the term. Not acceptable. . dave souza, talk 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave the diff as context for Guetarrda's statement, which referred back to that comment. I encourage you to view the entire thread in question. I was trying to present the relevant sections here.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Even in this case, it feels dishonest to me that someone following the controversy as closely as Guetarrda to claim that it is not used by the media in this way.

Look - I replied to your initial comment. I addressed the concern you expressed. If you ask a question, the onus is on you to read the response. Accusing me of dishonestly is quite clearly beyond the pale of civility. But what's worse, in my opinion, is the that that you either didn't bother to read my response carefully, or that you have simply chosen to misrepresent it. If you want to make shit up, find another venue. Guettarda (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I'd slept 4 hours the night before and hadn't eaten in 20. I thought you were responding to the "aka Climategate" claim, but it's obvious you meant to be discussing the clause, "used in the media." Given that's true, your comments were reasonable and not at all dishonest. Retracted. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Project
After the current probation on climate change is over, hopefully with a more stable set of climate change articles, perhaps there should be a wikiproject associated with climate change? Currently there are plenty of articles and editors which are associated with the topic, and a more coordinated approach may be better if people can work together a little bit more. Just floating this idea for now. Ignignot (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at it much yet, but you may be looking for this - WikiProject Environment/Climate change. Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. Ignignot (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing both concerns!
in this revision. I don't see what's changed (removing whitespaces, but from where? Thanks anyway. Nsaa (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talking about you
Wanted to let you know that we're talking about you here. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming
Please see reply on my talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
Thanks for your note. I'm glad you're still with us; and we're still with you. Hesperian 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto/what he said. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very much so, fully agree. By the way, hope my rephrasing of the lead to the CRU hack went some way to meeting your concerns, will be glad to discuss any possible improvements. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. And yes, Dave, it's a clear improvement. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A different global warming....
anything to add on comprehensiveness here? --> Talk:Future of the Earth/GA1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

CRU cite
Thanks for finding the good cite (}; I didn't have time at the moment, but wanted to place a reminder so I could look today if no one else found it (and, frankly hoping someone else could look, as I hadn't read the original, so wasn't sure what to look for). I see you sent me a message, but removed it, I assume you got someone else to remove the tag, or figured out that you could do it. -- SPhilbrick  T  14:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Significant enough?
Yeah- there's expansion there, and combined with the necessary straightening pointed out by the GA reviewer, that should be enough. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ian Plimer page needs protection again
Hi, sorry to bother you, but Ian Plimer is becoming a battleground once again. Please protect it for a month or so. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey
As per this and this, I'm probably going through this again. Suggestions? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're in the mood for co-nomming, it's available here! Many thanks! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and it's live! Thanks for the kind words in the nom. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Hey, I just saw your comment on the Everyking RfA and it reminded me that I hadn't replied to your note. You're very welcome, and I was only sorry that words were all I had to offer. It was really nice to see your name on my page again. I hope you're doing okay. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Involvement
Had I been unilaterally deleting a chunk of articles, then I can understand being considered involved. All I've done though was delete a couple that had been prodded, often multi-prodded, and were only deleted after my own search came up empty. Most of my edits to the unreferenced backlog have been the addition of sources, and thus I'm on both sides of the field for that, no bias added in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. I had been clearing the unref'd backlog and adding sources for the past few days, but I guess I should've stopped when I noticed the meltdown going on over at ANI. Not something I want to be dragged into, as I can already tell it's going to be a crazy case. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The irony is quite funny...there I was, a left winger trying to defend an article of a conservative Australian Anne Henderson (i.e. on the opposite side of the political fence...). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Laugh
There's a new case at ArbCom - severe wheel-warring, edit-warring through protection, and blocking of admins by admins, over the proposed PROD solution to BLP.

I can feel ArbCom squirming. This is pretty serious shit. Surely they have to take the case. But how the hell can they sanction anyone for behaviour no worse than what they've just amnestied? Any sanction is going to look arbitrary or even vindictive. Surely they have no option but to take the case, wag their fingers, and say "naughty boys". Thus ArbCom render themselves impotent and irrelevant at the very moment that they seize power.

Or maybe not. Maybe they issue severe sanctions and reveal to everyone just how biased and/or arbitrary (I can't figure out which) their judgment is.

Either way, it is delicious. Pass me the popcorn.

(I made a gloating statement on the case along these lines, but then decided they might not like being trolled very much, and they certainly can't be trusted to react rationally, so I (only just) had the good sense not to save it. Instead I am sharing it with you.)

Hesperian 12:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. If it helps (What statement is that?). Hesperian 01:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from Cooktown, Australia
Thanks for your kind note a while back. I hope things are happier for you this year and, indeed, may the decade be a great one for us all! All my very best wishes, John Hill (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh
...I guess I never thought of disambigs as real "lists" in the sense of lists, even though they're kind of a list. Speaking of what I consider to be real lists, I have a complete redesign of the List of Schools in Trinidad and Tobago in mind ... a sortable table by city/island/schooboard, etc. Good or bad idea? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar
Can you tone it down just a bit? Specific examples of bias supportable by diffs are helpful, general characterizations such as "anti science" not so much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When I commented on his disruption over the mass deletion a few weeks ago, his reply was to attack the ID cabal and the AGW cabal. Either it's anti-science activism, or it's a determination to carry his disputes wherever he sees the opportunity to make mischief.  Guettarda (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I heard what I said. There's no evidence it's anti-science.  Probably nothing more than politics.  Guettarda (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply
It's sorted now. The page is the same format as all other UFC pages, as I was requesting. Caio was changing it until the card was over, unnecessarily, as it was just counter productive. The problem was over and there was no need for full protection. Semi was sufficient as that stopped vandals, but there is still info that needs to be added to the page and that's not possible now. Paralympiakos (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aeroflot destinations
Thank you for protecting this page; I was going to request it anyway. User Dimitree's addition of a destination is unsourced, that's what led to the edit war in the first place. Well, actually the source given was "Aeroflot's Planning Department told me" - which is not acceptable under Wikipedia editing guidelines nor under the Aviation project's rules. FYI, I did try to explain that three times, Destinations (again) here. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for paying attention to this new editorial war launched by this User:Jasepl. He (it?) was already defeated by me and other editors in his evidently stupid and asinine obstinacy that some Asian countries (Azerbaijan and Georgia) are in Europe. Inspite the fact that these countires were always Asian (physically, geographically, culturally, mentally etc), he (it) considered them European from the political point of view. I do wonder why here, in Wikiland, double standards are used? Bcoz it is English speaking space - proection of English speaking (US and UK) world? Nothing personal, --Dimitree (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's input from another established user. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Aeroflot official code-share partners by Jasepl

 * Jasepl has deleted official code-share partners of Aeroflot (indicated on its web-site - link available), without any VALID source just saying: "Aeroflot do NOT codeshare with..." . I've kindly asked him (here and here ) to explain why he has done it. Also, I've reported it here . I'm sure we have to stop him of reverting without VALID sources. --Dimitree (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AN3
Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented there, although I dunno if it will help resolve the issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you aren't suggesting I love a good scrap? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jones
Again, instead of trying to change it to a form that you agreed with, you just reverted. Why? Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm...let's see...you're asking me why I removed your insertion of a copyvio? Aren't you familiar with Copyright violations?  There's this bit at the top.


 * Since you did the first, I did the second. That's the way we do things around here.  When you misrepresent sources, and use them to support a BLP violation, I removed the offending text.  You then re-added the section, without the worst of the BLP vio, but you continued to misrepresent the source.  Misrepresenting sources is an unacceptable level of dishonesty.  When I once again removed the problematic text, you lifted copyright material, verbatim, from a source that was not available online.  Now I have no idea why you chose an offline source, but it does make it look like you did that to avoid scrutiny.
 * There are lots of authors here who don't understand that they can't lift text from another source and pass it off as their own. There are even more who don't realise that a close paraphrase does not avoid that problem.  I would hope that you are not one of those authors.  But your edits suggest that someone needs to carefully scrutinise your contributions, to see if you've made a habit of misrepresenting sources and stealing text from offline sources.  Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I didn't see this until just now when I asked about your outing accusation below. You're remarks are getting a little personal, but you didn't really address my question, which was, if you think that it was a copyvio, why didn't you just change the wording to fit what you felt would be acceptable?  Wouldn't that have been more helpful? Cla68 (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You violate copyright, and all you have to say for yourself is "why didn't I clean up after you"? Great attitude.  You expect other editors to spend their time cleaning up after your copyvios?  For future reference, the correct reply is "thank you", not "you didn't put enough effort into fixing my mistakes".  Cleaning up after you is so much more important than getting my work done.  Oh, but wait....I did clean up after you.  Just not in a manner than was in depth enough for your liking.  Guettarda (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes me wonder - if someone found that you had uploaded a copyright image and they had deleted it from an article, would you also pester them about why they had simply deleted it and not spent their time tracking down a free equivalent? Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Outing accusation
I think you've been warned once or twice before about accusing me of violating WP:OUT. Is this what I think it is? Cla68 (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been warned for what? You must have me mixed up with someone else.  Anyway, nice consistency.  Every time someone points out your misdeeds, you attack.  And no, I'm not accusing you of violating policy.  Merely on your use of threats off-wiki, apparently to influence behaviour on-wiki.  Guettarda (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, no reason for us to argue about that here. ArbCom has addressed this before.  Since you don't feel that it has been settled, I can ask them to address it again.  I'll notify you when I've posted my request, unless you post your request first. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yes, the arbcomm addressed this. And found that you did what I said you did, but didn't feel they should act upon your actions. Guettarda (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is, please give your side. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there some policy that forbids the mention of past findings of fact? Or are you just (continuing to) engage in attacks when someone points out your misdeeds?  Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For that matter, as far as I can tell, I'm free to say "the arbcomm got in wrong when they didn't ban you for your threats", without having to re-litigate the whole case. Guettarda (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

True but
True but unlikey to get the response you want. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Aeroflot official code-share partners by Jasepl

 * May I ask you once again to pay atttention to a new revert of Aeroflot page maiden by Jasepl. He has deleted again official code-share partners of Aeroflot (indicated on its web-site - link available), without any VALID source. I've kindly asked him already THRICE, ,  to provide a VALID source. No reply. Also, I've reported it here . I'm sure we have to stop him of reverting without VALID sources. --Dimitree (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PS - I know that we don't usually see eye to eye on various topics but hopefully we can come together on this. ChrisO, Hipocrite, and I started working on a joint proposal and have been working to gather support for it ever since.  Please take a few minutes to give this proposal your full consideration and in the spirit of finding a compromise position both sides can live with.  Thanks.  --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy
Please review Wikipedia's article on the Scientific method in particular the following sections

 

--74.248.39.141 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to be more specific. If this is related to to my edit to the Hockey stick article, please see Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy  Guettarda (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones wikipedia
Somebody added some inane crap to the article and I can't figure out how to revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.159.92 (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bananaphone conspiracy (continued)
No worries. After his conspicuous abuse of numbers in his smear piece on William Connelley just before Christmas, it's been obvious that Lawrence Solomon is not above misinterpreting, misusing, and misunderstanding data to lend gloss to his pet conspiracy theories. My curiosity was piqued by the claims, so I did a few tests &mdash; and I couldn't resist reporting my results. I also found this site (using Google) which does side-by-side comparisons of Bing and Google results; it's good for a few minutes of amusement. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool site. Makes me think I want to stick to Google.  Bing is a bit more woo-friendly.  Guettarda (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What, doesn't everyone use Dogpile ??? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name
Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting
Hey Guettarda. You appear to have made contradictory votes here - Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change - in favor of rejecting a name change and accepting a name change, respectively. I expect this was due to second thoughts about one of the votes. Would you mind removing one to make it clear which you currently support? Also, as Oren0 asked that editors not propose alternate names for the purposes of this vote, if you remove that one, please remove the section header as well. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a vote, it's a discussion. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ? Then please remove all your votes? Haha.-Heyitspeter (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussions involve multiple options. Up or down choices are votes.  This is an RFC, not an RM, and multiple options are normal, because it's a discussion.  Also the positions should be discussed.  Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it formal move requests are optional and are usually initiated where the page is protected and consensus has already been reached. I'm not really clear on what you're getting at here, but tl;dr: A vote is occuring to determine consensus. You voted in two contradictory ways. Could you please remove one of them to eliminate this contradiction, as per WP:The Law of non-contradiction?--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Roystonea regis
Just seen your message, unfortunately it just missed me before I left for Dominica and St Lucia... (sigh). I'll pick it up again in the next couple of days  Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  13:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I noticed you hadn't edited in a while, and I was wondering what was up.  I'm glad it was a happy excuse.  Sure it was a great trip.  Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of canvassing
Geez, I'm off Wikipedia for two days and I come back to find you accusing me of inappropriate canvassing in a ton of places. What I did was to neutrally notify everyone who had responded to the RfC and post on the article talk page. This is well within the norm on Wikipedia. Per WP:CANVASS, canvassing is OK in some instances, "For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". These constant accusations are unfounded and should be retracted. Additionally, I never said that the purpose of the RfC section wasn't a move, quite the contrary in fact, as I said "I'm trying to distill the discussion into the two most common likely options so that we can see where consensus lies. That's the point of this section." Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and if we get a representative consensus to move the article in an RfC the article moves. WP:RM is not needed. Oren0 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * These constant accusations are unfounded and should be retracted - no, they're no unfounded. They're supported by your quote from WP:CANVASS.  You can't disproportionately invite editors who support your position, and ignore those who don't.  And when someone points out your policy violations, the correct response isn't to demand a retraction.  That shows a disturbing unwillingness to abide by what we consider to be acceptable behaviour.  Guettarda (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, you're wrong. I'm not sure why you're acting like this, but I've noticed that you seem to be a little unhappy about the impending name change for the Climategate article.  If you're taking things a little too seriously, perhaps you might consider taking a break from that article for awhile?  Oren0, just ignore the talk about canvassing, as it is needlessly distracting, and keep on with what you're doing. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And why, pray tell, do you think I'm wrong? Oren0's very quote shows that he engaged in inappropriate canvassing.  Rather than notifying "editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion", he chose to ignore a large number of the most active editors who, it so happens, appear to disagree with him on the article.  Which is what the policy calls disruptive.  And Cla68, it's very irresponsible of you to encourage editors to continue to engage in behaviour that is described, by the very guideline he's quoting, as disruption.  That's especially true on articles that are subject to probation.  Guettarda (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, don't make empty accusations, that could be seen as bullying. If you think someone is violating policy, take it to ANI.  Otherwise, please don't make such accusations, but instead, strive for cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made no empty accusations. And I see no urgent problems that need to be dealt with via ANI.  These things can I'm sure Oren0 is sensible enough to abide by policy in the future.  As for "bullying"...that's just funny.  As if I even had the sort of political pull or off-wiki organisation it would take to bully anyone.  Guettarda (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore anybody. I did the only neutral thing I could do, which was to notify all editors who had already contributed to the RfC.  All of them, on both sides.  This is an objective criterion and my message was neutral.  I did not intend to try to sort through the hundreds of editors who had edited the underlying page, so instead I posted on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident as well.  If you have a problem with my conduct, I really encourage you to take it up at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.  If someone else doesn't do so, I do intend to notify the RfC contributors that their replies are likely to be ignored and that the discussion has been moved so they can participate again.  It is absurd to think that one can subvert consensus by just moving a discussion and then attempting to discount the original discussion. Oren0 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.
- Zhang He (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change probation
Hey Guettarda. I've filed a request concerning your allegations of a WP:CANVASS violation here.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your diffs should be different diffs. Can't reuse the same diff more than once in a single set of diffs.  Guettarda (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I should be grateful if you would supply diffs to support your claims of a violation of WP:CANVASS at the Probation Enforcement page, as above, and would strongly suggest that you do not repeat such claims in the absence of such diffs on any other page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs to support that the notification was not a representative sample of the involved editors? Diffs that show edits not made?  Some kind of Jedi trick?  :) Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to bring this matter to a conclusion. Would you be prepared to accept an admonishment that raising claims of inappropriate behaviour, per WP:CANVAS (which is disputed by the parties concerned), at various places without proceeding to dispute resolution, allowing the accusation to remain undetermined and the accused feeling without recourse except repeated denials, is itself inappropriate? Would you also be agreeable to confirming that you will only raise the issue further should it form part of a dispute resolution process? My intent is simply to stop this, what I will term a "distraction" in the absence of formal proceedings. I am not asking you to retract the claims already made, or apologise for making them (I should be delighted if you did so in respect of the where's rather than the why's - but no requirement), or withdraw from the various pages. I would prefer if you would agree to differ on the matter of WP:CANVASS, and not refer to the matter again in WP space outside of DR pages. If you do accept, then I will close the matter as resolved - with an allowance of a few comments by all concerned parties if that helps, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - had a coincidence of deadlines, coupled with what would have otherwise been a rather busy week.

I would be happy to put an end to this matter. That said, I'd have a hard time proceeding under this premise:
 * Would you be prepared to accept an admonishment that raising claims of inappropriate behaviour...without proceeding to dispute resolution...is itself inappropriate

As I understand dispute resolution, not just in Wikipedia, but also in real life, it's inappropriate to appeal to outsiders without first trying to resolve the issue with the other person. In fact, policy suggest just that. Oren0 took issue with my characterisation of his action. I replied, both here and on the article talk page (since he posted in both places). About 11 hours later I replied to his response, attempting to explain my position more clearly. At what point in this exchange would have had me abandon normal discussion and proceed to formal dispute resolution? Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were to review the section, there is quite a few diffs were you commented that, in your opinion, there was violation of WP:CANVAS - which then formed the basis of your comment. You were asked to present your complaint, but you did not. You were then asked not to make the allegation within your comments, unless you were going to raise matter. That is the point where you should have agreed to resolve the issue of the complaint of violation, and or not to make further reference to it. From the diffs, it appears that you continued to make the allegations without attempting resolution.
 * As far as I am concerned, the matter of the RfC's is moribund as regards your participation - your break from editing resulted in the case going stale. However, I am left with trying to conclude the request. So, are you prepared to accept, as a matter of principle, that when others protest your use of a disputed term that you should not repeat the allegation without first attempting to resolve the issue of using that term? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed my question: "At what point in this exchange would have had me abandon normal discussion and proceed to formal dispute resolution?" I assumed good faith on Oren0's part, and sought to explain to him why notifying only the participants on the RFC was insufficient, since the issue affected the page, not just the RFC. The dispute resolution policy clearly says [a]ssume that an editor is acting in good faith until it's absolutely clear that they're not and [i]t's at that point where you should consider dispute resolution processes that involve third parties.
 * It's convenient to agree to something just to get people to leave you alone. But from what you say, I gather that from your perspective this wasn't just a grey area, while to me it still seemed reasonable to assume that Oren0 was acting in good faith. If we're not on the same page, we're going to talk past each other. Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We are talking past each other. I am going to close this matter here and at the enforcement page by warning you not to continue making a specific allegation outside of dispute resolution, when that allegation is refuted. Continuing the discussion at your or the other party's talkpage, or at a neutral venue, is appropriate - continuing to infer those violations elsewhere, unless the matter is settled, is not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't get this. All I am asking for is a simple clarification. Why is that too much to ask?
 * As for warning you not to continue making a specific allegation outside of dispute resolution, when that allegation is refuted - that would appear to be an entirely specious warning, since my allegation was not refuted. It was, in fact, disputed. Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that would appear to be the obvious problem with LHVU's statement. And obviously, changing it to not to continue making a specific allegation outside of dispute resolution, when that allegation is disputed would make no sense, so it is not clear how LHVU is going to rescue himself. The gallery awaits William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS and global warming
On and off over the past two months I've worked on achieving consensus to explicitly resolve the fuzziness in WP:RS regarding scholarly cites and the role that citation indexes should play. On the 20th I finally did my edit and here it is, 5 days later unchallenged. The Global warming FAQ Q22 no longer has a leg to stand on. Since that page is a snake pit I've already been bitten in several times, I would appreciate your intervention in removing Q22 on 2 grounds:

1. It should never have been put up without consensus which it never had. The very text under discussion explicitly recognizes the lack of consensus by linking to the WP:RS discussion 2. The discussion at WP:RS has gone against the local global warming page community.

Thanks in advance. TMLutas (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Really not sure what you're talking about. Looked through your contribs, and I don't see any edits to GW pages on or around the 20th.  I'm at a loss here.  Guettarda (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested in
I have proposed that Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed be trimmed and merged into the movie's main article. I see that you have contributed to the article and are an active editor, so I would value your input here. Thank you. Seregain (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

25 DYK Creation/Expansion Medal

 * Thanks very much for the award! Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note
Concerning the article Climate change denial,  has opened an enforcement case against me at  Wikipedia:General  sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests  for enforcement. As someone involved with the page, I thought you should be informed. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 06:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth
Viewing statistics for March:


 * talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident
 * Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident

Note how the talk page easily outstrips the article in mid March. Part of this is the Jimbo effect, but note also that although there has been a corresponding increase in editing rates on the talk page, this has been almost exclusively from regular editors of that talk page. --TS 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's Spring Break and I have a cold. What else am I supposed to do but load the page 50x/day? :) Guettarda (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason the phrase "Wikipedians Gone Wild" flits tantalisingly across my mind. --TS 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Armillaria gallica
Hi Guettarda, I tried rewriting the confusing taxonomy section for this article. Please let me know if it needs more work :) Sasata (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked at it several times in the last week (or however long it's been) trying to figure out a way to tweak what was there originally, but I couldn't find a good answer. This should do it though, switching to support. Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly for helping me improve the article. Sasata (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Article renaming discussion notification
You commented earlier on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident concerning a proposal to move the article to a neutral compromise title. A formal move request has now been filed. Please feel free to add your view to the discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Climatechange
I've thrown in the towel. It's a waste of my time. I'll just go savage the articles on the back-end later. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I hear you. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mwaahahaha
See my attempt to get more evolution on the front page - see DYK entry for Oreocallis - the literature actually points out the amazing fact that waratahs and the S. American relatives have been geared to attracting avians since gondwana was joined (hence late cretaceous), and am tempted to go for gold in the DYK. However, I am with v. limited time next few days or so (trés busy) so can't reply much if gets too crazy :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Insidious "evolutionist" plots! Sweet! I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the DYK nom. And try to think of some more ways to get the "e" word on the main page. Figs and fig wasps, perhaps...? Guettarda (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I listened to a radio presentation by Dawkins on his new book the other day. He was ridiculing the Noah's Ark myth (which, apparently, many Americans still believe to be literal truth)—Why did every single penguin waddle off the ark, and turn south, and not a single one north?—Why did all the puffins do the exact opposite?—Why did all the lemurs head off to Madagascar?—Why did all the marsupials trudge off to Australia without a single one stopping off in India or China on the way—Why did so few placentals make the same trip? I don't usually bother with pop science, but this really drove home just how compelling the biogeographic evidence is. Hesperian 03:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your questions would be answered if you were reading Conservapedia:
 * After the Flood, these kangaroos, bred from the Ark passengers, migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[6] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the super-continent of Pangea broke apart.[7].
 * If you accept the "creation science" view that there was only one penguin "kind" on the ark, then the pair (or seven) had to either pick north or south (maybe they drew lots with the auks), and go with it. That's the remarkable thing about the "evolution in kinds" idea - on one hand, it doubts normal evolutionary processes, over millions of years, as insufficient to observed diversity, and on the other, they predict rates of evolution over the last few thousand years (post-Flood) which dwarf the rates they scoff at. Guettarda (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh god. Hesperian 04:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotta love a double entendre. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was reading around this, and the predicting-rates-of-evolution-that-dwarf-the-rates-they-scoff-at is not in my opinion as bad as the explaining-the-lack-of-fossil-marsupials-left-behind-during-the-long-trek-to-Australia-using-arguments-about-the-scantiness-of-the-fossil-record-that-they-scoff-at-when-they-are-demanding-more-transitional-fossils. Hesperian 01:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I missed out on some fun :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The rates of continental drift they'd need to have Pangea 4000 years ago would also be pretty staggering. Ucucha 14:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whaddya mean? Earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and Mexico are proof that if some divine being wanted to, xe could divide the planet into continents in a few moments! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But still...if Pangaea broke up within a few years after the Flood...Abraham didn't talk about massive climate change caused by high-speed continental drift, so it must have been before his time...would the Flood-created Grand Canyon have time to solidify into rock in time? I mean, these earthquakes had to come after all the Flood-created geomorphology had set, not so? Otherwise there'd be lots of evidence of it. Hmmm...need to consult a geologist. I'll ping User:Vsmith... Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pangea used to be Atlantis. It rose to the surface, appears as though the flood waters were receding LOL ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously Abe was a skeptic in denial of climate change. And if you can flood the world in 40 days n nights, instant petrification would be a snap ... along with rapid petroleum "cooking" to keep big oil in your corner. Plus keep faith in the needed rate of geologic processes and don't get distracted by pseudoscience. Earthquakes are much more devastating in areas of unconsolidated sediments.
 * Wait, what was the question ... its so hard to focus with Spring a-poppin' outside. Vsmith (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) and now Atlantis .... gotta re-evaluate the whole scheme:) Vsmith (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just went back to my talk and looked at your question. All mush. Vsmith (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA1
Hi Guettarda, I'm sorry if I've trod on your toes, but I did not like the way the Nominator was influencing this review by actively canvasing editors to add reviews to the GA1 page. I've raise it here: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and subsequently I've failed the nomination. The nominator hs been informed, also the Reviwer and some of the reviewers. Pyrotec (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you did what you did, and fully support it. If I had thought of it, I would have raised the issue there myself. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now accepted that it was a basic error on my part. Jprw (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to critically analyse the above book. Although I don't agree with all your comments, you provided more than any other editor a framework for taking the article forward, and this looks very useful. Best wishes, Jprw (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Objections to evolution
You put it far better than I did. I created another Peer review to get things done, I hope you'll be able to lend more good ideas and sound judgments to the process. With appreciation, RoyBoy 05:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Block of Koolies112
Hey Guettarda, glad you blocked user:Koolies112. It was obvious to me it was a vandalism only account but since the editor didn't violate a fourth warning I wasn't sure how to proceed. Should I have brought it to AVI anyway? Or maybe ANI? Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? Four warnings are required these days? If it's clearly a vandalism-only account, I'd say make a report at AIV. Or just find someone with admin tools who isn't a total nut :) Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Thanks! SQGibbon (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines RfAr 2
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize you haven't been involved in dealing with Alastair for quite some time, so I would be happy to remove you from the list of parties if you prefer. I only included you since you had been personally attacked by Alastair since his previous ArbCom. Kaldari (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my reason for not wanting to be involved has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with what happened to him. I don't know if I belong there or not, but I can't bring myself to contribute. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly wish there was another option, but unfortunately, it seems that this is the only way to effectively address the problem. Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, thanks for your kindness, but please don't be afraid to come and say whatever you want to. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, it's inevitable that we all face that. But this is my chance to finally stop one person from repeatedly trying to enforce my silence. I hope this RfA will end Kaldari's censorship and hounding. I wish there was another option, but I want ArbCom to help him see that personal attacks and repeated appeals to process simply to censor points of view he doesn't like are not just aggressive, they're just outside clear policy boundaries.
 * I will be inviting expert witnesses to help ArbCom evaluate this case with due diligence, unlike the last one. Kaldari is going to need all the friends he can get. I think he's behaved very badly, and I think there's a good chance there will be a number of people who'll see that.
 * What would probably be most helpful is people who come to be peacemakers. The process is supposed to end disputes, not to sanction people. I'll defend Kaldari against sanctions, but the more people speaking peace the better. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You just made me spew coffee
Funniest edit summary i have ever seen mate, good one :-) mark nutley (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 01:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion
"in universe" issues have still not been resolved Can you explain what this means on the article talk page please? mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ehrman
I wouldn't be surprised if he was annoyed! There certainly is a major strand of CNT that is the worst kind of pseudoscience. Have you ever watched one of Acharya (I think that is what she calls herself) videos? Definitely worth a book - some kind of book! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Tools
I was involved in a discussion regarding the Public Domain status of the widely disseminated CRU documents. I introduced a citation from the Times Higher Education, a reliable, neutral and secondary source recording it as such.

Others were engaged in the discussion.

The Discussion regarded a quote referenced for possible inclusion from the author of the articles subject matter.

The discussion was on-topic and relevant - your incredible abuse of your position to censor the discussion, archive and lock the page to prevent me from participating was astounding. Your directly involved, why would you ever do such a transparently manipulative move in direct furtherance of your editorial position? Seriously, have you at last no shame? If one can't even discuss even the predicate basis for consideration, what is left? Why even the pretense of discussion, why not remove the talk page itself? All you've done is constructed a Potemkin village - the facade fools on the surface, but no free discourse exists within the empty shell.99.141.241.135 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. "15:13, 20 April 2010 2over0 blocked 99.141.241.135 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment)". . . The ip apparently has a problem of Battleship Potemkin mentality. . . dave souza, talk 15:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * S/he is right, we don't allow free discourse. As a project to build an encyclopaedia, we provide collaborative space for discussing article development. We also (unfortunately) provide space for the continual and constant discussion of policy. But long before we had this plethora of policies, we have WP:NOT. Here'e the Sept. 24, 2001 version of that page. First item on the list: Discussion forums. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your directly involved - no, that would be "you're directly involved", a contraction of "you are". Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me try this one more time. Talk pages are for discussing changes to articles. It is, as I attempted to explain to you, inappropriate to use talk pages as a general forum to discuss things unrelated to improvement of the article.

Your first post consisted of a long quote from an email, and a "what is he afraid of" type comment. How can that be used to improve the article? The email itself isn't really a reliable source for our purposes. We have no independent verification that it wasn't altered by the people who stole the files. Secondly, at best the email would count as a primary source. Drawing conclusions from it would constitute "original research"; we can't do that. Apart from that, there was no indication how that quote might be used to improve the article. There was nothing in the thread about improving the article. It had no place there.

After I collapsed the thread, you insisted on using the page to argue about whether quoting the email was permissible. Now, there are cases in which it is appropriate to engage in policy discussions on an article talk page - when we're discussing policy as it applies to the article. That was not the case here. No one had proposed using the text of the email in the article. So it was a general policy issue. And, as I told you on your talk page, that was not the place to discuss policy. You chose to ignore that and continued to use the page to discuss policy. So I choose to semi-protect the page briefly, to prevent you from digging yourself into an even deeper hole. Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Subpage
OK, I guess I was confused as there seem to be GA discussions on two different pages, and some duplication here and there. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I guess I didn't know I was contributing to a subpage, but to a section of the talk page. Sorry for the confusion. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Reviews
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations referencing Talk:DeSmogBlog. I thought you might wish to comment. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Complaint against me
Redact this Per this  Thank you mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you have the wrong link in the second diff. Guettarda (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are complaining about "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" Correct? If so it is the correct diff mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I really think you must have the wrong link in your diff. Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the dates please, you have accused me of making a PA when their is an enforcement request against me, you were incorrect mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Now if you had bothered to say that, your original post would not have been incomprehensible. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

whatchimacallit
There's nothing to be gained by dignifying that stuff with a response. Just my opinion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that out. Guettarda (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Goose
You wrote that WMC must be speaking to a "climate sceptic". Probably a Michigander. Lar raised the question, and unfortunately it's meaningless to me. Any clarification will be welcome, dave souza, talk 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Broadly I think that humour playing to your own gallery is a bit unhelpful in the grand scheme of things. Lar did not like being called an old fruit and asked WMC not to. Whatever your view of the sensitivities stirring things up between Lar and WMC with that comment is not going to make things better so please don't --BozMo talk 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that Lar's very sensitive to "snark" from others while appearing to be pretty snarky himself, and while humour to me is a bit of light relief I accept that it often doesn't travel well. Have passed on a request as suggested by Lar, after I'd forgotten that the term was on WMC's talk page. Doubtless a full explanation can be given, but if the discussion ends here I don't have a problem with that. . . dave souza, talk 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that he'd take offense at "Michigander". It's just amazing silliness. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm lost. All I saw was William editing his own request, and Lar pretending to take his comment personally. Lar shouldn't be baiting WMC. That's all. Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I find the best course is to engage Lar as little as possible, in order to avoid the potential for "misunderstandings" like the above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He was trying to pick a fight. Which is unacceptable behaviour. Hence the warning. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

IP edits
O wise one I come seeking advice. I see you've been "carbon dreaming" a bit. I've just noted the ip edits to Susan M. Gaines and my sock radar went off. Take a look at the history there and the edit histories of the two ips and tell me I'm just hallucinating ... is it time to launder footwear? I've little experience along those lines. Vsmith (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not my specialty, but I get the same sense. Note that 90.152... admits to being 130.232.x.x. I think there's enough of a coincidence there to file an SPI. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2
This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
 * Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
 * To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

Unlinking common terms
Hi, Guettarda. I see you asked Colonies Chris about this. I'm unsure about the context of "Amazon", but WWII is almost never useful as a link. In Military History articles, I sometimes leave it linked, but even then we'd prefer to see the link to a more specific location, such as a section of that article or a daughter article.

WP articles tend to be massively overlinked with common terms. You may wish to peruse WP:OVERLINK and, just for fun, this. Tony  (talk)  14:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Delinking
In the course of my other edits, I'm removing low-value links to subjects that most readers will already be familiar with, in line with WP:Linking. (I didn't intend to remove any links to Amazon, however - I was disambiguating links to it - which article are you referring to?) Colonies Chris (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The original was linked as Amazon parrot, which I modified to Amazon parrot. This may not be right (I have no expertise in that area), but if it should have been Amazon parrot, the problem was in the original linking, not my change to it.
 * An article that merely mentions World War II really doesn't need a link to it; it's only relevant here to explain how the Berlin Herbarium was destroyed, and any reader with enough education and intellectual curiosity to be reading the article will already know that Germany was one of the parties to WWII. There's no serious prospect that anyone would ever click on that link, so it's just a distraction from the really valuable links. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That bad link had been in the article for two months - why complain about my attempt to fix it now? Why not complain to the person who put it there in the first place? Rather than objecting to my good faith attempt to fix an error which you, a regular editor of the article, hadn't noticed, you might consider thanking me for bringing it to your attention. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at RFAR
I've mentioned your behavior somewhat indirectly but by name in my comments at the Arbcom requests page, here -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla's diffs were nonsense, last I bothered to check. If someone has a problem with my behaviour and brings it here, I'm always happy to listen and, hopefully, figure out better ways of doing things. Which reminds me, I'm still waiting for a reply from Cla. He took issue with the way I dealt with editors misrepresenting sources, but refuses to suggest alternative means of dealing with things.
 * As for Lar, you should look into his history of unprovoked attacks against me, both here and on WR. Nothing I've said about him rises anywhere near his level. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)