User talk:Guettarda/Archive3

Adminship
Thansk for your message. I won't deny that I'm still slightly concerned about becoming an admin at this stage, but I suppose that if I were successful I could always ease my way into things very slowly. I've just left a message for Dbachmann taking him up on his ofer to nominate me. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==82.124.54.4 (talk &middot; contributions) and 82.124.140.225 (talk &middot; contributions)== Yes, it's the same guy. Also 81.255.145.157 (talk &middot; contributions).

Because of its preoccupation with Irismeister's userpage and similar use of language, I have identified this as a sock of the banned user, Irismeister (see User talk:David Gerard for more detail). I am personally adopting a block-on-sight policy to this user since he's had a umber of warnings and is probably a banned user. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maps
Those maps are unbelievably ugly and far below Wikipedia graphical standards. I appreciate the desire for informative and free maps but such an impulse should not let us take things which look like they were drawn in MS Paint. When I get back to my base computer I'll try and recreate some of those maps from scratch so that we don't have to argue about this anymore. Also, I didn't specifically call you "less than half a wit." The line was simply: "Those maps are seizure-inducing ugly and do not look reliable at all. I think anybody with half a wit of sense would agree with that" which was a rhetorical statement not meant to refer to anybody in particular, and certainly not meant as an insult. I might have well just said "anybody with any sense" and it wouldn't have changed the sentiment. I think it is senseless to prefer such ugly maps (blocky, ugly fonts, lack of detail, look like they are from an 8-bit video game) over the CIA maps if given only a choice between the two. Obviously taste is subjective but for some very crass technical reasons at the very least this should be obvious to anyone with the slightest aesthetic sense. At the very worst, I would argue, I think I could be interpretted as insulting your taste in maps. --Fastfission 19:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon up for adminship
Requests_for_adminship/Chamaeleon —Christiaan 20:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support. Helpful Dave 14:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship
Thank you for your vote of confidence in my nomination. I look forward to helping out as an admin. Cheers,  BanyanTree 03:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for supporting my adminship &mdash; I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFA/Ed Poor
(William M. Connolley 23:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Hi, and thanks for your comments in my support. Re Ed Poor: I don't think its necessary to over-weight his comments. He *is* a long term wikipedian but also a known loose cannon (or "capricious" perhaps): see his behaviour over the 172 de-sysopping affair for example. He is a bit like wikipedias lucky rabbits foot: important, but not anyones main source of information...

CFD
You raised some interesting points about "of Foo" vs "from Foo" (very convincingly - I am glad to find another person who believes that sometimes "inclusive ambiguity" in categories is good, even if we do disagree on whether it should be Fooian or "of Foo"!). I think you ought to put a summary of your views in at Naming conventions (country-specific topics)., where a similar sort of debate is going on. Also interesting about the correct adjective for T&T - I am so used to hearing things like "the Trinidad and Tobago government" (mirrored in usage like the "Trinidad and Tobago Police Service" and "Trinidad and Tobago Defense Force") that I thought that "Trinidad and Tobago" had become at least quasi-adjectival. Thanks for pointing that out :) VivaEmilyDavies 20:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) I wish that "UK" worked in the same way! Sometimes you do hear "UK government" but almost always we have to use "British" even though this apparently excludes Northern Ireland - or alternatively it imposes the adjective "British" onto people from Northern Ireland - I am sure you can imagine what certain people think about either possibility! :) And the reverse is "American", for which I wish people would use "U.S." - "American" is overinclusive, since in a very real sense all the member states of the O.A.S. are also American...
 * I do a combination of stub expansion, stubcatting and categorisation (and have started on stubmerging - attempting to preserve encyclopaedic information kept in unexpanded/-able stubs by merging related ones together), all of which leads me onto CFD quite often. I am a big proponent of "multiple categorisation" - categorising things by several different schemes. Somebody is trying to do a DEWEY code categorisation of Wikipedia, which I think is quite exciting! Since that already is one of the main schemes used to "categorise all human knowledge", I think it is a great idea. A lot of categorisors are fixated with categorising everything by nationality! That has advantages, but I don't think it's really the way to go because (1) hopefully it will be irrelevant once "category intersection" arrives and (2) categorising by field of interest is also good. I really stepped into botanists because a row broke out over the "Finnish botanist" question - a zealous categorisor categorised all the botanists by nationality, which several botany article editors disliked because they had found it helpful to have them all in one place (even though it was a huge category and you couldn't see them all at once) - their problem was basically that they wanted to link a plant (from which they extracted the botanical abbreviation of the discoverer - and then use various resources to find his or her real name) to the discoverer, but it's difficult to tell what article name is being used (middle initials or not, disambiguations, alernative spellings). The "catagglomeratisation" of them had been quite useful - to the editors, but probably not to browsers. However, the subcategorisation scheme narrowly survived CFD, at which point a frustrated botanist just emptied all the subcategories anyway! I really stepped in because I thought "imposition of a compromise" was necessary (there was far too much wikiaggro and not enough wikilove)- so I not only recategorised them by nationality, but for each one looked up the botanical abbreviation and made a list of botanists by abbreviation. That seemed to answer the problems of all sides. Since the resource that listed abbreviation also listed speciality I thought I would "datamine" while I was going about it... in the worst case the speciality categories will be replaced by lists, which will be a bit more intensive on the upkeep but will still do the job of connecting and organising information. VivaEmilyDavies 21:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon RFA
It should be archived in "Candacies Not Promoted," as "rejected" since he has withdrawn his acceptance. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming Newbies
You are working too hard :)

try using: which does:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Cat chi? 04:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Even better, use . It will expand to the same, but avoids people responding within the template. :) BTW, sorry for scooping you. Mgm|(talk) 07:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Solana
Fair point, I removed your comment too, though I left the same note at Javier Solana Antichrist allegations where it could be considered appropriate, though you have my permission to remove it from there if you like. It was actually a joke Hajor sent me, but you do have a point as minimising vandalism at Javier Solana is a serious business, --SqueakBox 16:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate. I can't get it to work properly on my User page, not quite sure, can you have a go at fixing it? on my user page if you have the time, as it is good to say why I have received it, --SqueakBox 17:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Warszewiczia
The common names have been retrieved from :, WORLD DICTIONARY OF TREES, an authoritative website from the University of Laval, Quebec, Canada, that I use quite often. But common names can, as you know, vary widely.

As to the independence day of T & T, numerous websites such as mention this fact. But I admit, my wording was rather poorly chosen. I invite you to rephrase the sentence.

As to genus itself, there is so little to be found regarding botanical description. I couldn't find even one scientific description of this genus. Therefore, I didn't add a Reference link. Maybe you can do better, because the article is in a rather poor state. There is even no image. If you have any contacts in T & T, a nice photo is most welcome. JoJan 09:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank You Guettarda
I've been meaning to expressly thank you for all your tips and comments that you've been giving me along the way. I'm still fairly new to the Wiki community but I must say you've been one person that comes to mind of making me feel really feel welcome! I also appreaciate your giving me the heads up on issues of importaince to the Caribbean diaspora.

I wasn't quite as knowledgable as I would have liked in order to voice an opinion on the Rastafari issue, I was of the idea I probably wouldn't be able to back-up any points I had without some real background knowledge. But anyway, I just wanted to take a moment just to say thank you. =) CaribDigita 17:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the length of this.
 * I appreciate the heads-up you gave me about the "CARICOM" category and the correct way to add a catagory. The funny thing is, I kept thinking to myself is it being deleted already? =) I thought I was being drawn into some 'wikipedia-bachannal' already. :-)
 * I completely agree with your idea about adding CARICOM within some other categories to keep it realivent. In all serious though, part of the reason I wanted to add the CARICOM catagory is because, I'm seeing this 'revert-war' going-on over the CARICOM templates- I touched on that before, and voiced an opinion about, but personally I don't want the CARICOM info. to get trampled in this mess while these persons argue and the last thing I want to do-, and I hope you don't raise your blood pressure up either is to try to get caught in this mess.  [I saw your wiki-stress meter come down a bit in the last couple of days.] :-)  I'm going to let it go- for now and change it- to the correct info down the road' after one of their egos bust/ or they give-up. =) There's not much changing at the moment in CARICOM, the Single Market and Economy etc. will take place later on this year and then hopefully my self or another person may find a way to add it to all countries as 'requested' by "Simon P" so he'll stop deleting the template. And I think I may have to clean up the CARICOM article a bit? I mean I have all the info about the Passport, the CSME, The Treaty, Free trade agreements et al. All bunched up together which I suspect it could perhaps, maybe be filed away into neater compartments? What do you think?
 * As far as other institutions I was also thinking to file under the "CARICOM" catagory things like "Caribbean Court of Justice" (since I'm hearing the inauguration is coming up soooon.), Also the "Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery" (CRNM) -, The CARICOM Fisheries unit etc.
 * U know... I've actually been compiling Caribbean institutions on my personal site site for a while... http://www.geocities.com/Carib_Gov/ mainly because their URLs changed soo frequently. Wikipedia gives me an easier way to keep this all up to date now as a replacement.

P.S. if you ever need to contact me U can do so at @ Steelpan@Gmail.com CaribDigita 21:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate what you've said. You seem like one of the good ones, cheers,

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theobroma/Sterculiaceae/Malvaceae
I moved Theobroma into the Malvaceae from Sterculiaceae because the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group has decided that all Sterculiaceae should be placed in Malvaceae (see ). By no means am I a botanist, however. I will not be offended if you have a better idea :) Gwimpey 02:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to concur with Gwimpey - the move was done by the APG. More details here: APG orders & families list - MPF 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help on GW?
(William M. Connolley 09:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Hi. JonGwynne seems to be back causing more pointless trouble on greenhouse gas, greenhouse effect, Global warming controversy, etc - could you look in on occaision to help keep the pages sane?

RfCs
I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure. The discussions on the Talk page have only served to confuse me, wuth references to there no loner being a need for two users, for example, and no agreement on whether pages should be moved or deleted. The whole thing seems to be in a bit of a shambles at the moment. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Haider regarding Pashtun
I don't even understand why they have blocked the main page of Pashtuns while every body has the right to add his tribe in the Tribes list, they are just playing with list of tribes according to their own liking and disliking even I have already tried to rectify the matter in the Pashtun talk page still working with that through some authentic and logical references, you can join me at the Pashtun discussion page just to listen what I am trying to say and that would be helpful for me atleast solve that disputed matter ! Regarding your questions I will send you some useful information about Pashtuns of Bhopal. This is all about as a Pashto proverb says "che ta sok mane - ta ba ham sok na mani.(If you won't respect any one - what you would expect in return)..

Thanks

Haider 15:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

!Geuttarda, you are most welcome and let me appreciate you aswell for your moral support. Thanks Haider 15:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago stuff
You can see categories in preview just under the editing field. That category should be "Trinidad and Tobago politicians" and it should be under categories "Trinidad and Tobago people" and "Politicians of North American nations". I am creating bunch of these cats. For example I created most of the African politicians categories and I am preparing for creating politicians cats about politicians of Oceanic nations. But I left category "Trinidad and Tobago politicians" for you, create it yourself. When you will made about 4000 edits I'll nominate you for an admin. Wikipedia needs users like you. I am planning my candidacy for June-July this year. -- Darwinek 17:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salam, my friend

 * The road to improving my internet etiquette is a gradual progression=) -- I forgot to mention why I created that illusion. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and now even American high school kids as well were motivated, (if not then at least given fuel) to exterminate vast numbers of their own people thanks to evolutionary philosophy.  If you think I'm wrong, go read Mein Kampf, or ask one of the kids at Columbine high school what Dylan's shirt said on the front of it or what belief was prevalent in his family when he carried out his slaughter in 1999.  I'm sure you can understand how much patience I am exhibiting here.  It is only the beliefs which drive people to do evil things that I am targeting -- not the people themselves.  Salva31 11:43, Apr 14 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the insight. It really makes sense.  I am curious -- and bear with me, for the sake of science -- what do you really believe in, Guettarda?  What drives you through your life?   This is not a discussion website, I know, but it's a simple question that still has a relevant entity.  If I am overstepping my bounds, please let me know.Salva31


 * Well, those are all very noble things to live for, and again, I appreciate your patience. My guess was not far from the truth!  Now, education is the most powerful thing on God's green earth.  (I say this because you seem so far to be rich with it.)  What people are taught can both create and destroy nations.  All that I am trying to do is to help you understand why every article possible, especially the featured articles, must not fall short of NPOV.  What someone believes is reflected by how they act.  The person(s) responsible for writing the article in question clearly have more discrete intentions other than just presenting their theory.  Do not take me for a mongerer or a hater of science, because I am neither.  I just want justice.  I want peace.  I want a better world.  I want all those things just as much as you do.  The good news is that with wikipedia, both you and I have the power to change them.
 * Something is very wrong in our educational infrastructure when children are bringing guns to school to shoot their classmates. We need to start telling, or at least presenting the idea that human beings are more than simply 'animals.'  It is counterproductive to single out one theory as being the only scientific one.
 * Last point: Either there is a God or there isn't -- however, BOTH possiblities are frightening. If there is a God, then there is a purpose to life, as well as an afterlife.  If there isn't a God, then we are hurtling through space at a hundred thousand mph and no one is in charge.  My friend, taking God out of the picture does not remove the religious emphasis on something, nor does it add scientific emphasis.  Now answer me this -- which idea (is a God/no God) feels more comfortable to you?  Which idea do you think is more productive?  And you're probably bored by now because a got carried away! =)

Salva31

Global Warming
I'm not sure why you're so completely terrified. In your posts here and here, you express a deep rooted emotional fear, and utter disbelief that intelligent reasoning people could interpret evidence differently than you. First, let me tell you I'm not at all right wing, and I laugh every time you suggest that. I firmly accept evolution, and I'm a well-educated scientist, trained in logic, reasoning, and the analysis of scientific evidence. And part of that training instructs me to disregard feelings, beliefs, or preconceptions, and to just look at what's there. There are two major components to global warming theory. The first is a set of temperature measurements. These measurements show a very small warming, which is largest if you either ignore the effects of urban heat, or analyze urban heat away with statistical analysis which ignores confounding variables. The second is a set of computer simulations using greatly simplified models of the Earth's climate, which are able to at best produce about a fourth degree fit to the temperature data over the last century, but do so by including far more than four parameters. Simulations with that degree of tuning with that only that degree of correspondence to experimental observations are insufficient for making any meaningful predictions. So given the extents of all good reasoning, I don't really see much of a case having been made for any significant warming. And I take this position from a thoughtful concerned position, as someone who IS concerned about the future of the planet. I just see no meaningful evidence having been presented that the sky is falling. I think much of the concern comes from too much confidence being placed in simulations. In other fields, simulations of that quality would not be accepted as confidently as they are in climatology (and instead would simply be considered pointers for further research and observation), so I really don't find the field adhering to the same standards that the rest of science adheres to. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 01:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the posts I referenced above, you said that you were "shaking, horrified" and made reference to feeling "very threatened". Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the underlying core of your response is more emotional than rational? Your reaction indicates a deep emotional connection to environmental issues. (You may find the article on cognitive dissonance interesting.) You literally express a terrified fear of any questioning of the conclusions of global warming. It's hard, if not impossible, to retain scientific objectivity if you are more afraid of one conclusion than the other. I think you might be well served by considering the basis for these fears, and considering how they have guided your decision making. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 01:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding Ed Poor, his discussions on talk:evolution seem to only center around requesting that creation science be given a neutral description, rather than being dismissed as "wrong". And frankly, he's right.  It doesn't matter how clearly we know from experience that creation science is wrong, it still requires a neutral description here, as that's Wikipedia policy.  This policy exists for good reason, and it makes for a much higher quality encyclopedia in the end.  Evolution is strongly supported by the evidence, and believed by some 99+% of biologists, so we simply state that, and that's good enough.  We don't need to say that creation science is "wrong".     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You have made what I consider to be two fundamental errors. The first seems to be the assumption that all assessments of scientists are correct.  This is a definitively incorrect assumption, since history has shown us that science does a spectacular job of being wrong at places, and convincing the masses that it's right even though we find out later that it was wrong.  You can always spot the people with a religious belief in science, because they are the ones who think conclusions of science were wrong in the past, but that no conclusions of science are wrong in the present.  This, of course, is never going to be true.  Science only gives us a good means of finding truth, and getting closer to truth.  It doesn't give us a guarantee of it.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The second fundamental error, is that you think the opinions of scientists are unbiased. This is definitively wrong.  I was discussing religion with another scientist the other day, and she said, literally, that belief in God is bad because it's not a good experiment.  Scientists view the world through a thick lense of their own perspectives and methodologies just as everyone else does.  Their preconceptions affect their views as deeply as non-scientists, because before they are scientists, they are also people.  In the case of the environmental sciences, the people who go into these fields do so because they have a passionate interest in protecting the environment.  As a result, scientists working in the environmental sciences approach their work through a lense of the environment being in danger and they being its savior.  This becomes a preconception for them, rather than a conclusion, and their work is viewed through this lense.  There was a time in the 20th century when Eugenicists, as a group of scientists, used science to "prove" that some races or groups were superior to other races or groups.  They did lots of studies, and came to lots of conclusions about them.  It just turns out in the end that their analyses and experimental designs were so strongly affected by their biases, that their conclusions are now considered incorrect.  Every group of scientists has these biases to their POV, and it would be wrong to dismiss them for political reasons, as you have done, by saying that only right wing republicans would question scientific conclusions.  In reality, anyone interested in truth will question scientific conclusions.  Only those interested in blind obedience, or confirming their own preconceived beliefs, will leave conclusions unquestioned.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I know U.S. politics is loaded with idiots who have more interest in confirming their own beliefs than finding truth. You've simply made the mistake of thinking this only occurs to one side of the political spectrum, when in reality it is occurring uniformly across the political spectrum.  Perhaps you could try to examine the environmentalist movement in the same way that you examine the creation science movement.  Both contain preconceptions and biases, and both attempt to use science to support the views held beforehand by those researchers.  So yes, the environmentalist POV is definitely a POV.  That doesn't say it's wrong, and that doesn't say it's right.  But it is a POV.  It doesn't become objective truth just because they do studies, any more than eugenics, the ether, global cooling, etc.       &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any logical flaw in saying that people working in a scientific field are affected by the motivations that draw them to that field. Environmental science is not the same thing as environmentalism, but in the overwhelming majority, environmental science is conducted by environmentalists, and so there is a definite bias created here. It would be a large mistake to assume that scientists somehow impartially conduct their business according to a perfect impartial application of the scientific method with no regard for their beliefs. Environmentalists doing environmental science will reflect the beliefs and perspectives of environmentalists into their conclusions. This itself does not say they are wrong, but it DOES say that they have a POV. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 03:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that none of this says that environmental scientists are unethical. It's not unethical to have beliefs and a perspective, it's just human nature. For the most part none of that is malicious, it just ranges from simple confirmation bias, to, in the extreme cases, blind devotion. But most commonly, just confirmation bias. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 03:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's an exercise for you to consider. Read the first paragraph of confirmation bias, and note the sentence on the scientific method. Then answer the question, "How can global warming be falsified in a manner which most environmental scientists would accept?" If you can't easily answer it, then it's an indicator that the scientific method is being misused. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 03:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hubert Julian
Hi, I reverted to listing his birthplace as "Trinidad" as from what I've read that was the island he was born on, before the formation of the nation of Trinidad and Tobago. I thought it was more specific. If you think listing his birthplace differently would be better, please say why on Talk:Hubert Julian. Thanks, best wishes, -- Infrogmation 22:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)