User talk:Guettarda/Archive7

Fauna of Australia
I saw your comments, thanks. I've been putting any chnages off unitl I look up freshwater fish taxonomy, and til I can think of a better way to describe the origins of the fauna section, I'll work it out when I least expect it :) If you have more criticisms, please tear it up, getting it really ready before it goes on FAC, saves from a whole lot of scurrying around. --nixie 01:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Mervyn M. Dymally
Hi Guettarda, I moved Mervyn Dymally to Mervyn M. Dymally, as it was the most common name for him. Dymally's own web site, the State Assembly site, and the Lieutenant Governor's web site all referred to him as Mervyn M. Dymally. Also, at the time, more articles pointed to Mervyn M. Dymally than to Mervyn Dymally (I have since changed many of the links to Mervyn M. Dymally to minimize the use of redirects). Thanks, GoCardinal 03:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not bringing this to the talk page first. Thanks for the tip, and I'll make sure to do that in the future. GoCardinal 06:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Effect" and "affect"
Jeeze. What a pain. (People and their egos. Me and my principle. :p)  This guy "HugoRabson" says it's not a big deal -- but then goes on and on and on ad nauseam -- and incorrectly, and for several reverts -- about how he's right and I'm wrong. And then when he realizes he's wrong, he sayys it should be changed, anyway. Kinda funny, though, that the biggest dispute regarding an article on a subject as potentially fractious as blackface comes down to the use of "effect" and "affect." Wikipedia is absolutely insane. And we're still here. What does that make us? (Don't answer that.) deeceevoice 09:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

prove a negative
You are asking for a near impossible... proof that someone 'lurking in the shadows', is not there. This proof you are asking for, is little one can depend upon. The west is in Iraq, because Bush demanded that Hussein prove he did not have something, (prove a negative, the west demanded). The same line of reasoning being used to place a topic (with reference) in a false category. Done, in the absence of proof that something is false. You may not wish to have the scowl of fellow wikipedians should you choose to unlock a page, nor for fairly reconsidering a category dictate, yet with the utmost respect Guettarda, (and I could care less who you really are) but your refusal to act when you can so easily, is tantamount to intellectual sloth. TTLightningRod 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Ed Poor
According to Tim Starling, the servers of all Wikimedia projects switched to read-only for five minutes while VfD was being undeleted. I'm sure Ed didn't intend that, but someone of his experience might at least have guessed. Or asked around a bit. Anything, you know? Ed has a history of being "audacious", consequences be damned, but this was a bit much.

I realized your comment probably ended up at the wrong place, but I went ahead and posted a snarky comment anyway, instead of checking with you first. Sorry. Last thing I want is to antagonize people over something stupid like this. JRM · Talk 21:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Professional societies
Hey,

Not really well-placed to answer that... I'm in a much younger and less traditional crowd (mostly bioinformaticists) doing comparative genome stuff. You want the guys across the river from me like Daniel Hartl. That's a separate universe, nearly, as these things go (even though the work is so closely related). Sorry... Graft 19:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Help
I need your help. It seems that someone wants to delete my article on Carlos Lozada, one of four Puerto Ricans to have been awarded the Medal of Honor. You can help fight this injustice by voting against deletion here: | VfD. Please participate. Your friend Tony the Marine 05:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you my friend I knew that I could count on you against that nutcase. Tony the Marine 07:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Re: My request for un-protection for Mezmerize
Hello, Guettarda. The reason why I wanted the Mezmerize article to be un-protected again because I want to wiki-link the eighth track "Question!", the upcoming single off the album. As I said at the talk page. -- Mike Garcia | talk 13:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the un-protection, anyway. -- Mike Garcia | talk 13:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

WikiStress
Sorry about your Wikistress level. Maybe a barnstar could help you



Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey check out this news article, bud. - Web's Wikipedia to tighten editorial rules-founder Hopefully, that will help make sure things remain on the up-and-up around the wiki-community. :-) P.S. Sorry to tack this on here but I didn't want to clutter up your talk page. I *too*, hope your able to shed some of your wiki-stress.  Feeling better soon, eh? ;-) CaribDigita 17:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mezmerize
How long are admins going to sit back and tolerate Mike Garcia vandalizing Mezmerize with chart information that goes contrary to billboard.com? He is inciting an edit war yet again without giving a source. 66.36.148.32 17:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks
Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey. Again. :) Just a quick note to say thanks for your kind words and support (in principle) a while back for my adminship.  ''Ll never happen.  Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 22:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

69.47.159.58, welcoming new people
(Cross posted to User_talk:69.47.159.58 and regarding your comments there.) Guettarda, adding discussion to a user's talk page is not vandalism. Additionally, your contribution :"Please familarise yourself with ideas like `facts` and `reality`." sounds much like a personal attack. This new contributor may not be adhering to all wikipedia policies, but that does not by itself constitute vandalism. Stay calm, stay friends, we can talk about it. TomCerul 12:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Jguk for admin?
You may be interested in this: Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

HappyCamper's RFA - Thanks for your support! :-)
Hi Guettarda! Thanks for your support on my recent RFA. I'm now an administrator, and I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need an extra helping hand, please let me know and I'll try to help out as much as I can. Thanks again for everything, and I'll see you around the Wiki! :D --HappyCamper 02:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

SLAC
I have no objection to adding a note at the top of Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and creating SLAC (disambiguation). However, there is currently no article on Selective Liberal Arts Consortium, and all of the articles currently linking SLAC refer to the accelerator center. Thus, at the moment, doing such a thing seems a bit superfluous. Am I wrong? -- SCZenz 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you tried to look it up here and it wasn't there, that seems like reason enough to include it to me. The disambiguation page and note at the top of the main article are done now. Thanks for the suggestion!  -- SCZenz 20:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Strangler figs
Hi Guettarda - saw your notes on the WPTOL talk; if so, then the current Strangler Fig page needs to be moved - presumably to Ficus citrifolia - and a new page re-done as required. AFAIK, all the hemi-epiphytic figs are in subgenus Urostigma (currently covered at banyan) - or is that not so? I guess that page may need some re-working too? Whatever, I think we can leave Clusia out; while it may be a strangler, it isn't a fig! - MPF 20:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger
Guettarda, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your eloquent and robust defense of this block, and for being able to see to the heart of the matter. It matters a lot that good editors like yourself are around to defend what Cberlet called the "collective morality" of the project and, in fact, to be its backbone. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sixth Form Government Secondary School
Errr, yes the correct name is Sixth Form Government Secondary School, in the afternoon's the Polytech Institute gives other classes, but during the day it is Sixth Form Government Secondary School. Here is a stupid question, what is VfD ?

Regards User_talk:Trinbago aka Nigel

Jtkiefer's RFA
Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer T - 05:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Guettarda, thank you so much. It means a great deal coming from you, not least because I see you as someone who would made an ideal bureaucrat. You manage to be passionate yet reasonable at the same time, which isn't easy, and you're always fair and decent, and you look at all sides of a debate. I try to be those things, but with nowhere near your success. However, I'll give what you said some thought. The problem is that the more active an admin one is, the more people there are lurking in the shadows. It might be a better idea to be a very quiet admin for a few months leading up to any vote. Or even take a complete wikibreak for six months, then have the vote immediately upon returning ... ;-D But seriously, thank you for the kind words, and I will think about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:MWP and LIA in IPCC reports
The septics rear their heads again... care to take a look, though tis a minor matter in the great scheme. William M. Connolley 18:24:12, 2005-09-02 (UTC).

thank you to Guettarda
Thank you for starting to incorporate footnotes in the Biblical scientific foreknowledge subject area. I did a lot of research for the article and I hope you enjoyed it.

ken 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Plant identification
Thanks for responding to the RD question. Is there a limited number of plants this could be depending on what the apical buds would look like? If you can tell me how they would help, I could relay the info and have the questioner idenitify their own plant. - Mgm|(talk) 13:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

thank you once again
Thank you so much for the work on the notation of the Biblical scientific foreknowledge article. I am not too WIKI tech savy yet and have not quite figured out how to do it. I know know that it is footnoted properly that less people will mess with the article. ken 16:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Thanks
Dragons flight 06:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Guettarda:

Thanks for support and your confidence in me in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Indian+bureaucrat: he he he: nice one :D =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for the tips. I didnt know that these existed. Greatly appreciated, thanks again. Journalist  C./ '''Holla @ me!

Email
Thanks for the offer! Before I accept, I've been wondering: what does an email allow an admin to do that a talk page would not cover? At the beginning, I really didn't want to provide an email, but I guess I wouldn't be opposed to a Wikipedia-only email account. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, all right, I give in. :-) I already have a Gmail account, so thanks anyways- I'll email an invite to myself at another email address and create it. By the way, if I didn't have Gmail already, it would be impossible to contact you through email- it says "you must have provided an email in order to email this user" or something like that. Also, do you think anyone would mind if I have "Emailaddress.Wikipedia@gmail.com" in my email address? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject cricket
Formally inviting you could sign up for WikiProject Cricket. Like I've explained to Journalist, this would allow someone working on West Indies cricket contact you for advice or clarifications. We're also working on getting the West Indian cricket team up to featured status soon, so if you could review, it would be greatly appreciated. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

to Guettarda
MickWest is destroying a lot of your work in my opinion. I am not too technically saavy but I tried to restore as much of your work as I could. I am talking about Biblical scientific foreknowledge

If you could say something on the talk page I would appreciate it. Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

Sincerely,

ken 18:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

All I did was remove one paragraph that had none of your footnotes (and thanks for those). Ken then reverted to a version that had the old style footnotes, I tried to fix it, but he keeps reverting. MickWest 19:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll throw in my two cents worth. Both of these guys have violated 3RR, and I've told them both to visit the talk page.  Hopefully you would do the same, as this is a bit of a weight topic for me to come out of the blue and try to figure out.  I really don't want to protect it.--Scimitar parley 19:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree- content, not formatting, is the problem. I've protected the page, hopefully (please, dear god, please) not for too long. --Scimitar parley 20:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Roaring Lion
I perform his "Bananas" in my street music band. Glad to start the article as he's one of the greatest of all time. The article needs much more work so if you have the knowledge, please fill it in! :) By the way, I'm so glad you have written because the birthplace seems wrong; I don't think there's a place called Aroquita.  Could it be a diminutive for Arouca?  Also, where are the Caura Hills?  Is that also in Southwest Trinidad?  Badagnani 22:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge
Hi again. I'm currently trying to run a straw poll here to get an idea of what consensus is on the disputed paragraphs. I'd really appreciate your comments, because I'm afraid my inexperience is showing. Also, your background and work on the article probably make you more effective at reasoning with the two parties than I. All the best. --Scimitar parley 23:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

References and Footnotes
Am I correct in understanding the comparison between Template:an (autonumbering reference) compared to Template:mn (manual numbering)? Do you see the manual numbering method as preferrable, for this article? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Email created!
Well, I've done it. You can click on the "Email this user", and I sure hope it works! No, it's not my user name @ the google mail one, but it's close. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Plant ID follow up
I've received an image of the apical buds of the plant mentioned in the reference desk question a few days ago. Would you mind emailing me, so I can send you the image for analysis? - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Popups script in IE
I've tried to make the script behave more in IE like it does in FF as regards the width of the popup. Please could you test this and tell me if it works? I've just blindly copied and pasted code from somewhere so I don't really know if it will or not. You'll need to change the second occurence of popups.js to popupsdev.js in your monobook.js file and refresh to test the development version as I haven't made the change in popups.js (the "stable" version). To clarify: you should have these lines in your monobook.js:

document.write(' ');

instead of the old ones. (You probably want to revert back to using popups.js once you've tested it as I make changes to popupsdev.js which may not work at first, or just be bad ideas). Thanks for your help! Lupin 02:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Do I use

// User:Lupin/popupsdev.js - please include this line

or

// User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line

in the opening line? Guettarda 02:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter - those are comments and I only include them so that I can keep track of who's using the script by looking at pages which link to User:Lupin/popups.js. So I'll leave it up to you :-) Lupin 02:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Guettarda. Thanks for your support on my RfA. I was pleasantly surprised you had remembered me. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 18:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"calendrical" order
Yes, sorry, I made that word up. Heehehe.... You guessed right, I was listing the Republic Days by the date in the calendar. Did I mess up the order ? Where ? -- PFHLai 21:03, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct ! I should know. I actually put this and this on the Mainpage. Thank you for fixing my mistake. -- PFHLai 13:25, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Aruban people
The plan was to depopulate it, wait the required 24 hours, and then put it up for speedy. I did not know there was a discussion going on. As you can see, I do toss lots of things up for CFD, especially if I cannot make an IMHO safe judgement myself. This time I thought I did have a safe judgement. I had both People of Aruba and Aruban People as active categories. Only one or the other should exist. I looked at the lists of similar categories, and Fooian People was used by the vast majority of these similar categories. I would absolutely have gone the CFD route if I knew there was any sort of controversy. In fact, I'll likely put both up for CFD when I get home from work. One way or another, one of the two needs to be deleted. And I personally don't have a strong opinion which goes, so I'll gladly leave it up to conscensous. TexasAndroid 22:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I really do not see the logic of using age as a primary determining factor in deciding the proper way to name a category.  It's not something I've ever considered.  Wikipedia guidelines. Conscensous.  Consistency.  Logic.  Common sense.   I've used all of these.  But age?  AFAIK, there's no law anywhere that says that the person who got there first is automatically correct.
 * I made a judgement call. And I appear to have been incorrect in my judgement.  IMHO my fault was in a lack of information.  Not knowing that there was a ongoing discussion on which form to use.  I was in the wrong in this case.  But I really don't think that the age of the categoies had anything to do with it.  Sorry, but I very much disagree with you on this point.  TexasAndroid 23:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On a totally separate note, you misspelled one of the two categories in your CFD submission. I should not be editing your text, so I'll leave it to you to fix.  TexasAndroid 23:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Here is where things get interesting. Now we get to see how your logic carries to more general cases.

I have been working my way through the Special:Uncategorized Categories. That's how I came to get in the middle of this. So I have been seeing a *lot* of duplicate categories go by. The vast majority have been left by someone else's move job weeks or months before. They moved from one category name to another, and the old one was left behind, unlinked. Mostly empty, but occasionally I see ones where some articles have since been put back in the old one. This is not a debate about the correctness of the origianl person's move. Rather, I'm coming in, weeks or months later, and trying to clean up.

Let's exclude the cases of obvious misspelling or miscapitalization, because there's really no debate there. But what about all the ones that are, as you say, fit usage? Even if they've been empty for months in some cases. Should every single one of these be put up for CFD? By your logic, since the empty category is the older one, they should all go up for CFD. And do keep in mind, I've to date put up many dozens of these for Speedy in the last couple of weeks, so we are not talking about an insignifigant number of categories. So far, other than the Aruba one, not a single category I've placed for speedy has been declined. Anyway, if you are saying that every single one of these duplicates should actually be placed up for CFD, so be it. A bit more work for me, a good bit more reading for everyone else. But if that's the proper way to do this, so be it. TexasAndroid 02:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me first stress that I still conceed fully that the Aruban situation should not have been handled as I handled it. I'm somewhat more arguing general practice now.
 * You say "empty for a while". That was exactly my plan originally.  The rules you linked to, which I am well aware of, say 24 hours.  Nothing longer than that is required.  They also say nothing about the person who emptied them being unable to submit them, or that the person who intends to submit them cannot be the one who empties them 24 hours earlier.  So they really do not say anything that excludes how I did things.  There are other reasons how I did things was incorrect, but the rules of Speedy are not one, IMHO.
 * You have still said nothing to convince my why, in the general sense, I should consider the age of a category. In this particular case, looking at the histories more (and I did indeed "find" both, as you snarkily implied I didn't do) I can see how the second one came to be.  You're right.  It was not a recategorization.  But that's a totally different reasoning than the date of creation.  I still see nothing that makes the earlier category more automatically correct.
 * That all said, I think I see a solution for myself, moving forward. I commented earlier about having tossed dozens of duplicate categories up for speedy, and not wanting to drop that many additional categories on CFD.  OTOH, the number of times I've had duplicates where both were populated has been exactly three, including the Aruba one.  Going forward, even if I have an obvious recat that has since had 1-2 articles dropped in the old cat, which the other two were, if I have a duplicate pair of categories that both are populated, they will go for CFD, not depop/wait 24 hours/speedy.  That way I can avoid a repeat of this fiasco. TexasAndroid 13:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

fooian vs. from foo
Hi - I saw your note on kbdank71's talk about fooian people vs. people of foo. You might be interested in Naming conventions (categories), which is currently a proposal. The overwhelming current usage is "fooian", however as soon as there is consensus on the naming conventions page I think there is going to be a CFD proposal to rename all the people-related categories to "of/in/from foo" format. Whether this proposal will be accepted remains to be seen. As far as depopulating before listing on CFD, per WP:CFD (bullet toward the end of step II) this should in general not be done. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

TO: Guettarda

I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is I added some Biblical scientific foreknowledge info. The bad news is it screwed up your footnoting and I don't know how to fix it. If you want to fix by all means do so. Here is the page again: Biblical scientific foreknowledge

ken 22:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

My RFA
Thank you very kindly for your support of my nomination; it means all the more because I respect your contributions. I promise your trust hasn't been misplaced; I will only be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia problems
I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Thanks.--Scimitar parley 17:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Geo-stub question
Hi Guettarda - I have a question which you might be able to help with. There are enough Trinidad and Tobago geography stubs thatit is likely to soon get its own category and template. The category is simple: "Trinidad and Tobago geography stubs". The problem is the name for the template - the stub sorting project tries to avoid abbreviations, so T&T-geo-stub is unlikely, but TrinidadandTobago-geo-stub is unwieldy. My question - would there be complaints if it was just called Trinidad-geo-stub? There is a precedent - the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador (which has Newfoundland-geo-stub) - but I don't want to annoy Tobagans. Grutness...  wha?  11:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops - so my guess was wrong :) I think Trinidad-geo-stub will be the one to go for, then, since TT might be a little too ambiguous or obscure. You're right about the bio-stub - I'll propose that at WP:WSS as well. And you don't have to make articles for all those places... though it would be nice, of course... ;) Grutness...  wha?  13:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd assumed it was you making those new TT stubs! There are over 70 now, so it makes sense to propose a separate stub category - especially if you go ahead with that threat! :) Grutness...  wha?  05:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hello - Yes I am interested in Trinidad and Tobago as well as other places in the Caribbean, so Ive been making a few stubs here and there. Ill have to check the Caribbean notice board out. Thanks for the welcome! BL Lacertae 05:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I thank you for your support for my RfA, We shall surely interact more. I am certain that our association shall grow. --Bhadani 09:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Meliaceae genera
Hi Guettarda - thanks for helping out with some of IP 83.117....'s stuff; it seems he knows a fair deal and has provided some good data but also a burden of his own perceived superiority and weird ideas. Could you check over my changes to the various pages (Swietenia, Khaya, Toona, Entandrophragma, etc) to see I've got details right please? (I've checked from what I've got and some internet search, but it isn't a huge amount). Also 83.117.... has added (from at least seven different IP addresses!) several changes to various nomenclature and taxonomy pages which need verification (83.117.7.230 contribs, 83.117.4.76 contribs, 83.117.21.83 contribs, 83.117.23.63 contribs, 83.117.24.248 contribs, 83.117.5.153 contribs, 83.117.14.217 contribs) - I don't know quite enough to be 100% certain where he's right on these (I think some has already been reverted, but not sure about all) - Thanks, MPF 14:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

kdbufallo
Guettarda, can you take a look at Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo please? Dunc|☺ 19:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)v

Regarding kdbuffalo's talk page, Like I said here, I've not emailed Ken. I've used his talk page to notify him of various problems, and offered some helpful suggestions. MickWest 20:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

to: guettarda

Duncharris has sent me more than one very insulting message to my userpage. He uses such words as "fundie", nonsense, etc. Duncharris also admits I have been polite to him. You can go to his userpage and see for yourself.

MickWest and duncharris want to play "Atheist bullyboys" by sending me repeated messages to my userpage designed to irritate me.

If you want to make a message to that kdbuffalo comment page saying I cite an abundance of medical historians, medical/science journals which is the truth it would be appreciated.

Also, I believe this policy is being ignored:

"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." 

ken 21:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to: guettarda

I revised my last post to you. I wrote: Duncharris also admits I have been polite to him. You can go to his userpage and see for yourself.


 * Thanks for the tip; I added my comments there. KHM03 23:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Move request
Hi Guettarda - could you move Rosewood to Dalbergia, please? It seems that not all of the species in the genus are called 'rosewood', so it makes more sense to have the genus page at the scientific name - thanks, MPF 22:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! - MPF 22:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Andy Ganteaume
Just to mention that I've reverted your change on this article, since there was no Trinidad and Tobago cricket team before 1962-63; for all but one match of Ganteaume's f-c career it was simply Trinidad. Loganberry (Talk) 02:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware that Trinidad has been united with Tobago politically since the 19th century. However, this CricketArchive filter shows that Tobago was not used in the name of the cricket team, whichi is the important thing here, until the match in Barbados in early 1963. Loganberry (Talk) 02:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gah; I forgot that CA doesn't let you save searches. But do a Scorecard Oracle for teams with "Trinidad" in the title between 1960 and 1965 and the transition will show up. Loganberry (Talk) 02:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean-bio-stub
...is up and running. Have fun! BTW, feel free to change the picture. I was thinking of using a sportsman, but there are no Wikipedia pictures of Brian Lara or Sir Viv, nor of your countryman Mr. Boldon. So it came to a toss-up between Marley or Castro. I though Bob would be less controversial :) Grutness...  wha?  10:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I made one for South American biographies at the same time, and the picture I used on that was everyone's favourite Argentinian, Che Guevara. I wonder how long that picture will stay there! :) Grutness...  wha?  13:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for participating and supporting me in my RfA, I hope I will not let you down.

P.S. Advice taken. Molotov (talk)  18:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Mahogany anon
Hi, the mahogany anon seems to know what they are talking about, I'm going to leave a message on for the IP that seems to be currently active, asking them to think about Wikiquette.--nixie 01:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians/Trinidad and Tobago page as living in or being associated with Trinidad and Tobago. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Trinidad and Tobago for instructions.--Rmky87 03:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There was nothing on the page when I got there that would indicate it was being replaced. That's why I sent you the above message. The only time I just added a category to someone's userpage was when I reverted 211.30.119.181's edits to Scroogle's page.--Rmky87 03:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the list because that is what it says at step three of User categorisation. I was going through the list, deleting each name after sending a Usercat message, when I ran into an edit conflict (which I wouldn't have if I hadn't gotten distracted by one userpage after another (it sounds ridiculous because it was ridiculous)). Technically, the proper way to notify is to stick Template:Usercat in there, save and then go through the list. Yeah, I just would think of that hours later. Anyway, I don't see how one couldn't "interact and collaborate" on the category's talkpage. Also, it is not physically impossible to categorize under "Caribbean," as well as, "Trinidad and Tobago."

P.S.: I don't know where Ianblair got the idea that: Visit the user pages listed and leave them a message on their talk page with this contents: country, where country is the country page the user was listed on and category is the new category that is replacing the list. This way, users can choose themselves whether they want to add their names to the category system or not, instead of rudely editing their user pages. Remember, you still have to sign the edit.

means, "go edit everybody's userpages with only the edit summary as an explanation." At first I thought everyone on the Australian list was just good about also categorizing themselves according to what the text under the subheader said to do. Then I took the trouble to look at someone's edit history (can't remember who off the top my head)...

Gerald Durrell
I almost protected it this morning, but it was such an involved process that I decided to wait a while and see. As long as a couple of us are watching, I think it's OK for the time being, at least. But it could be justified, with the repeated vandalism. - DavidWBrooks 17:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Native American (Americas)
Sure, I know it's a direct. In most cases, it was simply easier to drop the "(Americas)" in and not change the wording. Plus, I'm not sure about Indigenous Peoples of the Americas: I rather suspect it should be Indigenous peoples of the Americas and, if we decide so, it'll be a lot easier just to change one rd. (There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a one-level redirect, is there?) –Hajor 22:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Guettarda, thank you for responding to me with your perspective. I'm responding here to keep that page focused on content.

I am not disputing or agreeing with Nat's claims, just asking she stick to content, instead of unhelpful characterizations that do nothing to achieve that end. She must not make false accusations of attacks; I've asked her to withdraw that, as well as uncivil comments on my page. I do not take such accusations lightly, even when they are as obviously specious as hers.

I don't think Nat's long-term best interests are served by being encouraged to keep up such slamming of Coulter. It is true that people get touchy on articles like Coulters'; all the more to keep on content. I intend to encourage everyone to do that. I hope my attempt to do so was civil.

I have worked on this page to make it better. Your invitation to "find a stub" sounds like you're asking me to leave. I hope that is not what was intended. paul klenk talk 01:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Someone left a message on my page right after -- I missed yours until now.  You make some good points.  However, all of us need to come together on start a boycott on the use of the word "attack" every time someone says something we don't like.  It is absolutely, positively, overblown, used by people with thin skins, and its overuse fuels further disputes.  I think all editors on the controversial and disputed political pages should come together and agree to do this.    paul klenk talk 03:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

geo-stub
Hi again - thought you'd like to know that Trinidad-geo-stub for Trinidad and Tobago articles is now up and running (I've also let BL Lacertae know) Grutness...  wha?  08:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info about the counties - I thought it was probably to do with local government reorganisation. Several of the articles talk about them in the present tense, though, so I wasn't sure. Grutness...  wha?  10:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the same situation as here in New Zealand - we still talk about the country's provinces, and the provincial names are still used for a lot of things. People still identify themselves with them too - describing thmselves as Otagoites, Southlanders, Cantabrians, etc. But as far as local government is concerned they haven't really existed for a long time. Grutness...  wha?  10:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777
Since you have begun interacting with Bigdaddy, I thought you might be interested to know that there is now an RfC about him. User:BigDaddy777 at Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. This is a serious matter and some are even questioning whether an RfAr should be filed. Your comments would be appreciated. 69.121.133.154 20:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up anytime. --Doc (?) 19:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Plant ID.
Hello Guettarda, You had suggested that the plant in question was probably a ficus tree but in looking at the page on the Moraceae family the Mulberry looks more like it, although the leaf seems to have a serrated edge where the leaf on my tree has a smooth edge and is slightly thick and silky. The leaves die off as new ones appear on the ends of each stem as mentioned in the description of the Mulberry. The roots also grow above the soil ( maybe that needs changing and a bigger pot ). Did Jeffery send you the picture of what I assumed was the apical? If not can I upload it to you? I'll be checking back with you. Thanks. Bridget

Plant ID
I see my message has spread itself all over the screen... How the devil did that happen?


 * Bridget -
 * I feel pretty confident that it is a Ficus, now that I take a third look at everything. When you say "roots grow above the soil", do you mean something like [this]?  That's common in Ficus plants.  They might also put out some little roots on the underside of branches.
 * When I say "Ficus" I am not talking about the plant that every has as a houseplant - I am talking about a large genus with hundreds of distinct species. Most Ficus species have thick, often shiny, leaves.  Many of them have a milky white or yellowish sap too (but not all of them).  I can't go beyond the genus though - there are too many species, and even if I had the resources to try to ID it more specifically, I'd need to know where it's from originally.
 * The "leaf exchanging" pattern of growth could be natural, but it could also show up if the plant was not getting enough light. Trees that are in the shade will sometimes do that - if they are barely making enough energy to survive on they will sometimes use resources from an old leaf to make a new leaf.
 * The funny thing with the text happens when you leave a space at the start of a line. Guettarda 06:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Police Commissioner
Thanks for letting me know. I usually don't visit AFD as the page size is too large for my connection. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  13:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. There is a country-wise deletion sorting, WikiProject Deletion sorting/India, and it used to be carried out by Vivisa. The page is on my watchlist, but its not been updated for a month now. I used to comment then and look after India-related articles after the voting period. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Plant ID.
Guettarda, Thank you for all of the information regarding my tree ID. I clicked on the link you gave and yes that's how the roots look. I cannot remember where this tree came from. It's been too long. The tree is in a room that gets sunshine and light from many windows, just about all day so the "leaf exchanging" pattern of growth must be natural as you explained. Again......  Thank you. Bridget