User talk:Guettarda/Archive8

I liked this gem so much I thought I'd add it to my talk page.

Guettarda - Liberal Admin
All you have to do is look at his own user page and see why he's so determined to keep this article wrought with lies and deceit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guettarda

"I am beyond disgusted. It makes me sick. People in the US government saying: " why they had so much sympathy for the victims, and not as much sympathy for the challenges that the government met in meeting this challenge". Do these people have no sense of compassion? I weep for the people of New Orleans. The tragedy of being poor and black in Bush's America."

and

"Primary Interests   * Forest ecology (plus everything else in the world of organismal biology)"

Even his nickname is an indicator:

"Guettarda is a genus of trees in the Family Rubiaceae. One of these days I have to make a page for that genus."

And we all wonder why he continues to allow conjecture and speculation, fiction and rhetoric, into this "entry"?! It's obvious. Give a man an ounce of authority and he uses every gram to force his opinions on others.

How ridiculous!

Wikipedia will never be a reliable place for information as long as it's run by liberals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.73.21.146 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 September 2005 from Talk:Amazon Rainforest


 * Yo there, Admin! You can prove you're not hopelessly Lllllliberal [enunciate that word as if you were a Texan oil plutocrat] by banning me, for my appalling lack of a background in history and my bizarre failure to realize that "[aristocratic] nobility is notability" (here). Erm, incidentally, I recently had to grab a couple of magazines to supplement a couple of novels for a long flight (I'm an onboard insomniac), and something on the front cover of Harper's grabbed my attention. I'd been only dimly aware of the magazine's existence; I'd thought it was a second- or third-rate New Yorker or similar. Wrongo! It's superb. Pity there's such a concentration on the US; but the way in which it concentrates on the US is excellent. -- Hoary 22:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

'Nother move request
Hi Guettarda - could you move Coast Range Subalpine Fir to Subalpine Fir please? There's some background details at User_talk:Wsiegmund, we both agree it would be a good move as the split of Subalpine Fir into two species isn't widely accepted. Thanks - MPF 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Grief, 20,000 edits! Eeeek! Didn't know I had that many! I'll think about it again, tho' how much longer I'll be around I don't know, the way my computer is on the blink (just had to reboot for the 5th time today) - MPF 21:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Amazon
I don't have any objections to what you've proposed, but if the person in question is this determined, I'm not sure how open he would be to your suggestions. (But I guess that's what an RfC is for, eh?) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I meant if he would be open to your suggestions... anyway, doesn't seem likely. Like you, I am trying to assume good faith, but I'm wondering if this is the same anonymous editor who had previously used the term "eco-terrorist." Doesn't seem like there is much room for compromise with someone who paints others with the "terorrist" brush. Anyway, good luck. If this does go to RfC, am I allowed to wigh in or not? I have edited the article, and I've been the target of a (pretty minor) barb from this person, so I'm not sure I qualify as a neutral 3rd party. (I should review RfC again...) Thanx, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. Reply here if you prefer, instead of my page, I'll keep watching here.


 * Regarding your question: No, I haven't really made any significant edits to the article, as the subject is way beyond the bounds of my personal expertise. I spotted some vandalism some time ago, and reverted it. At the time, everything I edited was added to my watchlist by default. So after that I could watch the current situation unfold. I believe the only other edit I've made was a day or two ago, when I reverted the anon's removal of text. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You guys are being trolled by someone whose behaviour and edit history very strongly resembles the Ray Nagin POV vandal "JimmyCrackedCorn." See Talk:Ray Nagin for more on that.--chris.lawson 12:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. It's probably not something you would have noticed unless you'd been following the discussion over there. The accounts wouldn't seem related at first until you take a look at the edit histories, which reveal the same pattern of personal attacks, right-wing extremist POV, and some of the same editing targets. Your guy, for instance, has attached edit summaries to Ray Nagin that are nearly identical to those by JimmyCrackedCorn aka LongJohnSilver aka DKorn aka Roger Ramjett. His contributions are about a 50-50 mix of blatant trolling or POV-pushing and userful minor edits.--chris.lawson 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:206.70.251.252
Guettarda, I wouldn't worry about it too much so far. These kinds of threats are generally hollow, and if he uses multiple IPs there are always range blocks and/or page protection that can be applied. Please feel free to keep me informed. Jayjg (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's RfA
Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?&iquest;? 20:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA
Och, I just noted that. Thanks for your support, much appreciated. As to Lysenkoism, I think I tried that on him before. Like water off a duck's back. Graft 21:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy
Don't ever come on my page again with your nonsense. Certainly not with your false and slanderous accusation that my REMOVING vandalism from the Ann Coulter page is in fact vandalism. That vandalism that I removed was in accordance with Wikipedia standards. I suggest you review them. Best regards, Big Daddy 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps And save your lectures about 'community' for someone who doesn't see thru your transparently partisan interest in interjecting bias into wikipedia articles in direct violation of founder Jimmy Wales edict that these articles remain fair and neutral. Thanks and have a great night! Big Daddy 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL. Wow, Guetterda... I guess you touched a nerve.  Well, the vandal/troll who goes by "BigDaddy" has been referred for arbitration.  His pathetic rants and anemic attempts to game the system fool no one.  Except, apparently, himself.  Keep fighting the good fight! --Eleemosynary 04:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't be afraid of me, son. I'm here to help. There are plenty of support groups these days. What you're suffering from doesn't have to torment you the rest of your life. Society no longer stigmatizes people like you. We just want you to get better. Love, Big Daddy 07:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Proof positive! "Little Baby" lives in his own deluded universe, taking breaks from vandalizing Wikipedia only to travel to the drug store for hand lotion so he can better, um, "enjoy" his Ann Coulter picture collection.  Duly noted!  Eleemosynary 08:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a 'Cry for Help!' LOL! Big Daddy 09:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least Little Baby is now admitting he has a problem! Progress moves slow, but it moves. Good luck in recovery! LOL! Eleemosynary 09:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 6th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  16:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Edits to Coulter
Thanks for doing a great job making the Coulter article NPOV. Eleemosynary 23:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Got your notes re. the Arbitration Process. I think you're right. Little Baby has now taken to trolling my Talk Page, which is sad, but typical. But I'm done responding to him on the Arbitration Page. If he can stay off my Talk Page, he's unlikely to hear from me again. Eleemosynary 02:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again: Yeoman's work on the Coulter page. It must be exhausting to catch all those removals and reverts. Eleemosynary 05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really all that difficult, not with the history tab. Guettarda 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
I had generally valued my lack-of-adminship status only because I thought that on the whole it testified to the relatively egalitarian aspect of Wikipedia -- one does not have to be a member of any "inner-cabal" to get things done at either a content or structural level. I thought about what being an admin would allow me to do that I couldn't do now and most of the things are just an increase in efficiency (i.e. making it easier to revert vandalism). However I then realized that one area which I'd be happy to aid in is clearing up backlogs, especially in things such as copyright violations or unfree images and the like, and since I do think that I'm pretty good at spotting things like that, it might be a worthwhile contribution that I could make. So, if you'd like to nominate me for adminship, I would accept the nomination, though I would say upfront that I still reserve the right to be cranky with POV pushers and to assume good faith only up to the point where I think it is clear none should be assumed. Many thanks. --Fastfission 16:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. I answered the questions as best I could come up with. Thanks again. --Fastfission 02:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Fastfission
Hi! There's was a minor problem with the timestamp of Fastfission's nom. The date and time stamp wasn't correctly displayed. ending 02:20 2005/10/10 TODAY'S DATE (UTC). I've gone ahead and corrected it. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  10:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Hi Guettarda. I removed from the noticeboard the section started anonymously by banned User:Skyring as part of his continued attack on nixie. Your reply was also removed (sorry!). If this bothers you, let me know and I'll put it back. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could block ? It won't stop him, but it will delay him some.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never heard anybody criticise the excellence of user:petaholmes' research, but clearly she needs to work on her spelling and grammar, because it detracts from otherwise impeccable work, especially if it remains uncorrected. Hence my question. Obviously user:Cyberjunkie thinks there is something malicious going on, but fails to nominate a solution that doesn't ruffle anybody's feathers. Perhaps you could help to keep an eye on her edits &mdash; nobody is going to accuse you of wikistalking!

Ugh
You know, this RfA process is somewhat disgusting. Who the heck are these people? Oppose, because user has "less than 3000 edits"? Oppose, because 90% of edits are in article namespace?! Back in the day, being a sysop wasn't supposed to have this sort of cachet, as if sysops were some sort of Wikipedian Uberbearbeiter. Yech. Graft 18:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Gyrofrog RfA
I just wanted to thank you for your vote of support in my request for adminship! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Adminship
You said, "Your point makes sense if one pre-supposes an administrative function for admins". On the surface, this seems like such an amazingly reasonable conclusion that you must have been inferring something else. After some thought, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that you are viewing adminship through the perspective of what is the lowest common usage denominator of admins and admin priviledges. Within that context, I think your statements make sense; trustworthiness would be the only criteria. We thus would only have to know if the nominee can be trusted with those powers. This view is in fact supported by much of the introduction text of Administrators.

However, there is a crucial component of that introduction that speaks to other issues. In particular it says, "Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information." Consider the position a newbie to Wikipedia has. She's relatively new, and had some concerns regarding a rollback that was made by an admin that qualifies under your criteria, but has a very low participation level (such as Graft). She asks this admin for clarification, and days go by with no response. This could produce a negative result for the user.

Additionally it says on WP:RFA, " [admins] are often perceived as the 'official face' of Wikipedia". It isn't only about having extra tools to conduct editing. If a low participation admin becomes involved in a debate, the potential exists for them to badly inflame a discussion with comments that are not wholely and satisfactorily explained; text based communications have significant limitations. If the admin is not around frequently enough to stay involved in debates and discussions, they could harm the community (however unintentionally) by their lack of participation.

Another related point is the ability of the admin to respond to requests about a block they have placed. If the admin makes the block, they need to be available to respond to the user who was blocked. A low participation admin is probably ill equipped to do so.

I understand your points regarding Ed Poor, 172 and EveryKing. I've had interactions with two of them (for example, see the poll I started regarding an action by Ed Poor). My concerns regarding participation levels are not undermined by some exceptions. There is no inviolate rule in play here. We are not machines displaying bits guaranteeing we will be successful admins, and never suffering from changes in thought and direction.

Participation levels are simply one and only one metric in helping to evaluate a candidate with a somewhat low edit count. There are many, many others. Some are objective, some are subjective. For me, the participation level is an important issue. For you, it isn't. I understand your perspective and respect your view. I hope, based on what I've written above, you will respect mine. My whole point in producing the charts and statistics for admin nominees with edit counts less than 2,000 is to get people to stop debating the merits of how many counts and instead consider other related points. The very fact that we have had the discussion we have had is evidence it is working.

All the best, --Durin 18:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Viper"
Hey... did you mean to say "there are 'no' edits"? Eleemosynary 02:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Medcom on wheels!
You have discovered my true identity. Thus, you know too much. OhNoES!! R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

structural change
that's actually quite an interesting topic to me. i do a lot of resource economics and work with a lot of agricultural economists. so this re-forestation issue you mention sort of grabs my attention just on subject area. can you tell me more about this, or give me a pointer in the right direction for more information? i suppose there might be some development economists who have done some work on it, but i've never seen anything on the resources/ag side of things. thanks. Derex @ 22:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

True
I may have been doing exactly that when you were writing your e-mail. Great minds I suppose. lol. Thanks. P.S. I'm glad to see the BD sockpuppet thing has worked itself out. I guess I wanted to see the right thing be done a little too soon but needed more patiene. It's just too bad that people had to be wrongly blocked. Can't take that back. Oh well, water on the bridge. Thanks again.Gator1 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Fauna
Hi, ages ago you commented on a peer review I had for Fauna of Australia. I've finally stuck it on FAc- if you'd like to take a look. Thanks. --nixie 03:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Show me...
...one thing you can do using List of Caribbean Wikipedians that one absolutely could not do any other way. I still don't see how one could not also "collaborate and communicate" using each other's or the project-in-question's talk pages. I am curious.Rmky87 03:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm not that mad anymore.--Rmky87 05:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
Dear Guettarda: I would like to thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I am most honoured by the trust that has been placed in me by yourself and other members of the Wikipedia community, especially since I did not conform to the standard edit-count criteria usually expected of administrator candidates. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Wikipedia a better place. Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 03:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Caribbean
I just answered. Poppypetty 07:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Guyana as a "State" or "Nation-state"
Hi Guettarda, all I meant was that Guyana is a self-governing republic (or state), but it never was really intended to represent some encompassing ethnic group, was it? As the page on Guyana says, just over half of the population are of settlers of Indian descent, or Indo-Guyanese, who being outsiders paradoxically ended up populating rural areas, as opposed to urban areas. The rest are African-Guyanese, Asian- or European-Guyanese, and various indigenous peoples. That means that, with the obvious exception of the last groups, all of the other groups were descendents of colonists or migrants- not truly "native Guyanese", and so Guyana shares its history with every single other country in North or South America.

So since there is no such group as "Ethnic Guyanese", it must then be called a state if I'm not wrong...because the word "nation" simply means an "ethnic community" at it's greatest geographic or political extent in terms of population location, as opposed to the idea of having their own country (a state)...Unless the ruling Indian community have something that distinguishes them from their brethren in India, Singapore, or Fiji, so much that they deserve they're own "titular" country. PS: Interesting talk page by the way. User:Le Anh-Huy.

Wikiholiday
Hey Guettarda, I'm sorry to hear that you're taking a Wikibreak, though I'm sure it's well deserved! Your contributions will be greatly missed - particularly your knowledgeable contributions about the Caribbean. I hope your break goes well and that you manage to catch up with your non-wiki commitments and come back refreshed soon. All the best. Vivenot 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for this &mdash; I'll wear it with pride. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Salva
To tell the truth, I'm not sure what to think. I was pretty shocked to hear him say all that. It'll be hard to take him seriously after this. I'm not sure what he hoped to accomplish by this tirade. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What...
Look Guettarda, I don't know what the hell you're talking about with all this race nonsense. ??? I never said anything about skin color, race, etc. Is Graft black or something? How the hell do I know - I've never met the guy. What if I told you I was black?? Another thing - if you think that I'm hiding behind anything, you better check your own little philosophy. IDiot right? Is that the latest eSlang for Intelligent Designers like me? I know plenty of Neo-Darwinians, and NO ONE to my knowledge is a threat that is closer to home than a lying science teacher or those who advocate a misleading science article then hide behind the guise of truth. They threaten the way of life of my family and my children. Why should I have any respect for them? You can still talk-reasonable with unreasonable intentions, so what's the point? I've had enough. I'm not angry, I don't hate any of you - I just don't like it when you try and depreciate and ignore people who are trying to compromise with you. This is a serious dishonor and in my mind is far worse than the words that I have written. Besides, at least there is some stench of truth in mine. Graft and all the cronies from the far-Left have many things in common, making them easy to distinguish and far more easier to predict. They threaten what I love with their seditious acts, so I put them back in their place, if neccessary. I must make it clear that if you think this has anything to do with race or skin color, you are sadly mistaken. Salva 05:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dude, quit playing dumb. You have tipped your hand, made it clear what kind of a person you are.  Guettarda 05:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What...
Look Guettarda, I don't know what the hell you're talking about with all this race nonsense. ??? I never said anything about skin color, race, etc. Is Graft black or something? How the hell do I know - I've never met the guy. What if I told you I was black?? Another thing - if you think that I'm hiding behind anything, you better check your own little philosophy. IDiot right? Is that the latest eSlang for Intelligent Designers like me? I know plenty of Neo-Darwinians, and NO ONE to my knowledge is a threat that is closer to home than a lying science teacher or those who advocate a misleading science article then hide behind the guise of truth. They threaten the way of life of my family and my children. Why should I have any respect for them? You can still talk-reasonable with unreasonable intentions, so what's the point? I've had enough. I'm not angry, I don't hate any of you - I just don't like it when you try and depreciate and ignore people who are trying to compromise with you. This is a serious dishonor and in my mind is far worse than the words that I have written. Besides, at least there is some stench of truth in mine. Graft and all the cronies from the far-Left have many things in common, making them easy to distinguish and far more easier to predict. They threaten what I love with their seditious acts, so I put them back in their place, if neccessary. I must make it clear that if you think this has anything to do with race or skin color, you are sadly mistaken. Salva 05:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dude, quit playing dumb. You have tipped your hand, made it clear what kind of a person you are.  Guettarda 05:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "I don't know what the hell you're talking about with all this race nonsense. ??? I never said anything about skin color, race, etc.  Is Graft black or something?  How the hell do I know - I've never met the guy"


 * Funny how you attack someone for not holding to your religion, when the person comes from a different religious tradition; funny how when you are being debated by 2.5 Indians you suddenly resort to that racist crap; funny how you express so much interest in someone's opinions but never read their user-page
 * "What if I told you I was black??"


 * I've dealt with anti-Indian racism from black people often. What does that have to do with anything?  Just more attempts to misdirect and mislead.
 * "I know plenty of Neo-Darwinians, and NO ONE to my knowledge is a threat that is closer to home than a lying science teacher or those who advocate a misleading science article then hide behind the guise of "truth." "


 * You mean the teacher trying to teach children the lies of ID and creation science? Well, they're your people, why complain to me about them?
 * "They threaten the way of life of my family and my children."


 * Well, bigots threaten us all. Why are you supporting bigots?
 * "Why should I have any respect for them?"


 * I don't know - why do you respect the liars that you are carrying water for?
 * "I'm not angry, I don't hate any of you - I just don't like it when you try and depreciate and ignore people who are trying to compromise with you."


 * Hmmm, lets see, I am trying to write something that is true, you are trying to insert a lie into the article - so we'll compromise and include your lie? Yeah, really.  Grow up.  I'm not dumb enough to fall for those Rovian ideas of "compromise".
 * "This is a serious dishonor and in my mind is far worse than the words that I have written."


 * So you have worse to give than racist attacks on people because they are non-Christian? Lovely.
 * " Besides, at least there is some stench of truth in mine."


 * Stench. Yep, your bigoted comments carry a stench.  That is true.
 * "Graft and all the cronies from the far-Left have many things in common, making them easy to distinguish and far more easier to predict."


 * Huh? I think you are slipping off the deep end here.
 * "They threaten what I love with their seditious acts, so I put them back in their place, if neccessary."


 * Are you saying you love lies? You love the lies of the right-wing hatemongers like Phelps?
 * I must make it clear that if you think this has anything to do with race or skin color, you are sadly mistaken.


 * Oh, so what you said on the Evolution talk page was a lie too, and you were just using race and religion and a stick to beat your opponents? Good of you to admit it.  Guettarda 06:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I was wrong. It was impulsive of me. I'm removing the comments from the evolution page. Salva 06:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, I might add that your view of Christianity as well as the ID movement is very twisted. It's clear that you already had presumtions about both. Also, you shouldn't draw your judgement about an entire group from a single person. Salva 06:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)