Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:15, 4 May 2007

Guettarda is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Template:Catneeded

This article needs more cats, preferably if the pictures are free, FREE I tell's ya. Hisss. This would enhance navigation by listing it with other articles in the Category:cats. Please help Misplaced Pages by adding more cats to articles.

Archives: Archive 1 (August 29, 2004-March 3, 2005) - Archive 2 (March 11, 2005-March 28, 2005) - Archive 3 (March 28, 2005-April 17, 2005) - Archive 4 (March 20, 2005-June 6, 2005) - Archive 5 (June 6, 2005-July 4, 2005) - Archive 6 (July 4, 2005-July 26, 2005) - Archive 7 (July 30, 2005-September 26, 2005) - Archive 8 (September 27, 2005-October 13, 2005) - Archive 9 (October 14, 2005-November 18, 2005) - Archive 10 (November 18, 2005-February 12, 2006) - Archive 11 (February 12, 2006-February 17, 2006) - Archive 12 (February 18, 2006-February 26, 2006) - Archive 13 (February 26, 2006-May 13, 2006) - Archive 14 (May 13, 2006-July 31, 2006 ) - Archive 15 (July 31, 2006-September 20, 2006) - Archive 16 (September 20, 2006-October 30, 2006)- Archive 17 (October 30, 2006-January 13, 2007) - Archive 18 (January 13, 2007 - May 21, 2010) - Archive 19 (May 2010 - May 2012) - Archive 20 (December 2009 - present) Current

Edit

regarding your posts here

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

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

(TriniGeeks)

Re Fauna of Puerto Rico

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

Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary

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

New Message

Hi

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

You may delete this message at your discretion.
Rfwoolf 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

John C. Gifford Arboretum

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

fact tagging

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

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

Admins

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

Feliz Cumpleaño

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

• Oops! Oh what the hell, you know me-always ahead of my time (smile). Tony the Marine 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Clarke

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

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

Moving my comments

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

Take it easy, I already wrote that I won't. But you are wrong. Please stop characterizing placement of my comment as "editing others' comments." And please read WP:VAND. HKT 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

your turn...

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

ID edit war on Junk science

Good call about the edit war and the 3RV rule, thanks.

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

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

Regards --Childhood's End 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory

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

Dude, chill

Please leave it be (with ExUC). I've looked over the interchanges, and I think you two are talking at cross purposes. He isn't actually accusing you of dishonesty. Give it a rest, and if "another problem" occurs, notify me instead of him. I think I'll be able to straighten it out. --Uncle Ed 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ed. At least where I live, "honest opinion" is a common enough phrase and doesn't necessarily constitute a suggestion that someone is being dishonest. From the looks of it that debate is heated enough without arguing over the intended meaning those 2 words...--Isotope23 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I replied to Ed on talk page, I will honour his request, not just because he asked me to (although that's really reason enough), but also because it's a sensible request - there's nothing to be gained from pursuing that issue any further. Guettarda 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated false accusations quoting statements I never made

You have repeatedly falsely accused me, attributing statements to me (and even setting them in quotation marks) that I did not make. I consider these claims, that I have repeatedly violated Misplaced Pages policy, to be an attack on my character. Instead of apologizing for making false claims about what I said after I explained that I meant no criticism personally or of your edits, you have continued to repeat the same false accusations over and over. Instead of confining the discussion to the relevant Talk page, you have continued to attack me as a violator on my personal Talk page, out of context. You then continued to do so after I asked you not to. I do not appreciate repeatedly being falsely accused, especially after explaining that I meant no criticism. -Exucmember 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Re: New antisemitism

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

Missed!

Hey dude,

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

race and intelligence - favor?

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

Creationist Orchard

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

Thanks for the help

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

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

3RR

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

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

Apology

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

Genesis vandal back on Evolution?

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

re: Francesa pic

can you sort it out for me? i am not good at this wiki thing. i'm just trying to keep the information current. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crushtheturtle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

no i did not. it's from zen's promotional pics. the reason i put this instead of the old one is that the other is more than 10 yerars old while this was taken last year. Crushtheturtle 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Common Descent/Universal Common Descent

These two articles have existed in their split state for months unattested. Why do you feel you should merge them without a discussion just because there was no consensus months ago? If you think they should be merged, you should add a pretty little merge header because it seems like a quite a few people don't feel there is a problem in their current state. Pbarnes 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It appears a merge is inevitable. I at least spent the time to make the article seem less cut-and-paste and more encyclopedic. You should try that next time! Pbarnes 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda 1500, Icons 0

Wow, pretty big cut. I hope you'll add in something about what Wells means by an "icon" and give at least one example. The peppered moth is probably the easiest one to explain. Or Haeckel's embryo drawings. --Uncle Ed 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Recapitulation theory: Unfortunately, some older editions of textbooks in the United States still erroneously cite recapitulation theory or the Haeckel drawings as evidence in support of evolution without appropriately explaining them as being misleading or outdated. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Icons 2

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

Okay fine!

Is it that big a deal? futurebird

St. Louis, MO IPs

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

AfD

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

Oh, well. It's linked. By the way, am I right in thinking that, despite Henrygb's claims, this is clear copyvio? Adam Cuerden 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to set up a merge request, particularly on dead pages, so that it'll actually be looked at. Adam Cuerden 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Plant

I was unaware that you are a plant :) However I hadn't gotten all the way to Z yet anyway. You're welcome to edit that page, too. >Radiant< 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message

Hi Guettarda,

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

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

Your Erstwhile Bureaucrat is a ....

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

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

Mail

Thanks. Check your e-mail, too. :) - Darwinek 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope it didn't end in the spam thrash. :) - Darwinek 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Conservation Biology

Hi There,

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

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

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

Thesis committee

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

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

B. epica

Thanks for the comments; I'll see what I can do to fix them as soon as I get a spare moment. Can you explain "it also (unnecessarily) speculates that the first record of the species was the first sighting of the species" please? Hesperian 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Eyre was the first European to explore the area, so if he saw B. epica at all, then he saw it first. I see how this sentence would read funny to someone who didn't know that Eyre was first. Hesperian 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Guettarda 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Motmot pix

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

Help?

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

Note: You ca probably see most of the parts that annoy me by searching for "Larson". Adam Cuerden 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been driving me mad for a bit; I disengaged for several months a while ago, but now that I'm back, well... I don't want to say anything until you've had a look. Adam Cuerden 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, signalling in plants is really cool. Bah to your pro-animal mindset! *gets the placards, pitchforks, and torches ready* =P Adam Cuerden 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If yer ain't with plants, you're against plants. Heh. Seriously, though, any thought on that talk page... thing? Adam Cuerden 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA and Ruddigore

Ah, well. Seems that despite all my work on Gilbert, I forgot a crucial bit:

If you wish in this world to advance,

Your merits you're bound to enhance:

You must stir it and stump it and blow your own trumpet

Or trust me, you haven't a chance!

-Ruddigore

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

Hi

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

Creation-evolution controversy

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

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

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

Curry Chicken: Your valued opinion

Hello Guettarda,

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

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

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

Stillwater Area High School

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

Genesis vandal back on Talk:Evolution (eight accounts)

Hello Guettarda, this is just an FYI, since all these vandal accounts now seem to be blocked.

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

DYK

On 27 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Attalea crassispatha, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

data?

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

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

Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago

The only references I found to it during a Google search were from a CIA report on government elements in Trinidad and Tobaga, with this group listed under the "Communist" section. Taken from WP:ORG, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Individual chapters of national organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. So basically, it's not notable unless it has sources, according to the notability guidelines... Logical2u_{Review me!} 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I might have read the page (and cited it in my argument) too fast. I apologize. It is a national party, but it still has to follow the general criteria: An organization or group is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works. If it doesn't meet something along those lines (Frankly, I'd be happy if there was a citation of their placement in any election), stuff needs to be done. This then opens up a new can of worms when we get into all the other political groups, especially in Canada, which has at least a dozen... The more specific organization criteria also necessitates independent sources. The remedy for failing to meet these criteria is supposed to be cleanup, then if all else fails, deletion (the type of deletion depends on which page you look at) for groups that don't meet it. Logical2u_{Review me!} 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Regional variants of English

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fazal Mohammed

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

"Replaceable" fair use

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

You're right, my judgement\math wasn't very good at 6am. They all probably aren't PD. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Belmont dab page

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

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

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

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

disproven→disproved

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

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

Tilman

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

invasibility→invisibility

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

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

Wall of Honor

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

My adminship

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

Thanks for kindness

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

David Berlinski

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

58

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

TT cricket

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

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

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

ID

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

How are they "newbie" warning templates?

I have never heard of such a thing. Can you give me a "WP:..." which says that warning templates shouldn't be used on established editors? Also, I used {{uw-npa2}}, not {{uw-npa1}}, which is indeed for new users. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy

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

Right. It's up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry_and_Attacks

Damn. And I thought the Jean-Thierry Boisseau situation was bad. Adam Cuerden 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, god help us all: It seems Althea Kuhn, Aristos Antoniadis, and Maria Chorianopoulou are all the same person. Check the last three edits on Talk:Homeopathy by Special:Contributions/213.5.44.117. It was pointed out to me when I made the meatpuppetry statement. Adam Cuerden 10:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent MFD vote

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

Reasonable?

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

Thanks

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

Not again!

Who is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Langan

Familiarity with the 3RR policy is indeed worth knowing. I draw your attention to the following:

Other exceptions to the rule include the following: Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material. Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons)

Substantial arguments have been put regarding the material in question, arguing that it is both libelous and poorly sourced. These arguments have not been rebutted. Clearly this means that my edit is neither vandalism, nor susceptible to the 3RR rule. Furthermore, your own actions and those of Arthur Rubin do constitute reverts, and are susceptible to the rule. FNMF 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

AN3 report

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

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

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

ASJA

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

Stuff

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

Hey there Guettarda,

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

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

I can do better than a cup of tea! Here's an ice cream. I've seen you around, and I've been impressed, so just want to say hope you'll be back soon. I hope this doesn't go against your wish to have the page blank. If you want to remove it, I won't be offended. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No no. Mango sorbet. It's better tasting, and better for you.--CSTAR 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Guettarda I'm very upset at this and also want to thank you for you persistent efforts at maintaining a level of scientific sanity on WP.--CSTAR 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Baby please don't go

Baby please don't go

Baby please don't go

Baby please don't go down to New Orleans

Y'know I love ya so

baby please don't go

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

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

I think Guettarda reacted very personally to something Jimbo wrote and blanked all his sub pages (check his contribs and this thread). We all get frustrated sometimes and I'm just hoping he comes back soon! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was this . &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See also here and the preceding section. Guettarda is wise in stepping back from this for a bit, hope to see him contributing again in his own good time. .. dave souza, talk 10:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

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

Award

SqueakBox 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

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

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

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

Hi Guettarda welcome back.

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

Another smile

Otheus has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

We had disagreements in the past, and I'm trying to patch things up.--Otheus 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Are you also a party to this dispute?

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

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

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

Proposal for compromise

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

Dark Ages America

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

Life zone diagram

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

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

I'm a doctor, Jim, not a...

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

Hi there!

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

Dominionism

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

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

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

Please lend your thoughts to Template_talk:Dominionism#Christian_reconstructionism. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see...

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

Editors on various Evolution and Creationism articles

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

Where are you? We need your sage commentary! Talk:Intelligent_design#Final.3F

Xtraterrestrial life

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

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

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

Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair

I see you were a recent contributor to the Sternberg peer review controversy article. I have added a section to the talk page proposing that the article be moved to and renamed "Sternberg-Smithsonian Affair". If you would like to see the rationale, please visit Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Proposed_move:__Sternberg.2FSmithsonian_Affair, and leave your thoughts there. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Errorstock

Hi - that user had created some pages which fall into the db-attack type, see below (obtained via show contributions by Oscarthecat, show logs).

1. 2007-04-29T20:14:54 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby rapist" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
2. 2007-04-29T20:14:44 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby raped" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
3. 2007-04-29T20:14:34 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baby rapings" (content was: 'Zzuuzz rapes babies!' (and the only contributor was 'Errorstock')) (Restore)
4. 2007-04-29T20:14:24 Oscarthecat (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Errorstock (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Attempting to intimidate or harass other users) (Unblock)

Hope this clears it up. --Oscarthecat 06:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sternberg peer review controversy

Regarding your to the proposed move, based on your reasoning, Dave's help, and a google search, I have to agree with you. Since I made the request that I now oppose, is there anything else I should do (except cast an oppose vote)? ImprobabilityDrive 06:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your tone on Tom Harrison's talk page

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

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

blanking

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

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

Check user advice needed

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

Email

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

1. National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
2. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.