Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:03, 7 July 2007

Handy Hint

Archives
July 2004 – September 2005 Admin 14 Sept '05 – February 2006 March 2006 – 11 May 2006: Fishapods, Bud Neill and Kate Cranston 12 May 2006 – 31 July 2006 August 2006 – 18 Sept 2006 also Turnstiles. Sept 2006 – 10 Jan 2007 Jan 2007 – 18 May 2007

handy hint: to keep discussions in one place, if you leave a talk message I'll answer it here, though I may put a note on your page if getting your attention seems important. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency. Apologies if I fail to notice changes on your page, must trim my watchlist.

ID timeline

To get the hang of its origins, I'm jotting together User talk:Dave souza/ID timeline. Lets hope this is useful..... dave souza, talk 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I give up on this article. People have read the original version of the lead o much that they're completey blind to any faults it has, and are starting to make personal attacks on anyone who tweaks it. I'm giving it a few months to see if it settles down. There's also a bit of a WP:OWN situation. Adam Cuerden 11:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to leave it be for a while – it's extremely sensitive, and while obvious vandalism is easily dealt with, a great deal of effort and patience is needed to make any changes. If you're at a loose end, Alfred Russel Wallace is heading towards FA and I'd appreciate it if you could look it over. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 11:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Flood Geology

Actually, since you brought up my belief, I believe that the rainbow was first seen after the first rain ~6000 years ago. I have little insight into God's timeline for the laws of physics. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." - Acts 1:7 Dan Watts 12:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so. Belief, and particularly such belief, is the antithesis of science. ..... dave souza, talk 17:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I had no notion that science delved into the timing of the return of Christ. Dan Watts 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the UK National Curriculum

We are pretty much exhausted after getting the WPCD up but I am happy to change the schools website within a few days. Is there much difference? We could always do a Scots version. Ironic that according to UCLES the UK curriculum is used in more than a hundred other countries but not Scotland mind you. --BozMo talk 06:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Inappropriate tone

Thanks for making the change! I hope that will make things clearer for people who find that articles they've worked on have been tagged. —Celithemis 09:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cradle of Life

Can't hurt. Adam Cuerden 09:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This Prozac is doing a bit of a number on me today. But I'm told the side effects should go away in the next two weeks. Adam Cuerden 11:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer

To talk to the curriculum people in Scotland and see if there are other things we should add or change. I would be very grateful if you spoke to them and will try to accomodate any suggestions they make. --BozMo talk 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

/ID timeline

This in article space yet? Adam Cuerden 12:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, my aim would be to trim it down to brief summaries for each "date", probably putting parts of the "quotations... etc" in footnotes along with the reference they come from , keeping my own page as a scrapbook: feel free to move it and work on it insitu if you prefer. Got any good ideas for the title? Could be History of intelligent design or Intelligent design timeline, at a guess. ... dave souza, talk 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design timeline" sounds good to me. Adam Cuerden 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Smaug123

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Smaug123 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help, no doubt the 24 hour block on our anon friend will have to be repeated and extended sometime. Thanks for fighting vandalism! .. dave souza, talk 16:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

USians?

ROFL. •Jim62sch• 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Me thought you'd like the advice on procreation and travel, which is a variant on a polite UKese euphemism for an expression often referred to using the initials of the Foreign Office... :) ... dave souza, talk 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Clever devil. Do you eat picalilli in Scotland or is that a Brit thing? •Jim62sch• 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a pickle, and my enthusiasm for suchlike runs out after beetroots and chutney. Some folks like it, dunno if it's more of an English thing. If it's an obscure pun, 'fraid you've lost me there. Onywey, Broon's oor new leader noo, his chats with the chimp may less chummy than his predecessor's. A son o' the manse, just hope he disnae turn oot tae be anither o they christians... dave souza, talk 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Be nice....

Talk:Evolution - It *might* be a valid question. There are, after all, interesting fields of research we possibly could include. Adam Cuerden 21:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just the way that they say it... Got your message as I was trying to post a somewhat embarrassed follow up. Maybe needs a new sub article! ... dave souza, talk 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think there's a case for a third evolution article along the lines of Further exploration of evolution or Evolution (Part II) that goes into more detail about the more complex concepts, like Hardy-Weinberg, epigenetics, level of selection, etc. Adam Cuerden 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, but this is way over my head. I'd have thought developments in research on evolution or something would fit. Am currently trying to get my head round the theology of creationism, and don't want to post a half-bodged effort there. Time for a break, ta for the comments. ... dave souza, talk 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That works. Also gives it a nice focus. But perhaps later. Just helped bring Ediacaran biota to FA, got a couple images through WP:FPC and the commons equivalent, and other such things. Probably should really be doing Natural selection and all the other sub-articles first. Adam Cuerden 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for being so supportive of my concerns. I was beginning to think that no one cared and no one wanted to listen at creationism. Is there any advice that you can give for how I can make myself better understood? --Fradulent Ideas 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. The best advice is probably to be patient and polite, and try to understand the concerns being raised by other editors in good faith – quite often they're picking up on an aspect that you've not appreciated, and a compromise covering that aspect as well will result in an improvement to the article. It's a difficult balancing act, especially on socially controversial articles, but it usually works out in time. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

rtc, Popper and a bonfire of inanities

We've got to do something about rtc, an RfC maybe? •Jim62sch• 10:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got to go out for a while now, was thinking perhaps a reference to WP:TALK then archiving all that drivel if he starts up again. Maybe then report to WP:AN/I proposing a short block for WP:DE, or perhaps better RfC. Ironically, you'll note that my suggestion means deleting all mention of "verifiability" from the article and referring to the NAS and AAAS statements etc. at Kitzmiller, which are what counts in explaining what essentially is a stratagem for evading earlier legal rulings. Mus' go walkies.. dave souza, talk 10:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh...I'm not getting whay you're saying about verifiability. •Jim62sch• 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blast, my typo – meant falsifiability which was a criterion at McLean v. Arkansas, but not mentioned at s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science and so seems to me to be an unnecessary distraction. It should be possible to get an attributed list out of that judgement – NAS, AAAS etc. – then add other prominent arguments which have good sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Step into it

Or leap?

Hopefully you didn't misinterpret my posts. From what I've read of your responses in other threads, we seem to be on the same page.

My response on B's page was intended to lighten the mood and reduce stress, as are many of my remarks. All too often, my remarks are mis-interpreted by individuals lacking a sense of humor. To wit: I'd love to come back with a witty response to your Christian comment, but have no doubt that at least 357.667 people would misunderstand me. So, you're welcome to imagine that I've done so and chuckle to yourself. ;)

When I made my first post on wikipedia, I had absolutely no idea that there was an entire community behind the scenes. I almost wish now that I'd never found out. For all that we (wikipedians) espouse to AGF, I've found that as often as not, people here assume wrong doing and then set out to prove it, rather than the reverse. Some have even designated themselves as official 'wiki sleuths', and toss out accusations like candy, based on circumstantial evidence and coincidence. It is, indeed, disheartening.

Perhaps an essay: "Was it really THAT bad? Why can't we all just get along?"

Happy editing. Peace.Lsi john 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope we're on the same page, your potential witty response to my Christian comment sounds intriguing, and if others would take it wrongly, do please email it to me. Sorry if my sarky Scottish sense of humour offends. For context, see Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Jesus is truth. Perhaps by coincidence, the Gospel of John includes "love one another" and "If a man abide not in me...they are burned". The latter part of which, that well known theology student Charles Darwin thought a "damnable doctrine" due to his concerns about other family members. All of which is, we hope, irrelevant. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor Orangemarlin 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I HATE 'suspicion' pages. Peace.Lsi john 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to comment. If you look at my record with sockpuppets I'm like 10 for 11. I'm almost certain this will be 11 for 12. I rarely take administrative action against anyone, except for a couple of sockpuppet masters and one anti-semitic diatribe that an editor started. I don't like suspicion either. Orangemarlin 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, my friend. If we 'must' have them, then I think they should be tucked away somewhere privately for admins-only. Making 'suspicions' public on a 'formal page' grates against every fiber in my being.

Even if someone is 10-11. a) There is one potentially wrongly accused who has been 'marked' .. and b) The next person may not be nearly as 'good' as you. Peace.Lsi john 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid points all. And there are many editors who violate good faith and use these processes to cause trouble. I was accused of being a sockpuppet of someone in Washington, DC, whereas I'm sitting in my office in California. That one got thrown out in a minute. But sockpuppet trolls have got to be controlled, or we will have anarchy. My point for being 10 for 11 was not to brag, but only to point out that I bring a case only when I'm sure (and in the 11th of 11, I'm still sure I was right, but I couldn't prove it). I'm suspicious many times, but I don't do anything. I do agree that only admins should see it, but in a "community" like this one, people need to be able to comment. Otherwise, admins will run this place, which isn't how the project was envisioned. Orangemarlin 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't realized it was a formal process. I see now that there is. I have a rather bad taste left in my mouth from being called a sock and having several pages created for that purpose. I believe they're all gone now.. but *shrug* who knows when one will pop up that I didn't know about. I'm touchy about false public accusations made loosely. In the context of this situation, perhaps its not as bad as I let myself believe. (thanks for letting us borrow your page Dave). Cheers all. Peace.Lsi john 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's tedious, but then a long run of borderline trolling on related article talk pages is tedious, and several editors including me have gently pointed out the similarity on those talk pages, with the genuine hope that said editor prove our uncomfortable feeling incorrect. So it goes. Will try to look at if fairly soon. .. dave souza, talk 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bishapod

Hello little Dave! 'Zilla take final step in escaping puppeteer controll of wienie 'shonen, have created own sock puppet alternative account for when feeling frisky: User:Bishapod. So cool! Little Dave most welcome take over running of Bishapod if desired, 'Zilla easily create other account. (Hard work of making personalized welcome template already accomplished, see handsome sight on User talk:Bishapod!) 'Zilla very considerately make no Bishapod edit yet. Will e-mail password if desired! bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Aaaaaagh!! Bishzilla and Bishapod both roaming wild in Misplaced Pages! Am overawed, much honoured by welcome but fear unable to take on great responsibility as overworked, as on the FAR side below.. Also fear mighty claws and teeth of B & B, naturally. Thanks anyway, .. dave souza, talk 09:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Daddy, daddy! Bishapod 10:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)