User talk:Dave souza/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dave souza. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Dave, can you self revert?

Dave, I believe that you might have accidentally violated 1RR with the following two edits. You reverted one of my edits here[1] and one of Heyitspeter's edits here.[2] Can you please self-revert one of them? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I did revert Heyitspeter, but I didn't revert you, I added a new and minor clarification to your edit. Your change, my further change. Not the same as it was before. As discussed at #Second_paragraph, the opinion was "With reference to FOI requests made by David Holland". I've left out "opinion" which is a useful refinement, but the wording didn't seem crucial. Do plesae discuss on the article talk page, with references, if you want to dispute that. Thanks for the helpful hint, dave souza, talk 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, please self-revert at my TalkPage, MalcolmMcDonald (talk) . All those points are valid but none of them concerns improving the articles (that I can see), which, as I told you when you asked, was the point of having it. All you've done is assert your support for the current condition, and we could have guessed that anyway. Your work is not wasted, since I'm keeping copies of such material at the bottom of this page here. I may eventually integrate the charts, using your material in an NPOV fashion with that of others. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, having made specific proposals for improving various articles – for example, "the range of views in Scientific opinion on climate change should include those who think it's worse than IPCC reports indicate" – that's not in the current article. . . dave souza, talk 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you don't want opinions that don't suit your purpose?[3] . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Theory Ground Rules

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fringe Theory Ground Rules and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--Swood100 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so five of the arbiters seem to have declined it. Looks like a content dispute, to be settled by policies and guidelines as usual. . . dave souza, talk 15:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Referencing the The Real Global Warming Disaster

Thanks for your help. Will try to implement your recommendations. Jprw (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to assist. For an example of the harvnb template in use see Second voyage of HMS Beagle, where clicking on a citation link in the text takes you to the author name, year and page numbers in the Notes. Clicking on the author name/year links down to the source in the References section. . dave souza, talk 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An idea for improving the GW editing environment

I've been thinking about how the probation in this space is not really working as hoped and about what you and TS said fringe views, condescension etc. I wonder if it wouldn't be better if, in place of restrictions that concentrate on the number of reverts etc., the community agreed to statement of principles that all editors would have to agree to before editing in a probationary space. For instance in the GW space, it might start off with a section on the science:

I agree that the current mainstream scientific position re AWG is X as reflected in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I agree that regardless of my view of the accuracy of (1), WP must reflect the mainstream view.
I agree that contrary views can only be reflected if to the extent that ...

... then a section on editing environment

I agree that a collegial editing environment is vital to producing articles of good quality and so agree to adhere to [the following guidelines that may be more restrictive than on WP in general]
I agree to argue in good faith, listen and respond politely to the points others make
I agree to write for the enemy
...etc

New editors would be warned (as they are now about probation) of these sanctions and would put a template on their talk page if they agree. Violators would be warned and then topic/article banned as now. Thoughts? JPatterson (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think demanding that editors agree to a checklist is going to work, but the idea of a tamplate making these points with reference to policies could be helpful. The first point could cite Talk:Global warming/FAQ and note that WP:MNA means that the issue gets discussed on talk:global warming, not on every other page. Bit pressed for time just now, will think it over. It's something that 2/0, Lar and other enforcing admins would have to approve, perhaps put a proposal up at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement when you're ready. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought of it more like the community defining the editing environment they want and editors either agreeing to operate in that environment or finding somewhere else to contribute. But in any case, right now it's kind of sink or swim. I know when I showed up I was bewildered by the rules, policy links (many of which conflict or are not helpful in this environment), all the process boards which it turns out, they don't really want you to use :>), etc. Your idea of at least laying out the important policy guidelines at the offset in some digestible form I think would help quite a lot. JPatterson (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll review this proposal and give it some thought. . . dave souza, talk 17:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

admonishment to read more widely

This had gone before I had chance to comment. Each of us could benefit from being better read, so I'm unsure how your admonishment is helpful. The point is that I am not prepared to accept WMC's (or anybody's) unsupported assertions as factual. Neither should you be, and I am sure you are not. What are you defending? WMC's right to declare the Truth? Are you really asserting I should accept what he says ipso facto? Or that he has the right to speak ex cathedra? Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nsaa had dragged in an offtopic claim about the glacier issue, as described in the tabloid Mail on Sunday, and if you'd been following Talk:Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Huston we have a problem you'd have seen discussion of a substantial reason to think that Lal being misquoted. I think on balance that Lai probably said something which the Mail spun misleadingly. Similarly, "the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed" being allegedly supported by Climatic_Research_Unit_documents#Trenberth_e-mail_of_12_Oct_2009 doesn't stand up – Treberth was privately discussing problems, and had already published a paper on the problems. When WMC says something is wrong, I take his comments seriously and check up on them for myself. I certainly don't accept what he says unquestioningly, but I've found that questions he raises are worth investigating. It does get tedious having to look out the same links repeatedly when issues are raised on various pages, partly that's due to the structure where there's some overlap between articles. Thus topics get raised on global warming that have already been dealt with on the criticisms article. Not sure to what extent a FAQ could help. . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should be using that climate change taskforce page as a centralised discussion for some of these issues? Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I don't like joining taskforces but that could be useful. Couple more links for my convenience, so to speak.[4][5] . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on gray literature

I just finished praising Nigel, but after looking again, I realize you did the heavy lifting. Nice. SPhilbrick T 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to assist, just fortunate that the IPCC chap got round to making a statement in today's paper. . dave souza, talk 09:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gray literature

Hey Dave Souza. You made an edit here that took out some information. I'm not clear why in one case. Specifically, the opening sentence listed, among two other "gray" sources mentioned, student dissertations. This was removed. I assume this was accidental as it was side by side the less relevant clause, "regarding amazon rainforest predictions," which was removed as well. Would you mind adding that back if it was a mistake? Thank you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to delete this section to reduce talkpage clutter if you like.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural selection

Hi Dave, If you have a moment could you take a look at the lead section of Natural selection. The edits that have been made over the last 24 hours were kicked off by a flyby IP trying to tidy the grammar but in doing so changed the meaning. I reverted but then several others, some well-meaning others perhaps with dubious motives have made some changes which have altered the lead rather illogically and too drastically, I think at least. Rather than step in and perhaps cause an edit war I thought it best to refer to yourself first, Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the statement was simpler but introduced the unnecessary claim of "concept" and lost the successive generations bit. If it resumes we can discuss it on the talk page. . . dave souza, talk 13:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Please avoid getting over-personal in edit summaries. [6]. --TS 08:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The term crank, equivalent to eccentric, appears to me an apt description of the "contrarian" author of the book, note that I made and make no comment on the editor. . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "fringe" would have worked better. It's a well defined term of art on English Wikipedia, and its colloquial meaning is acceptable, too. --TS 08:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, it is indeed a term enshrined in policy and guidelines. I very much appreciate your sensible comments on the general topic, dave souza, talk 08:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual "Talkback" notification

--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, I'd greatly appreciate a response to the relevant subsection at the bottom of the page. However, in general and in the future please refrain from editing my talkpage except where you feel WP policy specifically calls for it. Your additions have been unhelpful (viz. [7][8] [responses follow these diffs in case it's not immediately clear to you why they are problematic]).--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Irrelevant sniping"

As you call it: [9].--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My considered view. Your opinion may differ. . dave souza, talk 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this an apology, or are you segueing into one?--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's my statement, and in no way an apology. Hope you're not trolling. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I actually was hoping for an apology. Specifically in reference to your allegations on my talkpage, as your actions suggest you didn't really mean what you said.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was going to comment on this same statement. You are making completely unsubstantiated allegations of serious import and stating them like they are indisputable facts. I suspect that the situation is not as clear cut as you seem to believe that it is. Can you substantiate this point or at least refactor your statement to make it clear that this is merely your opinion or "considered view"? I think such a gesture would go a long way towards trying to foster a more collaborative atmosphere which I assume is everyone's goal at this point. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In the thread, my opening comment gave diffs to the relevant talk page threads, and TS desribed ZP5's behaviour accurately. Your opinion may of course differ. While I consider ZP5's behaviour a serious issue, I don't see the need to prepare a care against that editor at this stage. With luck and a reasonably collaborative environment, we should see a better attitude to content policies as well as to civility. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

moved from Talk:Criticism of the IPCC AR4

Hi Dave,

Now this is what I call a long response :). I hope you don't mind the move, this not very specific to Talk:Criticism of the IPCC AR4. Please feel free to remove it altogether as per WP:NOTAFORUM or WP:OR.

The Himalayas error was bad, the Netherlands is an awkward misunderstanding but if you read it in the context of the report it didn't really seem very important either way. It's a good point about consulting PBL before making the statement, but Parry spoke after a long period (in newsroom terms) of investigation which presumably included consultation, and was already being criticised for not having instant answers to the critics. It's noticeable that investigative journalists didn't manage to notice the contradiction for about three years. Either way, checking of working group 2 on impacts was sloppy, the procedure isn't that firmly stated, and they're going to have to do much better. Crucially, the working group 1 science seems solid, no errors. Of course the science keeps getting updated, and more frequent reports have been suggested. It will be interesting to see how it goes. . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a Dutch saying for which English probably has a similar one: confidence comes by foot and leaves by horse. For me, confidence in the IPCC has left by rocket. There's more than Himalayas and sea levels. It's also weather stations, Hockey sticks, tree rings, "High Priests" suddenly saying that the world didn't warm up in the last 15 years, government informing me with leaflets stating as an example "the hot summer of 2008", reading e-mails that never say "didn't this fool read report such and such" but say "i'm glad these people don't know about FOIA" and "please delete all your mail", the good news consistently being left out (once "Global Cooling" would be a disaster, one would expect there are positive things about a warming earth), raw data missing, source code with comments complaining about the total mess, newspapers that immediately blame the current cold winter to global warming, seeing the trackrecord of PBL and wondering about all the other "peer reviewed" sources etc.

In my book, Chaos theory is still valid. Generally speaking, models with more than two variables that influence each other over time are proven to be "alway failing". Not so for Global Warming. Based on really sloppy code (I've seen hard coded arrays of "correction factors"!) politicians seem to be able to agree on "not more than 2 degrees warming". A theory simply is not valid if it cannot predict the future. I would have totally believed IPCC if it said "it's 1998 now, the next 10 years will show no warming, 2010 will be pretty cold, and 2011 will be the start of eternal hotness". It didn't. "It's a travesty we can't explain the lack of warming". Falsification would be the end of any other scientific theory. Time for the next one. Instead, any phenomenon is explained as if it fits perfectly in the theory. Each and every newspaper in The Netherlands has made an editorial that says that "the current cold is also proof for climate change". I thought that the theory indeed predicted cooling where I live, but for that the Gulf Stream would have to be reversed first. In the minds of journalists, the IPCC is so perfect that falsification simply is not possible. Now the freezing temperatures are not only a nuisance, but also a travesty.

You deem it noticeable that journalists didn't notice the contradiction for three years. I've heard that before from "the light side", but I don't completely grasp the argument. The only conclusion I can draw from it is that not a single journalist has been strong enough to say to his boss that he wanted to investigate the IPCC. I haven't read the pile of pages the IPCC has produced, but I would have noticed Hollandgate. I know for fact that a single interview with a sceptic in De Volkskrant (not even in the Science section) led to huge anger by the head of Science (the one from the article we've just fixed). I'm not a climate scientist, but I know quite a lot about economics and computer science. Pretty much the First Law of Economics would be: incentives work. This explains all allegations against sceptics "being paid by big oil", but the reverse is 1000-fold true. Nearly all climate scientists are paid for because climate change is hot. Governments and heads of departments make the scientists an offer they simply cannot refuse. They either have to choose between concluding that the world is facing disaster or find a job outside the field. The government has similar incentives. All ministers of environment I know jumped on the latest bandwagon. They have to. Saying "well, this particular problem doesn't really seem to be a problem to me. Let's downsize or stop this ministry" would be handing out a pink slip to themselves.

I was too young for global cooling or the disasters the Club of Rome spelled out for the year 2000, but all disasters invented later were spelled out in full. Acid rain. Ozon layer. Nitrates. Smog. Global warming. Climate change. The good news (air and water being much cleaner than since I was born, poor worker families now being able to go on holiday to the other side of the world, computers more powerful than mainframes in the seventies to be bought in exchange for 40 hours flipping hamburgers, etc) is totally left out. Good news is not worth mentioning, especially not if you want more money for follow-up research. "Hollandgate" was discovered by Vrij Nederland, a left-wing newspaper originating as a clandestine newspaper from WW II. In the very next episode they reported about being accused of "collaboration" with the sceptics. ("Collaboration" has only one meaning in Dutch: helping Nazi-Germans).

If one was looking for a theory that would sound believable, would mandate massive government intrusion and would be the best way to stop industrialization, stop mobility, and stop any progress of mankind in general there simply is no better way than to come up with a theory that blames all the problems in the world on CO2. It's perfect. There's not much one can do without producing CO2 so a theory like that is to a politician as what a hammer is to a carpenter. A member of Dutch parliament even used Twitter just after the earth quake in Haiti to say she was so sorry, and that we really needed to do something about climate change right now.

Since about my sixth birthday I've been told that our way of living is about to end, unless wise man rule the world, steering us all into the right direction. And, maybe because that is because I'm a libertarian, it sounds suspiciously much like socialism to me and socialism really did bring nothing but disaster and death.

Even if the theory is right (except for the travesty occurring right now). Maybe earth is warming up a few degrees, and maybe it is even all our fault (and the fact that other planets are warming, too is just coincidence). Mankind and definitely "the planet" can cope. It has done that before. May be some animals get extinct. Bad luck, 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. OK, may be Bangladesh will suffer from flooding within a century. Why not pay for their Delta Plan which would be much cheaper than forbidding incandescent light bulbs or taxing petrol even more. And why should we pay anyway, as the people in Bangladesh are probably richer by then than we are now. OK, may be even the Gulf Stream reverses. I really don't mind at all, and Earth has seen stranger things happening. Even if I were religious, I think God wouldn't mean by good stewardship that it's mankind's duty to keep everything exactly the same as it were in 1990. He'd be quite happy with the decreasing amount of people getting killed or starving to death in the last few decades than ever before and applaud us for trading a little more CO2 for much more happiness for anyone.

People usually know best how to spend their money. They may want to save it for their retirement. They may want to pay the education of their children. They even may want to use it to buy a bigger TV. Government must have a really, really good reason to take money away to spend on something they think is in the general interest. As long as a fraction of the money already used now to combat climate change would be enough to get completely rid of, to name just one example, leprosy (along with the species Mycobacterium leprae), I think government is making the wrong choices for us.

Before my confidence in the IPCC, the "consensus", or even "climate science" as a whole returns, Pachauri should resign; all input to the IPCC should be public, all models and data used should be public, sceptics should get similar amounts of subsidy and the IPCC must come up with a model that actually predicts the climate instead of the current 20/20 hindsights and 20/20 forecasts where everything fits in the theory. And after all that -which will never happen I'm afraid-, I want proof that the massive amounts of money to be spent are actually worthwhile compared to any other good cause, including leaving people to decide for themselves what to do with the money they earned. Joepnl (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, will reply shortly but rather a rush today. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You having a laugh?

[10] The source for this is wp:rs why are you reverting and removing text which has been talked to death in talk, which reached consensus and which has been in for weeks? I really do not want to have to talk it to death again just because you don`t like James Delingpole mark nutley (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The removal of inaccurate statements with a blog as a source was overdue. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not a blog, please be accurate here it is wp:rs as well you know, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's blog isn't a blog? Also, the other statements are inaccurate, as demonstrated in detail in other articles. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Don`t be silly, it is not a blog in the same way as a normal blog, it is a wp:rs as it is in the telegraph, none of the statements are inaccurate either, again please self revert mark nutley (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An opinion column is not a reliable source except for the opinion of its author. Being in the Telegraph doesn't make claims in somebody's opinion column a reliable statement of fact about a living person. --TS 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, from wp:rs Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control It is a wp:rs end of story, once again dave i ask you to self revert the well sourced and agreed upon text mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Correcting your characterization of revert on Climate Change

Hi Dave--thanks for your note! Unfortunately, I fear your interpretation of the Wikipedia policy and the implications of the article probation leave something to be desired. My reversion of your POV edit was made in good faith, and the text you have restored to the document remains clearly unencyclopedia. It's perfectly acceptable for an article to say that a source (or many sources) say McKitrick made inaccurate claims. It's not acceptable for the article itself to say it. Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral tone, and you weaken the article by violating this policy.

You know as well as I do that as an administrator, it falls to you to exemplify the highest standards of the community, so I encourage you do so, and correct your text accordingly. Regards, David DGaw (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maintain the substance and content of the well sourced statement, and you're welcome to edit the point. Simply deleting sourced content is not acceptable. I found I'd named the wrong mac, that may have been part of the confusion, corrected it now. . . dave souza, talk 14:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. See my note on the IPCC talk page elaborating on my concern. Who is it that says McKitrick's claims are inaccurate? They should be credited with the assessment. --DGaw (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's reasonable. Gotta leave it alone for a bit just now. We don't give such fringe scientific views equal validity, but I'll try to think of a way of resolving it. . . . dave souza, talk 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I notice you notified DGaw about the probation. I added your notification to the list at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log. Would you check back if you could and add any other notifications you have made to the end of that log? --TS 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, that's the only one I can recall doing. Done in haste, repent at leisure! Will check, and take more care in future. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Message for you from MN

User talk:Marknutley#Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Marathon

Thank you very much. Both marathons that I've run were miserable, excruciatingly painful experiences. The feeling of accomplishment, however, is indescribable. Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've had a little of that occasionally from the more sedate occupation of Munroing. Usually it's more fun on the way, but there are "what am I doing out in this" occasions. To repeat myself, well done! . . dave souza, talk 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that Munroing appears to often be in the same category. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Controversy

Dave, this is going back a way, for which I apologise. Back in may 2007 re the naming of monarchs, you said "The outcome is that in some bizarre royal arithmetic she gets to call herself what she wants, and as you may have noticed there are post office pillarboxes around the place with E VII R on them, but none with ER or E II R". I've only really read this now, which is pretty poor I know. The reason you see some letterboxes with E VII R on them is because the E II R ones were destroyed. The ones you see are old ones from Edward the 7th. It's not an anomlay of Liz choosing a bizarre number. It's due to the controversy itself and the reaction to it. Paul Coyne (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the memory! The bizarre arithmetic is that pillar boxes show E II R in England, but a Crown of Scotland in Scotland,[11] and if I recall correctly she gets to call herself E II R everywhere because if she wants 1+0=2, that's ok by Royal prerogative. I knew the E VII R ones were survivals from Edward the 7th, sorry not to have made that clearer. The postbox articles look pretty good, and apparently the pillar boxes are all made in Denny. Wonders of technology! . . dave souza, talk 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested in

I have proposed that Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed be trimmed and merged into the movie's main article. I see that you have contributed to the article and are an active editor, so I would value your input here. Thank you. Seregain (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage stuff

Hello. In the interest of clarity, I'm asking that talkpage discussions at Climactic Research Unit documents controversy or whatever you'd like to call it be more focused on the specific issue at hand and less speculative. As an example, it seems to me that these edits [12][13][14] violate WP:NOT#OPINION.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Please study policies with care. . dave souza, talk 11:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just follow whatever policy this exemplifies: Do not get sidetracked into advocating your personal opinion on issues related to the article, instead focus on productive and directed discussion. Sounds a lot like WP:NOT#OPINION or WP:NOT#FORUM to me, but that doesn't really matter.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You and Lar

Do you think you and Lar could take your differences to user talk? This squabble on the probation enforcement page is a very unwelcome distraction and imposes on the patience of other editors. --TS 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'll think it over before responding any further. Hope the policy issue will be seen as resolved. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I greatly appreciate your prompt response. I don't think there is a substantive policy issue beyond (as 2over0 has observed) WP:NOTFORUM. There doesn't seem to be any problem with keeping discussion focussed, while being careful not to shut down legitimate discussion of how to improve an article. --TS 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask you a personal question?

I see that you finally chimed in on my suggested changes to the Richard Sternberg article. I guess my questions are; why do you care so much about keeping everything about ID in lock step with the wishes of the NCSE, and how do you purpose that the quote from McDairmid could have been manufactured?

Are you seriously saying that the Souder report misquoted the McDairmid email, or that the Discovery Institute took the Souder report and delibrately changed it to fit there purposes. If either one of those senarious is the case then write a press release and take down Souder and the Discovery Institute in one fell swoop.

My hunch is that you probably know that the quote is accurate and you are just doing whatever you can to suppress it. Mathezar (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't ask personal questions, I value a reasonable amount of privacy. Your hunches are offtopic and irrelevant, see verifiability policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think it is very relevant if you are actively trying to use murky Wikipedia policy to suppress something that you actually believe is probably true. No one asked you to enter this debate, but I think it is fair to require you to defend yourself. Here is the link I posted for a non Discovery Institute link to the Souder Report http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5789134/Intolerance-and-the-Politicization-of-Science-at-the-Smithsonian

If you are unwilling to lay all your cards on the table that is fine I suppose. But, at least propose a scenario whereby the quote could be false. I am sure you won't be able to find a reliable source that states that the quote is false. Mathezar (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My beliefs are irrelevant, take it to the article talk page and I'll review it when time permits. All the best, dave souza, talk 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Book suggestion?

I've started reading Booker's book. Needless to say, he makes some very serious allegations about the nature and quality of the IPCC's stance on the modern warming period. I'm reserving judgement for the moment on much of Booker's conclusions and would like to check them against some other sources. Booker basically gives a history of the AGW movement with criticism of how it developed and came to its different conclusions. I checked Amazon and of course found a large number of books which support the IPCC's stance on the issue. Would you have a recommendation of a recently published book or books that give a history of the AGW research, but does so from a neutral or pro-stance? Cla68 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the history, Spencer R. Weart, who is well qualified as a historian with a physics background,[15] has written The Discovery of Global Warming - A History, 2008 edition available from amazon with an extended version available free online – its timeline gives an overview with links to more detailed sections. The IPCC outlines its own past, and their FAQ discusses a number of issues covered in the WG1 report. I did note before that Philip Ball in his review recommended Richard A. Muller's Physics for Future Presidents for a balanced view of the hockey stick episode, available from Amazon. I've not read it or other books on the subject, and can't give any first hand guidance, but if I find good recommendations I'll let you know. Thanks for asking, dave souza, talk 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start reading Weart's online edition. Thank you for the recommendation. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to assist, it does give a lot of context of the political context in The Public and Climate Change and related sections which I've been skimming. . . dave souza, talk 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Hi, Dave. Unfortunately, just as I finished (or almost finished--I was going to change something) editing the Intelligent Design article last night, my internet went down and I was unable to write you a note asking you to check it out. I see you have anyway! I didn't see the article is semi-protected until I was showing the preview.

In any case, I think the Einstein quotes are very relevant to the history of the concept and are no more "peacock additions" than the inclusion of Plato, Cicero, Aquinas, Paley, and Browne. He would be the last in a string of great thinkers to have conceived of the idea of a higher intelligence behind the ordered cosmos.

I will come back later today as I really don't have time for this right now but did not want to just leave this hanging. Thank you for moving my contribution here instead of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, one big problem with Einstein is that we really need a source connecting his concept with modern ID – there are plenty of references saying that Paley was a predecessor, and as I recall the same applies or should apply to the others. The other problem is that Einstein didn't conceive of a higher intelligence "behind the ordered cosmos", like Spinoza he conceived of cosmic order as the intelligence. Thus the perception in the universe of "profound reason and beauty constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man." A moral religion embodying the ethical imperative, "a development [that] continued in the New Testament", was an immature stage with a fatal flaw: "the anthropomorphic character of the concept of God," easy to grasp by "underdeveloped minds" of the masses while freeing them of responsibility, would disappear in Einstein's "cosmic religious feeling" that sheds all anthropomorphic elements.[16] Don't think the IDers would be too pleased about that rather deistic notion. So, reliable secondary source needed to establish the connection. . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, I'm home now and my internet's working. Yay!

"One big problem with Einstein is that we really need a source connecting his concept with modern ID."

But his concept doesn't connect to the modern ID movement. For the most part, the modern ID movement is a thrust to justify the biblical narrative. Einstein would never have done that! Neither would Plato or Cicero if they stumbled across some version of the Tanakh. Aquinas and Paley are more precursors of the current movement. (Not familiar with Browne.) I think Einstein belongs in this chronology of philosophers, and would hope no reader would think Plato or Cicero or Einstein endorsed the present movement.

I understand the "Origins of the concept" part of the article to give the progressive history of the concept itself, apart from the current movement. The next part discusses the origin of the modern-day term and offers a link to a timeline. The timeline begins in 1920, when Einstein was 40, but the events it traces are far removed from any of his ideas or work.

"The other problem is that Einstein didn't conceive of a higher intelligence 'behind the ordered cosmos', like Spinoza he conceived of cosmic order as the intelligence."

Yes, your wording on this is more accurate. Still, he saw design and intelligence and reason, not randomness. I'm perhaps OK with the idea of a randomly fashioned design, like driftwood carved by the sea or the fantastic wind sculptures in the world's deserts.

"Don't think the IDers would be too pleased about that rather deistic notion."

I wasn't trying to please nor to ruffle them...nor anyone else; just adding relevant material.

In sum, I thought and think I had a worthwhile contribution, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing the facts, whether I'm allowed to publish them or not. I do have a little problem with your calling it "original research" since I merely provided germane quotes from a man of science and philosophy.

Now, the other business of reverting my correction of no ID article ever being published in a peer-reviewed journal is a different matter. It's not worth it to me to argue or get a referee about your overriding preference regarding my Einstein quotes, but Meyer absolutely did, by hook or by crook, pull off the coup of getting his ID article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia has two long and contentious articles on that very deed. I'm astonished you don't see Harper-Collins as mainstream, but no problem--I'll use "The Panda's Thumb" and "Skeptical Enquirer." So that one I'll polish up and restore. Maybe Harper-Collins isn't mainstream cuz they just published Sarah Palin's Going Rogue!! :D Just kidding. (Hey, I know how to spell both rogue and rouge!)

Dave, I always feel hampered by this format where you can't see the twinkle in my eye. Yes, I have some fundamental differences of perspective and consequently of opinion with you, but I'd love to have a friendly visit with you over a glass of Shiraz. Best, Yopienso (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that in my haste this morning on a borrowed computer I answered on your talk page instead of the article talk page. If you wish, please feel free to move either one so they're on the same page.

Came back when I found it's the National Enquirer but the Skeptical Inquirer. I read neither. Yopienso (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, can you please comment at the Intelligent Design talk page? Thanks, and best regards, Yopienso (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, haven't had much time today to keep in touch with it, will review and comment when poss. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll be offline for most of the day. Yopienso (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog

I was using the wrong source for that information and have corrected it. Please feel free to give an opinion on a question I just posed on the article's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that clarification! Will look into it. . dave souza, talk 10:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please don't attack other people by calling them proponents of WP:FRINGE theories as you do here. Se my comments here. Remember, if we shall have any cooperative environments, such labeling you do here is not wise and it's counterproductive for the editing environment. Please respond to the case, and not attack other living people. Ok? Nsaa (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Attacking the "hockey stick" graph is classic fringe pseudoscience, and if you don't know which UK publications are right wing then you should learn. . dave souza, talk 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and Greenpeace is taken over by the communists and IPCC is tainted by it? "So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they’d captured it." – Lord Christopher Monckton [17][18] (I can at least source my claims ... ) and since IPCC uses Greenpeace as so called grey literature it's a ... Shall we go on? Nsaa (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And you should read some basics about science, like the Scientific Method, and you then know that the hockey stick is a hypothesis (oh now it's a "consensus" that it's the truth - where do we find "consensus" in the Scientific Method ). It's politics, and have very little to do with sciences. Nsaa (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your politics are noted. Hmm, Monckton. Interesting reference. . . dave souza, talk 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendly Overture

Hi, Dave, I don't know if I'm just imagining you have a hostile attitude toward me or if you really are impatient/disgusted/hostile with me or if in not wasting words you inadvertently are coming across like that to me. This is re. the ID talk page.

Re: "Factually incorrect"--I saw this complaint as legitimate and your response as brusquely dismissive, so, not realizing Wikisource is considered separate from Wikipedia, I provided what I thought was a more reliable source that confirmed your correct assertion about ID promoting the Christian God. Then I found the missing attributions for the other editor's correct claim that Discovery Institute is not exclusively Christian. I thought I was being helpful. I was mistaken about the Wikisource, but you were unreceptive about documentation of other religions involved with the DI. Your statement about "the god of" I've copied here is incomprehensible to me. Again, you sound brusquely dismissive, but of what, I know not. I never considered nor mentioned anything about the god of various religions, and the court said nothing of identifying Allah and Jehovah with the Christian God, much less of whoever the Moonies worship. ???

"You err in thinking that this source is Wikipedia – it's Wikisource and an accurate transcript of http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf which provides a well supported basis for the statement. While you may consider the god of UC members, Jews and Muslims to be different from the god of Christianity, that was not the conclusion of the court. . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)"

You didn't directly answer any of the specific questions I asked:

Are you saying you want to keep a false statement in the article? Yopienso (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To summarize: 1) Do we editors agree that the paper was published? 2) Do we want the article to reflect that reality?

Did you intend to cast aspersions on the BSW journal with this sentence?

Do you think it is good policy to promote the statement of one court document against 15 reliable sources? Is this not giving it undue weight?

Yet you reverted every one of my edits without comment except for the one on Einstein.

You presented novel synthesis re. why certain evidence wasn't presented in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

You steadfastly maintained, against all logic and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the Meyer paper had never been published. Now you are insisting, without proper sourcing, that it wasn't properly peer-reviewed. I am willing to compromise on this, since the sentence as it stands is much improved. But your insistence on this is baffling. The WP article on the Sternberg controversy, to which you refer me as proof it wasn't, is inconclusive on how properly refereed the paper was. Now, here's some OR and SYN on my part that I've no intention of mentioning in the article or on the talk page, but I suspect Sternberg broke the spirit while carefully avoiding breaking the letter of the "law," so Eugenie Scott caught Roy McDiarmid by the throat and made him change the rules, effectively shutting the door after the horse was out. ("We have reviewed and revised editorial policies [my bolding] to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all." http://ncse.com/news/2004/10/bsw-strengthens-statement-repudiating-meyer-paper-00528) They did shut that straying horse back inside the barn, but Sternberg can't be blamed for breaking rules that hadn't yet been formulated. (Again, this is just my putting 2 + 2 together.)

As to Einstein, I've come to fully understand and agree with your removal of my contribution, as I noted to Dougweller on his talk page. Thank you for you explanation. I was not being stubborn, just dense, which is unavoidable for me at times. I process deeply but slowly.

Well, looking back over this, it looks more like a list of offenses than a friendly overture. Please pardon my wordiness in this feeble attempt to understand where you're coming from. I will try to do better at explaining where I'm coming from by first writing something up on the word processor and then pasting it into my own talk page on the hunch you may not appreciate more of my comments on yours. I do mean well and hope to work productively and pleasantly with you in the future. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this, it's a difficult balance to strike for an opening sentence to a significant section, glad you're happier with the current wording. We can only guess why the short-lived publication of the paper wasn't brought up at Kitzmiller, but the clear outcome was a verdict of failure to achieve the standard of peer review publication. By briefly getting an inadequate paper into a journal by dubious methods, ID proponents got the surface appearance but not the substance of what "peer reviewed" means in science, and it's important for wp:weight to be clear from the outset of the majority expert (scientific) view on this. The issue is covered in more detail further into the section. Sternberg clearly broke standard procedures, which would have been less important had he maintained the expected standards of quality. I don't think anyone had to get Roy McDiarmid "by the throat and [make] him change the rules", many scientists were unaware of the anti-science stance and activities of ID proponents. Rules can be unwritten, but they're then not worth the paper they're not written on when dealing with unscrupulous science deniers. You might find ID and postmodernism interesting. . dave souza, talk 11:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your friendly thoughts are greatly appreciated. I'm NOT retired :) (just tired!) so hi-ho, hi-ho.... Hasta luego. Yopienso (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the essay I've got on the back burner to post on my own page, but something turned up that I find interesting. How the plot thickens! Seems the Meyer paper was mentioned in the Kitz. v Dover trial. Here's part of the transcript http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day20pm.html in which the transcriber garbled "Richard Sternberg" into "Brixter and Berg." (Harvey represented the plaintiffs and Muise the defense.)

Q. Are there peer reviewed articles that make arguments for aspects of intelligent design that you're aware of?

A. I think there are around ten of them now that are in the literature that address this, I'm not sure of an exact number, but within the last couple of years.

Q. Do you perceive a bias against publishing intelligent design articles in science journals?

A. I think there's --

MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation.

MR. MUISE: I'm asking for his perception, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I think it's a fair question. I'll overrule the objection. You can answer.

THE WITNESS: I think that's on public record, there's a paper published by a journal from the Smithsonian Institute last summer by Stephen Meyer. Brixter and Berg was the editor, and I think it was a --

MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, objection. Hearsay. He has no firsthand knowledge of it.

THE COURT: Well, the question was a yes or no question. The answer was yes. That was accepted. The objection was overruled on that basis. If he gets into the particulars he may be getting into hearsay.

MR. MUISE: But he testified as to perception. If he has an understanding, he said it's a public record. I mean, you're saying that --

THE COURT: A newspaper article is not a public record, and you've certainly argued vigorously in this case that it's not, and we've spent a lot of time on that. Mr. Muise. You want to tell me now it's a public record? We can spare a lot of argument tomorrow if it is.

MR. MUISE: Your Honor, I mean, a public record not in the sense of I think the term that you're using with the hearsay.

THE COURT: No, it's not in the way that I'm using it. It's the way that we've argued it. Don't insult my intelligence. It's not. The objection is sustained.

MR. MUISE: I understand, Your Honor. And I certainly did not intend to convey any message that I was --

THE COURT: I understand that. Let's keep going. Proceed.

This testimony was by Scott Minnich, a tenured professor and microbiologist who testified just above this excerpt that he has published some 25-30 non-ID peer-reviewed papers. I don't understand the "newspaper article" bit, or the statement that Minnich had only hearsay evidence of it. Being a fellow at the Disc. Inst., I'd think he'd have read the paper. Yopienso (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary added to Worms article

Hey Dave, I've found the synopsis I made of the book last year and added it; see The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms#Summary. It's a quick translation of my notes so may require some improvement. I hope it's a fairly accurate summary of what Darwin said in the book. Richard001 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, that's very informative – it's a book I've read about but have yet to read. I've done some minor copy editing, hope that keeps your intended meaning. . . dave souza, talk 10:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Krosnick

Dave, your tone is not helpful, but I'll not drag it out on the talk page. When you start a response with "Correction – they are experts, your self-claimed expertise or opinion as a Wikipedia editor..." you simultaneously imply that:

I claimed they were experts,
I was claiming special expertise

Please reread, and you'll see that I did not make either claim. My polite response did not give you license to claim I that I "blunder and bluster about". Please focus on discussing the article, not making inaccurate claims about myself or my posting. Thanks, in advance.--SPhilbrick T 17:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion was based on a bald accusation that experts are incompetent, without any reliable sources backing your assertion which appeared only to be based on your own claims to expertise. My description was of your actions, and I'm glad to assume that they don't reflect you personally. Please be more careful to follow talk page guidelines. . . dave souza, talk 18:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read again. I did not make a bald accusation "that experts are incompetent". I made a specific observation, that in this case, they blundered. I even explained why, but my comment was in passing. The main question on the page is whether the reference belongs in the article. It doesn't, and I noted that. Given that it doesn't belong here, I saw no need to analyze it in detail, but I thought I'd pass along an interesting observation, namely that asking if global climate is real is not a good way of ascertaining whether this incident had any impact on public perceptions. I stand by that observation, but am not interested in debating it unless there's consensus to include it in the article. Your comments were inappropriate for an editor, and doubly so for an admin. Dave, I'm perplexed. I've worked hard to remain quite civil, even in the face of high passion from many. I think I've succeeded, so I'm gobsmacked that my minor observations engendered such a strong response from you. What's going on?--SPhilbrick T 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reread your comment, and you clearly appear to be making unsupported statements about public opinion, as well as presenting your own unsupported view that published experts "blundered". That looks very much like accusing them of incompetence, and it clearly shows you soapboxing rather than providing verifiable information for the article. Your reasserted "minor observations" appear tendentious and determined to shut down discussion rather than working to improve the article, see WP:TALK for guidance on the way to achieve consensus. . dave souza, talk 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

GA initiative

I've asked WMC if he would be willing and able to help take the Watts Up With That article to Good Article status. As my request details, me and a couple of other editors have almost completed preparing the DeSmogBlog article for GA nomination, and I think it would be great if both reached GA about the same time. Observing your interest in the Watts blog article, I suggested to WMC that he ask you to assist. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's one of a number of articles I've got on the back burner and there's a couple I want to give priority to, but will see if I can chip in on occasion. . dave souza, talk 09:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

I've no idea who this fellow, aka Tasty Monster, may be, but am astonished he edited the CRU article 15 times in 13 minutes. What's with that? Did I accidentally butt into an archive and comment on it? I've never seen purple before. Please direct me if I'm off track. Yopienso (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony's a very experienced editor, and you'll note it was the talk page he was editing, not the article itself. With the agreement of the admins running the probation on climate articles, Tony's been acting as a sort of clerk to keep discussions focussed on article improvement and to stop things from getting out of hand – the changes were to focus discussion, as a whole lot of headings had been introduced to make a point rather than introduce a new topic. He also put a cap on some discussions he thought were going offtopic, if you feel a point you were making was hidden the best thing is to restate it in the relevant section that's not capped, keeping it more tightly focussed on article improvement. Hope that helps, . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I meant talk page, not article. No, no complaints, just wondered if I was making a Mr. Magoo-like mess. Yopienso (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, mostly it was to do with other editors, but he put a cap on a discussion where you made a reasonable point but wandered off topic into global cooling, and I responded to that rather than saying it belonged in another article. Tony's pretty good at keeping things on track, and it's best to accept what he's doing and work with it, no need to take anything personally. . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Worth reading

[19] Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, an interesting outline. . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please counsel me?

Would you mind looking at my talk page when you have a minute? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: your comment to me on the "CRU hacking" article talk page

This is off-topic for that page, so I thought I'd respond here:

Your idea that it may not necessarily be a Good Thing for there to be a "change in peer reviewed processes", for all I know, may be right. But I want to address a point that I think underlies what you said, an idea I've seen quite a bit on the AGW-related pages: all "climate change"-related articles need to be treated primarily as science and not also a public controversy of immense importance. I assume you agree in principle that it's both, but I don't know if you understand that some of the articles in Wikipedia must be treated as both -- which means we need to emphasize what's important not just to science but to public policy, and sourcing from news organizations and non-scientist commentators is also important. The idea of changing peer-reviewed processes (if I understand what you're alluding to, and I could be wrong) is to make the method of understanding advances in climate change science consistent with both good science and good public policy (which involves presenting the public with verifiable, authoritative, trustworthy information and analysis which is open to questioning, debate and even attack) -- good science and good public-policy research overlap in their methods and presentation, but you should recognize that they are independent fields (and it's pretty evident from this imbroglio that scientists are not necessarily experts at the best practices of good public policy research and presentation). This [20], this [21], and this [22] are all reliable sources that reflect the dual science/public policy nature of the topic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree fully that it covers both, and more. We should show the current clear majority scientific view of the science, show the views of minority view scientists and non-scientists, and show how these have been received by the scientific mainstream. We also have to show the context of public policy in various countries. The tradition of peer reviewed publications presenting competing views and consensus emerging among scientists has had an uneasy relationship since the 1980s or earlier with policymakers.[23] There is also a factor of industrial and political interests promoting an inaccurate public picture of doubt about the science, exaggerating the uncertainties and seizing on any error to claim that it undermines the whole of the science.

This particular controversy centres round the frustration and irritation of scientists at what they felt were unreasonable and time wasting demands for "raw data, intermediate steps, additional calculations, residuals, sensitivity calculations, all the code, a workable version of the code on any platform etc". Much or possibly all of the raw data could be obtained by anyone from the Met offices holding that data, but these met offices don't allow free republishing of the data. At the same time, amateurs in the field with no intention of publishing original research have used FOI requests to get scientists to pass on their working copies of data, interim and finished code, and what critics thought would be incriminating emails, in a sort of internet wiki, where everyone can criticise without actually worrying about producing any new scientific work.[24]

Both felt they were on the side of right, the actions of resisting such demands are easily portrayed as going against a "spirit of openness" but in the competitive (and very productive) field of science, a sensible level of openness is expected to follow after the scientists producing work have published that work in peer reviewed journals. The critics wanted all the intermediate steps of code to criticise the code, scientists considered they should make the principles public in a way that competent scientists can write their own code rather than replicating any errors in the original code.

There's also the whole arena of peer reviewed published science being thrashed out with governments across the world to find a consensus in the IPCC reports, using carefully defined language to show degrees of uncertainty about statements. A massive undertaking, and while the physical science side has done remarkably well, the assessment of impacts was less well controlled allowing one blatant error to be kept in the WGII report, along with some questionable sourcing of reasonable statements. All that's without even considering the various options discussed by the IPCC for reducing the problems or adapting to the effects of climate change.

The news stories are part of the controversy rather than being disinterested historians, and have various agendas. Even the closest to mainstream scientific views is questionable in the view of experts in the field.[25][26] So, all very complex. In a way the easiest aspect is the straight science, but it's also the area being strongly attacked by areas of the mass media. Let's hope we can improve our coverage of it all. . . dave souza, talk 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Climategate first sentence

Isn't it gradually being improved? I don't see why you are getting so heavy handed. I'm completely new to this page and saw an obvious way to improve the opening description, which I did. Jprw (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case this wording is awful. But I agree, this should be discussed. If you revert it yourself I will leave it until discussion is held. Best, Jprw (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You're well aware of the 1RR aspect of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, and as I think you'll appreciate, the approach should be to make edits in what you consider is an improvement and discuss them on the talk page rather than reverting back to something very close to your last edit. Best to avoid any reverts. . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Hey Dave Souza. You made edits here that in combination with this string of edits broke 1RR. Could you revert? It would give us time to discuss the changes. In anticipation I want to direct you to the "Content of the documents" section of the same article which gives the citations for one of the sentences you removed. Please note that 'sceptics of AGW' are not the only people making allegations, which is trivially true given that governmental organisations and newspapers are making these allegations, neither of which can be 'sceptics of AGW'.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not reversions to the same version, dealing one at a time with your many edits which introduce errors and misconceptions. dave souza, talk 10:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave Souza, disagreement is no excuse. As I have just stated, I believe your edits introduce "errors and misconceptions" but have not ipso facto reverted them in violation of 1RR. Please revert and discuss your edits on the talkpage.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've filed a request for enforcement with respect to this discussion here. I have to finish a book and head to bed so I won't be able to make further comments until tomorrow. Sorry to bother you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason you are unable to speak the words Climatic Research Unit email controversy? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I generally employ the word "Climategate" instead of "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" because unlike the alternative it is only 11 letters long.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the substance: this is very odd. It isn't at all clear that [27] is a revert. Changing lawmakers into MP's is a correction of your error, so "your edits introduce "errors and misconceptions"" appears to apply more to your edits that DS's. I think if you want to push this as a revert vio, you're going to have to be much clearer about *why* it is a revert William M. Connolley (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

HiP's muddied the issue by linking to three edits of mine – the "lawmakers" correction was to a new paragraph introduced by AQFK, the relevant edit to HiP undid introduction of editorial text into the middle of a quotation,[28] arguably vandalism but more likely to be a simple error by HiP. Will discuss the other issues at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#A series of changes, some modifications. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, please don't make me file another request against you. This one would be much less ambiguous: [29]. Could you self-revert and discuss on talk?--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled. As far as I can tell, Dave has never edited Climategate. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I used the word climategate in the header and clearly linked it to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident? I'm puzzled by your puzzlement.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the header is linked to climategate. Sounds like you're making false allegations against Dave. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That, in addition to asking him to make an edit that inserts incorrect info into the article. It's bad enough that you re-inserted the information. It's rather beyond to pale to call on other people to insert false info into an article. No way that's acceptable behaviour. This is, after all, a project to write an encyclopaedia, not a game. Guettarda (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Cmt, after EC: You not only used the word, you linked the article. Perhaps if you'd actually linked the article you were talking about, and used its title, you would not have confused anyone. Remember that no one can read your mind; if you say "blue" and link "blue" no one knows you're talking about "The Blue Boy" - and its not reasonable to expect them to know that, either KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and thanks to Cyndi Lauper, I'd have thought you were talking about Blueboy. Guettarda (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh... when I follow Climategate it disambiguates straight to ~~Climatic Research Unit hacking incident~~Climatic Research Unit email controversy. As I understand it they are coreferential in common parlance. Explain?--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "redirects" not "disambiguates". Though, of course, that's entirely beside the point. You're talking about "edit to [page link]". And since you can edit redirects... Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I had not thought of that. Refactored.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note the current title is Climatic Research Unit email controversy not ...hacking incident. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I should know as I voted for that title. :) Sorry if I've been confusing. I suppose I'm flustered. Refactored.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries; thanks for the fixes. It always helps to imagine how your posts read to others, and try to be as clear as possible. Confusion only frustrates and complicates any dispute. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, here's a request concerning this incident: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_concerning_Dave_souza.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted, your arithmetic appears incorrect to me and I've commented accordingly. Won't be commenting further for a while, do please discuss among yourselves. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not his arithmetic, it's his interpretation of the word "revert". He's asserting that your edits were a repeat of this edit. Presumably he thinks that changing the word "newspapers" to "politicians" is the same as moving the word "newspapers" from the first to the 9th word in a different sentence. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew that article was a mess. I knew it was bad. But I had no idea it had degenerated to the state where people would revert any and everything, down to spelling and grammatical errors. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on this, it is indeed a nasty battleground. There's considerable blatant pov pushing, where clear and obvious statements by sources are overridden to give false credibility to fringe or anti-science views. Not Wikipedia at its best. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Edit-warring over contentious material about living people

Dave, you are edit-warring over contentious material about living people in violation of WP:BLP. Please cease and desist at once. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I ceased before edit warring, you didn't, and you kept violating BLP. Hope you'll learn from this episode. . . dave souza, talk 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Handy link for self, dave souza, talk 16:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee

Hi Dave souza,

I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), but who would I assume have an interest in this subject, I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, will see if time permits, dave souza, talk 08:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Obvious quick-fail, IMO. I left a comment. Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I think the lede is moving in the right direction.

It still concerns me that so much of the lede is given over to a detailed enumeration of accusations that have been widely and publicly rejected from day one as unsound and scientifically illiterate except by a committed minority with an axe to grind, and were finally tossed back with a dismissive "no case to answer" by the Select Committee.

We can of course take the time to get it right, and at least the most obvious imbalance has been removed. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hope you don't mind me removing the duplicate! As I've said on the talk page, reducing the detail about the alleged misdemeanours is ok by me – the aim was to find a widely acceptable form of words covering the concerns of those resisting showing a proper balance, making minimal changes to start with. You're welcome to propose tightening that aspect up a bit, dave souza, talk 22:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The other two investigations will report quite soon and the focus will change. Possibly even the criminal investigations will announce a public conclusion.

As blog-fueled speculation gives way to cold reality, the nonsense slowly but surely recedes from our content.

I think the current wording is stilted and awkward, but just about passes the "sniff" test. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, are you sure your personal feelings on the topic aren't so strong that it making it difficult to step back and look at it objectively? Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I find myself capable of distinguishing well sourced facts from rumor and speculation, and this has served me well. The nonsense will continue to recede until only the facts remain. I'm confident, therefore that you and I will eventually see eye-to-eye on content, as the investigations reach their various conclusions. This is as close to objectivity as you and I can aspire to. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As a sceptic about climate change myself, I look at the sources and evidence objectively, and it's clear that there's an overwhelming majority among informed sources outside the denialsphere, which itself is a fringe movement with few prominent adherents in the UK and worldwide. Denial has rather more traction in the US where there have been campaigns of disinformation going back to the 1990s or earlier, but even there it doesn't seem to have majority support. Don't follow leaders, watch parking meters. . . dave souza, talk 07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope it's ok

I boldly changed your quote by adding the references to it. Hopefully you find it ok. Revert it or ask me to do it if you find it inappropriate. Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good! Must try to remember how to do that. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kolbert

Thanks for your note. I've pretty much withdrawn from that whole brouhaha, but I'll certainly take a look when I get a chance. At some point I may write a little essay with my own thoughts on the Climate Change controversy, and if and when I do I will be sure to get your thoughts on it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope that the dust will have settled a bit by then, and keeping away from the brouhaha is wise. Look forward to reading your future thoughts on it, if you ever choose to putting them in writing! . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I finally wound up writing something, during a particularly slack yet excess energy period of my existence.[30] Any thoughts you may have on this exercise in kibitzing would be welcome.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Design...again

Dave, I just stumbled across a mention of the Bridgewater Treatises in a collection of essays by Harold Morowitz. We have an article on them and on each of the eminent men who contributed papers. Do you think they should be included in the "Origins of the concept" section of the Intelligent Design article? It would fit between the present 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

Food for thought: The article would be more accurate if the first sentence of the Overview read, "Although belief in a wise Creator was widespread among both scientists and laymen for centuries, the present-day term 'intelligent design' came into use after the..." Our article somewhat reverses this, presenting ID as an innovation when it's really a harking back. (Note the Center of Science and Culture was formerly called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.) I have no intention of altering the article to reflect this fact. Where I live, the shamans and hunters believed the wise Creator was the raven. Yopienso (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bridgewater Treatises sought evidence for Paley's natural theology, which we cover – they don't really add anything specifically relevant to ID, and unlike Paley haven't been cited in reliable sources as a predecessor. The overview accurately describes modern ID, and the origins or predecessors of such concepts aren't really appropriate in that paragraph. ID was an innovation in that it's a reframing of creation science which avoids naming the creator, and as such differs from the open beliefs of previous centuries. . . dave souza, talk 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm thinking about what I know and what you said. The treatises have certainly been cited in reliable sources as a predecessor to the ID movement. The question both in my mind and to you was if they are important enough to include in our article. Still chewing.

Notre Dame, the Royal Society, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the New York Times, and Francisco Ayala in a peer-reviewed journal are among the sources. Ayala goes so far as to say Behe, Demski, and Johnson "revived the argument from design."

http://reilly.nd.edu/Reports.aspx?id=831

http://www.jstor.org/pss/531066

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02783b.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/books/review/Mallon-t.html

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/693.full#sec-7

Yopienso (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither ID proponents nor critics agree on the precise relationship between natural theology and ID. Since the ID article links to the natural theology article, which covers the 17th-19th century history in England, I've concluded that adding to the ID article would only increase clutter. I see you dealt with the question a few years ago at the top of the Nat. Theo. talk page. Yay!--I've learned something without messing anything up! Yopienso (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Question

Just a wild guess, but how do architects respond if someone manages to draw a perfectly good house plan without consulting one? [31] Guettarda (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

REFRAIN FROM LIBEL, REFRAIN FROM CYBER-STALKING

Your gang said:

"Edit warring, promotion of fringe views

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Your edits to macroevolution were promoting a viewpoint held by such a small minority among biologists as to fall under WP:FRINGE guidelines. Our articles have to conform with WP:WEIGHT policy when it comes to showing such minority views. You were also using AiG as a source – verification is required from a reliable third party source, not from creationists promoting their own views. Please discuss your proposals for changes on the article talk page, and refrain from edit warring which is not the way to get anything in articles. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Scientizzle 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Scientizzle 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)"

All you are doing is making mere accusations and of the very things you do. I will not be drawn into an endless fight against your cyber-harassment. If you want me to press charges against for breaking federal law against Internet harassment and libel, keep it up.Oriclan (talk)

User indef blocked per WP:NLT Vsmith (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check this article

Please check List of fictitious atheists and agnostics. It states that characters in Pokemon series Ash Ketchum and Misty are atheists. I checked some of the characters mentioned in that page but could not find the word atheist in many of them. --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, I've neither time nor expertise to become acquainted with the subject, and know nothing about Pokemon. Thanks for asking, dave souza, talk 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But anyway other atheists in that page include a ghostbuster, a supernatural beast hunter, and a catholic Father. I think much of the article is a hoax. Where can I find someone to check this article? --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And also delete this redirect Life Under a Microscope --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, time doesn't permit the necessary evaluation at present. Will review later. . . dave souza, talk 05:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

Hi, Dave--an unnamed editor who's been away for two years vandalized the Richard Sternberg article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.228.182.108

Also, do you have time to look at the bottom of the Sternberg peer review controversy page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Number_of_reviewers
I don't see anything wrong with my edits...or anything right with Odd nature's. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You've warned the IP, which is reasonable, but expression of opinion can be a good faith edit so it's doubtful if a one-off instance is vandalism. The controversy issue looks a bit more complex, trust discussion will resolve the differences. . . dave souza, talk 11:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong?

Is my recollection incorrect? [32] Guettarda (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Had to look back through the article history, this seems to cover the relevant period. . dave souza, talk 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please

Stop changing the header, please. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone changed it once, I changed it once to an alternative I thought didn't prejudge the issue. Trust you've asked the other changer to also stop. . . dave souza, talk 16:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to your message

Hello. Firstly I would like to apologise for this miscreant's edit. I believe it was made someone who is no longer living at this address. Although it is frustrating to see they made dumb edits, and made our IP address look look bad. (I must note there is a small chance of said miscreant returning, not that it would make a difference, if they make the edits on this address, you have to discipline this address.) If you want to talk about this more I recommend write back to my user: SarahNeave. Thanks. 86.139.215.4 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, look forward to future positive edits! . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours

I was extremely dismayed to be advised that you blanked some content, even under a BLP consideration, of Bishop Hill (blog) without notification or seeking input on the talkpage. I had lifted the protection of the article, which I had protected since editors were reverting without discussion or consensus, as it appeared that the talkpages were again being used. Given your involvement in editing CC related articles, and the fact that you had commented on issues on the talkpage, I am surprised that you did not request another third party to review the issue before acting. I shall watch this page, and will act upon any request to have my block reviewed at whatever appropriate venue you wish - and, since I am editing in my lunchbreak and will not be available again until this evening, am happy for any other party to commence whatever process you desire (and to unblock, under an undertaking not to remove the content again until consensus is apparent). I really am sorry I have had to issue this block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, my misunderstanding. I was responding to what seemed a reasonable talk page proposal with BLP issues involved, and had not appreciated that you were taking restrictions on the article that far. . . dave souza, talk 16:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you agree to a voluntary restriction of 0RR on that article, I am willing to unblock. Fill out a standard unblock request and I will take care of it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

0RR restriction accepted

Request handled by: Spartaz ^Humbug!

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks, much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: your undo of my change to The Voyage of the Beagle

Hi!

First of all, thanks for the welcome message.

I don't quite understand your arguments to revert my change. I'm not saying I'm right, just that I don't understand them.

My intention was to clarify the locations, as "Patagonia" is a broad term applied to both the argentinian and chilean side, which, as they are split by the Andes, are not exactly alike; and travelling to both is something worth mentioning since either crossing the Andes or the Magellan strait (the only ways to visit one after the other in the same voyage) was a major undertaking.

Furthermore, by performing a second read, I think there are a couple of things more worth revising:

If you want to put the whole Patagonia region (both chilean and argentinian sides) under one item, then it makes no sense to include Santa Cruz or Tierra del Fuego as different items, as they are parts of Patagonia. Note that I still think it's worth splitting them, and maybe listing the most notable places on each side.
I don't think listing Uruguay (as named Banda Oriental) in the same item as Patagonia is very clear either, since the two regions are very different and far away from each other (Uruguay is almost next to Buenos Aires, while the whole Patagonia is far down the map)
In the same spirit, I think the Falkland islands should be an independant item from the Patagonia ones because it's not part of it, and far enough to deserve a mention.
There are also two minor formatting issues in item number 12 (an extra dot) and 21 (either the semicolon or the dash should be removed). I think item 15 should be edited to match the style of the other two (either semicolon or dash). I'm refraining from editing them because you mentioned you were going to be revamping it, but I thought I should mention them in case you agree and want to include them.

Finally, I'm replying here but I'm not sure if it's the right place (I'm not used to wikipedia talks). Please feel free to continue this where you think it's appropriate, and I'd appreciate it if you would let me know where that would be.

Thanks again. 190.2.33.205 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response, I've started checking the chapter headings and will take these points into account. There seem to be some errors, so I'm going through the points one at a time, on the basis of the book and the itinery of the voyage. Will try to let you know when I've got it ready for checking! . dave souza, talk 19:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Have now faithfully checked and revised the chapter headings at The Voyage of the Beagle#Contents – where Darwin went. This resolves your question about the Falkland islands, Santa Cruz River (Argentina) makes more sense than the province, and I think that Darwin was using the term Patagonia for something approximating to the modern country of Argentina, excluding Tierra del Fuego. The Argentine Civil War was in full swing, with the Argentina–Brazil War having recently ended and the United Provinces of South America splitting up, while during Darwin's visit Juan Manuel de Rosas ruling Buenos Aires Province was in conflict with other provinces and engaged in civil war. Similarly, Banda Oriental has its own article now, and remember that the Beagle was sailing large distances up and down the coast. If you think any other links can be improved, please let me know. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It looks much better now, and I like the first paragraph much more because the intent of the list is more clear. I understand the difference in terms, I just didn't know it was the intention to use the originals all the way, but that's much more clear now. Thanks a lot for taking good care of this article. 190.2.33.205 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just so you are aware of it, in case you aren't already: the chapter listing changes in the second edition. I don't know if it's worth mentioning it in the article, but thought you should know in case this issue arises in the future. I'm quite happy with the contents as they are now.

Thanks, I thought the chapter listing might have changed but hadn't got round to checking it out yet. Will have a look at it. . . dave souza, talk 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)