User talk:Guettarda/Archive 17

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

For reading

I stumbled upon this article about the ecology of tropical dry forests. I thought you might find it interesting. Joelito (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help please!

User number 82.94.28.98 has been vandalizing the article on "coolies" (which I note you have added to in the past). He/she has been warned about vandalism on other sites in the past but I don't know what to do about it. If you can spare the time - could you give me any advice about what to do? Many thanks, John Hill 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) PS Hope the sky has cleared for you a bit since I last contacted you. Cheers![reply]

PZ Myers

Fair point re 3RR. I actually held off reverting Larry's second to last revert for just that reason, and promptly forgot it for the last. Thanks for the warning. Tsumetai 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

raggamuffin/ragamuffin

The former spelling is used and appears to be standard in the context of dancehall reggae (being derived from "ragga" = reggae).

From the OED

ragamuffin, n. and a.

Freq. in form raggamuffin. = RAGGA n.

1986 ‘JUNIOR DELGADO’ (title of song) Raggamuffin year. 1989 Face Jan. 23/1 ‘It's not ragamuffin,’ says Rob Smith, ‘but it's got a reggae feel to it.’ 1991 Source Dec. 60/2 As raggamuffin lyrics over hip-hop beats become more common, the Fu-Shnickens are right on top of the trend. 1993 Independent 11 June 24/1 It has given an identity to second- and third-generation black Britons who feel no desire to assimilate into the mainstream: raggamuffins pepper their talk with thick Jamaican slang, even if their parents were born in Birmingham. 2001 Ottawa Sun (Electronic ed.) 22 June, Raggamuffin reggae bash with Bingie Barker every Thurs.

Guettarda 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll remove it from my spell list. Cheers, CmdrObot 14:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black lawyers

I did consider the CfD discussion before I updated those articles. Given that they did not fall under the old parent they did not belong there. Also, there is the technical point that most of them are not lawyers but barristers which is a set of categories, Category:Barristers. The fact remains that those that were removed were not American which is a requirement for that categroy with the initial parent. Vegaswikian 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Clarke, barrister?

The Ellis Clarke, article says he was called to the bar at Gray's Inn. I believe that means he was a barrister. So putting him in that category would be correct since he was one. He may be a lawyer now but was a barrister in the past. Kind of like a politician. They can get another category for each office they hold. Vegaswikian 19:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove truthfull edits

Hello, you may be new to this society. However, I was doing important work, and you have vandalised this. If you revert my edits again, you will be blocked. Please do not vandalise wikipedia. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.87.202 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. Truth is not the standard for inclusion, verifiability is. You might also want to read WP:NPA, after making this edit. You are very likely to be blocked if you do not mend your ways. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has already been blocked! -- Arwel (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, support block etc. Yay team. (The puppy has seen too many trolls lately and is a bit snippy.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BWIA/Caribbean Airlines

Regarding this edit - the Caribbean Airlines article in itself is inadequate support, but the two references it contains are adequate support - these references could simply be duplicated on the BWIA article and so a verifiable source would be there. Ardfern 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fix the ref myself as I am amending fleet info on virtually every airline article on Wikipedia and don't have time at this stage to go and repair every lack of reference fault I find in hundreds of articles. It should have been referenced in the first place. Fixed properly now. Ardfern 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergy

Hmm, I haven't ever seen any criticism of emergy in the journals I have researched, but that doesn't mean there isn't any, of course. I know that the NAS warned against misapplying it, but that wasn't a peer-reviewed report, if I recall correctly. If you can find a single peer-reviewed reference that argues against Emergy, I would say that would be enough to justify removing it from the category. Do you know of any? --ScienceApologist 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

Good to see you back on deck. I do hope that things are beginning to come together for you again now - I know you have had a very sad time.

Delayed thanks for your help recently in how to deal with vandalism.

Also, I thought you might be interested that I have just added a rather poor quality (but interesting) photo of Will Downs on his page. Unfortunately, it is the only one I still have of him. At least it shows him enjoying himself. He was such an inspiring man! Cheers and all best wishes, John Hill 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race

There has been a good deal of reorganization of the Race article recently, and I don't think it is an improvement (although I am sure it was all done in good faith). Since you have made many important contributions to this article I would like to know what you think. If you share my view I would not recommend just reverting to an earlier version, but just doing some strategic reconstruction... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Please do not shout at me about having courtesy the courtesy to explain a change, when I have already explained it on my talk page in response to your question. Please read Wikipedia:Civility. Then please stop making disruptive edits. Three item categories do not belong in national main categories and all the other national symbols categories are in the national culture categories. Metthurst 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Asking someone to explain their edits is disruptive? Or is it incivil? WTF? Guettarda 12:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your very rude and aggressive reply on my talk page I suspect that you are so habitually uncivil that you have no self-awareness about what you are doing. Metthurst 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try addressing the issue instead of engaging in personal attacks. Guettarda 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain...

Evolution is more than just an observation. Observing the fossil record is one thing. Attempting to answer the profound questions that arise from observations such as that of the fossil record without any facts is simply not scientific.

How is evolution a fact? Evolution implies interspecial change. This concept has not been proven using the scientific method. In fact, experiments with fruit flies have DISPROVED this hypothesis.

Evolution is science fiction. There is not one documented case of a member of one species giving birth to a member of another species.

Perhaps we have a different standard of English usage for the word "proven" here in the sane world.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proven

Save the "religious wacko" or "crazy right-winger" remarks. I'm Agnostic and Libertarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikatriz (talk • contribs)

Not sure why you posted to my talk page. Evolution refers to change - within species, and change between species. Evolution within species has been demonstrated. The evolution of new species has been demonstrated. So your underlying assumptions are false. Get the facts straight, why don't you? (PS, generally people who feel the need to claim that they "are not religious" actually are, so it only hurts your credibility. There's nothing that stops a religious person from being cogniscent of the facts of science - I am most definitely not agnostic - see the bottom of my user page). Guettarda 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I'm responding out of protocol. I'm actually new to Wikipedia and I was only responding to the comment that you had left on my talk page.

My religious or political affiliation has no bearing on this. I mentioned it merely out of anticipation.

I really do want to understand evolution. In my mind, I look at the supposed evidence and see a major missing link. You say the evolution of new species has been demonstrated. If you could please direct me to where I can find this being demonstrated. If I can see for myself how one species spawns another species I will see what you mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikatriz (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 November 2006

Thanks for the welcome

Hi, Guettarda. Thanks for the welcome and info you left on my talk page. I've read some of the Wiki guidelines, but it's such a vast place that there's a lot to take in. I appreciate the help! Fortuna13 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaguanas

Um... Your last comment was made at 14:23 on 30th July, and I replied 15 minutes later. When you failed to reply after more than two weeks, I concluded that your user page at that time was correct when it said that you were on wikibreak, and decided to re-insert the names pro tempore until you should return. There was nothing at all underhand. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to answer the germane question and then sneakily changing the page after two weeks is ok? I see. Guettarda 16:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably I'm supposed to use my psychic powers to discover that you didn't feel I'd answered the question, and then use my other psychic powers to realise that your talk page was incorrect when it said you were on Wikibreak? David Mestel^(Talk) 18:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect psychic powers, just reading comprehension. Is that too much too expect? Guettarda 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading of what? Your talk page which said you were on Wikibreak? David Mestel^(Talk) 21:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the question you have yet to respond to at Talk:Chaguanas. Guettarda 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please conform to some sort of open discussion before reverting pages. You failed to post anything on the discussion page before tampering with the page. I have not reverted anything as to result in a silly edit war, but I call for a greater understanding and an open mind to resolve to current conflict. 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)~

Columbus Communication

Here is the link to the discussion on Jamaica [1]. I can't find the Trinidad discussion at the moment, but i assure you that it was created in due order. As for the multiple stub templates on the article, I see it as needed. If the higher stub exists, I believe it should be used. That is why we create new stubs in the first place.--Thomas.macmillan 21:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trees of the Caribbean

Michael here in the Sonoran Desert, Yuma Arizona, actually in the: Lower Colorado River Valley, a category (of Birds) and some plants I worked on.

Just saying hello, and you live in Trinidad ! Exclamation point. I did start with "Land Birds", that can, or should, or could get changed. It needs to be balanced against, juxtaposed, against the "non-Land birds". In the search bar i put in "Landbird" and some articles use that "word", but it is not really the correct one. I am not a bird specialist, buutt.. there are Shore-birds, Water-birds, Oceanic-, I don't know all the types. So it is a work in progress. But I worked up thru the Lesser Antilles, Category:Land Birds of the Lesser Antilles (only 11 listed, but some go up to Greenland, so I started on the Avifauna up there:(back when I was doing Ontario, Category:Avifauna of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon ).

But the deal with trees, is they don't move. So, I tried to start the Amazon stuff, too.. So like I say, I have already put some of those trees, either on some of the islands, or in the Caribbean, cat, or the C. Amer. cat. And, since I don't know all the Common names, it's safe to say a lot of others also don't. The picture of that Star apple is beautiful. And, YOOUUU.... probably know what it tastes like. For now... Mike,out in Arizona-....--Mmcannis 05:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, the feelings; I did spend time in IceCold Northern Michigan: Upper Peninsula. Home for those years was that cold country. If you created that trees of the caribbean basin page, it is very nice. There are so many nice pages in wikipedia. I did some Egyptian stuff first. I made: Cylinder seal, and some things like: List of Egyptian papyri by date, and I was suggested another: Papyri (chronology). some people just separated the 3-stone series stuff for the Rosetta Stone, which was how I learned Egyptian hieroglyphs. so i had made some stuff like: Stamp seal, Scaraboid seal, and Decree of Canopus and then the first category I made: Category:Egyptian artefact types, with one page for it. Block statue (Egyptian). Some super pages i worked on: Gardiner's Sign List, and I put aside the latest in the category: of the Lower colorado river valley: List of plants by common name (Sonoran Desert). it is still a work in progess.... I'll talk to you later. Miguel. ....--Mmcannis 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit error on the "Egyptian artefact types", so I am correcting it(I left out the ":" colon). have a good day... and I finally read what I wrote you. I was doing some Peru links, and because of: Category:Regions of Peru, i just made (this early mornin' before the sun tried to come up): Category:Regions of Arizona, and a page to go with it: Regions of Arizona. It took about 45 minutes or so---. See you- Miguel-in-the-Sonoran Desert of Arizona....--Mmcannis 16:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, Michael, here. I just was working on the Jamaica links. I added Jamaica walnut to some tree categories, and thought I'd mention that it isn't on your "trees of the caribbean basin". Just saying hello, and talk to you later. (From the Sonoran-Desert of Arizona)--Mmcannis 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw where you said "Palm list-finished". so I knew you had been working on it, also... So I just thought I'd tell you about the: Jamaica walnut. I mada a "Cat: Trees of Cayman Islands" just for that species. So the Caribbean categories are gradually being built up. See you later. --Mmcannis 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again from the Sonoran Desert of Arizona. I saw that you are working on the palms, so i thought i'd say hello, ...and say thanx for adding the section on the Jamaica walnut to the trees of the Caribben Basin. (I hope you are warm in the mid west; we still have the winds here that hit the Midwest earlier this week.) ...Mike-out-in the desert..--Mmcannis 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your note. I appreciate your support. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Perhaps if you do not like the way I am stub-sorting, you should do some of it yourself. That would be greatly appreaciated.--Thomas.macmillan 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guánica State Forest

Damn, how did you find the article so fast? ;-) Joelito (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker. :-) Thanks for keeping my user page on your watchlist.Joelito (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Aves

You crack me up. I wish I'd thought of that : ) Doc Tropics 05:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kdbuffalo

Hello, Guettarda! Judging from this diff, it seems that 136.183.154.18 is the same person as Kdbuffalo. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Did someone make fun of Kdbuffalo? –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then - I was in the middle of writing to WP:AN/I when I checked the block log, and noticed that you blocked his IP account. Thanks for noticing! (Though I will not be surprised if he returns....) –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notified an admin about this, or I guess I should say another admin. I didn't realize you were one! There's not a "Cat: WikiAdmins" on your userpage (he said accussingly), how are we supposed to keep track without a scorecard? Thanks for blocking, I'll definitely make a point of visiting the RfC. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if this will even make it to ArbCom, or if he'll just get perma-banned. I didn't check ANI yet, but if this hasn't been mentioned there, maybe it should? It might help to make more people aware of the situation. Doc Tropics 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Okay, thanks for figuring that out! --DrL 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I really resent your referring to me as a POV-pushing warrior. My edits seek to maintain balance. If you think I have made a single POV-pushing edit, please show it to me so that I might explain my rationale (if you are interested, that is). In any event, your comments are ad hominem and I would really appreciate it if you would redact them. --DrL 19:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of Evolutionary Theory

May I ask why you reverted my addition to the evolution article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbarnes (talk • contribs)

You blanked half the article, so I reverted the blanking. What else would you expect someone to do? Guettarda 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a section to discuss this issue here. Doc Tropics 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion

It's going to be removed until someone takes the time to create a discussion for it (Wikipedia:Articles+for+deletion/Creationist_Orchard). If that's you, then great. If nobody then the header is not adequately created according to {{AiD}} and will be removed. See hear Pbarnes 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been listed properly for deletion. You are aware of that - you have contributed to the discussion. Stop pretending not to be aware of a discussion to which you have contributed. The other editors here aren't that dumb. Guettarda 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fix the deletion tag so it goes to the right place. Pbarnes 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Common Descent

I'm pretty sure we don't need to discuss a move as obvious as this. The article is clearly referring to universal common descent and only contains a definition of common descent...nothing more. See for yourself Help:Moving_a_page, I am completely within my jurisdiction. Now if you want to argue against the move then fine by me, we can have a discussion. Unfortunatly though your primary cause for reverting is, "the page was moved without discussion", which is not required for a move. One of two things should happen from you: remove the article to the way it was, or give an argument against the move and we can start a discussion. Which is it going to be? Pbarnes 08:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You need to make the case for a move if it is at all controversial. It isn't an obvious move, so please explain your rationale. Guettarda 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another request for input

I have made a proposal here on a topic that you have previously expressed interest in. If and when you have time, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Doc Tropics 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your previous comments on this issue. At this point only 2 editors are active in the discussion, which makes any attempt at consensus a little shakey. The most recent comments are here if you would like to review the progress. Thanks. Doc Tropics 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from calling your fellow editors liars without evidence.

You said I said that I called you a liar. That is not true. I have searched my text and I never said any such words. Ergo. If it was in relation to you talking about some magazine called "Seed" I checked the discussion and I can't find where you mentioned that magazine name i.e. "Seed". I can't also find if Ed has written anything for it (as he doesn't say that on his blog). It's fairly irrellevant anyway - If you read what I said Ed is more or less OK. I'm being bold because some other editor (probably an IDiot) wants the details out and if you read what they say it is that paragraph which is contentious. Read between the lines of my edits and look at the content not me and then it'll be basically impossible for the Ed blog war paragraph to be removed (which is what I want anyway). Ttiotsw 03:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You called me a liar, and now, by your definition you are doing it again. Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Guettarda 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we all calm down please? We're trying to write an encyclopedia here. Tiots, to clarify are you saying you think that inclusion of the Brayton material is ok? JoshuaZ 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, as per the talk on Dembski page Ed is OK. Ttiotsw 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Rampersad Deletion

I spent a few moments today on my User:TaranRampersad user page and made the Taran Rampersad article more informative. I don't care whether the page is deleted or not, but I would like to see it deleted for the right reasons - not for lack of effort which was a few minutes in Google. . Feel free to take a look and comment. I am *not* participating in the debate of the deletion of the biographical stub. --TaranRampersad 18:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently email is working, I just never used it before (and don't know exactly how...) - so drop me an email if you know how - as you requested on my talk page.--TaranRampersad 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree

I agree with you completely that the tagged statements are not necessarily wrong, simply not sourced/not verified in the article. LeMaster 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- also, thanks

Hi. FYI -- your comments about the Dan James Pantone article's notability at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants have been cited by both sides at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan James Pantone.

By the way, I very much appreciate your efforts in responding to my original question there. Clearly you put some thought and work into digging this up. I found it useful. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Rather than just make a vote, as if this was a popularity poll, you did an analysis and came up with logical conclusions. No matter the outcome of this crazy RfD, I feel vindicated in knowing that my work really means something to the scientific community. Thanks again for your analysis. --Matses 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Consensus Mediation

You have been listed as a party in this mediation. As mediator, I would welcome your input. Thanks! --nkayesmith 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the specific issue raised for mediation is essentially where to place the criticism section of chapter four (which still has an impact on the POV presented, obviously). --nkayesmith 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

embryo drawings

Guettarda, you might be interested in the new version of embryo drawings, written as a term paper by a student in the class I'm the assistant for. It's could used some attention from experienced Wikipedians (I'll get around to it sooner or later if no one else does), but it's a huge improvement over the previous unreferenced version; if anything, it could use some trimming down now.--ragesoss 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irreducible complexity reversion

I'm not sure I agree with part of your reversion of IC. It does not seem to me that a court case refutes a purportedly scientific theory. At least, it shouldn't be claimed in the lead sentence of the intro that the theory has been "discredited"! That's not to say that I believe IC is a viable scientific theory, but rather that the language dismisses the controversy too easily. Phiwum 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your points, but nonetheless I do not think it is appropriate to call IC a discredited theory in the opening sentence of the introduction. Rather, state the theory and in the body give the overwhelming scientific opinion that it has been discredited. I am not active on the page so I won't enforce my opinion, but I don't like it as it stands. Phiwum 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of palms of the Caribbean

Hi Guettarda - thanks for the note; a few observations and thoughts:

On my browser, there is a big white gap near the top of the page, because the {TOCright} forces the start of the genus list to be level with the bottom of the pic. Not sure how to solve this!
To make the TOC look better, it might be worth adding a ===Genera=== header at the top, so all the genera are indented in the TOC; as it is, it looks like two genera new to science are included at the end of the TOC list, Seealso and References :-)
Not sure I agree with the idea of species redirects to their genus, a redlink would be better as it is more likely to encourage someone to start the species' page.
I suppose it can't be worked with inline refs, but it would be a lot nicer if the refs for each genus could be at the foot of each genus (together with the genus comments, which I think are in a good position), rather than the bottom of the page (an awful lot of scrolling to check them out!). It might be considered a backward step formatting-wise, but I think simple Harvard refs as in a paper journal would be better, if the inline format can't work by genus.
Large genera at least (e.g. Copernicia) I think would be better put into two columns (not so easy where there is any wide-range species with a long list of islands).
Coccothrinax munizii has a broken link to [Cuba]]

Hope this helps! - MPF 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: the problem with the ToC (mind you, I think moving the ToC is ALWAYS a bad idea), you could try a custom one as in Scrabble letter distributions. You cold also look at Category:TOC templates if anything fits more your needs. Circeus 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll offer any suggetions to your efforts in +24 hrs or so (I'll be busy at work, etc.). Quickly I agree about tOOO, tooo,,... many redirects, and think the "red names/ genus.species" would offer more people the chance to make, easy (or difficult) articles. I'll check in again soon. Michael, from theSonoran-Desert... (and again, I think the Trees of the Caribbean Basin is a great page.)..Later.. --Mmcannis 03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the redirects - I was working towards WP:FL standards - list items aren't supposed to be redlinks, so I made them redirects. I agree with the issue of redlinks vs redirects - so, obviously, I realise that creating the redirects leaves me with the obligation of creating all those articles. Guettarda 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an improvement?

How do you figure that? The article claims that ID is "deliberately" ambiguous as the the identity of the creator, which is very clearly biased in favor of the views of the critics, which are described 2 sentences later as claiming that the ambiguity is "deliberate". My revision was significantly superior to the existing language, and removed the inarguable bias. There is absolutely no justification for reverting to the old version.

Furthermore, the "overwhelming majority" line is also not sourced. The sources show that a large number of prominent scientific organizations issued statements. I changed the language to properly reflect the contents of the referenced source. Once again, this is an indefensible revert, as my revision is inarguably more accurate and more eloquently written.

That's OK, I suppose. I have no particular interest in intelligent design, so if you favor biased and poorly written articles I suppose I'll leave you to it. However, the religious fervor with which you and others swept in and restored the biased language speaks volumes about this topic, I think. Smitty1276 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Intelligent_design#getting_closer..... How else do you choose to characterise zero publications which utilise ID? Please explain how you consider zero in three million to be anything other than "overwhelming". Guettarda 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to a lack of publications, then you inform the reader that there are no peer-reviewed publications in scientific jounals that advocate ID. You have chosen language that deliberately mischaracterizes the source. The source lists organizations that have issued statements. The article, then, should state that many organizations have issued statements. There isn't really even any room for argument on this. You are wrong, although I agree with you that your version is correct in spirit. This is not a forum for bias, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1276 (talk • contribs)

The article does discuss the absence of peer-reviewed science. Since ID has not been incorporated by scientists in their work, and since ID has been rejected by the scientific societies which speak for the scientific community, and since no one has taken issue with these rejections... on what basis do you reject the statement? Who do you think makes up these scientific societies? Do you think that if the AAAS said something that scientists found objectionable, there wouldn't be a flurry of people saying "they don't speak for me!"? I'm sorry, but before you tell people "You are wrong!", maybe you should at least get an inkling of the matter of which you are speaking. Guettarda 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "hyperbole". The article claimed that the author of Darwin on Trial advocated "redefining science...". I followed the source, and it actually was a 3rd party who was the source and who was engaging in hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1276 (talk • contribs)

Sure it is - your edit summary is emotional hyperbole. Johnson did advocate redefining science...that's his entire point (maybe you should try reading some of what he wrote). And acting on this, the Kansas school board did exactly that. If you want to advocate for ID, please get your facts straight (and stop pretending that you "have no interest in ID" - you aren't fooling anyone). Guettarda 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating for ID. I think ID advocates are annoying whiners, but I also think that people like you, who attack it with equally religious fervor, are also annoying whiners. I'm an advocate for non-biased language who happened to stumble across the article, and now I'm going to fix some things. If you think that his book advocated redefining science for educational purposes, fine... cite HIS BOOK, with page numbers, and the language stays. Otherwise, there (once again) is absolutely no case to make that my language is not superior, and it is going back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1276 (talk • contribs)

Sure, you aren't advocating for ID. You're just deleting factually accurate, referenced material, which casts ID in a bad light. You are just insisting that Johnson did not say things he said, that the core of ID isn't the core of ID. If you aren't an advocate for ID, why then are you removing factually accurate, referenced material from the article? As for citing Johnson - we are supposed to use secondary sources wherever available.

As for your threats to re-insert "your (superior) language"...nope, that isn't the way Wikipedia works. We work by consensus. Other editors don't have to prove to you that you are wrong - the onus is on you to convince everyone else that your edits are an improvement. No one owe you anything. You don't have a right to get your POV inserted into articles. You have the opportunity to make your case. In a civil manner. Try it (at the article's talk page, not at my talk page). Guettarda 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixity of species

What's your opinion of this article? Sounds as WP:OR as this did. Nashville Monkey 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume good faith, but it's beginning to run out. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's text at the top of every deleted page which explains this: If a page previously existed at this exact title, check the deletion log and see Why was my page deleted?. In addition, how is it that you participated in the deletion debate, posted to DRV, and claim you don't know why the page was deleted? Guettarda 19:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion log help. The reason I claim I don't know why the page was deleted because all of the previous reasons for deletion (non-notable, non-encyclopedic...) are no long issues. Why do you feel the article under the name "fixity of species" should be deleted from wikipedia? Pbarnes 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Endorse deletion - it has nothing to do with the number of google hits - the topic is basically a dictionary definition. Sure, it gets google hits, but there's nothing to write an article about (notwithstanding Pbarnes efforts to write an article about the history of evolution under that title). Changing the title of the article doesn't change the underlying reason for deletion. Guettarda 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The majority belief of pre-darwinian scientist cut down to "the topic is basically a dictionary definition"...I love it!!! Should flat earth and geocentrism be moved to witionary also? It's not like major topics like taxonomy are based on this notion of "fixity of species" or anything. Pbarnes 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Id and formatting

In addition to being barely coherant on the talk pages, I am a formatting dork at times. I'm not sure what I need to do, would you mind fixing it and I'll look at your edit and see what I left undone. Thanks Mr Christopher 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of ID, when you have a free moment would you mind dropping by the Kitzmiller v Dover article and weighing in on how we handle the latest DI stunt? Thanks Mr Christopher 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Assessments

Oh, have I worked with assessments. About ten thousand or so. Yeah, I was anticipating that this project would do them as well. Right now, I'm trying to reorganize the Geographical section of the Project Directory for cleaner, smaller breakdowns, and will hopefully be setting up the assessment page either this afternoon or tomorrow. Badbilltucker 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use on Olympic rings

The Olympic rings image is not tagged as fair use, and in fact is hosted on Commons. What is your basis for concluding that the use in articles in inconsistent with the licensing of the image? Guettarda 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a big problem a while back. At the time, we were using Image:Olympic rings white.png, which was marked as Fair Use, but has since been deleted. Ed g2s and I had a brief edit war over it (See the page history of Template:MedalTop), and then when I read up on policy a little more, I realized that he was right. The Olympic logo is a copyrighted logo. As it is not a free image, it falls within Fair Use doctrine, and we should be using it sparingly, no matter how much the Olympic Committee allows it. There's a talk topic at Template talk:MedalTop#Olympic logos which has a little more info, should you need it.

I have been removing this image sporadically for months now as a personal side-project. I hadn't noticed that the image that I'm removing now isn't licensed completely. Perhaps this will need to be revisited. tiZom_(2¢) 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case you really need to get it deleted from Commons. Content on Wikipedia may or may not be fair use, but content on Commons needs to be free. If the description is inaccurate, it really needs to be fixed, ASAP. Guettarda 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of that. But to be honest, it's really not that big of a deal. I mean, I've been removing almost all instances of it anyway. So all I have to do is finish removing all of these images and then move the image over to WP.

Though, I'm confused that the second copyright template says that "the issue is being discussed on a policy level" but doesn't give a link. What do you think I should do? tiZom_(2¢) 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I'm not exactly back — I just looked something up and had to do a bit of editing. I plan to ease my way back into things without allowing myself to get too obsessive. While away I found myself being sucked into another, more specialised, Website, and I have to keep that under control too. Still, nice to hear from you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IC RfC

No, RfC is the one we agreed on, read the comments. The second issue wasn't clear (Dover trial), so I didn't include it. Anyway, the RfC points to the discussion thread so anybody can read the whole line of discussion. --Denoir 16:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you should really read the "discredited" discussion. Here is a relevant block (the original discussion was between Adam and myself):

Tricky. Well, we differ in opinion, but noone's being irrational, so perhaps the sensible thing is to just put out a Request for comment and agree to be bound by the decision? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that we can't reach consensus internally then sure, I see no problem in an RfC. We do need to make it clear in the RfC that nobody is claiming that IC has any scientific support or value. In addition we need to be clear on what we disagree on. From the comments above there seem to be two separate questions

--

1. If the opening sentence should contain normative terms such as "discredited" or if it should be a plain definition of the IC hypothesis without any comments on what the scientific community (or anybody else) thinks of it. (All are in agreement that it should be clearly stated in the article that IC is rejected by the scientific community - there is no disagreement there)

2. If the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over the global scientific community ;-) Or put differently: If the legal findings of the Dover trial are suitable as the primary reference for defining the scientific consensus on the issue. (As opposed to using the statements of prominent scientists and peer-reviewed, published articles and books as primary references. This may of course include statements that scientists made at the Dover trial.)

--

Would that be a correct description of the difference in opinion? --Denoir 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right, though 2. is a little snarky. On the point of 2, this might have relevance. I do think an RfC might help - we seem about equally split, and fairly sharply divided - somewhat awkward when you're trying to reach consensus. Luckily, we're all sensible, which is a big help. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, are we equally divided? If I'm in the minority, I really should concede gracefully. Perhaps a quick poll first? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get "everyone agreed with", from? You know you don't present a stronger argument if you make things up. This discussion was primarily between me and Adam, he suggested the RfC, I suggested the wording. Nobody objected so I posted it. As for you, if you haven't understood it yet, you are discussing something nobody else is - your are completely offtopic. So of course I won't take your objections seriously as you are objecting to something that isn't being discussed. I'll write it once more, read slowly: The discussion is if the first sentence should include "discredited" or not. It is not a discussion if "discredited" should be replaced with another word. Now read the previous two sentences again. Now read the discussion thread and please realize that your line of discussion has nothing to do with what the rest are discussing. --Denoir 21:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, making things up is generally called lying. I never said "everyone agreed with", you made it up - and to top it off, you put it in quotation marks as if it was a quote. I said "we agreed" referring to Adam and me, the only ones that discussed the RfC at all.

Now, what exactly is it that you want from me? Is there a purpose to what you are writing? If there is, come to the point. If there isn't leave me alone and post in the talk page of the article. If you don't agree with what we are discussing in the "Discredited" and "RfC" thread, by all means, start a new one. --Denoir 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of science

I'm sorry, if you don't know the basics of the philosophy of science to such a degree that you don't distinguish between something being testable and something being falsifiable, I'm afraid I don't have the time to educate you. This is very basic stuff, and there are plenty of resources on the web. Here is a simple introduction to what a scientific hypothesis is. I can give you some references for the difference between Kuhn's view and Popper's view on the scientific method, but I suspect it won't do you any good if you don't first learn the basics of philosophy of science. --Denoir 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with the lies. This might work if you were lying to a third party about me, but lying to me about statements that I've made.. well, not a very meaningful strategy. I never said that IC was testable. I said that it wasn't falsifiable. --Denoir 22:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Dude. That statement is hilarious coming from you. You are outlining your own strategy. But please, stop projecting. Guettarda 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps add before you put more words in my mouth: of course it is testable. It's really elementary stuff. I'm guessing you are confusing "provable" with "testable". IC can be rejected (as has been the case) based on data, hence it is testable. Hint: Read the IC article. --Denoir 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we engineers know for instance the difference between testable and falsifiable. Anyway, I see now from your user page that I'm talking to a religious person. Well.. I was writing a response to your bizzare and confused last message, telling you to seek help.. but no matter. The pieces are falling into place. You sir are just as bright as I would expect a religious person to be.

Anyway, Behe has presented specific examples of where he claimed IC was evident. It can be tested (because you can test individual examples), but it cannot be falsified (as you can't test all thinkable systems). To quote from the article and the Dover trial:

--

"As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller);

--

--Denoir 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrinax species

Here's a site that lists a bunch of Thrinax species for Florida and the Caribbean that are not on your list. I have no idea how valid the names are. -- Donald Albury 20:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your support! MONGO 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feliz Navidad

O.K., so maybe you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones a "Happy Holidays" and all of the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas in 100 languages

Merry Christmas

Hi Guettarda! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time and relax. :) - Darwinek 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feliz Navidad 2

Have a nice one and thanks for all your help a few months ago, a situation that is now completely resolved. Here its muggy heat and tropical sun! SqueakBox 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks, and I hope it does as well! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your congrats

Hi Guettarda :-) Thanks for your congrats and support. I'm going to do some editing to relax a bit before I jump into ArbCom... looks to be really busy with a heavy case load. Will be interesting, for sure! --FloNight 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs

Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one significant edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."

Thanks! Killdevil 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine 02:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

Raspor

Hi! I noticed your comments on Raspor's Intelligent Design sub-talk page. I really want to help this guy and I think he could be a valuable editor if he could be made to understand the way editors are expected to talk to one another here, and respect the rules. I'm concerned he might be a lost cause; I've offered to help him understand NPOV and civility policies, but he hasn't responded to any of my offers. I'm concerned that if he keeps it up, he's going to be out on his ear within a month of him registering. I suppose it can't be avoided if he's as incorrigible as it seems he is, but it always makes me sad to see editors not be able to understand basic rules and have the community come down on them for it. I agree with you, by the way, he has been stupendously uncivil and abrasive in his edits- I just wish there was some way to get him to understand short of sending him through process. That's what it's there for, though, I suppose. --HassourZain 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG bruhaha on AN/I

Very sane points made, good stuff. Cheers. Pete.Hurd 05:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution award

		The Evolution Award
		The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to Guettarda for efforts to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. dave souza, talk 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? If you don't mind, I'll draw your attention to this comment ..dave souza, talk 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newton

My reading (a few years ago now) about Newton's religious views indicate something far different than most like to present. If I recall accurately, Newton was more of what we would call a Deist, and was not particularly convinced by a personal god, or maybe even deity of Jesus etc. Newton spent a considerable amount of time trying to establish the veracity of the scriptures, and doing what was essentially producing an epexegesis. He did not unquestioningly agree and was very sceptical. He was applying scientific reasoning and rationality to try to find any evidence for these biblical accounts. Most creationists, fundamentalists, people believing in biblical inerrancy, biblical literalism etc. would have been very unhappy with Newton's beliefs or Newton's studies of the bible or some of Newton's conclusions.--Filll 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 03:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly inappropriate, Insanephantom. Guet is free to revert messages he thinks are trolling. While no-one owns pages, WP:HA is important. Your use of this standardised template is probably very insulting, and I think you owe Guet an apology. – Ch acor 04:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Falcon007 posted on my talk page because Guet removed a comment. Because of that, I taken Falcon's comment is legitimate, and I didn't realise it was trolling. I am willing to apologise for this, and I will now, but this was a rather careless mistake and you should assume good faith. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted an apology on my talk page. Again, sorry for any inconvenience caused. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 14:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]