User talk:Dave souza

Handy Hint

user talk:dave souza

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

Rouge admin. [1], [2].

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

Not the best timing and much stupidity

Hmm... it seems my recent set of actions on Wikipedia were not exactly well thought through, the timing of the proposal and the phrasing of some of my comments are uhm somewhat idiotic to put it mildly, and so my intentions have been far from clear. Now, since you made an edit to the proposal, I want to make sure you can accept that it was not written to make a WP:POINT, and the somewhat ridiculous sentence you corrected was not meant to be entirely so ridiculous. I have had this kind of ideas in mind for a long time. The proposal suffers from extreme instruction creep, but it was not in any way a sarcastic essay. Perhaps, there is a fundamental flaw in that it tries to propose "Be reasonable or you will be banned". I guess it might be stupid, but it is not ill-intended. Much paranoia abounds, but the real reason I wrote the proposal comes from being tired of seeing the same discussions again and again, I have stopped editing some articles because it is just tedious and impedes progress. Having now experienced being in the minority, I'm even more convinced one should not edit against consensus... I don't think this is so unreasonable, but in any case I came to Wikipedia because I realized that I learn very much when I summarize scholarly opinions on the Wiki, I don't really know why I'm addicted to the MediaWiki namespace, I think I need to take a short break, and then go back to writing articles! --Merzul 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to me to be making a useful comment, though obviously I'd a reservation. It's worth thinking about how to do things here, but the continuous subtle shifting of rules and guidance can be more nuisance than help. It's difficult to legislate good common sense. A bit of simple contributing is probably the best tonic, but I keep finding contentious articles to turn to ;) ... dave souza, talk 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

'Theory'

Thanks for the explanatino re the word 'Theory'. I disagree that the word implies scientific reasoning, but if that's the consensus then I will bow to it. --Jezmck 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it a rather loaded word in many contexts. ..dave souza, talk 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about

with regard to your comment on my page. Did you read the discussion? How would you summarize my argument? Then could you relate my argument to the comments you left on my talk page, because I can't follow them. Thank you.Tstrobaugh 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC

Take a break, and try to study Wikipedia policies and guidance in a constructive way. .. dave souza, talk 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that address the problem. The problem is I don't know what point you were making. I'm attempting to communicate by seeing if you understand what point I was making. Can you summarize my argument? Understanding is the key to communication. Thanks.Tstrobaugh 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New editor in search of a little guidance

I've noticed through my short time so far here at WP that you seem to have quite a knack for talking with editors who appear to be pushing a POV. I was wondering if it would be possible if you could give me a few pointers regarding my current discussion with an editor about a certain creationist that has spilled over onto my talk page. I realize you are quite a busy man, so any advice would be much helpful as I try to better my editing skills on WP. Thanks and Cheers!!! Baegis 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your enquiry. I've commented at the article talk page, and it may work best if you delete discussion from your talk page in order to focus attention on the article talk page. Both of you are free to delete discussion from your talk page, or if you prefer, archive it. The particular misconception is mentioned at Second law of thermodynamics#Complex systems and touched on by Entropy (energy dispersal) as well as Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy. .. dave souza, talk 12:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. You were able to sum up all my points in a much more diplomatic matter and without getting angry. I wish I could be so patient. So, in the future, should I refer to WP policies instead of getting into my convoluted explanations? Cheers!!! Baegis 13:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has their own way, and it's not necessarily a good idea to refer to policies too early. However, it's worth getting a good understanding of all the policies, as people often misunderstand what NPOV actually means. Similarly, WP:NOR is also very important in this area, and the WP:A attempt to combine the policies gives a very good summary. Explanations are always needed, but generally others will join in to avoid articles going off on a pseudoscience tangent. In my opinion it's a good idea to be conscious of WP:CIVIL and ettiquette so that you don't give your "opponent" ammunition to use against you, and indeed politeness can help to reach an outcome that's acceptable to all. Hope that helps! .. dave souza, talk 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jazz

Funny, Dave, that we both seem to think that each other suffers from POVs - re "Jazz". And the even more worrying thing is that we both might be Scotsmen - or at least Scottish-interest men!! Funny old world..... All wishes 81.156.1.40 22:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the thing about WP:NPOV is that it's not one neutral stance, but a proportionate statement of both or all POVs, subject to minority povs not having to be stated. As for Scots interest, I was just thinking of Josh MacRae, Scottish blues guitarist of note who took his first (stage) name in honour of Josh White :) ... dave souza, talk 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely not the "Messing About on the River" Josh Macrae, both of us in Glasgow in the ....1960s was it? 81.156.1.40 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at that time Glasgow was a strange and foreign land to me, as I was living in the far east (Leith) and saw Josh MacRae along with Hamish Imlach a few times in Edinburgh folk clubs. Had no idea he'd anything to do with "Messing About on the River", and it seems a bit out of character from the versions I recall – mainly remember him for blues, the Dundee Ghost song, and Hairy Mary :) .. dave souza, talk 10:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

Do you think protecting this template is likely to make the specific group of editors involved discuss the issue? If you haven't ever read User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts, you should; that is one of the motivations for using a 0RR rather than protection when the editors involved are all experienced enough to know not to edit war. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant to point out I posted about this template on WP:AN this morning: [3]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's continuing discussion, which I'd hope will reach consensus, if not unanimity. I've read it, and this is what I noticed – "Take a common-sense approach. If an experienced editor who understands how collaborative editing works makes a mistake, a block is unlikely to do anything but alienate the editor, and is unproductive." . ... dave souza, talk 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting after someone puts an explicit note on your talk page warning you not to continue reverting is quite a mistake. This afternoon, I blocked Odd nature, but was ready to immediately unblock him, and did so as soon as I heard from him. I thought for a minute before blocking, but when I checked I saw that Odd nature has reverted that same thing 3 times before in October. I also thought about the fact that I left a note on his talk page to make sure he was aware of it. He could have left a note on the template talk page without also reverting the template, to make his point that several people are in favor of his version. But he immediately reverted the template while leaving the note, which is exacty the ongoing problem on that template. So I blocked him, but waited to make surel I could unblock him if he agreed not to continue reverting. I also asked another admin for a block review, but Odd nature had been unblocked before the review could happen.

Unless there is some impending harm that the protection is meant to address, I would like to unprotect the template. I'm watching it closely enough that the protection isn't needed to stop the edit war. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Barring any compelling reasoning to keep the template protected, I'll unprotect it later tonight. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I do realize I upset a group of edit warriors upset by calling them on it, but in the end that isn't too surprising. I appreciate that Odd nature may not have realized he was edit warring, but I did unblock him immediately when he said he would stop, which ensured that the block was preventative, rather than punitive, in the sense that he was only blocked for a couple minutes but (hopefully) will refrain from edit warring for a while. My interpretations about blocking for edit warring are neither extreme nor unusual, as evidenced by the fact that when I left a note on AN about it long before blocking Odd nature, nobody thought it was out of the ordinary. I am willing to let the matter drop immediately, but I am also willing to defend my actions if asked about them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have my opinion. ... dave souza, talk 12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He's gotten a few opinions on it...not that it much matters. •Jim62sch• 13:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Place names

Dave, coming out from a few conversations with others, I've created a Gaeilge task force to coordinate translations of Irish place names and other Irish-language related work. Since you seem to have an interest in this stuff, you might want to get involved. I'm sure there's plenty to do even without a knowledge of Irish. Some bright ideas (which I know you're capable of) and an outside view, might alone be a significant contribution. Do you know of any related Scottish project? Maybe starting one, or linking up, would be possible?

Maybe drop a line on the talk page so that we can all "get to know eachother" as the man might say. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm a bit out of touch and completely do not have the Gaelic, also have rather much in my in-tray already. Have tried a check over at Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board and its talk page, but no sign of anything relevant at first glance. Trust all goes well, .. dave souza, talk 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference footnotes

Hi dave, I know it has been a while but would you be able to add reference footnotes to the information you added to the architectural theory article a while ago? I am researching now to expand that article in the next month or two, and would greatly appreciate more references in the text. As you know a featured article tends to have some 5 or 6 per paragraph, and to FA is where I may take the article eventually, so if you could add as many as you can that would be wonderful. Otherwise, I will add some to those sections myself, as I will probably be editing those sections but the less I have to do the better. The time frame for me is still open a few months and as much referenced text as possible is most desirable. Regards, D. Recorder 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ps - I know I haven't been using footnotes on that article myself, but I will when I expand soon.D. Recorder 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the edits I made[4] removed a speculative anti-modernist rant and referred to some of the main figures, I'm not much up on architectural theory but will try to have a look for relevant sources for these points. There's no need to overdo references and often one per paragraph should suffice, with more where different sources provide different viewpoints or it's a particularly contentious statement – the main thing is to ensure that all the statements are properly attributed to a verifiable source. The first thing is to decide whether you want to cite page numbers in reference books (as the one inline cite does already) – if that's the case it's best to use Template:Citation in the Bibliography (which is often called References) and Template:Harvard citation no brackets (harvnb) inline, between footnote ref. tags as Wikipedia:Footnotes. The alternative, shown at Wikipedia:Citation templates, doesn't work so well with page numbers. Let me know which option you prefer, or if you've any queries, and then I'll have a go at providing appropriate references for the bits by me. .. dave souza, talk 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Whichever is easier for you. For the footnotes I add, I'm going to include the whole book at the first instance in the footnotes and then a short version with page numbers thereafter. When the same is used multiple times I'll use the refname = code to repeat. Use whichever you are more comfortable using, I'll try to adapt for what I work on. Regards, D. Recorder 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

Hi, Dave. It's been a while, eh?

Thanks for undoing my hasty text move here. The last thing I want to do is violate NPOV accidentally. --Uncle Ed 23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good show, hope you're finding the reference useful. .. dave souza, talk 13:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Mnemonic fair use

Yo Dave, just stopping by to thank you for keeping the copyright wolves from the door at Johnny Mnemonic, much appreciated. Skomorokh ^incite 12:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to do something to fight off these packs of wild bots trying to chew up good images ;) ... dave souza, talk 13:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"berserk deleting categories" anon

Hey, I noticed you blocked the IP User:81.133.14.182 for one hour. Just wanted to let you know that this user has been using anonymous editing to avoid a 3 month block (that was given to User talk:212.158.244.124 by Maxim a month ago). Not only was the user doing "berserk" things with categories, the editing pattern was often POV and when confronted or reverted, the user would turn to personal and homophobic attacks (edit summaries like "fuckin gays have sex with a woman OR love your mother" and "Stop vandalism fuckin gay EALacey") and often stalk the users (see User:Andrev c for me and User:EAGacey for User:EALacey). The user has also gone by User:Goodmann and User:Bad as a child and at last 16 different IP address (that all point back to England and for the most part BT broadband). The bad part is that the dynamic addresses are so varied (81.130.x.x to 87.74.x.x with a few in the 21x.x.x.x range) that a rangeblock is not feasible based on the number of affected users. At this point, the 3 month block seems pointless because the user knows how to evade the block, has not shown any interest in communicating, the personal attacks have not stopped, nor the disruptive editing. Just letting you know the background of the situation. Do you have any ideas on how to more successfully handle this user (through dialogging, blocking, or even contacting the ISP?)?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, bit late for me tonight but if you could put a report at WP:AN/I that seems to me the way forward. Thanks again, ..dave souza, talk 23:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles Darwin, about agnosticism

Please refer to the Charles Darwin talk page to discuss the use of the word Agnostic in this article. Thanks. --Xer0 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species

Hello Dave, I got your message, but not sure what it is you want me to do? Which other page is it on? thank you.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, got it, and will take care of it as soon as I figure it out and get a minute.

Also, I need some help! I have to change the "E" into a lower case in Ahl-E Haqq, but it says there is already a page there and will not go through. Can you please make it lower case or tell me how?--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I've weighed in at Talk:Ahl-E Haqq#Page move. Unless I've missed something, it might not be as bad as expected. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave, okay, wow, so I just spent a few hours trying to correct the "On" on all the pages you asked me to. I did it on a few, but 95% of all the pages that linked into "On the Origin of Species" already use "On", so I did not even have to add anything, but I checked most of them anyway.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, there still seem to be plenty still to tidy up. More than half of the Pages that link to On the Origin of Species link through the redirect, and can be seen directly under Pages that link to The Origin of Species. No doubt we'll get them all sorted out in the fullness of time. ... dave souza, talk 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a big problem on the page. "Francis Schonken" keeps moving the page back, and now is bulling me with threats. I have provided citations and proof for the name.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned to provide context prior to the central events of the case. Your contributions were also mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought FAC

I have just nominated History of evolutionary thought for FA. Your participation in the processs would be very welcome. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of Wesley R. Elsberry

According to this, Wesley is a party to the dispute. Consequently, Wesley citing Shallit via a blog (in which authentication may not be performed, as is typical on blogs in general) with an axe to grind is not exactly reliable. Do you disagree? CruftCutter (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that it's a contribution by the reputable researcher Wesley R. Elsberry to Panda's Thumb, which is one of the reputable ScienceBlogs, and is a reliable statement of Wesley's claim. He is representative of the mainstream science response to the "dispute". It's not a source for Shallit, who is cited to the pdf you've linked, as I understand it. .. dave souza, talk 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. There are blogs and there are rantings. This is a real blog.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:PSTS Elsberry's post is a suitable reliable primary source of what Elsberry has said. 66.92.182.62 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Elsberry is a notable expert in this field. Elsberry self published material is a reliable source then according to WP:SPS.--Filll (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I don't have many names. I had persianhistory2008 and changed it to Octavian history. Only change and only name I have--Octavian history (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, apologies for my absent minded flippant remark. .. dave souza, talk 19:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoffman evidence

Hi there. I've commented on your evidence in the Hoffman case. See my comments here. Please feel free to respond there. Out of interest, I noted earlier that only Nascentathiest made sockpuppet allegations in the initial thread. I think it is a point in favour of the other editors in that thread that they (mostly) responded to the substance of what Hoffman was saying, rather than commenting on the editor. Where do you personally stand on those sockpuppet allegations? Did you give any credence to Nascentathiest's comments at the time? What do you think now, after all the subsequent discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lobey's the Wee Boy.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lobey's the Wee Boy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)