This article needs more cats, preferably if the pictures are free, FREE I tell's ya. Hisss. This would enhance navigation by listing it with other articles in the Category:cats. Please help Wikipedia by adding more cats to articles.
File:Meow3.jpgWhat, not even a picture of a cat? El_C 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]Um, other people may want to use the bed.Are you even listening to me?One good cat deserves another. Actually, I suspect this is not a good cat. Oh well. Hope you like it. Ben Aveling 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be strong! I am on your side so the force is with you. ;) - Darwinek 10:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, carnival....wish I could be there ;)--Shanel 06:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, me too! Guettarda 06:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus: Puerto Rican Spindalis
An organized consensus in regard to the Puerto Rican Spindalis has been placed at [1]. Please express your opinion. Tony the Marine 14:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
(P.S. I love that carnival image)[reply]
Guettarda, recently you posted on my talk page "bringing people here to stack a vote is considered meatpuppetry and is frowned upon." It now appears that Tony the Marine has done precisely that with his post above. This message went out only to people who supported his position on Puerto Rico. Pmsyyz and Sceptre were not invited. As a new user I want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines of behavior, but this is certainly a case where actions speak louder then words. What do you plan to do about Tony the Marine's action? Algr 09:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do I plan to do? Nothing - he acted correctly, informing involved parties (as should have been done with the mediation). Sceptre was only involved in the mediation attempt (and I would say gave up on it). I don't know how Pmsyyz was involved at all (or who s/he is). Guettarda 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Kane
There were too many "cooks" in there for awhile, some trying to cope with vandalism while others were editing. Thanks for your help. Sunray 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You
I need as many comments like those as possible right now, I feel like i'm an inferior person, someone who's unable to communicate their thoughts to try and help the encyclopedia without pissing off the people they care about. If you can, please help me fix myself so I can become a better person, I love this place but I need to improve myself. I will assist you with anything I can do in any case, regardless of your reply.
Dear Guettarda..i want to appologize 2 u .. coz last time i do some editing about portia...the prime minister of jamaica..i didn't realize that i put away your portia.. actually could u change the portia to your last 'portia'...is there anything that we can settle this..? please do not feel dumb... :(
Hi Guettarda. I have begun a collaboration of the month for the Puerto Rico Wikiproject. The collaboration is Accentuation. I have created a template and a subpage for it. The template can be found at the top of the project and the details for the collaboration can be accessed through the navigation template or by clicking here. Please tell me what you think about all this. Joelito 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Thank you! Hi Guettarda/Archive13 thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota~° 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
A few days ago I started to write an article for him. If possible, could you take a look at it before I move it to the article space? Any changes would, of couse, be appreciated :)--Shanel 03:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused about creationism and intelligent design. ID does not deny macroevolution; creationism does. Furthermore, you apparently do not realize that 'creationism' includes both young-earth and old-earth creationists, whereas the vast majority of ID theorists accept an old earth. ID also leaves open the question of who the designer is, unlike creationism, whether Christian or Muslim.
Furthermore, ID is not an offshoot of creationism. ID is rooted in the teleological argument, whereas creationism is rooted in revelation, whether through the Koran, Bible, or another holy book. This makes creationism and ID mutually exclusive on philosophical merits; one cannot be an offshoot of the other. Furthermore, the prominent proponents of ID, although often Christian, were never originally creationists. Therefore, calling ID an 'offshoot' of creationism is deceptive---besides being philosophically impossible.
Mmmm...no. Still creationism. See [2], for example (of just read the footnotes & references in the ID article). Guettarda 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm...maybe you should actually read the article and then think about it? To quote your link, "creationsism refers to any view that rejects evolution in favor of the action of some personal, supernatural creator" (p144). And how is this ID? Intelligent design 1.) does not reject microevolution or macroevolution and 2.) does not favor the action of a personal creator. ID can do nothing but make a teleological argument. This is not creationism. Creationists don't call themselves ID theorists and ID theorists don't call themselves creationists. It's unfortunate that evolutionists just can't quite understand that... perhaps its a cognitive deficiency found in those who were naturally selected to hold the naturalism meme? As I pointed out to duncharris, you'd be more just in calling ID a version of evolution since ID theorists accept evolution and long ages. After all, evolution only answers the 'how' and not the 'what', therefore the possibility of an intelligent designer is not automatically excluded. :) Razzendahcuben 18:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should lay off the
insults
- it violates policy.
As for your quote from the paper - you should have continued reading at least to the third page of the article, rather than just skimming it for something to take out of context to support your position.
Can you show me where "ID theorists accept evolution and long ages"? They are generally silent about these things. In addition, by your logic, old-earth creationism should be called evolution as well. But anyway, I see no point to this conversation - ID is creationism as defined by both its critics, many of its proponents and the courts. If you want to believe otherwise, that's your right, but we can't edit articles to suit your opinion, we have to rely on verifiable sources and other stuff like that. Sorry. Guettarda 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. You were never insulted. Let's move on with the discussion.
2. Actually, I did read a significant amount of the article. I will show that even by the article's own standards, ID should not be called creationism or vice versa.
First, the name of the article is "Creationism and Intelligent Design"---he got the dichotomy correct in one place, at least.
On p144, the Mr. Pennock says that one of the purposes of his article is to provide a typology to distinguish the different forms of antievolutionism. He's already off to a bad start. Antievolutionism is inaccurate because all creationists and ID theorists accept microevolution, and many accept macroevolution.
Once again, the 'definitions' portions begins with a glaring inaccuracy: 'In its basic generic sense, creationism refers to any view that rejects evolution in favor of the action of some personal, supernatural creator.' Mr. Pennock would include theistic evolutionists in this category, and yet in the next parapraph he writes that they should not be considered creationists. Also, if the involvement of a personal creator is the criteria, this immediately rejects any creationism not based on the Bible.
"On the other hand, not all religions are creationist. Many religions and theological traditions accept the scientific understanding of evolution and therefore are not forms of creationism. The Catholic Church and most mainline Protestant denominations, for instance, do not consider evolution to be in conflict with Christian faith, holding that God could have ordained the evolutionary mechanism as the process for creating the biological world."
According to this definition, theistic evolution (henceforth TE) and ID should NOT be considered creationist! Both TE and ID "do not consider evolution to be in conflict with the Christian faith, holding that God could have ordained the evolutionary mechanism as the process for creating the biological world."
Proceeding on, Mr. Pennock points out that OEC's and YEC's agree with each other on (macro)evolution but not geology and cosmology. In other words, they both accept a special creation that did not involve any macroevolution. Good. But ID and TE certainly do not fit this category.
On p145, Mr. Pennock writes, "The ID Movement was singled out by the AAAS board resolution as the new player in the creation/evolution controversy." New player---good. That's because it's not creationism wearing different clothes or playing a different tune, it's just a teleological argument that apposes naturalism.
On p145, Johnson is quoted as pointing out the real similarity between ID, OEC, and YEC: anti-naturalism. True, but anti-naturalism is a very, very low common denominator. This doesn't make ID a type of creationism any more than it makes witchcraft a type of Christianity. Remember, Mr. Pennock already defined 'creationism' as to disallow those who accept evolution---regardless of whether a creator was involved.
In conclusion, Mr. Pennock is having trouble pushing his own agenda to the point where he contradicts himself, so maybe this probably isn't the paper you want to refer to.
3. You are correct---most ID theorists are silent about the age of the earth and macroevolution, which is all the more reason to distinguish them from creationists, who never accept macroevolution and who do make specific claims about the age of the earth. My experience concerning the age of the earth has shown me that since the only players that make the earth's age a controversy are YEC's, and YEC's never call themselves ID theorists, therefore anyone who is not a YEC accepts an old earth. There might be an exception here or there, but I'm saying that you'll almost always find this to be true. Also, OEC includes progressive creationism and theistic evolution. TE is evolution, yes.
Nonetheless, the Big Bang hypothesis was embraced by physics and over the years has proven to be a very fruitful paradigm. The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion.
Moreover, theories of design involving the special creative act of an agent conceptualize that act as a causal event, albeit involving mental rather than purely physical antecedents. Indeed, design theories—whether posited by young-earth Genesis literalists, old-earth progressive creationists, theistic macromutationalists or religiously agnostic biologists—refer to antecedent causal events or express some kind of causal scenario just as, for example, chemical evolutionary theories do.
Notice that the common denominator mentioned is "design theories", which INCLUDES creationists. But calling ID creationist is a logical fallacy. At its core, ID is a design theory. For creationism, however, being a design theory is just one of its many distinguishing features. Calling the one the other is completely invalid. Since the differences are so large, we separate the two completely to avoid a misunderstanding of terms. ("We" refers to those who understand the differences.)
Here's some other useful information from the ID website www.y-origins.com:
Q. ARE INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND BIBLICAL CREATIONISM THE SAME?
A. Although materialists and the media often lump them together, their premise is so different that it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Biblical creationism looks at science through the lens of Genesis, whereas intelligent design draws its logical inferences about our origins from scientific discoveries without any such filter. It is actually the scientific discoveries that have led many scientists, such as Einstein, to believe in a super-intelligence behind the universe. Intelligent design advocates vary in their religious beliefs, and leave the identity of the designer to theologians. Biblical creationists specify the designer as the Judeo-Christian God (See Article 8).
Very good. The difference between ID and biblical creationism is SPECIAL REVELATION---something that ID NEVER can or will provide. It is philosophically impossible. Obviously this can and should be extended to any creationism, whether based on the Koran or another religion offering special revelation.
Q. HAS A DESIGNER GIVEN US CLUES THAT REVEAL WHAT HE IS LIKE?
A. Since the discovery that the universe had a beginning, scientists have been wrestling with the questions of who started it all, and why. Many of them believe that a designer not only exists, but has revealed himself to us in specific ways (See Article 8).
Once again, they point out the critical issue of revelation that totally distinguishes ID from creationism. Calling ID creationism is definitely a misunderstanding of terms.
Finally, to really drive the final nail in the coffin, read this article from Answers in Genesis (obviously die-hard YECs). Notice that the question of whether ID is creationist, or vice versa, is never even entertained because anyone familiar with the two knows that such a question is ridiculous. Instead we read of the "creation movement" and the "intelligent design movement"---an obvious dichotomy.
In conclusion, Wikipedia articles should be modified to demonstrate the following trichotomy:
creationism - The special creative act of organisms in the earth's history as revealed by a supernatural being. This includes progressive creationism and young-earth creationism (based on the Bible or Koran or some other special revelation).
intelligent design - Intelligent design is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Philosophically, this does include creationism, but the disinction must be kept because ID is foremostly a movement, not just a philosophy. The shared philosophy should be referred to as antievolutionism or anti-naturalism.
evolution - includes evolutionary naturalism, theistic evolution, any theory that holds to macroevolution
"'You were never insulted. Let's move on with the discussion".
You most definitely were slinging insults around - "evolutionists just can't quite understand that... perhaps its a cognitive deficiency" - that, among other things is an insult.
Even if you hadn't been intentionally insulting, the correct response is to apologise, to to say "you were never insulted".
Given your lack of desire to engage in civil discourse, I have no intention of even reading the rest of your reply, let alone engaging in your little game. As I said before, I see very little point in having a conversation with you anyway, since you choose to cherry-pick tidbits out of context to support your position. Please find someone stupider to bother. Guettarda 18:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the arguements briefly, I feel inclined to agree with Guettarda on the issue of the difference (or lack of) between a "creationist" and a "intelligent designer". Both involve the idea that a supernatural being was directly involved in the creation of the universe as we see it, although through what manner is still up to opinion among them. If I have interrupted where I am not wanted then I apologize.
I while trying to figure out how to thank Guettarda for a comment I stumbled up this, so I'll say it now: Thank you for your comment Guettarda. Teckor 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G4 says "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space, or undeleted per the undeletion policy". I don't find the page to be substantially identical at all. It's a new creation, not an undeletion, so DRV isn't applicable either. Guettarda 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume I don't have access to see what the deleted content was so I wouldn't be able to determine if it's the same. Without knowing that, I would've figured the article would have needed to go through DRV before being re-created - esp. if it's been deleted twice. I don't particularly care and the article looks fine as it is - just seemed odd to ignore two rounds of Afd. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weinstein has now had two books published since his entry was previously deleted. He clearly has become a notable person worthy of an entry. David Hoag 07:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a userbox for you. --CydeWeys 04:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
conservation
I disagree with some of these changes - conservation ecology is far narrower than conservation - conservation biology is broader than conservation ecology, but even that is a subset of "conservation" - conservation biology does not include much of the specifically socio-cultural aspects of conservation. Guettarda 03:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, good to see you are back. I agree with your statement, although I do think that in most of the articles I disambiguated, the proper link was to
conservation ethic
if it had socio-political or philosophical content.
Now, I sure that I made mistakes and did some of these wrong, but I believe my algorithm was sound. If you told me the ones which struck you as wrong, I'd be happy to reconsider and, if necessary, change the links. --Deville (Talk) 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baffled
I'm puzzled by the behavior of the anonymous user that keeps inserting "detachment", and "independence" into a introductory paragraph of the specified complexity article, making that paragraph practically useless. It is true that detachment and independence were characterizations of specification that Dembski used in earlier versions of his work, but which he subsequently dropped as characterizations. There were lots of reasons for his having done so. The particular way this user is trying to reinsert these concepts is completely erroneous (even on Dembski's own terms).
I'm not sure exactly how to proceed here. This cycle of reversion is not very productive, but mainly I don't want to place myself in the position of clarifying Dembski. --CSTAR 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truth is, I just don't know how to proceed here. Guettarda 19:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can volunteer on that page. Look at the three others who already volunteered and give likewise your credentials. I think it essential to have at least two from our Tree of Life-project on that board. I can't volunteer. I simply don't have the credentials. But I hope others will volunteer too. The field we cover, biology, is so broad, that we need all the experts we can get on that board. Good luck. JoJan 19:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yo. Thanks for the note. I've volunteered. I'll nominate you, unless you refuse. Wot about Dunc? William M. Connolley 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The featured articles on your talk page are not science related and the biology articles of yours are short. For a board member a long science article should be there, maybe I overlooked it.--22:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to post a second set of suggestions shortly that implement a better edit filter. If you could, let me know if they're better/worse for you. Thanks for the feedback. -- ForteTuba 16:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 16:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. --Bhadani 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback needed
On the latest meta template. - RoyBoy800 18:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronald Dellums
Hey, Guettarda. I trust you've been well and that you enjoyed Carnival. (Hell, who doesn't?)
I've been back a few weeks now. I started just watching blackface and a few "pet" articles -- and now it seems I'm back. Maybe not as much as in the past. (But I hate to see black folk misrepresented and, like it or not this site is seeing a lot of use. The abjectly stubborn ignorance/obtuseness of many editors is still simply downright appalling.)
But to the subject of my note. JustforaSecond is insisting on a really tacky treatment of Dellums' family life. He's repeatedly reverted a more reasonable treatment with, I'm certain, ulterior motives. (Dellums is currently involved in an election bid for mayor of Oakland.) Another admin stepped in for a while, but apparently has abandoned the piece. I came to the article because someone visited my user page and requested I stop by. I deleted an entire, silly segment complaining about $125/plate fundraisers (when politicos routinely charge $1,000 and up.)
When you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop by and take a look. I've just skimmed the entire article, and it's full of inane stuff that about the current campaign cycle that really has no place in an encyclopedia. The site should not be used as a political tool by someone with an axe to grind.
Never mind. I put it on the Admin. notice board -- which, I realize, was the best thing to do. Deeceevoice 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is Kirk Meighoo. I have found the answer to the dispute about the WIFLP. It is the West Indies Federal Labour Party. My book is indeed in error. On the talk page, you will see a longer note of explanation. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy, which went unnoticed elsewhere. 64.28.135.2 22:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Kirk Meighoo[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, and welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you stick around. Guettarda 02:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Saint Benedict
Thanks for the many improvements to the Mount Saint Benedict stub. I'm wondering about searching on "St" and "Saint". A search on "Mount Saint Benedict" brings up the page, while "Mount St Benedict" doesn't find it. Daisy2 18:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, since the original page still exists as a redirect. It's probably worth creating a "Mount St. Benedict" redirect too. When it comes down to it though, the search function isn't all that great. Guettarda 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agapetos arb
Your last comment in the workshop is under comments by Arbitrators. JoshuaZ 16:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, any idea when you are going to put diffs in for your second assertion on the evidence page? I'm somewhat anxious for this RfA to hurry up, since it looks like Felonious, Jim and I are about to have another RfA (this time with Benapgar) and two RfAs at once would probably put me at my wikistress limits. JoshuaZ 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may make sense to communicate this to Felonious since he seems to put a lot of time into RfAs, maybe he could do the other sections. Also, the Benapgar RfA will probably be a breeze, so I think it makes more sense to put time and effort into the Agapetos arb for now. (I may be strategizing too much here) JoshuaZ 07:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially after what Ben just did on the RfA page. JoshuaZ 07:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know he watches both pages? You must be a sockpuppet of Felonious! JoshuaZ 07:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (and I should probably clarify for Agapetos that this is a joke)[reply]
Forum Evolution
Dear Guettarda (beautiful name, genus of Rubiaceae), the question is not the discussion in itself, but the fact of having to leave of Wikipedia to discuss.
As for Lauraceae, I understand very well, it is one of the families challenge for any taxonomist (the greatest of them, which more understood of this subject in every time was
We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.
Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.
Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.
If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...
We're having some slight trouble with an anom, at Peter Ruckman. See [3], [4], and [5]. It would be helpful if you maybe could have an admin word with him. JoshuaZ 23:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agapetos RfA
If you could format slightly more your March 10, 15:17 comment that ends "Wikipedia is not a suicide pact" I'd appreciate it. Its quite eloquent but could use some sort of paragraph divisions. JoshuaZ 04:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love your help.
I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.
The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.
I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tamarack Larch
Hi Guettarda - could you take a look in on its talk page, please; there's 2 or 3 people (who haven't even contributed to the page at all!) are trying to move it to Tamarack, without the indication of genus affiliation. I think this is very unhelpful for indexing and categorisation. - Thanks, MPF 13:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion
Have you considered starting a WikiProject on the Caribbean or maybe a discussion on the Ecology of the Caribbean? Joelito 18:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a totally unrelated topic check this out
List of Endemic Bird Areas of the World. I think it solves our endemic area problem. Joelito 18:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with you on the lack of news coverage on the Caribbean but in Portal:Puerto Rico I eliminated the news section completely without affecting the portal. The Caribbean WikiProject would be good for coordinating articles such as History of the Caribbean, Antilles, Cuba, etc. But I must agree with you that it may be too broad but I doubt it's impossible to do. If other projects such as Wikiproject Culture exist then the WP:Caribbean should be manageable. The notice board for me is a bit cumbersome and harder to access.
About an editor's guide I have not seen anything but the best way to "guide" new editors to a certain style is to have a project or notice board with established, well defined parameters and style layouts. These parameters would have to be reached through concensus. See
WP:COMIC to see how they established styles for comics. Joelito 19:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Accuracy or allegiance to ambiguous process?
It appears you are defending false representation of facts. Please consider whether you consider the bureaucratic processes of an organization that claims there are no rules more important than accurate,neutral factual representations. !172.193.9.65 08:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chat
I'm happy to see your User Page up again. I just finished my latest article
African immigration to Puerto Rico, tell me what you think. Your friend Tony the Marine 17:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous
Indigenous does not mean the same as endemic - indigenous means native to an area, endemic means restricted to an area. Guettarda 23:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to make those incorrect, then. A question, if I may: when the issue comes up again to disambiguate "indigenous" and it means indigenous in the sense of native to an area, to which page do you suggest that I make the link point to? Thanks! --Deville (Talk) 04:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have created a template for Trinidad and Tobago topics. I have boldly added it to the Trinidad and Tobago page. I am not very knowledgable on T&T topics so feel free to edit it and add relevant topics to it. Take care. Joelito 20:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you tweak it a lot since my knowledge is very limited. Colors may be off and topics will be missing but I hope it solves your "I want something that would tell a new editor "this is what we have"" dilemma. Take care. Joelito 20:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial Comments
I tried to simply edit the article in accordance with Wikipedia's external link policy. The spam links were reinstated. --Brothergrimm 05:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar: thanks
Thank you for the wonderful shiny cluster barnstar & the words on it. I'm touched William M. Connolley 11:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OH MY GOD
Could this thing be any cuter? This is my other little devil.
Very cute, very impressive. I need to get a cat! Guettarda 20:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allergies
Some of us in here (2% of Americans, for example) are allergic! *Atchoo*! Lovely kitties, though... *sniff* -- User:RyanFreisling@ 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see you around (haven't seen you in a while - not sure if it's because you've been gone, or because we just haven't crossed paths). I have a sense of what you mean about allergies - I'm mildly allergic to some cats (especially ones with fine white fur), but I acclimatise eventually. Guettarda 22:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agapetos Arb
Ok, made the change, thanks for the tip. By the way, what do you think of the evidence? JoshuaZ 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Farewell for now...
If you didn't know yet, I'm going to Barbados in less than an hour. I won't be with you Wikipedians for the next six days...so wish me luck on that Green Card! --Slgrandson 17:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for rving the vandalism on my user page. If you happen to rv vandalism there again, feel free to up the vandal counter by 1. JoshuaZ 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natural selection again.
Would you mind commenting again, here [6]? Nothing has really changed, but the alternatives (Axel vs. KimVLinde vs. Marcos) are more clearly defined and explained. I'd value your opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I., I don't blame you. But the link you provided is only 2/3 of the story. If the link I provide above works, you just need to go down to Gleng's 11:42 comment, which is at the bottom (right now, it is followed only by a brief comment from me). Gleng sums up the three alternatives pretty neatly. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New article
Hi. I have just created a new article in which I must admit I copied your
List of amphibians and reptiles of Puerto Rico. Take care. Joelito 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I have noticed that problem with the footnotes. Let me see what I can come up with. Joelito 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OT
Thank you. I think I confused everything, sorry. Berton 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate your observation about the incident with Rhobite. Hopefully it is in the past. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 08:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, No, I did not nominate it because I'm offended by Duncharris. I did it because I repeatedly asked for a notability proof, but didn't get any. I tagged the article on 12th march or so, but the article didn't have anything in it since then to justify the notability of the subject. As for the Brittanica reference, I don't see any facts added to the article from the reference. I looked up the link provided, and it didn't provide any information other than the one liner.
So, the bottom line is, of course Duncharris has crossed the lines of decency a lot, but even disregarding that, the article does not provide any notability proof. I hope I've made my position clear. I'd have done the same for any other one liner article without any proof of notability, regardless of whether or not the original author of the page has been extremely rude to requests for references. Thanks. --Ragib 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting, but unconvincing. I watched the exchange. Your narrative does not agree with the facts as I observed them, including your own comments. AFDing an article after a link to the EB article was included was nothing but transparent retribution. Guettarda 01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go, the article will be kept and expanded. Ragib probably acted in violation of
WP:POINT and general good faith, but no harm is done in the long term. JoshuaZ 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm completely ok with letting it go. Duncharris (talk·contribs) made quite objectionable personal attacks in reply to my request for justifying notability. If properly cited content is placed in the article, what's my problem!! That's exactly what I initially requested through the notability tag. In the long run, I'd expect such unexplained removal of tags, and abuse of admin features (rollbacks) in the part of other admins also be noted. Thanks. --Ragib 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite willing to let this go if you withdraw your bad faith nomination. It is patently false to say that "unreferenced articles always face AFD". Bad-faith nominations are abuse of process and a huge waste of everyone's time. Guettarda 01:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monarchy
You stated, "What is the value of adding a direct link to the monarch's website? There's nothing specific there to Jamaica, Barbados, etc. The page already links to the Wikipedia article on the monarch - there's no point to this link. Guettarda 19:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)"
There may be nothing specific to Jamaica, Barbados, etc, but she is the Queen of each of these countries. There are external links to the governments of these countries, she is in fact a part of the government in that she is the monarch. There are links the government in Wikepedia as well. I would have thought as an administrator, your comment "there's no point to this link" could have been more polite. Thanks for your comments, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotwood72 (talk • contribs)
Sorry if it sounded rude - it wasn't meant that way. I just meant that these links don't add anything that isn't supplied by existing internal links. External links (other than references) are something that should be added sparingly - that section tends to get out of control very quickly. Adding external links which duplicate internal links isn't a good idea. Guettarda 02:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It isn't a good idea" according to whom? Perhaps that you don't live within a constitutional monarchy it is not important to you. Why have all the links that I have provided been removed? I would like to know what level of 'admin' you are. Others have courteously provided suggestions with an understanding and open mind... until now. This reflects greatly on the community of Wikipedia. --Scotwood72
Please read Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Basically, you should link to sources which complement the information in the article. You should supply external links to sites which expand upon the content of the article - for example, if they supply visual or multi-media resources which can't be added for copyright reasons, then a link is appropriate. If you feel that there is sufficient grounds to add a section about the role of the monarchy to the Jamaica article, then make the case at Talk:Jamaica and add the section. Once it is added, you could justify adding the external link for "more information". But if you cannot make the case to add a section about the topic to the article, then the link doesn't belong there. The simple fact is that the monarch warrants no more than passing mention in the main articles. The Queen has no role in the government of Antigua or Jamaica or Tuvalu. She appoints the Governor General that the Prime Minister tells her to appoint.
I find it amusing that you claim to know about the importance of the monarchy in Antigua or Tuvalu, but seem to think that the fact that I lived my first 9 years as a subject of the Queen, and even went to see her when she visited Canada for her Jubilee in 1976 gives me no understanding of the importance of the monarch. Guettarda 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not reading my comments clearly. At no point did I say that you had no understanding of the monarchy; I said it may not seem important to you. Please answer my question and show me how to tell what level of 'admin' are you?
Scotwood72
Just to chime in here on the Monarchy. Queen Elizabeth is titular only. Her role has been legislated away to the point now that the Governor-General now- is the Head of State, The HoS is appointed by the Prime Minister... Of which Queeny simply gives a passing nod to their assent to Head of State of the country. In Barbados they've moved her away from Head of State and simply moved her under a part of Parliament for example. So now the Governor General doesn't actually report anything to her as she's under the parliament. And since she's never in the Barbados Parliament she's just outside of the loop. CaribDigita 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Please answer my question and show me how to tell what level of 'admin' are you?" - I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Guettarda 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IW Board of Regents
I don't remember if we have talked about this but, I'd like you to consider taking a postion on the IW Board of Regents. Unlike the HCBU project it would not require you to give out your name. Please respond as soon as possible. -JCarriker 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re block
Hi Guettarda. Thanks so much for trying to help... I was caught in an ip autoblock and couldn't get the help of any admins. I emailed a couple, with no luck so I tried the block template but forgot my ip would be needed. In any case, I'm on a different ip now, so no problems any longer. Cheers and thanks again, Mikker "the dodgy Afrikaner" Pikker. :) (Mikker(...) 08:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Ecological effects of biodiversity
Hello, Guettarda. This is about the wikify tag on ecological effects of biodiversity. In the edit summary, you said, the "article still does not conform to the structure of a wikipedia rticle - it's still an essay." I do not disagree that the article needs work. However, I believe that this is an issue that is better suited for a general cleanup tag, perhaps a rewrite tag if it is really bad, rather than a wikify tag. The article has many links and the subject is bolded (I guess I forgot to check if it was categorized, d'oh, but I just put it in Category:Biodiversity). These are the things that wikification takes care of. What do you think? I'm going offline in a minute, so I won't be able respond right away. Also, you can respond here. Thanks, Kjkolb 13:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense - I was just going by the wording of the tag, about "conform to MOS & layout". But I suppose "Wikification" isn't the appropriate tag. Guettarda 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ecolog
Yup, in the end, I am just a hardcore ecologist :-) KimvdLinde 01:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dawkins
Howdy Guettarda . Hope things are well that side of the Atlantic... A couple of other editors and I are working on getting
Thanks for your comments at History of Earth, Guettarda; I always value your advice. Do you have any suggestions on how I can improve the article further? I've been working on it for months, and would eventually like it to be a featured article. — Knowledge Seekerদ 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points. While I've been able to touch briefly on some of the supercontinents, I really didn't go into that much detail—in part because it's tougher for me to find good reference material for this. I can definitely work on including more material on it, though. Climate change will be tougher since I know less about it. One of our editors did ask WMC for any advice, but he (quite understandably) is apparently too busy at this time. I'll try to start including some of that in a couple days. I just don't want the article to get too long. — Knowledge Seekerদ 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Guettarda. Thanks for your comments. I've reconsidered my position, which was based on an earlier approach I had to the article. I don't know if you recall, but when I proposed and worked on
Cool (African philosophy). I've stated on the talk page of the latter that I am in favor of merging the two articles, based on my original approach to the subject matter. But I've since then, I've rethought that statement in light of the subsequent reading I've done. It makes no sense. And particularly because Wikipedia has such a paucity of articles dealing with Africa, I think it's importnat that it remain separate. But -- again -- because of collateral damage from a block of someone, I'm unable to make my thoughts known on the VfD page. I'd appreciate you posting my comments there. It seems that more academicians refer to cool as simply an "African aesthetic," so I propose renaming the article "Cool (African aesthetic)". I suggest that Cool (aesthetic)
be renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)" to distinguish between the two.
That may seem clumsy, but it's what comes to mind. What do you think? Deeceevoice 21:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do me a favor, please, and post the following for me on the AfD page -- since I can't get through:
KEEP. I've reconsidered my position. I've tried to post this several times, but have been unable to do so. (Another instance of a collateral damage block; it happens to me constantly.) The two subjects are substantially different and both need space to be developed. Cool (aesthetic) should continue to deal with the pop culture manifestations of "cool" with a nod to its African/African-American roots. As I mentioned on the talk page of Cool: (African philosophy), there are all sorts of possibilities for further development of this piece -- an examination of the evolution of "cool" and the anti-hero (the "bad nigger," Stagga Lee, Iceberg Slim, Clint Eastwood's nameless drifter, etc.). I suggest it be renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)." I suggest the other article be renamed "Cool (African aesthetic)." In the readings I've done, primarilyThompson and the academicians who quote him refer to it as a "philosophy." All others seem to refer to the same (or very similar)concepts elucidated by Thompson as an "aesthetic," which, frankly, seems more appropriate. (I utilized Thompson's terminology in setting up the "philosophy" article as a means of differentiating it from cool in the pop culture context.) I reiterate that Wikipedia has far too few articles dealing with Africa and African culture. Cool in the African cultural context is sufficiently complex that it merits an article of its own. Google "African cool aesthetic" and see what you come up with. There's ample information on the subject in an African context and in the African diaspora to fill an article without mention of Fonzie and social stratification and many of the, IMO, rather shallow, pop-culture manifestations of the phenomenon. Deeceevoice 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saw you posted my comment. Thanks again. I can edit the page now, so I've included some additional material there and on the discussion page. Peace. Deeceevoice 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could be of assistance. Guettarda 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A question. I'm afraid my delayed access/inability to post to the AfD page in a timely fashion because of the collateral block may have skewed the vote so far. Is there a better means of calling attention to the AfD? I'm confident that if other, more objective people weigh in after reading the material I've provided, the vote will be to keep the piece. Any suggestions? Also, I'm fed up with the constant campaigning to delete this piece. After all, this makes the third or fourth attempt, the last as late as December (I think). When does this crap stop? Deeceevoice 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know. Guettarda 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CaribDigita here, Hi again Guettarda- How are you doing BTW? Deecee, I had posted an invite to Wikipedia some time ago on the Yahoo! group 'HistoryNotes' you *may* possibly be able to garner some support there? CaribDigita 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For editors, yes. But for the AFD debate, new people, especially those solicited from outside, are usually not counted. Guettarda 17:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your message
Nice to hear from you. Things have been up and down (in Wikipedia terms), though an unplanned Wikibreak of nearly a month in December/January helped. I'm trying to keep my editing down in order to get some work done on my next book and various papers — in which I've been partially successful...
I see from your User page that you share my worries about the state of Wikipedia; do call on me any time for help in that direction. Nil illegitimi carborumdum! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tree
I've replaced the tree image with a larger file, thanks, jimfbleak 05:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re: Dembski
The blanket statement alledging that Dembski's response to his critics is 'polemic' is a slur. Unless you have access to every single response he has ever written, such a blanket statement is nothing more than an ad hominum attack. The entire tone of that section is hostile toward Dembski and needs to be fixed.
Workshop
Propositions on the /Workshop page are rather tentative. Fred Bauder 12:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not an excuse to make these wild accusations which disparage my entire contribution to Wikipedia. I don't edit articles to "make a point", I don't POV-push, and I don't edit some articles one way and others the other way. If you choose to accuse me of being a POV-pusher, if you choose to accuse me of being out to hurt Wikipedia, you should be able to back up your accusations. The "tentative" nature is not an excuse for your unsupported attacks on my character and contributions. Guettarda 14:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History deletions
Hello, thanks for your message about the history deletions. Will this method work for versions that occur after the problem version? For example, if versions 1, 2, 3, 4 are fine, then problem version 5 is created, then version 6 is included which includes the problem content in version 5, but adds new content which is not problematic, how do I keep the good content in version 6 without reintroducing the bad content from version 5? It seems that version 6 contains both (a) bad content leftover from version 5 and (b) new, good content unique to version 6 that therefore needs to be preserved. Johntex\talk 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it didn't work for me when I tried it on your sandbox, but I tried it before you gave me that new step. Does it work for you?
Please see the discussion about the new role of the board and the new charter here. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody there?-JCarriker 06:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Central Range
Non-existent article? SP-KP 19:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the brief nature of the message above, which caused confusion - this was a response to your comment about the Trinidadian article being non-existent. It isn't now. Now that I have finished what I was in the middle of doing, rather than still being in the middle of it, I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes looking at it to check it is OK. Please do let me know if there are tasks remaining to be done. Also, if there is a standard way to indicate while I am making a series of inter-related edits that a task such as this is in mid-flow, could you let me know, so that I can use it in future, to avoid interruptions. SP-KP 19:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I hadn't realised. In a case like that I would have created the article first, and then linked the pages to it. Guettarda 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Apology accepted SP-KP 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It was listed as a speedy rename at cfd, and nobody apparently objected so it was placed in the approved Speedy Renames to-do list (not by me). I was just working through the backlog. I assume since you are asking, you are objecting? We can open a new cfr discussion if you'd like. --Syrthiss 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dembski on Pianka
What indications do we have that Dembski's phone call to the DHS resulted in Pianka's investigation? Dembski said on his blog that the DHS was already aware of Pianka when he called, so saying that hsi call 'resulted in' Pianka's investigation is purely speculative, and worse for the wear considering what Dembski said.
African cool reversion
Do you have a content-related reason for this reversion, or is it just out of objection to the process? I believe there's lots of support for the redirect here. Friday(talk) 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not edit warring on the article. I never edited that article. I was merely carrying out the consensus of the AfD. And do you really want to talk about "inappropriate"? How about editing a protected page? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were edit-warring about content. Merging was actually the view had had least support, so it's incorrect to say that it was the "consensus" of the AFD. As for editing a protected page - undoing your policy violation seemed preferable to wheel-warring. Guettarda 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the "vote" which had the most supporters was deletion, does that mean I can just go ahead and delete it, then? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, you did delete it, despite the fact that the AFD was correctly closed as "no consensus". Please stop violating the norms of acceptable behaviour, please stop showing contempt for your fellow editors, and either unprotect the article that you protected while edit-warring over content, or revert to the version that was there when you chose to improperly protect it. I see a pattern of abuse here. Please desist and try acting like a member of the community. Guettarda 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
William Dembski
With nineteen external links there already, I thought that yet another one was link-farming (in fact, the others could do with being slimmed down a bit, as per Wikipedia:External links). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My name
Nah, it's actually "Shanel," although you wouldn't be the first person to read it that way. I'm actually in high school right now, although I would have liked to go to Naps. :D--Shanel§ 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely sorry
That you are so easily disturbed. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you're discovering, User:Zoe has only one setting: "Aggressive sarcastic". I've encountered her knee-jerk reactions and incivility myself. You have my sympathy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One tends to respond in the same vein as the way one is treated. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So everyone is exceedingly rude to poor old you, which is why you are rude to everyone? So everyone abuses admin privileges against you, which is why you use page protection on pages on which you were edit warring? Everyone deletes "your" pages out of process, which is why you delete pages when people dare to challenge your authority? Your "explanation" is laughable. Guettarda 03:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really have no concept as to what "edit warring" means? I had no edits on that article whatsoever. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page history says otherwise - you were clearly edit-warring. So, based on your previous comment that you "respond in the same vein as the way one is treated"[7]...are what part of my comment do you consider a falsehood, in order to justify your falsehood? Guettarda 03:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can remember, my first experience of
WP:AN/I
(her first word was "twaddle"). As I hadn't treated her in any way up to that point, that being her first contribution to the discussion, it's difficult to see how her claim stands up.
If people were really as unpleasant to her as she is to others, then her course should be to warn them about their incivility, and take the matter to
Tell me, how does one go about getting the text in
Cool (African philosophy) restored for possible later use/working reference in African aesthetic
?
I also note that User:Zoe is continuing her edit warring with the insertion of an NPOV/unreferenced tag at African aesthetic -- and I've removed it. She affixed it with absolutely no discussion, and the material is, in fact, referenced. She needs to give it a rest and move on. deeceevoice 11:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
H-m-m. I may have gotten my "cool" articles mixed up, but I thought when I tried to access it earlier via the page history, I could get only as far as the recent blanking and redirects. But I just tried it, and I pulled it up. Thanks. deeceevoice 12:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo South Africans who pretended that they were colourblind...
Given that I've said several times during this that I could care less if someone is green with stripes, was this intended to be pointing the bone at me? If it was don't be too shy to tell me, always better to have things out in the open and I'm fairly hard to offend.
It seemed like the more appropriate name, although I am unaware of any other place named Banwari Trace. Yes, I was refering to the American places naming convention when I moved the article, even though it's not in America. Not really sure about if it is the rule for other articles, but maybe someone should bring it up in the future so furthur disamb. can happen for other articles. You can change it back of course, or mention it on the talk page. Moeε 15:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias
Thanks for supporting my RfA. ¡PAZ!--Rockero 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PR Project Collaboration of the month
Hello Guettarda/Archive13. It is my intent to begin a Collaboration of the month for the
Puerto Rico Wikiproject. I have suggested Politics of Puerto Rico and Economy of Puerto Rico as options for the collaboration for May. Please leave suggestions or comments on the talk page or vote for any of the choices I have suggested. Take care. Joelito 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Just another RFA thank you note
Dear Guettarda, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiensну? 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TalkOrigins
I must respectfully disagree; TrueOrigins references TalkOrigins on its front page. It contains numerous conversations involving the authors of TalkOrigins which are not to be found elsewhere. It contains many articles which were written solely and explicitly as responses to articles in TalkOrigins, and are quite pertinent to the publication in question (for example, see "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution"[8]). As it is probably TalkOrigins biggest detractor, it deserves mention somewhere. If you prefer, it could be referenced in the article. Furthermore, it's hardly "link farming" when this is the only article I've added the link to (and the only one I intend to). It is not my creation, nor am I involved in it in any way or form. I appreciate your concerns about link-farming, though; it's something I've run into before. The Jade Knight 05:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Climax community
Hi Guettarda, I suspect you may already have spotted my major overhaul of Climax Community. It had both some nutty stuff, and some more moderate but still not accurate stuff on Clements especially. So I just decided it was time to fix it. It's not perfect yet, but it's better I hope. So, any comments you have, I'd be happy for! (Also, I noticed that there's a user who's commented on your page called "che". Hmm. That's not me, for the record. Best, Chris CHE 05:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hi i need some assistance
how come my page cant be displayed for other people to view?
thanks
S.W.S.C 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A favor please
Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (
Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 09:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Re the whole de-bureaucrating thing
Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. --
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on.
This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing
NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Media Matters
Please do not add frivolous tags as you did to my edit of "Media Matters." While I can compromise on your deletion of what you perceive as my "non-neutral" language I simply will not stand for un-needed "source" tags WHEN I PROVIDED A SOURCE! Stanley011 02:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read our policy on
reliable sources. The addition of a single instance does not establish a pattern worthy of inclusion in the article. In order to establish this pattern we need a reliable source. Guettarda 02:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm quite familiar with the policy and do not believe I am in violation of it in any way--I did not create those posts--they were sourced directly from the Media Matters website. I will, however, in the interests of appeasement, look for independent sources to confirm the obvious. In the meanwhile, please do not delete my edit. Stanley011 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think you do understand these policies. To begin with, how did you become aware of this? Was it something you concluded after looking at MMFA? Then it's OR. If not, you should be able to cite a source - either that source is a reliable source, or it isn't. If it is, then you should supply the source. If it isn't a reliable source, then it can't be used, and the statement doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Simple enough. Guettarda 04:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By your standards, much more of the article needs to be sourced. For example, read the previous paragraph, especially the claim that they engage in "content analysis." Where did that come from? Why aren't you complaining that that statement isn't sourced? Seems to me you are being a little partial with your decision of what deserves a "source" tag and what doesn't. Consequently, I suggest you read up on NPOV. Stanley011 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
In your quest to see bias in others, you totally miss my point. While there are existing unsourced statements that are probably OR, this is a new insertion that appears very strongly to be OR. The fact that you don't seem to be able to supply even an unreliable source speaks volumes. Given your choice of language in the paragraph, you should be the last person to lecture people about NPOV. Guettarda 13:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I feel honoured--dignifying my rather banal observations and two minute google search as original research! Do you know where I can get it published? Seriously though, I'm going to re-insert my text without the line that "it appears to go against mmfa's mission statement" without first finding a source to support that. I'm also going to add a fact tag to the pov claims in the previous paragraph. Cheers! Stanley011 13:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, you should actually read the policy links I posted. Your comment above shows that your earlier claim to have done so was untruthful. I see you have no interest in abiding by Wikipedia policy. Guettarda 14:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Hi
Hi Guettarda, yes it's been a while since we've spoken - thanks for keeping in touch! :) Things are pretty good for me, although I suspect I'm going to have to cut down a little on the time I spend on WP (I've just landed myself yet another part-time job, which means I'm shuffling between three of them now. Just a few hours per week, but it all eats into the time). Hope things are well with you in the Caribbean - I suppose T&T is busy gearing up for the World Cup in a few weeks! Grutness...wha? 03:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - El C's cat at the top of your page looks very much like one of my two (see my user page!)
Saltator
I can't explain the Lesser Antillean Saltator. It was on the first creation of this page, which is basically the Avibase list. Checking on Avibase this a.m., it appears to have been replaced now by
Streaked Saltator. Since I know nothing at all about L A Saltator, I assume it is an Avibase error which they have corrected. jimfbleak 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Discussion
There is a discussion on the talk page. To remove the tag within two minutes because you disagree with it - something Ryan explcitly did - is POV pushing vandalism, and you know it.
The existence of a discussion does not equal the validity of a tag applied to a host of articles. What issue? Which content is in question? Which POV is inordinately represented? How? How in terms of CONTENT, not opposition to the subject? That is the essence of resolving NPOV disputes - not erroneous and transparent accusations of vandalism, deleting peoples' contents and mass tagging. Try to participate in the exchange of ideas, not threats.
As it stands, your tags are not properly brought, and the fact that you raised an issue and may disagree with consensus doesn't justify the tags. I'm not willing to violate 3RR, so I'm confident they will be removed by another user. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 04:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you looked at the talk page of the main article where I explained this?
Oh give me a break. These articles are among the worst on Wikipedia, and have been for 18 months. That a gang of POV-pushers have gotten away with compiling extremist and marginal viewpoints in a desperate attempt to make their viewpoint look legitimate by shouting down every reasonable editor to come along does not make the articles good. And I initiated a discussion before I added the first tag, pointing out that the EXTREME length of the articles was a violation of the "undue weight" aspect of the NPOV policy. Ryan's response was to remove the tags BEFORE EVEN RESPONDING ON THE TALK PAGE. And yet you're accusing me of having my POV offended - an odd claim, especially considering who I voted for in the 2000 election. Please
Why don't you give the Wikipedia community a break and stop twisting truth. You mass tagged, before talking. Take responsibility for yourself. Moreover, since your first edit was a 'revert' to the prior tag that you'd already added before, you are technically in violation of 3RR on all those articles. I hope you'll have a cup of tea and cool off. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 04:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I posted to the talk page before adding the first tag. You, on the other hand, removed the tag before making your first comment on the talk page.
Every page I reverted had nothing from you on the talk page, so you assertion is false. In addition, as you well know, {{
NPOV}} is a last resort, not a starting point on articles. Just because you disagree with them politically does not justify your continuing vendetta. Guettarda 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
4 reverts of good-faith edits to a single article in 24 hours. That standard even applies to you, last I heard. Guettarda 05:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidefender Barnstar Awarded
I, Kukini, award Guettarda for endless efforts to defend us from conspiracy theorists, nutjobs and vandals the Wikidefender Barnstar. Keep up the fabulous work! Kukini 05:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I heartily endorse this barnstar. -Will Beback 08:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both very much. I really appreciate it. Guettarda 15:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sure do deserve it! I think you should consider putting it out on your user page so others know that you are appreciated and respected. Barnstar Brigade Member, Kukini 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
carla and francesca pictures
i don't know how to change the linece to fair use... Crushtheturtle 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Greetings! Great to hear from you again! I was writing a couple of articles on "slavery", "blackbirding" and "coolies", etc., recently (I think all this history needs to be much better known) and this got me back to Trinidadian-related subjects (it always makes me so homesick! Although I was born in Canada and live in Australia, I always think of Trinidad as "home").
My wife is working late tonight so I got going - first adding "liming" to the Wiktionary. Then I put some old B&W photos and text, into articles on hosay, steelpan, T&T Carnival, the Bearded Bellbird, Nariva Swamp (with a photo of me as a young fellow!!!), centipedes, boa constrictors (photo of me again wrestling with a boa!!! ;^), yellow fever, and now a fairly long one on that amazing scientist and exceptional human being, Wilbur (Will) Downs.
What a night I've had - so many memories! Yes, sometime I will attempt an article on the Virus Lab. But it is such a big subject and I was so young then - I really wasn't aware of all that was going on although I worked trained there as a Lab. Assistant and Field Assistant most of my school holidays between about 1954 and 1960. What a priviledged life I lived!
If you have a look at any of these entries i would greatly appreciate any comments you might have. Also, I have asked people how I should tag photos my father took and left to me for copyright purposes. I have been using "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License" but I am not convinced this is correct. Do you know what I should be using? Well, I had better stop here as you "User Talk" section is apparently getting toolong (or so it says at the top). I send you my very best wishes. Cheers, John Hill
Disambiguation
Thank you for the feedback about unlinking for disambiguation on the term juvenile. I was doing this based upon my interpretation of the instructions for disambiguation. Instruction #6 says, "Also, when the link refers to a general meaning of the word, for which there is no relevant article, removing may be the most sensible option." Just let me know the best way to do this. It was my first effort at contributing. At the very least, I can go back and relink the term juvenile to the disambiguation page where I unlinked.
I do have a question. Maybe it's better if I ask it some where else. If so, point me in the right direction. When I'm doing disambiguation but the available definitions do not seem adequate, what is the best course of action? I left a talk note on the juvenile page. Is that the right way to do that or is the another way?
He, no worry. I can laugh about my own funky typo’s! :-)
On a side note, I am busy with a new page for natural selection. Gleng is helping me (catching my typo's and grammar shit). It is not finished yet, but it you like to help, User:KimvdLinde/Natural selection is the place to be. Kim van der Lindeit's a girl 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chat
Hey my good friend, how are you? I've been working on a "Puerto Rican immigration series" and I wanted you to check one of my articles:
African immigration to Puerto Rico. Tell me what you think of it. Take care Tony the Marine 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You reverted while I was in the process of explanation.
Please be careful when restoring the text you deleted, since editing is continuing.--Poodleboy 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
false start
Hullo. The declaration that
consensus had been reached seems to have been somewhat premature [and without consensus]. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, tho. Cheers, Tomertalk 08:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your opinion
[Personal attacks deleted] Blainetologist 15:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
pointing out someone harassing me is not a "personal attack." Blainetologist 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask that you read the links I provided. Guettarda 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again that's bullshit, pointing out someone harassing me is not a "personal attack." Stop claiming that it is, you're not supported by your "policy." Blainetologist 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing something out is not a personal attack. Calling people by insulting names is. Guettarda 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn your still trying to twist it to say things it doesn't say and claim I did something I didn't. Blainetologist 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty simple - be civil, stop throwing around insults, and you'll be fine. Keep up what you're doing and you probably won't last here very long. Guettarda 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw, but it doesn't change what I said. Even if he's not a newcomer... none of the actions against him were taken on that basis. --CBDunkerson 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack
On the Juan Cole page, "the two of you seem to have stepped off the deep end into paranoia" is a personal attack. elizmr 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the offense caused. Can you suggest a better term for the nonsense Isarig wrote and you endorsed? Guettarda 20:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another personal attack, that's two. Is. already addressed this adequately on the article page, I think, where it belongs. Maybe this kind of language is just the way you interact, ,but do you see that this is an uncivil way to edit a page? elizmr 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I see your total failure to assume anything but the worst on CSTAR's part and your consistenty hostility to be highly incivil. In addition, if you are so concerned about personal attacks, why haven't you done something about compatriot Isarig's repeated and persistent personal attacks and extreme hostility? When you stop lecturing people about their actions and instead try to bring your own within the bounds of acceptable behaviour, then maybe people will listen to you. Saying "Maybe this kind of language is just the way you interact" is far more of a personal attack than was my question. Wow. You're hilarious. Guettarda 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These statements are completely and totally unfair. Did you even read the history of my interactions with CSTAR on the talk page? I tried to work with him quite a bit, and I did not assume bad faith until I had pretty good evidence of it. Did you even read my statement on the talk page? Did you even read the talk page to see how people like sloat and lee were talking to Isarig before singling him out for condemnation? When I mentioned your language, I was only saying that maybe you are kind of sarcastic and joky and don't mean to be taken as nasty--that's all. I don't know. If you are trying to get me off wikipedia, you are doing a pretty good job. elizmr 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfair? I have seen CSTAR's edits to many pages, and I find him fair and interested in the facts. I also watched the Cole page for a couple days before I commented. Yes, I saw the exchanges. I don't think it's fair to say that you "tried to work with him" - I didn't see any willingness on your part to move the article away from being one of the worst I have seen towards one that adheres to Wikipedia policy on biographies. I am not trying to get you off Wikipedia, but I think you need to learn to look at both sides of a conversation. Isarig is shockingly incivil, and you tend to be extremely aggressive. The two of you are setting the tone for the page. I admit that I too easily take the bait when provoked, but seriously - compare my analysis of Weintraub's background with the way the two of you responded. I posted in response to what KC said - when she said that he was "pretty low down the totem pole" I was skeptical - "Adjunct Associate" usually means someone with a primary appointment elsewhere. When I found the UPenn bio, I thought it was curious, and I tried to translate it into normal language. When Isarig asserted that he was an "Ivy-league professor" it shows that he probably did not understand the nuances.
Isarig's response to my post startled me. I can't see how he saw what I had to say as a "smear by innuendo", nor could I make sense of your echoing the accusation. To take my simple explanation as an attack...I honestly can't see it as anything other than an assumption that everything is an attack.
As for my language - yes, of course this was sarcastic. I find it galling for you to accuse me of personal attacks when you and Isarig have been the ones turning everything into a fight. I started with a long analysis of how the page failed to meet Wikipedia policy. Did you bother to address and of the concerns? No. Instead you chose to attack the messenger, and allude to conspiracies, as if trying to bring the page towards compliance with policy was some sort of conspiracy.
As for Isarig - he seems unable to refrain fro using attacking language, and his 3RRvio shows contempt for policy. There's nothing wrong with standing up for your friends, but when you tolerate his actions while lecturing others for much more minor issue, you don't come across as having much credibility. Guettarda 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attack #3: "plea for civility by the second most incivil person on the page? Hmmmmm"
On the Juan Cole page, being the second most uncivil person is quite a distinction.
I appreciate that you worked with CSTAR in the past. I have not. Did you note that I ignored some personal insults to me from him about my politics, etc, tried to get everyone on the same page with consensus raising questions, and started to clean up some over the top crits of Cole that those you call my "compatriats" put on in response to CSTARs remarks? NO, I don't think you did. I could go through the talk page and find these places for you, but frankly I don't think it is worth it because the situation seems prejudged.
I have never encountered Isarig before this page and only recently. He has been sparring with LeeHunter, who I have worked with alot, and Commandersloat. These two have been quite abusive to him as well. Isarig was trying to explain himself and his points and the other two were being pretty dismissive and not hearing him. If you read the talk page, you might feel differently. This was my take and my perception. I didn't really get involved because the part of the article they were editing was not something I was working on. I am not excusing Isarig, but in context they were all doing it. To single him out for personal attacks, I felt, was unfair. It is not standing up for a friend. The two of us have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
As far as the more than 3 reverts thing goes, Lee did it the same day Isarig did it, in the same exchange. One of them got reverted, by CSTAR, and the other didn't. Isarig complained and was ignored by CSTAR. And then Isarig got singled out for censure, and CSTAR endorsed this. I did and do think this is/was unfair. If CSTAR acknowledged a mistake or took back singling out Isarig for censure I would have felt good about the whole thing, but he didn't even acknowledge any failing. He also accused me of treating people unfairly, which is a load of crap. Is CSTAR an unfair person? NO. Did he act unfairly? Yeah, in this circumstance, he did.
As far as your long analysis of how the page failed to meet wikipedia policy, yes i read it and yes i agreed it was not a good page. I did not agree with the hyperbole (not yours) that the page was the worst on Wikipedia, and I think it is pretty insulting of anyone to come onto a page they have not been working on and declare somethig like this. I did not agree with your analysis of what the factors were that were making it so bad (ie--the three of us). I was actually working pretty hard to idenfity core themes in the criticisms regarding Cole, state them succintly and use good refs, and I was asking people who are more conversant with stuff Cole has written (I read his blog, but don't know it intimately) to elucidate Cole's point of view and responses. I think the feeling among people who would count themselves as Cole fans was more that the crits should not be there at all because they were so unreasonable. I think these folks were part of the problem. Your analysis did not take this into account.
As far my concurring with Isaring on your analysis of the Weintraub CV, I see your point and apologize, but I saw his point too.
As far as my agressiveness goes, I have no response or particular apology. You have actually been quite agressive yourself in this particular instance.
The irony of the situation is that I recently worked on a page that was quite a POV smear, but it was smearing a different pov. In that case, Lee and others where acutally doing what you accused me and others of doing. However, in this case, no bevy of admins rushed in to shut the page down and censure the POV pushers. Quite the contrary. I put up with the strongest of personal attacks there. You might want to read my statement 1 on the cole page where I talked about this if you care to.
Given the confluence of these two events, at this point I am totally fed up with Wikipedia. Your hostility did push me over the top. elizmr 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One comment on the above exchange. Re: Elizmr's assertion . Did you note that I ignored some personal insults to me from him about my politics, That is simply false. I never attacked his politics. The only comment I made about "politics" (after he suggested, in mandarin pinyin that he would like to come over for dinner to my house) that it would probably not be very pleasant because we would end up discussing politics. To claim that is an attack, is really over the top. --CSTAR 02:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snowspinner has brought an RfAr
As an editor with personal experience of this editor and situation, I thought you'd find this interesting: [9].
Note also that Tbeatty has notified Phil that I've notified you. [10] :) -- User:RyanFreisling@ 00:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon Rainforest page
The animals section is not finished, yet, plus look at the to do list in the talk page, it say for examples of biodiverisity, it will include beetles, ants, fish, and more of everything, and i'm going to make a plants section too. --1892 Fitch Dude 17:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you around? Important
Please check this out, and check out the new (proposed) version [11]. If their new version meets with your approval, I would vote to go with it. Or perhaps you will have some strategic suggestions for improving it. if you do not like it I would like to know why, thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
