User talk:dave souza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Handy Hint[edit]

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.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 19:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


Archive
Archives
  1. July 2004 – September 2005
  2. Admin 14 Sept '05 – February 2006
  3. March 2006 – 11 May 2006: Fishapods, Bud Neill and Kate Cranston
  4. 12 May 2006 – 31 July 2006
  5. August 2006 – 18 Sept 2006 also Turnstiles.
  6. Sept 2006 – 10 Jan 2007
  7. Jan 2007 – 18 May 2007
  8. 18 May 2007 – 12 Oct 2007
  9. 12 Oct 2007 – 16 Feb 2008
  10. 16 Feb 2008 – 10 Aug 2008
  11. 10 Aug 2008 – 1 Feb 2009
  12. 1 Feb 2009 – 10 March 2009
  13. 10 March 2009 – 21 April 2009
  14. 21 April 2009 – 15 August 2009
  15. 15 August 2009 – 31 January 2010
  16. 31 January 2010 – 10 May 2010
  17. 10 May 2010 – 15 September 2010
  18. 15 September 2010 – 23 July 2011
  19. 23 July 2011 – 22 October 2012
  20. 22 October 2012 – 23 December 2013

Ok if....[edit]

Hi Dave,

In the interest of preventing future disruption I may decide to seek some form of sanction on another ed with whom we have both recently interacted. I am writing to ask if it is OK to refer to remarks you and the other ed exchanged, or any comments you have made about the other ed. Questions? Ask 'em! Advice or criticism? Fire away! Thanks for your time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly seems very tendentious, you're welcome to cite anything I've said. No doubt some clarification will gradually emerge. . dave souza, talk 22:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks, FYI, I have not yet decided what I plan to do. Maybe someone else will beat me to it, whatever it is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── UPDATE - It's a bit of conundrum having both reservations about Serten's new article "IPCC consensus" as well as his behavior. If one takes action, is it "better" to seek AFD about the article first, or AE about the editor first, or do both at the same time? And if one is better than the other, why is it better? It's hard to argue with erring on the side of hope, or treating the situation as I'd want to be treated in his place. The answer I came up with in both respects was to AFD the article first (assuming I think it still merits AFD after more days of work), thus giving Serten an opportunity to rebut criticism within the bounds of our core principles, the WP:TPG, and WP:ARBCC. For an AFD, if still needed, it would be nice to get meaningful participation from editors with knowledge in the relevant areas. I'm not sure if that is easier during the holidays, or waiting until people return to wiki after the seasonal festive chaos. And as I said, maybe it will mature enough to avoid AFD in the meantime. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Phase 1 implemented and recommended by JzG. Oddly, I hadn't realised that IPCC SPM'a (at least from the SAR) were required to have "the firm agreement of essentially all the world's leading climate scientists plus the consensus of all participating governments without exception".[2] So IPCC consensus means consensus of member governments as well as the scientific consensus: am looking for more on this, when time and energy permits. . dave souza, talk 15:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Re SPM's.... see paragraph 4 of the lead at Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, in the context of these discussions this struck me: "The scientists found it easier than they had expected to reach a consensus. But any conclusions had to be endorsed by a consensus of government delegates, many of whom were not scientists at all" The timing relating to SPMs comes in here "Warned by the close approach to deadlock in 1990, in 1993 the IPCC adopted a formal approach to its crucial summary statements: each would have to be approved, line by line, by consensus at a plenary session of the Working Group.". . dave souza, talk 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok... FYI and FWIW, my own view is there is likely more than one way to improve the pre-existing articles with respect to the IPCC's history and internal workings, or the rest of the world's response. If you can shed NPOV light on any of that, more power to ya! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Dave and NAEG, the background is explained by Agrawala (1999 quoted in Hulme 2010) and by Hünemörder (2004) and already in the draft. The US government wanted to avoid UNEP having the lead, for principal sceptizism agains the UN (too much third world) and against UNEP (too much American NGO's) there. Therefore they wanted an institution of their liking, but did not want it in New York. Thatcher, no friend of the UN, was for anything that damaged coal, Germany had opted for UNEP, in the tradition of Willy Brandt's network, which included a buddy called Jomo Kenyatta and Angela Merkel had saved the Kyoto protokol from a total faileure. Result: The US got a strong say in the IPCC setup, but its headquarter went to Europe, Hadley center was founded in GB, UNEP headquarters went to Nairobi, Kenya (lead by Germans Steiner and Töpfer), and Bonn received the UNEP bureau, the UNFCCC, IHDP and a dozen others agencies and programs related to the environment. That said, the tekkie stuff is tekkie stuff, but real politics goes about institutions, sites and leadership. ;) Serten II (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion and Global Warming[edit]

Your link to Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy is interesting. I personally am "evangelisch" and not "evangelical" and have written and expanded articles that cover religious and political topics. Take Prussian education system, After Saturday Comes Sunday or Eurafrique for things highly controversial in the US or UK but mainstream or fringe in Germany, or changing roles in the course of time anyway. Germany had solved the main points with regard on theology and ecclesiology after 1648, religion is a regular topic in public schools of most states since the 18th century ;) and we enjoy to be ruled by a conservative that managed to achieve the Kyoto protocol against strong resistance. Thats said, my German perspective may sound sometimes bizarre from an American view, but may allow to reduce partisanship. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year ;) Serten II (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting links, the history of education in Scotland can claim some successes from 1560 onwards but has produced a peculiar mix of secular education and religious sectarianism. My interest in the fundamentalist split arose from looking at the context of Charles Darwin and of current creationism, which is a minority belief here but rather prominent among American climate "skeptics". I think your choice of sources and wording may have implied partisanship unintentionally. Anyway, Fröhliche Weihnachten, a Happy Hogmanay and a guid new year! dave souza, talk 08:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Youre welcome! I found some interesting points about David Hume and his interaction with German rational theology and (see German irrationalism alike. de:Michael Hochgeschwender sees the reason for the still strong creationist movement less in lack of understanding biology, but in a popular countermovement against the social darwinism of the (comparable secular) american elite, and as said, the urge for sort of basic religious education in schools. My mockery may be not without intention, as I met people along the line of thinking of Baron May of Oxford, ecular fans of Richard Dawkins but rather old school in their sort of faith, asking for a “supernatural punisher” to get climate policy working. Germany saw enough disaster due to the lack of democracy, no climate involved, so may be we opt for a more cautious approach. Serten II (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think the American creationist movement developed in the context of unease about modernist interpretation of the Bible, the spark being Vernon Kellogg's Headquarters Nights seen as showing that teaching evolution led to the [alleged] German military atrocities much publicised in wartime propaganda. Hence the effective banning of teaching evolution from 1925 in many US states, and the reinvigoration of creationism as a way round the US constitution when evolution teaching was reintroduced from 1957 onwards. A remarkable anti-science movement, which has spilled over into some of the opposition to climate science. . dave souza, talk 09:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
"Gospel of the German intellectuals". Uff. I provided an entry toJohann von Lamont to one of the history of education in Scotland, lets say the churches here have a great tradition in providing good education and wnat to keep it. Point is, you never would have such a conflict as with Kellogs in Germany. The protestant religion teacher (in our case) explains (both) creation stories written in the Genesis, the Biology teacher explains Darwin, both btw. have studied on a state university. Done and dusted. I am always mocking my violent atheist friends, as the Humanists union (same now for muslims) just was allowed to provide "ethics" teaching after they applied for the legal setup of a Landeskirche. :) Serten II (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Um, a contemporary of Kellogg, and like him a follower of Darwin, Ernst Haeckel had quite a few arguments with the (Catholic) church, but also supported and influenced Otto von Bismarck's German Empire. Hence the discussions amongst German officers which Kellogg noted, and which so horrified the Americans, though of course might makes right long predated Darwin. Lamont is something of a local name, they had a castle fairly near here and Lamont's ship repair yard was in operation until fairly recently. Have also met Johann Lamont, don't know if she's any relation. dave souza, talk 11:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You provide a rather American view on Haeckel and the Count! Haeckel started the de:Monistenbund, compare Positivism#Comte.27s_positivism or Dawkins, a popular and secular religion based on Darwinismin. Rudolf Steiner was more trendy then and is still today.
Bismarck's ongoing legacy includes German medicaire and might makes right is far from being "Prussian". That said, prof of mine often used a (Goethe based) proverb along "if you got hammers in your toolbox, all problems look like nails". I don't care about nails, I am interested in the toolbox, but Kellog imho projects American ideas on others. See Prussian_education_system#Drill_and_serfdom. Clausewitz On War insisted on "Primat der Politik". Moltke, a disciple of Clausewitz, spent some time on McClellan's headquarter and was impressed by logistics, less by fighting spirit. The trouble started 1888 with Wilhelm II, a Ghaddafi style crossdresser, allowing the uniformed to have the say. His father would have done otherwise. The officers depicted by Kellog had most probably a copy of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra in their pockets, "death of god and the birth of the Übermensch. Nietzsche was in line with concepts (German and scottish btw) of Unilineal evolution, which didn't need Darwin at all.
draftwise, I had some mail exchange and Richard Tol a new pic. My impression of group think may refer to a (anglo)-american view on the role of science. the NSCE deals both with climate change and evolution. Why? trust in science versus religion as base of decision making? I am no party there. snow of yesteryear There are other, complete different viewpoints and perspectives, German, Dutch and Norwegians tick otherwise. Same for Terje Rollem btw. Have you ever watched Lilyhammer? Hulme's Mahoney works on the consensus's role in India.
No Lamont clue, sorry. I saw A Satire of the Four Estaites and the Burns festivities 1996 and met Mick Hume's gang and their "Diana award". There are reasons for me to have written de:A Man’s a Man for A’ That. Serten II (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Once again, you raise several interesting points which I'll have to investigate some day. One thought, while Kellogg could be expected to have an American perspective when listening to Germana officers, others had already proposed that Nietzsche's concepts such as the Wille zur Macht had been inspired by Darwin, Célestin Bouglé provided a French view on this in 1909 (pp. 470–471). The NCSE are involved as religious concerns have impeded the teaching of evolutionary science, and similar constraints on education are proposed by those who think scientific consensus on global warming is a giant hoax. Hope you're enjoying Christmas, and here's hoping for the New Year! . . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Youre welcome, yes I do, and I return the friendly wishes.
deWP 'Wille zur Macht' doesnt mention Darwin (but goes for Schopenhauer and too much interest into ancient Greece), enWP 'Will to power' is all about. Classical projection ;) I assume that connnecting social Darwinism with Darwin is a) not fair to Darwin as a person and b) a sort of Great Man theory approach. Social Darwinism was in the Zeitgeist already with Lamarck (and Huttons eaerl Geology), but it gained speed with Darwin depicted as the Galileo of Modern times. Stalin preferd Lamarck, Adolf H. did not really care about race in the US sense, but used a ludicrous social construct instead. a contemporary joke went "How must an true German look like? Blond and blue-eyed nordic as Hitler, slim as Herman Göring, tall and swift as (clumpfooted dwarf) Goebbels and as prudish as Ernst Röhm (a closeted gay). No one of those pranks could or bothered to tell a Jew by his looks, wrong family names in the family tree were used to kill people.
I understood from some aspects of the literature, that the US right is turning around constructivism from gender to global warming, in saying it's social construct (=hoax), so lets not do anything, as the best government is none at all. The point here is less anti state and more about ideas (see Walk of ideas) : Of cause and always such a large endeavour is a social construct, those are powerful, whats the problem? But: Is a consensus approach at all a good idea for environmental politics? What does TINA/technocracy mean for democracy? How does evidence based policy work with Talebs black swans?

Recently, German engineering found the solution, probably Dominik Kuhn behind it. Serten II (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree to disagree[edit]

Hi, I hope we can cordially disagree without any collateral damage. Those are my long-held sentiments on the matter, and I think it's best to make that clear. I have no intention of edit-warring or going on forever about it on talk pages, though. Best, Yopienso (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I think we actually agree that good sourcing is essential. If you think good "Nobel" sources are now available, outline them in a new article talk page section. There would be a weight issue if it got disproportionately large in relation to its significance, so discussion would be needed. . dave souza, talk 09:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent Design[edit]

Hi Doug Dave, I received a discretionary template warning for this edit from User:Roxy the dog. I consider it an attempt at intimidation, because I disagreed about the placement of a template warning on another user's talk page. Well, the intimidation has worked. I have taken it off my watch list for vandalism and I'll not contribute to this topic in the future even though I'm a Darwinist and strongly anti-pseudoscience. I think it would be nice if these editors were encouraged not to use template warnings in any way that could be construed as intimidation. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many - It's not meant to be intimidation, it's a necessary step to make sure that everyone know's what's going on. It wouldn't be fair to sanction someone for misdeeds if they didn't notice the warning at the top of the page (which is pretty easy to miss).

And Dave's name is Dave, not Doug. :) Guettarda (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

e/c
(talk page stalker) It will be shame if you self-impose the equivalent of a topic ban, or buy into the old system's emotions about these things. Please keep editing there!
Certainly many people thought old-system warnings were used for that purpose, and there was an ill-defined expectation of some sort of problem before one should be warned. Thus, old-system warnings took on a stigma and were used for weapons, to tarnish records. From my seat in the cheap bleachers I participated in lots of discussion about this and part of the goal of the new system is pull the teeth on these things. Thus, the new DS alert template explicitly
(1) requires an appearance in the topic area
  • good be very constructive contribs
  • large noise to signal contribs
  • very disruptive contribs
  • just showing up is enough to be "alerted"
(2) is explicitly FYI only, nothing more or less
I am one of Many, from my experience of you I know you try hard to make useful input and no doubt some partisans will try to use the alert with the goal of driving others away. Please show them what it really means, by simply continuing to edit within the principles of the Arbcom decision, just like you have always done on the climate pages when we've crossed paths.
Soapbox off, pardon me sticking my foot in, Dave.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
First, I'm sorry about saying Doug rather than Dave; I wasn't thinking. Here is why I feel a bit intimidated. I have edited on the article and talk page for two years now. I don't need a warning for what I already know. Once one receives a warning, it is possible to be blocked for a month for a single edit if, at an adminstrator's description, the edit violated restrictions. I have been around long enough to know that people can be blocked for trivial reasons occasionally. I simply don't want to risk getting blocked. I have plenty of other interests on Wikipedia. So, I don't think I'm standing on a Soapbox over this, it is a genuine concern I have. For example, besides creating an editing articles, I also revert vandalism. Sometimes, (rarely) I make mistakes and revert to the wrong version. Suppose I revert some non-constructive edits but I don't notice that I'm reverting to a version some pseudoscience violations on it, it could be misinterpreted and I end up getting blocked. I probably could explain the situation and have it reversed, but I don't want the hassle.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to my own soapbox about the DS alert system. Carry on NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, sorry this got a bit convoluted. @ I am One of Many, your comments and contributions have been very useful, and templating you was unnecessary as you'd already commented on Cla68 getting a template, so were clearly aware of the discretionary sanctions. Admins do take care in applying these sanctions, so you should be ok. As for the earlier template on Cla68's page, he certainly derailed the discussion with spurious reasoning about consensus, but as has been pointed out the DS alert clearly does not imply there is a problem with the alerted person's contributions. There's some merit in the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and it can be better in these cases to make the point briefly in your own words, but it's fair enough to give a DS reminder when discussions seem to be getting dirupted. Hope that argument's all settled now, . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that on a technical level, though my own opinion is that for DS notification to be truly destigmatized under the new alert system, everyone in the hot topics needs to be templated, regular and passionate visitor alike. Otherwise, the new alert system will be little more than a change of paint color. There's also an argument for setting the 602 filter in the server, to help prevent future problems with third parties later on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Why have I been summoned here? Is there still a problem? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Not with me.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, looking further I think Roxy the dog™ has acted correctly in full accordance with the new system, as discussed below... dave souza, talk 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That's also my thought; if eds react via self-imposed topic ban that's a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────NAEG points out the reactions show that this system doesn't quite work as planned. Template:Ds/alert says "Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect. You must use this template to do so." So "Don't template the regulars" doesn't apply. The template goes on to say "Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor", evidently with the best will in the world people can take those meanings: looks like the template needs work, along the lines NAEG suggests. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

While it was being discussed, Dave, there was some discussion which was my fault, I think of the pros/cons of having the server handle all the alerts. My suggestion was to have the server check for DS Alert for the subject area within the past 12 months. This was shot down on the very reasonable argument that on any given article, there may be multiple subject areas, so teaching the server to recognize one edit from another was problematic. I now think a hybrid system would be desirable. Teach the server to handle this on the main articles, e.g., anyone lacking a climate DS alert in the last 12 months who edits the main article Global warming would get one from the server. That would only work for easily categorized articles, so leave a manual system in place. In the present instance, I think it would be helpful to have a 2nd authorized template that emphasizes Yeah, I know you know DS is in play because you just said or did something. But the server doesn't know that you know, so this template is just setting a filter to document it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, very useful. The problem here is that essay, "Don't template the regulars" is just that, an essay not incorporated into PAG as far as I'm aware. I don't template regulars, because it seems so impersonal and rude, and I've even told somebody to "f+++ right off" when I was templated in the past. The response was another template, straight away, then another almost straight away after that, then I discovered that "don't template the regulars" is unenforceable and just a nice convention here, not a rule. This template doesn't even fall under the remit of the essay, as we are required to issue them to editors who work in areas covered by DS. Note the word "required." Perhaps we should be working to remove the problem of "template stigmata" -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Further, I have received DS templates on more than one occasion, because I choose to be involved in particular areas of wikipedia, and I hadn't really noticed a major change between the old system, and the new, and those templates should be worn like a badge of honour, a bravery award if you like, for editing in the face of editing by editors whose interests are furthering quackery and nonsense, rather than Wikipedia's PAGs. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
When posting the template on a users talk care needs to be taken. It should not be characterized as a warning - rather as a courtesy notice. Referring to it as a warning can be perceived as intimidating and that appears to be part of the problem in this case. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Beware of battle attitude, too. I can't shake the feeling that "badges of honor" sounds a bit like "Combat Action Ribbon". Maybe the more we care about civil constructive contribs, the less it should matter whether we get one or not? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Tell Arbcom, not the users who have to abide by the PAGs.-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still troubled here, and since the warning I placed was so swiftly removed I haven't looked at the language I used issuing it until just now. I previewed the edit at least three times before publishing it, so I was totally satisfied I'd got it right. I certainly used the word 'warning' in the new section title, and the additional text that I used to accompany the Alert/Warning. This is how it is commonly issued. I accept responsibility for it. I'll continue to use the template as necessary, and be even more careful with wording in future. You'll note that part of my wording was as follows ... "As is stated in the warning This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between an alert and a warning. The application of a discretionary sanction requires a warning, so an editor who receives a warning, at least psychologically, can feel the potential intimidation that they are one step closer to a sanction. It seems to me a very natural response is to write that area off and work in areas where they are not likely to have such experiences. Regarding reverting the warning placed on my talk page. I can, of course, do that, but more importantly, it is important to do that when a warning is unjustified. An alert would have been a different matter, I would not have reverted that. My suggestion, however, is that you don't use template alerts either. If you think an editor is not aware of possible sanctions, you could write on their talk page: "Hi, XYZ, did you know that there a discretionary sanctions that apply to such and such". If the editor does not know, then point them to the appropriate pages. Avoiding the use of templates with the regulars is nothing more than promoting a collegial atmosphere on Wikipedia. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Disagree; if we refrain from templating anyone with a first alert for any reason the template degrades into the former badge of shame instead of a just an FYI. That would totally defeat the purpose of the recent procedure overhaul. The better way, in my opinion, is to make sure that EVERY editor in the subject area gets the template 1x per year, and carry on. The only reason to fear the thing is if one doubts one's own ability to avoid BATTLE mentality in these areas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, all or none template alerts is fine with me. But, unless everyone gets them, I agree, it could be viewed as a badge of shame. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If I may offer an observation, it would be inhumanly naive to ignore the fact that the article in question's talk page has a long history of intimidation, very often attached to misleading remarks mentioning words like sanctions and blocking. The template may have been used with good intentions on this occasion, but objections to this type of usage on a good faith editor who clearly knows basic policy should equally be easy to understand. Just being able to cite rules that show that you were not breaking a rule in a clear way is not really a high standard to aim at, and is not enough to build trust and make a good encyclopedia. Using templates against someone because you disagree with them on an editing issue, would (if it happened) clearly not be what they are intended for. And so any pattern in the templating being used against holders of particular reasonable editing positions, and not specifically defending pseudo science, is at least an indication it might be being used wrongly. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like a there's a good argument for modifying Template:Ds/alert in light of the concerns. The template page instructs "Type an appropriate subject line, then save the page." It would be clearer if it actually included the subject line and specified it as Discretionary sanctions alert. It would also help if the first paragraph of the template itself was the sentence "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." I've not been involved in setting up this system, and at the moment am not available to delve into it, but that's my advice. . . dave souza, talk 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Added this to a proposal already at Template talk:Ds#Proposal to slightly rearrange the alert. Further comments there could assist. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to Dave for invading his talk page, but I want to finesse that a bit. I do think it is a good and positive thing that Roxy the dog™ used the careful wording he did, and I appreciate that Dave has also avoided use of threatening language and misleading insinuations about what can get a person sanctioned. (Guettarda's "explanation" of the template, OTOH, implies there are "misdeeds" that might eventually lead to "sanctions". And it is easy to search the archives of the ID talk page to see whether references to sanctions and blocking have a pattern, and what contexts they are used in.)
My message above should be seen as an attempt to help Roxy understand why "not incorrect" templating might raise concerns when seen in context, and we editors know that we should always look at context if we want to understand meaning. My explanation also implies that using more templates is probably not going to help achieve much. Frankly the ID page is covered in the Wikipedia equivalent of barbed wire already, so who could miss that? Or maybe we could develop a template suitable for posting to editors who use templates (just making sure they are aware of the policies)! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
On the Talk page for Template:Ds/alert WhatamIdoing has made great suggestions for modifications to the template, but they have not been adopted. I understand that there is an ingrained culture of not templating the regulars, and that stigma may be attached to being templated, but if Arbcom requires us to do something which creates friction itself, then perhaps there is trouble in the State of Denmark? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is the Template talk:Ds#Proposal to slightly rearrange the alert which I noted above at 09:56. If there are no objections, the change should be implemented. What do you think of the idea of a recommended title for alerts? . . dave souza, talk 11:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Expressed my support there (and I already do it that way) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
A bloke walks into a bar and says ... "What's the difference between an Alert and a Warning?"
OK, enough levity, These are good ideas, and I urge implementation asap, but the design of the Alert is a little vanilla. The look of the template leaves much to be improved. We need a huge black and bright red background on the notice, and the insipid "info" graphic should be replaced with a huge skull and crossbones so that we can be certain people will actually read the Alert. Could we have a Kitchener pointy hand "this means you" too? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
LOL. Let me try. An editor walks into a bar full of experienced Wikipedians and asks "What's the difference between an Alert and a Warning?" A little spookily, they answer as one: "It depends on the context. Please give a diff and explain the exact question." How many times have I seen exchanges like that on Wikipedia community forums? Our templates, our template instructions, etc, should all "spread the word" and constantly remind our army of amateurs about the importance of context. The aim of templates like this should be that they make themselves redundant. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Guys, remember, it's all about the content. As long as the article remains on message, WP editors feel like their time has been worth it, in spite of all the time lost in productivity from their work, their family, or their personal relationships with their significant others. IPs can make drive by comments which threaten consensus, forcing the regular protectors of an article to constantly watch it, for the rest of their natural lives. Cheers! Cla68 (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Watts[edit]

Hi, as my editing history attests, I have always opposed fringe whitewashing. In this case I am attempting to make the article less promotional and less WP:PROFRINGE. Could you please indicate what exactly you thought was whitewashed? I had thought that I adequately explained my changes on Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger). It seems to me that the version you restored is promoting Watts with primary-sourced material. There's also a Fox News guy promoting Watts. It's interesting that each of us thinks the other is whitewashing. Manul ~ talk 22:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, sorry to have been a blt slow on this: have now gone back to your version, and reintroduced points which I think are well sourced and give needed context. Have yet to tackle the BEST issue, where Watts said he'd accept it then quickly backtracked when the the preliminary results came out. . dave souza, talk 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth[edit]

Hey Dave, I saw that you had contributed a lot to the An Inconvenient Truth article before; I'm trying to get it to Featured Article status, do you mind going through the prose and fixing anything that seems out of place? Thanks so much.--The lorax (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha. Rather pressed for time, had a quick look and the opening of the synopsis didn't tie up with the sources. Have tried to clarify it on the basis of the sources, but don't have access to the film so it's possible that I've misunderstood what Revkin meant by "The frustrations of a man whose long-sought goal remains out of reach are vividly on display in the first few minutes of" the documentary. To me that indicates that "He is tapping on his laptop" etc. appears after the opening "used to be the next president" line but before the slide show starts. Can someone check this? . . dave souza, talk 18:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Curious neglection of primary sources[edit]

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy I understand that wikipedia is a volunteer effort and many editors lead very busy lives outside of these self appointed duties so please don't mistake my posting on your talk page as impatience or irritation on the lag time for a response on my most recent comment at the talk page for 'Hockey Stick Controversy.' However, after pondering the points of my initial suggestions for improving the 'Hockey Stick Controversy' article and reflecting on your response and changes to the article for several days, I am especially struck by the completely illogic citation of the IPCC AR4 report rather than the primary sources that I specifically provided for your convenience. Why deliberately neglect references to trusted -- peer-reviewed even -- primary sources that were referenced and linked in my comment? Clearly, the AR4 citation is inappropriate. I understand this is a human endeavour and mistakes are to be expected but I hope that the eventual edit referencing the primary sources becomes a priority. Barring the corrective edit, wikipedia readers would certainly benefit from your rationale for citing the AR4 report in place of the two replies by McIntyre & McKitrick to comments from von Storch & Zorita and Huybers in the October issue of Geophysical Research Letters in 2005. 78Maori (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Have answered there, pointing to policies on primary sources and weight. . . dave souza, talk 06:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Dave. Hopefully you won't mind if I add a comment here.
78Maori: It is precisely for your reasons ("human endeavour and mistakes are to be expected") that primary sources are subjected to peer and editorial review. And the overall view of climate scientists is that M&M are mistaken. They can say otherwise, but having said that, they were not convincing. Also, primary sources often need context and evaluation; that's why we prefer to rely on authoritative secondary sources. Nor is it at all the case that the AR4 citation is "clearly ... inapproriate", at least not on any basis you have demonstrated. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a saint for you[edit]

Methinks you would like this saint over this one. A few years ago my daughter did a fine watercolor of me with a halo. My mother claims that's why she didn't recognize me in the piece. YoPienso (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A halo would suit you well! As for the first saint, it's a while since I've walked along by St Andrews, but today had a fine 10 mile walk which took me along the long sandy beach past Royal Troon, the peacefulness only slightly marred by warnings of hazards from balls being hit around by people with sticks. Don't know why they do it, fortunately no flying hazards were seen. . dave souza, talk 18:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
When my "Grampa", b. 1886, was a boy, his family lived in a big NYC brownstone with a dining room overlooking a golf course. One Sunday afternoon, a stray ball hurtled through the window and sent the gas chandelier plummeting into their dinner. He swore it happened. I conclude that at the very least the ball cracked the window and his mother exclaimed it could have been worse. YoPienso (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Creation Science[edit]

Dave, Can you please share with me why you undid my recent contribution to the article, Creation Science? It seems to me that this article is extremely biased, because right up front there is lots of comment about Creation Science from those who reject it, but precious little from those who accept it. It seems that if we are going to discuss a topic, we should begin by letting those who set forth that idea speak first. Then, of course, criticism of the view is warranted. In this article we virtually have only criticism. What kind of information from the Creation scientists themselves would you find acceptable? Thank you, MusonikiMusoniki (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC) (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OK Dave, I see your comment about mainstream comments. So, what if I divided the article into the two views, labeling each as such? Mainstream view of Creation Science and Creation Scientists view of Creation Science? Would that satisfy? Musoniki (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT policy requires us to show minority views in the mainstream context, and the WP:LEAD guideline indicates that the top section is for a brief summary of the main points of the article rather than detailed quotes. The quote in question is a specific argument which might fit somewhere in the article. Creation science#Views on science is a possibility, but Morris's argument is a strawman contradicted by Creation science#Religious criticism and has to be shown in that context: for example, it's directly disputed by Finding Darwin's God, and his second sentence looks to be at odds with the Religious views of Isaac Newton. . . dave souza, talk 06:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I don't agree with your assessment of Morris's quote, but rather than follow that, I'd like to explain what I am trying to do on the page. The article gives the strong impression that there are virtually no scientists who hold this view. That is patently false. I have read and listened to enough to know that. Certainly it's true that Creation Science is not the majority position, but when there are long lists of scientists who hold that view, it seems pretty deceitful to make the article seem like it's only some crazy lone ranger here and there. It is far more than that. I think this fact should be made clear. But how to do it? If I begin naming people, it gets laborious. If the article is allowed to stand as it is, it is misleading at best. Not something Wikipedia is aiming for, I should hope. Musoniki (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Musoniki: "It is far more than that." Source please? Naming people is useless. It's like saying red hair is common because I can rhyme off a bunch of people who have it. --NeilN talk to me 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
How many Steves are on those "long lists"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The comparison about red hair is not applicable because I'm not saying Creation Scientists are "common". I'm saying they are a significant and substantial minority whose existence should be acknowledged. Is that too much to ask in an article about that very topic?Musoniki (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Musoniki:, yes it is if you have no sources saying that. --NeilN talk to me 05:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)