User talk:Guettarda/Archive18

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

Template:Catneeded

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.

Archives: Archive 1 (August 29, 2004-March 3, 2005) - Archive 2 (March 11, 2005-March 28, 2005) - Archive 3 (March 28, 2005-April 17, 2005) - Archive 4 (March 20, 2005-June 6, 2005) - Archive 5 (June 6, 2005-July 4, 2005) - Archive 6 (July 4, 2005-July 26, 2005) - Archive 7 (July 30, 2005-September 26, 2005) - Archive 8 (September 27, 2005-October 13, 2005) - Archive 9 (October 14, 2005-November 18, 2005) - Archive 10 (November 18, 2005-February 12, 2006) - Archive 11 (February 12, 2006-February 17, 2006) - Archive 12 (February 18, 2006-February 26, 2006) - Archive 13 (February 26, 2006-May 13, 2006) - Archive 14 (May 13, 2006-July 31, 2006 ) - Archive 15 (July 31, 2006-September 20, 2006) - Archive 16 (September 20, 2006-October 30, 2006)- Archive 17 (October 30, 2006-January 13, 2007) - Archive 18 (January 13, 2007 - May 21, 2010) - Archive 19 (May 2010 - May 2012) - Archive 20 (December 2009 - present) Current

Edit

Are you even listening to me?

regarding your posts here

- regarding your accusation that i attacked you, i did not. perhaps it was someone using this machine; - regarding posting TriniMuslims, yes it is a bulletin-board now, but we are using it to gather information on Islaam in Trinidad and Tobago; it is not spamming; but perhaps when it evolves into a complete portal, we will repost it onto wikipedia.

- regarding the TM logo, please advise then how Wikipedia allows for trade-marked logos to go onto the encyclopedia

(TriniGeeks)

Re Fauna of Puerto Rico

Sorry. I am glad you have corrected my errors. Rintrah 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary

Thanks for the note of levity on this article. no problem. i actually considered it still as stub until today. Today ive doubled the size of the article and its certainly no stub now. :) cheers. Anlace 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New Message

Hi

This is to let you know that I have responded to your input on my usertalk page: Rfwoolf and as an admin I would value your input/opinion.

You may delete this message at your discretion.
Rfwoolf 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

John C. Gifford Arboretum

Have you noticed John C. Gifford Arboretum? I see that you are busy, and I don't know how much you want to work on botanical garden articles, but this one has bothered me since I first saw it a year ago. Unfortunately, it has never risen anywhere near the top of my todo/interest list. There's no urgency, I just thought I would mention it. If you have any suggestions, I can try to work on improving it. -- Donald Albury 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

fact tagging

Please see what I wrote on talk. Not only are the sources provided inadequate, the sources show the opposite. In his book, Behe constantly indicated the opposite of what the article addition claims he did. HKT^Talk 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Regardless, the statement was sourced. This is why we have a policy against original research. Not only did you miss key statements from Behe's book, you also misinterpreted the material you did quote. There is a reason why secondary sources are better than primary sources. Guettarda 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins

you are right. Anyway, does this mean that you would like to join me and jossi in turning this into a guideline, or that you think that is a bad ideas? it is one or the other, because if I follow jossi's suggestion I am not going to do it alone. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Feliz Cumpleaño

Happy Birthday ....

Guettarda, You are one of my best friends here and I wish you the best. I know it was yesterday, on the 26th, but it's never too late. May God bless you and your family always! Your friend, Tony the Marine 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oops! Oh what the hell, you know me-always ahead of my time (smile). Tony the Marine 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Clarke

No problem. As for the larger issue: I guess I was taking my cue from de.wiki, which in turn used rulers.org as a source. That's usually quite reliable, though I haven't found other references to him acting as President. Biruitorul 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense - even if, let's say, Williams was in office for six days, he wasn't elected, and probably didn't do much during that time. But as long as we mark him as "acting" on our list, that should make things clear enough. When did the others act, by the way? Was it while the president was incapacitated? Because I don't see any other gaps in the list. Biruitorul 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving my comments

I didn't edit your comments. I added my comments in the middle of yours (in an existing paragraph break) in such a way that my comments were very clearly demarcated and isolated from yours. My comments were added in a manner that would avoid disrupting the flow and meaning of your comments. Adding clearly isolated comments within someone else's comments (as long as it is in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the other person's comments) is common and perfectly acceptable. Further, I placed my comments specifically to respond to only one thing that you had written. They were not intended as a general response to your comments. Your movement of my comments substantially affected their intended meaning. Your moving my clearly isolated and signed comments (again) could constitute vandalism, but I'll continue to assume good faith for now. Please see WP:VAND regarding "editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning." Nevertheless, if the placement of my comments still bothers you so much, I'll find another way to indicate that those comments are only intended to respond to one point. HKT^Talk 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy, I already wrote that I won't. But you are wrong. Please stop characterizing placement of my comment as "editing others' comments." And please read WP:VAND. HKT^Talk 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

your turn...

...to improve this: Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ID edit war on Junk science

Good call about the edit war and the 3RV rule, thanks.

Still, as a sidenote, I'd like to point you out that I made the first edit, and that FireWeed reverted it without any discussion. That's how it started, at least.

I wont argue more on this issue. I'd just like you to think about how is keeping the ID mention out of the page not a perfectly neutral and acceptable solution?

Regards --Childhood's End 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory

Hi! How are you? I do hope things have settled down for you and are happier now. I have finally got around to writing the article on the old Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory as you encouraged me to do a long time ago. If you can spare the time I would be very grateful if you would read it and give me any ideas you might have to improve it (or add them yourself). With all best wishes, and thanking you in advance, John Hill 04:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, chill

Please leave it be (with ExUC). I've looked over the interchanges, and I think you two are talking at cross purposes. He isn't actually accusing you of dishonesty. Give it a rest, and if "another problem" occurs, notify me instead of him. I think I'll be able to straighten it out. --Uncle Ed 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ed. At least where I live, "honest opinion" is a common enough phrase and doesn't necessarily constitute a suggestion that someone is being dishonest. From the looks of it that debate is heated enough without arguing over the intended meaning those 2 words...--Isotope23 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I replied to Ed on talk page, I will honour his request, not just because he asked me to (although that's really reason enough), but also because it's a sensible request - there's nothing to be gained from pursuing that issue any further. Guettarda 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated false accusations quoting statements I never made

You have repeatedly falsely accused me, attributing statements to me (and even setting them in quotation marks) that I did not make. I consider these claims, that I have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy, to be an attack on my character. Instead of apologizing for making false claims about what I said after I explained that I meant no criticism personally or of your edits, you have continued to repeat the same false accusations over and over. Instead of confining the discussion to the relevant Talk page, you have continued to attack me as a violator on my personal Talk page, out of context. You then continued to do so after I asked you not to. I do not appreciate repeatedly being falsely accused, especially after explaining that I meant no criticism. -Exucmember 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, regardless of whether I was right or wrong to take offense at your original comment, this edit of yours is unacceptable, and this message is hilarious. Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Guettarda 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[Long rambling post from ExC removed unread - if anyone cares, it's in the page history. Feel free to to let me know if he has figured out that it isn't ok for him to call me a "blatant liar"]

Re: New antisemitism

Hi. I see you have protected the NAS article, and I understand why. However, the main issue with the article (as I percieve it) is that some editors have "owned" it for a long time and are acting disruptive when a group of editors are trying to make it less POV (this is, of course, my opinion). This followed a RfC process. Hence, by locking it, you are supporting the "owners" (I use quotation marks since I am not really accusing them of violation of WP:OWN) and rewarding their possesive behavior that is challenged by numerous users. As you will see in the talk page, the article is regarded as promoting a POV by several users, but almost every change sets of an edit war. Though I agree that it was correct to protect it, I think maybe the protection should be accompanied by an NPOV tag. I think,that would be a good compromise for now. pertn 09:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Missed!

Hey dude,

Nice to know I'm missed, but - I decided I need to graduate ASAP, and so I signed off. I suppose I should update my page saying I'm on hiatus. I'll be back in a month or two when I have a doctorate. :P Graft 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence - favor?

could you consider making a comment at the talk:Race and intelligence page? If you go now, you will see at the top my proposing to mediate a conflict, followed by some discussion by participants in the conflict, followed by a Request for Comment, followed by more discussion by participants in the conflict. It should take you 20 minutes or so to read over it, and I think it would mean a lot if you then left whatever comment you have under the RfC space. The portions I wrote (A second attempt to move ahead, and RfC) are needless to say my own take on the conflict. But if you want the basic empirical data on the conflict these two sections say it all: [1] and [2] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Orchard

You supported the deletion of the article creationist orchard. Would you mind reviewing the related content which was added to article common descent under the section Common descent and Creationism? Pbarnes 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help in reverting Evolution and my talk page. Quite a nasty vandal. I'm semi-new to the vandal reversion scene, and I noticed your edit summaries are standardized. I've just used "rvv" for "revert: vandalism", however, I was wondering if you use a script in the "monobook.js" file in order to produce this edit summary. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's me again, you'll find this handy: ' Well's education at both Yale and Berkley was funded by Moon's Unification Church. ' http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/15/112257/411

3RR

I have not reverted 3 times. I have made a good faith effort to clarify in various ways to anonymous user 151.151.73.166 that Wells' PhD at Berkeley was not funded by the Unification Church. But to show even more good faith (something that was astoundingly lacking from you earlier), I have reverted myself. -Exucmember 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Five reverts on one article and three on another is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the 3RR. And your continued incivility doesn't help either. Guettarda 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Very sorry if I offended or annoyed you with my comments, please see the reply on my talk page and respond, thanks. --JamesTheNumberless 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Genesis vandal back on Evolution?

Hello Guettarda. I noticed your block of a previous vandal of the Evolution article. This is the latest diff that I saw today: [3], by User:Harehawk. EdJohnston 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Francesa pic

can you sort it out for me? i am not good at this wiki thing. i'm just trying to keep the information current. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crushtheturtle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

no i did not. it's from zen's promotional pics. the reason i put this instead of the old one is that the other is more than 10 yerars old while this was taken last year. Crushtheturtle 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Common Descent/Universal Common Descent

These two articles have existed in their split state for months unattested. Why do you feel you should merge them without a discussion just because there was no consensus months ago? If you think they should be merged, you should add a pretty little merge header because it seems like a quite a few people don't feel there is a problem in their current state. Pbarnes 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It appears a merge is inevitable. I at least spent the time to make the article seem less cut-and-paste and more encyclopedic. You should try that next time! Pbarnes 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda 1500, Icons 0

Wow, pretty big cut. I hope you'll add in something about what Wells means by an "icon" and give at least one example. The peppered moth is probably the easiest one to explain. Or Haeckel's embryo drawings. --Uncle Ed 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Recapitulation theory: Unfortunately, some older editions of textbooks in the United States still erroneously cite recapitulation theory or the Haeckel drawings as evidence in support of evolution without appropriately explaining them as being misleading or outdated. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Icons 2

Well, you're off to a great start at Icons of Evolution. I appreciate the fact that you are beginning each "icon" with a short statement of Wells's position. Apparently (unlike some of us) you have actually read the book! --Uncle Ed 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay fine!

Is it that big a deal? futurebird

St. Louis, MO IPs

FYI, since you were the most recent admin to block Justas Jonas/Ptmccain/et al. Keesiewonder ^talk 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Ah, sure. I knew, of course, to link the original, but didn't realised there was a prescribed form =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well. It's linked. By the way, am I right in thinking that, despite Henrygb's claims, this is clear copyvio? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to set up a merge request, particularly on dead pages, so that it'll actually be looked at. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Plant

I was unaware that you are a plant :) However I hadn't gotten all the way to Z yet anyway. You're welcome to edit that page, too. >Radiant< 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message

Hi Guettarda,

Thank you for greeting me. I am new to the project. I am still trying this... discussion? "talkpage"?!? I hope this is the way to get in touch.

Dracaena draco 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Erstwhile Bureaucrat is a ....

moth. Or a caterpillar of the same. My close friends call me "Hy" for short. Cheers! Cecropia 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Shame about the "erstwhile" is all I can say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Thanks. Check your e-mail, too. :) - Darwinek 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope it didn't end in the spam thrash. :) - Darwinek 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Conservation Biology

Hi There,

I saw that you took an interest in the Conservation biology article awhile back. I was hoping you might come back for awhile and work on the article. For awhile now it has just been two editors, myself and another, and neither one of us has the expertise to substantively improve the article beyond a certain point. Also, there is disagreement on a few things, and without more qualified editors involved, it may become difficult to resolve some of the disagreements, and there is a risk that it may start to look like one or the other of us is trying to own the article. It seems like a situation with too few cooks, and I would like to see more qualified editors join in for awhile. The article has been substantially improved since you last posted on its Talk page, but still has a long way it could go.--EveRickert 21:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing too major, but see the talk page. Mainly, they think the article is "basically done" (and hence they won't allow an "Expert" tag on the page), while I think it still barely addresses the topic. Also, they were upset awhile back that I cut a lot of the extraneous material--the unreferenced stuff on biological conservation (not conservation biology) that you and other editors had complained about earlier. Many of their recent edits have been to restore bits of what was cut, albeit in better and more-referenced form. What is there now is fine, I think, but the article risks becoming off-topic again if the existing sections are expanded any further without addressing more about the practice of conservation biology and the disciplines that compose it.--EveRickert 01:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing... A lot of the new material appears to be OR or POV, or at least not up to WP:V guidelines--things like using Plato's Republic as a citation for the statement "origins of concern for the destruction of the natural environment by man can be traced to Plato," or the tesxt of the Endangered Species Act as a reference for the statement "The first country to pursue aggressive biological conservation through national legislation was the USA..." I've been critical enough lately and I don't want to be the one to bring it up, and I certainly don't want to discourage a good, interested editor, but I hope this is something that can get cleaned up over time. Right now, though, I think it's more important to add more relevant content.--EveRickert 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thesis committee

She worked in the same area of Costa Rica as I did, and in similar habitats. I had been corresponding with her back and forth for a couple of years with various questions, and when I needed a third reader she seemed like an obvious choice. At my school it was traditional to have your third reader be from another institution. Do you know her?--EveRickert 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

She's great, though you probably know that.--EveRickert 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

B. epica

Thanks for the comments; I'll see what I can do to fix them as soon as I get a spare moment. Can you explain "it also (unnecessarily) speculates that the first record of the species was the first sighting of the species" please? Hesperian 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Eyre was the first European to explore the area, so if he saw B. epica at all, then he saw it first. I see how this sentence would read funny to someone who didn't know that Eyre was first. Hesperian 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Guettarda 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Motmot pix

Thanks! Glad you like them! Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Help?

I hate to be a bother, but could you look at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy and give me your opinion? I feel like I'm being driven mad by an editor who keeps beating us over the head with one single source, but I'm not sure, as he does seem to be honestly working hard to try and help the article. But he has some bizarre interpretations of NPOV, and... well. I could use a fresh pair of eyes and guidance from a neutral party. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: You ca probably see most of the parts that annoy me by searching for "Larson". Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been driving me mad for a bit; I disengaged for several months a while ago, but now that I'm back, well... I don't want to say anything until you've had a look. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, signalling in plants is really cool. Bah to your pro-animal mindset! *gets the placards, pitchforks, and torches ready* =P Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If yer ain't with plants, you're against plants. Heh. Seriously, though, any thought on that talk page... thing? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA and Ruddigore

Ah, well. Seems that despite all my work on Gilbert, I forgot a crucial bit:

If you wish in this world to advance,

Your merits you're bound to enhance:

You must stir it and stump it and blow your own trumpet

Or trust me, you haven't a chance!

-Ruddigore

Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I am happy with your news about my articles. Thanks --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

...*sigh* Guettarda, I need to ask your advice. Should I open a request for comment about Creation-evolutio controversy, being, of course, entirely polite and respectful about this, just to try and get this sorted out? Because, frankly, I don't think that article's going to move forwards very far if good-faith edits are going to be shouted down as vandalism. That said, though, I'm not sure what to say about it, since it's a complicated situation, and I don't want to be rude about it, even if he, evidently, does. Any thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

YES YES YES, please do. StudyAndBeWise 05:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Please do not revert this warning again. Or you may be blocked for edit warring. StudyAndBeWise 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)