User talk:Guettarda

Guettarda is currently disgusted 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?

Oh for God's sake

[1] - don't disrupt to make a point. It's not big, it's not clever. Neil ム 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the image offensive. Normally I don't impose my views on others, but given your need to protect the project from offensive content like "Katrina Relief" I figured that you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite. Obviously I was wrong - you only want to keep what offends you off the project. Guettarda 02:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-nazis and their apologists piss me off. If you want to sanitise Hitler through cutesy captions, use your own web site. Don't use Wikipedia to promote your pro-Nazi humour. Guettarda 06:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, did you just call me a Neo-Nazi, or a Nazi apologist? Neil ム 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are. But you are acting as a Nazi apologist by sanitising Hitler's image. Guettarda 06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, where did I say a link to Katrina relief was offensive? Neil ム 06:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no way you could have forgotten your harassment of deeceevoice that quickly. What utter garbage. Guettarda 07:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The offensive part was where Deeceevoice labelled Wikipedia editors as racists. Get your facts straight. I didn't - at any point - state or imply the links to Katrina relief, or Sudan relief, or any of the other links, were "offensive". Neil ム 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved, can I say that all this is unpleasant to watch, and doesn't look to be doing either of you any good or making you happier. How about quietly forgetting the whole thing? William M. Connolley 08:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this emphasises that it's appropriate to allow users fairly wide latitude in what they put on their user page, and the importance of avoiding substantially editing another's user page without their permission, as set out in Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. By the way, an implication about the links to Katrina relief, or Sudan relief etc. might have been understood from the summary (Removing soapboxing and offensive content, external links, etc).[2] Perhaps just unfortunate phrasing. .. dave souza, talk 10:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Axe

Refactored. BTW, I like all the cat pics. I lost two cats this year, one in the spring, one a few weeks ago, both just vanished into thin air. I think I will come here to meditate on occasion. - Crockspot 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on dominionism template

Please see Template_talk:Dominionism#Warning_about_edit_warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You serious? One editor keeps reverting to a version which, by his own rationale, violates NPOV. Guettarda 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless whether it's one editor or 500, consensus means "you make an edit and it sticks". In this case, it was clear that the edit was not sticking, but it kept being reverted anyway. That's edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That's unanimity. Wikipedia isn't governed by unanimity. Guettarda 02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read WP:PRACTICAL inside WP:CONSENSUS. Moreover, the issue of consensus is not so important. Even if your edits represent consensus, except in cases of obvious vandalism there is no exception to the 3RR or edit warring policy to restore consensus versions of articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, you really need to figure out the difference between "policy", "guideline" and "crap I just made up". There's an obvious exception to the 3RR - the fact that if one editor is reverting against consensus, s/he runs out of reverts long before everyone else. WP:EW is a guideline. Your 0RR isn't even that.

To say that "this issue of consensus isn't important" is ridiculous. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to create a new bureaucracy. Articles don't exist to allow everyone to get their say. We revert vandalism all the time, we also revert stuff like John's insertions all the time. There's nothing at all that says that we need to tolerate tendentious editors. Articles aren't free speech zones. Your attempts to preserve them as that run counter to everything Wikipedia stands for. Guettarda 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree we do not need to tolerate tenditious editors. But there are ways to handle them without edit warring, such as an RFC or mediation. Did you see this comment on WP:AN? [3] It is very common for both sides of an edit war to sincerely believe they are improving the encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The last comment is both stating the obvious and begging the question, "why the Draconian measures?" You have yet to provide justification for 0RR, or 1RR or any change in policy.

I'm not sure what your experience with mediation has been, but in my experience it has proven to be a feel-good remedy that is functionally useless. Ditto for RfC as a means of changing behaviour -- RfC's generally result in either blocks or bans being recommended, or in simply escalating the issue to an RfAr. In other cases RfC's are simply fractious bickering the accomplishes nothing.

In addition, I think you missed Guettarda's point re tendentious editors, especially given that your 0RR ploy treats all editors as tendentious little pricks. BTW, have you seen [4]? •Jim62sch• 16:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, this isn't about edit warring. This is about abuse of tools and about the fact that Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in bureaucracy. You should not be using your admin privileges to encourage tendentious editors. Troublemakers waste everyone's time. What you are doing is compounding the problem - you are disrupting Wikipedia by (a) blocking a productive editor while supporting a troublemaker, (b) arguing that your obvious misuse of tools was somehow correct, and (c) raising all sorts of utterly irrelevant nonsense. Why not apologise to ON like a big boy, and try working on improving articles. You appear not to understand the policy side of Wikipedia, so why not focus on something that's productive? As for what Bluemoonlet said - I find it impossible to square what s/he had to say with what actually occurred on the page. The diff s/he pointed to was my fourth attempt thirty-eight hours to explain the same point in ever greater detail. I said the same thing 38 hours before. John repeatedly pretended not to understand what I was saying, while throwing up incoherent arguments. But this isn't about whether Bluemoonlet accurately represented the situation or not. This is about your misbehaviour, disruption, and abuse of tools. Guettarda 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EricWilliams.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EricWilliams.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Michael Williams

I don't have any reliable source; I'm just taking the information from here I€₣ 19:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

Thanks for your note about page protection. Davy p 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3meandEr

You commented on WP:AN last week concerning a proposed 0RR/1RR regime on the article Northern Cyprus, which is being disrupted by a SPA, User:3meandEr. I've posted a request for a block or community ban on this user at WP:AN/I#User:3meandEr and Northern Cyprus - your comments would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 11:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean palms and table of content

I admit I jumped a bit to conclusion (how much is unclear, the list is shorter than it looks, so the nonexistent articles, even if they don't represent as big a number, still are a sizeable fraction of the list...) there, though I did so accurately, apparently. Anyway, what would you say if I made a custom Table of content (something multicolumns like {{List of townships in Illinois by county}})? Circeus 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You have nominated a recent WP:FLC. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient for the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. Voice your thoughts on its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

List of palms of the Caribbean request

I'm a bit slow responding as I'm doing very little in WP right now. The article looks nice, but I've no experience with judging Featured articles/lists/etc. -- Donald Albury 23:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Eaglegordon

Just thought you might want to know, User:Eaglegordon is also making a pain of himself on Evolution as theory and fact and has created a fake 'talkarchive' page at Talk:Evolution as theory and fact/Archive 2‎ (using what was a redlink on the talkpage). I've templated it for speedy deletion ('vandalism' seemed the most apt description for creating a talkarchive page that doesn't contain archived material). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Coccothrinax argentata

After reading you message i went and searched google for the tree listed as vulnerable. Anfortunealty, i couldnot find any references mentioning ANY conservation status. Because the tree was not listed with both the IUCN and with palmguid.org([5]), i'm inclined to assume it as a least concern and i've changed the statusn on the article to reflect this. -thanks for spotting itryan shell 17:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Online Etymology Dictionary

I was just curious - on what basis do you consider this a reliable source? Guettarda (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• On the basis that it is correct! Can't ask for more than that. AlphaEta ^{T / C} 02:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, just being "correct" isn't good enough (basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth...). Guettarda (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

*Fine, if you can disprove the content of the reference, you may remove it. But you won't be able to, and you appear to be trolling. Feel free place the full reference to Haeckel's 2 volume Generelle Morphologie der Organismen if you'd like, but even that doesn't include an etymological description. AlphaEta ^{T / C} 03:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I overreacted at what I thought was an attempt to troll my user page. Check to refs I've added to ecology and let me know what you think. Kindest regards, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 04:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. So an appropriate citation must indicate that Haeckel coined the term, because citing Generelle Morphologie der Organismen alone doesn't necessarily prove that it was the first use of the word oekologie. The question then becomes, after all of this, do you think the sentence actually requires a citation? Thanks for your help, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 03:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, babe

Belated, but sincere. ;) Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD experiment

My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:

1. Change the image selection
2. Add talk page projects to the list and then add them on the summary table
3. Write a summary of the article in less than 500 characters. I will begin doing this later today for those who don't do it themselves.
4. Participate in the feed back process when it starts on December 1.
5. Participate in the voting when it starts on December 11.

You are free to remain uninvolved. Your list was chosen for being among the first [[WP:FL]s ever created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations!

Mi old Amigo, Thank you. It was a total unexpected surprise to be honored by the country that I love so much. Tony the Marine 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon editor

Quick FYI - this anon editor is not Larry Fafarman (sp?), but pretty clearly is User:Jinxmchue. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case I have an edit to undo. Guettarda 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Baptist

I know the group is syncretic, but it is listed on the List of Baptist sub-denominations, and it struck me as reasonable that any church which is called "Baptist" on that page would qualify for inclusion in the Baptist work group. If you think that this group does not in fact belong on that List, personally, I wouldn't argue the point. So, if you want to remove it from the list, I don't think I'd even notice if the category and banner were removed as well. I can't swear that no-one will ever seek to restore them in the future, though, but I don't think I will. John Carter 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that the group is based on Baptist origins, but I really can't address whehter that's enough. It might be safer to remove the "baptist-work-group=yes" part from the banner and change the category to Category:New religious movements? That's not necessarily the best choice itself, but it's the best one I can think of. John Carter 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the other members of the group, and hope we see some response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Anabaptist work group#Spiritual Baptist soon. John Carter 22:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that Jinx believed in good faith that his block had expired. He logged out to check that, but I suspect that his dynamic address had changed on him. I was in the process of explaining this to him when you blocked him. Or perhaps his block truly had expired, and there is a timestamp confusion? I don't know. But I am sure he thought the block had expired. - Crockspot 05:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment to my talkpage re FM @ ANI

Hi. I have clarified my meaning in response to your post at ANI - FM reviewed the unblock request, when he had a past history. Not a controversial decision, but perhaps one left to an uninvolved third party. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

's cool! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolution image

Mi hermano, don't let that other user get you involved in a "cat" verses "mouse" game. You know how it is, there are people in here who will not accept when they are wrong. The situation has been resolved to my favor anyway. Thank you for coming to my defense, your amigo Tony the Marine (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo redirect Mapepire Balsain

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mapepire Balsain, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mapepire Balsain is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mapepire Balsain, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mapepire Balsain

Well it's not the first thing I deleted that was contested and I did read the discussion. Also after I delted it I checked and noticed that if you entered Mapepire Balsain in the search box you still ended up redirected to Bothrops atrox. The capital is not needed but if you want, then just recreate it. It's not something I'm really concerned about and I wouldn't delete it a second time. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When I said I wouldn't delete it a second time all I ment was that I wouldn't war over it. Anyway it's back now but I'm still a you know what. Made me laugh. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing slipped my mind. I've left a reply at User talk:Jwinius#Mapepire Balsain. I have come to realise that you were correct in saying the redirect should stay and I believe that he had not noticed the last line at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Hope you are back soon. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

You are the nominator of a WP:FL that was promoted in the last month. I am inviting you to participate in nominations and voting in a List of the Day experiment I am conducting at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeey

I am disgusted too. But if you are around, we could all benefit from your input at Race and Intelligence, in all the sections starting here and down. This may actually be an opportune moment because several editors are makeing radical proposals for a new approach to the subject. I actually feel a glimmer of hope that significant positive change is now possible, after years of an article that has just been a black hole for meaningful thought. Please consider it. FYI I think there has recently been some good constructive work done on the Race article and at some point perhaps you could go over it and identify some strategic spots where improvement is still necessary. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire! In some sort of admittedly sick and twisted way, my idea of love has something to do with shared suffering, stress, and frustration! Anyway, I'll get back to you soon about the vote - thanks for calling it to my attention (I have been sort of off-wiki for a few weeks and have missed A LOT). About the link - I like anything that exposes Watson's racism and reminds people that just because you have scientific expertise in one field doesn't mean you can't be a total moron in another. I don't think i agree with the columnist's definition of heritability, though, which I understand to be the proportion of variation within a population that owes to genetic factors. As for twin studies - I agree that they are often misused. But I think that there have been more rigorous and sophisticated twin studies recently, and among real scientists - not social psychologists like Rushton but real population geneticists - there is a more sophisticsted debate about the meaning of twin studies as well as proper research design. Here is why I keep calling attention to them at the race and inteligence page: if we obey NOR and stick to the claims made by the reearchers themselves, any articlke based on twin studies would make it clear that heritability calculations only apply within a population. in other words, as soon as the choice is made to base an article on twin studies, differences among races disappears. It simply cannot be introduced (not without violating NOR). Also (as the columnist sort of implies), all good twin studies acknowledge that however high the heritability of a factor, environment, including the social environment, also plays a role. Rushton and Watson may see genes and environment (nature vs. nurture) as competing. But - again, if we obey NOR - any serious account of current research with twins will have to explain that these scientists do not see genes and environment as competing - it is not either/or, it is this and that. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We need sourced content that can be verified from reliable sources.

Could you show which source inserted into an article was not reliable? I don't even remember inserting a source. I have recommended some on a talk page. Anyway, if you could be specific...otherwise, looks like a boilerplate caution that might have been mis-applied to my talk page. Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Very Cheeky

This is the AfD, the decision was merge the stuff back. After 5 weeks of bickering, not one word has been replaced. Thus the article as you concede has been deleted by the back door. Lobojo (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You have completely misrepresented the AfD, I count about 16 keeps 15 deletes and 6 merges. And the recommendation was to merge, which is valid, though it was against consensus. Merge means merge, not delete, though it would suit you if it did since you wanted to delete. Which is the effective current situation. The article has been blanked, but none of the material merged back. Lobojo (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Derrr!! Well that is 22-15 against what you want to do too! All I want to do by the way is follow the instructions set out by the closer. What you want to do is win the AFD, even though you lost it. Lobojo (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Phrase

This is to inform you that, at Talk:Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, new section The Phrase, you are mentioned, because of your recent edit on the main article. I hope you will appreciate the consideration and fair play.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: {{Country data Tobago}}

I protected every single country data template a while back upon request, and don't really know anything about them. You might be better served by posting a message to the appropriate WikiProject's talk page. Cheers, east.718 at 09:37, December 19, 2007

Quit yelling

Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits on CAM

Seasons Greetings to you also. Your last flurry of edits seem POV pushing. The characterizations in the lead don't seem encyclopedic and NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How not? Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote

“ "Alternately, CAM can be defined as as "medical interventions not taught widely at U.S. medical schools or generally available at U.S. hospitals",[2] or as "set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests"[3] or whose advocates "deny the need for [scientific] testing". ”

"A set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests" is vague, not a scholarly definition but the opinion of one person(s) in an editorial. The opinion is not backed by any data. I think the repetition of three different definitions in one sentence is poor form and even if they were true definitions, don't all belong in a lead. I think that sentence poorly reflects on wikipedia. Anthon01 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to present all relevant opinions. CAM is extremely controversial. We can't pretend that it isn't. Dawkins' position is "professor of public understanding of science" and he is an extremely notable commentator on pseudoscience. Angell is another highly notable commentator.

These are three important definitions. Eisenberg's definition is important, because it highlights the imprecise definitions of CAM. If you want a definition you can use in a survey like his, that's about the most precise a definition you can get. Eisenberg's study has been cited over 1000 times.

Dawkins' opinion is highly notable. It does a good job of capturing the main criticism of CAM - that it consists of a mixture of untested and failed therapies. We need to include this in our definition of CAM, whether it comes from Dawkins or someone else.

Angell and Kassirer make another crucial point - that many advocates of CAM deny the need for scientific testing, often going so far as to challenge the validity of scientific testing. Instead, CAM proponents rely on anecdotes and weird ideas like "water memory". These are notable quotes which introduce these issues. Obviously they should also be dealt with in more depth in the article. Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of these are not definitions but characterizations. Angell has no data to back her assertions, but that ok, because she gets a pass. The fact the her statements are unscientific don't matter. Of course in your haste in getting your POV in the lead you have violated your own position on what a lead should be. BTW, the reputable Physica A published an article on water memory, "icy claim that water has memory", and nature has also recently published a letter called "The memory of water". The issue is unresolved. It is a topic under study. Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

I thank you for your wishes. I also wish you Merry Christmas! --Bhadani (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting my message - you are pretty fast :) --Bhadani (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

:) --Bhadani (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Christmas! Cheers, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, and Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And from me as well ... what a pleasant surprise as I sit here on Christmas eve editing Wikipedia and waiting on Santa! Happy Christmas! Cheers!--Random Replicator (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And from me! May your stockings be filled with all the good things of the season. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And me ... Merry Christmas --Melburnian (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Merry christmas Jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

...and me. Merry Christmas, and best in the New Year. bikeable (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and wish you the same too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you from me also for the cheerful greeting! All of the same back to you and yours! My high school senior daughter still wants to believe in Santa. Me, too. *Sigh* -- Cecropia (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise to see the organge banner only to find a friendly hi instead of a chore, or worse a complaint. That's a nice Christmas present right there. Thanks :) David D. (Talk) 07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm thanks

Fangs.

Merry christmas to you also. I've also just uploaded a cat picture, strangely enough and it's not even my own, but I'll share it with you all the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengo (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks, same to you! :) —Nightstallion 08:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, thank you for the sweet greetings : ) and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family! Best, Miri... --MPerel 08:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year to you! --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Same again! Good to hear from you, as our paths don't seem to have crossed much recently. Maybe next year! -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, and thanks for the greetings. :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the greetings. Merry Christmas and happy holiday season to you too and all the best in the New Year - Darwinek (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ali Cat at Gourock pierhead...

and another Gourock cat :)

Many thanks for the Christmassy bauble, much appreciated, and a merry solstice to you and yours! Have a couple of cats..... dave souza, talk 20:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

You are Wikipedia´s own Santa, aren´t you? Amyway, it was nice to get one present this morning, thank you! I am spending the holiday with a friend´s family in Pamplona. They do not celebrate Christmas except by eating massive meals and the food is fantastic so I am not complaining. Don´t forget, tomorrow is the first day of Kwanzaa. Wishing you a very happy holiday and prosperous new year, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 03:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I can only return the best wishes - but with this full bag! -- Cat ^chi? 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas or Happy holidays (or Happy <insert holiday here>). Hope you are having a good one. Mine is great so far. Take care, and Happy New Year when it comes. Orane (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Glædelig Jul og en rigtig godt Nytår! - MPF (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you. Ral315 (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too. :) bibliomaniac15 22:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Guettarda! I hope you are enjoying the holidays and reflecting on all the wonderful possibilities to strive for :) Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ —Preceding comment was added at 00:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

File:DSCN0003-cmas-tree.JPG

Belated Happy Christmas and best wishes for the New Year William M. Connolley (talk)

Happy Holidays!--MONGO (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to here from you again. The weather here is sunny and hot, after weeks of dreary rain. Wishing you and your family all the best, now and in the new year. Great to see you still editing in the constructive manner of always. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A belated merry christmas and a happy New Year. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your Christmas greetings! I am sorry to have missed Christmas to send you my best - but I have been so busy I only got around to writing to many of my own family yesterday (Boxing Day here - but still Christmas where they live! ;^). I wish you and yours all the very, very best for the New Year - and let us hope it is a happier and more peaceful one for the world as well. Finally - my deepest thanks for all your many wonderful contributions to the Wikipedia over this past year and for your efforts to make it a friendlier place to work with others. You efforts are truly appreciated. Your No. 1 Cooktown fan, John Hill (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This talk page has plenty of Christmas cheer and more than a fair share of cats, but it could still use more cowbells. :-)

Likewise from me. Thanks for the season's greetings. Hope your holidays are going well. Happy New Year! :-) --Rkitko ^(talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Article names

Sorry to interrupt all of the Holiday cheer. Hopefully you will have the time to answer this query of mine. I'm prompted to write to you after reading your edit at the Duchy of Auschwitz (Oswiecim). You mentioned that Vienna had a common name in English, and Warsaw had a common name in English. What's your opinion of Cracow vs Kraków, insofar as a common name in English goes? Thanks and Best Wishes for 2008. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't say offhand - Krakow seems more familiar to me than Cracow (Firefox's spellcheck recognises the former but not the latter), but I'd rather comment from a position of knowledge than one of ignorance. Ditto for Krakow versus Kraków. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

May the Joy and Peace of Christmas be with you now and throughout the new year. --Ricardo (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you!

Sorry for the late notice, but hope you had a Merry Christmas. Happy New Year! Thanks for thinking of me. That means a lot to me. Hope 2008 will be a doozy. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Thank you. I hope you had a Merry Christmas and I wish you all the best in the new year. Biruitorul (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks!

thanks for your friendly greetings. & happy holidays! Lquilter (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about talking on CAM

How about it? All we are doing is reverting over and over. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice. I take it you have contacted all the other people who are reverting without even touching the talk page? I take it that you have decided to talk instead of reverting? No? I see. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should I contact everyone else when you are the main editor? If we can agree it would make it easier for everyone else to fall into place. Anthon01 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Dumile

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Daniel Dumile, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

Thanks for the season's greetings! I don't think I've talked to you before - it's always good to meet someone new. Happy New Year back at you! :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Wishing you the very best for the new year - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion/notion. Thanks for dropping by. Bless, deeceevoice (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disgusted? Me too.

Wanna start a club? Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

3rr, bad faith, etc.

How many times do you get to revert in a day? [6], [7], and [8]? In any event, the sentence "On August 25, 1956, he married Anne Lewis, whom he met while working as an instructor at an Arthur Murray Dance Studio in Tampa." never had and still does not have a reference as far as I can tell. What do you think is bad faith? TableManners ^U·T·C 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

FYI- This user has started a thread at ANI about this. See WP:ANI#Admin Guettarda violating 3RR, suggesting bad faith. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

A 3RR report was filed about you here. I've declined a 3RR block since it's borderline ("only" three reverts) but any admin should know better than to let it go that far in the first place. I suggest either taking some time away from the article or going through dispute resolution channels, if the talk page discussion isn't working for you.

And remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia! Kafziel ^Talk 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. If I thought it was a serious dispute I would have waited to let someone else revert the guy, but since it was nothing but bad faith disruption, I saw no problem in reverting it. Guettarda (talk)

Merry Much Belated Christmas

Sorry I didn't respond until now, but Merry Christmas and Happy Festivus. And sorry you have to deal with such trollish behavior on the part of the "editor" who reported you to the 3rr board. Obviously some people think its more prudent to pick fights and try to trip up good admins than it is to actually work toward building an encyclopedia. C'est la vie. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here, belated Christmas greetings. :)--§hanel 08:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merry Eastern Orthodox Christmas. Dragons flight (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC) for the record, I'm not Orthodox, but it seems like a good thing to say today.

rollback

"But membership of the class must be community controlled, not admin controlled"

Well said! I'm not happy with this proposal at all. futurebird (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Your commentary on the Introduction to Evolution featured article attempt is actively being discussed on Talk:Introduction to evolution. It would be most appreciated if you would be kind enough to contribute to the dialog there. It may be that your concerns have been addressed. If not, then further guidance would be appreciated. The page should be well organized; if you go to the bottom and scroll up you should be able to locate your specific concern which I took the liberty of copying/pasting to this page. Many thanks for following up on the discussion.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you

Thanks for the Christmas wishes. It's a bit late to wish you the same, but have a great Papaya festival! >Radiant< 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your Christmas greeting. Sorry to respond so late. Hope you are having an excellent 2008 so far!! Alun (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Mega Society (second nomination)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mega Society (second nomination). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Looks more like an editing dispute than a deletion dispute to me, but since they don't appear to have brought it up with you, I'm letting you know. :-) Stormie (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Congratulations!!!! List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago has been selected to be a February WP:LOTD. If you have any particular date preferences please contact me by January 24th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

you might want to consider

[9]--Filll (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

The journal is Homeopathy, Volume 91, Issue 3, July 2002, Pages 156-161, as the link says. I realise that it is not an unbiased source and I was mistaken to present it as such, but for the purposes of which I was using it (# of plants used in homeopathy), it doesn't really matter. If anything they would have overestimated the number, but the number they gave still amounts to a very small percentage of all plants. DJLayton4 (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Revolution

Yeah, someone had to do it.... ;-) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Per AN/I

Per AN/I please undelete User:SqueakBox and also protect it from further deletion until this is resolved. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[personal attacks deleted] ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester

Are you prepared to discuss that block? Hiding T 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind. Events move too fast around here these days. Hiding T 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked at what you said to Swatjester, I've looked at what Swatjester said to you. What you said to him was no less a personal attack than what he said to you. If what he said was enough to be blocked for, so is what you said. Would you rather a) unblock him and apologize for being angry, or b) accept your own block? DS (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Telling someone that putting another editor's safety at risk is unacceptable isn't a PA. Engaging in personal attacks after you were warned for personal attacks is blockable behaviour. I think the block was good. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you request the block from an uninvolved admin. You never block someone you are in a dispute with. Ever. Lara❤Love 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What dispute? Warning someone about their behaviour isn't a dispute. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No wonder so many people outside of our blessèd little community aren't fond of WP: the drama seems to outweigh any benefit the encyclopedia might have -- in fact, my wife's friends see WP as nowt but a glorified discussion board. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am with you Jim62sch, WP has indeed become a glorified discussion board where a few crank admins bully other admins and users who they don't agree with. It is on a steady decline thanks to few.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is about SqueakBox (and this mess is stopping me from researching an article about an important Italian philologist, so stop being an idiot <NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK>). You and Swat were arguing about SqueakBox, and about each other's treatment of him, and then it got general and you started attacking each other. "How can you do something so cruel! You could be risking a man's life! That's disgusting!" "How can you call me disgusting! He was lying! You disgust me!" "You disgust ME! Stop making personal attacks!" "You're a hypocrite! Don't say I'm disgusting! That's an attack! That's disgusting!" "That's a personal attack! You're blocked!" Really, it's tedious and idiotic. DS (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that pretty much Cliff's Notes'd my view of the sitch. Hope everyone has clarity now. Lara❤Love 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning someone about unacceptable behaviour isn't a dispute. Swat's baheviour - putting an editor's personal safety at risk because he used to wrong terminology - deserved a stern warning. Then I saw his personal attack - so I warned him about that. And he repeated them.

Suppose you saw an editor post another editor's home address on Wikipedia. Warning them about their behaviour isn't a "dispute". You then saw that they had engaged in personal attacks - you add a second warning. They repeat the personal attacks. You block them. No dispute - you're dealing with a troublesome editor. That's all I did here - block an editor for engaging in blockable behaviour. I had no prior dispute with the editor. Warnings don't constitute a dispute. Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• No one (including Swat) did anything remotely close to your hypothetical. Apparently SqueakBox has used this type of thing as a tactic in the past to avoid his editing history. Swat pointed out that this is a clear violation of policy. Then, when you said he "disgusted" you, that qualifies as a personal attack more than his edit summaries did. You blocked in anger, which is never a good idea, and should simply mea culpa, and let it go. The underlying issue was fairly well resolved, until you fanned the flames with this recent drama. Please move on. -- Bellwether ^B_C 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? SB's user page (and history) has an awful lot of identifying information. He asked for it to be deleted. By undeleting it, Swat chose to repost information about SB that could put him at risk. That is unacceptable behaviour.

I don't see how saying that I am disgusted with someone choosing to repost personal information about an editor after they say they have received a death threat is a personal attack. That said, I realise that people disagree, and will re-draw my understanding of PAs. That said, calling someone a liar is always a personal attack. There's no two ways about it. It imputes motive to the act. And the point is that after you are warned about PAs, you do not repeat the PA.

I did not block in anger. I blocked because I saw a blockable offense. I blocked to stop the editor from engaging in personal attacks after being warned. I've seen it done a hundred times. It's no big deal. It's commonplace - if you warn someone for personal attacks, they often turn and attack you. That does not constitute a dispute. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• You refuse to see how your actions simply escalated drama in a basically resolved situation. You refuse to see how your "warning" was inappropriate, given the settled nature of the dispute. As these are your positions, and you won't be moved by any amount of reason, I won't post here on the matter again. -- Bellwether ^B_C 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"[Y]our actions simply escalated drama in a basically resolved situation". Interesting. I warned someone for engaging in personal attacks, he responded with personal attacks. It's news to me that the issue of Swat's PAs was resolved. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Diffs? Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jimbo_Wants_You.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jimbo_Wants_You.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is listed on the page. Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hum! What about Jimbo's image? And who did collect them? all these information must be written in the page of image.--OsamaK 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You tagged the image as having "no source information". The source info is on the page. Beyond that, you'd have to ask the creator of the image. If you have some reason to believe otherwise, then the correct forum is PUI, not tagging it for speedy deletion. Guettarda (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is the creator?--OsamaK 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

The entire article used British spelling except for that particular word "demonize". Didn't realize it was a quote. But you reverted my other spelling edits as well, which were correct and weren't quotes. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Seasons Greetings

Thank you, Guettarda! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

Ya I probably shouldn't have said that. I haven't checked the expelled talk page yet but I'm sure it caused a bit of an uproar. While I do believe in what I said about evolution and blind faith, the talk page wasn't the place for it. Let me know if I do something like that again in the future. If for some reason nobody has commented on it yet I'll remove it so we don't start on some senceless debate again. Saksjn (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Done

Thanks, man. Feels good to be finished. Graft | talk 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#ScienceApologist

Guettarda, I understand your concern about punitive blocks. However, please note that GRBerry is acting in his capacity at ArbCom Enforcement, a responsibility he has shouldered for a long time and at which does a remarkable job. Actions taken in this venue deserve a little time to be considered so that due process can take place. I don't believe this is a punitive block, but rather was given due consideration and found to be justified given the ArbCom ruling. Ronnotel (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If GRB had deigned to address the issue, the whole matter would have taken a different course. Even in reply to my question, he refuses to address the issue - he just states the fact that it isn't punitive. Much like his pronouncement that the apology isn't good enough. "Because I said so" doesn't work, not even for Jimbo. That sort of crap just isn't acceptable around here. Guettarda (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the discussion you linked to doesn't support the block - one person proposes it, two people oppose. The block was clearly against the conclusion at AE. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this may come across as snarky, but I ask you to assume that it is not. GRBerry is doing yeoman's work at WP:AE and deserves our support. Perhaps you would consider spending some time pitching in there? Ronnotel (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'd rather not block people against consensus. Every time I show up here I run into crap like this. Blocking powers aren't tools to advance one's agenda. Maybe I'm developing a thicker skin for bullshit though - I don't know when I last had the stomach for six consecutive days of editing. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Intellegent Design

You had deleted a positive contribution to the article. It read as if ALL proponents of ID believe . . . There is a reference to a couple of people who do. That claim is not validated for ALL people who follow some of the diverse aspects of ID. My edit clarified that the statement was made by SOME of the proponents. This makes a better article. Please do not automatically delete items you are unsure of. Rlsheehan (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin

From the history of User:Orangemarlin, it looked like you had protected the page (probably per request). However, an anon IP edited his page. I reverted. Do you want to check it out and see if his page is protected to the degree that he wanted? Regards, Antelan^talk 08:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright question

I've asked the uploader for more information.Geni 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

okay, this may add to your disgust but ...

At the Talk: Race and intelligence page can you find User:Legalleft's 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (towards the bottom) and comment on it and the thread that follows it? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Hi Guettarda, I don't think it's a "sky is blue" comment; it's actually kind of witty, saying "not only is this wrong, but it would actually indicate the opposite." Come to think of it, it wouldn't really disprove evolution even so, just perhaps prove ID or something similar. Or didn't I once learn if one assumes a falsehood, any other falsehood can be proved from it? Anyway, it's the fact that this is kind of an original thought (not totally original, I know) that made me think it should be attributed, even if only for standard academic reasons, don't you think? Mackan79 (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, would a feat of magic actually disprove evolution? Strictly speaking, the answer has to be that it wouldn't. That's why I'm saying it isn't a simple fact. In a sense, such an event may be inconsistent with a purely materialistic theory of the universe, but it doesn't disprove evolution. In terms of the creativity of the argument, I'm simply saying that when it's a creative type of thought, you generally give the person's name in the text rather than simply citing it. Putting these together is why I think a name in the text here would make sense. Mackan79 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a simple fact, though; how does a cat turning into a dog disprove evolution? If that's somehow true (it isn't true, even though I agree with the sentiment behind the statement), there's nothing simple about it. Mackan79 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've attacked Orangemarlin? Where have I done this? Can you quote me a passage from me that comes across as a personal attack? As for the topic, it would seem that many on that page are "worked up" about it. I seem to be one of those who doesn't allow himself to be influenced by his personal POV on the evolution/creationism topic into attacking others. Given Orangemarlin's reasoning, or lackthereof, as seen on that Talk Page discussion I initiated, how you arrive at the assertion that I've done the attacking is beyond me. I could easily stay away from that article for a few days, but that's not going to change the problem of the clearly POV nature of the edits of his I pointed out, and the fact that his unconstructive behavior reinforces that fact. Nightscream (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Asserting that weasel words other such violations of NPOV are being violated is not an "attack", so long as the accusation is illustrated in a manner to the exclusion of other explanations. Just a few moments ago, in fact, I made a post on the article's Talk Page in which I again explained to others there why some of the wording that keeps being reverted into the article violates NPOV and WP: POINT. That's not an attack.

I did not violate the blocking policy, as I explained in detail on that noticeboard, when I pointed out the three warnings on the article's Talk Page, and a fourth, final one on the personal Talk Pages of three editors, including Angry Christian. For him to respond with a profane rant on my Talk Page was perfectly legitimate grounds for blocking. If you can refute this, then please do so. Even if for the sake of argument we put this aside, and the block were judged to be a bad call, how does this constitute a "history", or tendency to block "willy-nilly". One bad block out of all the edits and blocks under my belt is a "history"? How so? I asked this question on the article's Talk Page. Why won't you answer? Why instead do you simply keep repeating the accusation without responding to this question that refutes it? Do you really think you can gauge an admin's overall habits by one block that you didn't like?

I'm one of the few people not so worked up about the article that I'm engaging others in personal attacks or doing POV warring. By contrast, Orangemarlin's edits are clearly POV, and if you read the subsequent posts in that Talk Page section, you'll see that others see this too. His only response to the five points I attempted to outline to him ---in a civil discussion-- was to dismiss my attempt at resolution with a rude rant. Your assertions about my actions saying otherwise are easy to make if you selectively cherry-pick among those actions, to the exclusion of all the good faith edits and statements I've made, and to the exclusion of the policy violations of OM and others. Nightscream (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. This is a good one. You should be desysopped. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with your attacks on OM? What do you mean what does this have to do with it? I explained in detail how my assertion about OM's edits being POV were not an "attack", and I explained in detail why his edits and yours are blatant POV-pushing, in violation of WP: POINT and WP: NPOV.

It is history because that's what you did, that's who you are. No. "History" is a word that connotes a long pattern of behavior. I ask you again: Is one block judged by others to be a bad call enough to gauge an editor or admin's overall history? You say it's all you know of me. Isn't judging me on that one thing predjudicial? As far as realizing that what I did was wrong, well, I already apologized for not separating my admin duties and editing on that noticeboard. As for the POV matter in the article....

...your POV-pushing at Expelled... You have not established POV pushing on my part on Expelled. I have asked you and Orangemarlin repeatedly to explain to me how the disputed edits constitute POV on my part, and you have failed to respond directly. By contrast, I have explained how your edits are POV, and three or four other people, such as Dave Souza, clearly saw the same thing I did. If you can respond to my questions about the edits at the discussion I began a short while ago (see below), again, please do so.

If this were true, then you would have taken my advice and stepped away. If you follow that reasoning, then it applies to everyone, including you. If you conclude, arbitrarily, that any continued participation in the article indicates that one is "worked up", and that stepping away from it does not, then why are you and OM still editing it? Are you admitting to being worked up yourself? Why does continued editing constitute agitation for people you disagree with, but not yourself?

Dude, seriously. Your "five points" were an unacceptable attack. No, they were five areas in the article in which he and I were in dispute, which I explained in detail. Even if you thought that my assertion about his sneaking his POV into one of those areas was an "attack", how does that make my explanations about the other four passages an "attack". Wikipedia requires us to discuss the passages we disagree with. He chose not to do that, and you're doing the same by not responding to them. Exaggerating all five areas I discussed as an "attack" is not an accurate description of that discussion on my part.

Your accusations were the reason I asked you to step away from the article... Given that you and OM are making the same accusation about me by claiming that my edits are POV--without actually explaining how---again, how does this principle not apply to you two as well. Since you're accusing me of POV, does that mean that you should step away from the article??

You can either respond directly to the specific reasoning being offered for my position, and offer your own for your position, which WP prescribes for edit conflicts, or you can choose to ignore the discussion, and label it as an "attack". If you do the latter, you're signaling to others that you're not willing to work with those you disagree with to improve the article. Nightscream (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this - I'll join the discussion if you step away from the article for a week? Wikipedia does not prescribe discussing edit disputes solely based on the terms of single editors. You are in no position to tell others to leave for a week, especially since you have yourself participated in the exact behavior that you attribute to me as the reason for your recommendation. Again, if you refuse to participate in the discussion, it's only going to look bad for you. Let's try and discuss this, okay? Nightscream (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have consistently refused to respond to my requests for discussion on the portions of the article that were in dispute, and refused to explain how my edits were POV, as you and Orangemarlin alleged, despite the fact that I provided my reasoning as to why I felt the opposite was true, yet now you demand that I answer your questions? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, Guettarda. If you want to have an exchange with someone, you show good faith by answering their questions directly, and they answer yours. You don't get to retreat from this, and then demand that they answer your questions. Since most of the portions I disputed are now more in line with NPOV, and since you have more or less ceased editing the article, and refuse to speak with me in anything resembling an intellectually honest or civil manner, I'm done talking with you. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Nightscream's talk page is on my watchlist but I've been rather fully engaged lately and left it alone. There seems to have been a misunderstanding about a critical remark of mine being taken for endorsement, so I've added a clarification,[10] and left N a comment.[11] Just noticed Macken's questioning that a cat turning into a dog would disprove evolution – it would prove "transmutation" in terms of some of the ideas before Darwin's, such as Richard Owen's divine archetypes, but would destroy Darwin's ideas of gradual change through natural selection and common descent, and would conflict horribly with the modern synthesis. Education is sorely needed! .. dave souza, talk 09:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed edits

I'd like you to respond to my reasoning regarding the edits being disputed here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no value in engaging in discussions with people who are as persistently dishonest as you. No point in interacting with people whose every word you have you check. Guettarda (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, this fundie needs to be desysopped and indefinitely blocked. He has personally attacked you, me and others, he continues to make false accusations (like Dave souza somehow calling our edits POV, which I haven't found), he is uncivil (and I have the highest tolerance for uncivil commentary, but he exceeds the worst), and he has made improper blocks. There is no reason this person should be on the project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's that crazy man again

Guettarda, would you reading/mind commenting here. I think I've done a better job of framing my concerns. Thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is HAGGER?? anyhow? I mean I get the vandalism part, but what's the "HAGGER??" part about? Midnight Gardener (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nickname for a Harry Potter character. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Move request

The move request page is still backlogged so rather than heaping on the pile I was hoping I could find a willing actor to move these from the species to the genus level. Wodyetia, Voanioala, Tectiphiala, Phoenicophorium, Nypa, Normanbya, Hedyscepe, and Deckenia. Any help appreciated.Mmcknight4 (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check

Are you nuts? You are going to publicly claim that Michael Moore is a competent filmmaker? Don't you realize that kind of thing can come back to haunt you? Years from now when your name is being bandied about in a Senate confirmation hearing people will say to themselves "Can we really trust him? I heard he watched Moore films back at the turn of the century....". You might even be forced to stand up and admit "Yes sir, I did go to that movie, but I didn't open my eyes, and I didn't enjoy it." Then again, that might not be as big a hurdle to your career as I imagine. Hmmm. Doc Tropics 08:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Macroevolution

Hi, Guettarda.

I do not understand why my comments were "nonsense". Perhaps you could cite an instance of macroevolution (from one species to another) that has been observed.

Thanks, Interested Sister —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedsister (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Triticale is not an example of macroevolution. Hybrids like triticale are not spontaneous; they are the product of intentional manipulations (by humans). Could you cite an example of observable macroevolution?

Interestedsister (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You cite the London mosquitos as "One of the 'simplest' observations of macroevolution". What would you consider to be a complex observation of macroevolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedsister (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive an additional inquiry -- I will stop posting to you if you want me to: I'm not clear on the whole London Underground observation. How have the scientists confirmed that the mosquitos currently inhabiting the tunnels came from the "original" species? What I mean is, isn't it just as possible that the "new" species existed all along and was attracted to the new tunnel environment and so it moved in and thrived? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedsister (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. 88.198.15.112 (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn. I didn't know you were Jewish????? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Me, you, Hrafn and Raul are all supposed to be the same person. Can you imagine how thick the callouses would be on that person's typing fingers? Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

What was the blockable offense that krimpet committed? And if there was one, could you please provide links? Kwsn (Ni!) 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, what's going on there? SQL^{Query me!} 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, meatpuppetry on behalf of a banned user is a blockable offense. Her edits to Rosalind Picard[12] mirror the arguments on banned editor Moulton[13] (see Talk:Rosalind_Picard/archive1). Her pattern of behaviour (refusal to engage in discussion about the substance of her edits, immediately running to ANI) strongly suggests bad-faith editing. And there's the connection that they are both active on WR. Guettarda (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because you share the same views as a banned editor doesn't mean you're proxying for them. Secondly, removing BLP violations doesn't always need a discussion. Thirdly, I go to WR now and then, and I have not seen Krimpet active lately. Fourthly, Krimpet asked about OM's revert on OM's talk but was reverted, meaning OM was also unwilling to discuss by your rational. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with KWSN. I am not seeing any evidence that they are the same person. It's best at this point, to let her be. SQL^{Query me!} 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Same person? No, their use of language is far too different. Not sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry. Here's Moulton's recent post at WR http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080405/so-i-am-disgusted-with-wikipedia/. Presumably that's the source for this.

Nothing surprises me any more - material from the arbcomm's private mailing list has ended up on WR (which is not to say that Krimpet is the source, but rather, that their nogoodnicks have worked their way deeply into Wikipedia). There are far too many coincidences here

• An editor shows up out of the blue at the Picard article and makes the kind of edits that perma-banned Moulton has been calling for. Surprising, but not improbable.
• The editor is also active at WR (as is Moulton). Coincidence? Possibly.
• The editor is reverted. Instead of treating this as a content matter, the editor focuses on the manner in which she was reverted. Show no interest in the article's talk page, despite the fact that this issue has been discussed both there and in the voluminous archives. The editor moves directly to ANI - the type of behaviour rarely seen with established editors in content disputes. Hmmm.
• Looking a little deeper into the matter, there's a recent post by Moulton at WR calling for thee edits. Yet another coincidence? Or meatpuppetry on behalf of a banned editor? Looks very much like the latter to me. Guettarda (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have provided speculation, not proof of working together. If banned user posted a report of a blatant BLP violation on WR and you saw it first, would you fix it, even though a banned user posted it? Kwsn (Ni!) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, how is possible for krimpet to go straight to ANI when this is what happened?

09:42, May 4, 2008 Krimpet removes the section

18:39, May 4, 2008 Orangemarlin reverts Krimpet

19:39, May 4, 2008 Krimpet reverts back to her version

19:40, May 4, 2008 Krimpet goes to OM's talk page asking why the reverts

19:40, May 4, 2008 OM reverts Krimpet again

19:49, May 4, 2008 OM reverts Krimpet's talk page message, calling her a troll

20:22, May 4, 2008 Krimpet then goes to ANI to report OM

If you look at the time stamps, it clearly shows that Krimpet personally contacted OM before taking it to ANI. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Disgusted?

I know how you feel but sometimes you just have to put up with the totally lawa abiding wikpedians. No offense to them because we need them here but they do need to think like a human being because everyone has to have some sympathy. Chubbennaitor 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

I'm not following your comment, most specifically the last couple of sentences. Could you maybe word it a little differently? If the idea is that you can't reconcile our differences over the events with SqueakBox, with my other editing, maybe consider because that whole issue was stupid and blown way out of proportion, and everybody involved screwed up a certain extent. But please don't think I have any desire to out anybody. As I mentioned, my information is displayed on the Hivemind, and at least one or two other outing sites, and I've been threatened by two ex-felons, independently of each other with physical violence at my house, one of which has his own Wikipedia article here based on his past felony convictions for stalking. I get death threats monthly, sometimes even weekly. Often times they include my address, and graphic descriptions of how I'm to be tortured and killed. I'm not worried about it, I'm a big guy, I own quite few guns, and I'm generally pretty secure with myself. But I fully appreciate the impact that this would have on someone who was not in the same general zone of safety that I am. i don't know if that's SqueakBox's situation or not. But Squeakbox and I have gotten into disputes before, and worked them out again, as we did this time. It happens. I personally think your response to me was epically out of proportion (come on, blocking me?) and I don't think you fully appreciated the injury that did to me. For instance, I ran for arbcom last year. Now, if I run again this year, I have to disclose that I was blocked, and have to emphasis that it was inappropriate. Danny's block of Eloquence is brought up years later whenever people discuss Eloquence's actions. So, I hope you can understand that however you may feel, I'm pretty unhappy about the way things turned out. I'm willing to bury hatchets and I try not to keep grudges, but that requires that the other person be willing to do the same. I'm not sure that you are. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sourced opinion" is not acceptable in a BLP

This is a BLP. Plain reading says the petition challenges evolution. We are not going to say that she intends to discredit evolution. We do not know that, and we are not going to say that - it's borderline libelous. You're creating an inference that cannot be supported by the available sources. Please stop. FCYTravis (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Then what is acceptable - your unsourced opinion? What else can we possibly work from? Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What "unsourced opinion?" I'm reading the petition. It says what it says. That's not an "unsourced opinion." The petition's plain language is a (wrongheaded) argument against evolution. What the DI has or has not used it for, is not relevant to her life. FCYTravis (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's called original research. Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really failing to see the original research. We have a primary source in the petition. It says nothing about intelligent design. Ergo, the petition is not, on its face, about intelligent design. What the DI has used it for, is of course, to promote the idea that there is a "controversy," and hence to promote the idea that we should back-door fundamentalist Christianity... err, I mean, intelligent design, into public schools. We both agree on that. But we don't know that Picard shares that view. We don't know what Picard thinks about the use of the petition. We don't know anything else about her feelings vis-a-vis the DI, except that she signed it. Thus, to use this to go on and on about what the DI does, is not relevant to Picard's life. If she was on the forefront of the movement, sending letters to school boards and testifying before Congress, that would be different. But she hasn't. She is not part of the DI/ID (how convenient) movement. All we know about it is that she is skeptical about Darwinian evolution, and also apparently skeptical about intelligent design. To hang the DI's actions on her bio, creates guilt by association, IMO. FCYTravis (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the biographies of living persons policy, you are making unsupportable assertions about this person. 3RR does not apply when reverting such issues. You are not allowed to use this biography as a coatrack to hang the evils of the Discovery Institute on this person. FCYTravis (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Entirely aside from the petition, you deleted sourced material in favour of your own (unsourced) opinion. That is unacceptable, no matter where you choose to do it. Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC) And worse yet, you falsely accused me of OR when I was paraphrasing a source?!!!!!!!! Guettarda (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I went back over that section and realized my mistake, and replaced it. Apologies. FCYTravis (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But still won't undo your 3RR vio? Anyway - all your edits have the problem - you are replacing sourced material with your own opinion. Please stop with the OR. All of it, not just the most egregious of it. Guettarda (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I will never revert into a BLP information which I believe to be unsuitable for the biography of a living person. That is out of the question. FCYTravis (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not true - you reverted in your own OR. Adding OR to any article is unacceptable. When you tout your own reading of a primary source as superior to secondary sources, that is textbook OR. Is that really too hard for you to see? Guettarda (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over at this Expelled guy's bio...

If you really want an ID proponent's bio to work on, why not take a look at Robert J. Marks II? While we're revert-battling over someone who may or may not support ID, the bio of the guy who ran the "Evolutionary Informatics Lab" is getting revert-battled over someone hell-bent on deleting every mention of this guy's clear and unambiguous ID support. Might be a good next project. FCYTravis (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Long time no hear. :) How have things been? Good to see you at it hot and heavy still. :) Sadly, I can't say the same for most of the people you mentioned. Long time users like us who hang in there really should write some sort of "how to stay sane" guide. I've done it by backing away from most controversial stuff. So much on here to do.

Love the picture on your talk page. Perfect. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda

It sucks that someone called you that slur. Obviously it was intended. I looked over Risker's contribs and her tonality + her capitalization of "Quack" show me that she was just using the first syllable in his name, much like many of us do. See ya around. the_undertow ^talk 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this really appropriate?

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

That reads quite a bit like a threat to out people. It's off-wiki, so you can be as rude as you want, but your threat to out people strikes me as rather beyond the pale. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unambiguously a threat to out people. Which will get you indef'ed if you follow through on it, and you know that. That's been policy for a very long time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening to "out" them to the press. I have no control over what the press chooses to report on. My comment was based on someone elses comment earlier in that thread that they had been discussing the situation with an Associated Press reporter. So, it wasn't me that had implied that they had gotten the press involved. I was trying to point that out to any interested reader. Why do you guys feel that I have any influence with the press? Cla68 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that group of editors' behavior related to Intelligent Design articles has become such a problem that uninvolved editors and admins like me have noticed the problem and gotten involved to varying degrees. I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you pretending you're uninvolved? You might have been able to pull that off were it not for your long running antagonism of FeloniousMonk. You're involved alright pal. Odd nature (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I clarified my remarks here [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17882&st=100&gopid=100176&#entry100176]. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you even post a link to the Wikipedia-hate site. Nice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent> This use of veiled threats and off-wiki sniping appears to me to be completely out of order. I've left a comment with Cla68.[14] . . . dave souza, talk 08:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the vandalism revert on my page. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing admin on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 5#Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Hi Guettarda: I see that this CfD has been closed against consensus -- the reason it was overturned at a deletion review last time around -- and that the closing admin, Kbdank71, was particularly vocal in supporting that closure at that deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 11). I would have thought that this would draw into question the degree that this admin may be be considered to be "uninvolved", quite apart from the impropriety of repeating the course of action that led to the original reversal. That deletion review led to some bad blood, so it would be probably inflammatory for me to raise the issue, so I was hoping that I might pass the issue along to yourself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tables

I pinched the idea from your T&T snake list of course, thanks. I have no plans to do it for other lists, it's too time consuming, and I don't have the technical skills to write a bot, even if that is possible. It would be nice if it was adopted by some of the other featured lists, since it's so much more visually appealing, but the polbot country lists, (and some of the featured lists have worse problems than appearance - eg non-MOS, unreffed etc. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. There is discussion of having clearer guidelines at FL, and I suspect that some of the existing bird FLs will go when they are reviewed (non-MoS headings, inadequate refs etc.). T&T birds needs a lot of work: apart from tabulating the list, it has no family descriptions, TOC or in-line refs, and needs many more pictures. One of the more IT-minded editors is writing family templates, which might help. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't of course own the T&T article, but thanks for asking. I don't mind helping out, just didn't fancy doing it all myself (482 edits for Thailand, and that includes dumping in each table as a single edit) Jimfbleak (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Liked your comments

I came by chance on your comments in Woohookitty's talk page (in section "Hi"). Some reassuring thoughts. It would be lovely for you to expand on your concept of "Essays by Old Timers on How to Stay Sane".

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

File:Gatito2.jpg Thanks for the message, still mulling over my response. Saw you at the swat thread. Here is a kitten in our drawing room and held by my sister-in-law. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Settlements in TT, etc.

Perhaps it didn't come up at CFD, but I fear I'm still a novice with AWB and haven't figured out how to customize edit messages, and that one looked as good as any.

For the rest, I'm going to quote something that User:Blofeld of SPECTRE left on User:Ezeu's talk page last month, because he's more familiar with it all than I am:

The CFD discussion was back in 2005 when categories such as Category:Cities, towns and villages in Cyprus were created -see the edit history with the statement it was created after CFD discussion. Gradually the categories have undergone change as article content has developed. Things will only get better in regards to this trust me ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, I don't know, honestly. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Attacks on Editors

I am requesting (requested) a third parties opinion on this in the AN/I thread. I am not saying you're wrong and I am not saying I'm wrong. If you have opinions on the matter, go ahead and post them in the thread. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And good call about the pic, I never really thought of it. I will go ahead and remove it and send a letter to oversight to get it permanately deleted. I will however have a few new pics up of me soon, without the alcohol and such.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)(forgot to sign)

On second thought I will just speedy delete the pic. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions about evolution

I found this link you posted at the science reference desk in reponse to "entropy and creationism." I found the article to be a really enjoyable read, and just wanted to thank you for posting it. keep up the good work. PS: is every day caturday where you live? --Shaggorama (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image needs deletion

I have uploaded the image under the correct name, and Image:PoisonIvyspring.jpg can be deleted. thank you for your help in mending this issue. Hardyplants (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hardyplants (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Character assassination

Per my comment here, I am giving you the opportunity to back up your claim or retract and apologize. I consider this a serious personal attack, and will pursue dispute resolution if you do not address it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attacks. Then you can explain to me what it is that is wrong with my interpretation of your comments. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what

I don't know what's going on there. I'm not ecstatic that he was unblocked, but so long as he's watched it's probably alright. My main concern is that anyone a bit less confident would have been driven off and effectively have their views censored by his attacks and baseless threats - keep a close eye on him, is all I can recommend. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration to look into your conduct has been made here. Please make a statement. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 01:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Two minor run-ins, the more recent of which was a year ago. OK. I wouldn't begin to know how to respond. Guettarda (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The others

Dipholis salicifolia and Ficus aurea are two other stubby stubs I have made so far and would welcome anyone else's pile-on... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fungi. Meh! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

TREES!!! Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

CATS!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that just went waaaayyyy over my head.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mine too. I assumed that OM was calling Dipholis & Ficus fungi (though I'm not sure, since his edit summary said something about athlete's foot). So I corrected him to trees. Of course, my user name is a tree as well. So who knows how he took that. And cats...well, scroll up to the top of this page. But...who knows. Guettarda (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait...there's this as well. Now I'm totally lost. :) Guettarda (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's late. I just thought Cas was into 'shrooms. My humor is shot to hell. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't give a fig for these stumpy articles, just thought you might want to prune some parasitic growth about a stylesheet that Orangemarlin seems to have added by accident to the #Axe section above. Too much late night confusion! . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

...........and another - Salix caroliniana....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

..........and Fraxinus caroliniana and Persea palustris....hey, are you in hte caribbean somewhere? If so, then another collab is Puerto Rican Amazon which has passed GA and is at PR currently..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You reminded me....

This was a damn fine smelling flower when i stayed at a resort in Queensland 5 years ago and one of the first photos I took with a digital camera, I dug it up and made a new article...Tried to get some seed but failed miserably. Would love to grow it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Aloha, Guettarda!

Mahalo and thank you for your response on the arbitration page. I would like to clarify something with you though. Nowhere did I accuse any of you of canvassing. I know others have made that claim elsewhere, but I didn't. I wanted to be clear that I wasn't accusing anyone of being disruptive, but rather certain patterns exist that may need to be looked at more in depth. I don't assume bad faith, and I hope you don't either. I am not a conspiracyist at all. I haven't yet made up my mind and judged the situation fully. I just wanted to start the presentation of "evidence" so that we could all walkthrough the process. I know I'm struggling to make myself clear here. Let me try again. If this were a court case, I am not necessarily advocating on the "prosecution's" behalf, nor on the "defense's". I am merely trying to present evidence that a greater number of more neutral eyes can rule on. If they say that everything is okay, hunky-dory, and on the up-and-up, then that's great! But there were enough patterns to give me pause. (I have paws?) :-)

As I told MastCell, I don't really think the request will be accepted, but I thought it important to bring the issue up. Mahalo, Guettarda. A hui hou. --Ali'i 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

reply

No problem. I want to make sure ethnic/religious categorization is accurate and helpful.Bakaman 00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)