User talk:Guettarda

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

One year

It's been a year, somehow it's been a year already.

Deepest sympathy

I'm so sorry for your loss. :-( SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They found the bodies this morning. I was hoping for a better outcome, I really was. This is just heartbreaking. Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They will be in my prayers, Guettarda. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Truly sad news. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Our hearts go out to you and your family. It's so hard to know what to say. What we really want is to be able to change it for you. :-( SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrible news. So sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh nooooo, dearest Guettarda :' ( what awful news. Much love, tears, and deepest sympathy. --MPerel 04:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, that really sucks. So sorry. Hesperian 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I go to sleep tonight with you in my thoughts. Take care of yourself my friend.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is dreadful news, and completely heartbreaking. It's hard even thinking about the pain this must be causing for you and your family, so sorry to hear of this, you have my thoughts and condolences. . dave souza, talk 09:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

:-( Dragons flight (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read the link on your user page and understand you've lost two people who clearly meant a great deal to you. My profound condolences, dear ((Guettarda)).* I hold you and yours in my thoughts and prayers and wish you peace. *my arms around you. :/ deeceevoice (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies for you in this difficult time. You and your family are in my thoughts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very saddened by this, Guettarda. My heart reaches out to you and the rest of those closest to you. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Words fail me here. I just want you to know that my thoughts are with you, with my deepest sympathies to you and your family. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We care. Very best wishes to you. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Guettarda. These two people clearly meant a lot to you. I share this moment of reflection with you. --CSTAR (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No man is an island, and this is especially true in small communities such as this one. Your loss is our loss. Words cannot adequately convey how sorry we are. Personally, I have lost people before, but never suddenly like this. What you and your family must be going through must be very difficult. I offer my deepest condolences in these hard times. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My heartfelt condolences to you, your sister and your family. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. While studying I had heard of the search come across the radio in Trinidad during the hourly news update but I hadn't yet put two-and-two together to take them to be your relatives. I express to you and the rest of the entire Ramjohn family my most heartfelt and expressed condolences at this very tragic loss. It is clear to all that they gave of themselves a great deal of service for Trinidad and Tobago in their research and for that myself and others in society should be grateful for the service they have given to the country. CaribDigita (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. My deepest sympathies and condolences dear Guettarda. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I too offer my condolences. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My condolences, Guettarda. It is good to have closure, but not this closure. --Una Smith (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My utmost condolences, Guettarda. Amerique^dialectics 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone in my house survived 24 hours out there last year lost diving (for a living not tourism), hope things are as well as can be expected, best wishes. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My sympathy and solidarity man. Alun (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My God...my most heartfelt sympathies Guettarda. I can't imagine... Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My sympathy and condolences, as usual in such cases, words fail. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My condolences Guettarda; your family is in our prayers. -- Samir 07:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found out this morning about your terrible loss and my heart goes out to you. I, too, have just lost someone close recently. I will be sending warm thoughts of strength and fellowship as I lie awake at night waiting for the pain to dull (it comes in waves) and allow me to sleep. John Hill (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My deepest sympathy my friend. I lost someone too in the New Year and it really just is hard to get through. If you need to talk, you can send me a message any time. Spawn Man (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw you briefly at that awful Egyptian controversy article a couple of days ago, and I wanted to drop by again to tell you I haven't forgotten, that you and yours are still in my thoughts and prayers. Memories persist, and healing will come. Bless, :) deeceevoice (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heartfelt sympathies. I feel dreadful for you. Ben Aveling 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is for the most part a copy/pasted notice, but I would like to offer my condolences for this recent loss. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I never thanked any of you personally, but I appreciate your notes more than I can possibly express. And I still treasure these notes too much to archive them Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Guettarda. I read about what happened, and I know that in addition to the grief of loss there is a separate pain that comes from lack of closure. Even when it is temporary, lack of closure is a wound that takes time to heal. Hugs. --Una Smith (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As a former US Coastguardsman, I'm sad to say I've seen happy excursions on the sea turn to tragedy before. Your brothers' bravery retains my admiration, and your family remains in my prayers. Amerique^dialectics 20:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

File:Holiday Greetings.jpg

Happy Holidays!!!!!. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:12, 18 December 200 9(UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend. - Darwinek (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I send all best wishes for a health, happy, joy-filled and productive new year to you and your loved ones from tropical north Queensland, Australia. Let us hope this next decade will be a happier time than the last for the world and that people quickly begin waking up to the fact that they must and can start making a real world community which is more peaceful and tolerant and much more sustainable, making a real future of hope and opportunity for our grandchildren and their progeny. Be of good cheer and hope. The Wikipedia is a living example that many people are willing to work together for the betterment of us all for no pay and little enough recognition. Thank you for all your fine contributions to this new tool of knowledge. Keep the faith! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010

• Good to hear from you. Best wishes for you and your family. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aiphanes leiostachys

On January 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aiphanes leiostachys, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aiphanes duquei

On January 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aiphanes duquei, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aiphanes lindeniana

On January 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aiphanes lindeniana, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Algae

WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Wikipedia for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Wikipedia. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the project. I think that if we can get a small group of editors who are willing to define a taxonomy from the literature it will be a learning experience for everyone, including, eventually, the readers. You write well and are doing an excellent job with your articles on palm species. You obviously are at home extracting information from the technical literature and distilling it for a nontechnical audience, the primary quality needed for writing an encyclopedia. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Puerto Rican images

As you all know, certain situations among which are included my personal health, have led me take a leave of absence from Wikipedia, however I believe that the idea proposed by Angusmclellan is an excellent one. Instead of nominating Puerto Rican related images by the masses, the images which have problems will first be listed in the page which I just created: Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems. We will be given more then sufficient time as a "team" to find sources and make what ever fixes need be in order to keep them from being deleted. This is a Wiki-community team effort regardless of who uploaded the image. I ask all those who really care about the images related to Puerto Rico to post the link "Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems" in your "watchlists". Tony the Marine (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to my watch list, and I will do whatever I can to help. Guettarda (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Thanks for your note. I'm glad you're still with us; and we're still with you. Hesperian 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto/what he said. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very much so, fully agree. By the way, hope my rephrasing of the lead to the CRU hack went some way to meeting your concerns, will be glad to discuss any possible improvements. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. And yes, Dave, it's a clear improvement. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A different global warming....

anything to add on comprehensiveness here? --> Talk:Future of the Earth/GA1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

CRU cite

Thanks for finding the good cite ([1]}; I didn't have time at the moment, but wanted to place a reminder so I could look today if no one else found it (and, frankly hoping someone else could look, as I hadn't read the original, so wasn't sure what to look for). I see you sent me a message, but removed it, I assume you got someone else to remove the tag, or figured out that you could do it. --SPhilbrickT 14:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Significant enough?

Yeah- there's expansion there, and combined with the necessary straightening pointed out by the GA reviewer, that should be enough. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aiphanes bicornis

On January 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aiphanes bicornis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ian Plimer page needs protection again

Hi, sorry to bother you, but Ian Plimer is becoming a battleground once again. Please protect it for a month or so. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Guettarda! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 937 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Satnarayan Maharaj - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Rakesh Yankaran - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Gypsy (calypsonian) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Vincent Floissac - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Winston Dookeran - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Geddes Granger - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Mary King (economist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

As per this and this, I'm probably going through this again. Suggestions? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're in the mood for co-nomming, it's available here! Many thanks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

...and it's live! Thanks for the kind words in the nom. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aiphanes

On January 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aiphanes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Hey, I just saw your comment on the Everyking RfA and it reminded me that I hadn't replied to your note. You're very welcome, and I was only sorry that words were all I had to offer. It was really nice to see your name on my page again. I hope you're doing okay. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Involvement

Had I been unilaterally deleting a chunk of articles, then I can understand being considered involved. All I've done though was delete a couple that had been prodded, often multi-prodded, and were only deleted after my own search came up empty. Most of my edits to the unreferenced backlog have been the addition of sources, and thus I'm on both sides of the field for that, no bias added in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I had been clearing the unref'd backlog and adding sources for the past few days, but I guess I should've stopped when I noticed the meltdown going on over at ANI. Not something I want to be dragged into, as I can already tell it's going to be a crazy case. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The irony is quite funny...there I was, a left winger trying to defend an article of a conservative Australian Anne Henderson (i.e. on the opposite side of the political fence...). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Laugh

There's a new case at ArbCom - severe wheel-warring, edit-warring through protection, and blocking of admins by admins, over the proposed PROD solution to BLP.

I can feel ArbCom squirming. This is pretty serious shit. Surely they have to take the case. But how the hell can they sanction anyone for behaviour no worse than what they've just amnestied? Any sanction is going to look arbitrary or even vindictive. Surely they have no option but to take the case, wag their fingers, and say "naughty boys". Thus ArbCom render themselves impotent and irrelevant at the very moment that they seize power.

Or maybe not. Maybe they issue severe sanctions and reveal to everyone just how biased and/or arbitrary (I can't figure out which) their judgment is.

Either way, it is delicious. Pass me the popcorn.

(I made a gloating statement on the case along these lines, but then decided they might not like being trolled very much, and they certainly can't be trusted to react rationally, so I (only just) had the good sense not to save it. Instead I am sharing it with you.)

Hesperian 12:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. If it helps (What statement is that?). Hesperian 01:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from Cooktown, Australia

Thanks for your kind note a while back. I hope things are happier for you this year and, indeed, may the decade be a great one for us all! All my very best wishes, John Hill (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aiphanes deltoidea

On January 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aiphanes deltoidea, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh

...I guess I never thought of disambigs as real "lists" in the sense of lists, even though they're kind of a list. Speaking of what I consider to be real lists, I have a complete redesign of the List of Schools in Trinidad and Tobago in mind ... a sortable table by city/island/schooboard, etc. Good or bad idea? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar

Can you tone it down just a bit? Specific examples of bias supportable by diffs are helpful, general characterizations such as "anti science" not so much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When I commented on his disruption over the mass deletion a few weeks ago, his reply was to attack the ID cabal and the AGW cabal. Either it's anti-science activism, or it's a determination to carry his disputes wherever he sees the opportunity to make mischief. Guettarda (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I heard what I said. There's no evidence it's anti-science. Probably nothing more than politics. Guettarda (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

It's sorted now. The page is the same format as all other UFC pages, as I was requesting. Caio was changing it until the card was over, unnecessarily, as it was just counter productive. The problem was over and there was no need for full protection. Semi was sufficient as that stopped vandals, but there is still info that needs to be added to the page and that's not possible now. Paralympiakos (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aeroflot destinations

Thank you for protecting this page; I was going to request it anyway. User Dimitree's addition of a destination is unsourced, that's what led to the edit war in the first place. Well, actually the source given was "Aeroflot's Planning Department told me" - which is not acceptable under Wikipedia editing guidelines nor under the Aviation project's rules. FYI, I did try to explain that three times, Destinations (again) here. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for paying attention to this new editorial war launched by this User:Jasepl. He (it?) was already defeated by me and other editors in his evidently stupid and asinine obstinacy that some Asian countries (Azerbaijan and Georgia) are in Europe. Inspite the fact that these countires were always Asian (physically, geographically, culturally, mentally etc), he (it) considered them European from the political point of view. I do wonder why here, in Wikiland, double standards are used? Bcoz it is English speaking space - proection of English speaking (US and UK) world? Nothing personal, --Dimitree (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's input from another established user. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Aeroflot official code-share partners by Jasepl

• Jasepl has deleted official code-share partners of Aeroflot (indicated on its web-site - link available), without any VALID source just saying: "Aeroflot do NOT codeshare with..." [2]. I've kindly asked him (here [3] and here [4]) to explain why he has done it. Also, I've reported it here [5]. I'm sure we have to stop him of reverting without VALID sources. --Dimitree (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AN3

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented there, although I dunno if it will help resolve the issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely you aren't suggesting I love a good scrap? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jones

[6] Again, instead of trying to change it to a form that you agreed with, you just reverted. Why? Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...let's see...you're asking me why I removed your insertion of a copyvio? Aren't you familiar with Wikipedia:Copyright violations? There's this bit at the top.

Since you did the first, I did the second. That's the way we do things around here. When you misrepresent sources, and use them to support a BLP violation, I removed the offending text. You then re-added the section, without the worst of the BLP vio, but you continued to misrepresent the source. Misrepresenting sources is an unacceptable level of dishonesty. When I once again removed the problematic text, you lifted copyright material, verbatim, from a source that was not available online. Now I have no idea why you chose an offline source, but it does make it look like you did that to avoid scrutiny.

There are lots of authors here who don't understand that they can't lift text from another source and pass it off as their own. There are even more who don't realise that a close paraphrase does not avoid that problem. I would hope that you are not one of those authors. But your edits suggest that someone needs to carefully scrutinise your contributions, to see if you've made a habit of misrepresenting sources and stealing text from offline sources. Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I didn't see this until just now when I asked about your outing accusation below. You're remarks are getting a little personal, but you didn't really address my question, which was, if you think that it was a copyvio, why didn't you just change the wording to fit what you felt would be acceptable? Wouldn't that have been more helpful? Cla68 (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You violate copyright, and all you have to say for yourself is "why didn't I clean up after you"? Great attitude. You expect other editors to spend their time cleaning up after your copyvios? For future reference, the correct reply is "thank you", not "you didn't put enough effort into fixing my mistakes". Cleaning up after you is so much more important than getting my work done. Oh, but wait....I did clean up after you. Just not in a manner than was in depth enough for your liking. Guettarda (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes me wonder - if someone found that you had uploaded a copyright image and they had deleted it from an article, would you also pester them about why they had simply deleted it and not spent their time tracking down a free equivalent? Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Outing accusation

I think you've been warned once or twice before about accusing me of violating WP:OUT. Is this what I think it is? Cla68 (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been warned for what? You must have me mixed up with someone else. Anyway, nice consistency. Every time someone points out your misdeeds, you attack. And no, I'm not accusing you of violating policy. Merely on your use of threats off-wiki, apparently to influence behaviour on-wiki. Guettarda (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok, no reason for us to argue about that here. ArbCom has addressed this before. Since you don't feel that it has been settled, I can ask them to address it again. I'll notify you when I've posted my request, unless you post your request first. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, the arbcomm addressed this. And found that you did what I said you did, but didn't feel they should act upon your actions. Guettarda (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here it is, please give your side. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there some policy that forbids the mention of past findings of fact? Or are you just (continuing to) engage in attacks when someone points out your misdeeds? Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, as far as I can tell, I'm free to say "the arbcomm got in wrong when they didn't ban you for your threats", without having to re-litigate the whole case. Guettarda (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

True but

True but unlikey to get the response you want. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Aeroflot official code-share partners by Jasepl

• May I ask you once again to pay atttention to a new revert of Aeroflot page maiden by Jasepl. He has deleted again official code-share partners of Aeroflot (indicated on its web-site - link available), without any VALID source. I've kindly asked him already THRICE [7], [8], [9] to provide a VALID source. No reply. Also, I've reported it here [10]. I'm sure we have to stop him of reverting without VALID sources. --Dimitree (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - I know that we don't usually see eye to eye on various topics but hopefully we can come together on this. ChrisO, Hipocrite, and I started working on a joint proposal and have been working to gather support for it ever since. Please take a few minutes to give this proposal your full consideration and in the spirit of finding a compromise position both sides can live with. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Behe Cites

Thank you for taking the time to dig up the references. Are you planning on integrating them into the article sometime soon? JPatterson (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Still working on tracking down supporting refs. Feel free to incorporate them as you see fit. I think a substantial reworking of the article is necessary; I'm not too attached to the current text. Guettarda (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that any changes I make at this point will be viewed with suspicion. I'd like to see the BLP issues resolved in a timely fashion but would prefer someone else raise their hand. JPatterson (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy

Please review Wikipedia's article on the Scientific method in particular the following sections

[11] [12]

--74.248.39.141 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. If this is related to to my edit to the Hockey stick article, please see Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy#Rv Guettarda (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones wikipedia

Somebody added some inane crap to the article and I can't figure out how to revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.159.92 (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bananaphone conspiracy (continued)

No worries. After his conspicuous abuse of numbers in his smear piece on William Connelley just before Christmas, it's been obvious that Lawrence Solomon is not above misinterpreting, misusing, and misunderstanding data to lend gloss to his pet conspiracy theories. My curiosity was piqued by the claims, so I did a few tests — and I couldn't resist reporting my results. I also found this site (using Google) which does side-by-side comparisons of Bing and Google results; it's good for a few minutes of amusement. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool site. Makes me think I want to stick to Google. Bing is a bit more woo-friendly. Guettarda (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What, doesn't everyone use Dogpile ??? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting

Hey Guettarda. You appear to have made contradictory votes here - Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change#Available_options_according_to_community - in favor of rejecting a name change and accepting a name change, respectively. I expect this was due to second thoughts about one of the votes. Would you mind removing one to make it clear which you currently support? Also, as Oren0 asked that editors not propose alternate names for the purposes of this vote, if you remove that one, please remove the section header as well. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's a discussion. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

? Then please remove all your votes? Haha.-Heyitspeter (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussions involve multiple options. Up or down choices are votes. This is an RFC, not an RM, and multiple options are normal, because it's a discussion. Also the positions should be discussed. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it formal move requests are optional and are usually initiated where the page is protected and consensus has already been reached. I'm not really clear on what you're getting at here, but tl;dr: A vote is occuring to determine consensus. You voted in two contradictory ways. Could you please remove one of them to eliminate this contradiction, as per WP:The Law of non-contradiction?--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Roystonea regis

Just seen your message, unfortunately it just missed me before I left for Dominica and St Lucia... (sigh). I'll pick it up again in the next couple of days Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I noticed you hadn't edited in a while, and I was wondering what was up. I'm glad it was a happy excuse. Sure it was a great trip. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of canvassing

Geez, I'm off Wikipedia for two days and I come back to find you accusing me of inappropriate canvassing in a ton of places. What I did was to neutrally notify everyone who had responded to the RfC and post on the article talk page. This is well within the norm on Wikipedia. Per WP:CANVASS, canvassing is OK in some instances, "For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". These constant accusations are unfounded and should be retracted. Additionally, I never said that the purpose of the RfC section wasn't a move, quite the contrary in fact, as I said "I'm trying to distill the discussion into the two most common likely options so that we can see where consensus lies. That's the point of this section." Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and if we get a representative consensus to move the article in an RfC the article moves. WP:RM is not needed. Oren0 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

These constant accusations are unfounded and should be retracted - no, they're no unfounded. They're supported by your quote from WP:CANVASS. You can't disproportionately invite editors who support your position, and ignore those who don't. And when someone points out your policy violations, the correct response isn't to demand a retraction. That shows a disturbing unwillingness to abide by what we consider to be acceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, you're wrong. I'm not sure why you're acting like this, but I've noticed that you seem to be a little unhappy about the impending name change for the Climategate article. If you're taking things a little too seriously, perhaps you might consider taking a break from that article for awhile? Oren0, just ignore the talk about canvassing, as it is needlessly distracting, and keep on with what you're doing. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And why, pray tell, do you think I'm wrong? Oren0's very quote shows that he engaged in inappropriate canvassing. Rather than notifying "editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion", he chose to ignore a large number of the most active editors who, it so happens, appear to disagree with him on the article. Which is what the policy calls disruptive. And Cla68, it's very irresponsible of you to encourage editors to continue to engage in behaviour that is described, by the very guideline he's quoting, as disruption. That's especially true on articles that are subject to probation. Guettarda (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)