User talk:dave souza

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

Handy Hint[edit]

handy hint: to keep discussions in one place, if you leave a talk message I'll answer it here, though I may put a note on your page if getting your attention seems important. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency. Apologies if I fail to notice changes on your page, must trim my watchlist.

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

No RfXs since 22:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


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

Ok if....[edit]

Hi Dave,

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

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

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

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

Religion and Global Warming[edit]

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

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

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

Agree to disagree[edit]

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

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

Intelligent Design[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watts[edit]

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

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

An Inconvenient Truth[edit]

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

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

Curious neglection of primary sources[edit]

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

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

Dave: appreciate your input on the Hockey Stick "so called" Controversy: it's not really. Please assist on my request to get the intro paragraph changed to the MOD submitted today. Thanks. Psw808 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure if I've answered what you're raising here. Will try to keep an eye on it. . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a saint for you[edit]

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

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

Creation Science[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you (",)[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. 99.112.214.50 (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, am enjoying my tea with a toastie. . dave souza, talk 10:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
As you probably already know, the IP is an editor who has been blocked for over 3 years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not good at sock spotting so tend to leave inoffensive edits in the hope that someone better informed can block the account if appropriate. Sorry I can't help more with these nuisance edits. . . dave souza, talk 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers[edit]

Hi. Can I draw your attention to this? I attempted to discuss it, but it didn't go down well William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Have struck a compromise.[3] Rather late in the day, so will probably please no-one, but bad form to modify comments silently years after the event. . . dave souza, talk 20:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, good idea. I'll date any later additions to the list. BTW, the reason I updated the list by simply adding the new item was that it would not make sense to create a new heading and copy the entire list every time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Poe's law[edit]

Poe's law is a bit like a prenuptual agreement; it might be legally wise, but gets in the way of relationships built on trust. There's very few eds on wikipedia where I don't feel a need to flag my jokes, but you're one. Then again, I suppose trust-based jesting is best on specific user talk pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I was just joking! (though it does save getting distracted by misunderstandings) Very nice of you to say that, makes me feel rather honoured. However, quite right that some restraint is needed. Good to hear from you, dave souza, talk 18:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ref[edit]

Has anyone noticed http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/22/ny-times-public-editor-were-moving-in-a-good-di/204089 yet? I haven't been paying attention William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, NYTimes is moving in a good direction. Reminds of something Kung Fu-tse said about reforming politics, that the first step is "rectification of names". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Intelligent design". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, Dave. Do you think that we can add a reference about Maimonides, the famous Medieval philosopher, in the article on Intelligent design, since he was also a highly respected and authoritative proponent of the theory of ID? I chose to ask you the question, so as not to provoke a protracted and heated response on the ID Talk-page.Davidbena (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The philosophical concept of the design argument, also known as the argument from design and the Teleological argument, is covered at that last title (the other two are redirects) and if appropriate sources show he was a proponent of that argument, something about him should be added to Teleological argument#Islamic philosophy with a citation to the source[s]. The Intelligent design#Origin of the concept is a brief outline, and only mentions philosophers discussed in reliable sources specifically about ID, which is a modern version of the argument rebranded as science, so he doesn't belong in the ID article. Hope that suits you, edits adding him to the appropriate article will be appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 08:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave. I have suggested a new proposal on the ID Talk-page. I'd appreciate your feedback there. In any case, I will not pursue this issue. This is your article, and you have perhaps more experience than me in knowing what is acceptable and what is not. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion[edit]

Hi, again, Dave. I wanted to ask you, at least from a philosophical perspective, and especially for those who might disagree with Intelligent design being a valid theoretical-scientific view, do you think that there's a place for this on the Intelligent design page?

Sir Isaac Newton
Painting of Sir Isaac Newton

The immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton:


“How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts? Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?...and these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent...?”


“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”


“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Shabbat shalom! Davidbena (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Given all the points you have made, it's clear to me that where your interests really fit are in the Teleological argument. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Teleology can be another name for "Intelligent design," but its scope is too broad, while most people associate the name Intelligent design with the argument of design in our universe, whether from a philosophical or scientific-theoretical point of view. In this article there is a need for balance. That, and only that, is what I am striving for. The arguments are many in favor of the theory, and those - mind you - which have been stated by highly respected personages. Newton is just one of them, the father of modern physics. If his words seem to be too religious in nature, we can take it from Einstein's perspective, who was NOT a religious Jew.Davidbena (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Teleology is perception of purpose, the design argument is the same thing as the argument from design and the Teleological argument, which discusses Newton at Teleological argument#Newton and Leibniz. We don't have evidence of a significant connection between Newton and modern ID or, indeed, ID and the Religious views of Albert Einstein. Which look somewhat deistic, rather like Darwin's later views which are briefly covered at Teleological argument#Watchmaker analogy . . dave souza, talk 08:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave.Davidbena (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Dave souza, as you can see by this French Wikipedia page on Intelligent design (French: Dessein intelligent), they give both sides of the argument, presenting the subject in a more neutral tone. They write (translated from the French): "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory by its promoters, but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience, for reasons that both the internal facts of biology and also epistemological criteria cannot be rectified (the proponents of intelligent design appearing to biologists as having ignored numerous arguments, the more notable of which being the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper)..." I am, therefore, quick to admit that the WP article on Intelligent design should at least attempt to show that ID is viewed differently by different folks, and that even if it were not a scientific theory, per se, it is still a philosophical question suggestive of something else beyond what is seen by our naked eye, and that some biochemists (i.e. Michael Behe) and physicists (i.e. Albert Einstein) have entertained that notion as a real possibility, given all their scientific experience. Do you think that it would be possible for us to incorporate something along the lines of the French article into our own English article, and to admit that there is a philosophical question that has been the subject of debate (or of mere musings) by some respected people of the scientific community?Davidbena (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The philosophical question is covered in our teleological argument article. In English, the term intelligent design has been designedly adopted as a sciency label for religious creationism, so the ID article covers that specific meaning. It also refers to the philosophical question where appropriate, with links to the main article on the topic. . dave souza, talk 08:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Activist editros"[edit]

Well, I rather like the typo ;-\

After putting up with all your years-long crap sniping re "Fringe views", as defined by You -- I find your complaint -- aside from being wrong -- mean-spirited. So cut it out. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

For the definition, see WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. I'm concerned that some of your recent comments seem to be suggesting an in-universe minority view, contrary to policy. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
For example, "CAGW as religion". Perhaps a smiley would have helped, but it doesn't look like a serious proposal for improving the article. . dave souza, talk 19:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd put one in. Still getting used to a new KB ;-0 Also note cite, plenty more avail, but no, I'm not really serious. I wish YOU were less serious about this stuff -- you used to be less doctrinaire, ims. Tant pis, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology![edit]

Greetings!

A photograph of Charles Darwin

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Intelligent design, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Note[edit]

Mind 3RR at CCD. HTH. TTFN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

N.B. :-) . dave souza, talk 06:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - by user SuueDee - just alerting you to it. Onel5969 TT me 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I did try to explain the issues at User talk:SuueDee#Correspondence of Charles Darwin but it seems to have been misunderstood. As you suggested, it's been speedy closed so no problem. Thanks again for your help with this, dave souza, talk 21:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Crook edit link[edit]

Hi Dave. At AE you put the same diff link for Pete's 'recent edit' and one in 2010. It would be easier to read if they were different. Kindest, Nigelj (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, many thanks for the reminder, have corrected it and added a reply to Pete. . . dave souza, talk 11:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Glen Coe - Geology[edit]

Can you contact me when you have some time as I have knocked a draft together and would be glad if you could give it the once over. Pull it apart so I have to justify everything I have written. Thanks, The Geologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.97.216 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lots of rushing about lately, and I've only got very limited access to info on geology. However, put it online and I'll have a look. The best way is probably for you to get a user identity and use a subpage to try out what you've written. . . dave souza, talk 09:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks[edit]

Accusing me of "obviously biased in favour of fringe pseudoscience" is over the line. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't. You commented "There are some sources which label the blog as a denier blog. Some are sketchy, the one by Michael Mann is obviously biased, and some might be legitimate." My response pointed out that "your comments appear obviously biased in favour of fringe pseudoscience". Note the link: WP:FRINGE/PS is more specific. WUWT is on that bordeline, it publishes pseudoscience. Your implication that some sources published in the academic press, such as Mann's book, aren't legitimate looks very much like trying to give "equal validity". That may not be your intention, I've no way of knowing what your aim is other than looking at the impression given by your words. I'll be delighted to be shown that my impression was wrong, we've had very reasonable discussions in the past. . . dave souza, talk 22:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't look at the link but now that I have I don't see how it helps. I strongly disagree that WUWT is even close to borderline pseudoscience, on balance. I won't be surprised if there is the occasional wacko who argues that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas which might qualify, but it is inappropriate to label an entire website based on one or two out of line comments. But that's an aside. As your quote says you think my comments appear biased in favor of fringe pseudoscience. I'm adamantly opposed to pseudoscience. You are making a synthesis that is not appropriate. It appears you think that WUWT is borderline pseudoscience, and because you think I'm in favor of WUWT, you synthesize that I'm in favor of pseudoscience. This is flawed on multiple grounds. I read the site regularly, agree with some of their posts, disagree with others, and think some of the commentators are abject idiots. Many of the commenters and Watts himself take a lot of pot shots at William Connolley. I've defended him on multiple occasions which hasn't exactly earned me kind words from some of the commentators. In other words, I read it for information, the same way I read the Science of Doom, RealClimate and other sites. I don't subscribe fully or disagree fully with any of them. If you are thinking that my belief that skeptical is a more accurate label than denial for WUWT makes me an apologist for everything that happens at WUWT, then the fault is yours not mine. But the main problem is your false syllogism. You think WUWT is borderline pseudoscience. Fine that's your opinion. But if you want to accuse me of supporting pseudoscience you have to show evidence that I'm supporting pseudoscience, not that I take a particular position about how to describe a blog.
Yes, we have had some reasonable discussions in the past, and I look forward to more in the future. There are some contributors to the discussion who aren't looking out for the best interest of Wikipedia. No, I shan't be more specific. I'm responding to you precisely because I have seen signs of being reasonable, and your smear took me by surprise. I posted here rather than there is there is getting a little ugly and I wanted to discuss this in a bit more privacy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you read Climate issues we need to address We need to fix the climate of fraud, corruption, and policies that kill jobs, hope and people, Guest essay by Paul Driessen August 30, 2015, "Even more insane, the entire basis for this agenda, this treaty, these commitments and non-commitments, is bald assertions – driven by garbage in/garbage out computer models and deceptive, fraudulent science – that humanity faces 'unprecedented' global warming, rising ocean, weather and other calamities." Looks like pseudoscience to me, but it's clearly fringe and so falls under that general guidance about how we report such views. Bedtime now, so won't comment for a while. . . dave souza, talk 23:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we have had some reasonable discussions in the past, and I look forward to more in the future. There are some contributors to the discussion who aren't looking out for the best interest of Wikipedia. No, I shan't be more specific. I'm responding to you precisely because I have seen signs of being reasonable, and your smear took me by surprise. I posted here rather than there is there is getting a little ugly and I wanted to discuss this in a bit more privacy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Since it's commentators (plural) and Sphilbrick seem most pissed off at are Mann Jess and myself, I'll assume that there's a good chance I'm being referred to, at least in part. To be sure, I also read WUWT from time to time. It reads, frankly, almost exactly like Uncommon Descent. When WUWT is at it's best, it is attempting to look critically at certain way out in wacko-world proposals in the same way that Old Earth Creationists are some of the best debunkers of Young Earth Creationists because they take a lot of their claims seriously while the rest of the thinking masses just dismiss them as unworthy of consideration. But this doesn't change the obvious fact that denial is inherent to the slant, outlook, and mission of the blog. That there are reliable sources which agree with my characterization is really all that Wikipedia cares about, however. jps (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Double standard[edit]

This is what I object to: exactly the policies you're insisting on at Irreducible Complexity are the ones you are choosing to ignore at CRU. Your refusal to engage there is passive edit-warring. To me, this all boils down to WP:OWN. Unconstructive, unacceptable. Nonetheless, happy weekend! YoPienso (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Such impatience! It's hardly owning when taking time to respond to a source-heavy argument abut justifying a subtitle, and giving an opportunity to others who might want to comment, but have now replied. In the other instance, it's replying to an attempt to introduce an unsourced term into body text, so not the same. . . dave souza, talk 06:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Britain dispute[edit]

As you will see on the talk page, I am involved in a dispute over what to say in the 'Consequences' section of the Battle of Britain page. I have written something based very closely on what a number of reliable sources say on the subject. These are not sources specially picked by me to make some kind of point but all the sources that I could find on the subject in local libraries etc. I have not been able to find any sources which challenge or criticise what these sources say.

For some reason a number of editors, who appear to have very strongly held personal opinions on the subject, object to what I want to say. To my mind this matter is at the heart of what WP is. Is it a medium for people to express their own opinions on a subject or do we stick to what reliable sources say?

Your opinion would be welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Have given my opinion, an RfC looks a good way forward. Alternatively, let me know and I can try to suggest an option. Thanks for keeping trying, sorry to be rather slow in responding due to other issues. . . dave souza, talk 19:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I have started the RfC. Please let me know if you think it is badly worded or could do with more explantion. I have posted my case for inclusion and put up a heading for the oppostion to present their case. Do you have any suggestions to get a good attendance at the RfC? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, the aim of a RfC is to attract new editors to the topic, so far it seems to be entrenched comment. Haven't had time lately to do much, so am taking it on trust that you've followed the right procedures to get this listed to attract fresh ideas. I've commented, in my view a significance section is needed to show views on the outcome, including those which seem to dismiss its importance. I don't have ready access to major histories of WW2, but think that would be a good place to find an overview of the impact of the RAF's success in the Battle. Hope this works out, dave souza, talk 21:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

presuming 'creationism' overblot[edit]

I'm presuming the delete in Talk:Creationism on IDC line in section 2.3.1 was intended and that the delete on the 'lets get back to the topic' about the lead section edit just got caught up in it since this all went in one gulp. Let me know if you had separate intent to delete the 'lets get back to the thread topic' (about the lead section). Markbassett (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm baffled, my first edit accidentally deleted your comment "meh - it's gone now anyway. Back to the topic of this thread" and my summary restoring it had a typo, probably autocorrect put in "cant" when I mean "cmnt". Apologies for any confusion that caused. Can't see anything else deleted by me. . dave souza, talk 18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

21.10.2015[edit]

You recently undid an edit concerning a change of the wording from 'evolution' to 'macroevolution'. That change seems quite reasonable considering the fact that no major proponent of intelligent design would deny the realities of random mutation or natural selection, they merely posit that these mechanisms are insufficient. Therefore, they do not reject microevolutionary changes, but rather macroevolutionary changes. That distinction should be made at least once in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacksfenton (talkcontribs) 20:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Answered at tTalk:Intelligent design movement. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Created new article on book - Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand[edit]

Hey there Dave souza -- encouraging to see you're an admin here on this site. :)

I've created a new article on the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

Perhaps you might be interested in providing input, and/or could suggest additional possible secondary sources, at Talk:Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Disco Tute?[edit]

Pretty funny but you might want to edit it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Common abbreviation, have added a piped link. Our friend really seems to want to give them undue weight. . dave souza, talk 18:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Our friend really doesn't understand much about Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hope it helps. . . . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I think a redirect is in order! google "disco tute" does return 3,800 hits. Good reply. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, very well. Disco Tute. . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[edit]

Sorry, is your reasoning that David Berlinski isn't a supporter of intelligent design, but just a contrarian regarding evolution? Mcc1789 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He distances himself from ID. The cited ref is part 3 of a three-part series on radical skepticism and the rise of conspiratorial thinking about science. The first installment describes him as "a critic, a contrarian, and—by his own admission—a crank" who 'Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute—a religious think tank that sponsors his work and promotes intelligent design—Berlinski refuses to theorize about the origin of life. He describes his attitude towards ID as "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives." ' So, not exactly a supporter of the ID thesis, but helpful to the DI. . dave souza, talk 17:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Fishing?[edit]

You might have been thinking of https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/rico-teering/ and alike (don't let the general tone put you off, there is some information there) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't, but interesting parallels and some table turning. CAI apparently taking a leaf out of the CEI's book. . dave souza, talk 18:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BoB[edit]

Good work on actually improving the article Dave. It's looking better. Simon Irondome (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Glad to assist, it's work in progress and I'll trim some of the Sealion stuff once I've made sure it's in the main article on that topic. . . dave souza, talk 21:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice one. There seems to be a bit of crossover fat that can be trimmed. Cheers Dave. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow darwinist[edit]

Hello mr Dave! Interested in arbcom elections? Maybe not. (Today last day to self-nominate, hint hint.) Bishzilla is writing guide to assist the voters, User:Bishzilla/Vote ACE 2015. Wish to draw mr Dave's attention to request for artwork at support Drmies. Always great admirer of mr Dave's drawing skills! Created bishapod the fishapod! Best regards, darwinfish 11:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! Will read large saurian's guide with interest. Am very rusty with the artworks so can't promise anything! Orrabest, dave souza, talk 17:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Christmas holly 2015.jpg Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.


YoPienso
Bah humbug, struggles with red-green writings (just as well I'm not colour blind!) ah, festive greetings from young YoPienso!! All the best to you and yours, . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Poor old Scrooge gave me a great Christmas present with "young YoPienso"! When I was fiddling with my user page I almost added a user box announcing "This user is a sexagenarian," but ultimately went with the subtler, "This user remembers when telephone numbers began with exchange names, such as POplar." Cheers, YoPienso (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, you're still pretty young, let's just say it's quite likely I'm older than you, and appreciate your young-hearted editing. As for phones, I remember us not having a phone, then a situation where we had to share with a neighbour: can't remember who was doing the borrowing! The dials had letters as well as numbers, don't recall what they were used for, but do remember learning how to put three pennies in the mechanism of a phone box and press button A if the call went through, or press button B if it didn't and you wanted your thruppence back. As shown here. Must try to get a picture of the old mechanism inside a phone box next time I see one in a museum, the newer mechanisms lack the excitement of the originals. . dave souza, talk 12:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Fun! I was so pleased one afternoon to come home from school and find my mother had updated our phone to this model. But now that I figured out how to, I've swapped that telephone userbox for one I made about the Apollo 11 shot--the most significant event of my youth.

Apologies[edit]

In doing a recent edit, I may have inadvertently undone a small edit that you did. Could you have a look—at James Delingpole—and reinstate. My apologies for the wasted time. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll try again to make the minor clarification. Your work on this is much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Getting link to Sci Am article to work[edit]

Dave, in the Climate change denial article I put in reference information to an article from Scientific American, and I gave it a Harvard ID, but the in-line link doesn't work, doesn't take the reader down to the reference information. I can't see how to fix this, and, it would help me to know how to do this properly in other articles I edit. Can you fix it? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the ref, have done a quick fix: changed the inline cite from sfn|Vaidyanathan 2014 to sfn|Vaidyanathan|2014 and then changed the reference parameter from ref=Template:Harvib to ref=harv which allows the inline cite to work. The other method may work in come way I don't understand, but the simpler harv referencing looks to me as though it's working ok. Hope that's achieved what your wanted! Not sure, but Template:Citation/doc#Anchors for Harvard referencing templates and Template:Cite news#Anchor look like the relevant guidance. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

False equivalencies listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect False equivalencies. Since you had some involvement with the False equivalencies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, have commented. . dave souza, talk 06:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Questions?[edit]

Hello Dave. Is this the way one converses with you? I have never, to my knowledge, attempted to edit anything I've ever read on this site. So I surprised myself when I attempted to add a blurb in an article that I hadn't even planned on reading. I was looking up something on Dr Kennedy's death, got caught up in the discussion & all the back & forth, came across one small blurb, tossed in an aside, and voila. You removed it. I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing over little stuff. However, I will say what I should like to say. When I read that sentence, it came across as trying to state evolution as a fact & theory in the same sentence. Regardless of what you may believe or not believe, evolution was, is & continues to be...a theory. It's such an incredible theory, one that continues to defy the basis of scientific method. Here we have a theory, which continues to be taught as fact, despite the continuing evidence to the contrary. At the same time, & correct if my assertion is wrong (I may have misread or misunderstood what I thought to be a statement made by you), but I thought I read a statement which seemed to make the statement that creationism, ID, & everything in between, to be "pseudoscience." I've seen that statement from the likes of Richard Dawson, et al. Having said that, let me say this. In my short 61 yrs of sojourning on this planet, I have for the most part encountered 2 types of atheists. One says he does not believe in God, but realizes that he doesn't know everything, hasn't seen everything, hasn't been everywhere. The other makes statements using terms like pseudoscience, usually without any facts to support such a statement. They make wild claims against those they disagree with, and even when the facts are staring them right in the face, they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of something outside themselves. Instead they choose to adhere to a theory whose feasibility, possibility has reached the odds of impossibility. By making the accusation of pseudoscience what you're saying is that those scientists who, after reviewing the scientific evidence, having followed the proper steps of the scientific method (that is, one that is not biased or predisposed to one & only one conclusion despite the contradictory evidence), they have chosen to reject the theory of evolution and have laid hold of where that evidence points them. Some adhere to the ID principles, some to creationism (which, by the way, has at least 2 basic camps, young earth and old earth, the latter having been something I've followed & believed since the 70's). Within the ID camp are those who believe in God, and there are those who don't. And among those who do there are those who are followers of Jesus, and there are those who follow other faiths. And amongst creationists are those who follow, understand the science (yes, science, not pseudoscience) behind ID, and there are those who do not. I say this bc some of the discussions I've read since trying to figure out how to contact you seem to just gel all camps together. Even in your own evolutionist camps are varying parties. Now, as I said, I'm an old earth creationist. I also have read on ID, and understand & agree w their scientific research, discussions, evidence, etc. Now I started studying about old earth creation when I "chanced" upon a book called "The Fingerprint of God" by Dr Hugh Ross. Since then I've read his, as well as others. I've also read the young earth side, like the late Dr Henry Morris, etc. More recently I've read (not finished yet) "Signature in the Cell," &, as is not uncommon amongst those of us blessed with ADHD, I'm also in the middle of the more recent release, "Darwin's Doubt," both excellent books by Dr Stephen Meyer. Now I should point out that Dr Ross, despite being an old earther, does not adhere to ID. Nor do I completely subscribe to all of his tenets. And in my readings, research I have found that, as stated earlier, there is a plethora of disagreement amongst the evolutionists as well. This all makes, in my humble opinion, great for lively debates, discussion, inquiry, scientific investigation. His most recent release goes into greater discussion about Darwin's dilemma, that being the Cambrian explosion, and goes thru the various evolutionist attempts to either explain or dismiss it. To be honest, he does a most excellent job of reducing their arguments, logically AND scientifically. Now, I've come across atheists who, without even reading it, make that unfortunate ignorant statement, "pseudoscience." Of a truth Solomon said "a fool speaks before hearing a matter out." Now I've tried on a number of occasions to read, understand such people on the other side as Richard Dawkins, but unfortunately, at least for me, not only is his logic flawed but I have difficulty trying to just understand his scientific approach. MY sons recently moved me to my current location in order to be able to spend more time w my grandkids. Once I finish getting thru my storage and into the rest of my books, I'm going to make another stab at Dawkins & another fellow whose name slips me. I apologize if I'm rambling here, and maybe I'm just a tad bit old school. But I loved science as a child, despite my attention challenges. And I was raised to understand that education was a means of inquiry, school was a place where ideas where shared, discussed, examined, scrutinized, etc. Not ridiculed, put down, ignored, shut down, etc. When the chance for ID to enter the education system seemed possible, what did the opponents do, argue on scientific merit? Oh no. They dared not bc they would have lost. Instead, using deception, lies, misassociations, etc, they convinced a court that somehow this was forcing religion into schools. You know sir, I remember prayer in public schools, and I for one haven't driven thru a McDonald's w an AK-47. Sorry. A squirrel just ran by. Point is, ID is not religious, nor is it pseudoscience. If evolutionists were truly, in my view, seeking for answers, the truyh, scientifically, then they should welcome opposing views, bc it would challenge them to be better in their assessments. But instead, they continue to prop up a dead horse & try any & all means to keep it artificially resuscitated. However, their are those atheists, evolutionists who realize they do not have all, or maybe even any answers, but continue to follow, correctly, the scientific method, and many of the staunchest proponents of Darwinism have come to realize there is something else which evolution simply and unequivocally fails to explain. Some are not sure if that means God, but realize that something other than impossible chance has produced the amazing vessels of life we see. Mr Dave, I truly wish education would get back to its roots, presenting what's there and allowing the students to learn how to make decisions based on the various arguments for themselves, without the bane of political correctness forcing its own ugly head down their throats, telling them what to believe or not believe, what to think, say, etc, and if you say or do or think contrariwise, you're a bigot or something else. But that's for another discourse. Anyways, if you haven't read Dr Meyer's books, and it's bc you consider it, him, and the likes, as pseudoscience, I would kindly challenge you to read them. You can read them w a closed mind, a critical mind, an open mind. Your choice. But understand that Dr Meyer & others like him are learned men and women, accredited scientists in their various fields, disciplines, etc. They did not get to their positions overnight, nor did they arrive at their conclusions on a whim. It is, has been my hope, that we would not be afraid to ask questions, demand hard evidence, from all sides and, when it's not so clear, to be able to hear, discuss, all sides in the debate. One might consider that possibly the "ascent of man," as Jacob Bronowsky called it. But alas, in the current state of our pseudoeducational system, in the hostile atmosphere fueled by those who choose only to try & silence those who disagree, with the PC thought police ready to pounce like a hungry lion, I can see it only as the "assent of man." If you respond I may or may not see it. I am not on here enough to do this sort of thing. Oh. Before I forget. Bc there was only a small box to explain my edit, there is no evidence of macroevolution. Microevolution, yes. That's even in that "archaic" book, the bible. But there is absolutely no evidence of one species, one kind, changing into another. And the Cambrian explosion is quite explicit (as is the pre-Cambrian period). That is why I "parend" the word "theory" after the word "fact." But now you've cleared up that misnomer. Take care and have a blessed day.

-)

Respectfully & sincerely yours, doug Whooleeoh (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi doug, that's the best way to converse with me: article talk has to be more specifically focussed on specific improvements to the article. You're referring to this revert, which included in the brief edit summary a link to evolution as fact and theory and that article shows answers to many of the points you raise: evolution is a whole series of facts, explained by scientific theory. You've just conceded that evolution in the sense of "Microevolution" is a fact; your addition was superfluous as the sentence goes on to refer to the theory of evolution.
The public school I attended included both prayer and religious education for all pupils – but not in the science classes. As a creationist you're taking a particular religious view of this science: attempts to get teaching of science to conform to that religious dogma resulted in creation science, and when that was disallowed from science classes, it was relabelled as intelligent design. Both place emphasis on the teleological argument which you've just presented, but that's a theological argument. At base, it's the belief that unknowns in science can only be explained by supernatural intervention, thus proving the existence of a god of the gaps.
The books you're reading by intelligent design proponents lack scientific credibility; you seem convinced by their arguments about atheism. My suggestion for your next book to read is Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller which gives a good explanation of evolution, and places it in relation to theological issues. All the best, .dave souza, talk 10:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Evolutionary theory and the political left[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Evolutionary theory and the political left has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Err....[edit]

mistake? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, my blunder. Sorry about that, undone now. . . dave souza, talk 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, cool. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Suitable article[edit]

Just asking for opinion. Which Wikipedia article do you think is a better place to accommodate the paragraph I wrote that you find not strictly relevant to climate change denial?Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble is, your edit put together information from sources with your own ideas or commentary: the sources didn't say anything about climate change denial. While it's amusing to think of candidates wanting cooler rooms to deny global warming, for that to appear anywhere in Wikipedia it needs to be explicitly stated by a reliable third party source: what you've done produces an original synthesis of thoughts which is against no "original research" policy. The sources might be used in articles about the primaries, but we'd need sources showing that the points made are significant to the topic. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 19:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
That specific comment on "Now you care about warming" is actually quoted from the TV show The Daily Show with Trevor Noah's episode in Nov 4, 2015 (4m45s - 5m05s) . Now with this source cited, do you find the original paragraph provides relevant information in the article Climate change denial ? Or does it only fit the article on republican primaries? Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Operation Sea Lion Background[edit]

Hi, you've been reverting my edits on the "Background" section of the Operation Sealion article, while I feel that this section violates the neutrality and brevity standards of Wikipedia.

Editorializing about Adolf Hitler's personal feelings (e.g. "admiration") toward Great Britain does not belong in the background of the Operation Sealion page. There are plenty of contrary sources about Hitler's fear, dislike, annoyance and paranoia toward Great Britain, who he felt was controlled by an international cabal of Jews. That discussion does not belong in the Operation Sea Lion article.

There is no source which says Hitler thought that Great Britain and France would not honor their guarantee of Poland. In fact, this is controversial and doesn't belong in the Operation Sealion article.

Not mentioning the Allies guarantee of Poland in April 1939 and just saying they "declared war" violates neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.172 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Bungay clearly describes Hitler's aims as significant to Seelöwe and the rest of the battle, will review how best to show this. . dave souza, talk 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's Health[edit]

Dear Dave, My PhD thesis 'Diagnosing Darwin: Charles darwin's Mystery Illness has been passed by external examiners and has been awarded by the University of Melbourne. This thesis reviews all of Darwin's symptoms, reviews most of the various proposed diagnoses (30+), and concludes that Darwin had an inherited pathological mitochondrial DNA mutation, inherited maternally (as is all mtDNA) from his Wedgwood forbears. This diagnosis not only accounts for all of Darwin's symptoms but also explains the strange severe illnesses that afflicted various members of the Wedgwood family. The thesis is 'open access' and can be readily accessed at https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/48439 (then click 'view/open'). I appreciate that you may not have time to look at this yourself but I 58.175.93.49 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)would be most grateful if this thesis could be referenced in the above Wikipedia article. Best wishes, John Hayman (MBBS, MD, PhD Melb).

Congratulations! Sorry to be rather slow picking this up, things have been hectic lately, but will certainly read this (to the best of my ability!) and look at using it to improve the article. Regards, dave souza, talk 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Freezing out editors with whom you disagree[edit]

I'm really disappointed that you insist on employing your method of shutting down conversations you don't like with silence and evasion. I get it--it works--but I wish you were better than that. YoPienso (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

hey i see your into evolution.[edit]

would be able to give your opinion what section this would be added to? Endoftimeone (dot) com

Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan1222 (talkcontribs) 19:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:REDACT major inaccuracies[edit]

1. You recently twice posted a false claim to the Meaning of favoured races: sources section of the OTOOS talk page (emphasis added to the following quotes). In your 07:48, 4 July post you stated: “Costa explains ‘varieties’ in that paragraph as equating to the modern usage of ‘race’” and in your 09:25, 6 July post you similarly stated: “[Costa] explains that ‘varieties’ in that paragraph equates to the modern usage of ‘race’”. Yet Costa’s description of the relevant passage on p.424 never makes reference to modern times at all but rather states: “In Darwin’s day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct ‘race’(As you quoted). Thus, these two claims of yours are simply not accurate.
2. I have already suggested striking out these false claims in this post Location. Dave, WP:CIVILITY is Wikipedia’s 4th pillar while accuracy and reliability underpinning the First, with both pillars requiring that inaccuracies of this magnitude be WP:REDACTED (using <s></s>). I would very much appreciate your prompt action in this regard. Thank you. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Such impatience! As you appear to be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account you may not appreciate that I'm covering various topics, and take time to research details. The race issue is complex, and I don't see any problems with the wording you've highlighted. Will go into more detail when time permits. but at present don't see any need to strike through these comments as you're rather imperiously demanding. More later at the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 10:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)