User talk:Dave souza/Archive 18

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

Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19


Updated guide by the Royal Society

Regarding this edit, I assume you've been looking forward to this. Gabbe (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Very interesting, if possibly less dramatic a change than some seem to have expected. . . dave souza, talk 13:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Further to our discussion on Tony's talk page, could you have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_5 and comment on the proposal? --JN466 11:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked it over but didn't have an immediate comment. Have now added my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 12:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Vitriol and Bias

you have it backwards. YOU (and your crew) are the ones injecting BLATANT BIAS AND NON-OBJECTIVE nonsense on this article, because of ranker, hate, venom, pathology, and agendas.

And treating it like a forum, to do nothing but bash, and gripe, instead of presenting anything neutrally.

The article is not a MySpace blog, but it's supposed to be an Encyclopedic article that is supposed to have at least a semblance of neutral tone.

Saying "pseudoscience" especially right off the bat in the lead is anything but "neutral".

I simply re-worded it with a more neutral unbiased and factual tone. With no pro or con either way.

Yet you call my thing "vitriol"???? Talk about bizarro world.

That's why to many people, Wikipedia does not have the credibility that it should have.

But how is my re-wording of the lead "biased"? JUST HOW SPECIFICALLY? All you did was assert it, but didn't explain or demonstrate it.

I never worded as either pro or con. But simply NEUTRAL.

(maybe you were referring to some of my edit comments...then. But the actual edits that I did were NOT "vitriol", but were simply accurately and neutrally stated. With no slant either way.)

How is

"Icons of Evolution is a creationist work by biologist Jonathan Wells that attempts to assert that often-cited evidences for Darwinian evolution theory are really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory. The book has been rejected by the majority in the scientific community."


How is that wording there "biased"?

There's NO pro or con bias either way in my wording.

it's simply accurate and NEUTRAL.

but with the other intro wording IT WAS SO SLANTED AND OPINIONATED ("majority view" or not by coccoon reviewed "scientists" or not) it's like not funny.

Leave your biased junk off of WP articles.

It's in violation of the NUMBER ONE pillar of WP Policy.


How is:

"Icons of Evolution is a pseudoscientific[1] book" not insulting, biased, vitriolic, neurotic, snarky?

To many people it's NOT "pseudoscientific", but simply a book that challenges certain Darwinist talking points and supposed "proofs" of the theory.

My re-wording had NO bias EITHER WAY.

There was no pro or con in either direction.

But it was simply a factual accurate objective statement, stated neutrally.


If a Young Earth Creationist came on the article and injected stuff like "This book demolishes Darwinism" I WOULD REMOVE THAT TOO !!!!

If I saw biased junk EITHER WAY put in there, I would undo it.

because it's called being NEUTRAL.

something you and your edits SIMPLY ARE NOT....

Again, the first pillar of Wikipedia editing is NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW...


And it simply is not being followed on this article. There's so much POV in this article, it reads like a Darwinist blog on MySpace, rather than a neutral Encyclopedic article, that tries to show at least a semblance of objectivity in tone...... (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of sources

On a discussion of Cla68's use of sources I have cited two sections of the evidence page, one from you and one from Hipocrite. The venue is User talk:Newyorkbrad. --TS 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, you recently commented on a talk page proposal to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. The proposal has attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

There's damned little discussion on the talk page of this article, but you and I and Guettarda seem to be the only recent commenters who aren't about to be topic banned. Please take a look at my proposed content on climate change, which is very provisional. I've also notified Doc who is providing BLP guidance. --TS 21:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Balance icon.svg
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for violating 1RR on the page Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

My apologies, I misread one of the diffs. Consider me {{trout}}ed. T. Canens (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quick! Hazardous times!! . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Partly my fault. I should have given a more detailed analysis of what was up. I still think we should keep our hands off the undo button after we see somebody make the first revert, though. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A tricky call when an IP persistently introduces a BLP violation. SBS has dealt with the worst of the edit, will leave it alone for now. . dave souza, talk 15:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're better than this

Dave, I'm disappointed in your support of WMC's unacceptable behavior. I realize you're agreeing with his science and have continued to make low-key suggestions that he improve his manners, but he doesn't catch nuances like that. WP supposedly doesn't allow his degree of hostility. Please don't let your personal bias blind you to the fact this editor has no place at WP until he decides to uphold each Pillar.

Of course, now you've drawn attention to it, if anyone reading this page reverts it, they'll be accused of meatpuppetry by those more interested in procedure than in article content quality. dave souza, talk 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your willingness to be his meatpuppet. WP does not depend on one expert. All the CC articles would continue in his absence, and you're sharp enough to spot and fix stuff without his manipulations.

As ever, WMC has pushed right up to the boundary of normal playing nice... dave souza, talk 06:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he's far over the boundary.

The good coming out of this for me is that it's helping me to step back at a time real life activities demand my time. I perceive your stance wrt WMC as a flaw, but nobody's perfect. As ever, I respect you as a person and an editor. --Yopienso (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Very kind of you to give me such compliments, but I'm very aware that there are many areas of CC articles where WMC and a very few others can make a valuable assessment and contribution, and I haven't a clue. I'm not willing to be his meatpuppet, and merely pointed out the absurdity of treating his pointing out blatant vandalism as though it was an incitement to meatpuppetry. Sometimes he's strayed over into personal attacks, which I don't condone, but in general he's been attacked by those treating reasonable spadism as though it was unpardonable incivility. We can hope that all editors are replaceable by others, but we should not treat experts as expendable. Especially in a complex area where politically motivated inexpertise is so rife. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Untrue story by unreliable journalist?

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Accusation_against_a_living_journalist_working_for_major_media_.E2.80.93_untrue_story_by_unreliable_journalist. Nsaa (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, have provided appropriate evidence.[1] . . dave souza, talk 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Corsehill, etc

Hello. This has always been a very unweildy and disparate article from my early days. I am creating a stand alone article on 'Dunlop' and I will eventually do the same for Lainshaw and maybe more. The deletion at this stage was a mistake. Thanks. Rosser Gruffydd 10:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I appreciate how things have grown over the years. Thanks for responding, dave souza, talk 11:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism

Does this WikiProject actually officially exist? It seems to be the rogue creation of a single editor, without ever having gone through WP:COUNCIL/P. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I've no knowledge of Wikprojects, it seems to be a one-man band using 3 names. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism shows others considering the issues, perhaps worthwhile adding a comment there. Just don't ask me to join the Wikproject! . . dave souza, talk 12:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Also relevant. . . dave souza, talk 13:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Darwin family dates

Hey, Dave, apropos of Darwin family dates below, have you noticed you (and Darwin) now have even more progeny? Bishapod has created socks alternative accounts of his own. They actually seem a lot smarter than him—how does that work? (For instance is Bishzilla smarter than me? More goodhearted, maybe; smarter, no.) Anyway, here are Pod's socks paying their respects to great progenitor Dave:

Darwinfish, good twin. Darwin fish (1).png
Darwinbish, evil twin. Darwinbish.jpg
Bishonen | talk 13:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC).
Thank you! Not sure if these appear in Freeman's Darwin Pedigrees or in Burke's 1888 Darwin family tree, do you have a reliable sauce? Am most impressed with the prowess of all your offspring, a virtual miracle!. . dave souza, talk 13:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Reliable.. why, certainly. Of course. According to the.. uh.. Voyage of the Beagle.. Yeah that's it! The Beagle ! On the Galapagos islands, er, some of the Galapagos islands, Darwin picked up his... little relatives Darwinfish and Darwinbish. He was instantly convinced by the family resemblance that they were some of his, harumph.. forebears. And he was a scientist, you know! You wouldn't doubt Darwin, would you? Darwinbish, go bite the man if he makes trouble! As for the page reference, the twins are all over the place in the Voyage, so passim will be fine. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC).
Oooh, saucy!
Darwinbish is certainly one for a snappy response, but who could really argue with a Darwinfish Fridge Magnet, which sounds very attractive. Not sure about passim, wasn't it pasta? Anyway, LOL at little animated tetrapod pics, son was highly bemused amused. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Aha, so son perchance has evil sister also? Lead miserable existence like the darwinfish? Bishonen | talk 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC).
Unfortunately, no. Or should I say, he "was a victim of a series of accidents, as are we all."[2] (carefully corrects misremembering, adds quote marks and citation to ensure no plague of iarism). Still, at least Giano got out of jail free before I could even answer. Think his chances are better than he thinks for RfA? . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually no, I don't. Many people appreciate what he does; but Opposes weigh so much more heavily. Also, I think he's serious about not wanting it. Being a non-admin arb, now—that might suit! Bishonen | talk 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC).
You both show wisdom. Wasn't there a saying somewhere that the only people who should be given power are those who would refuse it? . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Tex's masterpiece! Oh, fuck. Giano is blocked again. And not even for incivility, what is the world coming to? Bishonen | talk 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC).
A masterpiece indeed. Sadly, there is a bright line requirement that editors reverting be able to count to three, unfair though this is to Bishapod. Am not sure if Darwinbish and Darwinfish are similarly unequally abled. We will just have to wait and see if editors plagued by past failings return to the article production line. . dave souza, talk 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Masterpiece? Ya'll are going to give me a big head. Should I quit my day job and go into animation full time? I don't think so. But I'm glad you like it! Tex (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, just make sure you've got the copyrignt, it could be the next Steamboat Willie..... or perhaps not, made me laugh anyway. Good work. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Isn't it time to report this SPA?[3] He's tendentiously arguing whether the illegal release of emails was really illegal? Isn't this kind of nonsense wasting a lot of editorial time best spent improving articles? In fact, that appears to be his strategy: 48% of his edits are devoted to article talk page discussions while only 19% involve edits to articles. Since he created this account in 2007, he's created only one article, Energy_Probe[4] and he's only edited 121 unique pages during that time. From 9 May 2007-22 Feb 2009, the user made no edits at all, which IIRC, coincidentally or not, was the heyday of the Scibaby era. Also note the obsession with nuclear energy, just like FellGleaming. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but it's unutterably tedious and I'm rather heavily tied up with life and things for the next couple of days. . dave souza, talk 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is best to let him carry on and let others deal with it. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


Revered ancestor Dave support my fierce sister? Wikipedia need strong-minded admins! Darwinfish Fridge Magnet 01:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinfish (talkcontribs)

Darwin, Nazi Ideologue?

In the page "List of Nazi Ideologues", user Savabubble keeps inserting Darwin as a Nazi ideologue. His references are terrible-- are you surprised? His first ref. was to an article by Jerry Bergman(!) one of the least dishonest of all creationists, and this article is terrrrible-- for example Bergman INSERTS the word "evolution" into a quote from Hitler, and Bergman idiotically calls Houston Stewart Chamberlain a Darwinist!! Yeesh! You can read Chamberlain's book online, for crying out loud, do a search for "Darwin" and see Chamberlain trash Darwin for yourself!

So, Savabubble didn't like me deleting Darwin from the List of Nazi Ideologues. Therefore, I inserted a line pointing out defects in his source, Jerry Bergman. Savabubble since deleted the reference to Bergman, and Savabubble's new proof of the Darwin-Hitler link is... are you ready..."The Descent of Man." Which, along with Darwin's and Haeckel's other books, was banned by the Nazis in 1935. Yeah, Savabubble's original research, he's noticed similarities between "Descent of Man" and Hitler. I reverted his change. Care to take a look at the talk page for "List of Nazi Ideologues"? (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, have added that article to my watchlist and will try to help as necessary. Good work in getting this resolved so far, . . dave souza, talk 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for laughs

I thought you'd be interested in knowing you and Hrafn, among others, are identified here as being "affiliated to supporters of creationism." LOL Of the group, only Science Apologist gets a clean slate. Yopienso (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What in the world happened with that link??? Try again. Yopienso (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Hrafn/userbox what me a creationist -- HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I'm delighted to see that our impartiality and neutrality on this issue is appreciated though unfortunately the author does seem to be a little confused about how best to identify "supporters". . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If the number of comments is anything to go by, virtually nobody reads that blog anyway. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the lack of response to your witty clarification. They don't seem to understand the term "con" either. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What should I do about Guettarda?

Happy New Year, Dave!

Sorry this is my first post of the new year. I'm taking my own advice that Guettarda ignored and asking if you can help us work together. As much as I'd like to make everyone happy, it's unreasonable to expect that. My personal compass points to trying to relate properly to each individual, but if Guettarda is determined to be hostile to me that's OK. It does seem like there should be a limit to her attacks on me, though. The most recent was here. She swore at me, made rude comments, accused me of untruthfulness, promised to ignore me. Another was here.

It really doesn't hurt me to continue to let her break policy, and if you think that's best, I'll consider doing so. Since she makes such a disruption, though, and clutters the talk pages with her incivility, it seems like the chicken's way out. A Wikiquette alert is not appropriate because this is "a request for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties." I don't really want to take her to ANI, and to request a comment "at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." You're one, if you care to. Otherwise, I'll either ignore her or go to ANI.

Hoping 2011 is a great year for you. Yopienso (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, a happy New Year to everyone!
Having had a look at the two examples you've given, one is from the start of August when there was a rather heated and complex debate. You accused Guettarda of being mistaken, though since others were also involved in the discussion you seem to have been taking personally a comment responding to a point by someone else. Much later, the edits of 29-30 December show Guettarda promising to resume ignoring you after you persisted in a misunderstanding on your part. This had begun when you proposed adding redlinked names to the list. While confusion about which page to look at is understandable, Guettarda was understandably irritated by the reintroduction of a question that had already been discussed repeatedly. This does not seem to be an ongoing problem.
My advice is for Guettarda to continue ignoring such comments from you, and for yourself to check things out carefully before responding. Least said, soonest mended. Going to ANI or requesting a RfC on the basis that someone gets irritated when you persistently make mistakes looks very unwise. Best to give ignoring it a chance, let me know if there's a repeat, but the main thing is to try to take care to get points straight before commenting. . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. So, you see no problem with her name-calling abusive speech? FFS...this rubbish...these bullshit games...AGF allows for people to make mistakes from time to time, not to make false statements over and over...mendacity... I'm not playing games or being mendacious. Both she and I see it as an ongoing problem and each of us believe the other is to blame. "I have raised this problem with your editing many times in the past, and you have ignored it....I did [AGF] - the first 20 times or so..." My perception is that she's habitually not assumed good faith. She refuses to answer direct questions, not only of mine, but of anyone who doesn't toe her particular line. She apparently had no purpose in her recent comments against me except to comment against me. What are you upset about? If you refuse to answer me, you are guilty of harassment with no intention of improving either the encyclopedia, an article, or what you perceive to be a galling editor. I don't have the sense of generally being so perceived. This is fine? She has not pointed out a single specific of what I have done to offend her besides my failing to see the notice on red links. (Btw--I asked for any editor to show me that and none has. I diligently searched for both "red links" and "redlinks" and did not find the rule. I'm willing to comply with it. In fact, I have.) But, if you see this as unfixable and/or unimportant, as disconcerting as it is to me to be accused of something and be unable to see my fault in order to change my approach, I'll just ignore her incivility and continue to do my best, aiming as ever for as few mistakes as possible. Yopienso (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Or maybe I'll get SlimVirgin's take on it. What do you mean by "such comments from you"? This is where you could truly help me--which comment[s]? what kind of comment? Yopienso (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
You clearly don't trust each other, which is the main problem. It's not helped by your diligent search for the rule on red links – when you made the comment being discussed, a box at the top of that top page headed "Consensus criteria for inclusion" clearly said "Criterion: No red links. An individual must be notable for inclusion." So, I've now shown you it. From your comments here my impression was that you'd seen it by 04:29, 29 December 2010, but your wording "I asked for any editor to show me that and none has" implies that you'd not. Probably you meant to say "I asked for any editor to show me that and none did at that time" which ties in with your reasonable confusion between the criteria on the talk page and those on the article. That's the sort of misunderstanding that's tedious and irritating, but not worth getting worked up about.
Just for clarification, even if there was no statement about red links as an agreed principle on the talk page, WP:NLIST requires that notability criteria are met for anyone on the list. Worth remembering.
I'll agree that there are impolite and irritated comments, and you want to defend your reputation, but in my view it's best achieved by showing yourself to be in the right, or apologising for any errors, and leave it at that. You clearly both rub each other up the wrong way, so minimising any unnecessary interaction looks the most fruitful way forward. You are of course welcome to get SV's take on it, or to go for a RfC but in my view these tend to be a tedious waste of time and no sure way of improving your reputation. . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, your link to WP:NLIST answers my question--Guettarda said it was a general rule besides a specific one for that article and I could not find the general rule. WP rules are confusing to me since they're unevenly interpreted and applied. And I have trouble distinguishing among rules, policies, opinions, essays, etc. (And then there's the rule about ignoring all rules. Of course four-hoofed beasts needn't worry about that one. Hee-haw! Just call me Benjamin.) So there's one rule for lists within articles and another for an article that is itself a list, which explains why I've seen so many red links in lists. Somehow I don't feel embarrassed about being confused, but I am grateful to you for finding the rule for me.
I'm more interested in eliminating hatefulness than in defending my reputation, which I believe is secure with most editors who have followed my edits; they cannot help but realize I am not a liar. Any reputation of being a Mr. Magoo is entirely of my own doing and does greatly embarrass me. My brother used to call our grandmother Mr. Magoo and so I suppose I'm genetically inclined to blunder. Grandma peers out of the mirror at me and somehow slipped into all our holiday photos despite being in her grave for over a decade. Poor me! :P (Lame excuse, I admit, but true.)
My greatest interest in this matter is indeed self-interest: I would like to win Guettarda's friendship. Her comments do irritate me, but she is not a crank or a troll. She's informed and intelligent and a very good editor, just impatient with those who don't see things her way.
In calmly reviewing the start of this conflict, I don't see how I could have done better. I don't feel responsible for every comment in 21 archived pages of an article I'd contributed to once. How did I know they'd already hashed out red links? My comment was directed (by implication) to jps. Guettarda jumped in, which was fine. With guidelines at the top of both pages, I missed one page--not particularly McGoo-ish--and she took umbrage. I responded politely and then she started accusing. I again responded politely, but her hostility increased. ??? I swear she will not intimidate me nor provoke me to respond in kind.
Thank you for your time and for your advise. It's a pity turning to RfC is seen as tattling rather than seeking help, but since it is, I'll just let Guettarda go her merry way. No need to trouble SV with this. Take care. Yopienso (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


Spreading the truth about that crazy man darwin is hardly vandalism. No I don't want to f***** experiment!

You won't see me here again, materialist atheist. Wikipedia is biased. The article on Evolution should begin "Evolution is a theory...". Because it is. It hasn't been 'Established' as wikipedia puts it. Whatever happened to neutrality?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wethersfield Institute

At both article talk and its previous AfD you expressed interest in salvaging this article (which is currently very short & very lacking in third party material). I thought I'd give you a 'heads up' that I'm looking at renominating it for deletion. I can remember having a thorough rummage around for sources back in my cleanup of it in March 2008, but if you think you can find material to improve it, I'll hold off in the mean time. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I don't have any ready sources about this little known organisation and appreciate that this at best barely notable. Have looked over the article and previous talk and don't find much justification for keeping the article, go ahead with the renomination and I'll try to comment. . dave souza, talk 10:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wethersfield Institute (2nd nomination) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

TOSSPOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conrarr (talkcontribs) 08:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful reminder of your vandalism, I'll check your progress every now and again. . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Dave - apologies for the lack of reference in the Gourock and Clan Darroch page - I'm something of a Wiki-novice. The announcement of the death of my grandfather was put in the paper and online a day or so ago, so I've put the link to that - hope that suffices.

Keep up the good work. 0darroch (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Your input would be welcome here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, had a look and my head hurts. It's very difficult nowadays to appreciate the thought processes of scientists of the early 19th century, am currently trying to get gradually back into dealing with several issues so will add this to the list, but some research would be needed. . dave souza, talk 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals

I think we may have a problem here; I suspect mass plagiarism, and the user has not responded to flags or the article talk page. In principle, an article on the book is most welcome, but... Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be one of a series of similar IP numbers used to edit the article, and some related articles. In July 2010 I added a welcome at User talk:, and the individual edits have consistently seemed reasonable, but as you point out there's a lack of citations making it a bit of a problem. I've tactfully raised the issues at User talk: so we'll see what the response is, and if a bit of help with improving citations and checking sources can resolve this. On first examination Google doesn't suggest any obvious plagiarism, but I'm not expert in checking that and the number of edits may make it difficult. So, hope this is something readily resolved, but there is indeed a need to bring the article up to standard. . dave souza, talk 17:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ozone blurb

Thanks, I wasn't really 100% happy with it when I posted it...I knew it'd get worked over. It's sort of art, encapsulating a news item in one sentence. I do wish more people would work on blurbs when they are in the proposal stage, but that's not going to happen. Anyway, it's looks very good, thanks for the help. RxS (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to assist, it's not easy to get a good concise blurb. In the UK the artform of writing concise news headings is the task of sub-editors and they're notorious for unintentionally mangling the meaning of articles when giving priority to a catchy headline. Anyway, hint taken, I've added Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates to my watchlist and will try to keep an eye on it from time to time. As you say, many eyes on the problem worked reasonably quickly this time. . . dave souza, talk 08:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

Hi Dave souza. Good to see you are still around. Most of the old climate change editors seem to have disappeared while I was away. I managed to miss the whole arbitration thingy. The words baby and bathwater come to mind.

Anyway, I was wondering if you would mind reconsidering your use of the word "attacking" in this edit? --Thepm (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, have commented on the article talk page. Gotta go now, dave souza, talk 09:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the note re the Guardian piece in the Signpost. As well as commenting there I was recruited by colleagues in Wikimedia UK as one of the few UK academics with over 50,000 edits & was interviewed on BBC world service about why academics might want to edit wikipedia (or not).— Rod talk 19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as you may guess from the above I've recently and unsuccessfully been trying to resist those doing their best to stop academics from editing Wikipedia. Thought I'd too many edits, but find I've only reached about half your score, so well done all round. Hope the broadcast went well, . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Editcountitis is not that important... The interview ended up as about 3 mins & has been transcribed by User:MartinPoulter for WikiMedia UK who also roped me in to speaking at the first Bristol WikiMedia Academy. I do have some problems with those who assume that their qualifications entitle them to avoid debate and others editing their contributions, but can also see their point of view. I believe "knowledge transfer" is a role for academics in whatever field and wikipedia is one mechanism for this - although I edit wp in areas mostly unrelated top my teaching & research! The changing nature of peer review and metrics used for research assessment may (eventually) provide an incentive for contributions to wp.— Rod talk 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Peppered moth

Dear Dave Souza, Thank you for reminding me that my views on the peppered moth were purely personal. I would like you to know that when I tried to check out the note no.7 on the internet it said no such page any longer existed. Best wishes, JaneyjoJaneyjo (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll have a look. . dave souza, talk 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
[Shyly. ] Mr dave sir? Not to seem to correct you, but The Peppered Moth is a novel. By mrs Drabble. An interesting read, if you have the time to spare! darwinfish 22:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC).
It is indeed! Thank you for that information, good to hear from you. From the Indy's brief description it sounds far too deep for me, and I didn't even manage to read all of the Graun's verbose analysis. Am not much of a novel reader but did have a look at the Margaret Drabble article, and there she was, badly misrepresented by words taken out of context and endlessly replayed on the internets. We do what we can. . dave souza, talk 08:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks...

For reminding me that expressing personal opinions at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy, or any such page, is a Bad Idea. You'd think I'd remember this, but it's easy to get caught up in the thing. Sigh.

You may want to look in at the "conspiracy theory" controversy now raging at the bottom of that page. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've looked at it from time to time and have now added my tuppenceworth. The idea of careful secondary [third party] sourcing rather than opinions would do a lot to improve the article. . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of your Tiktaalik image


I intend to use the drawing of Tiktaalik you created into my master's thesis (which will be unpublished, of course).

I inserted it into a phylogenetic tree of the sarcopterygians.

Of course, I'll credit you as the author (under the name Dave Souza, if it's your real one ;).

Please tell me if you disagree. N@ldo (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for letting me know. It must be admitted that there are several more expert images under the commons category, but if my sketch suits, then that's great. Good luck with the Masters, . . dave souza, talk 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. In fact, I used your image because it was a black contour, as in the other drawings I used (mainly from the book of Philippe Janvier). And because Tiktaalik's very fun on it ;). N@ldo (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Glad it suits, with so many to choose from! . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
[Bishapod is elated at being mentioned. ] Enjoy Tiktaalik Song-and-Dance routine ! bishapod splash! 14:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC).


Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For greeting me after my first edit. Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 11:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


LMAO .. love your humor Dave. Had never noticed it before. great stuff. :-) — Ched :  ?  19:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks awfully, it's down to an ill-spent youth listening to The Goon Show and Round the Horne. Bad habits :-/ . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm unfortunately unfamiliar with those, however if time spend with them led to your witty comments, then your fellow editors owe those involved with those shows a debt of gratitude. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, I share a similar background -- particularly The Goon Show (some Round the Horne, but more Take It From Here -- though I doubt if either had a lasting influence). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"You do realise that reading the Daily Mail gives you cancer?"

Well, I don't, really -- in fact you guys' newspapers are constantly confusing (but entertaining) to this far-away Yank.

Boy, and is this a relief from You Know What and Who! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just google it! Have added one of the more reputable links, enjoy ;-) . . dave souza, talk 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks -- sorta. Anyway, you do seem to know this stuff pretty well -- maybe you should make up some hifalutin claim to Scientific Authority too? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Hey dave, thanks for pointing out that grrlscientist used my diagram and didn't like my spelling. The diagram has been amended and now I'll go hang my head in shame. Adenosinetalk 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to assist, thought it was rather a compliment that your diagram was suitable for the educational purpose. Good news about the amendment, hope GrrlScientist has it right... The Grauniad has its own reputation for misspellings! .... dave souza, talk 22:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

IPCC WG3 and Greenpeace report

Dave, over the years I've found Steve McIntyre to be an exceptionally careful, patient, and relentless researcher. Hence my callout to you at that page.

He makes mistakes, and gets carried away sometimes. As do you, as do I. La conditione humaine.

Assuming McI got it +/- right (and Mark Lynas thinks he did) -- do you really think this sort of thing is defensible?

Incidentally, Keith Kloor shares my generally low opinionof Michael Tobis, and I found the bit you linked unpersuasive.

I see Kloor has picked up on this as well; [5]. Zeke H. has a couple of interesting cmts. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider the sources - that Keith Kloor agrees is not surprising (Why Kloor is interesting at all - is anyone's guess - its kinda like getting Monbiot's opinion). That you find it interesting indicates that you are unaware of your own Confirmation bias. (same can be said for Dave on Tobis btw.) Frankly if you can't confidently predict which parts of the blogosphere that will hail certain informations then you haven't critically examined the sphere of influences and common thinking. :) I'm grimly looking forward to reading Delingpole's rant tomorrow - which will ridiculous and non-thinking as it usually is. [and this is a self-fulfilling prophesy, no matter whether or not there is even a grain of truth in this issue :-P ] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Just so, at this moment I consider it all not terribly interesting blogosphere ranting, and have no intention of reading self-described non-expert Delingpole. Without examining the details, it sounds rather like a re-run of Amazongate, with plenty of innuendo and little or none practical substance. No doubt we'll see the usual attempts to get transient speculative political commentary immortalised in the science pages of Wikipedia, and a lot of work is still needed to clean up the last batch. Rather time limited, but will try to carry on with current projects rather than getting sidetracked by this. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Teleological argument

Hi Dave, this morning, you reverted an edit at Teleological argument by a brand-new user. Similar, and more extensive edits, were then made by two more brand-new users. I'm wondering if it might be the same person. I'll not do more reverts for the time being, as I may be wrong (and yes I am now watching this page). Tim PF (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm hopeless at spotting socks but it does seem an odd pattern. Will also keep an eye on things, . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. I was assuming that you might be able to see the IPs, which I cannot. Neither have I started an SPI yet, although perhaps I should have gone for it here. Tim PF (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, no. That's reserved for checkusers who are trusted to only do it to the minimum extent needed. If you can start a SPI that would be good, afraid I'm rather pressed for time these days. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it's at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chipdorrito. Tim PF (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that worked quickly. Socks blocked and user warned. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I now know what to do next time, rather than play Whack-a-mole. I wonder when and where Chipdorrito will raise his/her head again? Tim PF (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

File:110701 Ali Cat a.jpg

No one is trying to delete the file at Commons. Look, Commons:File:110701 Ali Cat a.jpg - there it is, untouched by deletion attempts. But because it's at Commons, it's not put into categories on Wikipedia (e.g. "Ferries"), because that would simply duplicate the Commons categorisation system. The only files that ought to have categories on Wikipedia (apart from project-related categories such as Wikipedia Featured Pictures) are those images which are only hosted on Wikipedia, not on Commons (such as copyrighted files that cannot be stored on Commons). Regards, --BencherliteTalk 09:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy deleting the spurious WP article/talk page created after an editor categorised the page rather than editing the Commons page, think I get it now. Apologies for any inconvenience, . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Macellum of Pozzuoli

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Macellum of Pozzuoli at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Press complaints commission

I'm curious, have you had a chance to look through these 37 results for anything relevant to the CRU articles? Weren't the "Amazongate" claims (and their subsequent retractions by News Corporation-owned The Times and The Sunday Times) connected to the CRU coverage? Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, these are entertaining and I'd not seen them previously. While "Amazongate" was part of the media flurry at the time, it's more to do with the Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. For some reason, those urgently pressing for coverage of other criticisms seemed to go quiet about that one, and I've not yet had time to put together an "Amazongate" section. This will certainly be a useful source for such a section. Several of the others concern Christopher Booker in the Torygraph, one has Willie Soon insisting that temp rise is due to solar variation rather than rising CO2, and Monckton's case vs. NS was not upheld. Will note these, but have lots to sort out first, and still hope to overcome the glaring deficiencies in the CRU articles some day! . . dave souza, talk 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How odd

This just popped up on Google. I don't recall ever seeing it before. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, we should add that to the article. . dave souza, talk 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As you are no doubt aware by now, Neil Wallis, former editor of News of the World, was arrested the other day.[6] As it turns out, Mr. Wallis was apparently working for News of the World while consulting with Scotland Yard and advising the UEA about climategate. As you may or may not be aware, Murdoch's media properties were the key entities involved in the propagation of the now discredited "climategate" meme, which was "coincidentally" released in print and on television on the heels of Copenhagen. In December 2009, we were informed by the Norwich Evening News that police were investigating the hacking and "working with a team from Scotland Yard". It is now 2011. Whatever happened to that investigation? Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[7]? Didn't think Murdoch's media were key, the Torygraph and Daily Mail also played a large part, but an interesting thought. Did notice the part of the Sunday Times in using a leading question to coin the Jones "suicide" meme and in promoting and misdescribing the informal reply to their journalist on FOIA. Wouldn't say it's inconceivable. . dave souza, talk 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks. A little support helps a lot.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to assist. It's a good point about EGGs, but there are many ways that problem can be resolved. . dave souza, talk 20:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Macellum of Pozzuoli

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Lovely job! Haploidavey (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Very good of you to say that, . dave souza, talk 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which Darwin?

Darwin Shopping Centre, Shrewsbury, silly! (Are we supposed to have articles about that stuff? It looks awfully advertising-like to me.)


OMG, yes, we clearly are. We have a WikiProject Shopping Centers. Please kill me. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC).

Would madam like the superdeluxe executive style killing, or the bargain killpack for the less fortunate? Darwin Shopping Centre is clearly in his home town, but looks rather unevolved judging by the pic of Wooly's shopfront – presumably some changes since then. And today's ambitions appear to extend to linked shopping malls, what more can civilisation offer? :-/ dave souza, talk 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe shopping centres are an evolutionary dead end, anyway, going by the former name of WikiProject Shopping Centers: WikiProject Dead Malls. WTF? Not kidding, click here and see: Dead Malls. Please tell a poor non-native speaker, is that a.. concept? Or just what you call the dodo of malls? [Is sorely tempted to create the sock User:Dodobish. ] Bishonen | talk 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC).
Sounds rather like this epistle, wee kirk of the prairie and all that sort of thing. Rather a ghastly term malls, not of course to be confused with The Mall, but they do seem to be creeping in here. Not sure what native applies. User:Dodobish has a most impressive portrait, but haven't you got enough on your hands (or feet) with Darwinfish and evil twin Darwinbish?? dave souza, talk 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't so much mean my sock. I've got user:Bishzilla, and she's enough of a handful for any.. keeper. It's Darwinbish that wants a sock of her own. What, will the line stretch out to the crack of doom? Yeah, that seems only too likely. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC).

The plot thickens

This is so convoluted and fascinating I'm being a rumor-monger. Read the bottom line of this extraordinary report/wild conjecture. Yopienso (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these rumour-mongers are really getting into top gear. Still just speculation..... dave souza, talk 16:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
And is soliciting money for an ad campaign to have Fox News investigated. Personally, I'm cool with that -- in a way. I suppose it's only fair that a news oranisation that behaved as sharks in a feeding frenzy deserves nothing less. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim, fully agree. Of course all news organisations should behave properly, and our own dear Mr Cameron is so concerned that he's decided that the investigation will look at the BBC as well as other broadcasters! Murdoch's biggest rival in UK TV, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence. . . dave souza, talk 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, knew I'd seen it somewhere: David Cameron widens inquiry on media regulation to include the BBC | Politics | The Guardian – he said "there was a danger of BBC News becoming rather dominant". . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's impossible for a thinking person not to connect some dots. Restraint will be necessary to keep WP free of the rumor-mongering we editors can't help but entertain. With what info we presently have, it seems the UEA/CRU was double-whammied, first by Murdoch's hacking and then by Scotland Yard's non-investigation. The CRU, which seems to have been quite clueless about everything except climate science, presumably should be lauded for hiring a PR professional. That he may have actually been working against them, or at least working for someone else who was, is indeed a twist Ludlum might invent. OK, Yopienso, back to just the facts, Ma'am. Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The Current TV interview between Olbermann and Romm is a reliable source,[8] and I've got it queued up and ready to add to the CRU article. Take a look at this from NBC News:

According to a forensic report that a computer security firm prepared for Floorgraphics as part of its civil case against News America, the security breach was traced to the IP address of a News America computer. The hacker gained unauthorized access on 13 different occasions between Oct. 6, 2003 and Jan. 13, 2004, viewing floor ads that Floorgraphics had installed in retail customers’ stores as well as “images, instructions and schedules for ads it was preparing to install in the coming months,” according to the report.[9]

Then this from our article on News_America_Marketing#Legal_cases:

Between 2009 and 2011, the News Corporation paid out about $655 million to settle charges of corporate espionage and anticompetitive behavior by News America. In 2009, a federal case in New Jersey brought by a company called Floorgraphics went to trial, accusing News America of hacking into Floorgraphics’s password-protected computers. Much of the lawsuit was based on the testimony of Robert Emmel, a former News America executive who had become a whistle-blower. After a few days of testimony, the News Corporation settled with Floorgraphics for $29.5 million; several days after that, it bought Floorgraphics.

Interesting article. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)