User talk:Dave souza/Archive 7

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

Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8


The Origin of species

I've made some changes you might want to check out. In any event, I wanted to ask if my references, which are not like yours, are less preferred? Let me know if I can rework them somehow. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 05:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying to keep up with all the edits and basically what you're doing looks good. One or two points I'll try minor adjustments, feel free to change or discuss them if you disagree. The reference system I'm trying to implement is one pushed by others for the Charles Darwin article, and Template:Harvard reference shows it pretty well. It's excellent for books where you want a lot of inline links with page numbers, and the way the DarwinOnline website works, you can make the page number an external link which takes you to that page in the book. Which in my opinion is pretty good. The inline link jumps to the citation, which in turn links down to the book in the reference list. It can be an advantage having all the references in this list, rather than scattered through the text as with the older system. However for one page websites it can be done either way, and the older system means that the inline link takes you straight to the external link rather than having another jump to the reference list. Anyway, Wikipedia:Harvard referencing seems to be preferred by academics, and with the recent introduction of this linking system, I can see it becoming a common system here, though Wikipedia:Citing sources makes this all optional. I'll probably try to bring this article into conformity with the Harvard system, but as long as the references are there, that can be sorted out in the future. Thanks for all your work, ..dave souza, talk 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On Intelligent Design

I would back you on your suggestions. It is important that church group teachings/statements on ID be given due weight, the best word in the whole affair. (CptKirk)


Howdy Dave, hope things are well. I suggest you use those nifty admin tools of yours and semi-protect Charles Darwin — we've had a seriously large amount of vandalism in the last two days. (On my quick count, we've had 13 seperate ip vandals in 2 days) Mikker (...) 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I hadn't read WP:SPP in a while and forgot about: "Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only reasonable option left to deal with vandalism on a page or to stop a banned or blocked user from editing it." Though I highly doubt we'll get useful edits from ips, you're right. Cheers, Mikker (...) 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll signed your name

Dave, Filll may have inadvertantly signed your name. While it is most likely a copy and paste accident, it might give the impression that you and filll are the same person.

filll signs as Dave Suza

StudyAndBeWise 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I can guess how that happened, will clarify things. .. dave souza, talk 09:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

British Isles & Pytheas

Hi Dave. A question. I saw that you reinserted the references to Snyder and O Corrain on the British Isles Page. I've looked at those references and I can't find the text referred to in the edit. Both books can be searched online at and the only Snyder reference I can find to Pytheas is actually just to another book. The O Corrain reference says that Pytheas called the islands "the Pretanic Islands" but gives no Greek text and no reference to a source. Since Pytheas' text didn't survive, it's a bit strange to give a quote from the text, no? It doesn't exist. He may be referring to something that Strabo or Pliny said Pytheas said, in which case we need to source it as being Pliny or Strabo and not present it as a direct quote from Pytheas. If you have the texts to hand, please disabuse me, but the online versions don't support the edit as it now stands. Can you tell me which page the Greek text is on in Snyder? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hughsheehy (talkcontribs) 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Dave, specifically, the Greek text now in the edit is from page 12 of Snyder. Pytheas is not mentioned as the source. Hughsheehy 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point that any reference to Pytheas must relate to fragments of the writing from later texts, just as the Massaliote Periplus is known from an even later writer. While O Corrain doesn't make that explicit, I'd still think him a pretty good source for the term being used in that way at least from the time of the earliest surviving fragment. The Snyder book was from the library and that's certainly where the Greek text came from – I'll have to check that out and read the context of the relevant pages. The Amazon search does show the words "Again, this is a geographic rather than a cultural or political designation, for at Bpettavtai, `the Brittanic Isles,' included Ireland." Snyder was the source I used for variations on the term subsequently replacing Albion as the name for Britain itself: I'll try to get it out of the library and clarify these points as far as the book goes. .. dave souza, talk 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Further comment on the BI page. Hughsheehy 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dave. I'm not sure that it was "bad" ambiguity in the Modern Usage section. One of the recent additions to the page was from an NI Unionist (or so says his user page) adding that NI Nationalists object to the term too. This makes the objection an "Ireland" thing, not just a "Republic of Ireland" thing, and the objection to the word "British", not necessarily to the UK. We've been here before, with the objection not necessarily being political but often being more about identity/parity of respect. I think it was Daniel O'Connell who said that the Irish would be perfectly happy with the UK if it would be really a "United" Kingdom and not one where being Irish was second best. Your changes make it political again. Not sure it's a good move. Hughsheehy 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The ambiguity is still there in the opening statement that it's "considered irritating or offensive by some, primarily in Ireland", which includes NI nationalists. Usage for the UK clearly and appropriately includes NI, their objection is that they want NI to be in the RoI. Arguably there's a separate objection to British being associated with GB rather than the UK, but for those outsiders who aren't necessarily familiar with the UK including NI it was in my opinion a worthwhile clarification. ..dave souza, talk 11:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Park Guell is nice, but the lizard at the gate got vandalised recently by some loon with a hammer. Hughsheehy 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hugh. The Park Güell page mentions that, and has Image:Parc Güell Dragon Restored.jpg showing what seems from the photo to be a pretty good job of restoration. The dragon's looking much better than when I saw it a long time ago, as it was largely covered in moss type growth then. Must amend the article to mention the structural significance of the leaning columns such as at Image:Parc Guell 10.jpg – so much to do! .. dave souza, talk 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Dave, I was a bit startled by the teddy comment, because it seemed like a non-sequitor, and perhaps was meant to make the point that I was talking rubbish. I found the link that you and Filll mentioned, so now I just wanted to ask if it was just a convenient place to talk about the teddy, and so really was an unrelated comment, or was an attempt to change subject, or something else I haven't considered.Trishm 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was just a trivial rather off-topic little story of what had just happened: the Steve Project's on my watchlist, and I checked out the anon edit to see if it was vandalism – then left it alone when I wasn't sure, but noticed that the petition calls ID creationist pseudoscience. So that appeared to me to relate to the discussion on improving citations, though the three cites already in place cover that adequately. Pity they don't call it junk science, though Pennock's a good source for that in my opinion. Filll's quite right to delete that "teddy" link, apologies for my rather irrelevant remark mentioning it in the wrong place. No ulterior intention. ... dave souza, talk 07:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
No apology needed, I'm just aware that I haven't got a good handle on the sensitivities around here yet. Trishm 09:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on evolution/creation controversy

Dave, I tried to address some concerns I had recently. These concerns, and a pointer to the diff in which I address only some of them, can be found at the discussion here: [1] StudyAndBeWise 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for letting me know, your development of the article is much appreciated and I'll try to clarify things in a way that meets your concerns. .. dave souza, talk 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Background info on Creationism

Dave, thanks for this lengthy note. There is so much in this, that I'm going to have to study it. I think it provides material for my upcoming "compendious table of Creationist hogwash" (er, cough, spectrum of belief). --Uncle Ed 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it does seem to cause some confusion as they're useful terms for the "types" but Scott probably made some of them up, and they're not as cut and dried as they seem at first glance. .. dave souza, talk 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Level of Support for Evolution

Dave, please take a look here. This is not getting much attention, and I'd like some others to help out. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 08:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look through TalkOrigins Archive and the "is a frequently disputed topic" statement seems hard to find a citation for. I've therefore suggested that we Reconsider the first sentence – see what you think. ...dave souza, talk 10:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Given to Dave souza in recognition of your work in keeping wikipedia vandal free JWJW Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 11:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Social Darwinism

I asked about the move on article's talk page some time ago and there were no objections. Usually such words are not capitalized, see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). But perhaps I am mistaken, I will not oppose a move back.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shurely so...

Irony from the start, it seems. British or maybe Aussie irony, I suspect, judging from the edit summary here [2].Trishm 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds likely. Revenge for Neighbours? Huh! Neighbours was revenge for "Are You Being Served".Trishm 11:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Monkey song

What is the monkey song?--Filll 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I promise I won't upload anymore images I have found on the internet. The next articles I wanted to write were about medi-evil individuals who there are no pictures of anyway. The photos I wanted to upload, were of White Lions for the White Lion article. I understand the rules and laws now. 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, any progress on sending confirmation of previous permissions on to the m:OTRS system? If there's a difficulty in getting clear permission for images you've uploaded, could you list them for deletion, and remove links to them from pages they're been used on – once we can show the problems have been sorted, I think you'll have a pretty good case. .. dave souza, talk 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the ClanGordonMap.jpg Image, seems to have been deleted now. How about if I re-contact and get proof for use of the MunroCastleFoulis2.jpg Image by means of the GNU FDL licence ? 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pragma: no-cache Cache-Control: no-cache


Wow, glad you fixed this because the original text was twisting my brain ;) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it sounds plausible so just hope it's right. Wonder if they're European or African coconuts? ... ;) ....dave souza, talk 19:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested at this AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution--Filll 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity versus civic nations

Your edit summary: "it's both, really, just as with Scottish people" - Agreed!

We face the same problem with a lot of these bloody "people" articles (eg French people). I absolutely hate all of them - appallingly written and a goldmine for white-supremacists. No modern state in Europe (with the notable exception of Iceland) can make even a remotely valid claim to be composed of one ethnic group. The fact that Britishness is a relatively recent invention makes that proposition even harder (impossible) to swallow.

Please contribute you thoughts at the relevant Talk item I started. --Mais oui! 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Was just thinking of doing so, will do.. dave souza, talk 09:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain 16th/17th cent

Just left you a message at Template_talk:Etymology_of_British_Isles. --sony-youthtalk 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've popped a minor clarification on that page. The importance of words! .. dave souza, talk 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Eh, can't hurt, can it? Adam Cuerden talk 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Will sleep on it. .. dave souza, talk 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, sorry, been a bit ill, so turning it back on ye... =) Adam Cuerden talk 04:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Social Darwinism

I appreciate the improvements you're making to this article. ... Kenosis 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this was a bit of tidying up and it's hard to find reliable sources, will comment on the article talk page. .. dave souza, talk 15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My Blog

The Baraminology reports are here and here. I used the research - though in a more encyclopedic tone and stripping the OR - to revise the Baraminology article. Next, I think I'll work on a few things germaine to created kinds (or just poke fun of their so-called research. Either way.) It's actually a shared blog, run by a cartoonist friend, and several other Dutch cartoonists. As for the flood geology site - seems perfectly sane, reliable, and accurate. Go for it! Adam Cuerden talk 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just updated part I, by the way. Damn parody sites being entirely accurate to the claims, but being slightly more mockable. Ah, well. Luckily the real creationists are just as stupid. Adam Cuerden talk 20:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
...Jesus. Riding a dinosaur. Used unironicly. My mind is broken. Adam Cuerden talk 06:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem of getting to the Library

This is probably pretty obvious, but just in case you haven't thought of this, here is what I do. I log onto my local library system's website, and order books. They are delivered to my neighborhood library, and I pick them up once a week. This works for many (but not all) books I want. Of course, for this to work for you, you'd need to have such a library system in your locality. Hope you do. StudyAndBeWise 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See you later

I am on strike. StudyAndBeWise 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am out. You do good work. (High quality content)...but this whole thing with Adam, who is clearly trying to take the creation/evolution debate to the creation-evolution controversy article is too much for me. The quality of his additions is poor, but since he is in a clique, they stay. How this can be good for wikipedia is beyond me....chasing away somebody like me who was taking the time to find high-quality reliable sources, chasing away somebody who was taking the time to summarize and integrate them into an article, etc. And meanwhile, Adam is a sysop now. Good lord.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:51, 3 March 2007
And you are also a sockpuppet of a previously banned user Vacuous Poet. Just in case you think I'm throwing up a false accusation or violating WP:CIVIL or any other tenet of Wikipedia, you can read this diff [[3]]. In other words, you have willfully violated an indefinite ban. I would recommend other users not waste to many tears on you. Orangemarlin 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, noticed this diff when the above was added here. I judge people on their edits, not on their name or claimed credentials. ... dave souza, talk 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I suspected this individual because of some of his rantings, but I ignored it, because he "seemed" to be providing some edits, though his contributions to the discussion page were a little bit uncivil at times. But once I saw the anti-Adam commentary, I went right to the page, and figured it out. Adam is a stand-up guy, and I know that getting into the Wikipedia admin group takes a lot of work. You know, I'd like to see you there. I'll never be invited because I tend to be a bit tough on these guys, and it's hard for me to be fair. Probably the black and white of being a Navy Officer and a Physician. I suffer fools poorly. Orangemarlin 18:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, didn't you notice my wee pepper which I added the other day? I've been admin for a long time, but have taken wise counsel and acted as a sort of reserve rather than getting massively involved – as pointed out to Adam, it's essentially janitorial work. No big deal. Anyway, our departed friend appeared to be cooperating well on some articles, and the argument at that discussion page was rather over my head so my aim was to keep amicable working relations. Vacuous Poet was a complete nuisance, StudyAndBeWise appeared to be a useful contributor but evidently reverted. Ho hum. As for the black and white, fair enough. In my former career I had to act as a quasi-arbiter, and found that being polite to fools is the best way to get them where you want them... :) .. dave souza, talk 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Wee pepper? Not sure I saw that. I didn't know you were admin!!!!! For some reason, I remember reading a back and forth about you a long time ago about your wanting to be one. Oh well, not sure it matters. I would make a terrible administrator, but then I looked at how many reverts, edits, warnings, and the such that I've done over the past month, maybe I should get paid to do it. You guys get paid don't you?????  :) Orangemarlin 03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....I must have missed your RFA, sorry I didn't vote for you. Of course you didn't vote in mine either :) Guettarda 03:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

<blush> Sorry about that, wasn't paying much attention to such things at the time, and still don't. My aim then was to add content, and though prodded into RfA still try to focus on that, though have also been resolving disputes in my own way. Lately I've been goofing off a bit by doing more anti-vandalism, which is why it no longer seemed too embarrassing to add the admin tag and sign up to Category:Rouge admins. So that's me outed! ...dave souza, talk 10:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Dave, as you've probably noticed I've "upgraded" the Briton article over the last fortnight or so. I think its an article that could be improved even more. I'd like to aim for getting it peer reviewed, do you think it has potential to be a featured article?

I'd like you imput and support on this. What do you think? --sony-youthtalk 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks: have responded on your talk page. .. dave souza, talk 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. --sony-youthtalk 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Haha! :) Gwen Gale 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SCOWNB Participants merger with WP:SCO

As I hope you may have seen I am attempting to tidy up WP:SCOWNB by removing old notices and the duplication that has emerged since the creation of WP:SCO. One of the latter issues is that there are lists of active Wikipedians on both locations which overlap to a significant degree. As WP:SCOWNB is ideally a place for announcements I am in process of merging the lists at WP:SCO and intend to remove the one at WP:SCOWNB when this is complete. However there are a fair number of Users not on both lists. If you do not wish to have you current WP:SCOWNB entry re-appear at WP:SCO please either let me know or edit the latter as appropriate. Thanks for your patience, and continuing support of matters relating to WikiProject Scotland. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok, happy to continue to be listed and gather this will happen without me doing anything, I hope! ... dave souza, talk 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello Dave, hope you're doing ok. I was aimlessly browsing wikispace, and I ran across Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests. I had a peek at the list to see if there were any names I recognised, and there was User:Canaen expressing a vague interest. Well, admin coaching is backlogged from here to the 12th of Never, so I wondered if you'd be interested in giving him a rundown on the glamorous, jet-setting life of an administrator. I sure do hope so because I told him to ask you! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Makes me feel a bit of a fraud, not in the Essjay credentials manner as my bio is accurate (I think), but because I got through RfA in gentler less trying times, and was advised to act as a sort of back-up rather than going daft with janitorial duties. I've a couple of projects struggling along so can't put a huge amount of time in, but am willing to try to get to grips with the coaching course at the same time as Canaen learns, if that suits. ..dave souza, talk 15:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy edits

Thanks Dave souza for pulling that section on academic criticism together. That was very well written, and gives some important balance to the article. Risker 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been severely pruned already, but hopefully the main points have survived! .. Ta, .. dave souza, talk 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lily Map

Dave, I think you put the ref to the Lily map on the BI page. Please have a look at my comments on the talk page there. I believe the reference is incorrect and the map title refers to the island of Britain and not to anything like "British Isles". Hughsheehy 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the map showed up in the list provided when I followed the link given for Mercator, that's me showing my ignorance of Latin! It would be good if you could have a look at the Münster map in translation as well: he seems to be citing Ptolemy as a source, but not using the same terminology in his title. By the way, the claim that Mercator had Dee as a source seems very dubious .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


The Welsh call the Picts "Britons", but curiously they use an archaic form of the word; this is more curious because the Irish call them Cruithne, likewise an archaic form of the word "Britons". Both languages replace their words for Britain by the Dark Ages. I've heard it suggested that they got this distinction because they were the "Free Britons", and that the Welsh to the south ceased to think of themselves really as Britons, but as Romans or Romano-Britons. What's even funnier is that when one Welshman translated the Vita Griffini Fillii Conani ("Life of Gruffudd ap Cynan") into Welsh, he translated Scotia as "Prydein", possibly meaning Prydyn (Pictland). This is interesting because it was the 12TH CENTURY! I don't have many of my early medieval books with me, but Angus would likely have all the references you need if you want to talk about the Priteni in the Picts article ... though it seems to be covered in that article's second paragraph. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Romans tended to switch Ps to Bs, which is how Pritannia became Britannia. You are right about the old British identity; that's what the men of the North are, the Old British, as Tacitus called them, "the last men on earth, the last of the free". Ironically, the Picts we know, those of the Pictish Kingdom (as the predecessors of the "Scots") are probably more descended from the Verturiones than the Caledones; and there is some evidences that the Caledones (south of the Mounth) were actually more British than "Pictish", whatever that means of course. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas

The critique article you've used as reference is by someone who does not believe in Homeopathy, nevermind the general 'neutral' tone and titles. The author, Anthony Campbell, in his book concludes that Homeopathy is not proven and suggests the effects are due to placebo Book summary. This critique is against Classical Homeopathy, not Vithoulkas himself, who is simply expressing Hahnemann's Homeopathic point of view for health and disease, nowdays accepted by most Homeopaths (the critique is dated 1978). Besides there was a newer edition of Vithoulkas' Science of Homeopathy printed on 1980, with very possitive comments by the Homeopathic community At the time of print of the very first edition of Science of Homeopathy, at the Royal Hospital, only Homeopathic Polypharmacy (combinations of homeopathic remedies) were being used, and that only for minor health issues. Campbell and the establishment felt threatened, and hence this negative critique. Science of Homeopathy is a standard book used in almost all homeopathic schools around the world - the fact that it has been translated in 20 languages is a proof of its acceptance. And please do something about Adam Cuerden, he is clearly biased, dismissing all information about Vithoulkas as POV (please compare the edited versions) Homeopathic 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The critique article was added as a reference by the original author of the piece, and is hosted by a specialist homeopathic bookshop. It clearly gives an alternative viewpoint of the work of Vithoulkas, and as WP:NPOV requires, viewpoints should be shown: the credentials and position of the author indicate that he is well informed on the subject and his views are noteworthy. The idea of rejecting a viewpoint because it's from "someone who does not believe in Homeopathy" suggests that you see homeopathy as a faith rather than as medical science: in the field, it has to be considered in terms of science, which makes the requirements of WP:A important and as far as I can see they've not fully been met. Wikipedia Is Not here to provide an uncritical sales pitch, and unfortunately there's been a tendency to take wording from pieces promoting Vithoulkas and his school without stripping out the hyperbole or looking for independent sources giving a critical appraisal. From looking at the progress of the article, Adam has helped significantly with improving the neutrality of the phrasing. However the sourcing of this article still seems to be a problem. dave souza, talk 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely there have been negative reviews about the book, but for starters, those are one in a million. As far as i am concerned, i'm an MD and Homeopath, so it's not a matter of belief like you described it, for the past 15 years i've been using homeopathic remedies with excellent results (hence the support). What I was pointing out is that if there's to be used a critique about Vithoulkas work, it should be by someone familiar with the subject (Classical Homeopathy). What i've been describing about Campbell are facts, and although he'd been working at the Royal Hospital, he wrote a book about Homeopathy concluding to that Homeopathy is placebo and not proven (ie nevermind his credentials)! He would take it against anyone supporting Classical Homeopathy. Nevertheless, Campbell's old critique does not reflect the current views of the Homeopathic community regarding Health and Disease. I understand that you try to be as neutral as possible, but since you're not informed on the subject, you can not appreciate correctly the value of references. My opinion is that it should be handled by a WP editor familiar with the subject of Homeopathy. Homeopathic 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
And it's not about excluding the reference. Whereas all positive comments about Vithoulkas have been regarded as POV, the negative comments from the specific reference have been included "as is", misleading the readers about the current status and recognition of both Homeopathy and Vithoulkas.Homeopathic 07:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
While it's appreciated that you're keen to promote these techniques, for this to stand as an encyclopaedic article rather than looking like a cut and past of a sales pitch it has to be done in an objective way, showing that criticism exits, and if anything the addition of a summary of the critical review which was already linked in the references increases the credibility of this page rather than damaging it. More objective citations from third parties outside the homeopathic community would be welcome, but the links I've looked at seem to be very much part of what looks rather like a cult. In the meantime, the article really needs links to subjects such as Homeopathy. By the way, there's a bit of discussion going on about credentials at the moment, see WP:IAC and this proposal. .. dave souza, talk 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added 3 more reviews from the same bookshop and journal you used 1 2 3, concerning three of his other books, and changed the text to reflect their positive view. These are not the only ones from respectable sources. I believe it's only fair to include these, and ofcourse to add the date of the critical review you've added (1978) too, because like i explained, it does not reflect the current views of the Homeopathic community, and it is misleading. I could not edit it myself, i suppose you've somehow protected it.
Moreover, i've uploaded again his photo (previously deleted by Redvers, and now again by Adam Cuerden).It is allowed to use it according to their copyright policy, as can be seen here and here).Homeopathic 06:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden still continues to be biased and categorizing references,external links,reviews and modifying the main text as he pleases. Homeopathic 12:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sending you the reference about the awarding of George Vithoulkas with the Gold Medal of Hungarian Democracy (that was doubted by Cuerden) (Please do something with this prejudiced man) Althea Khun

Thanks, but as I don't read Hungarian it's of little help. The significance of such awards is difficult to assess, and we need an independent third party opinion to be able to report how much importance can be placed on such awards. By the way, please sign your posts, and I'd recommend getting a user account. ... dave souza, talk 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems that were caught in the internal fights of homeopaths. Vithoulkas is well known for fighting against irresponsibility within the homeopathic profession. See his video clips in google. Some people were hurt naturally. By changing his CV it seems that you have sided with the wrong guys. Another negative point for wikipedia? Be aware. An objective Homeopath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 (talkcontribs) 13:08, 19 March

Dave, help us out here, PLEASE. Adam has edited again Vithoulkas' WP page, filling it with FALSE information, supposedly referencing an interview of Prof Vithoulkas. He filled the WP page with what HE understood. I mean, come on, Adam has gone way over the line. Please do something, he is BIASED 100%. I do not understand how you accept this kind of behaviour by WP editors. He should be restrained from editing not Vithoulkas page, but any Homeopathy-related page. Homeopathic 14:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dave, i'm just letting you know Adam inserts FALSE information on Vithoulkas' WP page, obviously intentionally. Just a friendly note, WP and Adam himself can be sued for this. Hope you resolve the situation.Homeopathic 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Homeopathic#Legal threats. .. dave souza, talk 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Ach, you're right. Getting a little too free with the "goddamnit"s and variations of late. Just getting a bit frustrated with everything. Ah, well. I've put in a request to have my deletion checked. Maybe that'll put an end to it. Adam Cuerden talk 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I was just objecting to the loose language used by Homeopathic on your talk page, didn't notice your frustration... dave souza, talk 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I made a couple "Goddammit" edit summaries on the Vithoulkas deletion page when Lee was repeatedly attakcing me over the copyvio deletion. Never mind, then. Adam Cuerden talk 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe you never answered my messages regarding the biased attitude of Adam, or about the other references from the same bookstore and journal, but took the time to leave a message for nothing (never cursed or anything)...Homeopathic 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want speedy responses to complex enquires, I'd suggest that you should avoid hinting at legal threats. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why dont you take a look at the bottom of the GV's AfD page for some enlightening information on how much trouble Adam has caused for nothing, and how biased he is. I think that my reaction was 100% justified. Homeopathic 20:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

Well, you are allowed to use them, by my understanding, but should do so with care. I've tried to.

Mind ye, I'm amused how strongly Vithoulkas' minions protect his article until a negative comment gets added, then insist it disappear. Adam Cuerden talk 20:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Guettarda 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks For The Welcome

Thank you for the welcome on my IP address, but i already had an account

I would like to know where i had certain edits reverted. As i remember, the last thing i edited on my IP address was the Manic Street Preachers Discography

Can you please alert me to where these inappropriate edits have been made

Much appreciated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duck6 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Ta, afraid without your IP address I can't remember doing this, and perhaps it was an error or your IP address may be shared in some way. If you can find an article you've edited when logged out and click on the history tab. Then find your number in the list and click on it – that will bring up a list of your contributions. Let me know if you've difficulty with this, all the best, dave souza, talk 14:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief

Hi Dave - glad you liked the reg article. Heh - the british isles thing sounds like a classic. I'm seeing dad tomorrow, so I'll pass on your regards. all the best Tomandlu 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

Hello. Please cast a glance at my effort:

I know that you take an interest in such things :) Ta. --Mais oui! 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mais. I'm a bit busy just now, but have pushed in a mention of the rather lawless nature of the Border country – it previously seemed to suggest a nice neat modern border. Lots of cites needed, and the history needs clarified – good luck with all that, there are others much more expert than myself, .. dave souza, talk 11:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rearranged the ID lead proposition

Hello Dave,

I took your proposed lead (which I thought was a very strong step in the right direction, by the way) for the ID article and reworded it a bit, and I'd like to have your input. You'll probably think my changes are too drastic, but I hope there's a possible middle ground.

ID lead

Thanks --Kgroover 13:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, basically I think it reads well, there are changes in nuances so I'll be interested to see the reactions of others. One significant point is that inverted commas are needed enclosing the latter part of the first sentence "certain features.... natural selection." as that's a direct quote. Otherwise, will think it over. Ta again, must dash out into the sunshine now for stroll. .. dave souza, talk 13:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

British Isles again

Knew you'd find one, Harry Though looking at your reference on British Isles, it doesn't answer the Cn needed quest for the indicated sentence. So, not good, really! Harry—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:30, 5 April 2007

So take it up on the article talk page. ... dave souza, talk 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch

and good work on Rfc placement in second category[4]. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC

Ta, KC. Paranoia pays off! .. dave souza, talk 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

United States National Academy of Sciences

I've tried to clean up this POV editing. I don't want to be tagged with WP:3RR. Orangemarlin 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination

On April 11 you expressed an interest in this proposal. The WikiProject has gone live. Your participation is welcome. DurovaCharge! 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure how much I can do. Will aim to assist, .. dave souza, talk 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats about Charles Darwin

I know it was a very large time coming. If I knew how to make a banstar -- I would give you one. Good work and thanks for making wiki even better! MrMacMan Talk 04:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, greatly appreciated. .. dave souza, talk 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After making a slight correction to a link in this very nice article, I looked at the history and saw you (and others) battling away against silliness. In the last fifty edits all I could see was vandalism being reverted. So thanks for this too. It must be tempting to rollback everything! Thincat 15:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've actually been well pleased at the surprisingly high proportion of helpful edits like yours, much appreciated. We have tools for whacking away vandals, and some have compared it to a game of Whac-A-Mole so it's not too much like hard work! .. dave souza, talk 15:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Vranak's edit

I'm curious whether we can pin down exactly whether Chas. thought of one common ancestor, several, or left the question open. Samsara (talk  contribs) 11:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a few forms or even one in the last para of the Origin, and fortunately Wyhe cites that so we don't need another citation :) .. ta for the heads up, .. dave souza, talk 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007


Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Charles Darwin. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TimVickers 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. In responding to a personal attack with a relatively impersonal WP:SPADE this was probably unhelpful, though my feeling is that trolling is an action rather than an intent. Say no more, .. dave souza, talk 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


You've autoblocked me because my IP was used by User:Cheeselor1!!! This is the second time I've been auto blocked like this! Please check my contribs and my user page to prove I'm legit! --Pupster21 Talk To Me 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC) PS Block account creation for my IP so this won't happen again!


Choco chip cookie.png

--Pupster21 Talk To Me 17:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You've done well.

I'll keep the grass in mind. Not what we'd call Guenther in German, but that's another story. ;) Samsara (talk  contribs) 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Darwin edit warning

Hi Dave - thanks for the vandalism warning (my first!). My popups reversion was a mis-clicked attempt at the reversion you had made immediately before. And as soon as I clicked it I realized I had target the wrong version, but all my hitting escape and back didn't stop popups. Well cheers, Debivort 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OOps, apologies and warning removed on your page!. .. dave souza, talk 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Looks like you're a bit busy keeping the article about an atheist-pinko-commie-liberal-fascist-godkiller free from vandalism.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hours of fun, as you've probably noticed from the comments above. More common as muck vandals than religious nutters, though a few of them and one who took great offence when I added a troll sign after one of his numerous rants on the talk page. The idea of leaving it unprotected to display Wikipedia's fine tradition of open editing doesn't always look so well, as here or here, for example. Anyway, lots of opportunities for whac-A-Mole. ... dave souza, talk 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, whac-A-Mole, one of me favourite games. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodness, you had the gall to use British spelling? How dreadful. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Egads! Onywey, it's efter midnight an ahm aff furra kip. G'night, .. dave souza, talk 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
G'night and good work! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


So is this the next project? Tempted to join, but I don't think I'll have time the next few months. Samsara (talk  contribs) 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's really just continued tidying of loose ends from the same project! So much to do, so little time. Anyway will press on as long as it's just for fun  :) – dave souza, talk 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


I bring to your attention User talk:, where you used Template:uw-vandalism4 to threaten a block. Please see the discussion there and take action as appropriate. Sdsds 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a longer block. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's one step longer than the last block anon got, and this leniency has been noted in a tactful message to said anon suggesting taking up the offer by Sdsds. Ah hae ma doots, but maybe such kindness will pay off this time. .. dave souza, talk 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave

I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of each other on the Evolution page over the next few weeks, good to see a fellow Scot toiling at my side. Slàinte! TimVickers 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not too much, as my interest is mainly in the historical side, and my knowledge of biology is minimal. Regarding the Scottish connection, hopefully you'll be seeing a bit of Adam Cuerden and Samsara who both appear to hail from Edinburgh. Unfortunately I'm up to my oxters in other articles, so can't promise much :) .. dave souza, talk 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I am adding content now, but am getting a lot of what seems to be hostile co-editing. Anyway, do you know Hrafn42. Seems to be a biologist confused about wikipedia policy, specifically, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyway, thanks again. ImprobabilityDrive 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't know Hrafn42 and they're articles I've not been giving much attention, so have added a hello and comment on AGF – if he doesn't calm down and cooperate let me know and I'll try again. .. dave souza, talk 11:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation. Hrafn42 is attracting others to his cause. SheffieldSteel is also taking issue with my contributions, directing me to another article that I do not yet want to work on. This is discouraging. I am citing a newspaper article and an NPR program, and the tone and text of the section lines up with these outside sources. ImprobabilityDrive 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Will comment on your talk page. .. dave souza, talk 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


My assumption of good faith is necessarily bounded by the objective facts (facts trump assumptions, every time). The facts are that the editor ImprobabilityDrive‎ has made mention of claims and assertions from only one side of a controversy. Additionally (although more subjectively), this editor gives every appearance of repeatedly stretching to attempt to portray this favoured side's assertions in the most positive light possible, whilst nit-picking every element that would cast legitimate and severe doubt on their credibility and relegating this contrary information to the very bottom of the article (where it will have the least impact). Such actions stretch the assumption of good faith to the breaking point. In any case, I have all but given up on trying to counter this POV bias for the mean time (as it is yielding very little improvement for a lot of effort). Hrafn42 11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thanks for coming back to me on this, as you'll appreciate the "objective facts" we need for articles must be cited from reliable attributable sources, using secondary sources to avoid any unintentional original research when synthesising information from primary sources."

The "objective facts" that ImprobabilityDrive‎ is citing are assertions directly from one side (and only one side) of the controversy, plus a single newspaper article that was written on the basis of a letter written by that side, which the other side had not had access to at the time, so could not at that time rebut. This is a gross violation of WP:Undue Weight. I don't intend to do anything about it for the moment, but see no reason to be happy about it (and as you've seen fit to lecture me, when I'm the one being run rough-shod over, I make no apologies for using bold, CAPS or whatever to express this displeasure -- if I had annoying flashing neon lights available right now, I would use them). Hrafn42 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair

I see you were a recent contributor to the Sternberg peer review controversy article. I have added a section to the talk page proposing that the article be moved to and renamed "Sternberg-Smithsonian Affair". If you would like to see the rationale, please visit Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Proposed_move:__Sternberg.2FSmithsonian_Affair, and leave your thoughts there. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ta for the heads-up .. dave souza, talk 09:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No prbolem. I just responded to your response on the Sternberg peer review controversy talk page . Unfortunately, I think I emulated too much the unfriendly tone of other contributors. I hope you don't take it wrong. It is me experimenting with my voice. It seems to me, though, that highly partisan sites like panda's thumb need to be taken with a grain of salt. ImprobabilityDrive
Quite right, though it's notable that it's given respect by the AAAS which suggests it can be used with care to get a detailed scientific viewpoint. It's noticeable that OM for one is very touchy, having repeatedly had unpleasant arguments with creationists he's met, whereas for me they're a rare curiosity. For US perspectives seen from this side of the pond, God or Gorilla* is an entertaining read..... dave souza, talk 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

LBU dispute

Could you take a look at Talk:Louisiana_Baptist_University#RFC:__Synthesis_and_relevance. There is a dispute (I don't like that word) on basic wikipedia rules regarding a paragraph, and I think we need some other eyes. The other contributor seems to be a bit frustrated with the use of my tags, which is somewhat understandable (if he added the content) but I think the tags are preferable to outright removal. I'd appreciate the opinion of a disinterested and even keeled contributor like yourself. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 03:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been largely resolved. There is some copy-editing that needs to be done, and a question of relevance remains, though. ImprobabilityDrive 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Good show. From a glance, the page seems very one-sided, perhaps with justification, and the third cite I looked at didn't support the statement, so have tactfully changed that and brought it to the talk page. Improvements welcome, .. dave souza, talk 08:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another sock-puppet intimation

User_talk:ImprobabilityDrive#Previous_account, see also [this].

Seems to be standard operating procedure (allege sockpuppetry during content disputes). ImprobabilityDrive 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All too common, I'm afraid, it's a testament to how much of a nuisance sock-puppets often are on sensitive pages. Have dropped a tactful hint. .. dave souza, talk 08:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledgement is the fodder of passion

Peacock tailfeathers xtrmcrop.png The Undeniable Mechanism Award
For your great wisdom in overseeing the efforts to defend what should need no defence, I award you, dave souza, this peacock eye.

Samsara (talk  contribs) 08:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks! Very nice and much appreciated. Not sure what the significance of an evolved fake eye is, but looks pretty! Thanks again, dave souza, talk 09:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was the idea. To find something that had relevance to evolution and could serve as a recognisable symbol on an award template. In the end, I liked that it also looks a bit like a kiwi fruit peeled around the middle with a sticker on the end. :D Samsara (talk  contribs) 09:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So the goal of evolution is the kiwi fruit? Have you been watching Maid Marian and her Merry Men which had a rant about them, as I recall? .. dave souza, talk 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know about that. It looks fun. How about this one, though? It's not even a GA. We should shake up those Kiwis into editing that article. Samsara (talk  contribs) 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Finds them heahr. Samsara (talk  contribs) 09:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You like Ike? Afraid I've a huge stack of to-do in my in-tray, have fun with the Kiwis, .. dave souza, talk 09:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
NP. Just trying to keep the momentum going. I've seen some articles with great potential go to sleep for months; equivalently, some contributors. Maybe it's time for me to nap. ^^ Samsara (talk  contribs) 10:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I didn't like doing it, but RBJ went over the line with what he had done. I filed a report here. I think his uncivil behavior is over the top usually, but this was a line I could not tolerate his crossing. I'm sorry that I had to do it. Orangemarlin 19:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was wondering about that myself but thought it appropriate to give him the chance to undo the edit and apologise. Obviously it wasn't clear to me just how sensitive an issue this is for you, and my tendency is to err on the side of caution, so reporting it is the right thing to do. .. dave souza, talk 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Cumbrae

This is a complete mess now, after my original article. I don't know where to begin. Very sad.

Do subjects need to respond to checkuser requests?

I would like to know if I am either allowed and/or expected to respond to this checkuser request on that page, or on its talk page. Thanks for your help and guidance. ImprobabilityDrive 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother if I were you, seeing that it's already been declined. Samsara (talk  contribs) 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations and Referencing

Dave, I noted your comment to Mumby so I am coyediting my reply and my concerns over his revert. "Mumby, thank you for your note. I did read the "talk page" first but did not add comments because I took a look at all the multiple errors in citations and referencing and wanted to quickly re-establish a "standard" MLA/Harvard style for an important research article.

A few notes for background. My background is as a Librarian for over 33 years, and, recently, as an author and editor, so I have an interest in the mundane and arcane world of cataloguing and referencing. As you may already determine, there are a number of suggested styles that are in place on Wikipedia. Many of these are based on the use of templates for editing and here is where the issue may actually be of discussion. The template guides have a number of variances that do not match the actual APA (American Psychologcal Association) style, which is one of the style guides used for referencing research. The APA guide was developed at a University level as a shorter, simpler guideline and intended for psychology, education, and other social sciences. University professors invariably assigned this guide to newcomers because it was considered easier to master and had the basic information required for a citation. However, the Wikipedia templates that were created by editors such as yourself or other editors used the APA style, or some slight variations of it.

The APA guide is not the standard, however, for academic or scholarly research. The MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibilographic style is one that is also accepted by Wikipedia. Another style guide that is in wide use is the "Chicago Style" used in many popular books. A footnoting and endnote citation style that is also employed is the so-called "Harvard Citation" which has been employed to effect in the the Wikipedia aircraft articles.

Your revert of the Battle of Britain references does not do justice to the changes enacted earlier. If you notice that you have a mix of style formats that is inconsistent with the usual citation and referencing style. Some examples include: "Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 86. ISBN 1-854-10801-8." whereas the Harvard Style prescribes: "Bungay 2000, p. 86." It would not take more than a cursory examination to see that what you have incorporated is not an elegant solution, regardless of the mistakes made in the citation guides, of which there were a number. Here is your listing of citations:

  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 86. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 260. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 259. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 249. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.

This what you reverted:

  • Bungay 2000, p. 86.
  • Bungay 2000, p. 260.
  • Bungay 2000, p. 259.
  • Bungay 2000, p. 249.

From the standpoint of clarity and ease of use which is the hallmark of librarianship, the usual footnote/endnote refers to a bibliographical reference. In Wikipedia, there is a consistent missuse of the term, "references" when actually referring to "bibliography" but nonetheless, this is not a true academic work and the inclusion of a "further reading" section also makes for confusion since this is also a "bibliography." Irregardless of the departure from styles, usually an author/editor cites a source and then completely identifies that source of information in the reference section. Repeating it ad nauseum is considered poor style; that's what you have done and inaccurately on top of it. There are some exception that some Wikipedia authors have incorporated, for example, if a refernce source is only quoted once, these editors tend to leave it in the "notes" section of the "references" and that is fine, however, in the case of the numerous reference to Bungay's work (a preponderance of one author's research is often questioanable in terms of giving a "balance" to the article, but that is besides the point.) After citing the many quotes from Bungay, there is no mention of him in the "Bibliography (again a term not used? in Wikipedia). This is the actual bibliographical record that was excised:

  • Bungay, Stephen. The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. London: Aurum Press Ltd., 2000. ISBN 1-854-10801-8. (Note the differences- you dropped the place of publication, shortcutted the abbreviation "Ltd." and placed the author name with the date of publication and then correctly used period stops for the "tracings" wherein you incorrectly used commas in your other bibliographic records. You have, in addition, used at least two dating conventions which is also inconsistent, e.g. "RAF website. Ministry of Defence (2006-03-20)" [why the brackets?] and "Access date: 3 March 2007.")

Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibilographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloguing that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloguing is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record form an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication. (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. The Harvard citation guide as explained above, is a clear connection to the MLA reference found in the bibliographic record.

The errors that I referred to above include an inconsistency in dating, e.g. "Deighton, Len (1996-02-01)" rather than "Deighton, Len (1996)" although in the MLA guide, this would appear as "Deighton, Len." with the date of publication not attached to the author but to the publication, as in "Deighton, Len. Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain. London: Pimlico, 1996. ISBN 0-712-67423-3." However, including the full bibliographical record in the notes and then repeating it in the bibliography, which is again incorporating errors, is considered poor editing. Here is your bibliographical entry: "Deighton, Len (1996), Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain, London: Pimlico, ISBN 0712674233." It should have read: "Deighton, Len. Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain. London: Pimlico, 1996. ISBN 0-71267-423-3." Note that periods, not commas, are now used in cataloguing and that the optional ISBN (International Standard Book Number), if provided (it merely is a reference to a directory to order the material), is written in full.

If you are an academic librarian, I would have issues with your choice of style, however, I assume that you are not a librarian and utilize the template guide (note it is a guide) provided to ease the use of referencing sources of information in Wikepedia. I prefer not to use the templates and instead rely on the "scratch" cataloguing that I have referred to earlier.

Mumby, do a quick check back through your revert and take a look at what has been changed. Instead of one notes and reference section where one interconnects with the other, you have created a "notes and references" section that stands alone and does not connect to the "bibliography (a term as I explained that Wikipedia does not use)" section. Besides, the editing that is now in place looks awkward and does not give the reader a semblance of "easy-at-hand" information. I would take this discussion into the "talk" page but it is a very complex set of concerns that I have and thought it best to express them to you first. IMHO" Bzuk 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, have responded on your page. .. dave souza, talk 13:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dave, thanks for your response. Copyedit follows: "Hmm, quite an interest you've got going here. It reminded me that on 27 April this year the BBC News featured live coverage of the first flight for a while of the Lancaster of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, together with Spitfires and a Hurricane. Anyway, thanks for the info about citation style, must admit that it's a bit over my head. There are articles where a simpler style is appropriate, but having been pressed into using a Harvard style on Charles Darwin found it pretty good, and would be interested if you've any comments on the way we've done it on that article. Don't know who's been deciding on guidance on which style to use, but if you could help with some advice there I'm sure it would be appreciated."

Yes, I was asked to consider using the Harvard Citation Style Guide in an earlier series of edits I made on the P-38 and B-17 and found that it is a "clean" and effective style. As to the edits by Mumby, I found them very confusing and in going back through his contributions in the Battle of Britain and other articles, found a baffling number of inconsistencies. I tend to try to establish a commonly accepted style and since the MLA Style Guide is the world's most commonly used style for academic and research article, I have utilized that style and with Wikipedia, I have incorporated the Harvard Citation Style which I find works well with Wikiepdia. As to who decides the referencing protocols, Wikipedia makes no real clear distinction other than these very general guidelines:

  • Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.
  • Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.

Well, as you can tell, I can be very verbose, so I might as well stop here, with the comment that the edit I made in the Battle of Britain was predicated on making the article more readable yet following standardized cataloguing protocols. IMHO, the new edit is a very convoluted and messy edit that does not do justice to a very authoritative and well-written article. Bzuk 15:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the current guidance is rather vague and doesn't seem to have caught up with the latest generation of citation/footnote tags, so it's understandable that well meaning editors get things into rather a muddle. Hopefully a way of improving things can be agreed. .. dave souza, talk 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Check your email

Just sent you one! Orangemarlin 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will sleep on it :) .. dave souza, talk 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Dave, THanks for your help. I need your advice on how to ask Arbustoo how to remove this. Infinite Improbability Drive 00:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Even more thanks for your help

Dave, thanks for your tips regarding Harvrad references and the Battle of Britain article. I'm sure we will collectively sort something out soon, it's hard to keep track of all the citation styles and figuring out which one is best for a particular article. Kind regards, Mumby 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, have tried out the templates and put a note on your talk page. .. dave souza, talk 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Agreed about the comments on the Queen Mary being elegant, though I also have a passing interest in the Isle of Man vessels, the 1950's Manxman and the old 1930 Lady of Mann look very elegant. I remember my grandfather taking me on the Queen Mary on what must have been one of her last cruising seasons. I found a site regarding Calmac vessels and it says that the present newer build MV Clansman has got the (IV) suffix after the name. Does this mean its the fourth vessel named Clansman under Macbrayne/Calman registry, the fourth under a British registry or the fourth in the world. The only Clansman prior to that that I remember is the bow loader converted from the hoist loader that used to operate from Ardrossan for many years and was replaced by the MV Isle of Arran. Douglasnicol 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the fairly recent book "The Kingdom of MacBrayne", its on the Calmac page as a reference. I have it, and just looked through it. It seems there have been five Clansman vessels used by MacBraynes, three by MacBraynes as an independent company, and two (including the new vessel) by Calmac. Douglasnicol 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References for Education in Scotland

Hi there,

I feel it would be more productive if you could make clear if (and how) the external links you converted to references were actually references, and what they refer to. Thanks!

Fourohfour 20:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who wrote a fair bit of the article using these links and Smout as references in the days before inline referencing was developed here, I feel if would be more productive if you were to check them out, and try looking for other references, rather than blindly adding tags. .. dave souza, talk 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the explanation I was looking for, thank you.
However, none of this was mentioned in the edit summary ("happier with 6?").
As there were already separate "Reference(s)" and "External links" sections (the two normally serving different purposes), and all but one link was placed in the latter, it was reasonable to assume that they were not meant to serve as references. Perhaps you can understand that my scepticism when they were moved with no real explanation. (I'm still not clear why they weren't in "references" in the first place, but I'm quite happy to assume that it was an oversight).
I do not "blindly" tag articles. I tagged a long, detailed article that had (apparently) *one* reference. On a more general note, I do sometimes try to find references for other people's work and include them. However, it's not my responsibility to back up every questionable fact and do all the legwork. I tag in good faith, and am nowhere near as nitpicky as strict adherence to WP's guidelines would demand. Fourohfour 16:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking back, I was a couple of months behind the shifting WP guideline when I added the information and references. However, before 9 August 2005 it was a common alternative in Wikipedia to have external references in a section labelled External links, though my error was in not putting this after the References.
Tags are there to irritate, and your summary "One reference for an article this size?!" suggested a very superficial look at the situation – a query on the talk page would have been less confrontational, and in my opinion more constructive, but I fully accept your good faith in adding the tag and making the comment. Everyone has their own way of contributing here, and my error has been in focussing on adding content rather than on absolute adherence to guidelines. . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Your explanation of the "External Links" vs. "References" position is fine. However, regarding your "supeficiality" comment, the original edit summary gave no real indication that there was anything more to the situation.
In the absence of any indicator to the contrary, this is a reasonable assumption. It's not practical for every contributor to have to know- or to find out- the edit history of every article they edit, because in 99% of cases this isn't important!
A more informative edit summary would have avoided the problem in the first place. Also, I gave you the opportunity to clarify if there was anything more to the situation ("not unless you can demonstrate that those external links were actually meant as references"), which you did. No hard feelings!- however, in light of the situation as originally presented to me, I still consider my behaviour perfectly reasonable.
As for tags being there to "irritate", I don't agree with that, unless it means that they might encourage referencing uncited facts. They also serve to notify readers; it's not WP's job to gloss over this and present something as a reliable fact if it isn't.
The alternative is to remove such information- and if the tag has been there for a long time with nothing happening, that's what should happen. Tags should only ever be a short-term measure, either way. However, it is my hope that in most cases, someone (preferably the original author) will reference it properly, and I prefer to give them the chance to do this first. Fourohfour 12:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, Dave! Should be a bit less prone to stress after a nice relaxing holiday (well, we'll see. Reinder wants me to be the "knowledgable about music" person in a group blog-commentary on Eurovision. Eep! Adam Cuerden talk 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Scotland / the title of the current Queen.

Dave, I take it you removed my comments on the controversy over the queen's decision to choose the title "Queen Elizabeth II" as a 'POV'. I feel I should point out that it is a fact that she is the first sovereign of this country (the United Kingdom) to bear the name Elizabeth. To retain consistency (and meaning) she should therefore simply be "Queen Elizabeth" (the first). Similarly it is a fact that there is controversy and discontentment, particularly in Scotland, over this. Should you ever find yourself in a Scots court you will see that the royal arms are "ER" not the more familiar "EIIR". Whilst you are correct to remove/edit articles that push a particular opinion, I don't feel my comments come into that category and should be reinstated. Arguably it's more correct to have these ideas expressed on the page for Queen Elizabeth herself, rather than Scotland. I'd appreciate your views on that. Cheers, Paul .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcoyne (talkcontribs) 13:19, 12 May 2007

Racism by country

Hello, a request for mediation has been filed given the deadlock at racism by country. You previously offered comment on it, but were not involved in any edit warring. As such, I'm inviting you to add yourself to the RFM if you feel that you're part of the dispute. You can do so here. If you feel you're not involved in the dispute, please disregard this message and thanks for your earlier opinion. WilyD 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of your last edit to ID

Hi, I just removed your last contributions to the ID talk page. While I pretty much share your position, they really violated WP’s etiquette and are an open invitation for a heated debate. I just posted my comments on User_talk:DavidPesta would ask you to do the same if you need to. Otherwise we’ll soon have one of these talk pages where 90% of the contribs are fights between varying POV’s. Malc82 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 22:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comments have already been restored, I would still ask you to remove them yourself.Malc82 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Tried to, but was beaten to it by an edit conflict so have tried to soothe things a bit. Ah, all those wicked naturalists – or is it naturists? .. :-/ ... dave souza, talk 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Dave, long time no speak, hope things are well with you. I'm kind of back from a long wikibreak (hopefully). Just a heads up, please check out this thread and maybe add the bot results page to your watchlist so we can keep the New Articles page manually updated. Looks like there will be a daily set of results to check.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. There are some false positves for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output. I've added notification of this to all WP:SCO participants.

Cheers, and see you around 02:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up – have added it to my watchlist – and the reminder – that's prodded me to add an article to the new articles page, also some photies to the rather neglected picture list. .. dave souza, talk 08:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the shortbread, hope you kept a few for yourself. Should go well with a wee Bunnahabhain :) 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BI timeline

I updated the BI timeline based on your suggestions. I put Hen Ogledd coming out of Roman Britain, most of that get taken into Anglo-Saxon England at 638, except for Strathclyde which runs on until 1054 when it taken into Scotland. I took the latest dates for each. If you know of better dates, let me know. I avoided the Kingdom of Alba - is it not more a name of convenience for a period in the Kingdom of Scotland, rather than something different? Maybe put it in the "events" column? I kept the Picts and Brythons apart (but there's a dotted line between all the Celts), because whether they shared a common linguistic heritage (and even that's not known), they are generally treated as different. --sony-youthpléigh 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good to me. Alba seems to have been the actual name for what later became the Kingdom of Scotland, not really a big issue to me. If possible it would be nice if the right hand part of the lines denoting the Roman province were dotted to indicate that the Roman influence over the northern 2/3 of the Brythonic area that became Hen Ogledd was sporadic and limited. However, that's just a refinement in what is obviously a very simplified diagram. Good work, .. dave souza, talk 09:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Simplified, I agree. My thinking is more that timelines are helpful, but not definitive (but a balance has to be struck, as they can be interpreted as definitive).
Alba/Scotland, Ireland/Éire was my thinking too re: Kingdom of Alba. I can put it into the space above "Kingdom of Norway" - on which note, can you think of a better link? I can't, but it's really annoying and no great help as it is (but I think the most true, but could be wrong).
For the dotted line between Britannia and Hen Ogledd, there is a good point - I had used dotted to indicated a relationship of continuation between two "entities" and a solid to show a break in leadership (and none where none was more appropriate e.g. Celt -> Brython). I had originally Brythons running in parallel to Britannia (like Gaels running in parallel to the Lordship of Ireland). Should that be put back in? That would more clearly run straight into the Hen Ogledd (with no line between the two, or dotted?).
I am also uncertain about the dotted lines between Kingdom of Great Britain, UKGBI and UKGBNI. Should that be no dotted line?
In any cases could you unlock History of the British Isles so I can put it in? --sony-youthpléigh 11:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ready when you are, just confirm here. Not really sure about the Brython / Britannia, there seems to have been a continuity of tribal leadership becoming the post-Roman kingdoms, with periods of Roman military control or influence on Brythonic "buffer states". Dotted lines sounds best. ... dave souza, talk 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Can you unlock the BI history page, or can you put the template in yourself. Thanks for the help. --sony-youthpléigh 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Have added it (hope it's in the right place) and suggested unprotction. .. dave souza, talk 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your blocking of User:

Thanks for blocking this guy, but it seems futile. It isn't even his IP address. He's spoofing the IP address, and boasting about it here. See edit history of In Touch Ministries for example of recent identical vandal edits, all from different IPs, e.g.: (open proxy), (which you blocked), and (still unblocked). Several of his IPs have been identified on WP:OPP as open proxies. Those that haven't he's somehow still managing to spoof.

The sad thing is, I'm not even interested in these Jerry Falwell / Baptist / Ministry articles, but I spent a great deal of time getting caught up reverting this idiot (who also vandalized my user page). =Axlq 07:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)