User talk:Guettarda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
There is no Cabal
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Canyon dam.jpg


One year Three Four Six years[edit]

It's been a year, somehow it's been a year three six years already.

Deepest sympathy[edit]

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

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

They will be in my prayers, Guettarda. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Truly sad news. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Our hearts go out to you and your family. It's so hard to know what to say. What we really want is to be able to change it for you. :-( SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Terrible news. So sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh nooooo, dearest Guettarda :' ( what awful news. Much love, tears, and deepest sympathy. --MPerel 04:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I too offer my condolences. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

My utmost condolences, Guettarda. Ameriquedialectics 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone in my house survived 24 hours out there last year lost diving (for a living not tourism), hope things are as well as can be expected, best wishes. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heartfelt sympathies. I feel dreadful for you. Ben Aveling 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This is for the most part a copy/pasted notice, but I would like to offer my condolences for this recent loss. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

You are very welcome, Guettarda. I read about what happened, and I know that in addition to the grief of loss there is a separate pain that comes from lack of closure. Even when it is temporary, lack of closure is a wound that takes time to heal. Hugs. --Una Smith (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As a former US Coastguardsman, I'm sad to say I've seen happy excursions on the sea turn to tragedy before. Your brothers' bravery retains my admiration, and your family remains in my prayers. Ameriquedialectics 20:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Guettarda! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,912 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Satnarayan Maharaj - Find sources: "Satnarayan Maharaj" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  2. Rakesh Yankaran - Find sources: "Rakesh Yankaran" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  3. Gypsy (calypsonian) - Find sources: "Gypsy (calypsonian)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  4. Vincent Floissac - Find sources: "Vincent Floissac" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  5. Winston Dookeran - Find sources: "Winston Dookeran" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  6. Geddes Granger - Find sources: "Geddes Granger" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  7. Mary King (economist) - Find sources: "Mary King (economist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

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

Ficus maxima[edit]

have asked Circeus to have a look at context as we've been discussing how to add genus-level material on flower structure to some other plant articles recently. I don't think there is too much to add. A bum rush of ficus at GAN might be fun. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Roupala[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecosystem GAR[edit]

I understand about real life getting in the way of doing as much on Wikipedia as one would like.

Given my own work and home responsibilities, I'm not sure how much assistance I can offer you, but my work location is just a few minutes away from the university library. If you need access to a published journal article, there is a good chance that I can get it for you.

By the way, if you have time, could you take a look at this Featured Picture Nominee and if you like it, place a vote? I was amazed when I first saw this animation on a German astronomy web site, so I got permission to use it in an article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Cecropia peltata[edit]

KTC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Roupala montana[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Roupala montana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Roupala montana[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Richeria grandis[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Parinari campestris[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanding Jared Diamond[edit]

Thanks for weight in on the RFC at Talk:Jared Diamond. You mentioned that the article "simply skips Diamond's (quite notable) scientific contributions", and I wondered if you had anything specific in mind on that score? Given the amount of bytes spilt over relatively trivial points on that article recently, it would be nice to expand it with some properly encyclopaedic coverage. Joe Roe (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure his work on Bowerbirds in New Guinea has been pretty significant, but that's outside of my area of expertise. As far as things I know about, in the 1970s he made important contributions to island biogeography, community assembly (including supertramp (ecology), protected area design (see SLOSS debate; Google Scholar says that his "The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves" article has been cited over 1100 times) and what is now called extinction debt (I believe he coined the term "relaxation" in this paper, which Google Scholar says has been cited 350x). Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My identity[edit]

Hi. I watch the article Race and intelligence, mainly to look out for socks of Mikemikev and other banned users. I noticed that you added my username in an edit summary, which puzzled me. Looking at the talk page, I think you were referring to comments by Hans Adler,[1] who announced himself as a mathematician (like me) and made some comments on the term "racial IQ gap". I believe that I introduced the term "racial IQ gap" when creating a new version of the lede on April 5 2010.[2] I hope nobody is confused by any of this :-) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Yeah, I must have filed Hans' comment as yours...he isn't filed in my brain as a mathematician, tbh. Sorry about that. Guettarda (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI, R&I and an IP at User talk:BlackHades[edit]

I've had to mention you at ANI to make it clear that the IP's claim that I made your edit is ridiculous. See User talk:BlackHades first where the IP says an edit 'I' made is a clue. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

People don't understand the power of 10,000-item watchlists. I may have stopped editing the race article in 2005 or 2006, but I watchlisted the R&I article back in those days, though I've generally avoided it except when it spills over into articles closer to my real interests (ecology and biogeography). Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. My watchlist is also over 10,000, and some people get very suspicious when I suddenly reappear at an article. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Though I must say, if we're sockpuppets, we've got an impressive (and impressively broad) editing history ;) Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm having an identity crisis:) So this baby seal walks into a club...ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, that didn't end well for BH, who has been blocked for a week. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The years here have made me a cynic, I think. It's remarkable how predictable people can be. Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asking you again to stop with personal attacks and hostility. BlackHades (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude, your nonsense is tiresome. When I tell you to stop misbehaving, that's not a personal attack. You're coming fresh off a block and headed back down the same path. Guettarda (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You need to calm down. You repeatedly made statements that you don't consider content from Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredon, as reliable sources. Am I right or wrong here? So based on your statements, I wrote:

"Per WP:NPOV all significant views must be represented. That includes the position held by Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Templer, Gottfredson, etc. You seem to argue for the complete omission of one side of the debate. But neither you, nor anyone else, gets to pick and choose which views belong in the article. That would be WP:Truth. All significant views must be represented including ones that you don't agree with."--BlackHades

Which you responded back with:

"Please cut out your bullshit accusations. I'm sick of your crap already, and you've only been back from your block for what - 2 days? and you're engaging full bore in the sort of nonsense that earned you the block in the first place. I am not "argu[ing] for the complete omission of one side of the debate"...that's utterly false, and you damn well know it's false. I'm arguing against your insistence on using your own interpretation of primary sources. I'm arguing against your insistence on building an article around the primary sources of a group that's viewed by the mainstream as fringe. Now please cut out the bullshit."--Guettarda

You're really going to say your response is an appropriate response to mine? You really don't notice a difference in the level of tone and hostility of mine compared to yours? Did you or did you not state that you consider Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson, as "not reliable", or "fringe", or "non-mainstream". My response to you were based on these statements. If I'm wrong, all you had to do was calmly reply back "I support the inclusion of all relevant positions including Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson", in which case I would have apologized and accepted. But when you constantly call Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson as "not reliable", or "fringe", or "non-mainstream", you don't see how someone can see this as an indication that the person is trying to omit their positions? By the way, even though you responded back that you're not arguing for omission of one side, you still haven't made it clear if that means you support the inclusion of the hereditarian position of Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson. It seems like you do now as you stated you don't support omission but I would request for better clarification here. BlackHades (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Where's the personal attack? ?? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
BlackHades - it was a response to all your crap. Again, as I pointed out before, you shouldn't quote mine - not in article spaces, not on talk pages, not in user talk. It was a response to crap like your repeated insistence that subject-verb agreement is acceptable in English grammar...which is clear and obvious tendentious editing. It was a response to your false claims about sources. It was a response to your constant rudeness and hostility.

But never mind me. Please proceed. Guettarda (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a quote mine. Your assertions here are inaccurate. There's a drastic difference in the tone and hostility that I respond to you versus vice versa. But I digress. Moving on. I would hope that we can both discuss civilly from this point forward. BlackHades (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
So...I'm wrong, BWilkins is wrong, and you're right? Because you say so? Strange, isn't it that two established users (one with five years experience here, one with over 8.5), with clean block logs, don't understand Wikipedia policy and that you, fresh off a block for disruptive editing, are the only one who understands policy. Very interesting. Guettarda (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia longevity doesn't make someone immune to bias. As very clearly shown on the R&I talk page. And I thought we're moving on. Are we still beating this dead horse? BlackHades (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
And once again, you take half my statement and runs with it, ignoring the other half (cf. quote mining). You're just a few days off a block for disruption. This is your second chance to show that you can learn acceptable behaviour. But rather than learn from BW, you imply that your understanding of policy is superior to his. It's not an encouraging attitude.

My observation (and that's just an observation, not a threat) is that editors with an attitude like yours end up perma-blocked. If you refuse adjust your attitude, if you refuse to learn from people with more experience, your time here is likely to be short. As for beating a dead horse - you're the one who keeps posting to my talk page. Guettarda (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. As to yours, the example above is clear. I guarantee that you won't be able to show a single example where I show that level of hostility toward you. And stop with the false accusations of quote mining. Allow me to respond to this with your preferred method. "Please cut out your bullshit accusations. I'm sick of your crap already." In regards to beating a dead horse, you keep reviving this after I've shown that I've clearly moved on.BlackHades (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
BlackHades, your phrase "there's nothing wrong with my attitude" is actually proof positive that there is. Look, I'm an utterly unbiased third party here - it's YOU who are incorrect about the definition of personal attacks, it's YOU who continues to post here (Guettarda has a right to post here - you really don't) and he's allowed to have the last word. You're the one beating a dead horse. You're the one failing to grow from your mistakes and move on. Really - this is not the kind of hounding behaviour that is endearing to anyone. My advice: drop the stick and move on, quickly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
As much as I love the amusing absurdity of this guy, it's clearly time for it to be done. And since BH apparently is unable to stop himself from replying here, and his repeated responses are my fault, it's time to close this thread. Thanks for your input BWilkins. And BlackHades, please consider yourself banned from my talk page, since that appears to be the only way you'll be able to stop yourself from replying to this thread. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
... for helping found WikiProject Forestry ... and many more contributions to Wikipedia ... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much. And thank you for your hard work on that project as well! Guettarda (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bactris[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Frère León[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bactris campestris[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Phyllodytes auratus[edit]

Given you recent move of Phyllodytes auratus to El Tucuche golden tree frog, I was wondering if you had any reliable sources for that name. I can find OK sources attesting to "golden tree frog", but not this name. Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It came from the Phyllodytes page, which seemed well cited. Gigemag76 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? That page includes no inline references, so how can you say it's "well cited"? In addition, I checked the external links, and those that aren't broken do not appear to support the name. One includes it as one of two variant names, but the others don't include any common name. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Surely you aren't moving pages without checking to see that the names you moved them to aren't reliably sourced, are you? Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request[edit]

Hi Guettarda, I've initiated a peer review request for the List of historic schools of forestryarticle, and would appreciate your input on ways that it can be improved. Ultimately, I would like to nominate it for Featured List status. Please add any comments or suggestions at this link. Thanks & Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Environmental Science and Pollution Research and its editor[edit]

Is Environmental Science and Pollution Research notable? Is it an industry shill? What about Alvin L. Young, its editor for 2000-2012? (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the journal, but it's published by Springer, and has an impact factor of 2.6 which, for a relatively narrowly-focused journal is pretty respectable. That doesn't mean that everything published in it should be accepted uncritically, of course. I'm not familiar with Young or his work. The best way to get a sense of how his work has been received is to look at the articles that cite it (Google Scholar is a good place to find those). If what he has to say seems at all controversial (as would anything on Agent Orange, I'd guess) look for two things - it being ignored (if no one cites something controversial, that's a suggestion that it wasn't taken too seriously) or the publication of rebuttals. If his work on Agent Orange is being cited, and these citations aren't primarily rebuttals, then I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Young's writings were contested on a couple of issues.
  • How much TCDD was in Agent Orange [hard to estimate apparently because of heterogeneity]. From PMID 12700752: "NAS-1974 calculated a mean TCDD level of 1.91 p.p.m.± 20% for the stockpile. USAF documentation that is widely viewed as authoritative, however, disputes this mean and contends that the four highest values (17, 22, 33 and 47 p.p.m.) must have been Agent Purple, and not Agent Orange, because these values exceeded the mean reported for the NCBC inventory, citing a personal communication from a military officer who recalled that as many as 20 drums of Agent Purple may have been present in the stockpile and redrummed into Agent Orange containers. (The hypergeometric probability of selecting four of the 20 Agent Purple drums from the stockpile is 1.32 × 10-5.) In fact, the range observed is completely consistent with the USAF’s own analysis of the range and heterogeneity of TCDD levels. By 1988, Young, the senior author of the USAF documentation, dropped the word “may” and simply reported the four high values to have been Agent Purple. This latter reference has been relied upon as authoritative by the IOM, and many others." Stellman et al. later guesstimate that "mean TCDD levels in Agent Orange were far higher than 3 p.p.m. for much of the herbicide used. An average value closer to 13 p.p.m. may be more realistic."
  • Young is also the DoD spearhead in a dispute, this time mostly with journalists, over the presence of Agent Orange in Okinawa. This mostly involves shipping records rather than any scientific measurements, so probably of no interest to you. (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Guettarda/Fauna of Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

I came across your draft page User:Guettarda/Fauna of Trinidad and Tobago and I would like to encourage you to move it to article space. Some of the books found at this search might be worth adding as references, although others found in the search are just reprints of existing Wikipedia articles. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I should. I'll try to make the time. Guettarda (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You MUST pay[edit]

You owe me one brand new keyboard because you are solely responsible for making me spit out my coffee over mine with your latest response to North. It took me a long time to remove all the keys and clean it out, but it'll never be the same old keyboard after the trauma it (and I) experienced. Oh... and you also owe me for the coffee. And I'm going to charge you for the time I spent cleaning it up, too. And for the time writing this message, as well. AAARRRGGGHHH!!! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

stopping by[edit]

Came by Wikipedia way for some reminiscing. I had not heard about SLR - how sad! I never finished resolving my postmodernism debates with him. Perhaps in the post-afterlife. How are you? Graft | talk 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey - good to see you. I'm well, but barely here these days...trying to be productive in real life, and this place isn't as much fun as it used to be. It's full of ghosts. I come back and try to get back into the rhythm of things every so often, but I haven't managed to get back into the swing of things. If you're on fb and remember my real name, you should add me.
It was quite a shock when Steve died...when I run into his comments on Wikipedia it feels strange - comments that sit, waiting to be engaged, but that never will be answered. Guettarda (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

ID dispute resolution[edit]

As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

ecosystem and memory
Thank you for quality articles such as Aiphanes, for polishing Core content ecosystem and defending it, for keeping the memory of dear people, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (22 August 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 222nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 222nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Manning case[edit]

There are twelve active arbs presently but one is abstained. The number however for the majority is currently being incorrectly calculated so I will speak to the clerk team and see what the issue is. 11 active arbs, 1 abstained and 1 inactive. Thanks for pointing this out :) Seddon talk 14:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Range, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaguaramas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute[edit]

Dear Guettarda.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

Hi Guettarda, thanks for your partial revert on intelligent design. As you may have noticed, a couple of editors are pushing for the topic of the article to be shifted to cover the generic argument-from-design and/or uses of the term for the generic argument. The talk page discussions are very extensive, I think it needs some attention. If you have suggestions for a preferred introductory paragraph to the lead, I'd appreciate your thoughts. . dave souza, talk 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem like someone who would know[edit]

Hi there, I recently created some new Trinidad-related pages: Caroni Plain, Naparima Plain, Nariva Plain, Southern Range and added pictures to Nariva Swamp and the Caroni Swamp. I also annotated the map: File:Trinidad and Tobago Shaded Relief PCL Texas Annotated.jpg to show where all these geographical features are located. I don't know that much about Trinidad, and fell into working on these pages by accident while rewriting the V. S. Naipaul page. Could you look at the pages, in particular at the map, and let me know if there are any errors and how to correct them. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Check this out[edit]

My friend, I want to share this with you: Not bad, right? Tony the Marine (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup award[edit]

In recognition of your participation in the 2013 Wikipedia:WikiCup, in which you reached round 2. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 13:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A. N. R. Robinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Higher School Certificate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI ARBCOM notice procedures[edit]

Hi, Just fyi regarding this; that's the old procedure. The new "DS Alert" procedure is simply to add

{{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~

to the user's talk page without embellishment. The programming takes care of the logging. If you want to add comments, I think the DS instructions say to add the comments in a new thread after posting the DS alert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Guettarda (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Modified my comment[edit]

Hi. I'm still wavering about the beauty queen tape, and have modified my comment to better represent my present view. I don't think my change affects the meaning of your later comment, but if you'd prefer to restore my original comment, please do and I'll add a clarification. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have no problem leaving things the way they are. Guettarda (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive regarding your off-topic commentary at Talk:Intelligent design. It is not your place to soapbox in that thread as you have fairly consistently done already. I asked an independent admin to review and summarie the discussion yesterday, although he has apparently not done so yet. But there is a very real probability that what I can only think of as your obnoxious, arrogant refusal to abide by guidelines will go to AE should it continue. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I'm discussing the topic at hand. You are the one using the page to attack atheists, discuss the historicity of Jesus, speculate about string theory. I'm discussing the issue at hand which is whether "pseudoscience" is an appropriate descriptor for the topic. Seriously, take your bluster and nonsense elsewhere. Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The above statement can reasonably be seen as a transparent probably willful absolute disregard for the topic of the thread. And some of your own recent comments casstng similar aspersions on Chrisstians specifically raise serious questions of hypocrisy. Let me try to spell it out in terms you might perhaps be able to understand. The stated topic of the thread in question is presenting evidence to ArbCom. It is not your place to determine what others can present. Are you capable of understanding that? Warning stands.John Carter (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The above statement can reasonably be seen as a transparent probably willful absolute disregard for the topic of the thread
    • Nope, just amusement at your absurd "warning". I'm on topic. You, on the other hand, are using the talk page to complain about Richard Dawkins, the historical Jesus, string theory, and atheism.
  • And some of your own recent comments casstng [sic] similar aspersions on Chrisstians [sic] specifically raise serious questions of hypocrisy
    • Religious intolerance is unbecoming. Attacking me (practicing Christian, regular church attendee, liturgist, who has served on a variety of church committees and chaired one of the key local church committees) because my beliefs do not square with yours is pretty distasteful behaviour on your part.
  • Let me try to spell it out in terms you might perhaps be able to understand...Are you capable of understanding that
  • The stated topic of the thread in question is presenting evidence to ArbCom. It is not your place to determine what others can present.
    • But apparently it's your place to determine what others are allowed to discuss? Fascinating.
  • Warning stands
    • Yep. As an indictment of your incivility, rudeness, misunderstanding of policy and general intolerance of world-views other than your own. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)g
You accuse me in te above of attacking you on your personal beliefs none of whi I was aware of and also accuse me of editing to support my personal beliefs despite knowin nothin whatsoever what those beiefs even are. If you hatted the disussion about relevant matters because you determined them "off-topic" and thus deemed the matters which you unilaterally decided others could not discuss that is even more fascinating and something. You also indicate both a rush to making unsubstantiated assertions about the motivations of other actions. Personally as someone who won an astronomy scholarship from a major astronomy foundation in college I actually strongly support it. Perhaps you were too blinded by your own possible intolerance to even care about knowing something about something before being taken over by your own biases and transparent attempts at misdirection regarding your own actions. Feel free to giving more evidence further irrational and unfounded rushes to judgment. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You accuse me in te above of attacking you on your personal beliefs none of whi [sic] I was aware of
    • Sorry, not an out. You engaged in attacks based on sectarian religious positions. The fact that you specifically accused me of attacking Christianity makes your comments more offensive, but it doesn't change their substance.

      And seriously, that's a very poor attempt at an apology. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I spoke too soon. Relative to this, it was an excellent apology. Fewer personal attacks on this side. Guettarda (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any apologies from yout about your personal attacks based on your irrational and factually wrong assumptions either, but I have known for some time how certain parties who are so quick to criticize others love pulling out the long knives themselves quickly, and rarely if ever apologize for doing so.John Carter (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Wander off and find someone else to bug. Preferably sans the personal attacks. Your antics have gone from amusingly absurd to boringly repetitive.

And if you expect people to stop posting on your user page, you need to stop posting on theirs. Guettarda (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) John, saying to anyone that they are "obnoxious" and "arrogant" is a violation of our rules on being WP:CIVIL. If you have a grievance, then remain professional here, and if it is unresolved then make use of WP:DR. If any ed is truly being a problem, you needn't try to to label the behavior, just point it out in an efficient presentation and let the other party hoist themselves on their own petard. But watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG effect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

World Resources Institute[edit]

Greetings. I see that you've attempted a "clean start" on this article, but I see no claim of notability as it currently stands, so I've tagged it for an A7 speedy deletion. Let me know if I've overstepped here. Thanks. --Finngall talk 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. First someone adds copyvio material to the article, so the whole thing gets deleted by people who don't bother to check for pre-copyvio additons. Twice. I'm trying to find a way to avoid this in the future...and you nominate it for speedy deletion. Well, I can't do anything about it right now, especially since my battery is about to die. When did this place get so deleting-happy? Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem editor[edit]

Would you mind examining the disruption occurring on Tragedy of the commons, Mediterranean Sea and History of sustainability and see if you can suggest a way forward. I've run out of patience. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos[edit]

No. I don't believe there should be a move because it is indeed NOT the name for which he is known for. And at the same time, it is his birth name(for which there is conclusive sources pointing towards this). For that reason alone, the article must include it if it is to paint a complete, unbiased picture of the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malfuron4 (talkcontribs) 19:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Including his birth name, if it can be sourced appropriately, is fine. What you were doing was changing every mention of his name. And if that's the case, then the article should be moved. (And please read WP:BLP and note the sourcing requirements. Guettarda (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not wish to involve myself further with how the article should be handled. What i am here for, is to provide one solid piece of information. His real name. The source is indeed, blacklisted seeing as how it comes from both his fathers twitter and ccdni. A fourth source, is does not appear to be blacklisted but contains an address which i am concerned of linking. It is clear that Yiannopoulos is not his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malfuron4 (talkcontribs) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that truth isn't good enough - we need reliable sources. And the more controversial the claim, the more important it is that the source be of the highest quality. Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Just confirmed it via his own twitter account. It proves everything. Cannot get more reliable information than the horses mouth itself. Im reverting back to my changes. If anyone wants to do cleanup on it, be my guest but the info is 100% accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malfuron4 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"say no to mansplaining"[edit]

Nice comment at the MFD! I looked up Mansplaining and hope i have not done that. Is "say no to mansplaining" your phrase? I like it. I think it's probably helpful for men to respond to other men's comments/questions, though, not a violation, right? I've said enough already, don't want to comment much more. cheers, :) --doncram 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea if I just coined that phrase. Or cobbled it together. it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular (except the original draft of my comment). Definitely wasn't aimed at you. Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions about a certain [reversion] edit[edit]

I have some questions about this edit.

I did not remove the character string that [supposedly] is the title. That is, the string that is the title according to the "edit comment" which says: "um, no, the title is the line above that".]

On the other hand, this edit (see above) did remove the character string that (IMHO) was a better title. (That is, the string that I thought was better, as [all or part of] a "title" for the web page with the URL of .)

I am not immediately ready to "insist" that leaving in both of those two character strings is the best choice. (However, if you have any comments about that "idea", I am willing to listen.)

I am prepared to try to reach some consensus. Is there anything we can do to explore (or discuss) (or, explain to each other) the goals that are [perhaps] to be achieved by choosing well, [and carefully] which character string to use as the "title"? (or, maybe that should say, << the goals that are "more nearly" to be achieved >> by doing so) (- ? -).

Would it benefit anyone (perhaps in pursuing the above mentioned goals?) if one of us were to explore (or discuss) (or, explain) the reasons why the use of the character string

Sabal Adanson ex Guersent, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique. 87: 205-206. 1804

for the "title", would be better?

Do we both understand (thoroughly and well) what each word of that "title" means, and what its role is, in doing whatever things a title is supposed to be helpful for? (such as, describing the "topic" of a certain web page, and informing the reader a little bit, what a certain web page is "about" - ? - )

Do we both (or, do any of us) think that this "title"

Sabal Adanson ex Guersent, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique. 87: 205-206. 1804

comes closer to describing the "topic" of the web page, or otherwise (in some sense) doing thoroughly and well those things that a title is [/slash, "should" be] helpful for?

Have both of us [sufficiently] considered the question of what the web page with the URL of (value of the "url" field) is about? IMHO, it comes pretty close to being about "Palmetto". I could be wrong...

I hope this does not sound [too] negative. I hope that there is still a chance that one of us can wake up and learn something, that is not already known (at least, something that we don't both already know). So, maybe there is hope for a happy, win-win outcome, that will be the best for all concerned. (It would even be fine with me, if [after reaching some consensus successfully] we were to nuke this whole section, if [e.g.] we both wanted to delete it before it got in to any "archive" files.) "No harm / no foul." (getting in to "history" logs, -- or, "remaining" in them -- might be a different matter.)

You are welcome (btw) to answer some questions that I did not [know to] ask. ("if any").

The kindness of a response (and/OR an edit that restores the word "Palmetto") would be appreciated. Thank you. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: I've come back to this repeatedly, and I still can't get what you're asking here. I've spent a week trying to figure out how to answer your question. It just baffles me. I'll try, but I think it's better that we take this to WT:PLANTS, where there's someone who can better understand what you're asking. I'll take a shot at it, in any case, but I doubt I will answer your question.
The part about "Palmetto" is the first bit of information in the entry, after the title. Using it as a title is like picking the first bit of text in an article and calling that the title. I can't wrap my head around how that sentence should be the title. eFloras is an electronic version of the Flora of North America. It's a web version of the printed flora. Like other floras, it's organised into volumes, and within each volume, by family. Within families, you have genera, and within them, species. So the title of the section is the genus, not the common name. Look, for example, at the entry for Arabis[3] The section title is the genus name. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Guettarda: Thanks for that kind response. I did not realize that Sabal was the name of the genus. The rest of the "title"

Sabal Adanson ex Guersent, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique. 87: 205-206. 1804

sounded (to me) (and it still does... 'somewhat') like some kind of bibliography entry, for some article in a certain journal ... or something like that. I could be wrong. Maybe someone else will chime in .. and comment about that, and/or answer some question that I did not even know to ask! I am not (re-) editing the change, at this time. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I Should Change My Username?[edit]

Guettarda, it's good to see that you're still around and contributing on Wikipedia. I don't doubt the significance of your contributions since I fell off the map back in, oh - 2005ish I suppose it was? What a remarkably distorted worldview I had back then. To my credit, I was still in high school, and now that I'm an adult it's interesting to return to my old account and really take in the effects that religious fundamentalism had on an impressionable young man. You may be glad to know that you made an impact - despite my youthful intemperance. The battles that we waged on the Evolution article stuck with me, for some strange reason, and have ultimately led me back into the field of science. I have since obtained a four-year, and am going back for another B.S. (Biology this time.) Anyway, I wanted to say thank you for sticking to your guns far more patiently than I would have expected from anyone. I hope everything is well with you and that you have not been pestered by any more high school creationists. That said, I'm eager to get involved on Wikipedia once again. For now I think it's just a matter of finding my feet and looking to hone in on one or two topics. Perhaps you'd be willing to advise. Respectfully, Salva (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

New Mail[edit]

Hello, Guettarda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Kyohyi (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help on that. Try these folks. Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


I just noticed that Sophie Hunter has notable relatives and this should be reflected in her infobox. All sources are in the family family section of the page. If you may be so kind to copy-paste this to the page, I would be very grateful and it would be a big improvement to her page. Thank you in advance! (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

|family =

Sophie Hunter? I have no idea who she is, but this info has been added to the infobox of her article. Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This IP is a sock of Fairyspit. Be careful as they spam editors to do their editing for them. LADY LOTUSTALK 12:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You 'might' want to see User:Fairyspit ...and/or, check out User talk: (of course) ""
Just "FYI"! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Ooops, I did not see this until now: User_talk:Art_LaPella#Infobox_Improvement ...hence, please "see the other [-named] page, if appropriate" ("if applicable"). :-)
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Global Hunger Index, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resilience (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive users[edit]

Hi, you seem very experienced so I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction. I know that we're supposed to assume good faith, but how long until I can suspect that someone is not editing in good faith, and what do I do when I come to that conclusion? Is there a way to keep someone from editing a single page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inicholson (talkcontribs) 21:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Do nothing. Yet. The guy's upset, give him a chance to step back and gain some perspective, realise he's pretty much alone in his perspective. If he keeps it up, there are a lot of options, all of which are tedious. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, it seems wise. Inicholson (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter[edit]

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Video vixen move[edit]

Some cleanup seems necessary, as the Talk:Video vixen page is for the old redirect, not the current article. (I think there's a speedy delete category for Talk pages of deleted pages, which seems to apply here, but I'm sure you know more about that than I do.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was sure I clicked "move associated talk page". But apparently I didn't. Thanks for the note. Guettarda (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Caroni River[edit]

Dear Guettarda,
I am writing articles about Trinidad on the German Wikipedia. I am having trouble researching a seemingly easy question and would like to ask if you know anything about it or whom to ask: Where does the Caroni river start? "In the Northern Range" it says, but I only see the Aripo and Arima rivers coming from the north. I have no idea how the Caroni River continues after this spot. Can you help?
Thanks a lot and kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Grueslayer: I asked a friend who worked on those rivers, and she said the Caroni River starts where the Aripo River ends. So I'm guessing the continuation of the name past that point is an error, and the southern arm is actually the Cumuto River. Guettarda (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'll need written proof, but this makes sense and is a good base for further research! Thanks again and kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Watts Up With That?[edit]

I see that you protected it recently, but I do not see the protection icon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

People forget things. (I've often had to remind admins about this). SPhilbrick, as an admin you're within your rights to add the padlock thingy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
SBHB, yes, I sort of know, but I do so little in protection, and took a few months off, I wanted someone else to do it, cause I didn't have time to review the process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a change that was reverted without any Talk at all by RoxytheDog, after I left a justification on the Talk page myself. I reverted back once and was accused of edit warring. I subsequently realized the change was not where it needed to be, and made a slightly different change. It has just been reverted by the same editor, again sans discussion. I'd like to confirm I am okay to revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkthlayli (talkcontribs) 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Basically, if you make a change to an article and someone reverts it, you should discuss the change on the talk page. You aren't obligated to, but it's good form. The onus is on the person making the change to justify it. Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
On this particular article (and several others on related topics) a note at the top of the editing page reminds that "This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation. Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period. Avoid edit warring and seek consensus." Under WP:ARBCC as revised, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Bottom line, discuss, don't revert more than once, or you could be blocked. . . . dave souza, talk 09:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

re: Page move[edit]

Hi! I was unaware of that convention (on we do exactly the opposite!) Sorry! --Esculapio (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll[edit]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


You should have received an email from me a couple of weeks ago regarding your request for access to ScienceDirect. Could you please either fill out the form linked from that email or let me know if you did not receive it? We are hoping to get these processed as soon as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter[edit]

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Still Active?[edit]

Hey there - are you still active in maintaining T&T related articles? Looking to get back into the swing of things and just reaching out to see if there's merit to making a task force to prioritize certain sections that need immediate help. --  R45  talk! 04:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results[edit]

Flag of the Smithsonian Institution.svg
Flag of Wales.svg
Flag of Belarus (1918, 1991-1995).svg

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to United States Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for helping identify a completely screwed up revert on my part. I wouldn't have noticed it without you. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...[edit]

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Guettarda![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message
DASonnenfeld Thank you. And Happy New Year to you as well! Guettarda (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On![edit]

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On![edit]

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter[edit]

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with Lancashire J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)[edit]

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Discuss with me?[edit]

Hi there,

I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.

Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Azcolvin429: Thanks for the heads up. I just don't know how I feel. Guettarda (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Merging altitudinal zonation articles[edit]

I wrote a first draft of a merged article at User:Hike395/sandbox. As an ecologist, what do you think? Please feel free to comment at Talk:Mountain ecology. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


A third FAC, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ficus rubiginosa/archive1...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving Montane ecology to Montane ecosystem[edit]

The discussion seems to have completely died out at Talk:Montane ecology. I am unable to perform the move any more (probably due to my previous move), so could you kindly execute the move? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Back in June, User:Henriduvent moved the article to Mountain ecosystems (note plural). The consensus at the talk page seemed to prefer "Montane" to "Mountain", so I just moved the article to Montane ecosystems. The plural may or may not be correct --- WP prefers singular titles, but it seems that the article is about multiple different kinds of ecosystems (at different elevations), so I kept the plural. —hike395 (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter[edit]

FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montana Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by England Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Lancashire Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while British Empire The C of E (submissions) and Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Guettarda. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)