User talk:dave souza

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Rollin' and Tumblin' Dice

Aargh!

so let's go party!!!

To the point!...

Handy Hint

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

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 19:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC).—cyberbot I NotifyOnline

Rouge admin. [1].

Archives

July 2004 – September 2005 Admin 14 Sept '05 – February 2006 March 2006 – 11 May 2006: Fishapods, Bud Neill and Kate Cranston 12 May 2006 – 31 July 2006 August 2006 – 18 Sept 2006 also Turnstiles. Sept 2006 – 10 Jan 2007 Jan 2007 – 18 May 2007 18 May 2007 – 12 Oct 2007 12 Oct 2007 – 16 Feb 2008 16 Feb 2008 – 10 Aug 2008 10 Aug 2008 – 1 Feb 2009 1 Feb 2009 – 10 March 2009 10 March 2009 – 21 April 2009 21 April 2009 – 15 August 2009 15 August 2009 – 31 January 2010 31 January 2010 – 10 May 2010 10 May 2010 – 15 September 2010 15 September 2010 – 23 July 2011 23 July 2011 – 22 October 2012

Re: The Magpie

I've included a long list of issues on the talk page, but it looks like I forgot to add the wattle fence issue. Yes, you are right that the source in question refers to it as a gate, however many other sources speak of just the fence, with the implication that the wattle gate is treated as a substructure of the wattle fence itself. I think your edit is accurate, which is all we can hope to achieve, but I also think that treating the gate as part of the fence may also be acceptable per the sources. In any case, please take a look at the lead and see if you can make the same change. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you are a pest, I was just going to do some serious editing! Anyway, a wattle fence isn't a stile, so I've had to quickly put together Wattle (construction). Do see if you can find some references for it! . . dave souza, talk 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got online. I think you and I are living on opposite sides of the globe! I will attempt to do some work as I can. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, was just kidding! The Magpie (Monet) is a very interesting and really nice article, just that whoever linked wattle to stile was obviously unaware of the term in its construction sense. So felt the need to be constructive, even if it's an unsourced stub. . dave souza, talk 09:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Petitions

I need your advice on something. Do you think it would be a good idea to introduce a sub category for contrarian declarations/petitions? A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, Oregon Petition, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition and so on. These all share a shockingly large number of qualified signatories. Would it past muster, or would somebody instantly zap it? — ThePowerofX 21:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't know, is the immediate answer. A category for the petitions would probably be ok, not sure what it would be called. Pseudoscience petitions? A category for individuals would probably be zapped, as I seem to recall there was a fuss when there were attempts to have a category for signatories to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Note the Evangelical Decaration is a redirect to the Cornwall Alliance, that's less explanatory if less commonly used by those in the know. . dave souza, talk 21:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

'Pseudoscience petitions' has the benefit of being accurate. How else can you categorise a petition that lists hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals that all say the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition? But had not fully considered the issue with redirects. The 9/11 petition is also a redirect. Makes less sense now. No harm in trying though. — ThePowerofX 22:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning

Dave, are you aware of this? Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Was dimly aware, and had a look for sources but none to hand so far. I notice you've had a word at User talk:Kennvido. . dave souza, talk 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. He's very clearly in violation of WP:ARBCC's discretionary sanctions, so I've kicked the matter over to WP:AE for them to look at. Prioryman (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great job with quality improvement at the article, Fertilisation of Orchids, what a wonderful contribution to Wikipedia in the field of SCIENCE! :) — Cirt (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! While I did put a lot of the words in, quality improvement must be credited to others, in particular Philcha and Mattisse. Much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 10:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

dangling ref

Hi, in the 2nd paragraph containing your tweaks it appears the final ref at the end of the paragraph is - I presume since I have not read it - the ref which supports your tweaks in sentences 3 and 4 of that paragraph. However, down the road I would not be surprised for someone to attack sentences 3 and 4 on erroneous basis that they are not ref-supported. If my presumption is correct (remember I have not read it) I suggest at risk of cluttering, this controversial text should be super cited, to avoid the dangling ref problem so common on controversial stuff. Caio NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point, the three refs were already cited for the full paragraph and the last one included the info I've added to avoid misleading readers about Seitz. This was a bit of a sticking plaster job, there's more about what changes Seitz was complaining about. Didn't mention tobacco! Have a couple of books discussing this, but it was a diversion for me so will add more later. Of course the whole section is controversial, and it shouldn't give undue weight to vague attacks by business interests on Santer. . dave souza, talk 08:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy! May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go. -- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Many thanks, will shamelessly pinch this clever formatting, season's greetings to you too! . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Overcome by shame, only used it once, next year will request help as required. Many thanks for assistance and greetings, . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Cookies for you!

		Viriditas is wishing you Happy Holidays!
		Enjoy your cookies and have a great 2013!

Thank you very much, a timely prompt for seasonal gluttony so will have coffee and bikkies in a mo, after wishing very merry festivities to all!. . dave souza, talk 12:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and greetings to your good selves. . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And a guid hogmanay tae ye an yer ain fowkes! . . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Twin Christmas

Seasonal greetings to Dave from little fish forebears! See, they've evolved further, now special Christmas mutations! darwin^fish 16:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC). darwinbish ^whack! 16:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC). (Special Christmas sig in honour of Darwin and cool scary santa hat! Whack with Morning Star in lieu of biting, just for the festive season!)

Many thanks for the greetings, your cheery hats are very festive. Surprised about whacking with Morning Star, while it's a worthy socialist paper it lacks the heft for whacking attained by The Observer and the like. Anyway, delighted to see that the season of good will to all tetrapods and fishy forebears has broken out, my best wishes for the season and for the New Year to both of you! . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

I really want to add: "What about my barkeep? He is part of a dissenting organization and he always has reliable opinions". Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll drink to that! More to the point, I think it's worth being explicit that pseudocsientific fake organisations get a lot of publicity. . dave souza, talk 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Courtier's Reply

There seem to be problems with The Courtier's Reply, see also Talk:The Courtier's Reply In sorting these problems I think I need help from Wikipedians who are more familiar with the very complex rules and guidelines here than I am. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page as my advice has a lot of links to policies and guidelines, which you may want to have to hand. As always, you're welcome to delete or archive my post when you're finished with it, and more translations available on request. . . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You were mentioned . . .

. . . here. Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, have added my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mutter

It seems I'm an "aggressive" male who likes to "complain to admins"[2] I'm so glad you can discuss things "calmly" - I note he fails to mention you've also reverted him. Some days things bug me more than others, I suppose. :-/ KillerChihuahua 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor dear seems to be rushing rather than reading sources, you've taken the brunt of it but hope J-JG will slow down and discuss it in a new section. . dave souza, talk 18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I tried, but you're so much more gentle in your phrasing... also, I reverted him first, so I guess I'm the evil edit-warrior and you and Theroadislong are simply getting the benefit of the doubt... not sure why I don't qualify for that. Ptah. I am hostile-magnet. KillerChihuahua 18:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh, went to the noticeboard and worked out a nice screed about " you changed what you were doing so it doesn't strictly look like 3RR but it's still edit warring. Hope you've stopped now, and will discuss proposed changes instead of trying to force them in. Also, please stop making erroneous assumptions about KillerChihuahua, I'm sure she will be glad if you now slow down and have a relaxed talk", but got an edit conflict with JJG getting 12 hours to relax. Some sympathy with the principle of showing the common usage at the outset, but not with the nuisance and edit warring. . dave souza, talk 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I saw EdJohnson added difs showing he'd been edit warring since November, so I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that he learn what is, and is not, allowed on the en.wikipedia. I see that the fr article has the same poor phrasing he's tried to introduce here ("The word creationism...") but up until July it was the same as ours. See here where the change was effected. KillerChihuahua 19:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It's quite possible that we'll all agree on some improvements, but JJG's edit warring was pure nuisance and distraction. Time for JJG to sleep it off and think about it tomorrow. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

One can hope. KillerChihuahua 19:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath, tho - he's been blocked 7 times, several of them for edit warring, on his home encyc.[3] On the more hopeful side, those are fairly old, so apparently he can mend his ways. KillerChihuahua 19:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, will aim to have a look when day dawns in France and see if we get a more helpful approach, or he'll probably get some more blocks. Enjoy the rest of your day, it's been dark here for about three hours! . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ta dear, sleep well (and stay warm!) KillerChihuahua 19:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy thank you (",)

Thank you for your contributions to Hockey stick controversy. Please see wp:Tea. (",) 99.109.127.141 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Always glad to assist, still very much a work in progress! . . dave souza, talk 05:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Crichton

Please read the source. You are falsifying material, and I will report it to ANI if you restore it. If you want the material removed entirely argue for that. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi Dave,

My recent efforts, you know where, are designed as a prelude to an anticipated ANI or ARBCOMM complaint. I'm familiar with the first process, but not at all with the second. My interest is in (A) converting the ed into a productive contributor, or that failing (B) the departure of the ed, or that failing (C) creating protections for anyone to simply delete soap from this ed without muss or fuss or repercussions.

Any advice on these goals, or the various procedural alternatives, from your past experiences?

Thanks, NAEG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm rather rusty with this stuff, the standard is to follow WP:DR, and WP:DDE gives sound advice. At least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem, before going on to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Arbcom is a last resort if that doesn't succeed. However, this presumably comes under WP:ARBCC and the more direct WP:AE process applies. Not sure if the user has been notified under WP:ARBCC#Notifications. If user page requests fail, a quiet word with an uninvolved admin should suffice: in the past, NuclearWarfare has been very helpful, but is now an arb so don't know if that affects this route. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I'll check that all out. FYI you yourself already posted a textual ARBCOMM warning to one of the admitted IPs for this user.... assuming text is good enough and the fancy template is not a requirement, that step is checked off. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, I think my wording may have been informal as I'm not sure if my position as an involved editor and admin stops me from listing the editor formally at WP:ARBCC#Notifications but that would be the next formal step if the user doesn't respond well to talk page advice. . dave souza, talk 15:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As a regular at AE I can tell you that no formal template is required; if he's been told, he's assumed to know. However, if you wish to be sure, you can always add a templated message to his talk page, followed by a note that you're trying to help him understand the situation and hopefully prevent his taking further action which might lead to sanctions. In other words, tell him again, but make sure your heart is in the right place. This is not something to cross off a list before proceeding to AE; it is genuinely ensuring the editor knows about the sanctions and can take that into account moving forward. KillerChihuahua 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. If the future indicates a remaining problem I guess I'll prep an arbcom warning using the template, organize a list of alternate accounts for the notice to be posted to, then seek an uninvolved admin to do the (re)notification. Alternative ideas welcome, of course.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to leave the notice if you feel it would be ignored, or perceived as too combative. You can ask an uninvolved admin to do it, as Dave suggested. KillerChihuahua 16:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi Dave, FYI I have requested formal clarification here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks very sensible. . dave souza, talk 20:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dave, please see the ARBCC clerk's comment at the clarification request. There is followup discussion on the clerk's talk page, and I would be interested if you agree with the subjective interpretation of DS on which the clerk based their comment at the clarification request page. If you do agree with that, then does this negate your "very sensible" opinion abovec? I don't really know the best procedure for discussions of this sort, but it sort of makes sense to me to consolidate at the clerk's talk page unless the clerk objects or anyone has a better idea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It was sensible to ask before going any further, which you did. All a bit embarrassing that I couldn't recall the procedure, and a long struggle to find the words then get the editing page to load: had too many tabs open, have closed a number and things now seem to be back to normal.

My memory was rather vague on all this, and it's not clear if this is an exception or a hidden rule. It now seems obvious that the aim was to log official warnings from uninvolved admins, but there was no clear indication of that on the page. The official template does refer to uninvolved admins, but has an option to remove that reference. So, better guidance needs sorted out.

As the mists of time clear a little, it comes back to me that the original sanctions had a page for anyone to log notification of other editors, or indeed themselves. The huge ARBCC case was in part to do with one "uninvolved admin" who was forcefully running the sanctions but, in several opinions, wasn't uninvolved. The procedures were revised, with a requirement for uninvolved admins to give a formal warning and time to reform before blocking. The heading "Notifications" for logging these formal warnings is a bit misleading, so I've suggested adding some clarifying wording. Hope that works out. As for your original concerns, if the editors are still causing problems, then tell some uninvolved admin about it, with diffs. They will assess the case and can give a warning, then block if the behaviour continues. . . dave souza, talk 19:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly confusing. It would be nice to see it spelled out precisely. I hope the SPI on Elvey gets a CU soon also, one way or another. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That clarification is what I've requested, it seems to be something almost taken for granted by those familiar with WP:AC/DS which isn't most of us. As indicated above, if Elvey or socks become a nuisance, putting the case to an uninvolved admin can get quick results as long as the admin agrees with the case. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy

Greg Laden is unhappy with your article. I think he misunderstands the main point of the article (or, probably, didn't read it) but I thought you might like to know. Guettarda (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it does suffer from tl;dr and summary style is overdue, but easier said than done. Ah well, have had other things to deal with but will try to get back to it, . dave souza, talk 07:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dave, fyi, Michael Mann, aka "the most hated climate scientist in the US," is on the cover of the March/April Yale Alumni Magazine. Nothing new. Article online. This is not a journal. Yopienso (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes--interesting that they call the hacking "E-mailgate." Yopienso (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd seen it but like you thought there was nothing particularly new – though I didn't notice the "E-mailgate" reference. Not sure how great a source it is, perhaps it should be linked in Mann's bio. First thing I've got to do is condense and split the existing HS info, as above. After tea! . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you've begun, with North Report. Well done. There are some broken refs in there - I hate refs, so I didn't fix them up, I'll leave that to the experts William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken refs?!!! Mention 'em on the talk page, and perhaps I'll take another swing through. Though there are about a half-dozen I found rather adamant. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, have done so for the couple I've found broken. . dave souza, talk 08:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

MBH98 reconstruction --> Hockey stick graph not redirect to Hockey stick controversy?

Should MBH98 reconstruction redirect to Hockey stick graph, not redirect to Hockey stick controversy? 108.73.112.187 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. Have altered it accordingly, it's a process of going through linked articles and I hadn't come across that one yet, your help is greatly appreciated. . dave souza, talk 05:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)