Open main menu

Handy HintEdit

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
Girth Summit 141 2 0 99 04:54, 26 October 2019 3 days, 23 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 04:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 
Archives
  1. July 2004 – September 2005
  2. Admin 14 Sept '05 – February 2006
  3. March 2006 – 11 May 2006: Fishapods, Bud Neill and Kate Cranston
  4. 12 May 2006 – 31 July 2006
  5. August 2006 – 18 Sept 2006 also Turnstiles.
  6. Sept 2006 – 10 Jan 2007
  7. Jan 2007 – 18 May 2007
  8. 18 May 2007 – 12 Oct 2007
  9. 12 Oct 2007 – 16 Feb 2008
  10. 16 Feb 2008 – 10 Aug 2008
  11. 10 Aug 2008 – 1 Feb 2009
  12. 1 Feb 2009 – 10 March 2009
  13. 10 March 2009 – 21 April 2009
  14. 21 April 2009 – 15 August 2009
  15. 15 August 2009 – 31 January 2010
  16. 31 January 2010 – 10 May 2010
  17. 10 May 2010 – 15 September 2010
  18. 15 September 2010 – 23 July 2011
  19. 23 July 2011 – 22 October 2012
  20. 22 October 2012 – 23 December 2013
  21. !archive: to end December 2017

ID-pseudoscienceEdit

Hi, Dave, this discussion is closed, but I'd like to point out you avoided the question; all you did was reiterate your argument without offering any grounds for it. I'll insert my responses and then ask the simple question again.

@9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: and @Dave souza: I don't see how else to interpret the guideline, which states, "Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas . . ." Why, if the idea isn't described clearly and objectively in its proponents terms, does the next clause tell us to "refer the reader to more accepted ideas"? I can only infer from that guideline that the more accepted ideas come second, not first. As Manul already explained, "The more accepted idea is that it's pseudoscience, therefore it should come afterward." That's how it is on all the examples I gave of other pseudoscientific ideas. (Exceptions: apparently the crystal healing did immediately call it pseudoscience; jps ran over to bariminology to "fix" it.) Please explain, Josh and Dave, why it says to then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yopienso:, that's a guideline which doesn't demand that pseudoscience should first be described in the words of its proponents, and doesn't explain how that could possibly be done "objectively" when these words are deeply misleading. You're just repeating your groundless argument. (Not saying it may not have grounds, though I don't think it does, but you don't give any. Doing that to meet a guideline is overruled by the clear policy requirements not to give "equal validity" to the fringe views, The guideline is meant to be followed, and it doesn't conflict with the policy requirements. My proposal absolutely does not give equal validity to ID. . . when the topic is pseudoscience not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other or obscure the mainstream view, or give undue weight to the minority view by giving it prominence of placement and not being clear that the definition is quoting the minority view. . . . nor does it give undue weight: the article is about ID!! And it clearly indicates ID does NOT have equal weight with the theory of evolution. While I don't see a problem with an objective third party description of the topic, it's difficult in the polarised topic to produce that. Hence the need for balance, as above. . . My proposal doesn't lack balance. dave souza, talk 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

So, once again, Why does the next clause tell us to "refer the reader to more accepted ideas"? How do you interpret the whole sentence, not just the first clause? Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi YoPienso, the proposed formulation gave as a fact in quote marks a one-sided and deceptive argument in the words of ID proponents, followed by a bald statement it's pseudoscience which is then attributed to some people – in my view, this is the reverse of due weight, which should present the overwhelming majority view of expert opinion in all sectors as fact, and snow ID as a minority belief. The preceding [again current] version came out of discussions, which I recall as being about how the ID "definition" restates the design argument, but ID is distinct from the generic teleological argument. In a heavily diluted example, the first paragraph of homeopathy works for me; don't know if we can achieve something similar with ID.
Regards, dave souza, talk 04:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Homeopathy is treated properly, imo. Why won't you answer my question? What does "then refer the reader to more accepted ideas" mean? YoPienso (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You're asking me to parse a guideline which doesn't look particularly well written; the priority is to comply fully with policies. Homeopathy starts with a sentence giving an unsympathetic overview, referring to "alternative medicine" which makes it clear that it's not mainstream, and describes its "doctrine of like cures like" as a "claim". The second sentence is blunt and not attributed to just some groups: "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific."
So, in broad terms, "ID is the claim that complexity in nature implies an unnamed creator, ID is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific." Just a thought experiment, but looks a bit better than the proposed version. Something along these lines could be followed by the quotation of the ID proponents definition, etc., but detailed proposals should be made and discussed on the ID talk page. . dave souza, talk 05:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Not parse! Just explain the simple meaning of. This is the kind of obfuscation that so troubled me 10 years ago or so. (Has it been that long??) You are legalistic in applying rules you like but dismissive of those you don't. You're just using/ignoring the rules to further your own preferences. I'm saddened that when your long-delayed response came, it was merely criticism and disallowance of the guideline. (But thank you for answering, even if you ultimately refused to address the guideline's plain meaning.) If you liked the rule, no matter if it were misspelled and garbled, you would insist we follow it. This one is actually well written. (I've not seen misspelled or garbled rules, actually--that's just rhetoric. And I suppose "rule" isn't the best word.) The priority, it seems, is really to have it your way.
There, I've expressed my views frankly, but without animosity. Your thought experiment is interesting, but I'm not sure I'm willing to put more time into a doomed enterprise. Anyway--tomorrow's Monday and and I still have lesson plans to complete. This year I'm teaching British Literature for the first time, to 11th- and 12th-graders (juniors and seniors--5th- and 6th-formers?). We did Macbeth last quarter and are just finishing up Pygmalion, both lightly bowdlerized. Next up is The Screwtape Letters. The guiding theme is communication, centered on Churchill's mastery of English after sitting in 4th form for three years, thus getting into his "bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence--which is a noble thing." (Too bad he said British instead of English, which we Americans claim to speak.) Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Very good, hope you covered the issue that Macbeth isn't about the real Macbeth, King of Scotland, a Good King (as defined by 1066 and All That), but is propagandist flattery of James VI and I based on Holinshed's Chronicles, an apology for the Stewart dynasty with considerable inaccuracies. Rather symbolic of today, when truth is for the victors. Amazing big crowds at the inauguration, eh! . . . dave souza, talk 12:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned you here. YoPienso (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hope that helps, guidelines are always no more than that, and don't have the force of policies, whether I like it or not. The wording "Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively" implies a non-involved assessment, not a misleading statement by proponents, "then refer the reader to more accepted ideas" means putting it in the context of mainstream views on the topic, in the case of ID mainstream science. The homeopathy article seems to achieve that pretty well, it's likely to be feasible to do something on these lines with ID but would have to reach a considered consensus. Judging by the Presidential election candidates and picks for the new administration, creationist views are still a hot topic in the U.S., don't know if that will lead to another attempt to legitimise ID. . dave souza, talk 12:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
But doesn't calling ID pseudoscience in the first breath immediately put it in the context of mainstream views? Both the Encyclopedia Britannica nor the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy give objective coverage to ID. Objective in the sense of being dispassionate; they are not neutral or pro-ID; they are clear that ID is not accepted by the scientific community but don't speak from the viewpoint of an opponent. (And I just discovered the SEP replaced Alvin Plantinga's article with a brand-new one by Helen de Cruz last week.)
I opted to skip the Holinshed's Chronicles, but did clue the kids in on the historical Macbeth and Shakespeare's political fawning. "Truth is for the victors," you wrote. Yesterday I told a friend on Facebook that the new administration is Orwellian: the truth is whatever they say it is. I suppose you read of Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts"! Heaven help us. YoPienso (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Having looked them over, Britannica seems to be falling over backwards to give equal validity to ID. It may be formulated as "an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82)", but that's not modern evolutionary theory, and of course ID fails in this. Their representation of Kitzmiller is horrendous. The Stanford article is about a more general topic, where it touches on ID it looks ok, much better than Britannica and far more neutral than Plantinga's apologetics.
I did see the "alternative facts" Trump / Spicer / Conway debacle, the press corps has a major problem in how to deal with unashamed lies. We've got that too, notably with most of the press spreading lies about Brexit. So now we're losing the EU's trade agreements, and dear Theresa May is off to get a great new deal from the Donald. Which doesn't fill me with optimism. . . dave souza, talk 14:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yes--forgot this link: Beowulf shows dinosaurs existed with humans. YoPienso (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, a genius article, did laugh but not sure whether to weep at the position of prominent government figures. Of course avian dinosaurs do coexist with humans, so will stroll down and see some at the seaside. Regards, dave souza, talk 14:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
  BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

FYIEdit

didn't mean you, Dave NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. You make a good point about proposed wording being needed for discussion to take place. . dave souza, talk 09:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

ID and creationismEdit

Thanks for quick responses, both on Kitzmiller and talk:ID. I'm gathering that ID proponents are motivated by a desire to promote belief in God.

So their attempts to distance themselves from "creation science" and present ID as purely a scientific challenge are - shall we say - "impure"? (That is, not an entirely disinterested pursuit of)truth.)

Still, I'd like to include in WP a few claims to the contrary - provided both we in the contributor community and THE READERS clearly understand that all such contrary views are in the minority - perhaps the extreme (and extremely biased?) minority. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ed, I think it's all well covered in the articles – ID proponents have repeatedly told their supporters that ID is religious, giving legalistic "scientific" justification to creationism, while presenting a front that it's science and the designer need not be God, just happens to fit the job description. They doubtless sincerely believe that this is righteous, not "impure". We do show their views, in the context of how the views are received. dave souza, talk 20:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

West Indies MerchantsEdit

Is it my fault if Scots (or Falkland Islanders or . . .) want to joint the club and add their names? Why not make a new category West Indies merchants from Scotland, a very few did actually operate from way up there, I think, or was it just for childhood and retirement? Pleased if you would share the knowledge. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Few ≠ none, and there aren't many names in the category: doubtless many others can will eventually be added. Even among the short list of names in the category, Alexander McDonnell, Robert Milligan, Hercules Ross and James Dick are identified in their articles as un-English. Haven't checked them all. . . dave souza, talk 05:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I truly don't follow you. They were all West Indies merchants in London. Were they not? Eddaido (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No, they weren't all merchants in London, and those that did some of their work in London remained Scottish or Irish. Just as English merchants who worked in the West Indies din't become West Indian. For interest, see Tobacco Lords, some of whom had dealings in the West Indies as well as the Southron states. A lot of red links there, so their biographies remain unknown. London wasn't the only trading port in the UK. . . dave souza, talk 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(This does not read well but) all those I looked at did. Mind giving me those you believe did not operate from London (or the West Indies)? If I have names I can check them out. Eddaido (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't exclusive, but for a couple of examples, Hercules Ross was a Scottish merchant who traded from Jamaica, George Bogle of Daldowie was a Glasgow merchant, and Abram Lyle was a Greenock merchant involved in shipping sugar from the West Indies, who subsequently became a sugar importer and manufacturer. . . dave souza, talk 11:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Would this person be an American businessman or a German businessman (or a Bavarian businessman. I'll go look at those names now. Eddaido (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Well, the article says a German American businessman, so I'd go along with that. Would you say he was Prussian? Calling a Bavarian a Prussian is the equivalent of calling a Scot English – the shared identities are, respectively, German and British. As an added complication, the Irish are often not British, so from the UK is a better category description. . . dave souza, talk 12:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking its time for a short-circuit because we have still to define what a West Indies merchant is and I can see how firmly we disagree.
Because others will hold the same (to my mind seriously —and of course unwittingly— mistaken) opinion would it not be best if you were to place your own definition of a West Indies Merchant at the top of the cat. page and open it up to all sugar importers or whatever. You'll be wrong but after all this is Wikipedia! Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Got a source for your definition? . dave souza, talk 22:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I have just received for the very first time an email to say you have amended this page timed at 7:22 and 7:30 GMT notifying me a change has been made to this page. You must step Very quietly.
I need to construct a source (and so will you if you disagree)
1. Oxford English Dictionary (online)
merchant, n. and adj.
†d. Sc. A trader used as an agent to make purchases on another's behalf. Obs.
1450   in H. J. Smit Bronnen tot de Geschiedenis van den Handel (1928) I. 880   We exhort yhou effecteusli, that yhe will serch..quhare the said gudis ar, and mak thaime be deliverit to oure marchande,..in oure naime.
1552   Abp. J. Hamilton Catech. 99   Quha..begylis him [sc. his neighbour] at his marchandis hand.
1600   B. Jonson Every man out of his Humor (1879) ii. i. sig. Fii,   Signior Diliro her husband is my Merchant.
2. The articles about Turkey Merchants and Russia Merchants will give you a guide. I was heading to the cat. to organise cats for them but I was distracted wasn't I. The difference is, so far as I know, no company was chartered for that particular (WI) purpose perhaps because it was a colony? I don't know.
3. The essence is that the WIMs acted as agents at either end of the system (and were probably ex-pats or former ex-pats themselves), I mean caring for aged relatives sorting out suitable accommodation for a client's visit, making sure children were not (badly) ill-treated at school — family business as well as business business and that at both ends of the system. The best but not complete equivalent I know was these organisations.
I'd like to see your thoughts too, please. Eddaido (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
That's odd: you're quoting obsolete usage. Judging by merchant, n. and a. DRAFT REVISION Sept. 2001 you should have used "1. a. A person whose occupation is the purchase and sale of goods or commodities for profit. (Originally used gen. of any trader in goods not manufactured or produced by his or her own hand, but from the 16th cent. chiefly restricted to wholesale traders, esp. those having dealings with foreign countries.)"
Alternatively, this is cited to Collins English Dictionary –
1. (Professions) a person engaged in the purchase and sale of commdities for profit, esp on international markets; trader
2. (Commerce) chiefly US and Canadian a person engaged in retail trade
3. (Historical Terms) (esp in historical contexts) any trader
Perhaps you're trying to confine it to 2.? . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
How do I know when you've responded here? A name is a name is a name. If you want it to mean something else that's fine but define what you think you mean, please. Now: Obsolete usage. Obsolete businesses. Fair enough? I'll toss this discussion in if you just put at the top of the page in question what you believe the category is (by you) intended to include. Then we will all know and re-arrange ourselves accordingly. OK? Eddaido (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── See your watchlist, the heading line on the category means what it says: any further discussion should be on the article talk page. . dave souza, talk 17:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Knowing your inclusiveness what do you think about this case here? Scot or not? We need to finish the above discussion too. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Lacks a source, see my comment on the article talk page. . dave souza, talk 07:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Disrespectful commentEdit

Hi, Dave, you slipped into blogger mode here and disrespected distinguished scientists. Please strike your comment. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Struck as exaggerated, but we shouldn't overstate the eminence of those mostly publicised for contrarian views. . dave souza, talk 18:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, now in the "Climate Wars," but they were eminent before that. It's interesting to me that most of the contrarians are over 70 yrs. old and many had respectable careers before the AGW controversy. (Spencer is in his early 60s.) Even Tim Ball had a respectable, if not stellar, career. YoPienso (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Huh, us old folks get a bit cranky at times, though young Spencer has less of an excuse ;-/ dave souza, talk 18:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm young like Spencer. Can't say I'm never cranky. Or wrong. :-) YoPienso (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

Hello...Today is my birthday, so I checked the calendar to see who else shares my special day! So happy First Edit Day! LA If you reply here, please {{Ping}} me. @ 09:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, replied on your user page, dave souza, talk 20:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reminder! Evolution and research into the topic goes on, which is just as well. Always more interesting points turning up, with continuing changes to improve the encyclopaedia . dave souza, talk 17:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping the spirit, six years now that I noticed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
... and seven! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

2019Edit

 


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Never too late, hope you have a Happy New Year! . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:A Scientific Dissent from DarwinismEdit

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'm having difficulty not reading a lot of snark and condescension in your comments. Can you please try your hardest to avoid that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You've edit warred to keep a POV tag on an article you clearly don't understand, then accused me of making problematic edits, and when I explain where you're going wrong, complain that I'm picking on you. Please try to engage in collegiate discussion – it would help to clear the air if you remove that POV tag so that discussions on article improvement can get under way without the implied allegation that giving due weight to the overwhelming majority view is against NPOV. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you're saying you won't try to cut down on the snark and condescension until I remove the tag. Have I misunderstood? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Dr. F: your "difficulty not reading a lot of snark and condescension" into Dave's comments seems like a personal problem of perspective, as I, for one, fail to see any such comments. It seems to me that Dave does have the better grasp of the matter (as well as being very patient), and your insinuation of "snark and condenscension" not only quite unfounded, but also rather uncivil. So I suggest backing away from that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Uncivil? Pardon? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Yup. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

More talkEdit

Hello again! I hope you´ll allow me some further ramblings, if not, you know where the undo-button is. I think our discussion was getting partly off-topic for that talkpage.

I reluctantly agree that "non-press-group-blog" is the right call, but you have to admit they did a decent effort not to look like one, no "wordpress" in the url etc. I didn´t consider the misleading aspects of their name. That they were DI-folk had not escaped me. Actually, the "Evolution" makes me kneejerk the other way, like when I see a wp-username with "truth" or "fact" in it, I quickly get suspicious. A "proper" science-thing would probably use "Biology". The name, like "Discovery Institute" has an orwellian quality, though I think DI/ID is some sort of pun/injoke.

What hit me in my personal principle and made me grab my stick was the arguments that the articles didn´t fit "press" because they were not WP:RS, a DI-outlet, not mainstream science and obviously biased. All that is correct, but in this particular context, it doesn´t matter. WP gets yelled at and kicked on a lot, often wrongly, ignorantly and ideologically. It´s part of reality. This is sometimes noted or done in press/media, and when it is, we should/can note it in the media-template and/or the coverage pages, they´re not restricted to nicer stuff. When we can agree it´s "press" of course.

So, a hypothetical question: say the Casey Luskin piece got republished in The Washington Times (I don´t see WaPo doing it), and I add it to the ID-talkpage (with an ES that doesn´t literally say MUAHAHA PRESS YOU SUCKERS!!!), would you actively oppose it? If it was republished in WorldNetDaily I might discuss it first, but as you can imagine, that´s also "press" to me, and interesting enough add.

That said, I´m not displeased that the Bechly-article was removed, one of the named editors told me (after I had already added it at "coverage") he was "a little creeped out" by being noticed by the DI-thugs, so there´s a plus-side to that removal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with what you're saying, my concern was that inclusion in the "press coverage" would mislead those who're not aware of the Discovery Institute campaigns. The brief inclusion on the ID talk page was helpful, as it drew attention to an article needing attention, but I can see the viewpoint of editors who don't like getting named in what is effectively an attack website. So, all's well that ends well! . . dave souza, talk 12:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Your FP quote from Jimbo on quack scienceEdit

I stole it. Cheers Edaham (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean, I left a copy of it on your page, obviously - "copied" would be a better word. Sorry if I startled you. Great and entertaining article by the way. Thanks for sharing. Edaham (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, delighted you like Jimbo's wise statement and the ARS article. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Shalom Dave, I know that the most recent discussion on the Talk-Page of Intelligent Design has been closed, but do you think there's a chance that only the first sentence be amended in the opening paragraph, so that it reads: "Intelligent design (ID) is a philosophical/religious argument which seeks to establish, through deductive reasoning, the theorem that the universe and all life forms were created by an intelligent being."? I know that the other suggestions by me were rejected (which I accept, as it is the consensus), but this one change seemed to have garnered some support. What do you think? If you say that I should drop it and let the present edit stand, I shall not pursue the matter any further. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David, I think you should drop it as the proposed wording of the first sentence would give undue weight to the misleading claims of the ID movement – multiple sources show that the argument is primarily religious rather than philosophical, and the "intelligent being" is a thinly veiled reference to God. Since deductive reasoning is not scientific method, that has to be shown in context, which may be possible in the body text of the article but is a side issue that is inappropriate for the lead. So, recommend that you don't pursue this lead sentence further. . . dave souza, talk 12:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability questionEdit

Hi! I've been unable to find the place to ask if being a Rhodes Scholar confers the notability required for a BLP. This page was very confusing. Do you know either the answer or where I can find it? Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPN would be the best place for this question. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for a quick response, Boris, while I've been giving thanks with turkey, etc.
That page seems to be for articles or drafts already created. I need to know if I should create an article about a person solely because she was just awarded a Rhodes Scholarship.
WP:NACADEMIC says: 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. I assume this means an award to a professor, not a scholarship (even an internationally prestigious one like the Rhodes) to a graduate student. With one exception, all the people on the List of Rhodes Scholars have their own article. However, not all, e.g. Frank Kerr (footballer)--and perhaps others--seem to be particularly notable.
I'm assuming this young woman would not fulfill the criteria for a BLP, but want to check that out. YoPienso (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yopienso and Boris, afraid I don't know the answer. Having had a look at guidelines, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria suggests multiple sources would be needed, but I really have no idea if the considerable academic achievement the young woman has shown is sufficient to justify an article, or even if having an article is a good idea for her. The article List of Rhodes Scholars says it's "covering notable people who are Rhodes Scholarship recipients," implying the scholarship itself doesn't necessarily confer notability. Since your question is about the principle rather than issues with an existing article, maybe a good idea to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard rather than BLPN itself? . . dave souza, talk 21:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll ask there. YoPienso (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dave souza. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:FreightersEdit

I have proposed speedy merging of Category:Freighters, which you created, to Category:Cargo ships. If you wish to comment, please see WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 23:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. . dave souza, talk 06:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Intelligent design and science as a POV forkEdit

Hi Dave, I've been reading through Talk:Intelligent_design, and stumbled upon a reference to Intelligent design and science. I found the original discussion where it was agreed the article would be created [2], and see that the current lead hasn't changed much since 2012 [3].

Nevertheless it seems to me that as some editors feared in 2012, Intelligent design and science does amount to a POV fork. Most importantly, the lead of the article treats ID and modern biology as intellectually equivalent. All of the strong statements in the lead of Intelligent design, making it abundantly clear that ID is psuedoscience, unsupported by fact, and rejected by the scientific community, do not appear in the lead of Intelligent design and science. I think this would be rectified if the split article [4] had as much attention as the original [5].

What do you think about this issue? I'd propose a modest re-write of the lead for Intelligent design and science, incorporating some of the language from Intelligent design. -Darouet (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, the article seems essentially unchanged since 2012 with the only text changes being a minor recent tightening of the lead. It will be very helpful if you can identify areas where the ID article is clearer or more definite, and aim to bring the article into line as well as the lead section. A lot has been published about ID in the last five years, and while MisterDub did an admirable job in splitting excessive detail off from the main ID article, the two need to be brought into line with the newer sources. I'll try to watch what happens, but can't put much work into it at present. Regards, . . dave souza, talk 23:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' GreetingsEdit

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And to yourselves! Thanks for the greeting, dave souza, talk 15:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNYEdit

  Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Fine fireworks, have sent a quieter wintry scene to your talk page...... dave souza, talk 15:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Naturalism (philosophy)Edit

I'm not sure if it's still on your watchlist, but recent edits have restored some material which appeared contentious according to previous talk page discussions (and these turned out to be added by a sock of AshforkAZ); in case you would like to review them... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, too many alarums and diversions lately. Will review the edits to Naturalism (philosophy), but the main issue seems to be the omission of natural philosophy as a predecessor of science in its modern meaning. Have now got a couple of sources, so will work on that. . dave souza, talk 17:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

King EdwardEdit

Hello Dave. While mucking around for sources to answer questions at the WP:SHIPS talk page, I found this, which could substitute for the self-published source (which we did not use) on King Edward's career in the White Sea. The nrm.org source is a blog, but seems usable. It also affirms the self-published source. Any thoughts?

Best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! As an official publication by the Science Museums Group that looks excellent as a source, and is only a blog in the same sense as news blogs. The author Simon Batchelor was an Assistant Curator of Collections at the National Railway Museum, not some random blogger. Good find. . dave souza, talk 13:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

MV Princess Victoria (1939) & (1947)Edit

Hi - you friend K. fingered you as an expert in this area. I recently did an article for MV Princess Victoria (1939) the predecessor to MV Princess Victoria (1947). I observe claims for the latter it was the first operational cross channel stern loading car ferry ... however the 1939 ship operated for the peak summer season of 1939 and there is a picture of it loading cars (might have been a publicity shot) and perhaps it did the season passenger only. Anyway if you have any information appreciated. (And I have nibbled at twin screw steamer but there is much dead ending in this area but I hope to get an essay or something about it because it is now bugging me greatly and there is an exception for nearly everything I want to say). Thanks! Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, regrettably I'm really not an expert, and rather parochially my interest is in Clyde shipping and local history – I don't know anything about the Channel, and thought you meant the English Channel. The 1939 photo shows the StranraerLarne service, crossing the North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland). This article says it "entered service at Stranraer as recently as 8 July 1939", but "was requisitioned on 13 Sep 1939" so had most of the summer season in use as a car ferry. Trivial point: the photo at the top shows the launch, with the then-new Ballantine's grain distillery to the right – see Dumbarton#Whisky, just under the section about Denny's. As for the prefix initials, TS seems to be fairly common usage for Turbine Steamer from when they co-existed (on the Clyde) with paddle steamers, TrSS looks like an abbreviation from lists of ships. In another confusing twist, the DEPV Talisman (1935) tends to get informally included with paddle steamers,[6] or PS meaning "paddle ships".[7]. . dave souza, talk 11:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Article about Pavan Kumar NREdit

I want to create article in wikipedia about this person "Pavan Kumar NR" but the title is protected.... [refs trimmed] .... 2405:204:538E:FDA2:0:0:575:18A0 (talk)

Let's see: on 21 June 2017 SpacemanSpiff deleted page Pavan Kumar NR (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban), so we'd have to ask them if the proposed re-creation is truly something new and worthwhile, or if it's a sock. You're editing as an IP user, so not a good start. Will leave this for a short while, then will have a tidy up to remove this and other discussions which are now old or resolved. . dave souza, talk 20:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is just the weekly sock, SO was rejected recently, so he continues to spam using IPs now. —SpacemanSpiff 22:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for confirming that, and for keeping on top of the problem. . . dave souza, talk 06:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Green Berets (1968)Edit

Could you look at the talk page for the green berets (film)? There is a dispute. --1.136.107.150 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha!Edit

Clearly in going forward we should be thinking of requiring all volunteers to use hindsight in advance of any information on which to base that hindsight, or in advance of future publicity which inspires such hindsight--You nailed it.Some people have weird reasoning skills.WBGconverse 12:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! . . dave souza, talk 12:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"[numbering added]" in small text in Climate change denial articleEdit

Hi Dave, this is my first attempt at trying to trace some text in a WP article and then communicating with the (probable) editor (hope I've got this right). The text in question is "[numbering added]" in small text in 'Climate change denial' article in the 'Taxonomy of climate change denial' section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Taxonomy_of_climate_change_denial . I was wondering if this was supposed to have gone into the Edit Summary. I think the edit was made on 21:37, 27 May 2015. I hope I have understood this 'difference' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_denial&diff=prev&oldid=664330992 correctly. FrankSier (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Frank, good work: you've got the "diff" of my edit which shows my edit summary at the top of the page. In the edit, I used a quote box for wording, and after reference [126] which links to the source I added a small note attempting to clarify that it wasn't a direct quote, and I had added numbers to the three types. I've now tried to clarify the note a bit more, thus – [126][summarised and numbering added] – hope that's a bit clearer!
Thanks for commenting, It's important to follow sources and in this case I was trying to concisely represent Rahmstorf's three part taxonomy as used in subsequent publications such as [5] Björnberg et al.. Let me know or simply edit the page if you see ways of improving this. . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I have only seen comments that look like this (ie small text in square brackets) pointing out *deficiencies* in references, ie something that needs to be corrected (such as lack of reference, or the info is not in the reference) and referring to some *other* editor's entries, not one's own. I don't know of a convention for explaining, within the article, how one's own entry relates to the source. Maybe expand to "summarised from original and numbering added" and use normal size text? I am not sure. FrankSier (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair point, there are several templates asking for further citations etc. . so have added a comment within the ref itself, and provided both references to show the context and imply it's not a simply a quotation from one source. . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that looks clearer and more understandable, and seems a good solution. FrankSier (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dave souza. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dave souza. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

FYIEdit

HI Dave. Got your note. That's a lot of text!! I started loading it at the "Existing...." section but found it very hard to decipher. I'm leaving this note at partipants' talk pages..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC) FYI I tweaked a subsection at Talk GW where you had a comment. Please let me know if you object, or just revert. The explanation for what I did is now at the bottom of the thread, and the diff for what I did is here. Thanks for your attention. Season's greetings! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I did another refactor, so the conversation will hopefully flow across the subsection headings. My changes here. Before doing this, I ran a text-comparision between the blocks of article draft text and they are the same, except for the footnote numbers. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned youEdit

I mentioned you in a request for community imposed Tban re user Bought the farm. Your input is not specifically needed or requested, but would be welcome if you wish to offer comment either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi Dave,

If you are out and about in Scotland, some good photos of some Scotrail Turbostars would be helpful. We're missing good photos of these. We have photos, sure, but not good photos (photos of whole units, in sunshine, with the sun behind the camera). Though they're the most common type of Turbostar.

Hi Tony, have answered at Talk:British Rail Class 385. . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

FCPP apology to MannEdit

If you've to time, can you add that item to Mann's Wikipedia page, not just Tim Ball page? JohnMashey (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No time, I'm afraid, but – oh, very well. Still leaves two suits unresolved. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I see you did it, thanks! JohnMashey (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. By coincidence was listening to Arlo Guthrie lately – is this another case of American blind justice, and when can we expect to see the 10 x 8 color glossy photographs? . . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Mars faceEdit

[8]   Oops, I said "David's" rather than "Dave's" there too. BTW, thanks for working on ID related articles, —PaleoNeonate – 13:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing it was already covered under #In popular culture, but think #Speculation works better. Thanks for contributing to coverage of pseudoscience! . . dave souza, talk 13:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to the CSM, without whom it would not be possible.[Humor]PaleoNeonate – 15:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Ta, haven't watched much TV for many years, but am sure I heard something about Mulder and Scully in The X Factor – lots of files on ID, looking increasingly like a self-contradictory web of pseudoscience fiction. Will try to extract some more when time permits! . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I've seen some X-Files episodes but long ago (and rarely watch TV myself). This particular character is like, the chief of men in black; when he (rarely) suddenly appears, it's a bit like a James Bond villain who explains his purposes (while smoking), and all evidence Mulder could find to support his conspiracy theories suddenly vanished (the man's work is done).  Yes it wasn't a bad series, rather entertaining. —PaleoNeonate – 18:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Was just my little joke at the time, when anyone asked if I'd seen the most recent episode of The X Factor my reply was "oh, is that the one with Mulder and Sculley?" Think I saw one episode of each, didn't recall the smoking character. Anyway, back to "Johnny Appleseed" Meyer when I can find some time. . . dave souza, talk 18:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

WoohooEdit

  Hey, Dave souza. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mjs1991 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 
Thanks awfully! . . . dave souza, talk 06:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Global Warming timescaleEdit

Hi Dave. All quiet on the Global Warming Talk page, so allow me to confirm or disprove with you a suspicion I have.

Yuo seem to favour using the concept "pre-industrial" even though the IPCC dropped the term as unhelpful in 2014. My suspicion is that you may not be a historian and are therefore unaware that historically, the industrial revolution started with James Watt's steam engine in Britain in 1769, and then industrialisation took 50-100 years to take hold in Europe and America. See Industrial Revolution#Industrialisation beyond the United Kingdom. Given this century-long transition from agricultural to industrial societies, it is not sensible to use the term "pre-industrial" as a temporal term, whether defined as the period 1720-1800, or 1750-1800, or 1850-1900. We should spare Wikipedia this pre-2014 confusion and simply say that recent Global Warming started in the mid-19th century. And that it correlates with an increased emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.86.162.84.228 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since correlation is only one of the lines of evidence in attribution studies, I'm not keen on adding any variation of that word to the article text, because it would too easily convey a subconscious meaning that is not intended. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ha, so you are alive. I am not wedded to the word "correlate", because it mathematically implies a linear relationship which probably is not the case with CO2/CH4/Global Warming. I am just as happy to say that the greenhouse gases are causing/contributing to Global Warming (citing reliable published sources). But all that is not my main point. My point is, we cannot continue using "pre-industrial" as a time period, especially if IPCC2014 has stopped doing so. Therefore we need to introduce the compromise term "mid-19th century". You told me that I need a secondary reference, I have provided it. If you are now unhappy with objective timescales in general, then why let me go to the trouble?86.162.84.228 (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, will look at the issue again: this is about improving the clarity of the section on Observed temperature changes – an introductory sentence or two could show the context instead of jumping in with datasets about temperatures between 1880 and 2012. Needs some time for thought. . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware regarding "pre-industrial" that "the IPCC dropped the term as unhelpful in 2014", so will need to have a look at that – got a secondary source? The 2016 and 2017 papers you've cited both use the term, while emphasising that there's no clear-cut date at which human influence kicked in – it's been a convention, so can be described as such. . dave souza, talk 18:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Update: the WG1AR5 TS uses the term multiple times. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The secondary source is Hawkins et al. 2017 whom we cite, it is in the very first paragraph and forms the rationale for their paper:
In the absence of a formal definition for preindustrial, the IPCC AR5 made a pragmatic choice to reference global temperature to the mean of 1850–1900 when assessing the time at which particular temperature levels would be crossed (Kirtman et al. 2013). In the final draft, 1850–1900 was referred to as preindustrial, but at the IPCC AR5 plenary approval session, “a contact group developed a proposal, in which reference to ‘pre-industrial’ is deleted, and this was adopted [by the governments]” (IISD 2013). However, the term preindustrial was used in AR5, often inconsistently, in other contexts—for example, when discussing atmospheric composition, radiative forcing (the year 1750 is used as a zero-forcing baseline), sea level rise, and paleoclimate information. These discussions highlight the importance of defining preindustrial consistently and more precisely.

86.162.84.228 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC) ───────────────────────── It's just one post AR5-study but FYI see carbon brief article about it at Greenhouse gases began warming the world’s oceans in the early 1800s, decades earlier than previously thought, according to a new study NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, that's helpful. The 2013 IPCC discussion on using "pre-industrial" doesn't seem to have had lasting effect. Don't know why this didn't come up during our discussions at Archive 75#Global Warming vs.Climate Change and Sources: global warming definitions, relation to climate change, but the matter seems to have been resolved in IPCC SR15 2018 Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels......
Usefully, definitions are given in IPCC SR15 Glossary 2018 Annex I:Glossary and also, neatly, in IPCC SR15 2018 SPM1 Core Concepts Central to this Special Report (section linked in Table of Contents, link doesn't seem to go directly to section)
Altogether, these sources can be used to check the wording of the lead of Global warming and work out a brief intro to Global warming#Observed temperature changes, with discussion back at Talk:Global warming. Just when I was trying to catch up on other topics! . . . dave souza, talk 06:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a Wikipedia article, it's a mobious strip NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Not quite! The feed of new sources makes it a sort of exponential spiral, don't know the geometric term for that ;-P . . . dave souza, talk 09:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Logarithmic spiral ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks appropriate for WP's growth. . . dave souza, talk 10:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

NotificationEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This is just a courtesy since you reverted some of OuvertonBridge's edits. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, have added a link and some notes for anyone interested. . . dave souza, talk 10:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael E. MannEdit

Just a request for you to keep an eye on Michael E. Mann if you wouldn't mind, I'm going to be busy for a few days - and to anyone else who might be watching. The court case has brought out some non-RS stuff; see my last revert William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some editors do seem to be rather excited about what unreliable sources have told them. Enjoy the break! . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Pages 2K graphicEdit

Hi Dave. I've discussed this image with a friend, who has pointed out that there has been an update to the dataset and publication here. The changes are minimal in the 1000 years used, but still, it would be better to have an updated version. You seem to have moved the image to Commons - at least, you are the first to edit the page there. Do you still remember the original author? Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan, as it says on the ThinkProgress page the original author is Klaus Bittermann; in 2014 I was put in touch with him at pik-potsdam.de and he very helpfully went through the OTRS procedure to give permission under a free license. Let me know if you need more contact info.
The background is that we were using IPCC graphs but Wikipedia [or Wikimedia] editors checking copyright found that they weren't under a suitable license. I tried to get approval from the IPCC, but in August 2013 the IPCC legal officer turned down my request: 'after internal IPCC discussion, I regret to inform you that we found the policy of Wikimedia to be not sufficiently in line with the IPCC copyright policy and therefore cannot grant you a "free licence" to use the IPCC figures in the manner as specified by you.'
My prime aim was to get a version of the MBH99 figure available for the articles; the PAGES 2k context is useful in many cases.
An update would be nice, it would be ideal to also get a figure (without MBH) for the whole two millennia. Temperature record of the past 1000 years is overdue for an update, and I've been wondering about a better title: would temperature record of the past two millennia work?
Also, think the PAGES 2k 2019 reconstruction uses an updated dataset: the paper says "palaeotemperature records (PAGES 2k v.2.0.0) used for all reconstructions are available at" – a noaa link that doesn't open for me. . . dave souza, talk 08:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
update: File:Temperature reconstruction last two millennia.svg meets the need for a two millennia figure, based on version 2.0.0 of the PAGES2k proxy temperature database (2017). . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Now svg file – also note, for my own info, NOAA Ftp directory for original MBH99 data, Date modified readme 17/03/1999, proxies and reconstr 14/11/2003. h/t Rahmstorf, Stefan (15 May 2013). "Paläoklima: Die letzten 2000 Jahre » KlimaLounge » SciLogs". KlimaLounge (in German). Retrieved 3 September 2019. (Thinkprogress translation]) . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, this is helpful. What I liked about the original figure was that it showed the MBH reconstruction with the uncertainty range, and contrasted that with a more recent reconstruction (the question was "has MBW ever been fully reproduced?"). I'll ponder your data and links for a while! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S.: I have an unfair advantage for German sources ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Glad it's of use! The reason for jotting down so much about data and links was a number of edits to several articles based on unreliable sources claiming the MBH data and methods was being concealed! Have now added a section to Talk:Michael E. Mann#Data and methods. . . dave souza, talk 09:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

WoohoooEdit

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing dave souza a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Mjs1991 (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! What a long strange trip it's been!! . . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

NIPCC editingEdit

I notice that you and I have been editing and re-editing the same page. The group does oppose the IPCC, however it is not a climate change denial group. It acknowledges climate change, and proposes alternative explanations for the causes and best course of future actions when compared to the IPCC. MikeRit (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As the cited source explains, NIPCC manufactures uncertainty in a strategy of climate change denial. . . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Dave souza".