→Need feedback on merger proposal: new section |
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Yogurt: new section |
||
Line 578: | Line 578: | ||
I'm still trying to clean-up the patriarchy-related articles, but I can't seem to get any feedback on this [[Talk:Patriarchy#Merger_proposal_for_Patriarchy_in_feminism|merger proposal]]. If you have the time, I would appreciate your input. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
I'm still trying to clean-up the patriarchy-related articles, but I can't seem to get any feedback on this [[Talk:Patriarchy#Merger_proposal_for_Patriarchy_in_feminism|merger proposal]]. If you have the time, I would appreciate your input. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Yogurt == |
|||
Just a friendly reminder... [[WP:NPA]] states: |
|||
{{quotation|Comment on content, not on the contributor.<br>...<br>As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.}} |
|||
The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoghurt&diff=298356027&oldid=298352759 following comments]...: |
|||
* "why are '''you''' still using..." |
|||
* "'''B2c is''' aware of...", |
|||
* "I've had this conversation with '''him/her''' before..." |
|||
* "Yet '''s/he''' persists... ". |
|||
... are all personalized comments on a contributor, not on content. |
|||
Thank you. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:35, 25 June 2009
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HouseBlaster | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | Discussion | 00:50, 23 June 2024 | 5 days, 11 hours | no | report |
Paul H. Allen at DYK
Interesting article! I have made some suggestions as to the wording of the hook -- please review as soon as you can to prevent this being passed over. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deeply sorry for my appalling timing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Deepest sympathy
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)
- 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)
- 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)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Lily_Lilium_%27Citronella%27_Flower.jpg/250px-Lily_Lilium_%27Citronella%27_Flower.jpg)
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 God...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)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Alex_Kosmas%27s_nexus.jpg/200px-Alex_Kosmas%27s_nexus.jpg)
DYK for Paul H. Allen
Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Banderas
Hello, in light of recent discoveries, I am proposing a consensus concerning the colors of the flag of Puerto Rico in neutral articles. Please see the project's talk page for further detail. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 19 January 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)
ID images
As I said on Dave's talk page, I am discussing the images, heavily, both on the talk page and elsewhere. I continued to remove them from the article, not because there was a clear consensus to remove them, but because there was no clear consensus to include them. The non-free content criteria are quite clear on that front- the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the images. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also a little concerned about your characterisation of my edits as "disruptive", while continuing to edit war yourself. Why do you believe the version with the images is the one we should settle on while the images are being discussed? Your assertion that "the image use appears to be in keeping with our rules" does not reflect the heated debate on the article talk page. As I have said, I feel the images should remain our of the article at the current time not because there is a clear consensus for their removal, but because their is no clear consensus for their retention, and the non-free content criteria are quite clear on where the burden of proof lies. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What? As I have said, I am involved in the discussion, far more heavily than you are. Furthermore, I have not edited the main article since you did, so there was no need for any kind of additional warning. I am not saying that I don't like it- I am saying that there is no consensus to keep the images. If you believe there is, we have a very different definition of consensus. In stating that the images appear to meet our policy, you are the one who is effectively ignoring the discussion and instead deciding what is best for the article. Do you honestly believe that there is a current consensus for the images to be retained? J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, simply stating that I am being disruptive does not make it so. Also, I do not appreciate this whole "warning" thing- I have been an administrator for over a year; I know the ropes. If you are going to undo my edits, the least you can do is answer a few questions. Do you honestly believe there to be a consensus for retaining the images? J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What? As I have said, I am involved in the discussion, far more heavily than you are. Furthermore, I have not edited the main article since you did, so there was no need for any kind of additional warning. I am not saying that I don't like it- I am saying that there is no consensus to keep the images. If you believe there is, we have a very different definition of consensus. In stating that the images appear to meet our policy, you are the one who is effectively ignoring the discussion and instead deciding what is best for the article. Do you honestly believe that there is a current consensus for the images to be retained? J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Our basic disagreement seems to be that you believe there is a clear consensus for the images to be kept, meaning that my removal of them is disruptive, while I believe that there is no clear consensus, meaning that my removal is valid. That would be fair enough. However, you argue that my involvement in the debate means that I cannot fairly judge whether there is a consensus, meaning that your judgement of consensus is more objective, yet, in the same edit, argue for how involved in the discussion you have been. I find that a little alarming. Unless one of us is "right" about the consensus (and, as you have argued, neither of us could be a fair judge of that) then if any of my edits have been disruptive, so was yours. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
where things should be
I'm not sure what good it will do. I've made my case that the bird family should be at bird of paradise. The page is rather disorganised at present (not helped by a bunch of people !voting at another proposal), but at the moment it seems to be in the hands of consensus. I'd try and clarify the options, for example provide three options to !vote on (at present the page is set up so that it's Una's or nothing) but since I've been strongly advocating a position that would probably make things more irritating. I'm not going to disrupt things just because I think I'm right. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The whole page is confusing. That's what happens in these situations (check out recent activity at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) which I barely follow just to make sure no sweeping changes happen by attrition of exausted editors. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Secondary forest
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html Fred Talk 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms
Hi, Guettarda, I've posted this elsewhere, where you will certainly see it, but I am trying to notify everyone involved most recently:
I suggest that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion should be discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I personally think that editing by consensus can work, which means, I value your input whether you agree with me or not. If you're just disrupting Wikipedia, I don't value your input, but that's not the case with you, even when you and I disagree. It's not the case with most of the editors I disagree with on Wikipedia. So, come on by, and disagree with me. And thanks for taking the time. --KP Botany (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:My incivility
No, I was just not happy with the method. That conversation was going nowhere. If you want to discuss my incivility, do so on my talk page with specific references to the phrases that you are unhappy with. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Caribbean would fit where - North America? Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but only if the herbarium has a minimum of 200,000 specimens. Herbaria smaller than that are placed on the List of herbaria in North America, where they are grouped with Central America. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Endemic flora of Trinidad and Tobago
Dravecky (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Wild horse
Hi. I think the general opinion re Wild horse is in flux, and it may be helpful if on Talk:Wild horse#Request move you would register your view in the survey section. Regards, Una Smith (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Justicia flaviflora
Dravecky (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Ignatz Urban
Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
spellunking
You think? I know.[1] Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Who hasn't sat in a read-along praying to their gods to not be called upon at a tricky passage? I use a fuzzy spell-checker that allows common alternative spellings that are found on certain types of pages on Wikipedia, to allow for British versus American English. I wrote it for spell-checking 19th century British texts, but adapted it in part for the Wikipedia issue. For some reason the spell checker okayed this spelling, as it sometimes does with really commonly misspelled words, but doing a search doesn't pull up lots of pages with this spelling.
- Ah, well, I'm a really bad speller, and I appreciate everyone who tidies up after me, no matter what is being tidied. --KP Botany (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
agreeing with you
Don't worry, I'm not agreeing with you, I'm just defending the side of reason as logic... as usual... You just happen to be on that side this time. ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on the NFC fracas
I thank you for your support on John's talk page, and on the AN/I page.
I always thought block warnings only came out after at least three or four warnings except for completely egregious behavior. So it was quite a shock to be given "not a threat, but a promise" to be blocked if I made another move without being told why I would be blocked. I had never ever been given any kind of warning for my editing here, much less a block warning: I wholeheartedly back the mission and philosophy of Wikipedia. And although I'm not confident in my straight content-building ability, I do my best to support those editors who do build the encyclopedia, and I'd like to think I am considered an editor in good standing. This affected me more than I care to admit. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to note that this sort of thing is increasingly endemic on the wiki, and this is just one particular example. (I will refrain from being explicit about where else I've noticed this sort of use, or abuse, of administrative power based upon hasty or incorrect interpretations of WP policy.) WP:Consensus is policy too, and when that's threatened by administrative power plays of this kind, I'm afraid the project has reached its limits of competence in keeping with the Peter principle. It's something the community will no doubt need to discuss and deal with if it is to maintain its best possible health and vibrancy in the future. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Kisten Dunst FAC
I've taken care of your concerns, regarding its FAC review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Life listing!
Thanks for stopping by! I haven't even put half the plants I've seen from Arizona there ... and I just moved to Florida. So, yeah, it's quite the personal project ^^ -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 03:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Skid cone
I looked at the Skid cone article, I think you're right and it is notable. I googled it and it appears whoever wrote it just took the first couple of commercial links verbatim, but it appears to be patented. I threw a forestry stub on it for now and a link to it from the Topic outline of forestry, will think about linking to it more later this week. I've seen them used, and I think that it could be mentioned in any one of the timber harvesting articles :) minnecologies (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
re:point
§hepTalk 01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Puerto Rico Newsletter Year III - Issue 1 - Fall & Winter 2008-09
![]() Year III - Issue 1 - Fall & Winter 2008-09 | |
| |
Hello, Guettarda. This is the sixth issue of WikiProject Puerto Rico's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members to keep up with the latest news relating to the project. Continuing our new format, this issue will discuss the news, achievements and other incidences relevant to our project between fall and winter. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |
Greetings, during the past months, there has been a lot of activity and active discussion surrounding articles within our scope. Of particular interest is one that took place in Flag of Puerto Rico, in which several project members exposed their points of view regarding the tones of our flag. Ultimately, research brought forth a severe loophole in the regulation employed by the Senate of Puerto Rico. Our flag doesn't have official tones! Attempting to prevent future conflicts, I presented a proposal in the project's talk page. The subsequent discussion served as an perfect example of consensus. Thanks to everyone for your participation. In other news, our friend Tony the Marine added another impressive achievement to his brilliant resume. On December 8, 2008, his DYK hook for Ivan Castro (soldier) broke the previous all-time record for more views, receiving 71,300 visits. Tony has also been actively cooperating with this Newsletter, the inclusion of a new "Did you Know?" section, was entirely his idea. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
Addbot (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Olbermann Talk Page
Hi, I know you are trying to assume good faith by requesting a source here [2], but as I read it, WP:BLP is extremely clear:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
As was my understanding, this applies EVEN on a talk page. WindyCityRider (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I over-reacted, but the comment seemed so absurd as to be snide and aimed at button pushing, I deemed it having no place in our serious discussion. Perhaps I should err on the side of assuming good faith, and if he pushed the issue, I'll leave it so as to give him a chance to provide some sourcing, and then we can review if it merits discussion or inclusion. Thanks for your feedbackm BTW. WindyCityRider (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
RFCU
Thanks for the note. Usually WP:RFCU isn't supposed to be used for fishing trips, but I'm uncomfortable with making an outright accusation -- I don't have a clear idea of who might be controlling the network. In my experience, this many new or mostly-unused SPA's arriving all at once to tow a party line tend to be the work of one or two individuals. Then again, it might just be a hoard of individauls who found a thread on thelatestrightwingblogplace.com. Your observations are always appreciated. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Active disputes
While I understand your frustration, I have to point out that excessively archiving active discussions can give the impression of attempting to stifle debate (especially with an active thread). While I agree with your assessment that the latest thread could be questioned against the literal interpretation of talk page guidelines, I think it's probably best to pick your battles. Don't get discouraged, though. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
... for the backup there. I finally, with a heavy sigh, slammed shut my laptop and went to bed. Sometimes you just have to walk away ... All the best, Antandrus (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The other items you mention are basically singular things. While Carnival can be a holiday, like the others, its usage varies around the world. In addition you have things that are not holidays like Category:Traveling carnivals. So in this case the category clearly should be of the plural form. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Mother India (book)
That's the plan (rewriting it). --iFaqeer (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Whoever put it there; they have a point.
- And nice to meet you again. Nowadays, my engagement with the Wikipedia is more focused/targetted. But I am around. How are things with you?
- --iFaqeer (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Violation of Jimbo Guidelines By You
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama
You obviously are the one violating the rules. I am being perfectly within the bounds and if you can't take truth to power then I suggest you get out of the way because if you are the one deleting my mentioning of the systemic problems then you should be ashamed of your lack of following the Jimbo guidelines which should be your duty, sir . JohnHistory (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)johnHistory
They sure come out of the woodwork when you are not "in step" don't they. JohnHistory (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Stop Abusing the integrity of your position
Your posts are juvenile in nature. Lets up the standard a little bit please. JohnHistory (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Yeah, stop abusing your position by making juvenile posts! Hesperian 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Stop posting about juveniles.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ooops Sorry. Got confused. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't hold your breath waiting for another comment from JohnHistory, he's just been blocked for a fortnight. What a classic bit of terminology! Doc Tropics 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm
Maybe I misunderstood the point you were making. You're right; I've withdrawn my response. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Requesting your advice
Several times in the past you have been able to help steer me in the right direction in difficult situations, especially where policy was a concern in article and talkpage activites. I'm hoping I can impose on you again to help me out with some advice and maybe assistance if you have time. The article Genetically modified food has long been a poorly written article with some fairly severe POV content issues, and those have recently become worse. Now I have "engaged" with an editor who has me grasping at straws and thoroughly frustrated. Could you take a look at the situation and maybe offer me a clue how I should try to proceed? If you can I'd really appreciate it! Thanks, Doc Tropics 05:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Guettarda. It's amazing how much difference a good nights sleep and some 3rd opinions can make! Your points were well-made and taken to heart; I think I can see how to improve the article quality at this point, although it still needs attention from an expert. Hopefully the POV issues will settle down and progress will be possible. Thanks again, and have a great day, Doc Tropics 14:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Zombia
Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Myers
You don't suppose this was Kwok, do you? KillerChihuahua?!? 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- No comment. I don't want anyone asking me to buy them a camera. Guettarda (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- rofl! too true. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Harold E. Moore
--Dravecky (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
thanks for going behind the vandal (Dystopiasticker I'm sure) and removing his personal attacks. I'm kinda short of time for the next day or two... given that he's attacking multiple editors, would you mind carrying the football and get an RFCU and ANI action request going? I hate punting to other editors, but I just don't have the time today and given his past persistence I don't know if waiting around is the answer... If you don't have time no worries. Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Game the System?
Don't threaten me. You are violating DOZENS of Wik policies including be nice, assume good faith and dont game the system etc etc. I'm documenting you and your co-liberals disruptive practices intended to protect your liberal weenie heroes like Keith Olbermann et al. You and blaxthos are part of the team RUINING wik. And you VANDALS have the gall to tell me not to critique you guys considering the HATE you spew towards conservatives. Everyone is on to your game. Delete all you want, the edit history is there and is making our case stronger and stronger. God Bless you. Jesus Loves you. He really does...68.40.123.217 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- ROFL! Love and peace, man..... dave souza, talk 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, 68 has a day to cool out. Relax! . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems a bit of a paranoid wanker, eh? Sounds like the Inquisition is creating a reeducation list. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition :-/ dave souza, talk 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, you're both on the list along with Guettarda. Smiley Jesus alohas! --Ali'i 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition :-/ dave souza, talk 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems a bit of a paranoid wanker, eh? Sounds like the Inquisition is creating a reeducation list. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, 68 has a day to cool out. Relax! . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Leucothrinax
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Trinidad and Tobago
I'm sorry about that edit, it was a bit of ignorance on my part. My reasoning was that Category:Trinidad and Tobago cricketers was the same as Category:Jamaica cricketers in that it referred to the team rather than the nationality (as oppose to Category:Jamaican cricketers. I assumed that as someone was Trinidad is Trinidadian and someone from Tobago is Tobagonian, that the demonyn would be something like Trinidadian and Tobagonian cricketers. Again, I apologise and will do some basic research prior to making such edits in the future. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Chinese Trinidadian
Hi, this is regarding your article on Chinese Trinidadian. In the article that you have stated that the current President of Trinidad and Tobago, Professor Emeritus George Maxwell Richards, is of Chinese Trinidadian ancestry, without any proof/reliable sources. However, I have checked on the official website of him and the government website, it clearly says that he is of Amerindian ancestry, and no mention of Chinese Trinidadian ancestry at all. I have changed this fact on the article twice, however you have twice unchanged without any explanation or proof still. If you are doing so again, please properly source it, or just don't change it. Ttzz2003 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
That's great. Thank you for sourcing. Ttzz2003 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay (hi)
Can you please answer to me here or on my talk page? I've already asked this by 2 person but they didn't give me a proper answer. Thank you! --62.216.127.31 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm kinda rude but you're like my last hope. So please. --62.216.127.31 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No edit war
Kenosis did three reverts in quick succession, I wanted to save the text, because it is a pain in the ass to restore it. Besides, I am not very wise.Likebox (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
yoi
Thanks for having my back, buddy. Graft | talk 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Roystonea borinquena
Shubinator (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Caribbean
I answered your question and asked another at my talk page, which I think I have an answer to now.
The Flora of the Caribbean category tree now follows the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, with three exceptions:
- Category:Flora of the Isle of Youth and Category:Trees of the Isle of Youth, which I have nominated for deletion as overcategorisation.
- Category:Trees of Hispaniola; the WGSRPD recognises the two countries rather than the one island.
- Category:Trees of the Virgin Islands; the WGSRPD recognises the two countries rather than the one archipelago.
I propose to complete the task by decommissioning and deleting the latter two. This would bring the entire category into line with the WGSRPD, which is a good thing for many reasons, not least of which is the avoidance of the temptation to nest ever deeper: you would know much better than most the way these islands are grouped into island chains within chains within chains:
U.S. Virgin Islands < Virgin Islands < Leeward Islands < Lesser Antilles < Antilles < Caribbean
The WGSRPD simplifies that example to
U.S. Virgin Islands < Leeward Islands < Caribbean
which is, I think, a good thing. Any comments on any of that? Hesperian 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Virgin Islands and Hispaniola are single biogeographic entities. I would prefer using "cat:Foo of Haiti" and "cat:Foo of the DR" for species restricted to only one country or the other, but I realise mine is a minority position. Splitting the Virgin Islands makes even less sense to me, since they form a single phytogeographic (and presumably, zoogeographic) unit with Puerto Rico. You often see species described as "endemic to PR & the VI". More importantly, there's very little differentiation between the two units biologically...it makes as much sense to me as separating Dutch and French halves of St. Martin, putting them in separate cats (which, I realise, will probably happen soon enough).
- While I can live with the splitting, I have a issue with the larger groupings. Recent phytogeographic work seems to consider the Virgin Islands to either be part of the Greater Antilles (which makes sense, since they share most of their flora with Puerto Rico; e.g. Acevedo-Rodríguez & Strong, Bot. Rev. 2008 74:5-36), or as a distinct unit (e.g. Trejo-Torres & Ackerman, J. Biogeogr. 200128:775-794), so lumping them into the Lesser Antilles bothers me. But...I suppose some sort of consistency is better than the current anarchy. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
How we structure our categories and how we populate them are separate issues; for heaven's sake let's not get into the latter or we'll be here till this time next year!
I agree with your comments about "single biogeographical entities", but you're missing the other side of the coin, which is that people also want to know about the flora of politically defined areas like countries, for reasonable management reasons, and for unreasonable nationalistic reasons. Hence we have the eternal problems of how to make our "flora of" categories work. Should "Flora of Hawaii" be a subcategory of "Flora of the United States"? Should "Flora of the United States" be a subcategory of "Flora of North America"? And if the answer to both these questions is yes, doesn't that imply that the flora of Hawaii is a component of the flora of North America? Etcetera.
I was struggling with issues like this when I discovered the WGSRPD, which addresses precisely this problem as manifested in herbarium databases:
"[I]t seems that most botanical databases record information related principally to politically defined countries. The same can be said for storage of specimens in herbaria, and for citation of specimens in taxonomic revisions. However, political countries vary greatly in size, from less than one square kilometre (Vatican City) to over 22 million square kilometres covering one sixth of the world’s surface area (U.S.S.R.). Furthermore, many of them include physically remote parts, particularly islands, and nearly all traditional continental boundaries are traversed by political countries. A purely political geographical system cannot, therefore, be used to meet the needs of botanists who want more biologically based "countries," regions and continents for recording botanical distributions or arranging specimens. The system offered here recognises the need for compromise and adaptability...."
The essence of the WGSRPD solution is to ensure that every finest-level category is both politically consistent (i.e. it falls entirely within a single country) and biogeographically consistent. These are then aggregated into broader and broader biogeographic regions, but nonetheless those who wish to aggregate them into countries are able to do so. For example, "United States" is not recognised in the WGSRPD, because it is a biogeographical hodge-podge. But by virtue of the scheme's design, you can still recover it if you wish, simply by aggregating the contiguous US categories with Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and the Hawaiian Islands.
Hopefully this explains why they split Hispaniola (because it would be impossible to recover the flora of Haiti if they didn't) and the Virgin Islands (because it would be impossible to recover the flora of the British Virgin Islands if they didn't).
What remains to be discussed is the issue of how much detail we should put into our biogeographic categories; i.e. whether we should include small biogeographical units like Hispaniola even though the WGSRPD haven't bothered to do so. I have mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, it would be nice to follow the WGSRPD exactly, as do most herbaria, GRIN, IUCN, etc. On the other hand, to cleave to a 2001 standard is to ignore 8 years of progress.
Hesperian 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Roystonea oleracea
Dravecky (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is my Wiki Consensus Talk contribution ?
Guettarda, thanks for your response to my request to justify your allegations about my conduct in Darwin article proposed editing. At a quick glance they seem largely mistaken. But immediately, as an Admin would you be so kind as to find out what has happened to my October 2008 contribution to the Wikipedia:Consensus Talk page ? It pointed out the policy is meaningless nonsense. But the last Archive 6 ends in July 2008, whilst the current pages start in February 2009. Thus some Archives seem to be missing. Do you know where they might be ?
Thanks. --Logicus (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Logicus, you can click on "my contributions" at the top of any page when you're logged in, and then click to see your last 500 contributions, etc.. This seems to be the relevant edit. . dave souza, talk 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Logicus to Souza and Tmol24:Thank you so much to you guys for taking the trouble to help me on this query. And most especially to Tmol24 who actually did locate it. I reproduce it below for Dave and others who elect to lecture Logicus on Wikipedia policies, to ponder on.
- And for the info of Wiki Admin Guettarda, I should point out that contra Dave, sourcing Logicus’s last 500 contributions does not locate it because silly Logicus forgot to log on and sign his contribution.
- My contribution was:
- So what is consensus?
- This key Wikipedia policy article as currently written crucially fails to specify what constitutes a consensus. Is it a unanimous or a majority agreement of some community ? And what is the relevant community ? Dictionary definitions of consensus typically say it is either unanimity or else majoritarian agreement. So it is clearly important to decide which it is. But such definitions also leave open the further question of whether it is at least a simple majority (i.e. at least 51%) or at least a great majority (i.e. two-thirds) of the relevant community. But the more basic problem here is the article’s failure to identify what the relevant community is.
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
JCutter { talk to me } 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Welcome
Sup. Glad you've noticed me. Good to see another NAPS man to. --BigBrain22 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
GA review of "Natural selection"
As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Natural selection has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Side-step, diffuse and refocus
If somebody seems to be getting angry, confronting them by saying "you're getting angry, calm down" never seems to work - it usually makes things worse. Instead I try to focus on the facts and the arguments; unless somebody has lost it completely, pulling our WP:NPA and the like is counter-productive. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Trinidad eh? I do miss the ocean! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't right now. Hopefully one day. Right now I'm bitter and angry towards it. At least the Atlantic. (See my user page). Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh, my condolences. A great pity when people are killed by something they love. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't right now. Hopefully one day. Right now I'm bitter and angry towards it. At least the Atlantic. (See my user page). Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Sabal causiarum
Royalbroil 03:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Misunderstandings on EAAN
Hi Guettarda,
I note your concerns on the EAAN talk page and just dropped by to assure you that I have no personal issue with you whatsoever.
Clearly I have managed a monumental stuff-up with respects to understanding your position - but I hope you can believe that I made the remarks I did in all good faith.
Please accept my deepest apologies for any offense caused.
Regards, --Muzhogg (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have added an explanation of my misinterpretation of you remark "While X, Plantinga says Y" (in a new thread on my talk-page)- I don't claim my analysis of this is correct, I merely wish you to see that any mistake on my part occured in good faith. No hard feelings on the mix-up. -- Muzhogg (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI: EAR on EAAN
Thought you should know of this one... Cheers, Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Aunt Entropy - I had already advised all editors in a new thread on the relevant talk page. Regards -- Muzhogg (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Funny"
Hi Guettarda,
Thanks for your latest observations. I really do try to take people's advice on board in order to make Wikipedia a better environment for everybody, so I appreciate you efforts to help me improve the quality and tone of my edits.
You wrote;
I point out that your claim that there was "nothing personal" in your last set of attacks, given your past behaviour. And your response - to launch into a fresh set of false attacks. Seriously, if you have a problem with me, don't use an article talk page to "settle scores", or whatever it is you believe you are doing. Please stick to the facts. Please stop making up falsehoods. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
To which I respond as follows here;
Hi Guettarda,
This is too vague to help me correct the behaviour you find offensive. Could you please state specifically what comments of mine you are refering to when you speak of "false attacks" and "making up falsehoods"? Everything I have said, including my previous apology (to which you responded here), have been in good faith, backed as far as possible by WP:RS, and dealing with issues not personalities according to the no personal attacks policy-but I appreciate that it may not come across that way to others.
If you can indicate the specific violations, I'll do my best to prevent any reoccurrence - and will welcome your further corrections to my good faith efforts should I not succeed.
Thanks for your assistance in helping me become a better editor. -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I am equally happy to discuss any specific issues here, or on under the thread "Funny" on my talk page, whatever will enable us to come to an amicable resolution,
PS: I will avoid any contributions to the EAAN article or it's talk-page for the next month, in order to ensure these issues don't escalate.
Kindest Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's one...
Someone proposed a merger of Arecales into Arecaceae - discus here. I have no idea about this but thought you might...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- PS: many weeds are redlinked too, if you wanna do your bit for the environemnt (says me who spends alot of time pulling out ^($###$@@ Madeira Vine) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Focused well on the forest
I have seen people over the years infuriate people to such a degree that they leave the projects they are working on, and wikipedia as a whole. I was beginning to see the same thing happen on urban heat island, and figured something had to happen. The tropical cyclone, meteorology, and climate projects (especially climate) have all suffered due to infighting on talk pages. So yeah, I'm quite focused on keeping more people working within the forest. The fact that one of the participants in the discussion, who is also an admin, has no interest in improving article quality by his own admission and likes sparking these types of debates by using red herrings such as typos in regards to his name is very troubling for wikipedia as a whole. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Who are the people who might get so infuriated that the leave the project in this particular case? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, it is the specific person who thought they were trying to improve the article by removing one line, which started the long talk page section which has since been archived. Bet they won't make the mistake of editing a climate-related article again. Granted, they were more out of line in their talk page responses than William, but still, further frustrating the guy over a typo probably wasn't the wisest idea, which is why I chimed in. I used to be protective of articles I thought were important, until I unintentionally bullied someone out of the TC project in 2007. Now, any potential editors who might think of editing this article, and others like it, in the future who check out the archived talk page will hesitate before contributing to it. Count me as one of them. As of late, I'm one of very few people improving core meteorology-related articles to GA class or higher. Before the talk page discussion became protracted, I was considering improving the article, which is why I was watching the talk page to begin with. But not anymore. I can see the point of "lording over the roost" of articles that are GA quality or higher, to maintain their high standard. But a C class article? Come on. If people cared so much to start a revert war over this, surely they must want to improve the articles to a high standard as well, right? William actually said he didn't care what the article's class was, which makes one wonder why he was protecting it so strongly, if he appears unwilling to improve it? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm rather confused as to why you didn't weight in earlier then. Perhaps i'm wrong, but before the incidence with the mispelling of WMC's name, the discussion had already lots all merit. And the incivility at that point had already reached a level where i had given up. I'd be rather interested in hearing what arguments of the specific person (as you call him/her) you found convincing, because quite frankly i'm at a loss. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I could care less if they had a valid point or not. Wikipedia actually has a page (somewhere) that talks about the positives/negatives of wikilawyering, and how long and frustrating talk page discussions and edit wars can be avoided. I'm one of those editors (even though I'm a meteorologist) who learns while researching an article's improvement, hence my high edit count. I make mistakes, revert them myself if I notice them, and then learn from them. None of us are experts on everything. This guy was probably doing the same thing, learning as he went along, and I don't know if I would have stuck with wikipedia if one of my early edits had been so heavily scrutinized. I certainly would stray away from editing such an article again, for better or for worse. Kim, you were doing a good job of remaining civil on that page, from what I saw, and kept with the script. I understand how hard it is to do that with editors who appear inexperienced or not quite as knowledgable. And I also understand how easy it is to slip, and make sarcastic comments on the talk page. It's something I'm still working on myself. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is a large problem with your rationale here. This wasn't a new user, or someone who was unaware of WP rules/guidelines/conduct [3], and it wasn't even close to his "early edits"[4]. I did check that btw., since i usually take a quick glance at user talk to see if they've gotten a welcome-message, or if there could be reason for explaining things off article space. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I could care less if they had a valid point or not. Wikipedia actually has a page (somewhere) that talks about the positives/negatives of wikilawyering, and how long and frustrating talk page discussions and edit wars can be avoided. I'm one of those editors (even though I'm a meteorologist) who learns while researching an article's improvement, hence my high edit count. I make mistakes, revert them myself if I notice them, and then learn from them. None of us are experts on everything. This guy was probably doing the same thing, learning as he went along, and I don't know if I would have stuck with wikipedia if one of my early edits had been so heavily scrutinized. I certainly would stray away from editing such an article again, for better or for worse. Kim, you were doing a good job of remaining civil on that page, from what I saw, and kept with the script. I understand how hard it is to do that with editors who appear inexperienced or not quite as knowledgable. And I also understand how easy it is to slip, and make sarcastic comments on the talk page. It's something I'm still working on myself. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm rather confused as to why you didn't weight in earlier then. Perhaps i'm wrong, but before the incidence with the mispelling of WMC's name, the discussion had already lots all merit. And the incivility at that point had already reached a level where i had given up. I'd be rather interested in hearing what arguments of the specific person (as you call him/her) you found convincing, because quite frankly i'm at a loss. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, it is the specific person who thought they were trying to improve the article by removing one line, which started the long talk page section which has since been archived. Bet they won't make the mistake of editing a climate-related article again. Granted, they were more out of line in their talk page responses than William, but still, further frustrating the guy over a typo probably wasn't the wisest idea, which is why I chimed in. I used to be protective of articles I thought were important, until I unintentionally bullied someone out of the TC project in 2007. Now, any potential editors who might think of editing this article, and others like it, in the future who check out the archived talk page will hesitate before contributing to it. Count me as one of them. As of late, I'm one of very few people improving core meteorology-related articles to GA class or higher. Before the talk page discussion became protracted, I was considering improving the article, which is why I was watching the talk page to begin with. But not anymore. I can see the point of "lording over the roost" of articles that are GA quality or higher, to maintain their high standard. But a C class article? Come on. If people cared so much to start a revert war over this, surely they must want to improve the articles to a high standard as well, right? William actually said he didn't care what the article's class was, which makes one wonder why he was protecting it so strongly, if he appears unwilling to improve it? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
has no interest in improving article quality by his own admission and likes sparking these types of debates by using red herrings such as typos in regards to his name is junk. I'm beginning to doubt Tgd's good faith. I (for these anonymous insinuations are clearly directed against me) do have an interest in improving quality. I have no interest in the classification system. And the name stuff is hopeless too; Tgd's ignoring of deliberate incivility indicates his partisanship. I could care less if they had a valid point or not - that is a weird comment. If someone doesn't have a valid point, they shouldn't be posting it, you (and everyone else) should be removing it. If you care about article quality. have all suffered due to infighting on talk pages - errm yes; this isn't strange; these are subjects that people care passionately about, often with little knowledge of the subject William M. Connolley (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- We have the same focus here, it now seems, article quality. You appear to be focusing on the quality of articles, and responding in a way that seems to negatively impact the input of potential editors. I'm trying to be more inclusive and understanding of editors on here, regardless of their skill set, but still improve articles. This is not nupedia where edits are limited to experts in their field, it is wikipedia where anyone can edit. This is not an ivory tower. The reason these anonymous insinuations (talk about lack of good faith) have not been posted on your talk page is because of what your talk page says on top This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering, which has prevented us from talking/bickering/debating about this on your own talk page. If you have no interest in the classification system, fine. But many of us do, since it is the framework which we live within on wikipedia, and would like to improve article quality but with a minimum amount of bickering. Wikipedia is about compromise and consensus, not who is ultimately right. Don't confuse that with not caring about quality, or I wouldn't be bothering to improve articles on here to GA and FA despite the long odds and significant amount of time that effort takes. I'm just focusing more on people's treatment on here. You are a part of wikipedia, and an admin. Work well with others on here, and assume good faith regardless of people's apparent actions, past history, or penchant for typos. A good start would be to try to work well with others without trying to paint their point of view for them, and allowing these types of debate on your own talk page, so other people like Guettarda don't get drug into these debates. I honestly haven't formed a passionate opinion concerning global warming (like many meteorologists I work with), but if it is only minimally impacted by urban heat island, if at all, why is so much of the urban heat island page focused on this lack of connection? Good faith indeed. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Need feedback on merger proposal
I'm still trying to clean-up the patriarchy-related articles, but I can't seem to get any feedback on this merger proposal. If you have the time, I would appreciate your input. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yogurt
Just a friendly reminder... WP:NPA states:
Comment on content, not on the contributor.
...
As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.
The following comments...:
- "why are you still using..."
- "B2c is aware of...",
- "I've had this conversation with him/her before..."
- "Yet s/he persists... ".
... are all personalized comments on a contributor, not on content.
Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)