User talk:Dave souza/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Request for help

Hi Dave. I have a favor to ask of you and it is a very big one - I hope you will say yes, but I don't expect you to do this all at once. Over the years the Culture article turned into a big mess. There was a GA and two users - serious and good faith editors but from their comments not experts in this field - made several comments. A couple of weeks ago I did a major overhaul, although my method was conservative: I deleted all fringe theories and tangents/material covered in other articles, deleted the many redundancies, and reorganized what was left so that different points of view are clearly identified.

Since that time I have begun work on expanding the article. My main principal was that culture is an object of scholarly research, and this article should reflect the actual mainstream scholarship on culture. I felt it needed to provide an account of all significant points of view, from notable sources, and also provide some general context to understand the different points of view.

I am limited in my expertise ... for example, I am not a linguist, and the relationship between language and culture is an important field of research. I am not an archeologist, although they are experts in material culture. I am not a biological anthropologist, although they are experts in the evolution of culture and primate "cultures" (there is a debate). I left notes for Wikipedians who seem to have expertise in these fields and so far none have worked on the article. I know enough to lay out the essentials in the archeology and material culture section, and spent a week researching primatology and human evolution and have done what I can. Language and culture is a big gap.

In academe, there are two disciplines that make "culture" their explicit object of study: anthropology and cultural studies. I know a lot about anthropology, and much less about cultural studies, so the section on cultural studies is still woefully underdeveloped.

(There are subfields of cultural history and cultural geography but if you talk to historians and geographers you will discover that these subfields are very vaguely defined and undeveloped and they rely on anthropology for most of their theories about "culture" as such)

For a variety of historical reasons, anthropology is most developed in the United States, Great Britan, and France (although there have been notable Anglophone anthropologists from South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia). But anthropology took different form in each country. "Cultural Anthropology" is specifically American - the British practice what they call "social anthropology" because society is their object of study, not culture. When French and British anthropologists talk about culture, they generally start off quoting American "cultural anthropologists."

There are two problems I am immediately concerned with: Some people involved in the last GA review have taken strong issue with many of my changes. I think they are very well-intentioned. I think they just do not have a sense of the actual debates among scholars, or what are the significant views and notable sources on "culture." One of them has been highly critical of my work being "American centric." I have tried to explain why the article appears American centric - many of the prominent names are scholars who were born in or moved to the United States. But as I said this is because "cultural anthropology" is specifically American, and when scholars in other countries want to debate "culture" they turn to American sources - not universally, but generally. (The US also just has more - the American Anthropological Association has over 6,000 members, which just swamps the entire European Association of Social Anthropologists. I am apparently not communicating this effectively.

Second - and here is where I really need the favor (the above is all essential context): I wrote a LOT over a short period of time. It needs editing, for clarity, among other things. I am turning to you because I know you respect serious scholarship and fully appreciate the importance and usefulness of our core policies in guiding us in content. And you are a good editor. I am asking you to check my work - I do not mean to check all my references (please trust me there!) but to look at the article, a little bit at a time, and help me edit it, the language, the organization, help me make it a better-written article that still does justice to a scholarly topic, one that is as lively as say the research on evolution (and is just as often misunderstood by people who do not have a strong education in the area). My hope is that if you go over a section at a time, every once in a while, over time you can help make strategic but significant improvements. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Slr, that's certainly another area where I can claim no expertise, will be glad to try to help when time permits, but am currently in rather a rush with a topical anniversary. Will try to remember, but don't hesitate to give me a reminder after 12 February. . dave souza, talk 16:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes! There is even a Facebook thingy in honor of the anniversary!. Anywa, I will get in touch with you again - I know that the topic is outside your expertise but that will make you a valuable editor, becuae it needs to be clear for non-experts. Moreover, while the data dn issues may be unfamiliar to you, the scientists are all working within an evolutionary framework, broadly understood, and I think your sensibilities here make you especially valuable. Enjoy the happy day! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather bogged down in the Vestiges senstaion, but had a glance and reached for my Hanns Johst – didn't know that showed allegiance to an American icon, specifically a LDS influence![1] More troubling, the mention of "Herbert Spencer's theory of Social Darwinism" is anachronistic and very debatable... will try to get round to that eventually.. dave souza, talk 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Day

No rush. Sometimes it takes a little more than 5 days for hooks to make it to the front of the queue, so I thought I'd start posting them a little early, but I think the DYK people will probably be willing to schedule these hooks for Feb 12 even if they are posted closer to the day. Your articles look great, by the way.--ragesoss (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Dave souza, Filper01 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Intelligent design

Please do not add the book cover image until a consensus is established in talk. I and several others hold that it contravenes our policy on the use of images. If you continue to do this you are at risk of a block. Thanks. --John (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your page. See BRD and POINT. . dave souza, talk

Your edit was in breach of WP:NFCC and WP:CONSENSUS. --John (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

←I also ask that you do not use the rollback feature when involved in a content disputes such as you did here, per this arbitration case. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For some reason you seem not to have noticed that I promptly corrected that error,[2] before using the undo button with an edit summary as I'd intended. Please assume good faith and review edit histories in context. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! The page history is quite a mess, and it appears I missed that edit. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. We all make errors occasionally! . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref at Scots law

Many thanks David. The poor state of our Scots law article really surprises me, and all its subsidiary articles are largely unreferenced stubs. I find it hard to believe that there are not several Scottish lawyers editing Wikipedia, but no-one has been interested in that article for at least 3 years. Just strikes me as rather odd. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help, it's obviously a specialised source but includes a useful overview from reputable experts. Relevant parts of law are included in professional practice study, and I've found myself knowing more than a council solicitor about some aspects of contract law, probably unsurprisingly. However, IANAL and with luck we'll get some better input eventually. . dave souza, talk 10:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwin from X to Y

Congratulations on the excellent Darwin articles you've been preparing. On Charles Darwin you'll see I made a small edit because I found the links to be quite confusing when they started with "from". Also, I think it would be better to italicize the topics on each of the "from X to Y" pages, for example, so "The life and work of Darwin from Descent of Man to Emotions during the period"" becomes "The life and work of Darwin from Descent of Man to Emotions during the period". I would have just done it, but I noticed there's quite a few of them and I thought it wiser to ask your opinion first. Shall I try it? (I'll look for an answer here, or of course you might do it.) --Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thsnks, that's a good improvement. I've tried to implement your suggestion on the main sub-article titles, if there are more I'll be grateful for any changes you make to clarify these somewhat ambiguous titles. The biographical sub-articles started as a paraphrase of Desmond & Moore's Darwin, and still show that influence though there's gradual progress in bringing in the views of other biographers and references to the huge resource of material at Darwin Online and the Darwin Correspondence Project. A massive subject! Tnanks again, . dave souza, talk 08:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. You'll notice I tried a couple of small tweaks. I started some minor rewrites of a couple of complex passages, but they were a bit tricky and I abandoned them in the hope of spending more time another day. I would have removed the date links (like "On 4 February Lyell") as per MOS:UNLINKYEARS, however it seems you put them in so I thought I'd again ask: do you want to keep them? I'm happy to forget that trivial issue, but if you want I'll take them out. --Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, it's a work in progress and I've been removing date links as I go along. Gotta rush off now, but Fertilisation of Orchids is coming along nicely. . dave souza, talk 10:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the date links from the three "from X to Y" articles (I wasn't sure whether correct protocol would be to mark them as "minor"; I didn't). My regex search did not find any date links in your magnificent "Fertilisation" article. Let me know if you need any grunt editing done. --Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, will see what comes to mind. One thing is that at DYK, Gatoclass suggested that both "Fertilisation" and The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs would make a nice lead, so guess that means it's worth getting them up to FA which isn't something I've much experience with. So, gotta start that rolling sometime. . dave souza, talk 08:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion please

I have created an article on The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms recently. Firstly, do you think that's the best title? I'll change the Commons category to have the same title as here, but wanted to check that someone agrees this is better. Secondly, I need to expand it into a real article - background, synopsis, reception etc, and harmonize it with the currently much larger section in the article Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms, which you created and developed. See my note on the talk page of that article. Perhaps you could help with harmonizing the two articles? It will be necessary to reduce the Worms section a bit, while still preserving it. The more biographical detail is better suited to this page, though the book article will also occasionally mention what else is happening with his life, especially in the background section.

Also, I suggested a more detailed article on Darwin's death and funeral might also be a possibility (which would also involve a slight reduction in the length of that part of the formerly mentioned article, using summary style). We'll soon have enough info here in our Darwin articles to make a pretty long book about Darwin, though I think that's a good thing. Richard001 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good start. My practice is to check for the title used at Darwin Online in the Freeman bibliographies, and there's a useful article by Freeman using the title Vegetable Mould and Worms that could usefully be paraphrased as the basis of this article. As in Fertilisation of Orchids, it's good to bold the short title then show the full title in italics. Regarding other articles, it's worthwhile taking a copy of relevant text and citations from the Charles Darwin article which is well cited, together with any relevant material from the sub-articles which can be cited to Desmond and Moore unless shown otherwise. Then a bit of rewording together with addition of new material can form the article. The originals can remain in place, and reducing them isn't a priority in my opinion but is worthwhile in the usual WP:SUMMARY approach. A funeral article's also a good idea. Will try to help out later today, but a couple of other things are more urgent right now. Got a bit of tangled bank to sort out! . dave souza, talk 07:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fertilisation of Orchids

On February 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fertilisation of Orchids, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for William A. F. Browne

On February 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William A. F. Browne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Plinian Society

On February 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plinian Society, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs

On February 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if you DYK folks or indeed any bots involved are watching this page, but thanks muchly for the advice and for putting these articles up at DYK. Great fun, I'm fair wore out now! . dave souza, talk 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Filper01

Hi Dave - Have a quick look at Filper01 (talk · contribs). As you will see on his talk page (and the comments he made on User talk:Signalhead) he has previously edited as Farlack, Fila and subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry. Looking at his recent edit history see [3] and [4]. Looking at these the talk page for these the first has not discussion page detail warnings, etc and the reference; the second only contains a warning.

Given his recent history of sockpuppetry and looking at his edits under the current user name, I am not convinced he really understands what is expected of him as a wikipedia editor, and this sort of behaviour from a new user account is not really appropriate.

Your thoughts? --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

From a look over his contribs they're not particularly bad, more treating WP as a social site, but there's little sign of them being constructive, and a couple of hints of the old obsession with flag icons. I don't feel inclined to block right away, but suspect it won't last and would block on any repeat of the old bad behaviour. The fiddling around with the user pages of these blocked accounts suggests they may be his, but nothing conclusive. . dave souza, talk 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I really hope I'm not blocked. Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Fila. I really hope you do constructive work to improve articles, cutting down on fiddling about with flag icons without giving good reasons, always taking care to provide proper verification from reliable sources of any changes you make, and behave politely and civilly to other editors. If you disagree with someone, accept that they may well be right and look for sources of objective evidence, don't just argue. And remember to give a useful edit summary all the time, not just on odd occasions as at present. That'll help. . dave souza, talk 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerns the Charles Darwin entry

Dear Dave souza, I have noticed that you have removed the heading "External links" and brought my earlier addition under "Further reading". This would not be unreasonable were it not that an "audio slideshow" cannot be read. I leave any handling of the issue to you. Kind regards, --BF 10:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

As you'll appreciate, the section also includes audiobooks. It complies with WP:FURTHER, and the reason for not having External links as the last section is that it includes templates providing a large number of internal links. Perhaps something to discuss on the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

		The Bio-star
		For his excellent DYK contributions for Darwin Day 2009, I award Dave souza the Biology Barnstar--ragesoss (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! A very pleasant surprise, much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem.

I remember the article; it had been deleted as nonsense numerous times. I can unsalt it for you right away. Thanks for asking. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I'm a bit tired of whacking vandals at present. The little banned dweeb over at Encyclopedia Dramatica is gathering his minions once more. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Just keep an eye on the new users page and the new pages page. Odds are, the username or article will be either an insult aimed at one of us (nice to see I'm getting under their skins) or a variation on the word, "HAGGER?". They often use alternate characters for the letters, i.e., "H@993R" or some such nonsense. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting site

Dave, I recently came across this site while researching. It's very good if you want to see when you were most active, where your areas of interest lie, etc. I thought you might be interested. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Derek, not sure about this! Too many edits to IP talk pages, I'd guess, and a rather bizarre set of interests. Anyway, fairly focussed at times, as the year of our Darwin continues. Good to hear from you, dave souza, talk 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

British beer styles

Thanks for your comments. I'm not as convinced that there's such a huge difference between English and Scottish beer styles, certainly not after 1800. IPA, Porter and Stout were all widely brewed in Scotland. Ales, though designated by shillings rather than x's, were much like their English counterparts. Some say the Scottish versions were less heavily hopped. I haven't got enough info from Scottish brewing records yet to be certain about this. Even if true, it still makes them just a variation on the English types.

The only truly Scottish style I've found is Scotch or Edinburgh Ale. Though, to tell the truth, this too is similar to the strongest English Ales. The biggest differences between Scottish and Eglish brewing methods were the earlier use of sparging and lower fermentation temperatures employed in Scotland.

The photo is of the former Hole's brewery in Newark. A handsome late Victorian tower brewery. It is indeed where I worked.Patto1ro (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn Relation?

so, it has been a while, and i have watched the fireworks for months now without saying much so that i would not interfere or be falsely accused of being my wife. however, now Hrafn has gone and come back and you are still mixed up with him and Orange Marlin and Chihuahua and the rest, so i want to ask you: what is your relation to Hrafn? why is it that you always seem to come to his defense or appear to post whenever his name is mentioned? is he a relative or a close friend or something? thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What a peculiar question. Hrafn's a constructive editor who is on my watchlist. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Peculiarities

Why not discuss the substantive issues of what I bring up, rather than dismissing my words as "peculiar," in a large and international community, such as Wikipedia, when differences might be expected? Wikipedia is a culture in which one might find that others are not so like them as is comfortable, and dismissing other editors for this reason, that you are not comfortable with their culture is not necessarily useful in such a diverse community. That editors on Wikipedia might use Wikipedia for purposes you had not thought of is not so far-fetched. --KP Botany (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That editors on Wikipedia are attempting to use Wikipedia for their purposes in conravention of policies is just what concerns me. . . dave souza, talk 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So instead of weighing the suggestion you tell me that it's a peculiar comment? Of course they are, that's basic. The question is are they succeeding? Yes, of course they are, they're human beings. Is it damaging Wikipedia? Overall, probably not much, except where you have a small and super active band of editors united in a cause, which is precisely the case for the anti-pseudo science editors. No matter how twisted, how tangential, they will manage to get their anti-pseudo science platform into an article once they set their sights on it. That should have concerned arbcom with these editors and the fringe science and science apologist case from the start. But it didn't. That and your snarky reply tell me you're not really concerned. I won't be watching this page or the arbcom page or the A. belladonna page. Apparently editors who really are concerned about these issues should be sanctioned by arbcom for expressing their concerns. It's absurd trying to write science on Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)