User talk:Dave souza/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Reverend John Thomson, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Nice nom! Thanks for bringing that to the DYK crew's attention. But what's up with you lot wearing tartan trousers??? ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ta, credit's all due to our prickly friend. As for the second point, never have worn tartan breeks, tho in my youth did wear a kilt on occasion. The what's up probably goes back to the visit of King George IV to Scotland, my we are a bunch of romantics! ;) ...dave souza, talk 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the spiked one may have done some of the writing but I see your hand in there too, and you were the nominator (which is why you got the nombox not the creatorbox)... thanks again. And thanks for the pointer, I have made good use of it already. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to be a big contributor to Catherine Cranston, and I just wanted to tell you it reached GA status. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the notice on the article talk page did show up on my watchlist, though I did a double take as at first glance just took it as another notice to do with DYK. Don't know who nominated it for GA, but many thanks to all concerned. Now have to add a bit about her success in promoting temperance having the unfortunate effect of luring in those who would have avoided pubs, making them into "tea sodden wretches" [from Glasgow in 1901 ;)..] ..dave souza, talk 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Glencoe massacre

You've edited the Glencoe massacre page, saying the massacre took place in the old village. This is incorrect - the massacre took place at many different locations along the glen, as the article had previously stated. Lianachan 16:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, what I wanted to do was to point out the old village location, which is where I understood it to have started. Will try to check how it's going soonish. ..dave souza, talk 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. Have tried to make amends and also clarify the intro a little. Feel free to improve it further, apologies for my misleading edit, ...dave souza, talk 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. You know, I have it at the back of my mind that the massacre didn't begin at the old village either - but I'm currently far from any of my books. I would have thought a better article to give the location of the old village would be the one about the current village, though. Lianachan 08:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that was going on memory when the ugly visitor centre was on or close to the alleged site of the village and massacre. This started because I edited the Glencoe, Scotland article about the village to clarify the old village location, and noted that there was no link to that article on the Massacre of Glencoe page. There didn't seem to be any other obvious place to make the connection than in the intro, and it seemed to me that readers might welcome an early link to maps of the area. Doubtless there's going to be a better way of making these connections. dave souza, talk 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited both the massacre and village pages with accurate historical information about where events took place, and the history of the settlement. Your grid reference fell through the cracks, as there was never any settlement there. Some farmsteads nearby, but nothing approaching a village. The nearest to that GR is Achacon, slightly to the west, which is one of the places where blood was first spilled in the massacre - but it's never been called "Glencoe" or "Glencoe Village". Lianachan 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: that's interesting information...dave souza, talk 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you change my contribution, better why erase it? of course, it is possible you don't agree, but why don't you first discuss it, seems to me the most logical thing to doQuaggga

Your entry was blantant POV, the second time you've tainted the article in that way, and the statements you made fly in the face of all the historical, documented evidence. Lianachan 16:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Quaggga, more to the point is why you ignored discussion of the paragraph in question and put it back to something remarkably similar to the paragraph you introduced on 20 April 2006. You're welcome to put the case for your paragraph on the talk page, preferably with citations for an analysis that appears contrary to the historical record. ..dave souza, talk 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dave, thanx for your comments, i'll try to do so, Lianacan, it is obvious to me you're not a campbell fan, but why can't you see the views of the other side. And a pov, blababla, i wrote it was a just a Possibility, read first, judge later Quaggga

I don't believe I've made any anti-Campbell comments anywhere that would cause you to leap to a bizarre (and wildly inaccurate) conclusion like that. My views on the massacre of Glencoe are a result of many years of study of the history and available documentation. Your "possibility", as I said earlier, flys in the face of all of that evidence. But all of that is irrelevant - your edits are not suitable for inclusion in an encylopedia, and your methods of putting forward your views are borderline vandalism. Lianachan 17:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic creationism

Hi. I saw that you started that article and so I assume that you're interested in the subject, and maybe would like to help out at Fethullah Gülen, where his disciples deny his connection to the ID movement, and keep removing references to the subject. Azate 06:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. It's really a peripheral interest, and I'm rather bogged down just now, but looking at the links you've given on the talk page it seems to me that he's anti materialism and anti Darwinism, and so a creationist who latched on to the ID bandwagon in 2004. Categorisation seems to me a side issue, I can add a comment, but dealing with persistent POV editing by the faithful is just a long struggle. If it is approaching an edit war, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes points the way forward. ..dave souza, talk 09:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Darwin Pic

Hey, thanks for editing the Darwin pic. I knew there was some rule of thumb about which way a pic of a person should face the text it references (like yearbook photos aren't supposed to face the crease, or something), but I couldn't remember them. I tried flipping the picture so that it faced the text, but since the pic was a close up, it almost looked like he was "reading" the text about himself. I thought it looked weird, so I kept him facing outwards. Now that you changed it to a zoomed out pic, I think i do like it better facing the text. comment by GuildNavigator84

Yeah, glad you like it. It just felt a bit uncomfortable looking out, though it's a nice close up. The photo now is by Julia Margaret Cameron who's noted as a photographer. ..dave souza, talk 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

self-organization

are you sure that erasing closed system and referring to isolated system makes sense? have you read the differing definitions? -- Kku 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

no, i'm not sure, but as discussed at Talk:Self-organization#Self-organization vs. entropy to me it didn't fit. Since a closed system can exchange heat and work, but not matter, with its surrounding, then it can thus exchange entropy, and so logically the paragraph could read with more accuracy but less clarity for the newcomer: "It would appear that, since isolated systems cannot decrease their entropy, only open systems or closed systems can exhibit self-organization. However, a closed[?] system can gain macroscopic order while increasing its overall entropy. Specifically, a few of the system's macroscopic degrees of freedom can become more ordered at the expense of microscopic disorder." From discussion at talk:Evolution it seems that the terms isolated and closed systems tend to get used interchangeably at times. please clarify. ..dave souza, talk 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) `

The Scottish Reformation

Mr Souza I left a message for you on the Church of Scotland talk page. Very best wishes RCP Rcpaterson 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I am sorry to report that I begin to feel-after very few weeks of browsing and editing-the whole Wikipedia enterprise verges on the worthless. Please see what I have written on the talk page of the main Wikipedia page (Highest Quality?). It's a pity, really-but there are just two many people with perverse agendas, who care little for clarity or objective truth. I do not think that the area of Scottish history is unique in this regard, but it attracts more than a reasonable share. The piece I mentioned on the Auld Alliance is atrocious not just in its factual inaccuracy but also in its banality, although my own editing was confined to matters of fact rather than style. I did try reversion, as you suggest, but it was promptly edited back again without explanation. The whole exercise then becomes pathetically childish, and I simply refuse to compromise myself any further. If people prefer ignorance, so be it. I do not want to give you the impression that I consider myself to be infallible; I am as capable of error as any other individual; but I always welcome reasoned challenges to any point I put forward. Sadly, apart from one or two people like yourself, it is not forthcoming. Rcpaterson 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather against my own policy, I've been leaving messages in various places about this. It's a long haul on many articles, but some articles are definitely getting better, both in content and in sources. I'm hopeful that there enough editors with a positive approach to take on the task of keeping the children from damaging the sort of good work you've shown yourself capable of producing. ...dave souza, talk 11:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, my thanks, both for your interventions and your encouragement. Actually, the work you noticed is only one of several in publication; but I have made it a point of principle not to seek any form of publicity, keeping matters on a strictly neutral level. It may sound perverse, but I would not even use them to prop up an argument. I would much rather draw on the 'raw' documentation or other published works. Rcpaterson 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Biology userbox?

I was wondering if you'd like to help me draw a userbox for biologists. I was thinking an image for each kingdom in a somewhat cartoony style. I'm somewhat worried about how to fix five images in, though. http://www.biology.uc.edu/faculty/dunford/KingdomsOfLife.jpeg This is similar to what I'm thinking of, just without the text and perhaps with the images nestled so that they take up less space. Interested? Ladlergo 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be easy enough: I could do a scanned jpg or png, the plant and fungus are easy enough, have you any particular preference for animalia? (something with a simple shape like a fish might be best) The protista page has a handy picture, but monera seems to be obsolete - do you want the modern categories, and can you indicate typical pictures to work from? Also, what overall shape do you want - square, horizontal rectangle or vertical rectangle? Give me an idea of when it's needed and will try to get something together. ..dave souza, talk 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of 5 or 6 kingdoms, depending on what can be fit in.

Here's what I've considered for the drawings:

• Starfish. It can be identified even when it's small, and it doesn't have any look-alikes.
• A leaf, such as from a beach tree. Very simple.
• Mushroom with a red or tan cap and white stem (no one should be confused by that).
• With the various single-celled organisms, the difficult part will be in keeping them from looking similar to worms, eggs, etc. A flagellum or cillia would help with that. Streptococci might also be distinctive enough.

I'd prefer the standard vertical rectangle, but if it requires different dimensions to fit and look good, that's fine. Ladlergo 19:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Slight hold up, but will try to get on to this soon. If you've a rectangle you're thinking of , let me have a link to it here for the proportions. ..23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the same size as Template:User Scientist, which appears to be the standard box size for professions. Ladlergo 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Are my pictures usable? I'm about to have a lot of extra time, so if you want me to try drawing something else I'd be happy to oblige. Ladlergo

Jacobite Rising

Date formatting

Surely changing the date formats around is unnecessary work? - the wiki sofware will display the date according to the user's preferences (see Help:Preferences#Date_format), so it doesn't matter whether a date is coded as e.g. [[November 24]] or [[24 November]]. Colonies Chris 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just a tidyness thing, it's a nice convention to have the day first for European / UK articles and the month first for the US. User's preferences don't do anything for non-registered users, who in a way are the customers, and having tidied Jacobitism which mixed the two formats, this came next. A minor inconvenience is that US convention often requires commas on either side of the year, as in June 7, 2006, but the wiki software only adds the first. I've not bothered setting my own preference for this, preferring articles to use the appropriate convention related to country. ..dave souza, talk 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Munros, Corbetts and mountains

I'm not sure the distinction between Munros and Corbetts is that useful when discussing what is and isn't a mountain. I'm not Scottish, but my understanding is that colloquially at least, all bumps of any height in Scotland are hills (as evidenced by publications such as the SMC's "Heading for the Scottish Hills", which certainly doesn't exclude all walking over 2500 feet!); however, any of them (even the lowly Sgurr of Eigg) can be called a mountain if it's steep and rugged enough. And surely Suilven qualifies as a mountain by anyone's standards, even though it doesn't even reach Corbett height? I may be unusual, but I see them all primarily as hills/mountains (using the terms more or less interchangeably), which happen to be categorised into one list or other according to their height; defining them first and foremost as Munros, Corbetts, Grahams, Marilyns etc. is not very relevant except to peak baggers. That's my 2d worth anyway, what do you think? -- Blisco 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On reflection I think you're right: someone I went hill walking with was persuasive that 3,000 feet was the definition, but others are just as mountainous even though rather lower. Having said that, when young I did a fair bit of walking in the Pentland hills near Edinburgh (up to 1898 ft) and the Borders (pretty sure we walked the Cheviot at 2674 ft), and would not have dreamt of either being mountains. No criteria have turned up and it's probably best to call it subjective. The point about hills / mountains being used interchangeably is more solid: The SMC publication The Munros is subtitled Hillwalker's Guide..dave souza, talk 13:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite: afraid that, as so often, I'm no expert on the subject, Just wanted the piskies to get a fair mention, which I trust others will maintain. ..dave souza, talk 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Over-use of See also Section

The reason I had the entry was in relation to "the devil's chaplain" that Darwin spoke of. Thanks for your assistance in getting me to understand the relevance issue. However, as I am certain that you now know, I was not engaged in any action that could be described as:

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

Therefore, I am asking you to do what you can to have the "Vandalism" banner removed from the top of my talk page -- because it is certain that (a) I have not been "vandalizing" and (b) whoever placed it there did not, first of all, "assume good faith" on my part.

There's a bit more discussion on this at my talk page, in response to a message from ERcheck. Thanks for your guidance, Lindsay658 05:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Will try, see User talk:Lindsay658.....dave souza, talk 09:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have made quite a few adjustments following the advice from you and ERcheck (see my talk page). Once gain, thanks so much, Cheers Lindsay658 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note and handy link. Interesting, that. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. The yapping terriers of ignorance seen in a critical light. ..dave souza, talk 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Route of All Evil

The last edit you made to the article The Root of All Evil? seems an attempt to portray Haggard in a more positive light at the expense of factual information; in this case that Haggard failed to cite any evolutionary scientists who claim that “the eye just formed itself somehow”. This is an important quote, and the fact that Haggard can’t cite any scientists who have claimed this is the case highlights the perpetuation of daft falsehoods by people like Haggard that act to maintain ignorance of evolution by many people, and your edit to the article seems an attempt to hide its significance (I’m sure accidentally) while strengthening Haggard’s assertion that Dawkins is “arrogant” because he feels scientific evidence, not religion, should be used to explain life. I also feel that supporting Haggards belief that Dawkins is “arrogant” is a minor NPOV violation.

This is not a big deal and I’m sure it wasn’t meant to perceived this way, but I just thought I’d tell you. Thanks. Miller 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(Comment moved into chronological order)

Thanks for letting me know. My edit was due to concern that the section as revised was (and now is) committing an NPOV error by making Dawkins's case in a way that Dawkins himself thought unnecessary in the programme. Another possible violation of WP:NOR lies in expressing opinions about Haggard's agitation without a source for that opinion other than your interpretation of facial expressions, which is not how they appear to me. On the talk page of the article another editor has pointed to the need to avoid too much quoting, so I'll think about a form of words, and will comment further there. ..dave souza, talk 10:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Pass of Brander

I wonder if you can help me? I have started to move on from corrections in Scottish history-though a lot still remain-towards creating new articles. Having recently joined the military history group I worked up a piece on the Battle of Culblean, one of a number of outstanding requests. I was working on a similar article on the Battle of the Pass of Brander, but all work in progress (some two hours worth) was deleated for reasons that are still unclear to me by someone who signs as User:Cesarb. Are you able to explain what is going on? I can see little point in writing anything only to see it vanish into cyber nothingness! Rcpaterson 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

PS It's ok;thanks. It's now clear there was no ill-intent behind the said users actions. I would still love to know what happened to my work, though! I took the red headline from the millitary history 'articles requested' list and was working from that as a point of departure. Is that not the best way? Rcpaterson 05:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that at least this was not ill intentioned. I'm afraid that this comes under the old mantra from the days when computers and programs crashed frequently: "save early and save often". As with a crash, I fear your work is vanished into a chaos of electrons: when something like this has happened with me, I've just had to console myself that having worked it out once in my head, it's quicker and easier to redo. Something like this can still happen if there's an "edit conflict" when someone else saves an edit while you're still working on yours. Cesarb's advice about using the "back button" equivalent works in my browser (Safari), but might not work in yours. However even with that it can be easy to click the wrong thing and lose work. The most secure way is to follow the advice in Help:Editing#Checking spelling and editing in your favorite editor. I often do this as it has multiple undo's and is a bit easier for some editing, as well as being more safe from mishaps. It's also a lot more economic with dial-up in this country, but that no longer applies after changing to broadband. ..dave souza, talk 10:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to report that the Battle of Pass of Brander is up and running without further mishap! I have just one question. When I am working on a piece, either large scale editing or writing, and I press either save or preview I seem -at the same time- to be automatically logged out: the work is still there, but only with an anonymous computer signature. Is this normal? Regards Rcpaterson 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've certainly never seen that happen on either of the computers I edit from. Have you checked the cookies etc? Maybe Dave's seen it before. Ladlergo 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's new to me, and way beyond by technological competence. Obviously your earlier contributions were credited properly, and your comment shows up in the history of this page with your username, not an anon IP number. Perhaps it's some temporary glitch, or there may be some advice in Help somewhere: let me know if you're still having difficulty and I'll try enquiring to find expertise on this. ..dave souza, talk 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article, by the way, Nice to see lots of sources cited. A minor refinement is to give the ISBN number where possible: this automatically becomes a link to online catalogues allowing those interested to find it in libraries or buy a copy, though many of these references may be rather before ISBN cataloguing. I've tweaked the introductory paragraph to my understanding of standard formatting: the title should have three apostrophes on either side to make it bold, and people tend to want an early link to which country is being referred to. Could perhaps do with more links, no doubt others will add them in over time. All good, ..dave souza, talk 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a timeout; MediaWiki closes your session after some time (around 30 minutes IIRC) after your last request, for security reasons. It has the same effect as being logged out. An easy workaround is to open a new window or tab on your browser, go to any page on this wiki, and login, before trying to preview or save (you can bookmark Special:Userlogin if you want to go to it more quickly). --cesarb 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Live and learn! ..dave souza, talk 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will, when possible, add the ISBN number; although, as you rightly suspect, a lot of the best sources are pre-ISBN and out of print. They should be accessible, though, on the catalogue of any good research library. Most of my own research has been carried out in the National Library of Scotland. Rcpaterson

Naturalism

Your edits to the Naturalism (Philosophy) article are a breath of fresh air. Thank you. ... Kenosis 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like my efforts to sort out the guddle. A lot still to do, and other duties call.. could you look at the Popper bit in particular: since he apparently recanted his views on evolution it seems rather suspicious... dave souza, talk 09:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Faith

I'm not so sure about the link with evolution, but he does correctly nail one of the primary functions of religion, and, in effect, one of the primary roots of its invention. •Jim62sch• 15:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just seemed an interesting perspective. ..dave souza, talk 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was, very interesting and worth reading.

As for the coo dae it a' joke...Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!  :) •Jim62sch• 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

PS -- what are the odds anyone on that page got the Scots part of the joke?  ;) •Jim62sch• 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just remembered that I found that when the E-type carrot joke was current, as in What's red in colour, has one wing, millions of arms, and udders? .. a left wing military coo... dave souza, talk 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Always Covenanters.

I have no problem at all with objections being raised to any propositions-and form of wording- that I may have put forward. However, I do worry when people lob in terms like 'patently false' with absolutley no supporting argument. There must surely also be a world of difference between a biased 'point of view' and rigourous critical analysis. If, for example, one were to make a similar observation about the operation of the Holy Inqusition in Spain would that also be denounced as 'patently false' and POV? I lived, so to speak, with the Covenanters for a long time, and obtained a fairly close insight into their modes of thought and political manifestations. I can assure you that the Cameronians had very little interest in religious or political liberty. Here is a fairly typical passage from the Sanquar Declaration;

...disown Charles Stuart, who hath been reigning (or rather tyrannising we may say) on the throne of Britain these years bygone. as having any right, title to, or interest in, the said crown of Scotland for government, as forfieted several years since, by his perjury and breach of covenant both to God and His Kirk...For which reason, we declare, that several years since he should have been denuded of being king, ruler or magistrate, or having any power to act, or to be obeyed as such. As also, we, being under the Standard of our Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, we do declare war with such a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices, as enemies to our Lord Jesus Christ, His Cause and Covenants...and against all such..,as have acknowledged him...

This from the later Apologetic Declaration;

...to pursue the ends of our Covenants...we...declare...that whosoever stretch forth their hands against us (justiciary, military, assenting gentlemen, viperous and malcious clergy, intelligencers, delators, raisers of hue and cry), all and every one shall be reputed by us as enemies to God and the Covenanted Work of Reformation, and punished as such, according to our power and the degree of their offence.

These statements, of course, were little more than whistling in the wind by some desperate and unrepresentative men; but it gives some insight into the degree both of their sedition and their intolerence. After the Revolution some of the Society Men, including Robert Hamilton, who had led the Covenanters so disastrously at Bothwell Bridge in 1679, remained outside the mainstream as the 'True Church of Scotland', refusing to take the oath of allegiance to William as am 'uncovenanted ruler.'

I have no problem with your expansion and re-editing, which is perfectly reasonable. In general, however, I am not convinced that the whole piece hangs together very well, and is in need of some systematic reworking from top to bottom. I will give it a go at some point and you can see what you think. At the moment my time is being taken up in large part with the Wars of Independence. Sorry to go on at such length. Rcpaterson 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that help, and apologies for distracting you from the Wars of Independence. I'm now happy that there's enough ammunition to deal with such unsubstantiated complaints. A thorough overhaul will be welcome, my contribution is really just a sticking plaster to try to bring some slight improvement in the meantime. It's certainly a complex subject, riddled with myth. .. dave souza, talk 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now, as I think you have noticed, completely rewriten the article on the Covenanters, subject to minor corrections and amendments I may make from time to time. It's longer than I would have liked, an unfortunate by-product of the complexity of the subject rather than-I hope-my verbosity. I am sorry to have, in effect, jetisoned your closely referenced work in the final section; but I know you will add anything you consider necessary. Once again my good wishes. Rcpaterson 04:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Darwin and racism

Thanks for the heads up. I've replied at the Darwinism article.--ragesoss 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Union of the Crowns

Once again I look to you for advice and help. I completely rewrote the Union of the Crowns because the previous piece was a dog's breakfast. There is an oddball who goes by the name of User:Lord Loxley who has edited in passages of bewildering incoherence. I have no intention of entering into a dialogue with this character. What is happening is precisely what I feared when we discussed original contributions in an earler exchange: the work is being bowlderised and corrupted. Can you suggest a course of action? Rcpaterson 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's amazing. I was about to revert this with the summary "See talk" when I got an edit conflict with you. What are the odds ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'd just put in place changes as a preview and went to work on the talk when I found that you'd got there first, so saved the page first then added to your well judged comments. Lord L will think the plebs are revolting! ..dave souza, talk 00:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just added my own comment to the talk page on this item and noticed your own contribution-thanks! This Loxley character isn't from a different planet;he's from a different universe! Rcpaterson 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta, I've commented on the talk page with a couple of style points which others may wish to pick up on. That's that for tonight! ..dave souza, talk 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, Paterson...perhaps you've got this idea that only your favoured perception of history is right or even important enough to discuss. The ability to write a book and have it published in the annals of history, doesn't make you invincible with all that you attempted to cover in the subject-matter. Other people are going to come at things from other perspectives. It's life. Lord Loxley 07:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please remember that the following policies are mandatory: Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No original research. The balance between perspectives must accord with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is certainly not a licence for confusing asides. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and where I've disagreed with Rcpaterson my further research has backed his version: that won't stop me trying to find alternative current Reliable sources, remembering of course that they must be "directly related to the topic of the article". Now I'd better read these again myself! ..dave souza, talk 08:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if that's far too much to read, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is very brief and can be helpful: read it carefully. ..dave souza, talk

All right then. Lord Loxley 09:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unpleasant user

I don't know what to make of User:Astrotrain recently. He seems to have largely become disillusioned with contributing to the project and idly passes the odd minute in stalking my good self. It is his prerogative to spend his given span on this world in the manner which he sees fit, but I do wonder if contributions like this are in the best interests of the project:

• [1]

I've asked you (as I have done previously) because you are most certainly not a "buddy" of mine (truth be told, I have none here at Wikipedia), indeed you have been quite critical of me. What do you think about this? --Mais oui! 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mais - the instance you cite doesn't seem to be "stalking", as the incident under discussion started when Astro made an edit which you then reverted without explanation: alerting a friendly defender of the Falklands in the circumstances is understandable. The rather unpleasant description is unkind, but pales in comparison to abusive remarks which, by coincidence, are discussed a couple of items up. I'd suggest taking more care to explain edits, and getting into discussions rather than edit warring. In that particular case a citation had been requested for a couple of months before the removal which you then reverted: in my opinion a flag of a claimant is dubious anyway, and at the least needs a reliable source, so pressing to keep it in seems inadvisable. Let me know if further incidents occur. ..dave souza, talk 18:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta. No, I was not claiming that that particular article was one he was stalking me on, but here is a recent example: Template:UK Police, where he popped up first with this daft edit (note the random destruction of uncontroversial links), never having previously edited the template: [2]. There tons of other examples in the last few months. As I said, he seems to have almost totally given up adding material to the encyclopedia: nearly all his edits are focused on picking fights. --Mais oui! 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pots calling kettles black spring to mind ;) I've had a look at some of his recent contributions, and he's doing a lot of other things which you're not involved in, but obviously your interests overlap and your opinions don't, and it seems to be turn about as to whose opinion prevails. There's an invitation to dialogue, and that seems the best way forward. ..dave souza, talk 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Aggy Ridge

Glad I could help with the photo of the Devil's Staircase. Grinner 10:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, my son took the photo and it was a bit of a puzzle. ..dave souza, talk 10:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ID edit removal

Sir.

At first I was confused by the removal of my edit on the Intelligent Design page, as I am a Wikipedia newbie and was not sure what was going on. After realizing the "history" mechanism of the page editing system, I examined your comments, viewed your user page and discussions pages and now have a greater understanding of your reasons for removing said edits.

However, defending my edit seems appropriate in this instance.

1. "remove ioff-topic".

"An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5] or junk science."

In response to this statement, I was merely presenting a response to stated position. The observation that intelligent design is either pseudoscience or junk science seems inextricably linked with whether the observer is willing, or indeed committed, to believe unconditionally in an alternative.

In this manner, I do not see how the edit was off topic, although I can see how the edit could have been made elsewhere in the article.

2. "and inaccurate assertion"

I am simply in disagreement with you on this matter. The view of many creationists is that proponents of evolutionary theory are ignoring the rules of observational science, in favor of prior assumptions. i.e. Instead of relying on observed phenomena, they are employing conditions of postulated historical science to draw conclusions for observational science. The citation that already existed in the material clearly supports such a view:

"Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.

I was simply pointing it out.

3. "leave change from mainstream to conventional as no great objection"

"Conventional" seemed more appropriate, that's all.

Anyway, if my lack of awareness of the workings of Wikipedia has wasted time, I apologize.

However, I do believe that the edits were reasonable.

Thank you.

202.173.128.90 07:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)W. Jones

Firstly, thanks for your courtesy in raising this point, and Welcome! - glad to see that you're finding your way around, and why not get a username account? It's actually more anonymous than your IP number, if that's a concern.

The edit was off topic in a sentence discussing evolution, and incorrect in that abiogenesis is not needed for the evolutionary model to be viable. For evidence see theistic evolution, and for example the Roman Catholic position. There is mention elsewhere of ID reference to the origin of life, but their main argument is against the teaching of evolution, not against abiogenesis. If you do want to mention the argument it should be clearly put as an ID argument and not Wikipedia's, and a citation will be needed: it's important to read WP:V to understand this principle. As you'll have noticed from the ID talk page, that's a particularly hot topic, and any such change should be proposed there rather than just being added: the index of archives at the top of the talk page is worth checking first. I've no objection to "conventional", but it will certainly be discussed and will probably meet some opposition.

The question of "whether the observer is willing, or indeed committed, to believe unconditionally in an alternative" is one of belief, and hence religion. The scientific method is inherently unable to support supernatural explanations, which is why ID proponents want it changed. If "alternatives" can be demonstrated in accordance with the rules of observational science then fine, but absence of explanation is not evidence of the supernatural, it just means that we don't know. And shouldn't stop trying to find a natural explanation.

Anyway, welcome. I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, ..dave souza, talk 08:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jacobites

Hello again! I've responded to your point on the relevant talk page, but just to let you know that you (and Preeble) are quite correct that Dundee's troopers were indeed in Edinburgh. It's just that the previous version read as if they had actually sat in on the Convention, which, of course they did not. I sincerely hope I don't offend you with the directness of some of my remarks, which are really only intended to have a mild polemical effect. I always value your comments and contributions, which I think are both measured and objective. I have, however, identified-and I am sure you are aware of this yourself-an approach by some contributers which can best be described as romantic neo-Jacobitism, hostile to Parliament, and which tends to lump together (and dismiss) all opponents of the Stuart style of monarchy as 'Whigs', whether they be or not. My sole desire in trawling these pages is to ensure fairness and historical objectivity (I hope). Rcpaterson 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, I'll think about trying to incorporate his troopers in a less ambiguous way as the contrast to Argyll's forces and the Cameronians seemed instructive. You historians are so touchy: one seems to think that the British Isles article should be devoted to an argument that the term should be banned because "the Irish" find it offensive. So I'm having to be terribly tactful! All the best, ..dave souza, talk 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That, quite frankly, is a page best avoided: too many people talking through each other, not to each other. All heat and very little light about what is, after all, merely a 'geographical expression'. Which immediately reminds me of the Austrian Chancellor, Prince Metternich, who described Italy in such terms, meaning that it only existed in a descriptive and not in a political sense. Not to worry too much; however much anger and passion this engenders, the British Isles will remain the British Isles! I think I might have nightmares, though, about waking up to find I live in the 'North-Atlantic Archipelago.'

I do, I must confess, have some serious worries about the credibility of Wikipedia. There is, I think, a deep flaw in the philisophical grounding of the whole project, the assumption that 'truth' can somehow emerge through consensus. What emerges-depending on the topic- is a kind of mad Berkeleian world, where ideas struggle for dominance in complete disassociation from physical reality-I shout the loudest, therefore I am! Best to stick to empirical facts, like titles, battles, dates and so on, which takes me back to the Jacobites and such related matters! Rcpaterson 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right, I'd noticed a brief earlier comment from you on it, but had no intention of inviting you to get involved again: as you indicate, it's a bear pit. On the optimistic side there are procedures to reach an equitable outcome in such situations, but it can be a bit rough going. At least it gives me an exercise in the kind of diplomacy I had to use when dealing with building contracts - here's hoping everyone's happy with the eventual outcome. ...dave souza, talk 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements in NPOV here, to both you and Rcpaterson. It is much improved...I tightened up a further detail myself, but that was a lot of good work you did!--Bhuck 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Isles

Dave I can't believe you! How can a true blue from Scotland call his bonney isles by any name but the Scottish Isles. And nearly every one of those beautiful isles in question is a Scottish Isle MelForbes 23:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How dare you use the outrageously offensive term "true blue" of me! Please remember that this is the "rid Clyde", and I'm not even a bluenose.. As for isles, in my youth I often looked across Cramond Island to Burntisland;) Now you're telling me we can't visit the Highlands and Islands or go Island Hopping. Admittedly, from here we can on occasion see the Isle of Mull or indeed the Caledonian Isles, but islands are often simply called by their name without qualification, as in Mull, or in the case of the Isle of Arran, "Arn". And of course some, like "Paddy's Milestone", are never called either isle or island. However the usage of isles is by no means just Scottish: I've not been to the Isle of Wight, but remember a river trip past the Barking power station and the Isle of Dogs. Woof, Woof! ...dave souza, talk 07:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope your blood is blue, otherwise you better get it checked out, lol. I was thinking of Scottish blue! MelForbes 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I know the latter ;), but "true blue" here means Tory. Blue blood means aristocracy, no me Jimmy..dave souza, talk 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In the States, Blue is Democrats (liberals) and Red is the Republican (conservative) color. Err, colour. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And I should perhaps explain that a bluenose is a Rangers F.C. supporter. The meaning of words is country dependent. ...dave souza, talk 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re British Isles

The reason why Irish users are so angry is because

• they were originally subject to a serious of vicious rascist attacks on the page;
• any effort to explain that the topic is complex and in some cases controversial has been repeatedly shot down with blanket statements that it isn't, it is only a few Nationalist POV-pushers in Ireland that have a problem, and that the term is simply geographic.

People who know me here on WP know that I am not some Irish Nationalist POV-pusher. I've devoted much of the last 4 years here to ensuring accurate terminology usage on areas like British royalty (where I was the one who stopped US editors getting the Queen's titles, and those of her family all wrong — until I fought to stop them they insisted placing the Prince of Wales in as "Charles Windsor"!!!). I have fought to stop Sinn Féin and Republican Sinn Féin supporters highjacking the Northern Ireland page and calling it the "Six Counties" or the "Occupied Six Counties". I stopped Brit-bashing being added into the Irish famine pages.

I have never suggested that the British understanding of British Isles is factually wrong, merely that it is factually disputed by some people. The fact that there is a terminology dispute has to be stated up front, as with all other examples of terminology disputes. I didn't add in false links — the problem is that, as elsewhere in the debate, British users don't seem to grasp the sensitivity of the language. (I emailed a friend of mine in New York who works with TIME about that advertising stuff I linked. The British users may have not got the problem with it. He did the moment he saw him. His response was "Oh fuck. What idiot wrote that? Promotional stuff should never be produced like that. I'll get it pulled straight away. No wonder the Irish were offended.")

All I am interested in is trying to convey the complexity of terminology and the fact that different people interpret it different ways, which they do. I never insisted that the article say that Ireland isn't in the British Isles (though many people believe that), merely that the article, correctly, point out that the issue of Ireland's status in it is a matter of dispute in some places. In 1996 the letters column of the Irish Times (never the most nationalist of papers) was jammed with this very issue for weeks — unfortuntely that year is not on the net, though the Times is planning to put all its editions, right back to 1854, on. Even if it was, the Times stupidly is a pay-for-view site. The Irish editions of the British tabloids all make sure to remove any mention of the British Isles from their Irish editions because of the offence they know it would cause, and more importantly the sales they would then loose.

The Gorbachev incident is notorious. He was mortified and Haughey furious when some plonker in the Soviet Foreign Ministry misinterpreted the British Isles as meaning part of Britain and so meant that the Queen was Irish head of state, so Gorbachev, stopping en route to Cuba (I think) stopped off in Shannon Airport and told the Irish prime minister to send his (Gorbachev's) good wishes to the Irish head of state, the Queen. (Haughey went readfaced with anger and the entire room went quiet.) Irish people find this happening all the time. People worldwide think British Isles = British. Ireland is part of the British Isles. Therefore Ireland = British. It is something Irish people experience practically daily in the likes of the far east. That is why the topic is such a hot one in Ireland. As a Scot you probably experience people thinking you are English because "Scotland is part of England isn't it?"

There must be a way that we can find a consensus on the article. The key things that have to be in are

• mention upfront that most people internationally who use the term take it to mean the full archipelago. Some take it to mean the islands minus Ireland. (The reason why that has to be upfront is simple. Otherwise Irish users will be coming to the article into the future, seeing a simple statement that the BI includes Ireland, and will go ballistic and delete the claim. It is that sensitive to some people.

• If there is a terminological dispute, it is standard (for good reason) to cover it in the first section after the introduction. That is because
  • if it isn't there, users edit war at regular intervals by moving it there, and back, and there, etc.
  • the lower down it is put, with statements of fact such as the list of islands in the BI and other stuff first, the more it seems to imply, all too possibly unintentionally, 'this terminology dispute is bullshit. We've just mentioned it in passing at the start to keep people happy' with other things like the list of islands stated as fact before any mention of the terminology.

If however the terminology bit is in directly after the opening paragraph, then you quite simply get it out of the way and it doesn't then dog other sections. You in effect are saying 'here is the dispute. Now that you know about it, we can leave it to one side and talk about the geography, etc.' I know from 4 years editing here that the lower down a controversy is put in a page, the more edit wars are caused, not merely over that paragraph but over everything that comes before it, because people want to edit the earlier paragraphs to explain the terminology dispute first. So they'd be editing the list of islands to include/exclude Ireland, with edit wars resulting. You avoid that by getting the controversy over first.

BTW, I know I have been a bit sharp with you. For the last few weeks I have been suffering from crippling sciatica and it is extremely painful. (I am popping codeine, valium and diffene and other tablets like smarties.) The pain hasn't helped my mood and if I offended I apologise. I want the article to be NPOV. I don't want an Irish Nationalist article (given the criticism republicans give me here, being called an Irish Nationalist was a bit of a change. Usually they call me a Unionist or a West Brit!!!) But neither to I want it merely to convey a British viewpoint that is not shared by millions of Irish people in Ireland and tens of millions internationally. It can all be done in a way that gives the reader a clear undertanding of what is generally meant by British Isles, what some mean by British Isles, why there is a discrepancy in meanings, and all other facts on the topic. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)}

Thanks. I'll try to come back to this, but firstly I do appreciate the offence that can be given by an outmoded name with overtones, and have wanted from the outset to get this point over without overwhelming the matter that there's a geographical entity with a usual name that is thought of as valid by many people who know and accept that there are two sovereign states. With tact and diplomacy on both sides I think we can get there, and we'll have to present it solidly so that hotheads promoting either extreme viewpoint can be properly convinced. The subject is important and complex enough that there's a case for in independent page giving full backing detail to a clear and concise statement covering all the main points in a section on this page: the point you make about placing that section is certainly worth considering. By the way, Charles is styled "Ra Chooky Rossi" here. And last but not least, sorry to hear about the sciatica which sounds really awful: hope that improves soon. ...dave souza, talk 05:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC) modified 05:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And there was me thinking that he was the Duke of Rothesay. Good luck with the British Isles page. --Mais oui! 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Source: Malky McCormick "the Big Yin" cartoons, Sunday Mail in the 70s. Scottish humour can be harsh and not cross boundaries well: one 'toon has Charles in naval uniform singing "Ra girl that I marry, will huv tae be.. As soft an' as sweet, an' a Proddy, like me." ..dave souza, talk 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dave, just came across an edit of yours on The Patriot Game. Interesting, I drank Guinness with Dominic Behan, and on more than a couple of occasions. He lived in Scotland for about the last ten years of his life. MelForbes 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most impressive! Milne's or Sandy Bell's by any chance? Heard the song in '60s folk clubs where the folly of nationalism angle came out more, so slightly surprised when I bought the Dubliners' version more recently. ..dave souza, talk 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits of 16th July

Hi, I reverted your edit of 14:44. Just to explain, it was because it had messed the page up, and I wasn't entirely sure what you were trying to do, so I removed it figuring that you could re-edit at a later date if you wanted.

I think the problem was that the page contains so many 'edited out' comments that the syntax had been completely thrown skew-wiff when it got to the bits that you wanted to include but have edited out.... Anyway, I tried to work it out but it defeated me! Perhaps a more helpful way of maintaing info that is not necessairily to be included would be to create a subpage of the talk page. --Robdurbar 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A Desperate Plea ?!

Dave, I think you have some admin. powers? Could you please have a look at the above headed item on my talk page? I am completely flummoxed why I have been approached by this user. My actions, as you know, have been confined, for the most part, to editing and writing articles on Scottish history, my area of expertise. I have no knowledge of, or involvement in, the problem raised. I am not even certain what general advice to offer. Perhaps you can help? I've also raised this with one or two others who, I believe, have the appropriate authority. Regards, Raymond. Rcpaterson 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that an admin is on to the case, so no need for my intervention: the British Isles article has been given a sharp reminder of policies by some other admins, and it's time for me to relax a bit. ..dave souza, talk 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles

No worries, Dave, and I'm glad it worked out. I'm laughing out loud here at your description of your addiction, which sadly I share. "Sunny days"? "Mowing the lawn"? It all sounds very nice, whatever it means. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Aberdeen constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Dundee constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Edinburgh constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Fife constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Glasgow constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Highland constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Orkney and Shetland
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Paisley constituencies
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Stirling constituencies

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mais, I've had a look at the discussion and frankly it's a bit over my head. Thanks for the heads-up anyway. ..dave souza, talk 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

NPA - POV

Dave, just have a look at that character's edit history, and that of his ten sockpuppets. He has done virtually nothing but make personal attacks on me and no-one has said a peep. I have acted with uncharacteristic restraint. Fair's fair now!

No way is "annnexation" an NPOV word. A foreign country - Norway - invades and occupies the islands, and then when they are returned to Scotland they miraculously become "annexed". No way. That is just shit-stirring for the sake of it, and yes, before you ask, I certainly do think that EB are a bunch of shit-stirrers: they have an editorial angle just like every other publication. Wikipedia should stick to facts and drop the heavily POV terminology. What are the actual terms of the dowry? That would be a far better place to start than some off-the-cuff, facile term like "annexation". --Mais oui! 14:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mais, glad you didn't mean to imply a personal attack on me. Your intention not to stand idly by is noted, and I trust that you're exploring dispute resolution procedures to resolve any attacks or sockpuppetry, rather than bringing it up on article talk pages which is unacceptable. However, while "annnexation" may not be an NPOV word, it's clearly an Orcadian POV which should be shown in the article. If there are reliable sources showing an alternative POV these should be brought up. However, it was clear that the year shown was of the annexation of the earldom rather than the isles, and hope that you're content with this being clarified in the article. ..dave souza, talk 18:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're wording of earldom is much, much better (I have been looking for someone to come along with a compromise all along - cos compromise is a rare aspect of my own personality). I just haven't the time for this at the moment, but obviously if there are two opposing POVs then Wikipedia should make an honest effort at presenting both sides. The problem is that, as it currently stands, the "annexation" POV is being presented as fact, and not as one interpretation only. As regards sockpuppetry: if you give him enough rope he will hang himself. --Mais oui! 19:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)