This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. -- Lysy talk 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am leaving this same message on all the talk pages of those editors who have recently been involved in the short edit war over links in the External links section of the RMS Queen Mary article.
Two of the editors involved in that disputer were temporarily blocked because of their violation of the three-revert Rule. The article itself is temporarily protected because of the edit warring over the article. There is now a section on the Queen Mary talk page at Talk:RMS Queen Mary/Archive 2#Edit dispute over links in the External links section for any editors who want to discuss the matter of which links should, and should not be in the External links section of the RMS Queen Mary article. Blank Verse 09:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
An article you started has been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish national identity. Thanks. -- Mais oui! 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on these new articles! -- Kathryn NicDhàna 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion archived: see archive 5.
This was the best I could do at 6AM. ;) •Jim62sch• 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, you gents on the other side of the pond do love your tea. ;)
I'm not sure that mixing gas does not show an increase in entropy for the simple reason that as a physical action must occur to mix gasses previously held separately, and as every physical action generates heat, entropy would increase. As I can't see any way to mix the gasses other than via some physical action (turning a stopcock, removing a partition, breaking an ampule, etc) I'd have to say that the mixing bit of increasing entropy without dispersing energy is merely theoretical.
•Jim62sch• 21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, this getting deep. More tea! •Jim62sch• 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice you put back the section I took out without mentioning it, tho it was the point of your edit. I didn't remove it because I have a distaste for (discussions of!) Social Darwinism -- far from it. I just feel that the Charles Darwin page shouldn't be a catch-all. Also, your argument that a summary of Social Darwinism is not out of place is not out of place, except that, as structured, summaries easily bloviate into articles that rival the "real" one, since people will keep adding their two-cents-worth to it. That's why, perhaps, the "summary" should be a line or two commenting the link to Social Darwinism in the See Also section, no? — Jrmccall 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you had done a lot of work on Electric Brae, and created the redlink to Electric Brae (novel). I created the article the other day, and it could usefully be developed if you felt like it... -- Guinnog 05:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As you suggested, I re-uploaded my sketch of the Ichthyostega, with a thicker outline this time. I agree that it looks alot better now. I hope you decide to use this version for the little time-chart you made, looks very good.
Meneitherfabio 05:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Tears almost came to my eyes as I just happened to log in and found your message -- and then quickly scanned Talk:Entropy for August and September. Thanks SO much for your support!! In late July I was completely discouraged and disgusted that I had wasted a month of my not-too-assured time (I'm 88) on Wik entropy and vowed to let them wallow in their offal. Scientific arguments are great but the inability of the 3 people then dominating nearly ALL discussion to engage properly in such -- as well as the egalitarian situation of a immature grad student being a deciding 'authority' -- it was all ultimately depressing. Thus, I'll respond in just a few minutes to your Gibbs -- that PAR has remarkably screwed up. (It would be easier and less publicly invidious when I adequately express my anger!! if I could email you. My email is simply flambert@att.net) And maybe tonight, I'll put everything together that's wrong in the Talk in the last couple of months :-) My chemist friends tell me to forget it; Wk is beneath me, but I so dread that students will be frustrated and waste their minutes/hours on this WKentropy when it could be a beacon of hope...You have no idea how poorly entropy is presented around the world and what an obstacle it is to the beginner. After I'm gone, I'm assured that this will change in a generation, or less considering the incredibly rapid change to date, but I'm eager to see it everywhere! FrankLambert 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have a confession to make as I am the one who removed mention of the heptarchy in the British Isles article. The reason why was that the DNB article on Henry of Huntingdon (who, as you almost certainly know, invented the concept) states that the idea was discredited in the 1980's (though 800 years is a pretty good life for an idea). No more details I am afraid. I realise that I should have put a note on the talk page, but it can be such a nightmare that I could not face it at the time. This note is just for information, I don't know enough to get excited about it. MAG1 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks, ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the Northern Ireland page is pretty stable (see some of the involved user's explanation on the mediation page, most notably the last comment), I would like to ask whether you think the problem has been already solved, and should the mediation case be closed. Thanks. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 04:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
wanty take tht pic aff your neds article coz a dnt wanty be oan the internet cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.206.118 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 October 2006
Dave, thank you for sharing all that expertise. Does any of the following information point in one diagnostic direction or another? This is a G3 iBook with OS 9.2.2. The virtual-memory section of the Memory control panel reads:
Virtual memory is set at 321M. I've tried turning Vmem off and on, and it doesn't seem to make a difference in operation. When Vmem is on, "Largest unused block" is a bigger number, around 290 in contrast to varying numbers in the 230–250 range.
I read somewhere that an overfull desktop slows things down (Finder [= desktop] is on whenever any other program is). I've tried moving files off the desktop into the hard disk and substituting aliases. I dumped some files entirely, such as utilities to do with networking, which I'll never use. Somehow I doubt that having too much stuff in the computer isn't causing its troubles, because there isn't a lot of stuff in it.
This year I had to replace my other computer, which was even older. The dealer who sold me a new used one said OS X will run on a G3 but will slow it down. This G3 is so slow already that I decided it wasn't worth it. But you say yours runs fast!
Among the measures you described, it sounds as if the next thing to try is option-command-start and rebuild the desktop. Does rebuilding the desktop mean I'd get a blank and have to restore all the icons? Cognita 01:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Blue and white, but the case color doesn't affect loading speed, does it? Browsers are IE 5 and iCab. I don't have Photoshop or, as far as I know, any other huge byte-sucking programs. Why do I think it's slow? Well, I don't use Windows, so that's not it. Maybe you saw my report of ridiculous downloading and uploading times on ID: Discussion, but that isn't the worst problem.
Often, my first attempt to load ID: Discussion takes a long wait and produces a blank page; the second attempt (via Command-R) also takes long but does bring up the page. Sometimes, when I try to edit a long page, the editing page has a notice at the top saying how long the page is, and the Preview contains the section I aimed at plus the next section(s) below it (I have preferences set to show Preview on the editing page), and the typing window also contains this extra material until it runs out of space (I presume) and cuts off the text mid-word. When that happens, I back off because making the edit would delete text from the edited page. I learned this after doing accidental deletions twice.
So far, this last malfunction has occurred only with IE. iCab doesn't seem to do it, but iCab takes even longer to load WP pages than IE.
Once, when I clicked on the plus sign to start a topic on ID Talk, the editing page tried to give me the whole talk page, with the list of archives and everything, instead of the "new section" format. The text stopped before the bottom, so I didn't post.
Many documents are backed up on a zip drive or floppies. The mail program is Outlook Express, which can't be backed up (the program can, but not the stored e-mails; one must save each one separately). Service is broadband, but the cheapest kind, not the really fast kind.
Doesn't Disk First Aid defrag adequately, without the need for another defragging program? Cognita 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, thanks for helping with the references. I've only just realised that you wrote all of those more detailed articles on Darwin's life. I'm quite keen to see if at least the main article can be fully referenced and go sail through FAC, because I think it's already very well written, and these seem to be the times when us evolutionists need to fly our flag. Hence my interest in doing the same for natural selection, which is a comprehensive modern look at the topic, but has had various complaints at its ongoing FAC. So grateful for any help you can give. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please apply changes to my fork of the article, User:Samsara/Charles Darwin. Thanks! - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, -- YFB ¿ 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, I'd appreciate your comment on the new proposed wikiproject here. Thanks. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, just saw your change here and wasn't sure whether you meant to edit the copy of the article that's going to get overwritten when we move the temporary copy back. Btw, have we been able to remove enough of the tags to move it back? We probably don't want to keep it branched forever... Let me know when you feel comfortable moving it back (I know how to do this, it's not difficult, but probably not entirely obvious either). Samsara ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just thought you should know that I think I've put in cite needed tags everywhere they need to be now, so that's that done. I'm really sorry I haven't been able to help more with the actual citations - I've been ill, and so haven't been able to get to books. But I hope I've still helped. By my calculations, we're about 2/5ths done, given we started with 29 cites, now have 70, and have 59 left to add. Of course, some of those cluster, so it'll probably be less in practice. Adam Cuerden talk 12:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
...We MUST rewrite the whole section on the logic behind the development of Darwin's theory. It's AWFUL, and doesn't explain it at all. Gould did an excellent article on it, but I can't remember in which book (curse it!). Adam Cuerden talk 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've combined the two descriptions of his thoughts after reading Malthus, to try and give full detail of his insight (one of the things in the peer review was "not enough on the development of his theory"). God that article was full of a lot of repetition, though: I'd already removed a bunch. Adam Cuerden talk 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, just a quick note while I'm away from my books - keep up the good work on the Darwin article! I'll be chipping in again with more references from Browne, autobiography and Voyage soon. Best regards, Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Malthus explanation: The exponential growth brings in mathematics that may not be generally understood, and aren't all that important to the thrust of the importance of the theory to Darwin's. I'm going to tweak it a little more - see what you think. Also, you added the sentence "Convinced that Lyell was right, he made numerous discoveries. [1]" - I'm afraid I honestly can't see what you're getting at there, as it doesn't really fit with what surrounds it in a meaningful way. Adam Cuerden talk 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to get access to Gould - I KNOW he covers it. Adam Cuerden talk 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The Zen Garden Award | ||
I,
Samsara award you,
Dave Souza, this Zen Garden Award for very patiently letting
u
s edit "your" articles on
Charles Darwin, and helping plenty on the way. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
We're talking a lot about Darwin's sccientific friends' negative reactions to the theory, but I think we might benefit from a bit more detail - e.g. had Lyell come around to Darwin's views on natural selection when encouraging him to publish, or was he uncertain, but of the belief that it was worth researching further, or merely being supportive? A little more detail here and there might be best, as at the moment, I think we might be generalising a bit too much.
Oh, yes. The article starts to tail off away from Darwin a bit in the end, with the Eugenics and Social Darwinism sections. Do you think it might be worthwhile adding a concluding paragraph after them, about his effect on biology or something, to return the focus to his intellectual achievements? Adam Cuerden talk 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Can you do me and wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a quick copyedit (sentences structures, unclear info, etc). I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. Best regards, Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there Dave, I remember talking to you on the tudorbethan page and could do with your input. I was asked my opinion on this [2] - which I responded to here I was wondering if you might be able to elaborate. By the time I was in college in 1990 my tutors were negatively criting designs as being deterministic, but the history of that fall from grace is something I thought you might be able to elaborate on better than I. Cheers. -- Mcginnly | Natter 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I still prefer Huxley's version, as I don't think that version makes the dying off clear, and ignores the r-type organism analogue. Is there any way to work more emphasis into the dying off part in, as it's absolutely crucial to the removal of unfit forms? Adam Cuerden talk 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Sorry to be difficult! By the way, you'll be glad to know the article sans refs and links is only ~44kb. Much more reasonable! Adam Cuerden talk 13:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in this, please delete it if you're not.......
Honestly, if you're going to start reverting my changes without comment, you can just do it all yourself. I wasn't happy that the reference conversion was left to me. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Dave—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Dave, you might be interested in the new version of X Club; it's been massively expanded based on the term paper of one the students in the class I'm assisting. I tried to keep some of your prose in the merge, but I didn't keep it all. Feel free to tool around with it if you object.-- ragesoss 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nearly there! Four more cites, and one that probably needs a cite. And I found a period Darwin biography. Adam Cuerden talk 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The JSTORs should be alright. I think I added all of them, and I'm generally pretty good at making sure they support me. And also....
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Dave Souza for his work in helping increase the number of cites on the darwin article by over 140!! Ye gods! Adam Cuerden talk 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
By the way, is it just me who finds that barnstar really distracting? =) Adam Cuerden talk 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Dunno about you, but I've emigrated to the midwest. .. dave souza, talk 11:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that Browne does not indicate Owen being neutral towards the book at all. She portrays him as snakish when Darwin sees Owen in London (2nd volume, pp. 97-100), and the two online references also don't support the notion of him having a neutral stance towards the book. Sure, he had an initially open mind towards various versions of transmutability, but it seems that he went sour from the moment the book was published, and did not entirely hide this from Darwin. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that if we try to satisfy all of Mikker's demands before the FAC, someone at the FAC will come up with the exact opposite demands. It can be much better to allow people to butt heads with each other at the FAC. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Dave, the latest DI pr stunt has made it's way onto the talk page. Limulus has made a reasonable suggestion of how we might handle it. Would you mind dropping by and giving your opinion on the matter when you have a free moment? Cheers Mr Christopher 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave... any idea why this didn't work? Mikker (...) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Say, lad, would you like a scan (in two parts: A3 sheets are hard to scan) of an 1871 Illustrated London News article on Darwin and the Descent of man? Adam Cuerden talk 11:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The link you provided allows for quotes which are useful. Andycjp Advent 2006
I'm not sure that selective archiving is such a wise idea(on Talk:Evolution). It gives the undue impression that some people's opinions and statements are worth less than others. I can understand how the removed wasn't contributing to the discussion much but you might want to refrain from such activity in the future on the grounds of WP:NPA. Thanks, i kan reed 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from making any further edits like this one: [3]. UK English is perfectly ok in an article about a British writer. Thanks. -- Guinnog 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Guinnog, OK, we can leave it in the U.K. English form, if it so disturbs you otherwise. However, it's my humble understanding that U.S. English is the standard for this version of Wikipedia. -- Tito4000 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Guinnog, Vernon, and Dave: Touché! I yield to your well referenced explanation. I'm sorry for the humble misunderstanding on my part. As Guinnog correctly pointed out, my editing was in fact specifically out of line. And Vernon, please don't move out! I promise I won't let my hand do that again when I'm on edition mode. Sorry folks, no harm meant. Happy holidays! -- Tito4000 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of MerryWhateverness, are you ever in the habit of gift giving? *puppy looks very innocent* KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, thanks for my award! You are too kind... :). May you have a merry Yule yourself. Mikker (...) 04:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Everything I wrote came from sources, and I distilled it. Now I've got to find the cites. Give me some time. OrangeMarlin 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks dave for your comments. somehow you must have gotten aware of the concerns i have with the intelligent design article. as i said there it seems biased. esp the phrase that 'all ID proponents are affiliates of the Discovery Institute' seems to imply that ID is a concoction of the DI and has no merit on its own. I really think for wiki's credibilty the article should be more balanced. I personally found ID to be a viable concept before I even knew who the DI was. I really feel using the word 'all' here is in error. As you know there are very few situtations where it is safe to use it to describe anything. Most scholars will use most, nearly all, to our knowledge etc. And there is a cateogorization error which there is no way to get 'a reliable source' for since it is an internal logic error. And it is not possible to get a 'reliable source' to show that an article has a condemning tone. this is what i see here. I think wiki should try to error on the side of neutrality above all. this should be the deciding factor in differences of opinion on articles. the prime directive. even the appearance of bias should be fervently avoided. certainly is possible to make this article have a more balanced tone without change its content
raspor 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right, McNeill spells it "whisky." My mistake. Tapadh Leibh for catching it! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Dave we have a budding edit war at intelligent design and I'm afraid the 3rr notice for raspor is not formatted correctly [4] I am about to be in violation of 3rr if I have not done so already so for now I am just watching the show. Mr Christopher 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: -- Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The article at present does come over as an argument for evolution, which is not what Wikipedia should be doing: in my opinion WP:NPOV requires the aim to be to present who's putting the argument and represent it fairly. There's a lot of useful info there, but the title's problematic: one possibility might be Organisations supporting and opposing evolution. That would take a bit of work to find out which church stands where, and leaves out individual support. Extent of opposition to evolution might work better. In any event, copying long lists of (unlinked) names isn't very helpful: I'd suggest "The National Center for Science Education lists [x number of} Scientific and Scholarly Organizations and shows their statements supporting evolution. [5] [Y number of] such bodies are listed as opposing evolution here..." or "Various creationist organisations claim scientific credibility, including AiG, the Center for Science and Culture etc, but none of these have scientific or governmental accreditation" Trust you get my drift. I think it's probably best to accept that the current article is a POV fork, and rethink the idea to give fair representation to "both sides". ... dave souza, talk 10:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
...for the lovely chew toy. I am much appreciative of the thought and effort you put into that. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you see the discussion at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution?-- Filll 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You commented about my "amusing, wee little troll?" Are you saying you picked my IP off the little comment I made on Creationism once, before I registered, or are you talking about a comment I made on some other talk page? I don't ever recall adding a comment to the Evolution page or talk page.
You're going great work, though, so definite credits for that. I'm just here for the ride. ~Kazu 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was bad. I keep hoping to engage this editor and turn him into a productive contributor. But that is a good answer. It is all a matter of definition.-- Filll 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Very much appreciated. Guettarda 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL, thanks for that. Sorry I didn't reply before! Yeah, language is lots of fun. Especially here on Wikipedia. It's cheaper to talk to people overseas rather than fly halfway around the world. Hell, maybe we'll all have the chance to experience some "cultural cross-contamination". :-p Quack 688 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. -- Lysy talk 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am leaving this same message on all the talk pages of those editors who have recently been involved in the short edit war over links in the External links section of the RMS Queen Mary article.
Two of the editors involved in that disputer were temporarily blocked because of their violation of the three-revert Rule. The article itself is temporarily protected because of the edit warring over the article. There is now a section on the Queen Mary talk page at Talk:RMS Queen Mary/Archive 2#Edit dispute over links in the External links section for any editors who want to discuss the matter of which links should, and should not be in the External links section of the RMS Queen Mary article. Blank Verse 09:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
An article you started has been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish national identity. Thanks. -- Mais oui! 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on these new articles! -- Kathryn NicDhàna 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion archived: see archive 5.
This was the best I could do at 6AM. ;) •Jim62sch• 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, you gents on the other side of the pond do love your tea. ;)
I'm not sure that mixing gas does not show an increase in entropy for the simple reason that as a physical action must occur to mix gasses previously held separately, and as every physical action generates heat, entropy would increase. As I can't see any way to mix the gasses other than via some physical action (turning a stopcock, removing a partition, breaking an ampule, etc) I'd have to say that the mixing bit of increasing entropy without dispersing energy is merely theoretical.
•Jim62sch• 21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, this getting deep. More tea! •Jim62sch• 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice you put back the section I took out without mentioning it, tho it was the point of your edit. I didn't remove it because I have a distaste for (discussions of!) Social Darwinism -- far from it. I just feel that the Charles Darwin page shouldn't be a catch-all. Also, your argument that a summary of Social Darwinism is not out of place is not out of place, except that, as structured, summaries easily bloviate into articles that rival the "real" one, since people will keep adding their two-cents-worth to it. That's why, perhaps, the "summary" should be a line or two commenting the link to Social Darwinism in the See Also section, no? — Jrmccall 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you had done a lot of work on Electric Brae, and created the redlink to Electric Brae (novel). I created the article the other day, and it could usefully be developed if you felt like it... -- Guinnog 05:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As you suggested, I re-uploaded my sketch of the Ichthyostega, with a thicker outline this time. I agree that it looks alot better now. I hope you decide to use this version for the little time-chart you made, looks very good.
Meneitherfabio 05:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Tears almost came to my eyes as I just happened to log in and found your message -- and then quickly scanned Talk:Entropy for August and September. Thanks SO much for your support!! In late July I was completely discouraged and disgusted that I had wasted a month of my not-too-assured time (I'm 88) on Wik entropy and vowed to let them wallow in their offal. Scientific arguments are great but the inability of the 3 people then dominating nearly ALL discussion to engage properly in such -- as well as the egalitarian situation of a immature grad student being a deciding 'authority' -- it was all ultimately depressing. Thus, I'll respond in just a few minutes to your Gibbs -- that PAR has remarkably screwed up. (It would be easier and less publicly invidious when I adequately express my anger!! if I could email you. My email is simply flambert@att.net) And maybe tonight, I'll put everything together that's wrong in the Talk in the last couple of months :-) My chemist friends tell me to forget it; Wk is beneath me, but I so dread that students will be frustrated and waste their minutes/hours on this WKentropy when it could be a beacon of hope...You have no idea how poorly entropy is presented around the world and what an obstacle it is to the beginner. After I'm gone, I'm assured that this will change in a generation, or less considering the incredibly rapid change to date, but I'm eager to see it everywhere! FrankLambert 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have a confession to make as I am the one who removed mention of the heptarchy in the British Isles article. The reason why was that the DNB article on Henry of Huntingdon (who, as you almost certainly know, invented the concept) states that the idea was discredited in the 1980's (though 800 years is a pretty good life for an idea). No more details I am afraid. I realise that I should have put a note on the talk page, but it can be such a nightmare that I could not face it at the time. This note is just for information, I don't know enough to get excited about it. MAG1 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks, ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the Northern Ireland page is pretty stable (see some of the involved user's explanation on the mediation page, most notably the last comment), I would like to ask whether you think the problem has been already solved, and should the mediation case be closed. Thanks. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 04:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
wanty take tht pic aff your neds article coz a dnt wanty be oan the internet cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.206.118 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 October 2006
Dave, thank you for sharing all that expertise. Does any of the following information point in one diagnostic direction or another? This is a G3 iBook with OS 9.2.2. The virtual-memory section of the Memory control panel reads:
Virtual memory is set at 321M. I've tried turning Vmem off and on, and it doesn't seem to make a difference in operation. When Vmem is on, "Largest unused block" is a bigger number, around 290 in contrast to varying numbers in the 230–250 range.
I read somewhere that an overfull desktop slows things down (Finder [= desktop] is on whenever any other program is). I've tried moving files off the desktop into the hard disk and substituting aliases. I dumped some files entirely, such as utilities to do with networking, which I'll never use. Somehow I doubt that having too much stuff in the computer isn't causing its troubles, because there isn't a lot of stuff in it.
This year I had to replace my other computer, which was even older. The dealer who sold me a new used one said OS X will run on a G3 but will slow it down. This G3 is so slow already that I decided it wasn't worth it. But you say yours runs fast!
Among the measures you described, it sounds as if the next thing to try is option-command-start and rebuild the desktop. Does rebuilding the desktop mean I'd get a blank and have to restore all the icons? Cognita 01:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Blue and white, but the case color doesn't affect loading speed, does it? Browsers are IE 5 and iCab. I don't have Photoshop or, as far as I know, any other huge byte-sucking programs. Why do I think it's slow? Well, I don't use Windows, so that's not it. Maybe you saw my report of ridiculous downloading and uploading times on ID: Discussion, but that isn't the worst problem.
Often, my first attempt to load ID: Discussion takes a long wait and produces a blank page; the second attempt (via Command-R) also takes long but does bring up the page. Sometimes, when I try to edit a long page, the editing page has a notice at the top saying how long the page is, and the Preview contains the section I aimed at plus the next section(s) below it (I have preferences set to show Preview on the editing page), and the typing window also contains this extra material until it runs out of space (I presume) and cuts off the text mid-word. When that happens, I back off because making the edit would delete text from the edited page. I learned this after doing accidental deletions twice.
So far, this last malfunction has occurred only with IE. iCab doesn't seem to do it, but iCab takes even longer to load WP pages than IE.
Once, when I clicked on the plus sign to start a topic on ID Talk, the editing page tried to give me the whole talk page, with the list of archives and everything, instead of the "new section" format. The text stopped before the bottom, so I didn't post.
Many documents are backed up on a zip drive or floppies. The mail program is Outlook Express, which can't be backed up (the program can, but not the stored e-mails; one must save each one separately). Service is broadband, but the cheapest kind, not the really fast kind.
Doesn't Disk First Aid defrag adequately, without the need for another defragging program? Cognita 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, thanks for helping with the references. I've only just realised that you wrote all of those more detailed articles on Darwin's life. I'm quite keen to see if at least the main article can be fully referenced and go sail through FAC, because I think it's already very well written, and these seem to be the times when us evolutionists need to fly our flag. Hence my interest in doing the same for natural selection, which is a comprehensive modern look at the topic, but has had various complaints at its ongoing FAC. So grateful for any help you can give. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please apply changes to my fork of the article, User:Samsara/Charles Darwin. Thanks! - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, -- YFB ¿ 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, I'd appreciate your comment on the new proposed wikiproject here. Thanks. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, just saw your change here and wasn't sure whether you meant to edit the copy of the article that's going to get overwritten when we move the temporary copy back. Btw, have we been able to remove enough of the tags to move it back? We probably don't want to keep it branched forever... Let me know when you feel comfortable moving it back (I know how to do this, it's not difficult, but probably not entirely obvious either). Samsara ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just thought you should know that I think I've put in cite needed tags everywhere they need to be now, so that's that done. I'm really sorry I haven't been able to help more with the actual citations - I've been ill, and so haven't been able to get to books. But I hope I've still helped. By my calculations, we're about 2/5ths done, given we started with 29 cites, now have 70, and have 59 left to add. Of course, some of those cluster, so it'll probably be less in practice. Adam Cuerden talk 12:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
...We MUST rewrite the whole section on the logic behind the development of Darwin's theory. It's AWFUL, and doesn't explain it at all. Gould did an excellent article on it, but I can't remember in which book (curse it!). Adam Cuerden talk 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've combined the two descriptions of his thoughts after reading Malthus, to try and give full detail of his insight (one of the things in the peer review was "not enough on the development of his theory"). God that article was full of a lot of repetition, though: I'd already removed a bunch. Adam Cuerden talk 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, just a quick note while I'm away from my books - keep up the good work on the Darwin article! I'll be chipping in again with more references from Browne, autobiography and Voyage soon. Best regards, Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Malthus explanation: The exponential growth brings in mathematics that may not be generally understood, and aren't all that important to the thrust of the importance of the theory to Darwin's. I'm going to tweak it a little more - see what you think. Also, you added the sentence "Convinced that Lyell was right, he made numerous discoveries. [1]" - I'm afraid I honestly can't see what you're getting at there, as it doesn't really fit with what surrounds it in a meaningful way. Adam Cuerden talk 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to get access to Gould - I KNOW he covers it. Adam Cuerden talk 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The Zen Garden Award | ||
I,
Samsara award you,
Dave Souza, this Zen Garden Award for very patiently letting
u
s edit "your" articles on
Charles Darwin, and helping plenty on the way. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
We're talking a lot about Darwin's sccientific friends' negative reactions to the theory, but I think we might benefit from a bit more detail - e.g. had Lyell come around to Darwin's views on natural selection when encouraging him to publish, or was he uncertain, but of the belief that it was worth researching further, or merely being supportive? A little more detail here and there might be best, as at the moment, I think we might be generalising a bit too much.
Oh, yes. The article starts to tail off away from Darwin a bit in the end, with the Eugenics and Social Darwinism sections. Do you think it might be worthwhile adding a concluding paragraph after them, about his effect on biology or something, to return the focus to his intellectual achievements? Adam Cuerden talk 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Can you do me and wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a quick copyedit (sentences structures, unclear info, etc). I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. Best regards, Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there Dave, I remember talking to you on the tudorbethan page and could do with your input. I was asked my opinion on this [2] - which I responded to here I was wondering if you might be able to elaborate. By the time I was in college in 1990 my tutors were negatively criting designs as being deterministic, but the history of that fall from grace is something I thought you might be able to elaborate on better than I. Cheers. -- Mcginnly | Natter 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I still prefer Huxley's version, as I don't think that version makes the dying off clear, and ignores the r-type organism analogue. Is there any way to work more emphasis into the dying off part in, as it's absolutely crucial to the removal of unfit forms? Adam Cuerden talk 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Sorry to be difficult! By the way, you'll be glad to know the article sans refs and links is only ~44kb. Much more reasonable! Adam Cuerden talk 13:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in this, please delete it if you're not.......
Honestly, if you're going to start reverting my changes without comment, you can just do it all yourself. I wasn't happy that the reference conversion was left to me. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Dave—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Dave, you might be interested in the new version of X Club; it's been massively expanded based on the term paper of one the students in the class I'm assisting. I tried to keep some of your prose in the merge, but I didn't keep it all. Feel free to tool around with it if you object.-- ragesoss 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nearly there! Four more cites, and one that probably needs a cite. And I found a period Darwin biography. Adam Cuerden talk 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The JSTORs should be alright. I think I added all of them, and I'm generally pretty good at making sure they support me. And also....
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Dave Souza for his work in helping increase the number of cites on the darwin article by over 140!! Ye gods! Adam Cuerden talk 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
By the way, is it just me who finds that barnstar really distracting? =) Adam Cuerden talk 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Dunno about you, but I've emigrated to the midwest. .. dave souza, talk 11:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that Browne does not indicate Owen being neutral towards the book at all. She portrays him as snakish when Darwin sees Owen in London (2nd volume, pp. 97-100), and the two online references also don't support the notion of him having a neutral stance towards the book. Sure, he had an initially open mind towards various versions of transmutability, but it seems that he went sour from the moment the book was published, and did not entirely hide this from Darwin. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that if we try to satisfy all of Mikker's demands before the FAC, someone at the FAC will come up with the exact opposite demands. It can be much better to allow people to butt heads with each other at the FAC. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Dave, the latest DI pr stunt has made it's way onto the talk page. Limulus has made a reasonable suggestion of how we might handle it. Would you mind dropping by and giving your opinion on the matter when you have a free moment? Cheers Mr Christopher 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave... any idea why this didn't work? Mikker (...) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Say, lad, would you like a scan (in two parts: A3 sheets are hard to scan) of an 1871 Illustrated London News article on Darwin and the Descent of man? Adam Cuerden talk 11:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The link you provided allows for quotes which are useful. Andycjp Advent 2006
I'm not sure that selective archiving is such a wise idea(on Talk:Evolution). It gives the undue impression that some people's opinions and statements are worth less than others. I can understand how the removed wasn't contributing to the discussion much but you might want to refrain from such activity in the future on the grounds of WP:NPA. Thanks, i kan reed 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from making any further edits like this one: [3]. UK English is perfectly ok in an article about a British writer. Thanks. -- Guinnog 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Guinnog, OK, we can leave it in the U.K. English form, if it so disturbs you otherwise. However, it's my humble understanding that U.S. English is the standard for this version of Wikipedia. -- Tito4000 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Guinnog, Vernon, and Dave: Touché! I yield to your well referenced explanation. I'm sorry for the humble misunderstanding on my part. As Guinnog correctly pointed out, my editing was in fact specifically out of line. And Vernon, please don't move out! I promise I won't let my hand do that again when I'm on edition mode. Sorry folks, no harm meant. Happy holidays! -- Tito4000 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of MerryWhateverness, are you ever in the habit of gift giving? *puppy looks very innocent* KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave, thanks for my award! You are too kind... :). May you have a merry Yule yourself. Mikker (...) 04:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Everything I wrote came from sources, and I distilled it. Now I've got to find the cites. Give me some time. OrangeMarlin 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks dave for your comments. somehow you must have gotten aware of the concerns i have with the intelligent design article. as i said there it seems biased. esp the phrase that 'all ID proponents are affiliates of the Discovery Institute' seems to imply that ID is a concoction of the DI and has no merit on its own. I really think for wiki's credibilty the article should be more balanced. I personally found ID to be a viable concept before I even knew who the DI was. I really feel using the word 'all' here is in error. As you know there are very few situtations where it is safe to use it to describe anything. Most scholars will use most, nearly all, to our knowledge etc. And there is a cateogorization error which there is no way to get 'a reliable source' for since it is an internal logic error. And it is not possible to get a 'reliable source' to show that an article has a condemning tone. this is what i see here. I think wiki should try to error on the side of neutrality above all. this should be the deciding factor in differences of opinion on articles. the prime directive. even the appearance of bias should be fervently avoided. certainly is possible to make this article have a more balanced tone without change its content
raspor 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right, McNeill spells it "whisky." My mistake. Tapadh Leibh for catching it! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Dave we have a budding edit war at intelligent design and I'm afraid the 3rr notice for raspor is not formatted correctly [4] I am about to be in violation of 3rr if I have not done so already so for now I am just watching the show. Mr Christopher 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: -- Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The article at present does come over as an argument for evolution, which is not what Wikipedia should be doing: in my opinion WP:NPOV requires the aim to be to present who's putting the argument and represent it fairly. There's a lot of useful info there, but the title's problematic: one possibility might be Organisations supporting and opposing evolution. That would take a bit of work to find out which church stands where, and leaves out individual support. Extent of opposition to evolution might work better. In any event, copying long lists of (unlinked) names isn't very helpful: I'd suggest "The National Center for Science Education lists [x number of} Scientific and Scholarly Organizations and shows their statements supporting evolution. [5] [Y number of] such bodies are listed as opposing evolution here..." or "Various creationist organisations claim scientific credibility, including AiG, the Center for Science and Culture etc, but none of these have scientific or governmental accreditation" Trust you get my drift. I think it's probably best to accept that the current article is a POV fork, and rethink the idea to give fair representation to "both sides". ... dave souza, talk 10:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
...for the lovely chew toy. I am much appreciative of the thought and effort you put into that. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you see the discussion at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution?-- Filll 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You commented about my "amusing, wee little troll?" Are you saying you picked my IP off the little comment I made on Creationism once, before I registered, or are you talking about a comment I made on some other talk page? I don't ever recall adding a comment to the Evolution page or talk page.
You're going great work, though, so definite credits for that. I'm just here for the ride. ~Kazu 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was bad. I keep hoping to engage this editor and turn him into a productive contributor. But that is a good answer. It is all a matter of definition.-- Filll 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Very much appreciated. Guettarda 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL, thanks for that. Sorry I didn't reply before! Yeah, language is lots of fun. Especially here on Wikipedia. It's cheaper to talk to people overseas rather than fly halfway around the world. Hell, maybe we'll all have the chance to experience some "cultural cross-contamination". :-p Quack 688 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)