Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 7 January 2010

Paul H. Allen at DYK

Interesting article! I have made some suggestions as to the wording of the hook -- please review as soon as you can to prevent this being passed over. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeply sorry for my appalling timing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deepest sympathy

They found the bodies this morning. I was hoping for a better outcome, I really was. This is just heartbreaking. Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They will be in my prayers, Guettarda. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Truly sad news. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Our hearts go out to you and your family. It's so hard to know what to say. What we really want is to be able to change it for you. :-( SlimVirgin 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrible news. So sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh nooooo, dearest Guettarda :' ( what awful news. Much love, tears, and deepest sympathy. --MPerel 04:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, that really sucks. So sorry. Hesperian 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I go to sleep tonight with you in my thoughts. Take care of yourself my friend.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is dreadful news, and completely heartbreaking. It's hard even thinking about the pain this must be causing for you and your family, so sorry to hear of this, you have my thoughts and condolences. . dave souza, talk 09:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

:-( Dragons flight (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read the link on your user page and understand you've lost two people who clearly meant a great deal to you. My profound condolences, dear ((Guettarda)).* I hold you and yours in my thoughts and prayers and wish you peace. *my arms around you. :/ deeceevoice (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies for you in this difficult time. You and your family are in my thoughts. KillerChihuahua 11:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very saddened by this, Guettarda. My heart reaches out to you and the rest of those closest to you. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Words fail me here. I just want you to know that my thoughts are with you, with my deepest sympathies to you and your family. OrangeMarlin 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Guettarda. These two people clearly meant a lot to you. I share this moment of reflection with you. --CSTAR (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No man is an island, and this is especially true in small communities such as this one. Your loss is our loss. Words cannot adequately convey how sorry we are. Personally, I have lost people before, but never suddenly like this. What you and your family must be going through must be very difficult. I offer my deepest condolences in these hard times. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My heartfelt condolences to you, your sister and your family. •Jim62sch• 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. While studying I had heard of the search come across the radio in Trinidad during the hourly news update but I hadn't yet put two-and-two together to take them to be your relatives. I express to you and the rest of the entire Ramjohn family my most heartfelt and expressed condolences at this very tragic loss. It is clear to all that they gave of themselves a great deal of service for Trinidad and Tobago in their research and for that myself and others in society should be grateful for the service they have given to the country. CaribDigita (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. My deepest sympathies and condolences dear Guettarda. -- FayssalF - 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I too offer my condolences. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My condolences, Guettarda. It is good to have closure, but not this closure. --Una Smith (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My utmost condolences, Guettarda. Amerique 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone in my house survived 24 hours out there last year lost diving (for a living not tourism), hope things are as well as can be expected, best wishes. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My sympathy and solidarity man. Alun (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My God...my most heartfelt sympathies Guettarda. I can't imagine... Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My sympathy and condolences, as usual in such cases, words fail. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My condolences Guettarda; your family is in our prayers. -- Samir 07:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found out this morning about your terrible loss and my heart goes out to you. I, too, have just lost someone close recently. I will be sending warm thoughts of strength and fellowship as I lie awake at night waiting for the pain to dull (it comes in waves) and allow me to sleep. John Hill (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My deepest sympathy my friend. I lost someone too in the New Year and it really just is hard to get through. If you need to talk, you can send me a message any time. Spawn Man (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw you briefly at that awful Egyptian controversy article a couple of days ago, and I wanted to drop by again to tell you I haven't forgotten, that you and yours are still in my thoughts and prayers. Memories persist, and healing will come. Bless, :) deeceevoice (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Paul H. Allen

On January 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul H. Allen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Banderas

Hello, in light of recent discoveries, I am proposing a consensus concerning the colors of the flag of Puerto Rico in neutral articles. Please see the project's talk page for further detail. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is for the most part a copy/pasted notice, but I would like to offer my condolences for this recent loss. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ID images

As I said on Dave's talk page, I am discussing the images, heavily, both on the talk page and elsewhere. I continued to remove them from the article, not because there was a clear consensus to remove them, but because there was no clear consensus to include them. The non-free content criteria are quite clear on that front- the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the images. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned about your characterisation of my edits as "disruptive", while continuing to edit war yourself. Why do you believe the version with the images is the one we should settle on while the images are being discussed? Your assertion that "the image use appears to be in keeping with our rules" does not reflect the heated debate on the article talk page. As I have said, I feel the images should remain our of the article at the current time not because there is a clear consensus for their removal, but because their is no clear consensus for their retention, and the non-free content criteria are quite clear on where the burden of proof lies. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What? As I have said, I am involved in the discussion, far more heavily than you are. Furthermore, I have not edited the main article since you did, so there was no need for any kind of additional warning. I am not saying that I don't like it- I am saying that there is no consensus to keep the images. If you believe there is, we have a very different definition of consensus. In stating that the images appear to meet our policy, you are the one who is effectively ignoring the discussion and instead deciding what is best for the article. Do you honestly believe that there is a current consensus for the images to be retained? J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, simply stating that I am being disruptive does not make it so. Also, I do not appreciate this whole "warning" thing- I have been an administrator for over a year; I know the ropes. If you are going to undo my edits, the least you can do is answer a few questions. Do you honestly believe there to be a consensus for retaining the images? J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Our basic disagreement seems to be that you believe there is a clear consensus for the images to be kept, meaning that my removal of them is disruptive, while I believe that there is no clear consensus, meaning that my removal is valid. That would be fair enough. However, you argue that my involvement in the debate means that I cannot fairly judge whether there is a consensus, meaning that your judgement of consensus is more objective, yet, in the same edit, argue for how involved in the discussion you have been. I find that a little alarming. Unless one of us is "right" about the consensus (and, as you have argued, neither of us could be a fair judge of that) then if any of my edits have been disruptive, so was yours. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

where things should be

I'm not sure what good it will do. I've made my case that the bird family should be at bird of paradise. The page is rather disorganised at present (not helped by a bunch of people !voting at another proposal), but at the moment it seems to be in the hands of consensus. I'd try and clarify the options, for example provide three options to !vote on (at present the page is set up so that it's Una's or nothing) but since I've been strongly advocating a position that would probably make things more irritating. I'm not going to disrupt things just because I think I'm right. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole page is confusing. That's what happens in these situations (check out recent activity at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (flora) which I barely follow just to make sure no sweeping changes happen by attrition of exausted editors. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Secondary forest

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html Fred Talk 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages naming conventions for organisms

Hi, Guettarda, I've posted this elsewhere, where you will certainly see it, but I am trying to notify everyone involved most recently:

I suggest that Misplaced Pages should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion should be discussed fully at Misplaced Pages naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that editing by consensus can work, which means, I value your input whether you agree with me or not. If you're just disrupting Misplaced Pages, I don't value your input, but that's not the case with you, even when you and I disagree. It's not the case with most of the editors I disagree with on Misplaced Pages. So, come on by, and disagree with me. And thanks for taking the time. --KP Botany (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:My incivility

No, I was just not happy with the method. That conversation was going nowhere. If you want to discuss my incivility, do so on my talk page with specific references to the phrases that you are unhappy with. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of herbaria

Caribbean would fit where - North America? Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only if the herbarium has a minimum of 200,000 specimens. Herbaria smaller than that are placed on the List of herbaria in North America, where they are grouped with Central America. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Endemic flora of Trinidad and Tobago

On February 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Endemic flora of Trinidad and Tobago, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wild horse

Hi. I think the general opinion re Wild horse is in flux, and it may be helpful if on Talk:Wild horse#Request move you would register your view in the survey section. Regards, Una Smith (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Justicia flaviflora

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Justicia flaviflora, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ignatz Urban

On February 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ignatz Urban, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

spellunking

You think? I know. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Who hasn't sat in a read-along praying to their gods to not be called upon at a tricky passage? I use a fuzzy spell-checker that allows common alternative spellings that are found on certain types of pages on Misplaced Pages, to allow for British versus American English. I wrote it for spell-checking 19th century British texts, but adapted it in part for the Misplaced Pages issue. For some reason the spell checker okayed this spelling, as it sometimes does with really commonly misspelled words, but doing a search doesn't pull up lots of pages with this spelling.

Ah, well, I'm a really bad speller, and I appreciate everyone who tidies up after me, no matter what is being tidied. --KP Botany (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

agreeing with you

Don't worry, I'm not agreeing with you, I'm just defending the side of reason as logic... as usual... You just happen to be on that side this time.  ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on the NFC fracas

I thank you for your support on John's talk page, and on the AN/I page.

I always thought block warnings only came out after at least three or four warnings except for completely egregious behavior. So it was quite a shock to be given "not a threat, but a promise" to be blocked if I made another move without being told why I would be blocked. I had never ever been given any kind of warning for my editing here, much less a block warning: I wholeheartedly back the mission and philosophy of Misplaced Pages. And although I'm not confident in my straight content-building ability, I do my best to support those editors who do build the encyclopedia, and I'd like to think I am considered an editor in good standing. This affected me more than I care to admit. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to note that this sort of thing is increasingly endemic on the wiki, and this is just one particular example. (I will refrain from being explicit about where else I've noticed this sort of use, or abuse, of administrative power based upon hasty or incorrect interpretations of WP policy.) WP:Consensus is policy too, and when that's threatened by administrative power plays of this kind, I'm afraid the project has reached its limits of competence in keeping with the Peter principle. It's something the community will no doubt need to discuss and deal with if it is to maintain its best possible health and vibrancy in the future. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kisten Dunst FAC

I've taken care of your concerns, regarding its FAC review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Life listing!

Thanks for stopping by! I haven't even put half the plants I've seen from Arizona there ... and I just moved to Florida. So, yeah, it's quite the personal project ^^ -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 03:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Skid cone

I looked at the Skid cone article, I think you're right and it is notable. I googled it and it appears whoever wrote it just took the first couple of commercial links verbatim, but it appears to be patented. I threw a forestry stub on it for now and a link to it from the Topic outline of forestry, will think about linking to it more later this week. I've seen them used, and I think that it could be mentioned in any one of the timber harvesting articles :) minnecologies (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

re:point

§hep 01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Puerto Rico Newsletter Year III - Issue 1 - Fall & Winter 2008-09

The WikiProject Puerto Rico Newsletter Year III - Issue 1 - Fall & Winter 2008-09
"Yo exigí que se tocara La Borinqueña." - José Torres to Rafael Bracero, discussing the preparations for his championship fight against Willie Pastrano.
From the editor Hello, Guettarda. This is the sixth issue of WikiProject Puerto Rico's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members to keep up with the latest news relating to the project. Continuing our new format, this issue will discuss the news, achievements and other incidences relevant to our project between fall and winter. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Flags and records Greetings, during the past months, there has been a lot of activity and active discussion surrounding articles within our scope. Of particular interest is one that took place in Flag of Puerto Rico, in which several project members exposed their points of view regarding the tones of our flag. Ultimately, research brought forth a severe loophole in the regulation employed by the Senate of Puerto Rico. Our flag doesn't have official tones! Attempting to prevent future conflicts, I presented a proposal in the project's talk page. The subsequent discussion served as an perfect example of consensus. Thanks to everyone for your participation. In other news, our friend Tony the Marine added another impressive achievement to his brilliant resume. On December 8, 2008, his DYK hook for Ivan Castro (soldier) broke the previous all-time record for more views, receiving 71,300 visits. Tony has also been actively cooperating with this Newsletter, the inclusion of a new "Did you Know?" section, was entirely his idea. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)	Users who helped with this newsletter Caribbean H.Q. (talk · contribs) Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs) Other areas where you can help Voluntaries are needed to improve Puerto Rico. Please help Marcos maintain Portal:Puerto Rico. An image for you!
Project News On January 3, 2009, Cerejota presented a draft interested in establishing a solid style guide for the project. The current revision can be seen here, further suggestions can be placed in the project's talk page. Puerto Rican Campaign, Jewish immigration to Puerto Rico, Currencies of Puerto Rico and Sixto Escobar are now of good article quality. Facts from Isabel Gonzalez, Jewish immigration to Puerto Rico, Chinese immigration to Puerto Rico, Ivan Castro (soldier), Currencies of Puerto Rico, Orlando Antigua and Jaime Fonalledas were featured in the "Did you know..." section of the main page. List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions is currently a featured list candidate Luis Muñoz Rivera and Flag of Puerto Rico, articles within our scope, are currently good article nominees.
Puerto Rican Highlight On November 1, Jonathan González won the flyweight division's gold medal at the International Boxing Association's Youth World Championships. (Primera Hora) González joins John John Molina, Aníbal Santiago Acevedo, Carlos Febres and Daniel Alicea as gold medalists in this competition. Did you Know? That the Elfin-woods Warbler, an endemic bird of Puerto Rico first observed in 1968, is the last New World warbler species to be discovered?

Addbot (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann Talk Page

Hi, I know you are trying to assume good faith by requesting a source here , but as I read it, WP:BLP is extremely clear:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

As was my understanding, this applies EVEN on a talk page. WindyCityRider (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reacted, but the comment seemed so absurd as to be snide and aimed at button pushing, I deemed it having no place in our serious discussion. Perhaps I should err on the side of assuming good faith, and if he pushed the issue, I'll leave it so as to give him a chance to provide some sourcing, and then we can review if it merits discussion or inclusion. Thanks for your feedbackm BTW. WindyCityRider (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

RFCU

Thanks for the note. Usually WP:RFCU isn't supposed to be used for fishing trips, but I'm uncomfortable with making an outright accusation -- I don't have a clear idea of who might be controlling the network. In my experience, this many new or mostly-unused SPA's arriving all at once to tow a party line tend to be the work of one or two individuals. Then again, it might just be a hoard of individauls who found a thread on thelatestrightwingblogplace.com. Your observations are always appreciated.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Active disputes

While I understand your frustration, I have to point out that excessively archiving active discussions can give the impression of attempting to stifle debate (especially with an active thread). While I agree with your assessment that the latest thread could be questioned against the literal interpretation of talk page guidelines, I think it's probably best to pick your battles. Don't get discouraged, though.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

... for the backup there. I finally, with a heavy sigh, slammed shut my laptop and went to bed. Sometimes you just have to walk away ... All the best, Antandrus (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Category Carnaval rename

The other items you mention are basically singular things. While Carnival can be a holiday, like the others, its usage varies around the world. In addition you have things that are not holidays like Category:Traveling carnivals. So in this case the category clearly should be of the plural form. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mother India (book)

That's the plan (rewriting it). --iFaqeer (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoever put it there; they have a point.

And nice to meet you again. Nowadays, my engagement with the Misplaced Pages is more focused/targetted. But I am around. How are things with you?

--iFaqeer (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Violation of Jimbo Guidelines By You

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Barack_Obama

You obviously are the one violating the rules. I am being perfectly within the bounds and if you can't take truth to power then I suggest you get out of the way because if you are the one deleting my mentioning of the systemic problems then you should be ashamed of your lack of following the Jimbo guidelines which should be your duty, sir . JohnHistory (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)johnHistory

Yeah, stop violating WP:JG you literal fascist. Hesperian 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

They sure come out of the woodwork when you are not "in step" don't they. JohnHistory (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Stop Abusing the integrity of your position

Your posts are juvenile in nature. Lets up the standard a little bit please. JohnHistory (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Yeah, stop abusing your position by making juvenile posts! Hesperian 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LMAO! Good to see you are still active G. Doc Tropics 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop posting about juveniles.OrangeMarlin 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops Sorry. Got confused. LOL. OrangeMarlin 18:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath waiting for another comment from JohnHistory, he's just been blocked for a fortnight. What a classic bit of terminology! Doc Tropics 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm

Maybe I misunderstood the point you were making. You're right; I've withdrawn my response. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your advice

Several times in the past you have been able to help steer me in the right direction in difficult situations, especially where policy was a concern in article and talkpage activites. I'm hoping I can impose on you again to help me out with some advice and maybe assistance if you have time. The article Genetically modified food has long been a poorly written article with some fairly severe POV content issues, and those have recently become worse. Now I have "engaged" with an editor who has me grasping at straws and thoroughly frustrated. Could you take a look at the situation and maybe offer me a clue how I should try to proceed? If you can I'd really appreciate it! Thanks, Doc Tropics 05:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda. It's amazing how much difference a good nights sleep and some 3rd opinions can make! Your points were well-made and taken to heart; I think I can see how to improve the article quality at this point, although it still needs attention from an expert. Hopefully the POV issues will settle down and progress will be possible. Thanks again, and have a great day, Doc Tropics 14:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Zombia

On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zombia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Myers

You don't suppose this was Kwok, do you? KillerChihuahua 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment. I don't want anyone asking me to buy them a camera. Guettarda (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

rofl! too true. KillerChihuahua 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harold E. Moore

On March 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harold E. Moore, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

thanks for going behind the vandal (Dystopiasticker I'm sure) and removing his personal attacks. I'm kinda short of time for the next day or two... given that he's attacking multiple editors, would you mind carrying the football and get an RFCU and ANI action request going? I hate punting to other editors, but I just don't have the time today and given his past persistence I don't know if waiting around is the answer... If you don't have time no worries. Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Game the System?

Don't threaten me. You are violating DOZENS of Wik policies including be nice, assume good faith and dont game the system etc etc. I'm documenting you and your co-liberals disruptive practices intended to protect your liberal weenie heroes like Keith Olbermann et al. You and blaxthos are part of the team RUINING wik. And you VANDALS have the gall to tell me not to critique you guys considering the HATE you spew towards conservatives. Everyone is on to your game. Delete all you want, the edit history is there and is making our case stronger and stronger. God Bless you. Jesus Loves you. He really does...68.40.123.217 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ROFL! Love and peace, man..... dave souza, talk 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, 68 has a day to cool out. Relax! . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a paranoid wanker, eh? Sounds like the Inquisition is creating a reeducation list. •Jim62sch• 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition :-/ dave souza, talk 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're both on the list along with Guettarda. Smiley Jesus alohas! --Ali'i 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Leucothrinax

On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leucothrinax, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago

I'm sorry about that edit, it was a bit of ignorance on my part. My reasoning was that Category:Trinidad and Tobago cricketers was the same as Category:Jamaica cricketers in that it referred to the team rather than the nationality (as oppose to Category:Jamaican cricketers. I assumed that as someone was Trinidad is Trinidadian and someone from Tobago is Tobagonian, that the demonyn would be something like Trinidadian and Tobagonian cricketers. Again, I apologise and will do some basic research prior to making such edits in the future. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Trinidadian

Hi, this is regarding your article on Chinese Trinidadian. In the article that you have stated that the current President of Trinidad and Tobago, Professor Emeritus George Maxwell Richards, is of Chinese Trinidadian ancestry, without any proof/reliable sources. However, I have checked on the official website of him and the government website, it clearly says that he is of Amerindian ancestry, and no mention of Chinese Trinidadian ancestry at all. I have changed this fact on the article twice, however you have twice unchanged without any explanation or proof still. If you are doing so again, please properly source it, or just don't change it. Ttzz2003 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

That's great. Thank you for sourcing. Ttzz2003 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay (hi)

Can you please answer to me here or on my talk page? I've already asked this by 2 person but they didn't give me a proper answer. Thank you! --62.216.127.31 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm kinda rude but you're like my last hope. So please. --62.216.127.31 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No edit war

Kenosis did three reverts in quick succession, I wanted to save the text, because it is a pain in the ass to restore it. Besides, I am not very wise.Likebox (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't violate the spirit of any rule. I am not edit warring. It is an annoying form of vandalism to delete sourced material. It should be tagged, and the sources checked. Otherwise I have to retype the sources each time.Likebox (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is on the talk page now. I am not going to change anything else on the page.Likebox (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored the Kenosis version, sorry for offending you.Likebox (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

yoi

Thanks for having my back, buddy. Graft | talk 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roystonea borinquena

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

Shubinator (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean

I answered your question and asked another at my talk page, which I think I have an answer to now.

The Flora of the Caribbean category tree now follows the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, with three exceptions:

• Category:Flora of the Isle of Youth and Category:Trees of the Isle of Youth, which I have nominated for deletion as overcategorisation.
• Category:Trees of Hispaniola; the WGSRPD recognises the two countries rather than the one island.
• Category:Trees of the Virgin Islands; the WGSRPD recognises the two countries rather than the one archipelago.

I propose to complete the task by decommissioning and deleting the latter two. This would bring the entire category into line with the WGSRPD, which is a good thing for many reasons, not least of which is the avoidance of the temptation to nest ever deeper: you would know much better than most the way these islands are grouped into island chains within chains within chains:

U.S. Virgin Islands < Virgin Islands < Leeward Islands < Lesser Antilles < Antilles < Caribbean

The WGSRPD simplifies that example to

U.S. Virgin Islands < Leeward Islands < Caribbean

which is, I think, a good thing. Any comments on any of that? Hesperian 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Virgin Islands and Hispaniola are single biogeographic entities. I would prefer using "cat:Foo of Haiti" and "cat:Foo of the DR" for species restricted to only one country or the other, but I realise mine is a minority position. Splitting the Virgin Islands makes even less sense to me, since they form a single phytogeographic (and presumably, zoogeographic) unit with Puerto Rico. You often see species described as "endemic to PR & the VI". More importantly, there's very little differentiation between the two units biologically...it makes as much sense to me as separating Dutch and French halves of St. Martin, putting them in separate cats (which, I realise, will probably happen soon enough).

While I can live with the splitting, I have a issue with the larger groupings. Recent phytogeographic work seems to consider the Virgin Islands to either be part of the Greater Antilles (which makes sense, since they share most of their flora with Puerto Rico; e.g. Acevedo-Rodríguez & Strong, Bot. Rev. 2008 74:5-36), or as a distinct unit (e.g. Trejo-Torres & Ackerman, J. Biogeogr. 200128:775-794), so lumping them into the Lesser Antilles bothers me. But...I suppose some sort of consistency is better than the current anarchy. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How we structure our categories and how we populate them are separate issues; for heaven's sake let's not get into the latter or we'll be here till this time next year!

I agree with your comments about "single biogeographical entities", but you're missing the other side of the coin, which is that people also want to know about the flora of politically defined areas like countries, for reasonable management reasons, and for unreasonable nationalistic reasons. Hence we have the eternal problems of how to make our "flora of" categories work. Should "Flora of Hawaii" be a subcategory of "Flora of the United States"? Should "Flora of the United States" be a subcategory of "Flora of North America"? And if the answer to both these questions is yes, doesn't that imply that the flora of Hawaii is a component of the flora of North America? Etcetera.

I was struggling with issues like this when I discovered the WGSRPD, which addresses precisely this problem as manifested in herbarium databases:

"t seems that most botanical databases record information related principally to politically defined countries. The same can be said for storage of specimens in herbaria, and for citation of specimens in taxonomic revisions. However, political countries vary greatly in size, from less than one square kilometre (Vatican City) to over 22 million square kilometres covering one sixth of the world’s surface area (U.S.S.R.). Furthermore, many of them include physically remote parts, particularly islands, and nearly all traditional continental boundaries are traversed by political countries. A purely political geographical system cannot, therefore, be used to meet the needs of botanists who want more biologically based "countries," regions and continents for recording botanical distributions or arranging specimens. The system offered here recognises the need for compromise and adaptability...."

The essence of the WGSRPD solution is to ensure that every finest-level category is both politically consistent (i.e. it falls entirely within a single country) and biogeographically consistent. These are then aggregated into broader and broader biogeographic regions, but nonetheless those who wish to aggregate them into countries are able to do so. For example, "United States" is not recognised in the WGSRPD, because it is a biogeographical hodge-podge. But by virtue of the scheme's design, you can still recover it if you wish, simply by aggregating the contiguous US categories with Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and the Hawaiian Islands.

Hopefully this explains why they split Hispaniola (because it would be impossible to recover the flora of Haiti if they didn't) and the Virgin Islands (because it would be impossible to recover the flora of the British Virgin Islands if they didn't).

What remains to be discussed is the issue of how much detail we should put into our biogeographic categories; i.e. whether we should include small biogeographical units like Hispaniola even though the WGSRPD haven't bothered to do so. I have mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, it would be nice to follow the WGSRPD exactly, as do most herbaria, GRIN, IUCN, etc. On the other hand, to cleave to a 2001 standard is to ignore 8 years of progress.

Hesperian 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roystonea oleracea

On April 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roystonea oleracea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is my Wiki Consensus Talk contribution ?

Guettarda, thanks for your response to my request to justify your allegations about my conduct in Darwin article proposed editing. At a quick glance they seem largely mistaken. But immediately, as an Admin would you be so kind as to find out what has happened to my October 2008 contribution to the Misplaced Pages:Consensus Talk page ? It pointed out the policy is meaningless nonsense. But the last Archive 6 ends in July 2008, whilst the current pages start in February 2009. Thus some Archives seem to be missing. Do you know where they might be ?

Thanks. --Logicus (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus, you can click on "my contributions" at the top of any page when you're logged in, and then click to see your last 500 contributions, etc.. This seems to be the relevant edit. . dave souza, talk 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus, perhaps this is the archive you were refering to, not diffucult to find Tmol42 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Souza and Tmol24:Thank you so much to you guys for taking the trouble to help me on this query. And most especially to Tmol24 who actually did locate it. I reproduce it below for Dave and others who elect to lecture Logicus on Misplaced Pages policies, to ponder on.

And for the info of Wiki Admin Guettarda, I should point out that contra Dave, sourcing Logicus’s last 500 contributions does not locate it because silly Logicus forgot to log on and sign his contribution.

But contra Tmol24, nor does it seem easy to find when the Wiki Talk:Consensus article fails to list Archive 8 in which it is located, ending at Archive 6.

contra Logicus, just took some common (wiki-)sense, happy to give lessonsTmol42 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My contribution was:

So what is consensus?

This key Misplaced Pages policy article as currently written crucially fails to specify what constitutes a consensus. Is it a unanimous or a majority agreement of some community ? And what is the relevant community ? Dictionary definitions of consensus typically say it is either unanimity or else majoritarian agreement. So it is clearly important to decide which it is. But such definitions also leave open the further question of whether it is at least a simple majority (i.e. at least 51%) or at least a great majority (i.e. two-thirds) of the relevant community. But the more basic problem here is the article’s failure to identify what the relevant community is.

Thus the Misplaced Pages fundamental policy of editing by consensus is surely in effect empirically empty, whatever all its rubrics about discussion and procedure ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.134.44 (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

--Logicus (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

    JCutter       02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Welcome

Sup. Glad you've noticed me. Good to see another NAPS man to. --BigBrain22 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review of "Natural selection"

As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Natural selection has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Side-step, diffuse and refocus

If somebody seems to be getting angry, confronting them by saying "you're getting angry, calm down" never seems to work - it usually makes things worse. Instead I try to focus on the facts and the arguments; unless somebody has lost it completely, pulling our WP:NPA and the like is counter-productive. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - took my own advice and headed away from the computer. Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Trinidad eh? I do miss the ocean! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't right now. Hopefully one day. Right now I'm bitter and angry towards it. At least the Atlantic. (See my user page). Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, my condolences. A great pity when people are killed by something they love. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sabal causiarum

On June 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sabal causiarum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstandings on EAAN

Hi Guettarda,

I note your concerns on the EAAN talk page and just dropped by to assure you that I have no personal issue with you whatsoever.

Clearly I have managed a monumental stuff-up with respects to understanding your position - but I hope you can believe that I made the remarks I did in all good faith.

Please accept my deepest apologies for any offense caused.

Regards, --Muzhogg (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added an explanation of my misinterpretation of you remark "While X, Plantinga says Y" (in a new thread on my talk-page)- I don't claim my analysis of this is correct, I merely wish you to see that any mistake on my part occured in good faith. No hard feelings on the mix-up. -- Muzhogg (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: EAR on EAAN

Thought you should know of this one... Cheers, Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Aunt Entropy - I had already advised all editors in a new thread on the relevant talk page. Regards -- Muzhogg (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Funny"

Hi Guettarda,

Thanks for your latest observations. I really do try to take people's advice on board in order to make Misplaced Pages a better environment for everybody, so I appreciate you efforts to help me improve the quality and tone of my edits.

You wrote;

I point out that your claim that there was "nothing personal" in your last set of attacks, given your past behaviour. And your response - to launch into a fresh set of false attacks. Seriously, if you have a problem with me, don't use an article talk page to "settle scores", or whatever it is you believe you are doing. Please stick to the facts. Please stop making up falsehoods. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To which I respond as follows here;

Hi Guettarda,

This is too vague to help me correct the behaviour you find offensive. Could you please state specifically what comments of mine you are refering to when you speak of "false attacks" and "making up falsehoods"? Everything I have said, including my previous apology (to which you responded here), have been in good faith, backed as far as possible by WP:RS, and dealing with issues not personalities according to the no personal attacks policy-but I appreciate that it may not come across that way to others.
If you can indicate the specific violations, I'll do my best to prevent any reoccurrence - and will welcome your further corrections to my good faith efforts should I not succeed.
Thanks for your assistance in helping me become a better editor. -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am equally happy to discuss any specific issues here, or on under the thread "Funny" on my talk page, whatever will enable us to come to an amicable resolution,

PS: I will avoid any contributions to the EAAN article or it's talk-page for the next month, in order to ensure these issues don't escalate.

Kindest Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one...

Someone proposed a merger of Arecales into Arecaceae - discus here. I have no idea about this but thought you might...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: many weeds are redlinked too, if you wanna do your bit for the environemnt (says me who spends alot of time pulling out ^($###$@@ Madeira Vine) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Focused well on the forest

I have seen people over the years infuriate people to such a degree that they leave the projects they are working on, and wikipedia as a whole. I was beginning to see the same thing happen on urban heat island, and figured something had to happen. The tropical cyclone, meteorology, and climate projects (especially climate) have all suffered due to infighting on talk pages. So yeah, I'm quite focused on keeping more people working within the forest. The fact that one of the participants in the discussion, who is also an admin, has no interest in improving article quality by his own admission and likes sparking these types of debates by using red herrings such as typos in regards to his name is very troubling for wikipedia as a whole. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Who are the people who might get so infuriated that the leave the project in this particular case? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it is the specific person who thought they were trying to improve the article by removing one line, which started the long talk page section which has since been archived. Bet they won't make the mistake of editing a climate-related article again. Granted, they were more out of line in their talk page responses than William, but still, further frustrating the guy over a typo probably wasn't the wisest idea, which is why I chimed in. I used to be protective of articles I thought were important, until I unintentionally bullied someone out of the TC project in 2007. Now, any potential editors who might think of editing this article, and others like it, in the future who check out the archived talk page will hesitate before contributing to it. Count me as one of them. As of late, I'm one of very few people improving core meteorology-related articles to GA class or higher. Before the talk page discussion became protracted, I was considering improving the article, which is why I was watching the talk page to begin with. But not anymore. I can see the point of "lording over the roost" of articles that are GA quality or higher, to maintain their high standard. But a C class article? Come on. If people cared so much to start a revert war over this, surely they must want to improve the articles to a high standard as well, right? William actually said he didn't care what the article's class was, which makes one wonder why he was protecting it so strongly, if he appears unwilling to improve it? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather confused as to why you didn't weight in earlier then. Perhaps i'm wrong, but before the incidence with the mispelling of WMC's name, the discussion had already lots all merit. And the incivility at that point had already reached a level where i had given up. I'd be rather interested in hearing what arguments of the specific person (as you call him/her) you found convincing, because quite frankly i'm at a loss. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I could care less if they had a valid point or not. Misplaced Pages actually has a page (somewhere) that talks about the positives/negatives of wikilawyering, and how long and frustrating talk page discussions and edit wars can be avoided. I'm one of those editors (even though I'm a meteorologist) who learns while researching an article's improvement, hence my high edit count. I make mistakes, revert them myself if I notice them, and then learn from them. None of us are experts on everything. This guy was probably doing the same thing, learning as he went along, and I don't know if I would have stuck with wikipedia if one of my early edits had been so heavily scrutinized. I certainly would stray away from editing such an article again, for better or for worse. Kim, you were doing a good job of remaining civil on that page, from what I saw, and kept with the script. I understand how hard it is to do that with editors who appear inexperienced or not quite as knowledgable. And I also understand how easy it is to slip, and make sarcastic comments on the talk page. It's something I'm still working on myself. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a large problem with your rationale here. This wasn't a new user, or someone who was unaware of WP rules/guidelines/conduct , and it wasn't even close to his "early edits". I did check that btw., since i usually take a quick glance at user talk to see if they've gotten a welcome-message, or if there could be reason for explaining things off article space. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

has no interest in improving article quality by his own admission and likes sparking these types of debates by using red herrings such as typos in regards to his name is junk. I'm beginning to doubt Tgd's good faith. I (for these anonymous insinuations are clearly directed against me) do have an interest in improving quality. I have no interest in the classification system. And the name stuff is hopeless too; Tgd's ignoring of deliberate incivility indicates his partisanship. I could care less if they had a valid point or not - that is a weird comment. If someone doesn't have a valid point, they shouldn't be posting it, you (and everyone else) should be removing it. If you care about article quality. have all suffered due to infighting on talk pages - errm yes; this isn't strange; these are subjects that people care passionately about, often with little knowledge of the subject William M. Connolley (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We have the same focus here, it now seems, article quality. You appear to be focusing on the quality of articles, and responding in a way that seems to negatively impact the input of potential editors. I'm trying to be more inclusive and understanding of editors on here, regardless of their skill set, but still improve articles. This is not nupedia where edits are limited to experts in their field, it is wikipedia where anyone can edit. This is not an ivory tower. The reason these anonymous insinuations (talk about lack of good faith) have not been posted on your talk page is because of what your talk page says on top This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering, which has prevented us from talking/bickering/debating about this on your own talk page. If you have no interest in the classification system, fine. But many of us do, since it is the framework which we live within on wikipedia, and would like to improve article quality but with a minimum amount of bickering. Misplaced Pages is about compromise and consensus, not who is ultimately right. Don't confuse that with not caring about quality, or I wouldn't be bothering to improve articles on here to GA and FA despite the long odds and significant amount of time that effort takes. I'm just focusing more on people's treatment on here. You are a part of wikipedia, and an admin. Work well with others on here, and assume good faith regardless of people's apparent actions, past history, or penchant for typos. A good start would be to try to work well with others without trying to paint their point of view for them, and allowing these types of debate on your own talk page, so other people like Guettarda don't get drug into these debates. I honestly haven't formed a passionate opinion concerning global warming (like many meteorologists I work with), but if it is only minimally impacted by urban heat island, if at all, why is so much of the urban heat island page focused on this lack of connection? Good faith indeed. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Need feedback on merger proposal

I'm still trying to clean-up the patriarchy-related articles, but I can't seem to get any feedback on this merger proposal. If you have the time, I would appreciate your input. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Regiones de Trinidad y Tobago.svg

Yes, it is very easy. Just need to change the label with a svg editor. I can do it when I find some freetime, If you aren't in a hurry. Jarke (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Citizendium Porting

DYK for Duguetia tobagensis

On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Duguetia tobagensis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bagassa

On June 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bagassa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants 27 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Forestry...

..has been created, if you're interested. Cheers, Minnecologies (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I know...I spent about half an hour trying to figure out where I had gone wrong, and I started getting a headache so I decided to walk away from it for a day. It seems you fixed it though now? Guettarda, always saving the day ;) Minnecologies (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Artocarpeae

On June 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artocarpeae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Guettarda, I would like to apologise for the emotional, angered responses I made on the Ross McKitrick biography page. I came to Misplaced Pages perhaps six months ago with a hope that I could contribute positively by simply cleaning up the biography pages of climate change skeptics, living people who have been most unfairly smeared by Misplaced Pages. I wanted nothing more than to remove the negative material, and other distortions of the truth, and simply leave behind a neutral presentation their life. But I have found that every change on every article that deals with climate change requires the approval of a single editor, Kim D. Petersen, and his obvious lack of objectivity and often relentless attachment to some of the negative material is very difficult to bear, especially after pages and pages and pages of often absurd and fruitless discussion. I don't know about you, but I cannot help but ask myself, how would I feel if I was a distinguished academic, such as Ross McKitrick, and my life was presented in my Misplaced Pages page in such a negative light, and I had absolutely no recourse? Or if I was the ageing Richard Lindzen and knew that each time my name was typed into google a smear-piece in Misplaced Pages would come up, with no mention of my lasting contributions to mankind's knowledge? But I have reacted unfairly against you, and I am sorry. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With your permission I would like to delete the following from the McKitrick talk page:

William M. Connolley in fact reverted the last edit. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please abide by our policies on civility and personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If I remove my remark & leave yours, yours will have no context, thus both should probably be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're free to strike your comment, but deleting that would remove context from the following statements. Guettarda (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Trinidad and Tobago

I noticed your work on this.

Nice.

Thank you.

Keep up the good work.

In case you hadn't heard of this one, here's a tip...

0ne way to find articles to add to a country outline is to use Google to search just Misplaced Pages, like in the searches below:

• "of" and "Trinidad and Tobago"

• "in" and "Trinidad and Tobago"

• "for" and "Trinidad and Tobago"

• with "Trinidad and Tobago" not at the end

If you like working on outlines, please consider joining WP:WPOOK (by adding your name to the volunteer section). We could sure use your help building and maintaining the OOK.

By the way, I also lead an advanced wiki-tools team, so if you'd like to try your hand at changing lots of stuff fast, drop me a note (no prior experience necessary - we'll get you up to speed!) The team specializes in big chores related to the OOK and in fixing problems revealed by the OOK (reverse outlines are good for finding problems in publications).

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist    17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Moreae

On July 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moreae, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (

Re: Seasons Greetings

Thank you, Guettarda. I hope you are well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Açaí Palm / Euterpe oleracea)

Many thanks for your note. I added the request into the Talk pages. I hope I did it correctly! 85.3.251.194 (talk)

Link

Hi, a quick question, regarding this, are you really seeing a preview of the page in Google books? I see it saying "No preview available". I just didn't think it was useful for the reader to be linked to a site that doesn't display the cited pages. Spellcast (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Orchid notes

Yes, I noticed, and thank you for it. I'll integrate them in the list when I next edit it. Circeus (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire FA

Thank you for your comments with regard the the FA review of Wildfire; you have been helpful. I've made some changes but had a few questions on the review page, whenever you get a free moment. Thanks, MrBell 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made additional changes to the Wildfire article. Whenever you get a chance, could you review the edits? Thanks, MrBell 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Loves Nature

Heya. I'm trying to arrange a ranger-led slog through Everglades National Park. I've asked for it to be off-season in November and somewhat specialized since I assume I may be a bit more informed than most who go on tours in the park. The idea led me to think of the Misplaced Pages Loves Art project, where Wikipedians go to museums to help their abilities to expand and create art-related articles.

What if there was a Misplaced Pages Loves Nature group to go to protected areas and do something similar? I don't know how to create such a thing or if it would be a good idea or what, but if a few Wikipedians who are interested in nature also join me in my slog, there are quite a few articles related to such a trek that might be expanded. I'm asking your plant-filled opinion. I'll also ask Ruhrfisch, and I've left a note on Casliber's talk page too. Let me know if you're interested or have ideas. Thanks, --Moni3 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Project inactivity

I tagged many WikiProjects recently as part of an effort to update the WikiProject Directory. Before tagging a WikiProject as inactive, I looked at the main page history as well as talk page history. I was not looking for completely inactive (i.e. abandoned) projects, merely interpreting these guidelines. I also left notes on talk pages disclaiming my actions, and recommending removal of the inactive tag if it was put there incorrectly. Seeing as I have received now 3 complaints about these tags (out of perhaps 20 I placed), I will make my standards more stringent and leave detailed messages on each WP's talk page. Andyo2000 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the tag was applied in good faith but through bad judgement. My recent tagging has been much more stringent in its guideline interpretation. See here, here, and here. Andyo2000 (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lara

Thanks. I have just filled in my own explanation which I hope will help although I am a little skeptical. I appreciate your standing up for me while I was gone. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My Hero

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Awarded to Guettarda for his truely heroic efforts to write and maintain high quality articles. Your dedication is inspiring! Doc Tropics 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

Can you help me make this work: Misplaced Pages:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Evolution vs. Intelligent design talk page styles

The E talk page was compact and used only generic templates, emphasizing that a list of *information* in the form of answers is available through a well-written FAQ. I find that it has a style that is more welcoming than the ID talk page, which includes a perfunctory sentence of "welcome" followed by a lengthy and rambling review of WP rules. It seems a harbinger of emo.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review Talk:Intelligent_design/FAQ. I reworded the questions as yes/no answers and then give the yes-or-no answer as the first sentence. I did the same for Talk:Evolution/FAQ. That is much more helpful and more respectful of the reader's time. While "your" messagebox is still visible as the massive (and in my opinion, off-topic) header of the talk page, it now exists as a template. See Talk:Intelligent_design/editing notes. Please consider that is you simply point the reader to a FAQ that promptly answers the question (can I add this-or-that to the article), they might be more respectful of your time in return.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Trinidad and Tobago

Hi. In response to some of your critiques:

A)

The Federation dissolved after the withdrawal of Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago elected for independence in 1962.

The Federation dissolved after the withdrawal of Jamaica, and the majority of Trinbagonians voted for independence in 1962.

There is no difference between the two except that Trinidad and Tobago didn't really vote; its citizens did. I didn't know that "Tribagonian" is "slang"- I genuinely thought it was better and more inclusive than the term "Trinidadians". Trinbagonian was also used by other editors in the article.

B)

Why delete "Trinidadian Whites are commonly referred to as French Creoles regardless of their actual heritage"? - sounds like unsourced cruft to me

C)

"While you may have done it with the best of intentions, calling Indo-Trinidadians "these people" is a little offensive." - Sorry, I fixed it.

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I changed the date format because it was inconsistent, i.e. both formats (22 March and March 22) and I wanted to keep it consistent. Must be my OCD. Obviously you know far more about this subject than I. I concede your expertise and I'm moving on. Thanks for the insights, especially that "Trinbagonian" is only a slang term. Sincerely, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago

I have nominated List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nice job on this! Can you update the FLRC page on what's left to do, if anything? Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Birther page

I realize the page is on arbitration, but I thought the edits in question were so POV that they were bordering on vandalism. Should I have waited? Soxwon (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, btw, I deleted this originally b/c I realized we were talking about two different pages. Hopefully they can block this IP soon, as he's not here to edit constructively. Soxwon (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort

This is being added automatically by AWB's general fixes, not anything I've specifically set up. It sounds as though botanical names are a special area where the Defaultsort shouldn't be added automatically. I believe the capitalisation of the Defaultsort value is standard for sorting reasons. Is the adding of Defaultsort actively doing any harm? If so, I'll report it on the AWB page to be corrected. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

AWB doesn't add a defaultsort key where there are already other keys, I think. There was a lot of debate on the AWB pages about the circumstances where it should and shouldn't add a Defaultsort, so it might be worth adding your comments at WT:AWB too. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In future versions of AWB this will be turned off by default; see Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Turn off DEFAULTSORT title case conversions. Hesperian 23:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Misplaced Pages articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ciao, Guettarda. You indefinitely semi-protected this article back in May 2008. I notice there was a lot of contentious editing back then, which has died down now. Is there justification for continued editing restrictions? Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Input needed

Hello Guettarda. I remember that in the past you have commented on the Race and Intelligence article. There is currently a debate encompassing the last three sections of the talk page as to what constitutes the current overall academic consensus on the subject. If you have the time and inclination, your comments would be welcome there. Thank you!--Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Magnolia grandiflora

Hey Guettarda, not sure when you'll next see this, but I did muse on getting Magnolia grandiflora buffed at some point, but it lacks any ecology-related material for its natural environment. I am not familiar with where to look for US plants so all help appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look at it. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

You're missing?

Hey my friend, I see you haven't been around for awhile. Hope all's ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me second that. It's been too long and you are missed. Doc Tropics 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First real wikibreak in 5+ years (hey, how come no one remembered my wikibirthday!!)...sure this place functioned - or dysfunctioned - as well without me around as it would with me around. But it's nice to be missed. Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You took a vacation? You realize we're going to dock your pay for this, right? Heh heh. OK, so you probably did deserve a break, but it's darn good to see you back and I hope you're mentally refreshed and ready to face new wiki-challenges.

Here's an easy one to start you off with: I suspect that I might actually be wrong about this, but the IP editor is such a dedicated POV pusher that I need to hear it from a someone more neutral. I know this is pretty far outside your usual area of interest, but it's a simple matter of wording and I trust your opinion.

At any rate, I'm thrilled you're back and looking forward to seeing you around  : ) Doc Tropics 21:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, property is theft, right? In which case, all transfers of property are probably theft. That and normal English usage of "transfer of property by force" would suggests your wording is appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought your sense of humor back with you too, it's going to be helpful. Thanks, Doc Tropics 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U Logicus 2 (Draft)

I am drafting a Requests for comment/User conduct concerning the conduct of Logicus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) since the abortive RfC of February 2007. Since you have been involved in an earlier discussion at Talk:Charles Darwin, I would appreciate it if you would look over the draft and see whether it seems appropriate, what revisions you would propose, or what you could add.

At the moment, parts of the RfC are little more than outline points and the desired outcome is totally undefined, but with cooperation perhaps something can be put together that could make it through the process.

I had hoped that this RfC would not need to be posted, given the recent closure of a content RfC on Logicus's edits. However, Logicus's recent comments suggest that I may have been too optimistic.

Feel free to either edit the draft or submit comments on its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PA redacting

Heard your comments here . Will make a better effort, I pray I won't have too. Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew  at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Soapery

I've been involved in hundreds of articles like this, where IPs appear out of nowhere to post a quick rant and then vanish. It's just not worth it. Normally, we end up creating some sort of FAQ section in the hope that they read it, but that's usually a waste of time as well. I think the most appropriate action would be to ascertain the location of the IP and then nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Obama articles. My topic ban of that area expires in a couple of weeks. I shall have to rummage through my weapons lockers and start cleaning my guns, sharpening my knives, etc. LOL -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not worried. I've already sent ArbCom members (including those most likely to get elected) envelopes stuffed with cash, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

←This might interest you. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't normally have anything to do with "radio", whatever that is. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Research Unit Hacking Incident Soapboxing

"Yeah, we're hobbled by our verifiability policy, our policy on biographies of living people and the fact that we are a mainstream encyclopaedia. It's a terrible burden." I think your sarcasm will be lost on most of the people in the talk page. I tried to talk to some of them but I really don't get anywhere at all. I find it frustrating that environmentalist soapboxing stays up in the talk page and denialist soapboxing tends to get deleted - it makes environmentalists look like they're crazy. I don't know what to do. Then again maybe I'm completely misreading what you meant. Ignignot (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz09's complaint was, in essence, "we can't serve our readership if we rely on reliable sources". I just paraphrased his comment and (sarcastically) agreed with him. Guettarda (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More importantly - that is what attracts attention? Not the point I raised just above that the article misrepresents sources in a section that attributes misdeeds to living people? Ugh. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It was just what was annoying me at the time. I haven't read that entire section, just saw the diff. Ignignot (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a comment aimed at you specifically. But given the amount of eyes on that page (or at least fingers frantically typing on it) you'd think someone would have noticed that.. Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I laughed

My main trouble is in keeping up with the horse as I lay down the rails in front of him.Dduff442 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did this go down badly? It was an attempt at humour re. your reply to Hypocrite and wasn't meant to be barbed at all. Dduff442 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was friendly and amusing. And I was glad to know someone noticed my joke.  :) Guettarda (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming no longer of concern

We need no longer fear the rising of the seas. The issue has been resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to buy one, too

Where can I buy a Guettarda? Because clearly you were purchased off an auction block, else why would you be receiving peremptory orders from someone else? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Two species in Florida - G. elliptica and G. scabra.  :) Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

:-P KillerChihuahuaAdvice 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that! :-)

Best observation I've spotted today. Must always read the fine print. :-) Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You too. :) Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I found the following on another user's talk page, written by you: "Don't edit-war with people on their own user page. Not to mention that good-faith edits are not vandalism. More importantly - people are free to remove warnings from their user page. It isn't OK to repeatedly reinstate them." Now, this left me curious about exactly what the rules are on editing my own user-talk-page. I'd like to find and read them. Would you ming pointing me in the right direction? RobertAustin (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TPG should have all the information you need; WP:UP might also be helpful. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Response on my talk page

Thanks for the note on my talk page -- I responded -- please check it out if you get a moment. jheiv (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken your most recent comment under advisement, I apologize if I acted out-of-turn. Regards. jheiv (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: BLP

Your objection hinged on the idea that we can't "smear people based on innuendo", not the inclusion of the email itself, as seen here. Please try to not threaten anyone that makes you don't like with a block. Macai (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How does quoting the man constitute a violation of BLP? :-/ But again, your objection seemed to be on the inclusion of speculation about the man, not about the quotation itself. Macai (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're taking this just a little bit too seriously. The edit I made had nothing to do with slander or smearing. It wasn't like I was posting the man's home address or anything. Just calm down, friend. My edit got reverted anyway. Macai (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL

Can you believe the balls on this guy? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You should feel terribly slighted that he didn't include you! Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Got the mail. Swallowed some of my own bile. :::shudder::: -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

JettaMann

As you're one of the admins involved with the CRU incident article, I thought I'd let you know that I've raised the abusive and disruptive behaviour of JettaMann (talk · contribs) on WP:AN/I. He has totally ignored warnings given to him earlier. Please see WP:ANI#Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann, where I've requested that he be blocked and/or topic-banned. Your views would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Pseudoryzomys

Hi, you commented at WP:Featured article candidates/Pseudoryzomys/archive1 some time ago. I believe I addressed most of your concerns; could you please have another look to see whether there are any more problems? Thanks, Ucucha 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit

here Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Misuse_of_the_word_.22skeptic.22

I'm not going to fight you on this, but your reasoning doesn't make sense. While a discussion of the term "skeptics" might have some value, this section contains nothing useful. The opening sentence:

The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians

is a hopeless generality, more false than true. There is ZERO evidence provided that anyone quoted in the article is labeled a skeptic but is truly a contrarian, whatever that means.

There's more than enough to read in the talk page without leaving in useless nonsense like this. I think collapsing is the right balance, as actual removal would seem to be warranted, but may generate more discussion that collapsing.

Please, can we work toward improving the article.

--SPhilbrickT 22:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to the concerns you (and others) raised in that section, I tracked down two very valuable references which address your concerns. From your response here ("whatever that means") I see that instead of reading them, you choose to shut down the discussion. You said that you want to "work toward improving the article", but when people track down references to help you fill deficiencies in your knowledge base, it seems to me that one should take a moment to look at the supporting references, rather than try to shut down the discussion. Guettarda (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the relevant section of the first reference. It did not address my concerns. I’m not interested in shutting down any discussion that is working toward improving the article. At the time I collapsed the section, there was nothing useful. A complete waste of time. I’ve now wasted my time by reading the rest of the section. Nothing of value. Let’s work on improving the article. that section was a negative contribution to the effort. Your outline, OTOH, was a great contribution, and I’d like to see it discussed further.SPhilbrickT 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

Could you please see what you can do to block 99.151.166.95 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) for repeatedly disrupting Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident? He is reverting every attempt to close that pointless discussion and has gone way past 3RR by now. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, being an active editor on the page, and having reverted him/her myself, I shouldn't be the one to block. Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I misphrased that - I'm well aware of the involved admin criterion. I meant to ask whether you might be able to get someone else to block him. I've reported him now to WP:AN3 for action on the 3RR violations. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit objection

Have you withdrawn your objection to this? I've been away for a few days, and I only had a chance to comment on it a short while ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Logicus

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Logicus (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Logicus 2. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Amusing

Very silly, but it made me chuckle: Some YouTubery -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Inhofe

I don't want to derail the climategate talk page, so I thought I would ask you here. Your statement intrigued me: No, Jim Inhofe is pretty fringe, and not a little loony. He claims that 90% of Americans don't believe the planet is warming, for example. I did a Google search but didn't turn up anything. Do you have a link?SPhilbrickT 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Inhofe is completely out of step with reality. Just read this nonsense from 2005 for some idea of how far beyond Pluto we are talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That specific bit (the 90% number) came from a video clip I saw recently. Don't have a source. But as a general sense - well, you see your senator on the news all the time. I try not to, but it's hard to avoid. Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All politicians are dumb liars. I don't think we need to remove all references to them just because everything that they say is self serving and wrong. Even the ones that get most of it right still say ridiculous self serving crap every once in awhile (cough Al Gore cough). To paraphrase Bohr - if you aren't outraged by what they say, then you don't understand what they are actually saying. Ignignot (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Inhofe's in a class of his own. Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I like these blue bars......

Seasons Greetings

re Thanks

Confused, um, what exactly did I do good? :P Cirt (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not being overly attached to your ideas. Not taking rejection of your suggestion as a personal affront. It's just such a nice change on that page. Guettarda (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

while we're on rubiaceae....

• I wanted to grow some of these too but might be too cold here...and I ain't building a greenhouse :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rubiaceae

On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rubiaceae, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend. - Darwinek (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:3RR report

Hello, since the 3RR report on Scjessey's 3RR violation is "officially closed" by J.delanoy, I don't think further discussions should be necessary in the page. On the other hand, you seem to be moderate and willing to listen to different opinions, I'll leave my stance briefly. I believe that the whole discussion has been unnecessarily prolonged because of Tony Sidaway's improper closing the report. That assessment of mine accounts for more than half of the whole discussion here. It is a clear fact that Scjessey violated 3RR, but the report was malformed, so I provided diffs. The page is protected by jheiv's good faith request for protection, not by the others involved. I don't appreciate the admin's assessment on my demand for the proper closing being bureaucratic because he could've wrapped up the report in the first place or should've deferred the matter to other admins (seemed so per his first comment). So if the report is closed by any "uninvolved admin", that would have been more than fine with me. I've seen that the accused person got off hooks in several occasions, so I also told the "facts" on continued edit-warring by the accused party. I know that people in "majority", especially "in science area" don't get blocked regardless of what they do. So I'm standing by my stance, and wish this is not falsely attributed by the admin or anyone else. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually my impression is that it's usually the anti-science editors who don't get blocked. But I realise that's just an impression. I also really how frustrating it can be when people don't get blocked because pages are protected. But that's the way it works. Guettarda (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...are you a scientist? Regretfully, I disagree with the assessment on the blocking trend. :-) I'm not frustrated over the person who violated 3RR not being punished. Though, I've happened to see his intimidating opinions to his opponents and numerous contradictions in his own words. If he resumes the edit war again, as suggested by people there, he may get another topic ban from the topic. That is his call. Anyway, thank you for the reply. Have a good day--Caspian blue 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your experience is yours. My experience is mine. And they're quite definitely biased by the AN3 reports I've cared to watch. (It's been a long time since I tried to keep a close eye on that page). Without actually searching the last few years of AN3 reports, it's hard to say anything definitive. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well....., while I'm standing by my stance with my observation on ArbCom cases and AN3 for one year, I never require your "consent" on my assessment. However, at least we should respectfully and peacefully agree to disagree not to offend each other. (the "ant-science editors" is a biased labeling referring to people in minority view though)--Caspian blue 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. I respect your assessment, even though it differs from mine. We've come to different conclusions, probably based on observations that only overlap in part and that are almost certainly coloured by our own experiences here. I'm not saying you're impression is wrong, and I'm certainly not saying that my impression is right. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see "anti-science editors" as biased labelling of a minority view. There's a systematic rejection of science and the scientific enterprise by quite a few editors. I don't see creationism, for example, as a "minority view" on science. I think it's an outright rejection of science to claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. Guettarda (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I once made my friend very upset whose religious belief is much sincerer than mine when I talked about Darwinism and creationism. I bet he refused to submit the "correct answer" to the topic while taking school exams and university entrance exam. But well...when it comes to science topics being combined with religion, that tend to go nowhere until "undoubted facts" and evidences are provided. (this is a little going toward off-topic though) I may not understand scientist Wikipedians' frustration on content disputes but I just hope that people with minority views are not flatly rejected or accused of being vandals. That's all.--Caspian blue 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged theft of Climategate e-mails

Hi! Taking this away from the Talk page for just a minute. I am puzzled as to why we (all of us) are unable to agree that the use of the unqualified word "theft" is correct in relation to the unauthorised publication of the e-mails. I am sure that we all agree that the theft is not yet established as fact.

A parallel. A diamond ring goes missing, the owner says it "appears" to have been stolen. The police say they are "investigating the theft". Lazy newspapers report the ring "stolen" but any reader knows this might not in fact be the case. Do we report (OK, I know WP is not a news service, but hang in there for a moment) the ring as "stolen"? What if the ring is found between the cushions, or that the ring was taken legally? Or it wasn't a theft but an insurance fraud.

What do we lose, as an encyclopedia, by reporting the theft of the SRU docs as alleged? Nothing.

What do we gain? Well, we won't be wrong when we find out that the docs were released by an insider and that the police decide that no crime occurred.

Your thoughts? Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Climategate - removing pressmulti template

Why did you revert my insertin of the pressmulti template at the talk climategate page? No consensus is not based upon any policy. As I pointed out in the WP:BLPN discussion regarding this matter, one of the editors TS is probably angry because he is accused of doing a revert by Solomon. How can this person and his likes agree on keeping something like this? Shouldn't we mention this as an coverage because of this? Please discuss it on the appropiate page and don't do such kinds of revert without discussing it.Nsaa (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

This is the first time I've brought a whole article into my userspace for editing, and I forgot about the cats. Thanks for performing the clean-up edits. »S0CO 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's one of those things we all forget. Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I send all best wishes for a health, happy, joy-filled and productive new year to you and your loved ones from tropical north Queensland, Australia. Let us hope this next decade will be a happier time than the last for the world and that people quickly begin waking up to the fact that they must and can start making a real world community which is more peaceful and tolerant and much more sustainable, making a real future of hope and opportunity for our grandchildren and their progeny. Be of good cheer and hope. The Misplaced Pages is a living example that many people are willing to work together for the betterment of us all for no pay and little enough recognition. Thank you for all your fine contributions to this new tool of knowledge. Keep the faith! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Misplaced Pages has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nostalgia

I believe we used to edit the evolution article at the same time, years ago, and now we find ourselves editing the CRU hack article. Did you ever think you would wish that an article was 'only' as disputed as the evolution one? Anyway, happy new year. I hope your long dedication to wikipedia will help others and bring you some measure of happiness. Ignignot (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Coffee's botanical section

Now here's something to ponder - how big or small should a biology section be in coffee - i.e talking about species and genus etc....a whole bunch of folks are working it up for FA - which'd be good as its a food article...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Will have a look at it, but probably won't have time to say much before Sunday. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Polling idea

Can I get your opinion on something like this? Bad idea? Good idea, but could be improved? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page behavior in the GW FAQ sub page

I put up the NPOV template on F22 of the global warming FAQ because F22 was utterly undiscussed, unreferenced, and was descending into edit warring. The current status where a lively discussion is happening and hopefully a consensus based F22 will eventually emerge needs to be recognized on the FAQ page or F22 should be pulled pending consensus being achieved.

What is your solution to this problem other than pulling down my minimally intrusive solution of NPOV templating? TMLutas (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question. Generate a "lively discussion". Using a template is not a substitute for generating a discussion. Rather, {{NPOV}} is an admission of failure, it's an admission that the conservation has deadlocked and there's no hope of generating consensus, so let's just wait until one side or the other gets bored and wanders off.

Of course, my reason for removing your template was not to reproach you for using templates as an alternative for human communication. Rather, I removed the template because it's only supposed to be used in the article namespace, not on a talk page. Guettarda (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And right after you used it SBHB edited F22 and didn't seek consensus, which has been the solid pattern with F22. According to the admin I'm discussing the page with, no non-trivial edits should be made to the FAQ and *he* didn't find the NPOV template a bad thing. I don't give 2 hoots about the template but I care about something being put in a FAQ that isn't consensus and under active discussion in talk and NPOV templating was a viable way to avoid further undiscussed FAQ edits going in. You don't like my solution, put your own but the current status is a travesty with anybody going directly to the FAQ having no idea that F22 is recent, not a consensus position, but really just SBHB's personal opinion. If the only alternative you will allow is to ask for admin sanctions, I'll do it but I really don't want to. 173.161.30.37 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the complaints department.

• It clearly says that {{NPOV}} "should only be used in the main (article) namespace". If you want to change that, let me suggest the template's talk page. If, once you have managed to build consensus for your proposed change to the usage of {{NPOV}}, I repeat the same action, then by all means let me know. I would more than welcome your input.
• "ight after you used it SBHB edited F22 and didn't seek consensus". If you look down to the next section, you'll see a link to Boris' talk page. While he may look at this page from time to time (I have no idea if he has it watchlisted or not), this is not the appropriate place to try and contact him.
• "According to the admin I'm discussing the page with, no non-trivial edits should be made to the FAQ and *he* didn't find the NPOV template a bad thing." That's nice. That admin says one thing, this admin says another. Bear in mind that adminship is no big deal, and we have no special authority on the project.
• "I don't give 2 hoots about the template". OK. And why are you bothering me again?
• "I care about something being put in a FAQ that isn't consensus". Once again, I have never added anything to the FAQ (see here). All I have done is reverted your misuse of a template meant for the article space.
• "NPOV templating was a viable way to avoid further undiscussed FAQ edits going in". No, it wasn't. But then I've said that before.
• "You don't like my solution, put your own". I did. I removed your misplaced template.
• "he current status is a travesty..." When I suggested that you use discussion rather than templating, I mean that you should discuss things with the involved editors. This isn't a very good place to reach involved editors. I would recommend the article's talk page.
• "If the only alternative you will allow is to ask for admin sanctions, I'll do it but I really don't want to". Sorry, I can't help you there. I'm far too involved to impose sanctions. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

CRU / Swifthack

Please don't use phrases like "grace us with her/his presence" in referring to other editors. In a contentious environment that is being closely watched by the community the winner is the first side to stop making little digs at the other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I didn't do a good enough job editing my comment for 'tone' before hitting . Guettarda (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tut

You broke the spell

Damn. My bad. Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So WMC is the wicked witch and you regret playing the handsome prince? What a strange shared world seems to be running around inside your heads. TMLutas (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? See humour. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Uk spelin yay we has drollery rite! Actually thought this thread might be about King Tut's Wah Wah Hut but almost as nice. . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What UK spelling? It's Trinidad spelling. Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right! All the best people's spelling :) . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you never know - sometime you spill coffee on your keyboard and the key between Y and I goes dead. But then you should do like the Romans and use V, I suppose. :) Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, another set of people who don't get my sense of humor. TMLutas (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy vs. affair?

I see your revert of my change of the title. It's collected from the same source as the section was based upon. Is this still something people disagree about? Calling it a scandal would probably still not be a WP:NPOV term, but controversy which everyone (including nearly all WP:RS sources) is using? Just wondering. Nsaa (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Think it should match the article title. If not the same word, then something equally bland. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, agree with you on that. But Isn't an affair something more personal/private? (sorry for my English understanding here). Nsaa (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's one meaning, but by no means the only one...it's very middle class American (and I think a tad dated) usage. Guettarda (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. probably seen too many Hollywood movies then :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Third word - just pretend you didn't see the second word ;) Guettarda (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your use of Google

Your novel use of Google to show, for example, that Climategate only yields 700 results is wrong. You say, search for "Climategate" and then go to page 10. Ok, here it is: . Then you say to change 90 to 900. Look at that, I only see 696 results: . But wait! What's this notice at the bottom? "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 696 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." OK, well let's do that then. Now we see about 1000 results . Let's try starting with 1001: "Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query."

Here's the proof. Try a Google search on any topic in the world. I picked "Bush". Your same technique shows only 775 results for Bush . Which is more likely, that only 775 websites mention the word "Bush" or that your methodology is incorrect? In fact, what's happening is that Google takes the first 1000 results, then prunes similar ones leaving about 700 results for anything in the world you search for that has over 1000 results. Your analysis, therefore, is flawed. Oren0 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:GOOGLE has nearly identical analysis (should've checked it first): " Further, Google's list of unique results is constructed by first selecting the top 1000 results and then eliminating duplicates without replacements. Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms. For example, from the about 742 million pages related to "Microsoft", Google presently returns 552 "unique" results (as of 2006-01-09)" Oren0 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you search "bush" without duplicates, it (not surprisingly) maxes out at 1000. So yeah, there are more than 1000 real hits for bush. You search the other terms without duplicates, and you end up with 971 Climategate hits and 904 Swifthack hits. So by your methodology, since they still max out below 1000, meaning that there's a <10% difference between the terms.

Now, if you had done are you're supposed to and read the sources behind WP:GOOGLE (remember, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source!) you'd see that total numbers of Google hits are actually meaningless. The "about 742 million pages related to Microsoft" is not a statement of fact, it's simply the number of pages Google lists in its topline numbers. Which, as the sources quoted for the page say, can be off by orders of magnitude.

Numbers of Google hits are utterly useless when trying to determine usage. Even if it the numbers were meaningful, they'd be useless. We don't conduct our own research, we use reliable sources. Please try to keep that in mind. Guettarda (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're still doing it wrong. There are millions of results. "Results 991 - 1000 of about 2,360,000 for climategate". I'm not trying to argue that the number of Google results should be included in the article, nor am I arguing that they're particularly instructive. But you used this same logic to dismiss Google News results, which are very relevant as most are reliable sources, and currently number 1800 to 5. Counting sources to determine WP:WEIGHT is not original research. Oren0 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

facepalm...

But of course. Now why didn't I see that (or rather, why was that not seen)? Full marks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We were taught to write "the eye was placed at bench level to avoid the error of parallax" is second form (=7 grade) physics. After six years of high school physics, that stuff's deep in my bone marrow. Guettarda (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock RAGE

There is nothing more annoying than wasting my fucking time trying to discuss things with people when they turn out to be sock puppets. I just found out about the latest sock, and I swear I immediately threw all of my toys out of the proverbial pram. I dunno how you admin types resist indef blocking the whole WORLD when this sort of thing happens. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Seen a lot of Scibaby socks come and go, but this was the first one I had invested energy in. Quite annoying. Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda impressed that he/she still has deep sleeper accounts available. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of energy went into this account - it did a lot of editing 3 years ago. Makes me wonder if the person behind Scibaby (people?) is collecting older accounts, having them donated by someone or something...

BTW Kim, thanks for striking his contribs from the talk page. Guettarda (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is always the off-chance of a false positive. But some have suspected that it is more than one person. If it is any reconciliation i hadn't seen this one coming either - and i've knocked quite alot of socks down :-/ --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A few days someone on WR gave a long tutorial about how to set up a sockpuppet army. Most of it is obvious to anyone who has ever read an httpd log file, but it's interesting to see how it's done in practice. Recommended reading. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Got a link to that? (Email, perhaps) Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems that it was a false-positive and i've reverted my self on t:CRUhi --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Still, anecdotal evidence was the cause of the suspicion. I wish people would be honest about themselves more often. I adopted this approach a while back, thinking of it as a sort of "badge of honor". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"On nicknames" edit

See your edit here (and my response here). I am genuinely hurt that you would display such a dearth of either honesty or memory. Please explain your behavior; I hope I'm missing something. Failing that I encourage you to delete both your and my comment.--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say my comment was pretty accurate, and my actions (adding a section that actually discussed naming) was in keeping with our conversation earlier. It still comes down to this - saying that the statement is "obviously true" is ridiculous. Sure, add the words together and they aren't inaccurate. The term is used in the media. But to say "it's used in the media" misleading, because it causes an association between usage and the media. It was born of, and is mostly used by, the far-right blogosphere and talk radio. More to the point, when it's used in the media, outside of the far right, it's rarely used without quotes. So again, without further context, "used in the media" is misleading. So the claim that it's "obviously true" is silly. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I also ask you to reconsider the general contention you raise in the same section. You appear to be justifying your edits to the lead on the basis of a lack of citations in the lead, where you deleted the relevant citations yourself. It's 5:30am my time and I'm going to go to sleep, because it's 5:30am my time (logic!). I haven't read your comment yet but I'll get to it tomorrow. Sleep well, or get up on the right side of the bed, or whatever. XOXOXX, etc.--Heyitspeter (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, you seem to be getting a bit mixed up with a couple of issues. Firstly, the lead should be a summary of fully sourced statements in the body of the article, and it's a common but not universal practice to have no inline citations in the lead, confining the citations to the body text. In cases like this, that can look cleaner and have the advantage of avoiding confusion. Secondly, a whole lot of citations to references that use the term is not a source for saying that the term is commonly used, as it's original research drawing a conclusion from the juxtaposition of primary sources. We really need a secondary source that makes that analysis for us, hope that the sources now being discussed help with that. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Project

After the current probation on climate change is over, hopefully with a more stable set of climate change articles, perhaps there should be a wikiproject associated with climate change? Currently there are plenty of articles and editors which are associated with the topic, and a more coordinated approach may be better if people can work together a little bit more. Just floating this idea for now. Ignignot (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it much yet, but you may be looking for this - Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Environment/Climate change. Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aiphanes chiribogensis

On January 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aiphanes chiribogensis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.