User talk:Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive7

This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.

If you want to reach me, contact me per wikipedia e-mail. I am not checking this page anymore at a regular basis.

Request to SlimVirgin: Do not posts here, your opinions are of no value to me because of our more than troubled and unresolved past issues. If you have a problem with me, find a truly uninvolved admin to help you.

Out of curiosity

Where you aware that Richard Green wrote in his rather famous 2002 paper: "So what then of the pedophile who does not act on the fantasies or urges with a child? Where does the DSM leave us? In Wonderland. If a person does not act on the fantasies or urges of pedophilia, he is not a pedophile. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder."? A recent review by Blanchard of the criticism of the DSM definition is found in [1]. Even more hilarious is the DSM-IV fiasco; IV-TR guidebook explanation; spanking by Spitzer see p. 1249. Can't say I'm surprised none of this stuff is mentioned in the article, even though it's easy to source to WP:RS, and fits well within the "medical" focus of the article.

Flyboy22's almost religious admiration for the DSM-type def comes off rather funny after you read the above. Anyway, the current DSM-5 prop is Pedohebephilic Disorder. This is trashed even worse by Green. [2] His main point is that "protecting people from unwanted, unwilling, or uncomprehended sexual interaction is commendable. So legislatures enact rape laws to protect older persons and age of consent laws to protect the younger. But categorizing rape as a mental disorder should not be necessary for further protection." Michael First likes it the way it was in DSM-IV [3] "Based on certain definitions of what a mental disorder is, it doesn't appear to be a failure of an evolutionarily designed mechanism to be attracted to individuals who are, in fact, able to bear children." (by the way, the guy that got us the DSM-IV doesn't have wiki page?) William O'Donohue argues the exact opposite: "any sexual attraction to children … is a pathological, abnormal condition." [4]

I think we should just work on the body of the article. There's a lot of missing material. How to write the intro will be more apparent after we have more analysis (well sourced, of course) and not just snippets from the current version of the diagnostic manuals in the body. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Paraphilia#DSM-5 draft should be of interest to you. Good luck getting that added to the pedophilia page. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox rewrite

I am happy to help with your rewrite, but perhaps we should discuss some large organizational moves here first? I believe all the clinical POVs should be combined into one section. Then a section on legal POVs. Then a section on sociological and philosophical POVs. Then a section on the phenomenon in popular culture. As it stands, the article is almost entirely the POV of those who medicalize and pathologize the phenomenon, with little or no info on those who criminalize and demonize it, or those who examine medical/legal/religious models within larger epistemological POVs. As the article gets bigger, this will allow for appropriate sections to be created with a summary style section in the main article. Jokestress (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I think there is a lot that can be fixed in the article. Currently, I am adding non-controversial info the the article, and soon will start with an serious expansion of the diagnosis section, as the exclusive focus on one way of diagnosing is not in line with the literature. Penile reactions and SSPI for example are missing, and a large scale literature survey showed that the DSM is pretty much fully ignored because of the problems with the criteria. But I think your main grouping is a good starting point, and please go ahead with it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I plan to add a laundry list of subjects that have been systematically blocked from being added to the current article. I'll add lots of sourcing in time. For now, I just want to get it all in one place without getting into pointless discussions with editors who own the current article and its talk page. Jokestress (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Biology of gender

Wikipedia had fairly original definition of that "field of study", [5] for 3 years or so. The editor who created that was apparently also a main contributor to the sexual dimorphism article. His main expertise was theology apparently... Tijfo098 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That article is an interesting study of what happens when you start an article with the wrong title. Over time it attracted the "right" material, for example someone added a section on the brain. But that actually made the article even less focused on any discernible topic. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And of course, there's no article on behavioral endocrinology or (behavioral neuroendocrinology), but we have a stub on the Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Once you start editing WP, you can find very quickly a lot of bad articles, especially in controversial areas such a sexuality. I work pretty much at one article at the time, when I have time, and currently, that is the pedophilia article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just did a fair bunch of edits there. By the way, I was unpleasantly surprised by Talk:Hebephilia#Karen Franklin. I was wondering why there was zero criticism in that article given that tons exist. I tagged it for POV. You might want to watchlist it as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist. I started a list of James Cantor's COI here. For an earlier discussion see here. There is still a gap I have to fill, but the pattern is rather clear. BTW, there are several other critisim article,s such a green and several others in response to the pedohebephilia proposal, specific related to the hebephilia aspect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Cantor editing articles about Bailey and autogynephlia is more of a gray area, but he is one of the authors of the paper proposing hebephilia for the DSM-5 (see his bio here), and he has opposed/removed content from the hebephilia article that criticized that proposal, so in this matter the COI is beyond a reasonable doubt. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe your conversation will be more productive if you stick to my actual edits and actual talkpage comments. With even just a little effort, one would find (1) that the information I removed was from a non-RS blog [6], (2) that I immediately posted on the talkpage my associations [7], and (3) that when Karen Franklin's status as an expert (by WP definition) had changed, making her WP:SPS potentially an RS, I myself wrote that it made COI problems unavoidable on the talkpage[8].

Because each of you has written in various places that you are concerned about me and COI, I suggest first that you re-read WP:NPA. Accusations made outside of the appropriate forums (such as my talkpage or COI/N) are personal attacks. If either of you believes that that my easily demonstrated disclosures indicates I have trouble knowing or managing potential COI, I can suggest only that you bring the issue to the appropriate noticeboard.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dr. Cantor, but I don't agree that my observation that you have a conflict of interest in the article on hebephilia constitutes a personal attack. If you think it is one, please pursue the matter in the appropriate administrative venue. Whether the material you removed can be justifiably removed due to Wikipedia content policies does not impinge on your conflict of interest on the hebephilia article, which is a result of your activities outside Wikipedia. Besides, I only wrote you removed content sourced from critics; I have made no evaluation of the appropriateness of that content you removed, just yet. But I did say that other criticism, which surely is published in reputable venues, exists. I'm sure you're aware of some of it, but see Ray_Blanchard#Pedophilia_and_hebephilia for criticism that I am/was aware of. If you insist on editing the hebephilia article yourself, see WP:ENEMY for advice on how to achieve WP:NPOV in such circumstances. Thank you, Tijfo098 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that your observation was a personal attack. I said that discussions made outside of the appropriate forums are personal attacks, and I directed you to those forums and to the policy which indicates such. Your misinterpretation leads to repeat what I already wrote, "Your conversation will be more productive if you stick to my actual edits."— James Cantor (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since you're so concerned about the venue where this is discussed, I started a thread on COI/N, which probably nobody will read but the three of us, given how the rest of that board looks like. See you there. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

James wrote: (1) that the information I removed was from a non-RS blog [9] The edit in question reads: Karen Franklin describing the idea as "absurd", because "large proportions of heterosexual men are sexually attracted to young pubescent girls", and. It is sourced. The source is not a non-RS blog, but a doi, which points at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g33406gj6t2k8717/, an article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, of which James is an editor. So, you did not remove some info based on a non-RS blog, but a valid peer-reviewed article. Nuff said. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was letter to the editor. Its publication is subject to editorial oversight, but not peer review. But that distinction does not violate WP:RS in anyway I can think of in this case. You can argue that it's WP:UNDUE and what not, which is a matter of opinion in this case, because she's not contesting some statics, but whether the statistics justify adding it to the DSM despite what evolutionary psychology has to say about this. Completely removing the statement from the article, instead of (say) moving it to a criticism section is contrary to good faith NPOV editing in my view. I'll copy this reply to the article's talk page. I suggest you do the same with yours, Kim. We should continue there. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gynandromorphic finch pic?

The article on gynandromorph only has some insects. Do you think we could claim fair use for a picture from http://www.pnas.org/content/100/8/4873.long? The PNAS copyright doesn't seem to be public domain, but this type of bird is rare. (This nrn review has a nice collage of the 1st and 6th figures from the original article.) Tijfo098 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No. But what you can do is either contact the lead author and ask for a similar image specifically for wikipedia, or contact PNAS for permission.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lynn Margulis

Maybe you can have look at her bio here. I'm not sure I even understand what the dispute/controversies are about. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is about her proposition that endosymbionts are a main driving force behind evolution while other dispute that. This is less and less of an discussion as most genomes are full with all kind of incorporated virusses, many wierd things in insects are caused by many types of wolbachia, etc. The degree to which it is important, that varies. So, I have removed the tag. The citation needed are still valid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes some sense in the light of the (better sourced) controversy about the [non]hybridogenesis of caterpillars. Apparently she tries to "stick it" to the neo-Darwinians in any way she can ;-) My understanding is that symbiosis is a form of coevolution, but by no means the only one. The lecture of Stearns I've added at the end of that article has some other complex examples (besides Wolbachia) where it's neither just plain predator-prey nor symbiosis. The story of the leafcutting ants, the fungus the grow for food, and the "medicine" bacteria that kills competing fungus for instance. The final story with the rinderpest in Africa is even more complex. It seems too simplistic to say symbiosis, let alone endosymbiosis, is the main force in evolution. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

MSM

Can you interject? CTJF83 chat 20:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim, since you're the uninvolved admin here, can you just block this tendentious editor? Or do I have to report him to ANI? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF what is your problem? CTJF83 chat 21:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your failure to state any concrete WP:BLP violations, yet repeating vague "BLP issues" ad nauseam. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a reason for blocking someone, you're new so read Wikipedia:Block#Common_rationales_for_blocks, sorry for messing up your page KimvdLinde. CTJF83 chat 21:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read WP:DE. Did you? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for inserting the compromise that was ironed out in this article regarding the image and its caption. Thank you also for unblocking the article. While I seldom if ever edit this article — I can only find two edits since last December — I watchlist it for the inevitable vandalism and was surprised to discover the editing impasse that had occured. I’m glad it has been solved.

On another note, I agree with this. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 01:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the MSM article off my watch list. On Wikipedia editors spend a shitload of time arguing barely relevant issues. Another prime example is the article on gender. Look on the talk page here to see how much effort was wasted discussing whether to write "female or male" instead of "male or female", yet nobody seems to have noticed the other deficiencies in the article. Compare [10] and [11]. The lead still needs a concise discussion of ("psychological") gender identity, but I've not read enough on the topic to be able to produce a concise one. The area is in rapid flux of changing terminology, and there are plenty of controversies; hard to summarize. Did I mention that a picture of a U-Haul truck is offensive and off-topic at U-Haul lesbian? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Barbie-que.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barbie-que.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Horse

Hi Kim - I know the tag at the top says to contact you by e-mail, but since I saw you online yesterday I thought I might try a note here :) There is a new editor posting at Talk:Horse about adding a new (late 2009) study saying that horses were found in N. America longer than the studies currently used in the article state. Could you check out the article for reliability/accuracy, as you're the one with the most knowledge of the subject? If there has been a shakeup in the scholarship in this area we need to include it, but we also don't want to include a single outlying study based on shaky science. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you revdelete?

everything before http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgenic_Research&oldid=390457460 The same page was moved around for two unrelated articles which makes a very confusing history. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I did a history split, which is preferred for none offensive stuff. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomist or not

Maybe you can comment on Talk:Bernard d'Abrera. It seems an area of your expertise. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Plasmodium

The criteria for the subgenera of Plasmodium were largely devloped by Garnham in his 1966 book on the Haemosporida. They have bee revised somewhat since but not greatly. They are well known to all experts in this field. I would think that Wikipedia's instructions on not providing citations for 'the sky is blue' might well apply here. DrMicro (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have requested that an administrator intervene at the Plasmodium article to give us some breathing space to create the list. My suggestion is we back off discussing with DrMicro for long enough to create a list in the article or elsewhere, after which, I believe he will see that our method is reasonable. I hope you're game, as this is a major topic and the article needs to be usable. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Thanks for stepping in as a response to the request for comment. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Western Ground Parrot

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Move/merge talk page request

Talk:Fundamental Rights Agency has a weird talk page: no discussions besides the WikiProject banners. I think moving the old talk page from Talk:European Fundamental Rights Agency and adding the banners would be less confusing. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the main article was a cut&paste move from [12], followed by a redirect. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Kim van der Linde.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kim van der Linde.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review invite

Hi Kim! We at WPEQ have Appaloosa listed at FA PR here. Would you like to take a look and offer us any thoughts/critiques/pointers/praises or whatever we may need? (kick in the backside, maybe? grin). You know enough about horses to offer constructive feedback, plus you have a non-US perspective to offer AND, most of all, your eyes aren't crossed like mine are from looking at the thing too much! Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you maybe offer comments on the article talk page, though? There's such a backlog at PR that usually if one editor has offered comments no one else will. So if you comment there, there's a good chance you'll be the only one, and PR is one of very few chances we have to get a non-horse person viewpoint on the article. I would still love to hear any comments you may have, I would just request a different location for them. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I forgot that Kim is a WPEQ regular! Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim, definitely need your review of Appaloosa#Color_genetics (talk page commentary if fine, or at PR page, either one). We have a peer reviewer who offered some great suggestions, including getting you to do a double-check to make sure we laypeople didn't totally trash the genetics language. In the process I found a brand new article that I tried, however ineptly, to incorporate. Finding that line between making it both correct and understandable to the masses is a challenge. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks SO much for all your help so far. I edited your edit of my edit (grin) and I want to be sure it's all still readable. We're going for FA and I just KNOW someone is going to say it's all gibberish! I want to be sure people are clear that "Appaloosa characteristics" aren't just the spots, LP is a much bigger thing -- skin, eyes, hooves (as well as the rat tails and night blindness, too, unfortunately) So to the extent I'm being fussy on the way I worded things, it's not ownership, it's getting the nuance right. (I know the Appaloosa crowd well enough to know their politics, the "characteristics" thing is huge due to the solid-coat registration stuff. They are really touchy about the "we aren't just a color breed" thing.) The biggest thing I did was to replace your 1990 Sponenberg cite (which I saved in hidden text in case it's needed to back up something else) with what Sponenberg has in his 2003 edition of his genetics treatise, which I found on Google books. I'm glad you added the bit about PATN, I was crossing my eyes trying to explain that and had given up! I also like your chart idea for the colors, I'm waiting to see if Curtis or Dana or someone will comment further on why there seems to be a tepid response. Anyway, just a note that even if I argue with you and/or start to contradict myself, my goal really IS to get it right! And readable... and I very much appreciate your efforts! Montanabw^(talk) 08:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah...

Of course you believe me... that's kind of a strange message to leave... I'm just clumsy sometimes. I edit fast and I'm usually right but sometimes miss stuff. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the courtesy and for the. . . good sportmanship, I guess. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the word change might draw some fire. We'll see. "Terrorize" is kind of a loaded word, especially in the post 9-11 environment, and in the case at hand no one was initially convicted of a crime, though I wouldn't say that the White Patriot Party crowd were a fine bunch of fellows. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

re Talk:SPLC

I agree the battleground behavior needs to stop.
I can acknowledge my part in the recent escalation because there is a history of disrespect from one of the editors, Badmintonhist, and I have not seen any effort on his part to change that. Thus I think it was (and is) necessary to comment on his relevant conflict of interest -- namely his conservative activism as it relates to anti-SPLC sentiment -- and give it context for other editors. But I don't see a de-escalation happening unless he and the other(s) stop the figurative bullying and acknowledge some wrong-doing. I still haven't seen any admin warn them about comments like "enjoy the battle." One is still deflecting blame and thumping his chest [13], the other is making questionable edits like [14] which seem less likely an honest mistake and more likely part of a long-term pattern of tendentiousness. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for saying that. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And you know what? POV edits have no real chance in the end for an article on such a topic. And he's been bringing up some valid points, among them that WP articles should be sourced from secondary sources and in a neutral tone. Y'all have been sniping at each other instead of proposing good rewrites or showing a willingness to bend and acknowledge that the other person has a point even when he's being insulting. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position but I disagree that Badmintonhist made those points fairly (or first of all, for that matter). As I said, he's shown no willingness to accept valid disagreement yet he expects the same -- and he's encouraged LAEC to behave as poorly, too. Both have gotten away with far too much as it is, and any concessions by others only seem to strengthen their resolve to keep pushing. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's your view. My view is that I have gained consensus and changes are being made by many in respect of that consensus. I'm not "pushing" anything, but I do see serious problems with plagiarism, copyright violations, etc., and I have built consensus to address those issues. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The copyvio changes have consensus but that is a separate issue. The allegations against other editors for those copyvio problems, and more generally accusations of article bias and blaming current editors, do not have consensus. Being right about the copyvio does not justify or excuse the latter issues. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

At least we are making progress in that you admit to the copyvio issues. That is not a "separate issue". It is the very reason why the page look liked an advertisement and why I added the BIAS tag in the first place. The page has vastly improved since then. As to "justifying or excusing", I was not the one who removed the quotation marks from a quotation. On the other hand, after being tipped off by Badmintonhist, I identified numerous specific examples of copyvio and laid them out clearly in Talk, so clearly that everyone, now even you, agrees it was copyvio. I'm helping to build the page. I wish you were too. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Admit?! I had nothing to do with them. That's your first problem, lumping every editor who disagrees with you into the same boat as opposition. As I said elsewhere, I was willing to concede a couple of minor points you made earlier, until you took encouragement from Badmin to be more aggressive and insulting. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC, yes, you got consensus to fix the copyvio's. However, I have to agree with PrBeacon, I feel that you are pushy, and often resort to wikilawyering to get your way, instead of being straight forward on things. This makes me wonder if you are really interested in making this a better article. Based on what I know of you, the safe libraries stuff etc, you are an activist, and at times, you are acting accordingly. Unfortunately, this makes you very unpopular, and in the end, might get you banned from WP. Anyway, there are easy ways to solve this. First ois address the content, not the editor. I made that request at the talk page, but you never agreed to that. That is unfortunate. Anyway, the second thing you can do that would be really helpful is if you identify a section that needs improvement, copy and past it to the talka nd make a clear and good suggestion on how to rewrite it. Just pointing to what you perceive as a problem and let others fix it (as I did with some of the copyvio stuff) is not a sensible strategy for the long run. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC

Kim, a lot of the basis for people opposing me is that I added a link to VDARE on the Talk page. I added it along with many others, at a time when people were saying criticism of the SPLC didn't exist, and I suggested not that the links I added were reliable, but that some of the linked sources contained in the various links I added might be useful to show criticism. Well that VDARE link was the fuel needed for people to attack me repeatedly. Suddenly I was even being placed in the white racist camp, all for talking in Talk. The attacks went nonstop for a long time, continuing on even onto your page here. Nonstop pushing and pushing to have me banned. And you now write that you agree with the guy. Now I see why these people work in packs and repeat false information again and again and again, following me from page to page to page. Because it works. I have not read wikilawyering, but if responding to constant unjustified attacks seeking to ban someone is considered wikilawyering, then I'm guilty. I did not sense from you that you would join in on the beat down, until now. Do you not notice the continued pushing of these tag teams? Do you not see people coming only to Talk, only to go after me? Won't you even once tell these people they are violating Wiki policy to harass me again and again? I have led the effort to improve the SPLC page, and it is now improved and getting better. Do you not see people are opposing me for that very reason? Yes, I'm active about libraries. The SPLC is not a library. Yet even you brought that up as if it makes my editing on SPLC suspect. Tell me, what is an acceptable length of time for people to get together and flog someone? I want to know because I want it to end. Shall we give everyone, say, another month to flog me, then they have to stop? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets see, I am going to cut your response in pieces and respond to each and all seperately:

Kim, a lot of the basis for people opposing me is that I added a link to VDARE on the Talk page.

Accusation. Proof? I am not even aware of that link.

I added it along with many others, at a time when people were saying criticism of the SPLC didn't exist, and I suggested not that the links I added were reliable, but that some of the linked sources contained in the various links I added might be useful to show criticism.

Why were you lazy and dumped a lot of unreliable sources on it, KNOWINGLY? If you are really interested in improving the article, you would have dug deeper (those some of the linked sources) and come up with those reliable sources?

Well that VDARE link was the fuel needed for people to attack me repeatedly.

Was it? Or was it the way you dealt with it?

Suddenly I was even being placed in the white racist camp, all for talking in Talk.

I would like to see that diff!

The attacks went nonstop for a long time, continuing on even onto your page here.

Again, diffs!

Nonstop pushing and pushing to have me banned.

Who and where? Diffs of ANI reports with ban requests?

And you now write that you agree with the guy. Now I see why these people work in packs and repeat false information again and again and again, following me from page to page to page. Because it works.

No. I think that my intervention has saved you from already being reported at ANI. I see you have right intentions, unfortunately, your way of editing is counterproductive in the long run, because people get worn out and don't want to deal with you.

I have not read wikilawyering, but if responding to constant unjustified attacks seeking to ban someone is considered wikilawyering, then I'm guilty.

No, wikilaywering is the continued enforcement of policies to the letter in order to win a dispute. That is okay for laywers in real life, here it gets you banned because policies are there to facilitate editing.

I did not sense from you that you would join in on the beat down, until now.

Whow, you think I wrote that to beat you down? No, in that case, I would have gone to ANI and reported you and batmintonhist there.

Do you not notice the continued pushing of these tag teams? Do you not see people coming only to Talk, only to go after me? Won't you even once tell these people they are violating Wiki policy to harass me again and again?

I have been following the disputes, and although there might be some truth to violations by others, it is not to the same degree.

I have led the effort to improve the SPLC page, and it is now improved and getting better. Do you not see people are opposing me for that very reason?

No, they are not opposing you for that reason. BTW, this part of the response reads as one of paranoia as if people are out to get you.

Yes, I'm active about libraries. The SPLC is not a library. Yet even you brought that up as if it makes my editing on SPLC suspect.

That is not what I wrote. Nice try though to twist what I wrote. I brought up that you seem to have an activist mentality and that shows in your way of editing, all across WP.

Tell me, what is an acceptable length of time for people to get together and flog someone?

None.

I want to know because I want it to end. Shall we give everyone, say, another month to flog me, then they have to stop?

Than maybe instead of reacting like I am here to kick your ass, maybe agree to the few things I suggested above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pushy? The SPLC page remained an advertisement for a long time. Numerous past efforts were made to fix that. They all failed because of the pushiness of those opposing change, like that guy who uses the f word and removes quotation marks from quotations. Was I pushy? I don't think so. I would say persistent. I persisted. Why? I saw in the past that past efforts to resolve problems failed. I persisted. I prevailed. That is really what is getting people's goats. Did you once tell the guy using the f word that he was pushy? Is removing quote marks from a quotation not pushing a soapbox? Why don't you say anything to those people? I persisted and everyone agrees the page has improved. Others gave up in the face of the buzz saw. I don't give up. And Wikipedia has improved as a result. I am happy to have contributed in this fashion and to break through where others have given up. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

..but do they?

Kim, I'd like follow-up on the issue that Dougweller presented at Talk:SPLC -- Accusations made .... It seems like it stalled after you (rightly) requested that we focus on the article. However, LAEC did not answer Doug's question, nor did Badmintonhist who made similar accusations against current editors there, and neither has made any acknowledgement of wrong-doing with these and other allegations. Normally I would let it go, but I see that they both seem emboldened in their aggression and justified in their past actions because of what they now see as progress, instead of being conciliatory and collaborative. So there are larger issues than just the copyvio accusations.

• Some recent diffs, in case you're not following the talkpage lately: Badmintonhist's diatribe about the article on whole, encouraged by another editor's request for a list of his problems: [15] and then his response to several editors' feedback [16]
• LAEC responding to fair questions about his 'antics': [17] and later equivocating at FRC talkpage [18] in response to my comment to others there [19](which itself was a reply to his latest exhortation of WP:AGF.

I'm inclined to take this to WQA (or ANI because of the pattern continued from the FRC article), but I thought I'd ask you about it first. By the way, I'm also posting a version of this comment/request at Doug's talkpage (so you could reply there, if you so choose). Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do see the problem, and I think that if this continues, I see it end up at ANI as well, and maybe even in a page or topic ban. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If it continues I would probably support that. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at pedophlia

what are you talking about? weve gone way beyond this since you decided to come along and post messagtes, see talk and keep up.Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly

Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Zaprionus

Hello! Your submission of Zaprionus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can read the new page just fine, and it references the white stripes right in the first paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

FRC Edit

Sorry about that. I had checked the Talk page but didn't see that thread.184.74.22.161 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK preps

Hi. I was looking over the hooks that you selected for preps 3 and 4, and it seems like you didn't really mix them up too well (in regards to US ones and biographies). Have you read this page? - PM800 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Will fix it.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Zaprionus

Thanks ... could you spare some time to get the QYK queues packed with hooks? Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, tipped my toes in, got a feel for how people deal with each other and the topics, but I am not contributing to censorship. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The people who stand back create the space for those who censor ... Victuallers (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Drosophila appendiculata

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC

You might also consider RevDel the posts from Dcs47 that LAEC and BB seem to be hanging on as "outing" (and maybe on the help desk and ANI if the info is copied or linked). Ravensfire (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have e-mailed oversight.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should all be zapped. And I'm supposing that if LAEC had followed proper procedures in dealing with COI's, Dcs47 would also now be indef'd, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, topic ban. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That works too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. LAEC didn't start off with flying colors (look at the block log) either, but improved after they were talked to about incorrect actions. It wasn't until 2009 before LAEC put up their COI notice on their talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the page, if LAEC had just let it lie from 5 years ago, or if he had pursued proper channels recently in regard to COI, he would likely still be editing. He re-opened this dormant can of worms by posting that blog with its 5-year-old links. A WP:BOOMERANG if ever I saw one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions on this, KimvdLinde. Hopefully things will end up right, with LAEC unblocked and continuing his editing, albiet without the outing stuff! Ravensfire (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC2

From what I can see, the original situation 5 years ago was mis-handled, but the editor in question went way too far in his recent activities. No winners there. If there's a conflict-of-interest issue, there are proper ways that LAEC should have dealt with it, and this wasn't it. C'est la vie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, 5 years ago they didn't really have the tools admins do today, and probably weren't as aggressive as folks are today about removing any potentially outing information. There's been an explosion in awareness of what can happen otherwise. Oh, to be back in the days of ignorance and happiness about such things! Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. And related to all this is that Wikipedia has much higher visibility than it once did, and it has to be more careful about things. The fact they continue with this blinders-on "anyone can edit" idea is just insane, and someday it's liable to catch up to them. But it's Wales' funeral, as they say. If he wanted restrictions applied, I'm sure he could do so, and he won't, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kim (: Request at LEAC's talk page [20] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SPLC

Hello, Vanished user 19794758563875. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[ here ] -- updated but probably still too wordy, sorry about that.

Your user page

To me your user page has the general appearance of an article, so I think that it is not in line with the wiki guidelines; see Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE. I think that this guideline implies that your user page should be almost completely redesigned. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Swords

In the olden days, only gentlemen and nobility were allowed to carry swords, so it was a mark of status. Hence, all the courtiers at Versailles wore swords. Since Versailles was the administrative center of government, it happened that sometimes people of wealth but lower station needed to come to court to present a petition or do other business. In order to fit in, they were allowed to rent swords for the occasion, from a stand just outside the palace. Compared to the strict security surrounding heads of state nowadays, I find it ironic that it used to be required that one carry a weapon in order to see the king. Anyway, that has nothing to do with anything.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think the rules would have been different for crossbows..... I can see that kit is not a problem with swords, because they are close combat weapons and if everybody carries one, you know that you have to be on guard..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Evoltalk

Template:Evoltalk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jamaican Flightless Ibis

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Macaw FAC

Just so you know, I made a few minor changes, typos and MoS mainly. You might consider not forcing the size of the skeleton thumb, that's sometimes criticised since it overrides user settings. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to help. I have removed the width attribute. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lovebird

Do you know anything about lovebirds?? genetics, mutation, breeding, taming??? because i have a question which is not available on the web..HunterZone (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A little. I bred them in the past, but that was long ago and there are many more mutations nowadays. But ask, we can try if I can help. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have two lovebirds, luthino(Female) and Aqua Seagreen (Male)..she has laid two eggs as of now.. and they are still mating.. I was wondering what will be the colour of the chicks??? and at what age I should start taming them??? ..Thankz..HunterZone (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets see, as far as I know, lutino and seagreen are diferent alleles, with the former x-linked. Females are the heterogametic sex in bird (contrary to mammals). Assuming they do not carry the recessive allele of the color of their mate, I expect all your babies to be natural color. If they do carry the recessive gene of their mate, that color could also pop up. As for taming, I would satrt as soon as you feel comfortable with that, probably already in the nest as soon as the parents are okay with it and they have their eyes open en are strong enough to be handled. I hope this helps. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You totally deserve this :) HunterZone (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Platypus

Hey, your opinion is requested at the talk page of the platypus article, to finally put this stupid capitalisation debate to rest. Cheers! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Family Research Council

There was a misunderstanding about the source for "liberal" in the lead in regards to the SPLC. I wasn't using the Washington Post article there to support liberal. I had two other news sources that describe the SPLC as liberal in the article body--the sources themselves describe the SPLC that way, rather than just quoting the FRC characterizing them that way. I didn't add them to the lead since they were already in the body. All this confusion was compounded because I was posting my discussion about this in the wrong Talk article for a while. Drrll (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that explains. Well, in that case, just add the word back with the refs, in order to prevent future removal. I am just curious why you and the others are so bend to label the SPLC liberal that you dig up two relative old references out of the thousands that do not mention it? WP:UNDUE anybody? Anyway, I am actually amused by the distinction because there is no complementary conservative civil rights organization that maintains lists of hate-groups, which just strengthens the impression many at the left have that the right is not interested in civil rights. Which is unfortunately often correct. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If the SPLC weren't so often ideological (for example, their "Hatewatch" often tars mainstream conservatives, not just members of hate groups) and didn't in the words of Ken Silverstein "casually" label some groups as hate groups, I wouldn't see a need to label them. In addition, many conservative groups, the FRC included, are routinely labeled as "conservative" right in the opening words of the leads of their articles. Actually, those two references I used are just two of the most prominent of numerous reliable source descriptions of the SPLC as "liberal."

As far as I know, the only groups in the US that list hate groups are the SPLC (hard left in my view) and the ADL (seems to lean left, but unlike the SPLC, also criticizes the left). The right was late to the civil rights struggle, but I believe most of the mainstream ones are sympathetic to it now. Are there both left and right civil rights organizations in Europe that track hate groups? Drrll (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I never looked carefully at hatewatch, so would you have a few examples of them tarring mainstream conservatives? Also, do you have some examples of conservative groups that they have "casually" labeled a hate group? I read the article in which he claims this, he does not substantiate it with any examples. Does he somewhere substantiated that unsubstantiated claim?

ADL is religion based, and yes, they tend to focus more on everything they perceive as anti-Semitic, although they look broader than that. Thier focus is more extremiusm, which is not necessarily the same as hate.

As I said, if we can source it, by all means increase the contrast between the liberal side of the world that is actually does something about hate groups and the conservative side that is not doing much about them, in fact, often tries to legitimize those hate groups.

As far as I can tell, hate group monitoring is more a government business in Europe. The fact that it requires private groups to do this is very telling in the eyes of many Europeans. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

On their "Hatewatch" blog ("keeping an eye on the radical right"), they regularly go after mainstream conservative individuals like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, and mainstream organizations such as the Tea Party, Fox News, and The Washington Times. They have also devoted part of a publication to denouncing the Center for Immigration Studies and its director, Mark Krikorian, who is published by the mainstream National Review. In contrast, the "Hatewatch" blogroll recommends a host of liberal and hard-left sites such as Daily Kos, Democracy Now!, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, with no recommendations to conservative sites.

As far as conservative groups "casually" labeled as a hate group, Silverstein mentions one in the same article where he makes that claim: the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The US does have the FBI monitoring hate groups and probably state and local law enforcement, but like much else here, private organizations have decided to participate as well. Drrll (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Humm, I read the article, and I cannot find that he thinks that FAIR is casually labeled. Anyway, if he calls the labeling of FAIR casually, it tells me enough about the reliability of Silverstein.

I think that you just gave me a nice look into your personal point of view with regard to the political system in the US. I had to laugh very hard to see Rush Limbaugh being labeled as a mainstream conservative. But that explains to me why you think the SPLC is liberal. It also explains why the conservatives do not have something remotely similar to a hate-group tracker organization as the liberals have with the SPLC. It makes a lot of sense. Anyway, the article is going to make a nice reading for all those non-Americans from countries where liberals are considered the right wing of the spectrum. I fully endorse adding the liberal label to the SPLC. Thanbk you for making clear how little distance there is between the right-wing hate groups and the "mainstream" conservatives. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Limbaugh is a mainstream conservative, having been embraced by conservative leaders Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley, Jr. (he certainly hasn't been embraced by all conservatives). And conservatism is very much a mainstream position in the US, representing a plurality of the population, as opposed to the left, at only about 20% of the population. If you had to laugh at the idea of Limbaugh being a mainstream conservative, I am curious about who in the US you see as mainstream conservative. I give the non-Americans who read the FRC article a little more credit--if a politically-oriented article is about an American topic, it is natural to assume that American political terminology will be used. That comment about "how little distance there is between the right-wing hate groups and the 'mainstream' conservatives" is quite unfair and untrue. Drrll (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, than the situation is worse than I thought. If Rush Limbaugh is mainstream (which I will accept from you as a given), hate has indeed become mainstream. And it strengthens my view that you adding the liberal to the SPLC is quite appropriate. As for non-Americans, we know darn well that what your call left is our right. Right of our right (liberals) are christian fundamentalism and right wing extremism (Neo Nazis etc).-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Usually don't lurk on Kim's page, but I was over here for something else, saw this and HAD to weigh in. As a fourth-generation Scandanavian-German-American (hence not quite a descendant of the pioneers, but pretty damn red, white, and blue!) AND a bonafide liberal democrat (i.e. rather conservative by European standards, and screaming radical commie pinko freak by Drrll's standards) I HAVE to say that no, Rush, Fox (Faux) News and all the rest are in no way "mainstream conservative", particularly Rush -- he's actually a rabid, slobbering, fat, jerkwad (I say that with all due love and compassion for the mortal soul I hope he still has buried in there somewhere) who really can't even call himself a right wing extremist because he's simply a mean-spirited bully. And SPLC is a moderately liberal group, but they transcend labels because they do solid research on groups that promote hatred of others. They do good work with excellent documentation, and if they occasionally slap people like Rush and "Faux News", it's because they pander to these idiots. The Family Research Council is a nutcase lunatic fringe group that promotes hatred of homosexual people, has thinly-veiled racist attitudes (scratch them too deep and find opposition to interracial marriage), and thinks the place for women is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Just saying. So KIm, pleaseohplease, don't think Drrll's drivel has anything to do with "Mainstream" American values. It's scary enough that people like Mitt Romney are now considered "moderate conservatives" and "mainstream." Once upon a time, a "moderate" conservative was someone like Nelson Rockefeller, who now is derided by the Teabaggers and the GOP as a whacko liberal. OK, all for now, (dragging self away from political discussion, must go back to my happy place...) Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I was discussed, I thought I would respond briefly. Montanabw, I'd like to know who you regard as "mainstream conservative" in the US these days (or for that matter, as "mainstream liberal" or just "mainstream"). I'd be curious to see how your examples track with public opinion polls. Regardless of your politics, you are rather "liberal" in your use of name-calling. Drrll (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

HI Drrll, I just did: Mitt Romney. Personally, I think he's still fairly conservative, but at least he has a brain and is willing to work with a wide variety of people. Much as I hate to say it, I suppose Speaker of the House Boehner is also nowadays a "mainstream" conservative too. (I can't say he's an extremist, though 20 years ago he would have been) And as for name-calling, I was raised a republican, so that's where I get my mean and nasty streak, sitting around the table at Thanksgiving with the extended family listening to them whine about the world, commie pinkos, the ACLU, the trilateral commission, draft dodgers (I was a kid during the Vietnam era), the whole bit. I think I was 10 before I realized that "thatgoddammgovernment" wasn't one word. (LOL!) So I know it from the inside, and if I'm pissy, it's because I cannot believe that my beloved country is falling hook, line and sinker for the white-trash baloney that I'd rejected by about the age of 12. But I also avoid editing politics articles on wikipedia, lest I spend all my time in fruitless debates like this one. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so I'm done. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Question

Hi Kim; your question intrigues me, and I'll do my best to answer it.

You asked which edits were part of a transition from manual to automatic-- the truth is, very few of the edits to the templates themselves serve as transitional edits. The transitional edits are actually found within the articles themselves (only two exceptions, and I'll address the oobox and ichnobox at the end of this comment). It's far too soon to phase out the manual taxobox, and it's unrealistic to expect that to happen within the next five years for sure. I think it would be nice to automate all of them, but this isn't something that can be done by modifying the taxobox or any of its related templates.

The majority of the automations I've done were in an attempt to help build the database for the automatic taxobox. Currently, the most common 900+ taxa exist in the database, and I'd like to at least hit 1000, but I've not had a chance recently to do this due to other matters (both intra- and extra-Wikipedia). An automation of a taxobox merely involves swapping the template used in the article and adding the taxon to the database, along with a couple parameters that invariably differ in every article's automatic taxobox.

Originally, I was merely adding the taxa to the database, but Martin encouraged us to begin implementing it, which I have no problem with and am happy to do-- someday I'd like to see all of them automated. When working on a stub, I add an automatic taxobox to the article in order to prevent the need for an automation in the future. I say "need" with caution-- these aren't "needed", per se, but in order for the automatic taxobox to employ its advantages in taxonomic revisions, it's imperative that it actually be used. It's pointless for there to be a database and a template that uses the database if hard-coded taxonomies still exist.

So back to your question-- I have made several edits to many templates in this area, but each edit was to improve only the corresponding template, not to try to force either version.

In one (perhaps two or three) edit summaries during the recent cleanup which is currently under RfC, I indicated that the taxoboxes needing cleanup had been automated as a fix. Simply replacing the parameter names was an easier fix, but this didn't occur to me immediately. In the subsequent cleanups, I made no automations-- there were probably a good 200 or so, and had I spent the time automating them, it would have taken me probably a good few days to do.

There is one case of a clear bias toward automation, however-- when I designed the {{oobox}} (for eggshells) and {{ichnobox}} (for trace fossils), I saw no need to provide support for any manual taxonomy, since no manual taxonomies already existed. Therefore, I figured it would be best to start those two templates off on what I'm considering the "right foot" by keeping them in clean, relational databases parallel with the automatic taxobox's database.

I think you'll find similar patterns in Martin's edits, which are just as frequent as my own. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page

[21] you reverted this comment why? Afro (Talk) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not know I reverted that. The only reason I can see is that I toughed the rollback link at the watch list. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

some sources

Hi, I couldn't help seeing the erupting conversation on this. I think the article should be clear FRC is amongst a dozen Christian-right organizations labelled as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center which is noted for its tracking of hate groups. In particular the SPLC noted (whatever seems most important). The FRC and many conservative organizations protested the label and the FRC took out full page ads to protest the designation. Gigifaq (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

called a hate group:

• Hate under cloak of religion: Op-Ed: The Southern Poverty Law Center rightly calls out the Family Research Council's anti-gay rhetoric.
• Nonprofit will designate the Family Research Council a 'hate group'
• RNS: Hate group watchdog adds Family Research Council to its list
• Another View: Hate under cloak of religion
• SPLC names Family Research Council hate group

protest against the label:

• Nonprofit will designate the Family Research Council a 'hate group'
• Family Research Council Demands Apology Over ‘Hate Group’ Label
• Upsetting the Apple Cart
• 'Hate group' designation angers same-sex marriage opponents
• SPLC’s Poverty of Ethics
• Anti-gay group: We aren't hateful!: The Family Research Council is angry that its homophobic rhetoric has gotten it labeled a "hate group"
• Tea Party Nation Names DHS, NAACP Among 2010's 'Liberal Hate Groups'

reaction to and meta discussion about protest:
"Lately, it has earned the enmity of many conservatives for its classification of the Family Research Council as a hate group due to its propagation of known falsehoods about lesbians and gays."

• Tolerance Group Accused of Character Assassination
• SPLC Responds to Attack by Family Research Council
• Gay acceptance: GOP's Black Swan: Conservatives continue to have irrational fears over issues of sexuality, pursuing an agenda of 'misguided' policies
• Memo to the Religious Right: Cornyn and Sessions to help promote ‘the gay agenda’ Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate?: The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of US hate groups has topped 1,000 for the first time. But conservative critics say a too-broad definition of hate stifles legitimate debate.

Overview of issues:

• The Changing Political Landscape: Activists face six new realities.
• Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate?: The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of US hate groups has topped 1,000 for the first time. But conservative critics say a too-broad definition of hate stifles legitimate debate.

Horsey Stuff! (Evolution and so on)

Montanabw says you're the expert on all-things-taxonomy (and obviously, from your user page, also on a load of other really useful stuff!) I have no idea whether this makes you the right person to come to with some questions on ancient (and allegedly-ancient) horse lines, but here goes:

The patrilinear thing:

• just how far back does that Y-chromosome trace, if it seems to be pretty-much-overpoweingly-present in modern horse breeds?

  Impossible to tell because you need genetic variation to use a molecular clock, and the absence of variation basically shoots that down. Update: They just isolated a second y-chromosome haplotype in Chineese horse breeds. Further, the prewalskii horse despite its small population has multiple haplotypes.

Ah! I was wondering about the Chinese thing :o) Bummer about nt being able to date it. :-(

• Is there actually any realistic way of giving it a 'first date'?

  As for the y-chromosome, no.

Bummer, again.

• Is it present in any of the ancient remains (fossil or permafrost-preserved) which might date it?

  Nobody published something substantial about it yet, but I have to check as I have not looked at thios question for some time.

Oh, please do check!

• Is it possible to tell, even, whether it might be present in any ancient remains?

  Yes, it just takes someone to do it.

... and you'd just love to be that person? Pretty please?

the mtDNA thing:

• Looking at fig. 2 (phylogenetic network) in | Mitochondrial DNA and the origins of the domestic horse, and having read the paper, everything Exmoor seems to be in only one place, one step away from the A6 central node (unless I am going totally blind)

  Drawing far reaching conclusions on a single 8 year old study with only a few samples is very risky. See for example this recent study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015311 The exmoor pony has a far wider haplotype composition than previously thought.

I will read through that.

• What (if anything) is the significance of this? What does it say about the Exmoors?

  It says that we have to be carefull drawing conclusions especially about the age of the breed.

Hahahaaaaaaaa! I love that answer! I have no idea if I was 'reading' that diagram right, (I've never been taught this stuff, so have to rely on logical analysis to work out how it goes), but from what I could 'see', it appeared that the majority of the Nordic-type cluster didn't actually tie in with the Exmoor node but had a node all to itself, there was no intervening node between Exmoor and the central A6 node, and the Exmoor 'background' seemed to appear in a few other breeds, including one of the Fjord animals ..... was I reading it anything like right? Is this what it means? Just a thought - if you need genetic variation to use a molecular clock, and the Exmoor has a 'far wider haplotype composition than previously thought', would it be at all possible to 'molecular-timestamp' the Exmoors? And, if it would be possible, could you do it as a study? I can quite possibly get mane hair samples from heaps of Exies (maybe, even, if I tried hard, from every pure-bred Exie in the UK. EEEEEEEEEEK! What did I just almost-promise?!!!!! )

Ancient and Modern (Jaws)

• Why would the modern-day Exmoors share the jaw structure with the Alaskan fossils and not with other modern breeds?

  Chance and drift. Artificial selection is very powerfull, just look at dogs who across breeds show more cranial variation as the whole family Canivora. It has been tried to draw conclusions based on this kind of characteristics (The four foundations theory) and it failed completely when put to the test using DNA. Remember, up to a few years ago before ancient DNA, many horse "species" were described based on small differences, and DNA has shown that there is nothing realistic about those species. All species belong to two species, the Wild Horse and the Stiled-Legged Horse. The Stilled leg horse is completely extinct and the exmoor is definitely not related to that species, both on morphology and DNA. In that context, when all morphological variation once thought to be indicative for species is nothing more than local variation, drawing conclusions of a domesticated horse bred being related to an extinct branch of New World horses that got separated 10,000 years ago from the Old World, is not warranted.

I'm trying to get a 'foundation date / split-off date' (from other domestic types)', or something as close to that as possible, rather than say 'it's wild, it's this, it's that'. I just want proof of 'it's really, really old' (with a probable timestamp)

• Why does no other extant breed have the same thing going on?

  See above.

• Any other fossil records with the same jaw structure?

  No idea.

(I'm hunting for stuff I can put on the Exmoor page about 'being ancient'. As well as just being insatiably curious! Can you help?) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that conclusively shows that the exmoor specific is ancient (They try this with each of the old looking horses, the Soraia comes to mind). In fact, it shares a lot with a whole group of more primitive breeds from Northern and Western Europe. However, there is no evidence that suggest that the exmoor is special in that regard. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that there's any possibility of any future study being able to turn up anything more? (Looking for a "timeline of primitive breeds", that kind of thing?) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not likely. The y-chromosome is prety damming, and the mtDNA-haplotypes are not that unique to assume that they will be a special ancient breed. The best that maybe in the future can be proven is that there was a influx of wild UK-mares in the breed, but Alaska, not in a million years. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm hijacking Kim's page here, but my experience in dealing with geneticists who research modern DNA to develop tests and such is that the only real barrier is time and money. I know sometimes the USA breed associations themselves put up the research dollars and provide grants to encourage study. Might be something the UK pony breeds could get together and do. Surprising how much even a few thousand dollars will spur someone to action. Montanabw^(talk) 07:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, sequencing is getting cheaper and cheaper, especially with the third generation sequencing that is now getting on to speed (~1000-5000). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Kim, this is for you now that TPC has found you! (grinning, ducking and running) Montanabw^(talk) 07:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have adopted a WikiWolfcub. Pray for me!

Pages are meant to be hijacked, aren't they? [cub grins and wags tail] A page is like a kitchen, it's where the real stuff is going on. Time and money - both things I have in short supply myself! Tell you what, if I win the lottery, I'll fund some more Exmoor research! But really just because I wanna know! I have now read that paper, lol! Do you remember the film Short Circuit? That scene where he's riffling the encyclopaeida and saying "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiin-puuuuuuuuuuuut!" That is sooooooo like me! And I'd be delighted to be adopted by Kim as well :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Kim, take a peek at the Exie-sandbox for me, please? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I looked, what do you want me to do?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

looking was fine, just for now! Thanks for the input there. Can you please keep an eye on us and (kindly!) ensure we (particularly me) don't stray too far towards the lunatic end of the genius-lunacy grey area. Question: did Exies go extinct in Britain? Can we work that one out from what we have in the studies? :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question: No. The simple problem we have is that there might be some ancient haplotypes in the breed, that does not say they were exmoor's in the past. They could very well be from breeds that have gone extinct. It will take a special DNA study on archeological bones using DNA markers for the exmoor characteristics to get that confirmation. That study has not yet been done. So, wht we know now is that we have a domesticated breed that has some old haplotypes that could be from wild mare in the UK. That's all. Anything beyond that is speculation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have some possible suggested wording for the Exie thing, which I formulated before I read this, so (as my brain has temporarily gone splat and I can't work it out!) can you see if it would be OK at all? Thanks - you're a gem :o) (What I'm trying to highlight is that maternal lines in at least some of the modern-day Exmoors seem to equate directly to one-mutation-from-coalescence, and aren't shared with other breeds, though other lines are shared). ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You've been Invited!

You have been invited to join and help WikiProject Insects in its most recent collaboration, Lepidoptera, which has finally been nominated for Good article, soon a reviewer will review and you are welcomed to help before and during the reviewing process as a member of the project. Your also welcomed to nominate yourself as an unbiased, reviewer for the article.

When you wish to help (which is greatly welcomed) you can get briefed and ask questions on my talk page or the WikiProject insects' talk page when you're ready!! Thank you for your cooperation. Just to note, your credentials are impeccable, it would be an honor to work with a fellow peer, especially sense the phylogeny and systemics in the article are seriously lacking.Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

mtDNA and Exmoors

(Cross-pasted from Exie Sandbox, just in case you don't see it there).

HERE's the marked-up image part of the 2002-study phylogenetic network. Note: the 2010 made no other changes to this section of the network, other than (importantly!) to re-name these B-clusters/nodes as I-clusters/nodes. And the 2002 C-clusters were renamed as B-clusters. I could seriously shake those 2010 people warmly by the throat for having done something so completely unnecessary and frustratingly confusing! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Pressie for you - how apt!

ThatPeskyCommoner has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protecter forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

You've been so amazing, and so patient with this Pesky Wolfcub, I thought you must surely deserve this :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

As a member of Wikiproject insects you maybe want to voice your opinion this discussion on the use of vernacular or scientific names in higher ranking taxa. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not very helpful

Comment's like this are not adding much to the discussion on that page, and are one of the reasons we're not getting anywhere. I would be thankful if you would refrain from such comments in the future. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was funny and added an appropriate level of perspective to an otherwise going-nowhere discussion amongst people beating a dead horse. But that's just my opinion. I share Kim's frustration with vandals. I revert 10 IP vandals for every one anon IP contribution that's worth something. Not sure if pending changes will solve the problem (vandals usually being clever at foiling any attempt to thwart them), but not admitting to the presence of the elephant in the living room doesn't solve matters. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you were being humorous, but some people are taking this issue fairly seriously, and no matter what you're opinion on the worth of doing that is, you should still respect that they are. Wikipedia's success clearly shows the majority of editors are well intentioned, so I would disagree that only one out of 11 anon editors contribute constructively, remember that editors are more likely to register if they have a positive experience as an IP editor, so the apparent number can seem a bit warped by one or two people vandalising over and over as anons, while good editors may only edit once as an IP before they decide they want an account. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's why I'm commenting here and not there. And you are confusing me with Kim so don't blast her in you critique of me-- I thought HER comment was funny and it reflects my own experience with wikipedia since -- OMG -- about five years now! Seriously, I've got over 1500 articles on my watchlist, and I probably could verify the 1 in 10 IP stat if I cared enough to sit down and crunch several thousand days' worth of data. Sure the majority of newbies who make a serious contribution are well-intentioned, but you can also track when school gets out across the planet with the "kiddie" vandalism. Pending changes is a mixed bag to me. I found it frustrating when I encountered it in some other wikis, personally, but vandal patrol is also frustrating. So I'd just say that acknowledging that some of us need a little gallows humor not to give up in disgust is not going to hurt anything. Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mistake you for Kim. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, just don't want her busted for my snark! (ducking and awaiting trout slap...) Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Great essay

You wrote a great essay at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Stop debating, turn it on and lets move foreward. Much truth there! Thanks for your insightful comments on the State of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely

It surely must be definitely :) --VanBurenen (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Can You Remember?

... which of the various mtDNA studies we've been becoming obsessed with showed that the Pleistocene Irish mtDNA is still cropping up in the modern British native breeds (and other European breeds). I have just read the whole darned lot again, and have almost certainly missed it, and I am now suffering from brain-crash again! (You know, the way you look for those lost keys in the same drawer three times and then they turn up the fourth time you look, lol!?)

I'm working in the History of Horse (UK/Ireland) Sandbox at the minute; come join me when you have some time. Hahaha! "have some time", eh?! How often does that happen? :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Irish mtDNA sample also shows up in Chinese horses, see supplementary data. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

TPC, I think it's in the articles referenced in the Exmoor piece, I have it on my hard drive, so must have downloaded it from there. Oh, but Kim, one of your sources at that Exmoor page sends us all to your university's login page, demanding an ID number, may want to find us either a free version of an open Abstract link to PubMed or something. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just re-read all the supporting stuff (phew!) (I was pretty sure it was in that article, but had to nit-pick my way through it with a fine-toothed comb yet again). I am still bemused by the ancient Irish sample coming into the same haplogroup as the Chinese horse - why? I ask myself!! And how? (more to the point). It seems a hell of a long way to 'travel' in prehistoric times, without anything in the same haplogroup appearing in the huge gap between the two samples (so far). What I did manage to discover in amongst that lot were the Exie samples listed as "I-group", which were the ones I was obsessing about earlier. (That's the thing with us WikiWolfcubs, like it says on the page ..... once they've got their teeth into something it's damned hard to make them let go, lol! You might possibly have noticed this ......) But the other really annoying thing about the samples was just how few of them were UK/Ireland samples, as opposed to the huge number of samples from the European mainland and so on. Sooooo, I think I was looking at the right paper all along. What can I say, in the History thingie, about the pre-historic Irish sample (and the Derbyshire sample) and its relationship to the modern British/Irish ponies, genetically? Nice to 'tie-up' the history thing there with some good science. :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No travel, just an old haplotype that once was distributed widely. Because there are so few samples, and because the wide range the haplotypes are found at, it just could be coincidence. Remember also that the horses were gone from most of the British Islands around 10,000 years ago, and the Irish sample is from before that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Another bijou-rantette

Read through the coat colour DNA paper ...... mistake! Reminds me again that the lab-rats need to take a wider view before leaping to conclusions based on insufficient data! If all those various coat colours are man-made, how, pray, do they choose to explain the |Pech Merle and |Lascaux prehistoric paintings of horses with so many different colours, including golden (Palomino or other cream dilute?), chestnut, and spotted, fer crying out loud! (And I reckon some of those have long dark manes, too). ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Artistic freedom?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Artistic freedom may play a role, how else do we explain My Little Pony??  :-D Note also that some of the spot-happy paleolithic artists seemed to feel they needed to spot the surrounding walls, too! The classic dun was probably the wildtype, but remember that EVERY SINGLE mating of any living thing produces with it some random mutations and "junk" DNA, most of which has little or no significant impact on the organism, but changes impacting coat color would be pretty obvious. However, in the wild, such mutations would gradually (or, in the case of an "eat me now" white horse, quickly) be subsumed by the more dominant wildtype herd surrounding the occasional animal with mutated color, unless that adaptation (like, perhaps, a forest horse becoming darker) was something that made survival more likely. Further, primitive people could well view a mutated-color animal as special or magical, thus making it MORE likely to be killed and have its hide tanned, even if the only one! (Thus, these paintings may well record the time Oogh and Grog speared the world's first Palomino!) Once fully in captivity, however, and subject to selective breeding, people would think weird colors were neat and deliberately choose to breed more of them. We see this in virtually all domesticated animals -- more spots, more white, more color variation once domesticated. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the spots are indeed all around it, and inferring color patterns in horses from cave art is not that reliable. Here we can just wait till we have enough data in the future to deal with the issue, as the genes are known, and it is just a matter of doing more samples. And you are right, the same mutations likely occurred from time to time, as for example is obvious in the paleolithic sample that carried one recessive black gene (See the coat color article). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Broken-coat (pinto, etc.) horses are extremely hard to see in bog-woodland (like this, where you basically have a darkish background with light-reflecting bog-puddles intermingled. (Even in this pic the broken-coated foal is harder to see the outline of than the solid-coated pony close by it.) And greys are hard to see in wet marshland - the grey coats just disappear into the light reflected off the water. (See here for just one example - not the best one, but cba to find a better one!) I know these things personally, comes of looking for horses on the New Forest! So, in some habitats, coat colours which you're think of as too stand-out actually have a real camouflage advantage. There were quite a few coat colours in those pics (and play spot-the-pangare while you take a look at them, lol!) Certainly dark bays and red-bay-pangare's, as well as dark and light dun-types (bay dun and blue-dun??) Artistic license may have played a part, surely. But my point, as always, is that although DNA can tell us much, it's not the only route to the truth, and has to be looked at in the context of other information. In the absence of written records of horse colours, art from the period is our best 'contemporaneous evidence', I think. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, once again, exceptional claims requires exceptional evidence. Cave art is definitely not going to cut it as evidence for certain colors as the artistic component makes it uncertain what the wild animal looked like. I doubt that there are any recent reliable sources that make this claim.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't ranting for any particular reason - but we'd need people to have assessed hundreds or thousands of samples before they could say with any degree of certainty the "X-colour had its first appearance in Y-year in Z-area..". My feeling is that they ought to look at it the other way around - saying "X-colour has existed since at least Y-year" ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And re the random other spots, just had a thought (can't think why I didn't think of it before, lol!): speaking as an artist myself, maybe they were practising till they were sure they'd got the spot-technique 'spot on' (sorry about that one ..........). Wouldn't want to spoil their beautiful horse drawing by mucking up the spots, would they? Just another theory - but just as valid as the 'they liked spots' one. Think: if someone were to take samples from (for example) a hundred horses worldwide today, it would be an 'exceptional claim' if they were to say, for definite, "chestnut horses don't exist in Britain" just because the samples they'd got didn't actually include a chestnut from Britain, and so on. Sorry I'm a pain - but my brain does tend to work on the "what if" and "alternative viable theory" modes. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with many what-if stories, as long as we don't add them to the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Art of the 16th century can be somewhat reliable, art of the stone age is somewhat more subject to interpretation. All I know is that the Appaloosa horse club was trying for the longest time to prove that Appaloosas were purebred from the stone age too. But what I really want to do is slap Oogh and Grog for painting such fanciful images that are so open to interpretation, who did they think they were, abstract artists? -- unlike something reliable like, say, the Bible which was handed down from God and not open to interpretation, it says right there that the world was created in 7 days, about 4004 BC, so why are we worrying about the Stone Age, anyway ...? (grinning, ducking and running...) But seriously, we are bound by WP:OR around here, so we have to stick to what we can "verify," if not "prove." It has frustrated me at times, but I suppose the solution is to use this research to narrow down what is known from what is speculated, then speculate elsewhere, like writing for the breed magazines and such. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of bunging it into any article - it's just one of my bog-standard rants about the 'narrow-minded-lab-rat' view! Not saying you're one of those, Kim - you obviously have some really cool 'outside life' stuff going on, but I do think that some of them never get outside the lab (either in reality, or inside their own heads). Here's my absolute favourite-of-all-time example of how flawed logic can be made to work, just in case you've never come across it before. Enjoy!

And, on the whole Bible thing, have you heard the late lamented Bill Hicks on the subject of 'fundamentalist Christians'? Very, very funny .........

And I'm never going to go with the 'pure-bred ever since' theorists - but I'm happy to go with 'phenotypically very like' and 'genetically closer to their ancient (mtDNA) roots than many modern breeds' stuff. Where it applies.

And what do you think of the idea that those spotted animals in the cave art seemed to have long, flowing dark manes? And also that dark animal - that doesn't look like a representation of dun-type neck-cape, to me :o) And I also wonder whether those 'spotteds' could actually be dappled greys - particularly with the dark manes. Very phenotypically similar to Andalusians / Iberians - body-shape and all. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We're hijacking Kim's page, let's take this to yours. Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you do .... pretty please ....

some mtDNA stuff showing that the "north-western proto-Europe / proto-Britain / 'Doggerland' " (how about "the ancient Briton peninsula" for a name for the area?) mtDNA is closely related to the mtDNA found in modern breeds from the same area for the The history of the horse in Britain sandbox for me? Not 'pure-bred since', obviously, but 'the matriarchal lines can still be traced as 'close to' kind of thing? Including things like Fjords, Highlands, Shetties, Icelandics, Exmoors and such-like. And anything where the mtDNA is showing up in some individuals of the the British and Icelandics but not in the Fjords would be an absolute big humungous bonus. I want some sort of 'continuity of matriarchal lines in the area' input, if possible. Check out the the Ice Age and Archaeology Map to see if you can make some links to it. You're a darling! :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That 'Manes' Thing

Just for fun, here's a Modern Interpretation of Ancient Art for you to peruse. Go on, smile! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

re: speedy-deletions under CSD#R2

You recently deleted User:ThatPeskyCommoner/British Horse History Sandbox, citing CSD#R2 in the edit summary. As a redirect from the Userspace to the Mainspace, it was technically ineligible for criterion R2. That criterion only applies to redirects from the Mainspace. We are trying hard to clean up the cites to the R2 clause so that it's not so widely misunderstood by new users. In this case, the drafter of the page has not protested so there does not appear to be much harm done but if you could help us keep the logs clean in future situations, it would make the education process easier. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for History of the horse in Britain

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Parrot

Hey Kim, do you feel like getting stuck into parrot at the moment? If you do I think we'll make it the next collaboration and all give it a big shove towards GA/FA/ whatever, if not we can do it another day/month/arbitrary unit of time in the future...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't have substantial time till September at least. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. We'll leave it for a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's me ....

Hello, Vanished user 19794758563875. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Untangle kite string? Herd cats?

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Equine#Untangling_a_mess I've got a categorizing urge to use a mop, bucket and the Pine-Sol, I just want to know how to do the cleanup. You da boss, I'm da flunky. Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

undergrad researcher needs help with fly imaging ... :)

Hopefully if you see this in time, I've described my problem in depth here. If not, I'll just re-explain my problem if necessary. I'm trying to attack on several fronts -- programming/image processing, cameras, and lighting conditions. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cockatoo fun

Hey Kim, did you see the new cockatoo phylogenetics paper - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Cockatoo_fun..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(haven't updated the Cockatoo page yet....as I wasn't sure whether it was strong enough to rejig the cladogram (though I think it is (??))

I will have a look at it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you are semi-retired

I am sorry to see you are semi-retired. I think you bring quite a bit of balance to the discussion. I value your inputs and I hope you will continue to "chime in" from time to time. Especially when quite a bit is at stake in the evolution article. Have a good weekend. danielkueh (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(It's not that tough to lure Kim out... just have to ask her for her much-needed expertise; which I do on a regular occasion!) Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you back at Talk:Evolution. :) danielkueh (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

El Bulli, not elBulli

Hi, why did you change El Bulli to elBulli? You said most publications use the second form (elBulli), that's not true! Have you checked sources? I did, and verified them (the most common rendered name is El Bulli). It seems you got confused by the website name, which utilizes the form "elBulli". Could you move back the article to El Bulli, as displayed in other wikipedias and sources. Thanks. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 14:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, elBulli uses elBulli. They changed the name and yes, most publications use the old way of writing, but that does not make it correct. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for deletion of – List of repeated names

Just a note, you did not transclude this article in the Articles for deletion log page when you nominated it for deletion, as required in step 3 of the subsection "How to nominate a single page for deletion” on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page. Another user has performed this step for you to complete the process. In the future, please follow all of the required steps when nominating an article for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is?

Where is your rewrite of evolutionary biology located? Alatari (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

User:KimvdLinde/EB. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary biologist is also redirecting to Evolution yet we have a few hundred member category of evolutionary biologists. Alatari (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Once we restore Evolutionay biology, those redirects can be fixed as well.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Evolutionary biologist history it never was anything but a redirect to evolution. Alatari (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing prevents us form finally doing it right. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia evolves. Alatari (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I may not necessarily agree with you about the splitting of evolutionary biology from evolution, but I applaud your efforts in trying to resolve this issue in a diplomatic and sensible way. A good example for the rest of us. Please keep up the good work! danielkueh (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar conflict

At University of Missouri - Columbia and University of Missouri. Here Evolution is the grandaddy with huge political clout and some in the field wish to take the main discipline in the biology areas to keep for themselves? University of Missouri is now owned by the Columbia branch in Wikipedia name space and University of Missouri System has been allocated for what was originally University of Missouri's meaning to encompass all the schools. That talk page dispute rose to higher stress levels than this current one. Alatari (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

	Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
	Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

POV Pushing

YOU do not have the right or say so to make that decision. You are violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you keep this up, actions WILL be taken. The THEORY of evolution has NOT been proven Axiomatic. I did not delete the ideas about the theory of evolution, as I am trying to keep a NPOV. DO NOT remove the tag, you ARE violating policy by doing this. Furthermore, do NOT threaten me, I can make new accounts. You are stepping out of line as a user. Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, creating new accounts is only going to get you in bigger trouble, and you, Matthew, were the one stepping out of line as a user. As for the theory of evolution, it's accepted as much as the THEORY of gravity by the mainstream scientific community. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

POV Pushing Continued

As for your last message, you will see that it is MY work that was being undone, therefore I have not broken the three-fold rule. You are in danger of breaking this rule. I strongly suggest that you learn the rules. Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, what do you think to achieve here? Your POV pushing is not going to stay. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is. --Indeed it is, this is why all relevant theories need to be included.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology. --Exactly, this is why no information has been posted reguarding the theory of Intelligent Design...the NPOV tag HAS been added, due to the fact that this view is biased.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). --This is true, once again, all that was added was the NPOV tag, due to the fact of the article's OBVIOUS bias.
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. --YES! This is WHY the NPOV tag was added.

Also, while not a guideline or policy, I recommend you check out this user essay on how Christianity and the NPOV policies can cooperate to each other's benefit. --Please note that Intelligent Design does IN NO WAY constitute automatic Christian POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewgibson3321 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no reliable scientific sources for intelligent design as a valid alternative to evolution. So, no, intelligent design is NOT an alternative to evolution. And until then, ID is not a valid theory to explain the diversity at earth. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow, have you bothered to look at the usernames, Matthew? KimvdLinde is a completely different user from me. And again, you are missing the point: no mainstream scientific journal accepts intelligent design, Wikipedia only bothers to present mainstream science as science. As for assuming you were Christian, that was based on your edits to Armor of God and the fact that most other religions typically accept evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop muddying the debate

Your increased petulance and appeal to emotion with phrases like "stupid" and "kick in the face" at WT:MOS are not helpful. I know for a fact from your edits elsewhere that you are more than smart enough to know the difference between the plain facts that capitalization of birds on Wikipedia is controversial because it imposes a specialist convention for a specialist audience in specialist works on a generalist work for a generalist readership, and is self evidently controversial because of the constant controversy about it, on the one hand, versus, on the other, the ridiculous straw man you recently introduced, that your opponents on the issue are saying capitalization has to be mentioned as controversial at MOS because there are a few ornithology publications that don't capitalize. The concepts are not even logically connected, and you aren't fooling anyone. Let me be clear: The blatant obstructionism you are applying against the effort to get the MOS to finally make sense and be consistent on this, even after I've gone out of my way, against all my better judgement, to be as accommodating as is reasonable for WP:BIRDS, is directly inspiring me to gear up for a push to have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS firmly applied to the project and its anti-consensus convention once and for all. I was, just because your project is so immovably tendentious on the matter, about willing to simply give up and let bird articles alone, as long as the practice was flagged as controversial (or whatever wording made it clear that other projects must not go off and make up their own rules). You have been personally changing my mind, from the moment you showed up and called me "random" and ignorant. I am now becoming more convinced than ever that your project's crusade, to force an ungrammatical style on everyone who makes the mistake of editing any bird article that the project WP:OWNs, is a general detriment to the entire encyclopedia and a dangerous precedent. Congratulations. Your WP:FILIBUSTER attempt at MOS is completely backfiring. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC) (PS: On a total side note, I completely agree with you above about "inteligent design".)

Really. So when you say that I don't know /understand where I am talking about, like here "PS: The fact that you actually just wrote "Bird Names are Capitalized", misusing capitalization as a form of emphasis, does not bode well for your understanding of what this debate has always really been about.", how do I have to interpret that? Not understand = smart? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: k.d. lang RM

I'm just going to copy my previous statement here to show you the issue

This is just a self-admitted crusade on Kauffner's part to eliminate any sort of leeway in MOS:TM and the other manuals of style when it comes to people's stage names. Kauffner, Dicklyon, and Greg L are simply editors who think that the manual of style is a set of rules written in stone. I believe they are seeking to make a point after I attempted to get some clarity at WT:AT#Names of individuals over the apparent kerfluffle I started when I requested that Kesha be moved to "Ke$ha", with an RM at DJ OZMA, based on the fact that this page is at k.d. lang and we have pages like bell hooks, brian d foy, and will.i.am. I believe you, and other interested parties, should add your opinion to the discussion at WT:AT, because this very vocal minority of 3 editors should not be the ones to enforce a set of guidelines as unbending rules, such as Greg L's insistence that "[he] can only assume that a bat-shit-crazy, rabid following on [k.d. lang] established a local consensus in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)