handy hint: to keep discussions in one place, if you leave a talk message I'll answer it here, though I may put a note on your page if getting your attention seems important. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency. Apologies if I fail to notice changes on your page, must trim my watchlist.

Archives

July 2004 – September 2005 Admin 14 Sept '05 – February 2006 March 2006 – 11 May 2006: Fishapods, Bud Neill and Kate Cranston 12 May 2006 – 31 July 2006 August 2006 – 18 Sept 2006 also Turnstiles. Sept 2006 – 10 Jan 2007 Jan 2007 – 18 May 2007 18 May 2007 – 12 Oct 2007 12 Oct 2007 – 16 Feb 2008 16 Feb 2008 – 10 Aug 2008 10 Aug 2008 – 1 Feb 2009 1 Feb 2009 – 10 March 2009 10 March 2009 – 21 April 2009 21 April 2009 – 15 August 2009 15 August 2009 – 31 January 2010 31 January 2010 – 10 May 2010 10 May 2010 – 15 September 2010 15 September 2010 – 23 July 2011 23 July 2011 – 22 October 2012 22 October 2012 – 23 December 2013 !archive: to end December 2017 !archive to 10 July 2025

Really? You have posted regarding edits I have made twice on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard today alone. Coincidentally, I noticed you also did not comment regarding the failed verification in the section of discussion. May I ask why you are stalking my edits, and reporting them without even discussing them with me? I really try to always assume good faith, but reporting an edit/statement (1) without discussion with the other editor regarding it or (2) without even commenting regarding the aforementioned statement, seems like bad-faith assumptions.

In fact, I would very much go out on a limb to say that the this specific report is hounding. If you had actually commented, or, in this case, even read the full reasoning mentioned at Talk:July 2025 Central Texas floods/Archive 2#Failed verification Notes, you would notice the "failed verification" tag you reported is regarding the term "human-induced", not "climate change" in general. Another editor has pointed that also out in the section.

Please strike your comment there, or please defend on how the term "human-induced" is verifiable based on the source. You directly stated the "failed verification tag" is wrong in your statement..."Looks wrong to me." I will wait to hear your response, or your comment struck on the noticeboard. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, have deleted my comment. Another issue to resolve after some sleep. . . dave souza, talk 01:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry about the confusion, at 1 in the morning (BST) I was struggling to quickly respond to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather RFC which I didn't realise was yours. As an AN question had, quite properly, been knocked back, it seemed to me that a better approach was a heads-up at NPOVN to get more input. Shortly after I notified the RFC discussion, you added the tag and "truncated" edit summary PCC report has failed verification. Post-flood source *only* cite the following three sentences with the 2021 IPCC report ... which I mistakenly thought was the argument that only post-flood sources could be used, making NPOV more difficult, thus adding to the issue I'd raised. As suggested, I'll discuss clarification regarding "human induced" at the relevant talk page. Hope we can soon clear this all up. . .dave souza, talk 14:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good! The edit summary got cut off, which was weird since I didn't go over the character limit for them. But anyway, it is sort of a standard thing to start a talk page discussion once any template is added to an article. No hard feelings and we are good, but maybe you should take an extra second to verify an editor hasn't started a discussion before mentioning them at a noticeboard. Doing that would go a long way to preventing this type of confusion in the future. I'll go ahead and reply/continue the conversation on the article's talk page. Cheers! Have a wonderful day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A grand day, much improved by this outcome after a good rest. Many thanks for your collegiate and helpful resolution of this confusion, a good reminder to bring issues up on talk pages before rushing into editing. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dave souza! Our paths crossed recently amid the various discussions on the talk page of the July 2025 Central Texas floods. I noticed a lot of your edits in the last month related on the topics of weather and politics. I have been working on a new draft/topic that you might be interested in: Draft:Influence of severe weather on American politics. The article focuses on how politics get affected or influenced by severe weather. For example, how Hurricane Helene last year influenced the outcome of the 2024 United States presidential election, or some of the new legislation that comes out as a result of severe weather, such as the TORNADO Act.

Obviously the 2025 Texas floods will be mentioned somewhere in the article, given the political impact they had. But, the article is a generically broad-topic article. I do not know if you would be interested in this topic, but I wanted to let you know about it. If you are interested, feel free to edit and add stuff to the draft article, and if you have any questions, you are always welcome to message me! If you are not interested, just ignore this message. Have a wonderful day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm interested, and will add it to my watchlist, but have a lot on my plate at the moment. May try a quick edit, and won't hold back from citing CNN! . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always glad to have the help! Don't feel pressured to edit it. It is just something to maybe keep in the back of your mind when editing other articles. If you come across one of those instances where weather and politics mix, just copy/paste the info into the draft. This will be a work-in-progress for several weeks to maybe months, since this is basically creating the parent article (and in some cases, even new standalone child articles) for several other topics already on Wikipedia. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also a fun fact P.S., CNN is cited in the lead of the draft (ref 6). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! . . dave souza, talk 13:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is regarding the following question: Should WikiProject Weather encourage the use of infobox collages for weather with standalone articles? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I don't have much interest in infoboxes. . . dave souza, talk 06:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've done good work editing pages related to evolution. You may know that The Voyage of the Beagle does not have GA certification. If it's not at that level, let's get it there! I don't need to tell you it's an important work. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good of you to say so, sounds interesting and will try to assist when time permits, but am rather slow these days. . . . dave souza, talk 06:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Also without GA certification is Dobzhansky's classic essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." It should have one. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can't get on to this now, will try to look at it sometime. . .dave souza, talk 23:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're an expert on evolution, you might be interested in the PBS series Evolution. The page for it needs work, per the template "This article needs additional citations for verification". Maybe you can help me get it up to snuff?

Thank you for your work. Charlie Faust (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert! That looks a useful article, but not someone where I've anything to contribute. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, admitting you're not an expert helps your credibility. Someone who claimed to be an expert but wasn't would be suspect! You seem to know a lot, though. More important, you seem curious. I recommend the series. And even if you don't check it out, please check out the page. Charlie Faust (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dave souza. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that you're still editing. My account (that I'll likely recover after some technical hassle) sometimes received seasonal greetings and wishes from you, so I thought I'd also share this. A little early but I might not be around much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4997Prlfho ~2025-35304-53 (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Am rather slow these days, but trying to keep going. Season's greeting to you! . . .dave souza, talk 17:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Angraecum sesquipedale, known as the Christmas orchid. Darwin, in Fertilisation of Orchids, redicted the existence of a moth with a proboscis long enough to pollinate it. Wallace wrote "That such a moth exists in Madagascar may be safely predicted; and naturalists who visit that island should search for it with as much confidence as astronomers searched for the planet Neptune,—and they will be equally successful!"^[1] Such a moth, Xanthopan, was discovered in 1903.

I've become fascinated by the Illinois long-term selection experiment. It lacks a graphic. This is a striking one.

Thank you for your editing! Charlie Faust (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]