User talk:Dave souza

; 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;

Handy Hint

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.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Toadspike	63	0	2	100	Open	16:26, 9 October 2025	6 days, 19 hours	no	report

Targeting Much?

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#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]

A topic you might be interested in

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]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather has an RfC

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]

Voyage of the Beagle

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]