User talk:Hesperian/Archive 46

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

Hi

I appreciate your contributions but I have a small suggestion/constructive criticism, please don't take it as me being defensive.

In the discussion I started on Template Talk:Taxobox you said "It annoys me when people refactor their text after it has been responded to. It falsifies the discussion by misrepresenting what has been replied to."

First of all, to me it seems like you are as assuming malice over ignorance, when I could not have known that you would be annoyed by my action. I merged the two versions after an edit conflict, and I did check before merging to see if the meaning had changed, which would invalidate your reply. But I didn't think then, and still don't think now, that the new wording misrepresents the original, and I feel you totally went against the spirit of my action by undoing the merge of the discussion. Really it's just the disregard of intention that peeves me a bit. Not all contributions on Wikipedia have to be flawless, but when rejecting a flawed contribution without acknowledging or contributing to the intent behind it, your criticism comes off as destructive.

This could totally just be me nit picking and the only reason this is long-winded is because I am inexperienced at writing concisely, not as a representation of the level of damage done to my psyche :) I hope I buttered up the criticism up enough for you to not take it badly. Thanks Ljcrabs (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ljcrabs, I see neither assuming malice nor disregard. Hesperian's reaction is normal, except that Hesperian is being rather more polite than many editors. --Una Smith (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Hesperian! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 80 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Sheena Knowles - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Benj - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is so sourced. The second is an article someone else wrote over the top of a redirect I created. Hesperian 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hesperian's Day!

User:Hesperian has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Hesperian's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Hesperian!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey Moses! Thanks! Hesperian 02:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Algae

WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Wikipedia for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Wikipedia.

And, thanks for a useful project page to plagiarize text and the project banner from, possibly even the user box. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a roll....

I have nominated Banksia sphaerocarpa....at GAN...my new idea is doing the large taxa with 'work left to do' (i.e. possibly undescribed subspecies)...I was just speaking with Alex George about it :)) (hehehe).Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; I've been watching that roll across my watchlist. I had a look last night and saw a few bits I'd like to tweak; but have been deeply immersed in Wikisource:Makers of British botany lately, and didn't get around to it. I'll have a play around today... (maybe). Hesperian 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not broken

Well... obviously you can revert, there are only very two minor edits other than the redirects. The redirects were only pipes, so the visible links remain the same. I don't think any of the redirects struck me as potential stand-alone articles, even if that were the case it's easy enough to fix when you write them. As an editor and as a reviewer, I like to see where the links are really going, and I do the same two-click fix on my own articles while I'm fixing ndashes etc. However, I'll try to remember not to do so on yours in future Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually seen complaints about redirects somewhere - I think it was at FAC. Was sort of aware of NOTBROKEN, but I had pretty much forgotten what it said specifically (i.e, I follow it with potential articles, but I hadn't thought about the value in leaving redirects just to make the underlying text easier to rad). Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

If you haven't read it already, SBHB's "A pocket guide to Arbitration" is useful reading. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, mind if I link to this in my statement? Guettarda (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to treat the arbcomm with appropriate respect is a major infraction. Mockery of such an august and venerable body will not be tolerated. Don't be surprised if you see your pay here docked! Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh-shit-its-only-you. It took me three seconds to take in the signature; three seconds in which I thought I had just jumped into much much deeper shit that I had intended. (Actually I started twigging to the joke when I got to "august and venerable body".) Hesperian 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool! I mean, sorry. Seriously though, anyone with 130,000+ edits (!!!) and a string of FAs and GAs like yours has more than a bit of leeway here. There are still a lot of people around here who value content contributors. And a lot of those people happen to be major content contributors themselves. No matter how wrapped up in themselves the political class around here gets, at some level they still realise what the point of the project is. Guettarda (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You state the faith I lost this week. Hesperian 05:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAs? What GAs? If I have more than a handful to my name, that is only because I collaborate with a gentleman who insists on listing me as co-nom. Hesperian 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You be wanting leeway? There be plenty of it o'er here at WP:YAR! (Hmm, enough. Sorry). Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an interesting experiment to compare the relative content contributions of the most visible names and parties in the recent ArbCom deliberations. Orderinchaos 07:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Aquinas College, Perth

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Aquinas College, Perth/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Hesperian 01:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

If I should happen to go offline shortly for a lengthy period of time, it is because of internet connectivity issues, not because I don't love you any more. Hesperian 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not only because you don't love us. (Joking. Euryalus (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That copyedit was pretty funny; you can't be too careful these days, right? :-D Hesperian 05:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funnier than the joke itself, though that wouldn't be hard. But yes, caution is a virtue. Euryalus (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that advice is apropos of nothing in particular. Thankyou for it all the same. :-) Hesperian 06:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I write ports and ships articles, which are hardly areas of high excitement. Even banksia articles generate more dramatic debate than these. So what would I know? Euryalus (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which reminds me. A few days ago I skimmed a solid scholarly article about the fitting out of HMS Investigator, which unfortunately (from my perspective) was padded out with a lengthy preamble discussing the fitting out of HMS Endeavour. Your FA on the subject doesn't cite it. Next time I'm somewhere near a scanner (which will be more than a week from now), do you want a copy? (Or I could give you a citation right now and leave you to figure out if you can you get your hands on it.) Hesperian 07:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love to. To save your time, try me with the citation if you like, and I'll get back to you if I can't find it. Euryalus (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rigby, Nigel (2005). "'Not at all a particular ship': adapting vessels for British voyages of exploration, 1768–1801". Matthew Flinders and his Scientific Gentlemen. Western Australian Museum. pp. 13–23. ISBN 1920843205. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Though the book is about Flinders' expedition, the first 6 of 10 pages of this chapter deals with Endeavour. And subsequent discussion of the Investigator contains a smattering of references to Endeavour. What might come of it is a sentence or two about how the fitting out of the Investigator was informed by what worked and didn't work with the Endeavour. But like I said I haven't read it, only skimmed over it. Hesperian 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, my resources fail me - a scanned copy would be great when/if you everhave the time. Doesn't sound like they learned a great deal from Endeavour given Investigator's unseaworthiness, but the collier design and internal fitout clearly drew on Cook's voyage. Cook regretted the extra internal deck, which gave a headroom of only four feet - I'd be interested if the Admiralty persisted with it in later exploration collier refits. In passing, there's been an odd addition to HMS Investigator (1798), claiming it was not broken up but renamed Xenophon and returned to service. The editor has experience in ship articles but the source doesn't back the claim - The Argus 3/8/1853 simply notes that a Xenophon entered port, not that it was Flinders' vessel. Any view on which version is right? I'll pursue this at WP:SHIPS or the relevant talk page, just mentioning it here in passing. Euryalus (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just scanned through Rigby, and the last page says "This was by no means the end of HM Sloop Investigator; as I have already mentioned, she served in various capacities for another seventy years...." I've scanned back and forth through it several times looking for what "as I have already mentioned" refers to, and can find nothing. There's no mention of her fate in Estensen's biography of Flinders, nor in Ill-Starred Captains. The ultimate source, which I don't (yet) have, would be Geeson, N. T. and Sexton, R. T. (1970). "H.M. Sloop Investigator". Mariner's Mirror. 56: 275–298.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian 11:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI UWA and state ref -http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/11226264?q=mariners+mirror&c=book if you want a copy within 5 days I can do - cheers Satu Suro 12:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five days is not good enough. Figure out how to get me a copy within five years, then we'll talk. ;-) (But seriously, yes please but don't go out of your way. I have bigger fish to fry. (Yes, I'm talking about content!)) Hesperian 12:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight oil once had a line the beds are burning - methinks part of this house has a bad smell, tyres? Satu Suro 14:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I write articles on extinct local governments and extinct politicians. Even the vandals get too bored by the category page to bother contributing to them. Orderinchaos 07:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthotroche

G'day, yes I just moved it to match the title with the main text and omitted the redirect to leave a redlink. That reminds me, I had started on a stub for the genus offline but forgot to finish it off. Hope you're not offline too long - reading your edit summaries on my watchlist is highly entertaining and much more informative than the Signpost. Melburnian (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Update higher taxonomy", "Update higher taxonomy", "Update higher taxonomy", "Update higher taxonomy", "Update higher taxonomy".... I have no idea what you're talking about. ;-) Hesperian 11:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. DFTT.[reply]

Okay, I admit this one was pretty good. Hesperian 11:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah excellent. I quite liked this one which also sheds light on how most articles are born. Melburnian (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a sad imitation of this, which wouldn't hold a candle to this. Hesperian 12:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL --Melburnian (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

genetic structure

This is one of the remaining thingies at the FAC. I must admit I found the term odd but understandable...need to look into it today....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Just noticed it. Commented on your original post and at AWNB. Luckily, I don't think these shows of force will have any meaningful effect, although I'm suggesting deliberate gaming or anything. It's just another window-dressing. Politics is like that. Like the "education revolution" and graphics calculators and all that. At the end of the day, POV pushing and fraudulent matter can still go on unhindered YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia cuneata

Well done on another FA Gnan garra 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, well done again to the WP:Banksia team. Melburnian (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Banksia dryandroides

On January 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia dryandroides, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For attempting to stand up to Arbcom's ludicrous decision that those purposely disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point were fully justified because they were doing what is "right." ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

x2 nice job Hesperian! Ikip 03:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi Hesperian/Archive 46, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored) Ikip 04:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

back

I'm back online. That was agony. Hesperian 05:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm it's not so bad - you accumulate FAs, DYKs, barnstars and invitations even when you're not around. Melburnian (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats his style summed up completely ;) Satu Suro 05:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. That's funny. An ironic reminder of what we're here for.

Writing content off line is so frustrating. So much of what I do follows a copy-paste-rework methodology. Even if you write new articles from scratch, there is the problem of not knowing whether an article on the topic already exists. In the end I took refuge in Australian amateur phycological collectors. I guess we don't have many articles on them, right? Hesperian 05:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The average user/editor wouldnt even be able to spell it let alone know what it meant :) Satu Suro 05:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds a pretty safe refuge ;) Melburnian (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Douglas Henry

I'm wondering what's going on: the article starts talking about one "Hardy" halfway in. Is this some extensive typo? Circéus (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, how did I manage to do that?! I've moved it to Alfred Douglas Hardy, and cleaned up the Henries. My excuse is that I was trying to write stubs whilst unplugged from the internet for a week. Thanks for picking it up. Hesperian 03:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you....

Talk:Banksia sessilis/GA1 is up. I have done the alt text and answered the quote issue. The next few you might be best placed to tackle. I will try to find my copy of the Dryandra book (I hope it isn't buried too deeply in boxes) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. It might be a few days until I can pick it up, but I'll get there eventually. Hesperian 04:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can scan the relevant pages for you if you want. Hesperian 04:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Will see how I go tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Damn - can't find the Dryandra book, so scanning might be an option. Have found Banksias Waratahs and Grevilleas though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Damn, I didn't bring it with me, so you'll have to wait for tomorrow. Just the sessilis pages? Hesperian 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, at the moment. Unless there are any other dryandras on the cusp of GA-hood....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Banksia acanthopoda is pretty close. Banksia acuminata and Banksia fraseri are only lacking images. The next best one with images is Banksia nobilis. Hesperian 02:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm...acanthopoda is looking pretty good, and the closest to GA-hood I think. Okay, I'll have a look at buffing it and then might be worth placing there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I buffed up the lead, added a ref, wikilinked a couple of things from Guettarda's suggestions for sphaerocarpa and nominated it. May as well keep the production line going. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodonyamate. Hesperian 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get to a scanner tomorrow; sorry. Expect it Friday. Hesperian 14:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get to the varieties - can you shed light on some of the other queries at Talk:Banksia sessilis/GA1? I need to sleep now...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I plan to give sphaerocarpa another once-over; then the sessilis GA comments are next. Hesperian 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scan sent. Hesperian 23:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got 'em. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Once sphaerocarpa is through FAC, sessilis should go next - have you more to add still? I think the GA review was good for massaging it and it is shaping up nicely...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have heaps to add on disease. Mention of P. cinn. is conspicuously absent. The papers I have say (i) it is highly susceptible, and an indicator plant; (ii) phosphite is effective; (iii) phosphite affects plant fertility. Unfortunately I won't have time to work on this until Wednesday night at the earliest. Sit tight. And again my apologies for being so bloody slow these days. Hesperian 14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology goof

Seems like the etymology at Banksia hirta was accidentally copy-pasted from Banksia heliantha. I removed it, but I figured you might like to know ^_^;; Circéus (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey; it is a good thing you're here to fix all my goofs! Thanks. :-) Hesperian 10:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surveyor Generals Corner

Was I naughty? Probably should have left a bit before revert, but I did contact contributor with the reason, and I'm sure it will be resolved amicably. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Just a tad. And I was just a tad pre-emptive. ;-) Hesperian 06:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pelsart Fishing Company

2nd last paragraph. Not sure if you have seen or heard of this before. Anyway, I thought it may be of some interest. See also p6, 21 etc. If its not, just ignore. –Moondyne 10:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paragraph about it in The Western Rock Lobster 2: A History of the Fishery. Apparently they sold fish (fresh and salted), guano, trepang and isinglass; but they still couldn't turn a profit because of the remoteness of the location. The company lasted less than a year. Hesperian 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia sessilis ...and grossa...

This one is tricky at the GAN - [1] - was there any analysis of it anywhere? Otherwise, it is hard when stating the obvious is technically OR and is clearer than leaving the sentence out :/

PS: Started exapnding grossa - around Eneabba and Badgingarra (forgot which now) the grossas looked fantastic in flower - even George Lullfitz, who doesn't think much of the sphaerocarpa group horticulturally, conceded they had potential....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise once again for my tardiness. I'm heading over there now. Hesperian 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you guys should pull the darling scarp and glen forrest stuff from sess lead para I havent dug enough recently to find any good refs on the distribution Satu Suro 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] says nothing about disturbed ground but simply states the geological underpinning of distribution Satu Suro 00:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - two points left at the GAN for sessilis - Hesp the article and the cite tag. The first should be singular and date fixed (?????) Once done, some new papers sounds fun...I reckon this one has shaped up nicely and should be ready to go to FAC once sphaerocarpa is promoted :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF does "Hesp the article" mean? Did you just verb me? Hesperian 05:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds so to me - "to Hesp an article" = "to apply your special touch to the article"? Should this be added to Urban Dictionary? :) Guettarda (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So long as my special touch remains undefined. Actually I think he is talking about the Western Mail article:

Cas, I spent umpteen minutes searching for the original in the Battye library microfilms last year, and couldn't find it. The main problem with that sentence is that it is a victim of a section order re-arrange: it thinks the reader has already read the sentence in #Cultivation#History that says "[I]n 1933 and 1934 The Western Mail published a series of Edgar Dell paintings of Western Australian wildflowers, including a painting of B. sessilis." Hesperian 05:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia paper

Let me know if you don't get it - used to address you have listed on FB. Guettarda (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it; thanks! Hesperian 01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too - terrific :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F-ed up

I realise i need to get off - i thought i was doing something in commons - and it bloody shows up here - could you exterminate with attitude my creation for euc caesia please? Thanks if you can Satu Suro 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All gone. :-) Hesperian 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phew thats a relief its not nice having signs of ones senility staring in ones face :( thanks Satu Suro 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do the same thing myself. I don't think I've ever saved anything in the wrong place, but often I'll search for a Wikipedia topic on Wikisource; or be surprised at how well developed a Wikisource category is, whilst looking at a Wikipedia category. Hesperian 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(p.s. I deleted your logged-out edit elsewhere. Hesperian 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for all that looks like a sign that a lunch is looming so I can take the brunt of all the various joke-able incidents that I am related to recently - Satu Suro 08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to start a dunny-seat award. Hesperian 08:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the sess got a GA - that was a lot of work!

And what a relief you read leaf and branch (to think i have a copy in the big room) Looks good - must get around to loading all my picccies sometime - I look forward to completely overkilling the commons collection of sess photos :) Satu Suro 15:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to go around Perth with that book as a wee kiddie. It is great for what it is great for, but it isn't great as a source here. e.g. if makes the ludicrous claim that "sessilis" means "fit to be sat on". Hesperian 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions decisions....

Sadly, my new house and garden are on heavier soil, so I planning on large amounts of crushed sandstone to make hills for my potted Banksia blechnifolia....however I am buffing up other articles as I read about some alternatives including...(drumroll).... this of which I have just bought 4 vigorous forms :)))) - I also wanna attract some of these into my garden, so what trees to plant....there is a big flock of the critters which flies about the area. The ransacked the Banksia robur cones at my old place one morning...and I've made a hedge of these....etc.

And I still have more boxes to rifle through. All the Eliot & Jones Encyclopedias are buried - the only real book with banksias is Wrigley & Fagg. Back to hunting.... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wet-site WA banksias tolerate poor drainage pretty well, I think, so I guess they might be happy in clay: seminuda, telmatiaea, littoralis, occidentalis, dryandroides, .... Hesperian 04:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tried dryandroides and got it to flowering. It then died :( I was thinking that something as vigorous as seminuda might be interesting on its own roots - other than that there is grafting, which I plan to have a go at sometime :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:IMCRA regions

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category names

Thanks Your note on my talk is taken with gravity. I realize that other users disagree with my preferences and there also isn't a single naming convention that can adjudicate every possible dispute. (E.g., surely the United Nations is more frequently called the "UN", but WP:COMMONNAME alone will not determine the name of the article or the category.) Simply put: 1.) I don't think it makes any sense to have an article and a category about the same topic at different names and 2.) I don't think it makes any sense for a "child" article or subcategory to have a different name than its "parent." Again, this is controversial. Your perspective is taken under advisement. If you would like to respond to me, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of desire for what seem to be logical fits and consistency leads to some horrible mixups - things to do with names of things and usage have to be dealt with individually - case by case - trying to make rules or parts of wikipedia to 'fit' into one schema denies any understanding of the foibles of the real world - however Cfd is riddled with the comment 'to fit the article with the category title' - which I consider a fallacious argument for re-naming of either article or category

And when another Cfd inhabitant asked why the response for the motor-like ripping through a large number of pointless xfd's - many with no support was answered with:

No Just bored, I guess [3]

Suggests that for some the wikipedian the xfd field is a place rather than tv, computer games, or something else - wikipedia would be a much better place if bored 100,000 + edit editors tried something else other than xfd :( Satu Suro 07:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evading ip?

Dear Hesperian, you recently blocked User:ArticlesForRedemption an account with an interest in deleting British and music related articles. An IP registered to Britain has shown up with a flurry of similarly worded AfD delete votes, including in discussions started by the indeffed account. I noticed that while compiling evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwanyewest as it is clear that the IP is somebody, but I am unsure if there is a connection between all three (the two accounts and the IP) or if I am mistaken about the sockmaster and it is just ArticlesForRedemption? In any event, something is not right about this IP (I strongly suspect some kind of vote stacking is going on with it, which is why I think we need a checkuser) and I am therefore interested in your opinion as it concerns an account you recently blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. aquilonia

Friendly neighborhood stalker here. Just pointing out that the Crisp quote in that article had no end quote. I added one, but you'll want to check. Circéus (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. Thanks again. Hesperian 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.