User talk:Allthingsnative

Hello, Allthingsnative, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

Great work

Hey there! Enjoy this cup of tea for your great editing.

Gderrin (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney meetup

Hello Allthingsnative,

You may be interested in this Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September_2018. Some distinguished Wikipedia plant editors including Cas Liber and MargaretRDonald may be there. There are only a few names on the list at the moment but I suspect it will grow. Gderrin (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hakea ambigua

Hi Allthingsnative, Thanks for your edits of plant articles including Hakea ambigua, please be careful not to remove references (unless they are incorrect of course) as you had done for this article. I'm assuming it was an error while adding your own referenced text or am I missing something? Best Regards and keep up the good work. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homoranthus distribution maps

Hi @Allthingsnative:. It was good to meet you the other day at the Wikimedia event. I was looking at Homoranthus occurrence data maps (and added links to them on some of the Homoranthus pages). Would you fancy maps simply of NSW dotted with the occurrence data? Australian maps dwarf the occurrences in such a way that they seem scarcely worth making, which is why I haven't bothered (so far). MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Or of whichever state is appropriate? MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also good to put a face to the name. I left in awe of your work and knowledge. Gderrin has been a great teacher/ mentor, with incredible patience. Being a newbie to the site its all certainly a learning curve for me. I welcome any editing of my editing! The maps would be terrific. Yes I agree maps of the relevant state would be best. I'm doing very basic input on Hakea. I have no idea if this is the right page for replying.Allthingsnative (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Kristine[reply]

{ping|User:Allthingsnative}}{Yes it's good but it's safer if you ping me using {{ping|User:MargaretRDonald}} (look in the source code at how I pinged you.) I only found your message because having written on your talk page, it is automatically on my watchlist - which I happened to check.... So any page to write on: mine or yours, but ping me. P,S. You are doing a great job. MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

using young

I have a copy of one of the young hakea books - I would however defer/check info on the west australian florabase online as well... As has been said above - great work, you are doing magnificently - and thank you!!! JarrahTree 06:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC) @JarrahTree: I don't know if I am "pinging" still in the right place. Thank you for your comments and will certainly take your advice. Still early days for me I'm counting my contributions in weeks. My "tutor" is on respite, so will continue to do basic edits until I have a few more questions answered. And extremely envious of your WA flora. Cheers, Kristine[reply]

Maps for Homoranthus

Hi Christine. I have added occurrence maps for all Homoranthus species except for those where the herbaria specimens numbered less than 8. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hakea sulcata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Allthingsnative. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Allthingsnative. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hakea pulvinifera

On 16 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hakea pulvinifera, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the shrub Hakea pulvinifera (pictured) was first described in 1962, believed extinct in 1971, and rediscovered in 1988? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hakea pulvinifera. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hakea pulvinifera), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Hovea rosmarinifolia

Hello, Allthingsnative,

Thanks for creating Hovea rosmarinifolia! I edit here too, under the username Boothsift and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I think a picture would also be nice, but that is entirely up to you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boothsift}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

The One and Only Boothsift 05:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Veronica perfoliata

On 23 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Veronica perfoliata, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that digger's speedwell is so named because it was thought to indicate the presence of gold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Veronica perfoliata. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Veronica perfoliata), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting again

Hi @Allthingsnative: Good to meet you again yesterday. I essentially restored Geoff's etymology to Olearia phlogopappa, while also adding a link to Labillardiere. Curious to see whether it will be removed again.... Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. Couldn't find an email link for you?? MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Allthingsnative

Thank you for creating Brachyscome ascendens.

User:Blythwood, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Rather than linking only the taxobar to the Wikidata item, it's much better to properly link the whole article to Wikidata, as I've done here. This means you don't need to put any parameters in the taxobar, and links the article immediately to any articles in other languages or often to a Wikimedia Commons category. Hope that makes sense!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Blythwood (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much

for your new edits in the biota area - much appreciated

just one small quibble - the talk page had WA as location,the category mainspace had tasmania, and the text of article had vic and nsw. I have tagged as nsw and vic. I may be very wrong as to what is what, please correct me where i am wrong

have a very good new year and hopefully more new items for the biota parts of things !!JarrahTree 00:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Thank you, you are totally correct. When I was doing the edit it pinged my brain but my memory later failed me. Finally learning to upload images, thankfully with much help from Gderrin, my wee brain was a touch addled. Thank you again. And a happy New Year to you and yours. Allthingsnative (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pimelea aeruginosa moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Pimelea aeruginosa, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing the primary author in BHL

Hi @Allthingsnative: So glad to see all your exemplary articles (always well referenced and informative). However, when you are referencing the primary author (which you always do unlike so many other editors), I think you should reference it in something like the way I have done for Pimelea angustifolia, where I have referenced it as a journal article, and in a manner so that it looks almost identical to that of APNI where it appears as "Mueller, F.J.H. von (1869), Fragmenta Phytographiae Australiae 7(50): 2 " - which leads to a second point: Rather than citing APC which is fairly uninformative (it neither gives the APC tick of approval nor the original article), I think it is better to use APNI which you can do relatively easily by writing {{APNI2|id=66704|name=Pimelea angustifolia}}. I hope you will find these comments useful rather than offensive... MargaretRDonald (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MargaretRDonald: A problem. Citing APNI in that way gives the plant name in Roman lettering when it should be in italics. Binomials (and titles of works like Fragmenta Phytographiae Australiae) should always be in italics, including in citations. ( I don't know why APNI lists it like that - perhaps because it's a secondary reference. Also id=66704 is the link to P. aeruginosa. The link should be {{APNI2|id=66826|name=Pimelea angustifolia}} - except that again, the binomen is not in italics.) Gderrin (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gderrin:. I take your point about italics although that is easily dealt with: {{APNI2|id=66826|name=''Pimelea angustifolia''}} But far more important than italics (in my view) is that the use of the apni link tells us whether or not the name is accepted by Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria (with its little red tick). MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authority for binomial name

Hi @Allthingsnative:. As stated as a secondary concern above, the APC references you are giving for names, fail to show that the name is the accepted name. That is they fail the very purpose of citation, where at this point you are trying to justify the name as an accepted name, not simply a name together with an author. MargaretRDonald (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The APC reference you have given for Pimelea angustifolia (and other species) is perfectly adequate. At the top of the page is "The Australian Plant Census (APC) is a list of the accepted scientific names for the Australian vascular flora, ferns, gymnosperms, hornworts and liverworts, both native and introduced, and includes synonyms and misapplications for these names."^[1] Gderrin (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Pimelea angustifolia". Australian Plant Census. Retrieved 22 February 2020.

one line stubs

it would be really great if there was the possibility of a location of occurrence in one liners, otherwise they look very lonely out there, anywhere on the continent... But thanks for any new articles, much appreciated !!! JarrahTree 11:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning JT, I surely will later today. Thank you Allthingsnative (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian biota project

Has got to a new stage of its progress in this confusing and chaotic world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown-importance_Australian_biota_articles = 0. Please help by when creating new biota articles for australia, to make sure the unassessed page stays the way it is adequately tagged, or please ask for help in doing so... More on the next stages of the Australian biota project soon... and thanks for whatever you have done for the project in any way since 2006 - JarrahTree 05:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etymological edits

Please respect this call of TelosCricket and revert your recent etymological edits. Here you have deleted the original etymology of the first describing authors. And here you have stated that -phyllus would be Greek for "leaves" that is also incorrect. Wimpus (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my request to revert your recent etymological edits, you continu to make etymological edits and you seem to ignore the call of TelosCricket and my message on your talk page. You seemed to have used to a large extend the modus operandi of Gderrin (using Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words for OR, using Sharr and George's Western Australian plant names and their meanings that mislabels numerous words as Greek) since you started editing here (although not surprisingly as you refer to Gderrin as: "Gderrin has been a great teacher/ mentor"). @Johnuniq: do you think it is better if Allthingsnative would stop making any etymological edits in the meantime? Wimpus (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthingsnative: Collaboration is required at Wikipedia. Please stop what you are doing and respond. Significant discussions have occurred at the administrators' noticeboard (ANI September 2019 + ANI May 2020) and I am an administrator attempting to reduce disruption. I have not yet examined the issue that Wimpus has raised here but I assume the suggestion is that etymologies are being devised by an editor who is giving the meaning of various parts of a technical term, as found in what is essentially a dictionary. If that is the case, it is original research and is not permitted. Please do not make any further edits regarding etymologies until consensus has been reached. @Wimpus: Please notify me if you think an administrative response is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allthingsnative and thanks for your work creating and editing articles about Australian native plants. (I don't think Johnuniq means for you to stop editing altogether.) I don't know what the problem is here. I have the same edition of Sharr and know that it could not be construed as a dictionary. I also don't know what is meant by "you have deleted the original etymology of the first describing authors [sic]". The first describing author of Dryandra stricta, Alex George gave stricta "from the Latin strictus (straight)". Mast and Thiele did not describe Banksia strictifolia. They merely changed the name from Dryandra stricta to Banksia strictifolia and incorrectly gave strictus as from Greek, but the derivation in Sharr gives the Latin, refers specifically to Banksia, and I'm reasonably sure Wimpus would agree with it. Gderrin (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned "further edits regarding etymologies" but I'm hoping that some engagement with the points raised by Wimpus will occur. Collaboration really is required. It's OK to ignore trolls but Wimpus is an editor in good standing and their objections were found to have merit by independent people in the ANI discussions linked above. As I explained at ANI, it is not acceptable here to say that "X comes from Y" unless a reliable source, in the context of a discussion about X draws that conclusion. That is a fundamental part of Wikipedia's core policies (specifically, WP:SYNTH). The suggestion, that I have not examined but which I'm hoping an RfC will investigate, is that various references give generic scientific terms along with their English meanings. Assembling an etymology from such a source would violate WP:SYNTH and is what I am referring to as consulting a dictionary. It would be best to avoid editing etymologies altogether until a lengthy RfC thrashes out the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: The source used by Allthingsnative (F.A.Sharr) is not a dictionary. It was first published in 1978 and its third edition has been edited by Alex George, a distinguished Australian botanist who has studied Latin to tertiary level. This book gives the derivation of the names of all 1623 genera and 12,600 species of vascular plant in Western Australia. The entry on page 315 of the book quoted by Allthingsnative, "Western Australian Plant Names and their meanings - a glossary" has:

"strictifolius: L strictus straight + -folius -leaved: [Banksia]."

How can that not be a valid, reliable source? I am sorry, but I do not know how consensus can be reached with Wimpus. Gderrin (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus with Wimpus can be reached by calmly engaging with their points, so thank you for providing details of an example. The issue is Banksia strictifolia which Wimpus edited on 27 July 2019 with text including "Strictus is not attested in ancient Greek" with reference to what is essentially a dictionary. That means the edit by Wimpus might be dubious even if it were factually correct, although that does not seem relevant to what is now in the article. I assume that the "[Banksia]" in your quote from Sharr indicates that Banksia strictifolia is an example of the usage of the strictifolia epithet. @Wimpus: Are you objecting to the 06:22, 6 June 2020 edit by Allthingsnative? Why? Bear in mind that when I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, and that would apply to botanical terms. It would not be helpful to argue that a reliable source for botanical terminology was slightly incorrect in its stated explanation. Also, what the original authors thought has been overruled by the subsequent renaming of the species, so their explanation of obsolete terminology does not seem relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote (in inverted commas) from Sharr/George is verbatim with precisely the same bold, the same italics and the same [Banksia] (except that I forgot to italicise the genus). There is only one species in W.A. with the specific epithet strictifolia. The calm egagement referred to has been tried by me and several other editors but Wimpus always wants the last say. The others appear to have given up trying. Gderrin (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, one should not make any kind of etymological edits, that are part of the current discussion, as it would lead to disruption. Second, etymology consists of what the original describing authors thought the derivation would be, as well as the "true sense" of the word. Gderrin correctly identifies Mast and Thiele as the authors who have transferred the epithet to another genus (instead of being the describing authors). So, technically, they are not the original describing authors (and I have misidentified them as such) and Gderrin might be correct in this case. Rather confusingly, Gderrin also states in another discussion: "There is no requirement that the etymology given by the describing authors must be included.". So, technically he suggest that also the etymology by the describing authors can be replaced by a source like Sharr and George. Given this confusion, I think it would be better not to make any etymological edits in the meantime.

With respect to the epithet strictifolia: as the original epithet is stricta (for Dryandra) and not strictifolia, Mast and Thiele, were the first to coin this epithet for this shrub. They might not be the describing authors, but they are still the authors that introduced strictifolia. Wimpus (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in this case, Sharr and George's etymology seems sound, but in this other edit of Allthingsnative I have mentioned earlier, claiming that microphyllus is Greek, Sharr and George seems to provide a false etymology (or presented the etymology in such a way, that it can easily be misinterpreted by readers that are unfamilar with Latin and Greek). I have had numerous discussions with Gderrin about Sharr and George and pointed repeatedly to Gderrin that Sharr and George label words as Greek, that are not real Greek words at all. Although Alex George might have studied Latin to tertiary level, his linguistic efforts are not without criticism. In a review of his A primer of botanical Latin with vocabulary (he co-wrote with Emma Short) it is mentioned: The book is generally accurate but just not quite accurate enough for a reference work. So, it is rather naïve to claim "How can that not be a valid, reliable source?", as Gderrin knows that the multiple edits that sourced Sharr and George are contested. Wimpus (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe we can check whether "The specific epithet (microphyllum) is from the Greek microphyllus, micro- meaning "small" and -phyllus meaning "leaves".^[1]" is consistent with the source used. Do Sharr and George label microphyllus as Greek? And do Sharr and George label -phyllus as (plural) "leaves"? According Gderrin, in the case of gamophylla, Sharr and George label -phyllus as "-leaved". Wimpus (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthingsnative: although I do doubt whether the information in Sharr and George is consistent with more reliable sources, I also doubt whether your edit reflects the etymology as provided by Sharr and George. Could you therefore give a verbatim quote of Sharr and George? Thanks in advance. Wimpus (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have corrected a typo, but I still doubt whether it is now fully consistent with the information from Sharr and George. Did Sharr and George indicate that microphyllus is Greek? But, you shouldn't have added the etymological information in the first place, and I still request that you revert your recent etymological edits. Wimpus (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder - there are no degrees of reliability in Wikipedia. If anybody has doubts about the reliability of a source, it can be challenged at WP:RSN. Gderrin (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read also the response of Someguy1221:

"This is not about difference of opinion between reliable sources about the derivation of a name, ... there is no such thing as a source that is "reliable" for literally everything ...an author can be a recognized expert in botany but also not a recognized expert in the ancient Greek language. If a botanist writing about the etymology of a name literally invents a new spelling for a Greek word (or invents an entirely new word), this is not a matter of opinion."

Alex George is not a recognized expert on the ancient Greek language. So, if Alex George would claim that microphyllus is ancient Greek, while recognized experts on the ancient Greek language claim otherwise, it is not about difference of opinion between reliable sources. The recognized experts in ancient Greek can in that case be considered as the reliable sources, while Alex George's statement is merely questionable. Wimpus (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Allthingsnative, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Francis Aubie Sharr (2019). Western Australian Plant Names and their Meanings. Kardinya, Western Australia: Four Gables Press. p. 252. ISBN 9780958034180.

[APC-1] "Pimelea angustifolia". Australian Plant Census. Retrieved 22 February 2020.

[Sharr-2] Francis Aubie Sharr (2019). Western Australian Plant Names and their Meanings. Kardinya, Western Australia: Four Gables Press. p. 252. ISBN 9780958034180.

[1]

[1]