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.
Can you have a look at my redirects section on my talk page. I think its quite valuable, provided 2 of many refs to support it. It appears your online, and i dont know any other WA's on. Thanks alot. TwentyYears02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your threshold is higher than mine in respect of certain redirects. I recall a time when we had several hundred pointing to the article at one stage. —Moondyne03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having fought and negotiated for and ultimately won the right to interfere in TY's activities on wiki, I find myself reluctant to exercise that right unless I am absolutely certain it is for the greater good. I guess I'm just a bleeding heart libertarian. Hesperian03:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're very kind. :) I think he will pass and he'll probably be a very good admin but I personally just don't feel comfortable with it. Anyway, thanks, your message was very kind. Sarah04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely no idea why that took place - I'm still in Dongara atm, will review properly when I get back. On cursory look, I'd have no opposition to the history being restored. Orderinchaos07:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can i move this page All Saints College Western Australia? to All Saints College, Perth? also Chisolm Catholic College (Perth) to Chisolm Catholic College, Perth?
Im getting worried that my WP:WA assesments arent going thru, is it normal that this page doesnt automatically update with new info? does it do it every day or something? Cheers TwentyYears12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issues. However, if you do that,you can't really get out of merging the Meissner and Bentham arrangements too.Circeus18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ..! Ya don't see craftsm'nship like that any more. It's amazing you are doing it under GFDL, if it is credited at all. But a credit you are - to a nation not reknowned for speaking real good. We may have to export you. Best regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have forgotten your last official pronouncement on the status of the article - some generous outsider suggests too long - I have some annotation I wish to put in now that Ive found luke pens book - is it worth the gnashing and gnarling of the gyre (fred will appreciate that maybe) and gimble in the wabe (no apologies to lewis carroll or his mates), or are you gonna leave it as is? SatuSuro02:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cheers re the breakup or unitary state - twas brillig and the slivey toves (today is remember every jabberwocky, hunting of the snark and john lennon quote sats might remember day) - ok cheers SatuSuro02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed for the stub called Members of the Western Australian Legislative Council, 1832-1870 (it crept up there over time) - it deserves mention for its artistry and sheer tenacity with difficult material well done!SatuSuro04:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thankyou indeed. But it didn't creep up there over time at all - it was essentially complete before it was rated. I must remember to tease the rater unmercifully over that one. Hesperian07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
¿Qué pasa? Canarias, Ceuta y Melilla no son dependencias de España, no son una parte subordinada a España sino una región (Canarias) y dos ciudades (Ceuta y Melilla) dentro de España. España está situada entre dos continentes: Europa y África. Creo que los anglosajones creéis que todos los países son como los vuestros, y eso no es cierto. Gracias, y saludos. Arzautz13:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translation:What's happened? Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla are not dependences of Spain, are not a part subordinated to Spain but a region (Canary) and two cities (Ceuta and Melilla) inside Spain. Spain is placed between two continents: Europe and Africa. I think that the Anglo-Saxons believe that all the countries are like your, and it is not true. Thank you. Arzautz13:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... your edit [2] here and am inspired by the light blue redlink to sign up there. The image I threw in was from NLA, btw. I imagine any questions I have, regarding this venture, can be gleaned from what you have done already. Cheers, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specific specimen? Why yes, but that turned out to be a typo ;) It is a nice space, and quiet. A poorly remembered quote comes to mind.
There was an incessant barking from the large dogs kept on the grounds, but it was not a problem.
Yeah - I contacted the earlier editor on all this and the comment was Yes. It's been quite a while now since I wrote that initial article and I have encouragement to see it being improved. I hope you remember the difference between a shield and basement rock , or platform, if it is merged. so thats it for the moment SatuSuro07:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
tell me about it :) - check out the nightmare in the making at geography of western australia - it looms like what we are discussing for almost every possible sentence in an article like that. (deep sigh) SatuSuro12:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how prescient or indeed perspicacious of you. Enough to make me want to go back to the list of pastoral leases and finish it first I can tell you SatuSuro12:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but they are pretty flowers and they just love being photographed, seriously thanks I was looking to increase the range of image variations for that article since its natural habitat is was so close to home. I'll remember to do more barking with other species as well. Also got seeds to extract will do that as well, then photograph. Gnangarra14:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to pick Platylobium formosum but it might be a waste of time. The writing seems to be on the wall for this sort of thing. There is a vendetta with the Fabaceae family, could be merged with Art Bean's gang. It could all turn out like the family above.
Btw, I altered the Pimlea (I had it at one stage :P) image following the format you used. The new one as well. Regards Fred ☻ 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate goal is to separate plants from animals (and perhaps fungi, but I havent yet run into any). If we need to do a mass rename we could commission a bot to do it or ask categories for discussion. In addition to your species/subspecies dilemma, we also have at least four other issues:
What to do about the many genera that have been wholesale-labelled as "invasive species" (I already removed the category from fire ant because I thought it was inappropriate to label all 280+ fire ants as "invasive species," especially as we already have an article on red imported fire ant, which is more narrowly-tailored).
I've asked Circeus to have a look at it (it makes good companion to B integrifolia)- it's amazing how polished you left it and the more I think about it the more I think we should run it through FA. I can take the strain batting off the criticisms and fixes if you're busy. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the only Banksia related section I could find, it was probably not worth starting a new one for this, which I noticed after I made a change. It is a bit vague according to henrietta, have you looked any deeper into it? When you have an idle moment and feel like moving into a fierce territory. Fred ☻
Regardless of whatever your personal opinions are of other editors, would you please just sit on it for a while, because the way you have been going in the last week is putting you into a very tenious position where even I am starting to hear of the disturbances in the force. Granted, you may have invested a bit of time writing the article in question, but the user who rated it in a manner which drew your ire has learnt to steer clear of this kind of work until he has a better grasp of things. Myself and other project members are in constant contact with the user, and we now have a solid program of works and some time management principals in place for him which caters to the type of work he feels comfortable doing, and will help him become a better editor. For the benefit of both yourself and the user in question, please forward any future concerns you may have regarding the user via either Gnangarra, Moondyne, Orderinchaos, or myself if you can bring yourself to do that. Thewinchester(talk)08:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
whether you think it appropriate or not, you have an agreement in place and as Hesperian unblocked you ultimately his actions will also be judge by your actions within the greater wikipedia community so you need to accept thhose conditions or you'll be blocked again. Gnangarra10:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fair enough, and i do accept your apology. In future i do hope that you and i can sort out or differences for the sake of the encyclopedia. I look forward to working with you in the not-too-distant future so that you may better understand how i function, and i can better understand how you function. I understand that you were merely trying to get your point across, and i think i learnt one valuable lesson from last night: "dont do repetative shit when ur too tired to concentrate". In the future, i think i will try to work with you on a few projects, including some Western Australian MP's, something which you may not realise i am interested in (and i think you are too). Anywho, best wishes. TwentyYears13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, you win the ... Anyway, I followed your example when the image was uploaded and gave a full description to the image, the source, and the provenance. I suspect if someone did look deeply enough into it, they might find more than the dodgey identification of a plant. I initially thought it was a sad example of the species, painted after three weeks on board a ship. I had some suspicion, not as well cast as your own, after uploading under an erroneous name - of course. I had better get to the bottom of it, splashing latin all over the common like that, it is a nice plant that I happen to know. Anything I find could be used in the associated the article, Platylobium formosum subsp. parviflorum, which, I am assuming, is Mr. Smith's second 'species' on that page. Fred ☻ 05:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brearlery - couldnt work out what was going on - it looked odd rather than broken. oh well - I obviously need new glasses. hmmm SatuSuro02:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the state of the article when I got there[3], there was little to salvage. But more importantly, I saw an opportunity to introduce Theo's Run into the town article which gives it, together with the Field Day section a critical mass. I agree that it is encyclopaedic but cannot ever see much beyond 3 or 4 sentences, and so a redirect seems the sensible outcome. —Moondyne06:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes me want to do a series on all the ag shows. esp. the Wagin Woolorama (Grant65 would know about that I'd guess) - the place with the ram with the world's largest testicles. —Moondyne06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed your copyfraud essay (well not actually yours but the one you copied) but wondered about the legalities of its own copyright status. Now that its gone, I can ask. —Moondyne07:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got a barnstar for making Hungry Hungry Hippo a redirect to Hungry Hungry Hippos. A fauna barnstar for plant articles? KP Botany20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know juniper taught at hale and ggs - but i cannot remember seeing anything about him being a student at either - do you know one way or other? SatuSuro 05:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC) am getting the new glasses next week - sorry about that : | SatuSuro05:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw - thank you very much for your patience and explanation viz copyright at geog of wa talk page - it bet the whole fiasco of c-right in this goldfishbowl tests all concerned : | SatuSuro07:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That guy sounds like he got whacked over NPOV somewhere else on Wikipedia and is trolling over it... I can't see any other reason for that pattern of editing, right off at the start. While there are some good, even excellent additions, the NPOV warring is silly. Circeus19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to require him to source every sentence he makes. He did some good work, but that was only a byproduct of what appears to be a serious quackery--and I think that word is appropriate in this case. Please fact check every sentence of his on talk pages, requiring him to provide references. He has none as this appears to be a belief system. The article, by the way, is looking great, Circeus. KP Botany20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a suggestion on Aurors talk page regarding our Probationary blocks, and was just after the four (involved) WP:WA admins thoughts on it, i would ask you to leave your thoughts on this proposal in that part of the page please. Thank you for taking this into consideration, best wishes. TwentyYears14:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other night - i was 100% correct - he he. But, after seeing your swift action on trust, I didn't really sleep worrying needlessly I might be wrong - but, all the evidence was there, clear as day. --Merbabu12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up your edits, it appears you had dupliacted the history and campus sections, so i just deleted the first use of each section. Hope this is ok. Im your partial revert, you also left the list of school sports facilities, which to my mind is somewhat unenclopedic. Also the schools mission/mission statement, which in the eyes of some wiki-commentators is blaitant POV pushing. Please consider some of these thoughts...Cheers. TwentyYears12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... that the 36 vol publication, English Botany, came to be known as 'Sowerby's Botany' because the botanist wished to remain anonymous?
... that despite the publication of the new species in 1793, the final part of Spec. Bot. New Holland was not issued until 1795? [citation needed]
... that the innovation of detailed colour plates did not impress the botanist James Edward Smith, who contended the images were merely ancillary to the description?
Hi Hesperiam, by coincidence I was analyzing this source (Brummitt) now and I noticed some mistakes, basically in the Brazilian areas, but nothing problematic, but he refers the
areas more for recording plant distributions, what is different from floristic areas, that are much more scientific, based on the work of Good, 1947, taking into consideration not only the geopolitics, but also vegetation type, climate, relief, latitude, pluviometric regimen and endemisms rate. But if you want to continue using this source (that is very important!) I won't object this, not at all. I am really thinking difficult to classify for floristic regions, because there is no unanimity and it lacks an article about this in Wikipedia, only Provinces based on Takhtajan, endorsed by Brummitt (but it is about provinces). Thanks. Berton00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hesperian, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, GiggyUCP04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah was there today looking from outside the fence I wasnt able to positively ID any seedlings, I'll go back over the weekend and .... get a closer look Gnangarra12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to let this stand, per the right to vanish. But it is you whose comments have been refactored; I have no objection to you reverting. Its up to you. Hesperian11:40, 20 July 2007 (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.
_-cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_Alt.png)
