User talk:Hesperian/Archive 47

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.

Gasp

a desert like talk page - may i orfishially congrat u on the sesselis FA status - may you not be detrimentally afflicted by such an achievement - there are many more erbs and orests as yet un touched by you that need the gift of the dab hand and the skill of coping with FA gate keepers - for that alone you must deserve a round or two - whenever Satu Suro 13:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. I rather feel as though all I do is write content. When it comes to the FAC spit'n'polish, I must defer to Cas. Hesperian 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, content is overrated. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit. I hope I didn't just dish Cas a backhanded compliment. He writes more content than me, actually; and he does the FAC polishing.

In hindsight, I find it hard to believe I constructed a non-sarcastic sentence around "all I do is write content". :-)

Hesperian 03:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common names

You reverted what I had done before I had a chance to add the citation. Citation is now added - thanks.Granitethighs 04:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperian, you seem to like throwing your weight around. In the light of our common interests I would have hoped that you would use whatever authority it is you have in a more constructive and productive way. I do not take what you have said lightly and suggest that you live up to your claims - there is not one rule for me and another for you. I referred to a particular article making the statement that modern scientific taxonomy is "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles." The article was by Raven, Peter H., Berlin, Brent, Breedlove, Dennis E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. Science. New Series 174(4015): 1210-1213. The citation was to page 1210. I do not have that reference to hand but I take my research sufficiently seriously to trust my judgement. I agree that if I have made an error then I should at least humbly recognize both the error and its import. If I have made a mistake then I will willingly no longer edit on Wikipedia. However, having said that, then the reverse must apply. If I am correct then you should immediately withdraw from editing and, if you do not, then I shall suggest in the appropriate arena that you be permanently blocked. Your approach is not a helpful one. I shall be interested to hear your response and explanation - especially if you have immediate access to the article. There remains the question of why you should take the approach that you have taken. I think that on the talk page to Common Names this becomes clear from a previous altercation. Unfortunately it seems you have, over a long period, maintained resentment about unimportant things said in the past (which I had long since forgotten).Granitethighs 05:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what I have written and think you might assume I have avoided the content of the rest of the paragraph. As I hope you would know, the origins of scientific binomial nomenclature in "folk" taxonomy - which is what it is describing, is often referred to in botanical texts. I can easily find other references if that is what is at issue (though I suspect it is not). Granitethighs 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article - thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was well worth reading. Reading it, you see how radically the DNA revolution changed our thinking. But as for the applicability of that article as a reference - no, it doesn't support the paragraph. Not even kinda. Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

editing others talk page contributions.

You really should have talked to me first explained why you think it inappropriate for those postings before editing them. I clearly do not think it inappropriate to advertise this debate more widely. Did you know it was talking place? Even if you think it is not related to the other talk pages, there is clearly a link between WP:RM and the RfC because I have made it in the RfC. So for the moment I will only restore that edit and await you comments on my talk page as to why you think the other posting are inappropriate. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really should not have spammed that message across a series of unrelated project talk pages, PBS. I stand by my removal of them as "completely unrelated".

"I clearly do not think it inappropriate to advertise this debate more widely." Nor do I, so that's one straw man we needn't waste our time beating.

"Did you know it was talking place?" Yes. It is the stupidest idea I've heard in years, and I opposed it just like you did, for much the same reasons.

"Even if you think it is not related to the other talk pages, there is clearly a link between WP:RM and the RfC because I have made it in the RfC." ... which makes it a biased post, arguably in a biased forum. At least the others were neutral.

Hesperian 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously missed my request "await you comments on my talk page"

If you do not think it inappropriate and as I was advertising in places where there are editors who's opinion I value (even if I do not always agree with them), and as the format was neutral, I do not see why you removed them without discussing it with me first, and you still have not explained why you think the RfC is "completely unrelated" to the talk pages of the three content polices. Instead IMHO you chose to interpret the sentence in the narrowest context possible without giving a constructive answer, which is a shame as it does no one any favours.

Rather than answering yes, it would have been more informative for me to tell me where you heard about it (as that might help explain why you think my posts were inappropriate).

My posting to the talk page of WP:RM was neutral and gives the editors there who disagree with what I said about WP:RM a chance to say so in a forum where I have raised it. -- PBS (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You still have not explained why you think the RfC is "completely unrelated" to the talk pages of the three content polices." An explanation is unnecessary. I have complete confidence in your ability to guess, correctly, why I think an RfC on desysopping is "completely unrelated" to the Manual of Style. Hesperian 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- PBS (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Ta. Hesperian 01:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Maybe its rutting season in the himalayas? the goats or one of the other fauna in the vicinity? you seem to have a few rocks that keep falling your way when you call rock! - I think a hard hat might be insufficient for the populating goats and their fallout... hmm maybe I was thinking, maybe it is duck? Or maybe something that rhymes... But then it is Friday... Have a safe one Satu Suro 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Adenanthos cacomorphus

On March 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adenanthos cacomorphus, 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.

-- Cirt (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one mate, and thank you for this. A beautiful genus ... — cygnis insignis 13:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. I'm working on the taxonomy now. This is one of those species that Labillardiere published without so much as a dip of the hat to Leschenault, who collected the specimen it is based on. Hesperian 13:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? :-) cygnis insignis 13:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says Ernest Charles Nelson and Denis Carr, though Edward Duyker is a little more cautious. I'll hit save within five minutes or so, and then you can read all about it. ;-) Hesperian 13:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hi. I didn't come here to harass you, argue, etc. I will only say one thing: "Admins". Theoretically, admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard of behavior. I know it never, never works that way, but that's the way it should be anyhow. So if you have an axe to grind against you-know-who (and I don't care if you do or not), then as an admin you should either be calm, or be silent. But. Admins never do either. So I'm wasting my time. But at least I tried.
I bear you no ill will; I just categorically disagree with your actions. I'll watch for a reply here, but if you're pissed at me, I won't reply again. later • Ling.Nut 05:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as "I hold admins to a higher standard than I hold myself", and gave up. Hesperian 05:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking sides; I'm not. That's the key point. But whatever. Cheers. • Ling.Nut 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is the key point now? Is it that an personal attack is a personal attack, no matter what?[1] Or is it that a personal attack is a personal attack but only if an admin did it?[2] Or is it that a personal attack is a personal attack but only if you're taking sides?[3] After all this dissembling, I find myself no less inclined to think that a personal attack is a personal attack but only if you're not Ling.Nut.[4] Hesperian 09:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi cas. It may seem like I am taking nancy's side. I am not. I don't care one way or the other about the article or about who is the good guy or who is the bad guy. I was only saying, the crappy nyaa nyaa boo boo talk was childish. Very childish. And counterproductive. And violation of NPA. That's all. • Ling.Nut 07:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's overflow from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church#to Civility Police: View by Harmakheru & NPA, Cas. Hesperian 09:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't attacked anyone, at all.. I would say "never" but then I dunno about diffs from a long time ago...though I have in this recent context scolded people for attacking others. If you think I've attacked someone, H., drag me off to ANI. However, unless you do that, I'm disengaging now. I don't see this as going anywhere. I am saddened. • Ling.Nut 14:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going without addressing this? I too am saddened, though not surprised. Hesperian 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Oh! Sorry. I will answer your question. In the context of a topic-related RFC, the other editor started a thread which is nothing.. and I .. do.. mean.. nothing.. but pure, unadulterated ad hominem. Please do take a moment to read it. It is absolutely... nothing... but "Nancy this, Nancy that" and accuses her of WP:OWN etc etc. It is... adjectives would only fan the flames. It is off-topic. It is ad hominem. And it is an attack. Please. Read it. See if anything there is about the three options to improve the Wikipedia article about RCC. Anything? Nope. Not a word. It's ad hominem. I ask you, how does it improve the encyclopedia? Answer: it does nothing to improve the encyc. How doses it attack nancy and Xandar? It does nothing else. • Ling.Nut 14:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hi. I'm not trolling. You are one of them, just letting you know that I know ... Oh! you dispute the Truth of that common sense fact? Then fix this to my satisfaction (not that I'm interested). Bye! [some wingnut]

Executive summary by cygnis insignis at 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This. There, have a seal of approval. Circéus (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My version of what I thought I read is so complicated I didnt understand it myself Satu Suro 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia FARC

Evening Hesp. Since you were one of main old hands with this article, I'm sending you a personal appeal to hepl stop the flagship article from carking it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate. Was I?! Hesperian 09:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. But nevertheless a pile of old Australian fauna articles and other stuff are close to carking it at WP:URFA, see the list of old unreviewed FAs, and so is Yagan, all due to lack of cites, so you might want to pre-empt the FAR and cite Yagan and the others, if you are into them YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I want to care about Yagan. I really do. Maybe the caring will come before the star goes. Hesperian 09:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got distracted...

dammit, with the death toll of western banksias in my garden fairly significant, one thing I can grow (at least some of the time) is Telopea speciosissima - I just need to sort out the technical stuff about flower structure and pollination...still waiting on a reply on photos for oligantha - I also wrote to the author of the cuneata/oligantha study who is now in canberra. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too busy for anything until Thursday. I'm still on Adenanthos at the moment, but I'll be happy to pitch in to T. speciosissimaa, so long as some day we find our way back to B. ilicifolia. ;-) Hesperian 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I was thinking A. cuneatus was heading towards GAN, once it had a bit of work on pollinators, unless you think one of the others is closer? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of tonight I think A. sericeus has more GA potential. Hesperian 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I/we need to do is to harvest the non-banksia-specific sources from the banksia FAs, and have a look in them for adenanthos info e.g. Food of Australian Birds, Breeding and mating systems of Australian Proteaceae, The responses of native Australian plant species to Phytophthora cinnamomi, Australian Seeds, etc. Hesperian 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. From the abstract of Wiens et al (1979), "Pollen loads of honey possums (Tarsipes spenserae) and nonflying mammal pollination in southwestern Australia" Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 66(4): "Tarsipes also visits typically bird-pollinated plants such as Banksia coccinea and Adenanthos cuneata, but little or no pollination would be expected from such visitation." Hesperian 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So have you moved on the completing the Proteaceae now? Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just temporarily redirected the obsession at another genus. An easier one. There are genera in there that I would find too intimidating to take on. Grevillea for example. Hesperian 22:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Grevillea faction of the Proteaceae editors hope he changes his mind. Melburnian (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and he probably will, eventually. Hesperian 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albany woolly

I have two dead ones I have to go pass every time i come to the shed... it is clear they do not like drought or dry feet Satu Suro 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched three of them grow from seedlings across the road from me. They are in limestoney soil and they have never have a drop of water except what falls from the sky, and they are as happy as Larry. Go figure. Hesperian 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Forrest clay :( Satu Suro 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock

Hi. I see you have deleted User:Emijrp/List of Wikipedians by number of edits two times. Now, I have included [Placeholder] to optouts. Please, unlock the page. Also, a message in my talk would be helpful the next time : ). Regards. emijrp (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hesperian 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Know anything about WA caterpillars?

Hey there, I added a pic to Ochrogaster_lunifer of the cluster of Caterpillars. I'm now having doubts about the correctness of my identification as the pic I took seems to show blacker Caterpillars than the other pics. This was near the Porongorup National Park. Any thoughts? Cheers SeanMack (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate! I had no idea you were still around! Good to see you. No, I know absolutely nothing about catterpillars. Hesperian 10:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't for a long time - but seem to be getting dragged back in again via gnoming.... You guys have been doing a brilliant job with WA articles in the meantime! I'll ask around further about the hairy things. All the best! S.

Banksia brownii (the plant, not the article)

...got a mention here. Orderinchaos 04:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! But my grafted one died after 8 years :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OIC, but it got it when the original press release came out at the start of the month.[5] Hesperian 05:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries. :) Orderinchaos 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Hesperian - could you use your admin superpowers and give me the rollback function/button? It would be useful in some of the vandalism reverting that I do. But this is mainly an excuse to say congratulations on what you called, at WT:PLANTS in quite an understatement, the 'largely unobjectionable' changes to the naming conventions (flora). I've been away from WP for awhile, and was impressed to see what you had done there, after all the previous brouhahas around plant names. To think that we now get to use reliable sources for plant article titles, rather than album covers and local drycleaners, who'da thunk? Cheers, First Light (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed; I'd be honoured.

I can't take the credit for that; it was an idea whose time had come. ;-) Hesperian 08:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First Light (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle cry for Yagan!

Should be easily saved. I found most of it in Fforde. I'm sure the rest is in Hasluck, as the Fforde book keeps on citing Hasluck over and over for Yagan's adventures while he was still alive. Roar!!! YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I'll have a look on Monday. If you want I can send you copies of Hasluck etc then too. Hesperian 07:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the books are just listed without a page or anything, or a 50-page range. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Hope things are feeling better. I found Green and Hasluck and managed to account for almost all of it except maybe 5% and you could just chop some of it if it isn't important. The old 2005/06 are coming to the front of the queue and Canberra has fallen in the pit with Australia and History of the ACT. Hopefully the remainder of Yagan can be dealt with easily YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Banksia caleyi

On May 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia caleyi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Banksia menziesii

Hey Hesp, do you have any idea about a reference about the threat of urban development on this and other flora of the Swan Coastal Plain? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look in Sense of Place tonight. Hesperian 05:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on urban development, but a fairly detailed description of distribution within the SCP:

"Banksia menziesii is very common on the coastal plain. It is found in the tuart forest, the jarrah woodland, and as a co-dominant in the Banksia-Casuarina low open forest to the east, on the leached sands of the Bassendean Soil Association. it is not confined to the central sector of the Swan Coastal Plain, but is found north to the Murchison River, and inland across the sand plants of the Avon district. However, it is at the southern limits of its range on the central part of the coastal plain, and is not common south of Mandurah."

That is from pages 139–140. If you want to use it, rip the citation out of the prionotes article.

Back to the question of urban development on the Swan Coastal Plain, Lamont (1996), "Conservation biology of banksias in southwestern Australia", has a section entitled "Loss of habitat" which commences

"The Swan Coastal Plain is a major habitat for banksias and coincides with high population density. By 1986, 55% of the banksia woodland had been cleared (Hopper and Burbidge 1989). Only 7% of the original 281000 ha is in conservation reserves. As banksias tend to occor on the poorest soils (sands and laterites), areas in which they are abundant have been the last to be cleared for farming".

Do you have a copy of Lamont (1996), and if not do you want one?

The citation to "Hopper and Burbidge 1989" refers to "Conservation status of Banksia woodlands on the Swan Coastal Plain", Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 71(4). I can chase you up a scan of that if you want. Hesperian 14:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no I don't have that one (Lamont 1996 that is), and yes I'd like. That seems good to reference in general terms. I'd not use specifc areas cleared from 1986 as I think they'd be (sadly) much bigger now :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Hesperian 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This one ended up being next on the production line - not sure how really...any other odds'n' ends caught much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Gnangarra, this on your watchlist too? :))

(edit conflict)Yeah this is one I watch actually most banksia species are on my watch, and definately all those who where previously dryandra as I did the renaming of them all. Now stretching the grey matter this photo was triggered by a couple factors one was something to do with the camera, the other was something I read in a local paper about concerns over the amount of clearing of Banksia, really stretching there was some flybynight envirohuggygroupthingie that was driving this bus any other detail is absolute 110 proof speculation. Unfortunately this occured too early in time that I didnt retain any reference or source material though I'd suspect its from the gosnells examiner as that is delivered thu/fri and this was a saturday photograph... Useless as it maybe most of the area in the photograh has yet to be cleared and even most of the cleared land was still vacant/undeveloped as of about a month ago...Gnan garra 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have seen more banksia habitat destroyed in the helena catchment (on the east side of sawan coastal plain) (ie south of swan) in the last 5 years than I have ever seen before - also clearly the reserves and organisation of preservation of the habitat is not in the mind of the Perth Airpot authority - huge amount of habitat has been lost in last 10 years in and around that site turned into massive industrial estates Satu Suro 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been a lot around Jandakot AP as well, an area which ~~has~~ good populations of the yellow. Gnan garra 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try [6] for some info as a threat. Gnan garra 01:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or side ways look into Honey possum Sadly for the possums, vast tracts of Western Australia’s banksia woodland have succumbed to clearing. Here in Perth, honey possums were last seen in 1941. Development has decimated the honey possum population.[7] Gnan garra 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

findong a few political swings over the clearing around Jandakot but as yet nothing substanive that would hold scrutiny as a source. The examiner doesnt have an ionline archive so will need to work the battye. planning to be near the battye on the 29th may get some time thenGnan garra 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation management in Australia

Thought you might be interested to know that there's a picture of a Telopea on the cover of the latest issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.[8] Let me know if you want a copy of that article. Guettarda (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal access

Hey there, I was wondering if you had access to Muelleria? I'm working on Bedfordia, but without access to the 2004 Orchard papers, I'm running into two problem with the APNI data:

What is known of the whereabouts of the Labillardière types involved in the basionyms?
Just which name does Orchard synonymise Senecio bedfordii F.Muell. with? (APNI cites it as a syn. of both B. salicina and B. linearis but says the later is the basionym!)

Circéus (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate. Really sorry, but my access to Muelleria only goes forward to 1994. I had a quick look, and am having trouble reconciling my reading of APNI's position with yours; I'll look into it further and get back to you. Hesperian 06:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. Labill. published Cacalia salicina. Bentham allegedly transferred it into Senecio as Senecio bedfordii. That means these names are nomenclatural synonyms, not taxonomic synonyms, and cannot be synonymised to different taxa. But according to APNI, Orchard synonymised the former with Bedfordia salicina, and the latter with Bedfordia arborescens. There is an error there somewhere. APNI have been extremely prompt in correcting errors when I point them out, but I wouldn't feel comfortable pointing out an error unless I first got my hands on Orchard (2004) and figured out precisely what the error is. Hesperian 07:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the types, I do have a paper by E.C.Nelson on Labill.'s types, buried somewhere amongst my pile of Adenanthos papers. I'll see if I can find it. It probably won't say anything, but it's worth a try. Hesperian 07:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that paper only deals with some Western Australian species. I got nothin'. Hesperian 07:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about trying to contact Orchard directly? I can't quite get the actual URL out of Google, but if you search for "The identity of Cassinia uncata A.Cunn." you'll get to a pdf of a 2007 paper by Orchard which has a contact address (home address, suggests he is retired). No email address, but it might be possible to track him down. Asking for reprints used to be standard back in the day. Guettarda (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an untrustworthy recollection that Cas knows Tony personally; you might ask him. Hesperian 23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent out the email, so at this stage it'd pro'ly be kinda overkill. I'll consider it though.

I dunno how I feel about asking for a reprint, as a non-taxonomist (I'm a translation student) in Canada. I suspect just asking might help clarifying what's going on. I've found an email address on a different paper and intend to try it. Circéus (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Botany has a long history of contribution by amateurs. With what you've done here, you can make a pretty serious claim to have contributed. It's never a sure thing how people will react to Wikipedia, but what we've achieved with species articles is nothing to scoff at. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think our wikispecies material, when do up to maximum completeness, is pretty useful too. I might be biased but I find a certain elegance to a well-done synonymy. I'm not sure yet what to do about Antillanthus almironcillo, of which I'm fairly confident it should actually be Antillanthus discolor (Griseb.) __. Circéus (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's Senecio bedfordii Benth., not F.Muell.? Great... It would have been easier to crosscheck with IPNI, but it's down at the moment. Circéus (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In "Flora Australiensis" [9] the author is given as Mueller and it is listed as a synonym of Bedfordia salicina.Melburnian (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost without exception (actually come to think of it I can't think of a botanist who didn't welcome interest by amateurs such as me on my travails) botanist have been almost eager to share ideas and research. The main limitation has been the widespread understaffing of herbaria, leaving everyone remaining to be extremely busy and time-poor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that I have been warned off anything to do with the WA one until it has dones its move - which is basically stay away for half a year Satu Suro 13:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont et al.

Dammit, had the wrong one:

No I don't have:

Biogeography of Banksia in Southwestern Australia Byron B. Lamont, S. W. Connell Journal of Biogeography, Vol. 23, No. 3 (May, 1996), pp. 295-309

I have another Biogeography of Fire Killed and Resprouting Banksia species in Southwestern Australia Aust. J. Bot. 1995 43 283-303

Anything interesting on scabrella in your one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cas, I didn't notice this message until now. Three messages on the 18th and I only noticed the bottom one! I'll send it on tomorrow morning. Hesperian 11:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. NB: --> Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia menziesii/archive1 - I'll add your name as conom as you did alot on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Nah, don't do that; I wouldn't want to claim that one. Hesperian 23:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malay Archipelago

Hi. I noticed that you indefinte full-protected the page Malay Archipelago due an edit war, but one of them (Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs) is less active than the other. Six monhs has been passed and (obviously) no one (except another admin, who make minor fixes with a bot) has edited the page. Could the page be unprotected (or downgrade to semi) and make other users can edit the page. Thanks Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I didn't notice this message before now. I have unprotected. Hesperian 11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian place name convention

Hi Hesperian. There is currently a discussion being held at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention. Your opinion would be very welcome there. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dalea spinosa

The page has a note for the deletion. .....However the species is Psorothamnus spinosus, and on that species page it lists: Dalea spinosa as the old name[In the Taxobox].... Should this just be a ReDirect over to Psorothamnus spinosus... I'm working on "Minor Western Hardwoods" of (western N. America), that's why I knew that this "Smoththorn" (not the only smokethorn) is the one down the road from where i live here in the Sonoran Desert. So. what have you been up to ? (without me looking at your latest edit histories!)... from the soonToBeHot SonoranDesert, YumaAZ...
some years ago I actually made the ReDirect Smoketree (Psorothamnus)...and View History shows: (I'll toot my horn), I'm the one who created: Category:North American desert flora and Category:Flora of the Great Basin desert region, (they were just serendipity, no real intention, but they got accepted by others, for varius "regional geographic deliniation reasons"...(I've been working on mountain ranges, and categories for them, too.)...Thanks, peace, out, have fun, and etc.-(and you're English?, in England?...).....Mmcannis (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Curtis. Hi Mmcannis. Hesperian 11:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[sic]

In Banksia menziesii, do you remember why the [sic] is there in Kuntze's entry? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my careless copy-pasting from "Kuntze proposed Sirmuellera as an alternative, republishing B. brownii as "Sirmuellera brownei (Baxter)" [sic]." Hesperian 04:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfate

Regarding this edit, here's an obscurity I found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature#Element names and added to my AWB software: "These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article ... sulfate not sulphate ...". (If that doesn't persuade you, there's always User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so.) By the way, although it doesn't matter much either way, WP:NBSP suggests the {{Nowrap}} template as an alternative to  , and at least some people think "Nowrap" is easier for newbies to read than " ". Art LaPella (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay on sulfate/sulphate. Change it back if you want. I replaced the nowrap for consistency's sake, since the rest of the article uses nbsp. Hesperian 01:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Art LaPella (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prionotes

Nice to see a Banksia hogging the main page again :) Melburnian (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a plant. That it is a Banksia is icing on the cake.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Conversions already made"

Hesperian, With all due respect, I don't take stock in your observation. I have seen too many lulus in too many articles. For a prime example see Ship#Oil spills & Talk:Ship#Conversions. Cheers, Peter Horn User talk 16:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fix any lulus in that article? Hesperian 23:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not seem to have bothered looking at either that article or it's talk page. If you did look you would not be asking your question but you would have seen that indeed I fixed the "lulu". Also, the temperature conversions in Banksia prionotes#Response to fire are all just a tad off. See also my latest post at Template talk:Convert#Some wikipedians don't like conversion templates. Peter Horn User talk 02:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question was intended to be read as: did you fix any lulus in Banksia prionotes? I don't believe you did. Therefore I think your "I have seen too many lulus in too many articles" comment, though undoubtedly true, is irrelevant. If you understood the importance of significant figures, you would not be complaining that 500°C is 932°F not 930°F. Hesperian 02:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough, significant figures is handled in this case by the template:convert by |sigfig=2|, so that would indeed make 500 °C (930 °F). I am really more referring to such things as 10 m (34 ft), or worse ones, when 10 m (33 ft) or 10 m (32.8 ft) is more like it. Peter Horn User talk 15:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a new request: Template talk:Convert#Rounding temperature conversions to the nearest 5°, See what happens. Peter Horn User talk 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The template could handle significant figures perfectly, and I still would not see the point of replacing simple, correct, readable code with a confusing template call. Hesperian 23:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production line....

Oaky doaky, Banksia aemula is shaping up as the next one to send to FAC, am still chasing photos for Banksia oligantha, and pondering whether there is any more literature whatsoever for Banksia violacea and Banksia scabrella, both of which (I think) have about as much published info as possible...??? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia oligantha would be interesting to find not much point until october-november but http://www.anbg.gov.au/cgi-bin/phtml?pc=a&pn=1642&size=3 & http://florabase.dec.wa.gov.au/browse/profile/11152 have different picts flora base ones looks strickingly similar to the matchstick Gnan garra 08:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking WA herbarium for contacts of their photographers as we speak to see if they will release any photo "off-cuts" or whatever of oligantha. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a magic contact there - dont expect anything - theyre moving and I and others have been warned off having anything to do with them till later in the year Satu Suro 09:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've always found them to be completely unresponsive. I know of several professional scholars who requested access to their specimens database and never heard boo. Hesperian 10:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Legend of Moondyne Joe book cover.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:The Legend of Moondyne Joe book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Hesperian 05:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Swan River Colony"

Good to see you again. Do you know of a source clarifying this quandary?

While it now seems odd/quaint, the naming of large colonies/territories after relatively small features was fairly common in the 16th–19th centuries and not restricted to the British Empire. To cite some a few examples:

Peru, as a Spanish colony, originally included most of South America and was named after an Indian chief from Panama;

Virginia, at one time included a stretch of coast from present day North Carolina to New Jersey, as well as Bermuda

James Cook's version of "New South Wales" included the entire eastern mainland. New Zealand was also added to it for a while.

Straits Settlements, which also varied significantly over time and covered several scattered British enclaves (most notably Singapore), even though the name referred to the Straits of Malacca

Port Phillip District, at one time covered an area even larger than the present day Victoria.

The list goes on.

Cheers,

Grant | Talk 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC) PS on a related note, I just realised that we don't have an article for Louis de Saint Aloüarn, the first person to officially claim WA for a European power. I will have a go at translating the French language article.[reply]

Actually the islands off Cape Leeuwin - Allouarn I was sure at some time linked to an article about him - then it turned into a red link - not sure what happened there Satu Suro 13:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Suro, yes it has been a while! Part of the problem with Aloüarn is the variety of alternate names/spellings for his various names (e.g. Aloüarn/Alouarn/Allouarn, Alesne/Aleno, Louis/Frederic etc). Grant | Talk 14:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plant article stub question

Hi Hesperian, It's your turn to get badgered in my quixotic attempt to create Salvia articles (Category:Salvia is at 220 and counting, though I've created only about 160 of those). I've picked most of the low hanging fruit, as far as well sourced Salvia species. I'd like to take a go at the Chinese species, many of which are covered only in Flora of China, and only with a bare specialist's (unlike myself) description. I would like to create stubs based on those descriptions, but am not quite sure if using just that one source is sufficient. If it is, I'm a bit at sea in figuring out what to distill out of those descriptions into a stub that would be appropriate for Wikipedia readers (i.e., non-specialists and specialists alike). I've taken a stab at Salvia potaninii, based on the description here. If you have any thoughts about improving my approach for writing other Salvia stubs sourced from there, I would appreciate hearing them. Any lurkers, feel free to butt in. Thanks, First Light (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Wish I could give some constructive criticism, but for a stub based on a single taxonomic description, it is good: it accurately and thoroughly reflects the one source you have, which is all that can be asked for. Hesperian 01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll start using that source for other articles then. First Light (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Orchidaceae of Australasia

Category:Orchidaceae of Australasia, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:17, 30 June 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.