Hello, Cygnis insignis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
reassessment
Hi Rkitko–thanks for this, but it is not quite there. I could not access the database of choice when I made it last night, I will try again and justify the start class. Cheers, Cygnis insignis18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! No need to thank me for removing the stub tag. It's an excellent article and certainly exceeds WP:STUB. Also, per the WP:PLANTSassessment scale, the article you created is way beyond a stub and certainly a start-class and heading for B-class. Have you thought about nominating it for DYK? Great work, keep it up! --Rkitko(talk)19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galleries
Galleries arent like in higher assessment with all those images on commons it better to either use them specifically in the article, I did use one to replace the info box image IMHO its a better photo. Gnangarra06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a thorny one (rosae is a rosae is a rosae?), brings back memories of the full variation of possible combinations to 6 letter pass words that hackers must embrace/take to heart to unlock the secrets to the universe (or minor components thereof). My guarded suggestion would be to find a similarly named individual (perhaps a variaion with a von or der with or without) and create a dismabig page and provide a range of variants on the disambig page (and redirects to it) rather than the art itself. There may be a policy against such action (gesund catch 22 heit) but it may be the least trauma producing solution to the equivalent to an escher drawing next to a mirror inside a tent with black cloth walls and some smelly smoke seeping up above the scorched lawn, if you follow SatuSuro10:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a half finished sentence "Advancing the rights of indigenous peoples in Australia, particularly mothers, before the law were ." Not sure where you were going with that so wasn't game to try to fix it. —Moondyne01:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hügel hint
Thought you'd be interested to know: the very first attempt at writing a flora for the Swan River Colony was a delightful little Latin number entitled Enumeratio plantarum quas in Novae Hollandiæ ora austro-occidentali ad fluvium Cygnorum et in sinu Regis Georgii collegit Carolus Liber Baro de Hügel. You may find an interesting mention of it here. Hesperian11:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Meeting under bridges] Oops, very sorry about that. I was busy with this stub. I'll upload those images for you, by the way. I did the first few of Curtis's vol 1 - found a few errors with that other places version. I like the Edward's stuff you did. Cygnis insignis09:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks, it's all good. Never heard of Auer; I just checked the index of 300 years] and he doesn't appear. Presumably that means he had nothing to do with Australia. How very cosmopolitan of you! ;-) Hesperian11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK yeah well all input is muchly appreciated. Feel free to add an old image to this article though it has quite a few images, so a para of text will be handy as well. No rush as I have a few things on the boiler.....cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biodiversity Heritage Library
Could you let me know if you have got this image, I happen to have another version in an open tab. I have had no success with obtaining the images from botanicus, or the mirror sites. Learning why is on a list with html->wiki conversion, not in the forseeable. Cygnisinsignis00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you're asking.
The short answer is: I have downloaded images of the B. integrifolia plate and text to my PC, but not uploaded to Commons, and I haven't even looked at the rest of the document.
The long answer is: I have no problem getting images from there. The easiest way to do it online is to load the page or plate you want, then click on the little 2-1/4-inch-disk icon. It will pop up a new window with a jpeg version in it. Right click on the image and "Save as...". The other option, which works with Botanicus too, is to download the entire work as a PDF, then cut the images out offline at your leisure. Acrobat Reader has an icon that looks like a camera in a dashed box. Click on it, then drag a box around what you want an image of. A bitmap will be copied onto your clipboard. Paste into any image manipulation program - I use Microsoft Office Picture Manager but Paint will do the job just as well.
You'll be sorry you said that.... The following plates are of special interest to me: 738, 1581, 1582, 1947, 2406, 2671, 2770, 2803, 3052, 3060, 3063, 3120, 3236, 3500, 3513, 3535, 4035, 4102, 4317, 6433 and 4906. There's also "Bot. Mag. lxxiv. Comp. 1", whatever that means. Whatever you feel like doing, in whatever order suits you, will be much appreciated. If you want, let me know as you do them, and I'll work them into the articles. Or I can butt out and let you do it, whatever you'd prefer. Hesperian11:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Bot. Mag. lxxiv. Comp. 1": found it. In Volume 74, the 17th in the list of pages, being the second page labelled "page [1]", and having the heading "Companion to the Botanical Magazine". Hesperian12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI You gave me a list which included; ... 4102, 4317, 6433 (Something else), 4633 (for 6433?), and 4906 (last). Letting you know, Justin Case. 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Another mystery: I got that list of plates I gave you from Flora Australiensis, which was published in 1870. The question occurred to me whether any plates appeared after 1870, and The Dryandras gave the answer:
"By 1898, Joseph Dalton Hooker was to lament that none of the early dryandra collections now existed at Kew and that Dryandra nobilis in 1852 was the last dryandra figured in Curtis' Botanical Magazine."
Pretty clear, right? No need to read the rest of the paragraph, right?:
"The English nursery firm of Veitch supplied seed of another Dryandra to Kew in 1893 from which a flowering specimen was included in the magazine in 1898. It was another double plate and although misnamed as Dryandra calophylla, it is actually a very fine specimen of D. drummondii. It was the last flowering Dryandra to feature in an English horticultural magazine although this particular plant was also described in the horticultural magazine The Garden of March 25, 1899 as a rarity in the gardens of the day."
So there you have it. A double plate nominally of Dryandra calophylla was published in 1898, in Curtis's according to The Dryandras. I've been right through Volume 124 and found nothing. I've checked the double-plates in 123 and 125, still nothing. Any ideas?
How bizarre. James is of course one of Perth's most respected contemporary sculptors. Perhaps he cut the new plaque, but preferred to add his signature alongside Porcelli's on the bust. Hesperian01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok have liberated myself from the non plant mode - am beginning to bring some light into the world of the gastrolobium entries - and links and peoples - feels like a saga as worthy of the drummonds and the old mates of my fathers from the 1940's. cheers SatuSuro02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hissing sid aside - the toxicity caused the 1840s to be a traumatic time for new migrants and introduced stock - and one of my fathers good mates was working on it in the 1940's - so its long tale is sort of resolved in the department of the toxin known popularly as 1080 - however some of the early things have a good story or two. SatuSuro09:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzling Smile ?
Victuallers has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or in this case someone chosen at random . Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
GASTRO
Am weighing up the possibility of 50 of the things or more - trying to probably discard the table and go back to the colum lists like at banksia and other places. The big challenge now is knowing which gastro i am looking at in photos - they are all so bloody similar in appearance :( - heaps and heaps of york road in flower up here at the moment SatuSuro 00:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC) gah mail - real life growing out of da ground - check the gah mail SatuSuro 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) blackadder - the creek shot - hey it came out v well - excellent - just now im off down to the big smoke (state ref of course) - have a good arvo SatuSuro05:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re neaten
Your message: "Sometimes a simple cut is a big improvement, nice edit. [1] Regards, Cygnis insignis 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)"
Thanks Cygnus. You're the first fellow Wiki editor to send a message. Wiki is a great opportunity for developing succinct delivery. Regards, John Moss, 14 September 2007.
Orderinchaos has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Per OIC's page. Ta for that, it's awesome and totally pokes fun at those who believe the "left-wing cabal" have taken over Australian politics :-) Timeshift07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
here and there
Stylidium species, on dolerite, after a high intensity blaze in, Jarrah Forest, seasonal watercourse, September, flowering.
I will drop you a note in the other place, but I thought you might be interested in this. I think the foliage is just as interesting as the 'trigger' parts. I am going back to photograph the communities of 'protocarnivores' that I found this in, I needed better light on the day. I assumed Stylidium, let me know if I'm wrong. Cygnisinsignis07:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic photos! I saw the others you uploaded as well. Image:Stylidium species, foliis - WA.jpg and Image:Stylidium sp JF WA.jpg are Stylidium hispidum (though they lack a red dot near the throat, a souce I have notes that they will often have these red dots, implying they don't sometimes; beyond the dots, the photos match all of the other characteristics given in the descriptions, so I'm fairly confident in that identification). The other photo you uploaded, Image:Stylidium JF WA sp2.jpg is Stylidium calcaratum (don't worry about the differences in color here, it's a highly variable species, but the important thing that makes it S. calcaratum over, say Stylidium ecorne, is the presence of that floral spur). Keep the good photos coming! It's hard to find good photos of these species. Cheers, --Rkitko(talk)12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The gastros are breathing the sun up here - but Im on the way down - feel like a coffee within whoopee of the Lane bookshop in about an hour or so? give me call if you want SatuSuro02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durack
I see youve been doing a bit of work on Durack's. Im looking at creating the family article (as did you too), ive started a very rough thing in my sandbox here, which has a few people missing, which im going to add soon. Feel free to edit it as you please. TwentyYears03:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noah, depiction or reference, I think it a bit too contentious a document to include i the article. I will be tedious, do you have a reference that says that it is representing a sundew, no other actual representations are confirmed. The views on the book are many. including its date. From what I know of the manuscript, one could see a lot of things with a bit of imagination. Cygnisinsignis06:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only claim made by the caption is that this is "Possibly the oldest illustration of a sundew from the mysterious Voynich manuscript". I don't think that language is too strong for an illustration that depicts what is almost certainly a sundew. The shape of the leaves, the unique tentacles on the leaves, the arrangement of the leaves, and the arrangement and shape of the flowers and buds on the inflorescence all match (compare 1 with 2). It is very unlikely that another European plant exists with all these same characteristics - I certainly haven't come across one. The known use of the plant in early European herbalism is likewise known. I think the case is strong enough for the above caption. --NoahElhardt16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great find and pictures!! I was excited this morning when I spied the immature sundews in the picture on the top of this page - I'm stoked you're also making these plants the focus of their own pictures. These are really valuable additions to WP - many of the Australian sundews are rarely photographed and put on the web. The sundew is definitely in the section Stoloniferae. My guess is D. stolonifera, but you could verify using the key here. Thanks for taking and uploading the photos, I look forward to seeing more! --NoahElhardt01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
turner of hearts
I held Verticordia: The Turner of Hearts in my hands today, nearly bought it, but then found another book I wanted even more, which was fortunately a third of the price. So what are your plans? Hesperian11:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er... The merge tag can go? Meaning? Anyway, I think that the articles should not be merged, as all of the guys in ProjectPlats. I think that the tag could be removed, if this is what you mean. Aelwyn16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC) PS: Bloody hell, WHY don't I understand real English? ;-)[reply]
At school I've learnt that in England cats and dogs may rain and ducks always go in a row. Set phrases are difficult. You see, in Italian può andare (it can go) means it's not that bad, while in Venetan el połe nare is I don't give a *** about it/him. Well, what's important is that we agree! Aelwyn16:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm waiting for it. Keep you eye on the article, you can help if you want. Good night (I suppose it's very late in Australia...). Aelwyn16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something interesting
FloraBase have collaborated with the BM to put together a separate online database of Brown's specimen data. If you do a search for "Dryandra sessilis", you get his original specimen labels (which is what I wanted - irrefutable proof that he collected it in 1801) plus a further note to the effect that Bauer actually painted it... but didn't include it in his Illustrationes. A plate has since been published in Mabberley 1985 and Mabberley & Moore 1999. Both books are virtually impossible to get hold of - Henrietta has neither - but I believe I may be able to borrow a copy of the former. Hesperian13:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know by now I have a one track mind. There's are no Banksia species amongst the field sketches, so it is destined to be a low priority. Happy to email you those PDFs too if you wish. Hesperian13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually I should be walking/photographing out here before the wide spread Brickaea summitii and Brickaea northea weeds become a problem. I also noticed the Ranfordia armadilla has started encroaching into the eastern fringes of the Jandakot nature reserve. Gnangarra23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
' Stylidium fasciculatum and Stylidium calcaratum ', 1801
I'm cluttering up your talk page again, this time with a little (and low res.) glimpse into history. The artist is Ferdinand Bauer. These are two of the many sketches made in the company of Robert Brown, nine years before their first description, when the Investigator was parked off the south west coast. Regards, Cygnisinsignis09:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all. Clutter away! Thanks for the image and info. I desperately need to update the botanical history section of the Stylidium article. I wrote it long before I had any good sources and muddled through with what I could piece together. But now I have a copy of a 2001 publication from a student that worked with Juliet Wege who's working on the new monograph. It goes into extensive detail about the botanical history--about how the name Stylidium is nom. cons. for this genus because it was originally used for a genus of ferns. So it was moved to Candollea by F.Muell. in the 1880s but that name was also already botanically described. It was resolved until the early 1900s. All that detail needs to be placed in there plus an expansion of other sections now that I've read more as I go along creating new species pages. I also need to flush out the Stylidiaceae article and begin the other genera. Phew, a lot on my plate!
Oh, and I meant to ask you or Hesperian... Do you think it might be wise to create graphics for the Conservation Codes for Western Australian Flora and include them in the taxobox code as options for the "status=" parameter? Some of the species I work on are considered rare, P1, P2, or P3. The only problem I foresee is an abuse of that if the plant is not endemic to WA and it's rare there but common elsewhere. Thoughts? --Rkitko(talk)13:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation Codes for Western Australian Flora
Half done.
Thanks for asking. I've made the basic graphic for the Conservation Codes for Western Australian Flora already, but haven't integrated it with the taxobox template as yet (or uploaded the various other SVG files needed). Mainly I didn't do it because I wasn't sure there was a demand for it. But i'll get onto it sometime this week. —Pengo13:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least the troglodytes and their attendant aardvarks do not seem to have uploaded themselves by the twine and string into the roof of it yet SatuSuro14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Swan
Hi, I removed the book bit, not because it was bad faith or non-notable, but because it does not have any connection with the biological article and is already covered on the disamb page. If items on the disamb page are repeated on the main article page it rather defeats the point of the disamb, and in this case looks like spam too. Jimfbleak05:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather perverse of me to give you one you didn't ask for, but I was planning on uploading this one for Orchi anyhow. You will get your Alyogyne eventually. Hesperian01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. I liked the previous one better. (If you want to see what an absolutely awful artist Bauer was, have a look at Banksia pulchella, and please explain how Bauer managed to make such a beautiful plant look so drab.) Hesperian07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time?
Classic one from the goon show - awh, I know the time? Hows that eccles? A nice man wrote it on a piece of paper this morningSatuSuro12:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
now theres a clue - albany - there is a character there who used to have a business here in perth w....'s wurlitzer worldSatuSuro12:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have rolf harris on your watch list - life take on a new sort of timbre - the colour seems to have a shade of tragedy and the taste is raw and acute, while the incessant tinkering is enough to bring on early aging and repetitive revert injury - akin to having certain other articles on the watch list - there should be a 12 step program for bunrt out wikipedia eds who have such articles on their watch lists - traditional medical systems would suggest blanking the watch list, and taking long walks by the sea - more modern ones suggest sitting in front of tv for lengthy periods - otherwise watching some editors using awb can be hypnotic enough to relieve the situationSatuSuro15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look good considering I have just started but someone is causing me a slight problem. Considering your friendly welcome I thought you may be able to help. Could you review this link. I took up a minor complaint with the person which he removed and called me a "troll". What shall I do? --Danny 1721:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My restoration of the gallery was in respponse to the whole tone of the recently added material, which was slanted strongly to support the notion that what the loggers are doing is good and beneficial to the forests.
I like the gallery that you have created at wikicommons. That's my son standing at the foot of "The Big Tree". The man on the Big Stump is 6'2". I may have a few more useful pics. Unfortunately, when I scanned them initially, I did it at fairly low resolution. I could rescan them. I notice that the information concerning El Grande was removed from the article info box, and not included by you in the gallery. I have rectified that. That's not just a big tree near a clear felled area. Too big to bbe legally felled. It was "The Biggest" in terms of bulk, magnificent, growing, supporting other life... There are several taller trees but that one was beyond any doubt the most magnificent living thing that I have ever seen or imagined.... when I heard that the bastards had "accidentally" killed it by setting fire to all the debris they had bulldozed near it and allowing it to burn for four days, I wept.
Hi, Cygnis! Thanks for your reply! Perhaps there could be a division in the article in which the prologging case could be stated under a heading and the anti logging case be stated under another heading. This sort of thing is done regularly in religious articles.
About the pics, nearly all of the pics in the gallery were taken by me, but not the stack of logs. I've got a different stck of logs somewhere. I've got some other good Tassie pics, but they are all pre-digital and just a little harder to upload than my recent pics.
The subjects that I write about are mainly Art Historical, but I'm interested in a great variety of things. Today, Hoooray! I just got my first featured article, which is another nasty issue, you might like to check it out, and this one will make you cry too! Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes. I didn't have an opinion when I started writing it, but I do now!
And there are some very nice people on wiki, some very helpful people, some that are a little difficult and some that are just arrogant b's. Putting up an article for FAC brings out the worst in some people and the best in others. I've had such tremendous help, and great encouragement, plus a generous ladling of shit.
Geez, I wish I hadn't just told my son he could have the stereo with the four big speakers he found under the house.... Greenday is beginning to drive me crazy... I think it's the beginning of the end!...Amandajm10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green Day? I agree, but he's 13 isn't he, so it's all new, and it's all old to him. Two of the speakers are new. There are actually at least six more and two of them are three feet high, but he hasn't found those yet, Thank God! Gimme Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan and ... yeah, I remember the day that Rock around the Clock was first played of 2GB.. . I'm going back to editing Edmund Blacket. Seeya! Amandajm11:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine Cygnis, I was just a little miffed at being accused (I felt) of making ad hominem remarks, when, compared to some of the stuff you see around this joint, I think I was being extremely polite and to the point. I understand it is unusual to discuss matters on a particular article on a user's talk page, but it was something I wanted to discuss with amandajm. I've got nothing against him/her. I think amandajm has made a very valuable contribution. But there has been a tendency on quite a few of the articles I've been involved in for people to get very het-up and passionate about stuff. We are supposed to be making an encyclopedia, not prove a point of one kind or another. Cool heads are the order of the day! MarkAnthonyBoyle12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In concerning my edit...
you should take a look at the definition of the word "genocide" by the UN (as I provided a link for it) and it absolutely matches what the aborigines have gone through the centuries.
I know a lot of people have problems to face their horrible colonial past, but I believe you're not one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T'anork'e (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd be happy to learn how to add citation, but I don't think it's necessary in this case (please show me if I'm wrong):
Maybe it's just me who doesn't understand how things work in wikipedia,
but I can't see why I should add a citataion in this case.
it's not a matter of specific knowledge or data that sould support a statement,
but rather a matter of definition and logic:
there is a definition of the term "genocide", and anyone who wants to see it is welcomed to do so through the link provided.
At the same time, one could also take a glimpse at the history of Australia and see for himself the historical truth that justifies the use of the term mentioned.
So, I don't think I need to cite something that is apparent by a logical combining of two articles.
Hi. Thanks for your fixes, but I fear they are making me lazy. I hardly bother to check my stubs before saving them, I just assume they will be automatically fixed. Regarding for your grammar check here: the edit was correct [an nomination→a nomination], but the edit summary was sp: an nomination→and nomination. I don't know if the info is useful to you, though I hope it is. Regards, Cygnisinsignis08:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cygnis. Thanks for the comments. It's good to know I'm helping out. Don't get too lazy though, otherwise I'll have to write a bot that complains at people making too many mistakes. :)
Amusingly, the discrepancy you saw was due to even more laziness; this time on my part. My bot wanted to correct the article as the edit summary suggests, and I updated it and changed the miscorrection in the article text, but neglected to update the edit summary. Oh well!
Hi, I think you should assume good faith and think kindly of Vatomanocu for what s/he is doing. After all, there's nothing wrong with spreading the love around here. :) PeaceNT (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's entirely your choice and your view, I'm not trying to chastise you at all. :) I just think he or she has made a really nice gesture by giving others beautiful messages. You don't need to know people before sending them kind words anyway. I do agree that it's not typical that new users know how to post on talk pages, but s/he had probably stumbled on our talk pages when browsing wiki. It's no big deal. All the best, PeaceNT (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very glad to hear that. I have some nasty business to take care of at the moment, but am looking forward to working with you again soonish. Hesperian11:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the section in question is more a summary of the article Anti-masonry ... all of the various articles you are pointing to are splinter articles that came from that. That said... I don't really object to your changes, I just wanted to request that they be discussed prior to implimentation - so that everyone knows why you made the changes (and thus to stop potential edit wars). Freemasonry is a somewhat controvercial topic and it helps to discuss any major change prior to making it. That's all. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure I speak for all the members of the Freemasonry Project when I say that your imput would be welcome. My objection to your change was that it was made without discussion. If you look at the article's talk page, that is something we specifically request, due to the controvercial nature or the topic. That's all.
As to COI... no... there is not COI. We have had people accuse us of COI many times... and several admins have stated that it is perfactly fine for Freemasons to contribute to the Freemasonry article. The key is how they contribute. None of us let the fact that we are members of the organization impact our editing. We are very careful not to add things to the article that are based on our "insider's knowlege"... anything that goes into the article is fully sourced (in fact, I would say that the article is over-sourced). We do not put our own interpretation of things into the article. The talk page, is a different matter. There is nothing wrong with "appeals to authority" and arguing as an insider on a talk page... that is all part of the give and take of a discussion. Again, the key is to not allow "insider knowledge" to drift over to the article itself.
In any case, if you think you can help us improve the article... please join in. Just note that it is a contentious topic, and you should expect some heated debates on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you ask about my use of "we"... in most cases, when I use that word I mean "we, the regular editors who work on the article" or "we, the members of a given project" (depending on what the discussion is about). I normally try to avoid using "we" (meaning Freemasons) in discussing Freemasonry, but I am not always consistant. In other words my usage of "we" depends on the context of any given conversation... I definitely do not use "we" to mean "Freemasons" in AfD debates, or other "official" type discussions. I do occasionally use "we" to mean "Freemasons" when trying to explain some obscure point of Masonic ritual or practice... but I try to keep it third person and say "Freemasons" instead... and normally I say we to mean myself and other wikipedia editors. Hope that clarifies things for you. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to "We"! By the way, "we" revert for all sorts of reasons... including not being completely sure about an edit that took place and wanting to discuss it first. Being reverted is not a negative thing ... it simply means someone has a concern about the edit. Other editors revert me the time. I then discuss my edit on the talk page, until "we" (ie me and any other editors of the article who want to chime in) either restore my edit (because it is actually fine), or reach a consensus on new language (if there is a concern). Please don't take a revert personally. In your case, I never said your edit was vandalism... only that I wanted to discuss it first. What's so wrong about that? Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that MSJapan is a long standing member of the Freemasonry project... and one of the more respected editors at the Freemasonry article, you are going to have to get over your issues with him if you are going to be part of the "we". I'm not saying you have to agree with him... but you are going to have to deal with him a lot. Freemasonry related articles are one of his main areas of editing. And that means being civil and assuming good faith where he is conserned. If you can't do that, you will find you become very unwelcome very quickly. Personally, I would very much like you to participate... but if you come in with a pre-existing grudge against an editor I have worked with for several years and have grown to respect... my attitude will change very quickly. Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel the way you do. All I can say is that if you want to contribute to the article, and can do so in a spirit of harmony with the other editors, for my part you are welcome. If that is going to be difficult for you, then perhaps it is better for you to work on other articles. It's your choice. Ta. Blueboar (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is a Saturday night, and I've been drinking myself, that discussion seems perfectly polite and rational. Maybe it will look different in the morning, but could you leave it where it is for a while? Thanks, Tim Vickers (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. If he quoted you incorrectly just say so, but this was not an uncivil discussion. And yes, I also had a glass of wine. Does that mean I've been drinking in the context you mean it? Very doubtful. Garion96(talk)04:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome! I figured since I was adding a new article suggested by the WikiProject, it might make sense to join. :) Somno (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just used to using "Western Australian" from work. We're not allowed to use "West Australian" because the state's called Western Australia, not West Australia. Probably shouldn't bring that into Wikipedia (darn brainwashing!!), but they do have a point I suppose. Have to admit, I thought it was funny when I went to edit the article and saw you wrote it; I'm not used to bumping into the same users! Not fussed either way though, West Australian or Western Australian. :) Somno (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an administrator. I paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better admin. I am going to take things slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation Codes for Western Australian Flora
Hiya. I've uploaded all the images for it already.. (see here) .. but I forgot to actually add it to the taxobox template. hmm.. I might have a go of that soon. —Pengo13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it's done. You should be able to use it now. E.g.
Oops! I should have done more testing. Fixed now I think. (It takes a while for the template change to trickle down) —Pengo08:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is aimed at more specific details like all wikia wikis(ie. specific hybrids, culture). Wikipedia also does not really allow Copyright images and wikia does as long as the user permits it. Currently we are building up so not much difference yet only minor--Cs california (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. What prompted griffithi? Thanks also for the wikisource stuff. Heck, thanks for all the unspecified and unknown things you've been doing while I've had my head buried in the coral rubble. Hesperian00:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do most humbly apologise. Which article did I so rudely preempt you on? I noticed it had been done, but haven't taken it for a test drive yet. Yes, it is a nice book, which I have admired many times but never attempted to possess. Thanks, I'll identify it event chwarlee. I tried ordering the banksia species by lower case. There was something particularly elegant in it, especially in the way it separated taxon articles from overview articles e.g. Ecology of Banksia filed under "E", [[Banksia epica] filed under "e". But it did the opposite of growing on me, whatever that is, and eventually I reverted to all capitals. Policy schmolicy. And you. Hesperian11:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'TIS MANGO SEASON.... Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Perth's unusually humid weather, resembling conditions more likely to be found in Darwin or far north Queensland, looks set to end although there is no relief from hot temperatures in sight, the Weather Bureau said yesterday."
Which fits nicely with the front page lead:
"West Australians have been told to cut back on their air-conditioning today — when the temperature is expected to reach 40C — or face rolling power cuts."}}
a piece that had me in stitches - check it in your history - as I hadnt heard from you took it out like it should not blot the landscape too long :) SatuSuro13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The time has come to talk of sealing wax and...
Yeah too long in sydney and too long in canberra - should have gone to melbourne ages ago but have to miss -the return calls - the circle route batemans bay -bega, cooma -canberra two times in a week seems to be crazy - looking forward to relating the whole crazy thing over a coffee or two SatuSuro11:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tree frog
The IUCN simply lists Green Tree Frog.[4] For the American variety it lists exactly the same thing.[5] I suppose our naming makes sense then. White's Tree Frog is the other possibility and the page used to be at that target. I'm not bothered if you have a good rationale for it. Marskell (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You stated: You may find advantage in discussing the edit, not the editor, and taking that discussion to the talk page of the article. Regards, cygnisinsignis12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as baseball umpires say, "I calls 'em as I sees 'em".
I said you may find advantage - it would depend on your intention. The consensus of opinion is that improvements to the document are made by 'assuming good faith' and not making personal attacks. If you believe there is a problem with the editor, you should seek a third opinion, I think your approach tends to create disruption. cygnisinsignis13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice and concern. However, I don't believe that my comments should be made on the talk page of the article because this issue is regarding the conduct of Somno. He reverted a contribution I made to the article on Cooper University Hospital and implied that my contribution was vandalism. I explained why it wasn't and asked him to apolgize to me. He refused to apologize and the whole issue mushroomed to where it is now. A simple apology from him to me on my talk page and on his talk page would end this issue. For wahtever reason, he refuses to do so. In my opinion, this is representative of what some say is the biggest problem with Wikipedia: Editors who treat their position like they were God. I'm sorry, but unless I got a legitimate apology from Somno, I won't let this rest. (By the way, if I receive a legitimate apology from him, then I will "return the favor" and issue him an apology.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.36.160 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by the way, this is why I am insisting that until the matter is resolved, that the entire transcript of this matter be kept on Somno's talk page. The proof of my position is within the transcript. If Somno is simply allowed to remove this proof, then he can eventually spin this problem in his direction and advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.36.160 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, User:68.236.36.160, and for assuming good faith in my comments. I am merely an uninvolved editor attempting to help two others. If your contested edit is still important, then I am happy to discuss that with you, that is why we are here. If you do not receive an apology, you may choose to approach one of the many forums which deal with personal attacks. I would not recommend that you do, but the starting point may be WP:WQA. I would recommend that you attempt to gain satisfaction from editing - not editors. If you need any assistance with that, let me know. Cheers, cygnisinsignis09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My edit has been dealt with in that Somno has not tried to revert it again. My problem isn't with the edit, it's with Somno. Wikipedia is a great tool; however, as I said before, the one major problem with it are certain editors (like Somno) who act like they are God. Somno has a right to edit, but when an editor makes an accusation which turns out to be wrong, then he should apologize. Somno did make an accusation; he was proved to be wrong. He also refuses to apologize. Instead, he attempted to hide the whole issue by deleting the comments from his talk page. I can't and won't let this go unless he apologizes to me. It's very simple; if Somno can't see it, then he is being a pig-headed oaf.
Up until the debate, the editor in question had not indicated that the green was added to specifically indicate a connection to cannabis. That only came out in the debate there, as did the fact that there is apparently no clear connection of the two, at this point, outside the mind of the image's creator and a few unspecified individuals involved in Freemasonry. The fact that it is a somewhat blurry image, and a duplicate of an already free one, is also a bit of a problem. Also, from what little I remember of the Sephirot and Kabbalah in general at this point, color can be important in itself, so the green might misrepresent something symbolically. I have since spoken to the editor who created the image, who is new, and gave him the welcome template and told him of a few articles which are in his subject interest, and I'll try to keep up with him as well and help him out as much as possible. But neither the Freemasony or Kabbalah projects indicated any reason they could think of to use the image, and they were the only two groups he informed of it. He does have a clear interest in the connection of drugs and religion, and we could certainly use having the content on that subject improved. I was probably a bit trigger-happy in seconding the nomination, though, and I'll try to be a bit less so in the future. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cygnis
Would appreciate you to take a look at the articles [6] and [7] and suggest something giving time to prove things that can take a litle time but i can´t obtain rapidly. Another comment about notabiliti is very controversial varying from country from country as you may know. Kind regards Carlos Botelho (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale
Seems reasonable, although the main thing I was trying to do was drive away the bots. I found a hilarious one the other day which does just that, but can't find it now. Orderinchaos10:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I do acknowledge that the Division of Curtin has been retained by the Liberal Party on numerous elections and I have updated the text considering your input on historical voting trends.
Perth Industrial (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that articles on Homeopathy, as well as articles suffering disruption due to this topic are currently on probation. Following this discussion, editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. I'm not stating that your edits have thus far been disruptive, merely making you aware of the probation. Thank you. TalkIslander14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a little mess, can you help to sort it out. I went to this article to remove the fact tag at some taxonomy and, as usual, got in over my head. My search for some clue turned up an article that seemed to be a blatant copyvio, I dutifully started rewriting it and went to add the citation - it turns out to be a duplication of our article :P [groans] So, before I revert the whole thing, can you have a look at the last couple of versions - maybe give it a copyedit and sort out the possibly erroneous taxonomy. Then I can strike it off the list and pretend I have done something useful. cygnisinsignis10:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll take a look. I'm not all that familiar with Cephalotus, but I'm sure I have some references lying around here somewhere. It looks as if the nationmaster site is indeed one of those mirrors of Wikipedia. That article does need a thorough review and has been on my agenda for a while. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty
An honest mistake is one which is not intended. 'Honest' is simply an intensifier. If you don't know what it means then you should. Only thoroughly reprehensible individuals collect evidence against editors, especially evidence as feeble as this. The missing word is "think", a activity that I suggest you should occupy yourself with. It should read "do not think that". Paul B (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that you spotted the problem with my edit summary and apologize for doing several things at once. I was editing and then realized that the whole article was a promotion for a commercial product, changed most of my edits and slapped on the deletion tag. Not really sure what to do with this, there has been an ongoing edit war for quite some time at bitless bridle, been about three editors in turn dealing with a single editor in one of those "I don't have a POV, you have a POV" situations. Been my turn the last 4 days or so to take up the WP:NPOV battle, I apologize if my frustration level is high, seems like there has been a lot of animal rights disputes in the horse articles lately. I know I need to not feed trolls, harder to avoid when it's a legitimate content issue. Montanabw(talk)21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...been about three editors in turn dealing with a single editor in one of those "I don't have a POV, you have a POV" situations." I think this sums it up well. None of the other bitless people wants to get involved because this has been so nasty! Talk about biting the newcomer!!... Meanwhile, cygnis, I will take your advice. Thanks. : )AeronM (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only text that article contained when I deleted it three years ago was "Usama is truly the rightfull leader of this world". Why would you want that restored to the history? Yes, it is possible to restore deleted text, but no one would be willing to restore deleted vandalism. Everyking (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin anymore so I can't look to ensure there was no history, but I can say with almost complete certainty that I would not have deleted it if it had a valid history. Admins have done such things before, but I was always very careful about it. Everyking (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for my poor assumption. Prior to that I'd never had a reply back from a talk page so quickly, especially from a different user. I was not in any way suggesting that SatuSuro is a Sock puppet, I will however take your advice and be a lot more careful in what i type the in future. Kind Regards, Wikiian12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a checkuser clerk would get very very unwell when peering into my private parts of wikipedia - all those categories and things :( SatuSuro02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can clarify, was your comment at my RfA meant as a general comment, per the note "Bullet is deliberate. Not a vote, ta", or a vote in oppose? I moved it to discussion, but feel free to move it back if I was in error. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't for certain what was meant by "[...]not a vote, ta" which could have easily been construed as not being a vote. As per comment, I'll move it back. seicer | talk | contribs17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First .. thanks for the message/offer on my user page re: rainbow serpent articles
Second .. I am slightly dislexic, thus, after posting reply to the above, noticed I badly misspelt your username - apologies
Finally .. many thanks for signing up on the Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of Australia, and particular thanks for immediately upgrading it!! Bruceanthro (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, me
Aeron's issues over the bitless articles seem to be focused on me. Not you. Could use some backup, feeling besieged. Except that others will say that I am recruiting people to take my side. Obviously... sigh... Help. Montanabw(talk)07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The agreed disambiguation is clearly set out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians: "Note that the standard disambiguator is 1stname 2ndname (Australian politician). Where there are two Australian politicians of the same name, consider using 1stname 2ndname (Stateian politician)." This follows a universal rule in Wikipedia that middle names are nor to be added just for disambiguation purposes, but only if it established that this was the name that he was normally known by.--Grahame (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to improve this article and you are deleting reference material that I need. If you have a constructive suggestion, how about discussing it on the article's talk page? Retarius | Talk02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
==
Ern Malley
I restored the reference box to the EM story and did not realize that I was undoing other parts of the article, didn't scroll down far enough, sorry mate. Truly an accident that happens to the best of us. Here's something that will be helpful for you in future:
Shows you how it's done. It is not against wiki rules to delete material from your own talk page. Keeping it light. DownUndr (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)DownUndr[reply]
Take it easy. I apologised and I am not pretending to be a new user and I am not valdalising- I explained in a friendly manner, what happened- restoring the reference box. You have a right to revert any edits made- I want to remind you that if you want to make positive contributions to the article, find citations needed and use references using wiki formats. I would be happy to walk you through the process, it very easy when you get the hang of it. G'day!DownUndr (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)DownUndr[reply]
Nordic race vs. Nordic theory
Why did you immediately reverse the change of the name? So now there is an inconsistent naming of the different racial historical concepts which in fact is insinuating that the idea of the e.g. Mediterranean race is less theoretical than the idea of a Nordic race. 217.236.243.89 (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a cut/paste move, which does not retain the page history. The history at Nordic race shows that this was recently attempted and reverted, this was against consensus according to the reverter's edit summary. Let me know if I need to clarify any of this. cygnis insignis11:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, would you agree to a "real" move? The whole issue is the name of the article. It even starts with "The Nordic race was ...".
The way I moved it was simply the first thing I thought of, taking into account that the history and the discussion were indirectly kept in the Redirect page.
A new consensus might emerge for a move, anyone can contribute to discussion of the page title. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk apage and elsewhere. I undid the move because the page history should be moved with the page, this is the accepted practice for showing who did what. You are not able to move a page this way, because you are not logged in as a user. Do you have a user account? cygnis insignis20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, but I rarely use it - only for articles that won't be regarded ideological by any party – statements too soon get personal and aggressive in Wikipedia-discussions these days. The value of an argument itself is preserved even if uttered anonymously and personal enmity is avoided.
Oh - read the section WP:SOCK#LEGIT if you haven't already, then reconsider your alternative account arrangements.
I generally agree with the sentiments you have expressed, but avoid terming contributions to the discussions as an 'argument'; this implies there is a debate to be 'won'. Debating does not make good articles, they inspire edit wars that relate to disputes outside of wikipedia. This results in shabby articles that give obvious and undue weight to narrow viewpoints; our opinions and editing should be separate. Hope this is helpful, thanks for being polite after I reverted you. cygnis insignis16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this wikipedia thing. Well Adenovirus is becoming widespread in the American Breeding of Bearded dragons and its super contagious (think parvo in dogs) and works something like AIDS in humans, it weakens the immune system and they often die, however some can just be carriers and have no symptoms.
I'd like to get some people who know about the disease and start a wikipage just for Adeno in Bearded Dragons because more people need to know about it.TariStar (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antaresia
Hi Cygnis insignis, I noticed your edits to Antaresia and made some changes. First, I've restored the lead section to the original format. Perhaps it disagrees with you, but my reasons for breaking with WP:MoS are explained here. Second, I also used this occasion as an excuse to split up and move the Taxonomy section to the species-specific articles for A. stimsoni and A. maculosa. I left out the geo. range info for A. s. stimsoni because it doesn't seem to come from the NRDB page as you indicated. Third, I removed the info about J.G. Children because a.) it belongs on the A. childreni page and b.) we should try not to duplicate such information. However, I assume that you've obtained the common name for the genus -- Children's pythons -- from Browne-Cooper et al. (2007) -- is that correct? (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, and for the effort in laying out the genera. The addition to the genus article, I think an improvement, includes references to support the citations. Your edit correctly gives the source of the Children's, but removed my explanation. Your departure from MoS puts the onus on you to explain how it improves the article, I think it gives undo prominence to the vernacular. All the information in the taxobox should be included and explained in the articles (eventually), that is not a reason to revert either. You have left out mention of A. stimsoni stimsoni altogether. I was set to improve the articles at both ranks, when I hit a problem. The lead of the article says No subspecies are currently recognized.; citing the ITIS reference to a 1999 US publication. The reference I supplied from The Reptile Database page names two subspecies, gives references to more recent publications, and seems to be used in other articles. The range is supported by the ref at the end of the sentence, published by the university you chose to delink. Discussion of the genus often involves the infraspecific ranks, SW Australia genera are in constant revision. I used one of your subsp. articles to model the creation of Morelia spilota imbricata, but your preferences were not retained; what should be done in that instance? Should my preferences be honoured in 'my' article? I consider it a start that I hope will be improved by others, the 'conventional' layout makes this easy. The articles should not be seen as a series of pages, but give an explanation for each subject and avoid the need to view another page. As for preferences in style, it is unproductive to invest too much time in them; their discussion is secondary to adding content. I notice others have made this point, it is disruptive to expansion of start articles to be redirected to your subpaged views. Please restore my contributions where appropriate, I logged in to make more of them. cygnis insignis08:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Layout. Yes, it's different, but as I've tried to explain on my user page, it solves certain problems that are not addressed in WP:TOL, WP:MOS and WP:LEAD. Also, despite being different, a number of such articles have been given GA status, so to a degree it is an accepted format. The WP guidelines aren't carved in stone, you know. Before I cleaned them up and applied this one format (10 days of continuous work), the entire Pythonidae section was a complete and incoherent mess. It seems that was shortly after you joined WP, so a little more respect would be appreciated.
It is apparent that your view is contested, the articles I changed were around start status. I have not shown direspect, your demand for it is unlikely to be productive. There is no need for you to assume anything, except good faith. I'll try the same.
Vernacular. Undo prominence? But, that's the whole idea! Previously, I had received complaints that using the scientific name for the article title made it too difficult to find the common names, even if they were highlighted with bold typeface in the lead section. If you believe in using scientific names for article titles as I do, then this is necessary to silence some of the critics. Besides, it sounded like a legitimate complaint anyway. BTW, a similar approach is used over at the new EOL project.
The well known names should be worked into the text at the lead. The advantages for this are legion, discussion of departure from style may be more useful at the pages on this subject. As far as I know it is only your preference. The reader can find a name in the lead sentences, and an explanation further down if necessary, in the same way as any other article. They often need more explaining than a list, if the fact is worth noting at all. Scientific names should be used for the title where there is no well known (likely to be searched on) and unambiguous (regional, ethnic, etc.) name. ... or something like that. The second clause in what WP:TOL used to say is the one where vernacular as canonical trips up. Everyone knows what the common name is, few of them agree though, there is more general agreement on the taxonomy. Stops a lot of disagreements amongst editors too, as a bonus. We are not paper and can explain the various names in as much detail as is found in the most reliable sources.
Children's python. Your explanation? You simply copied that from the A. childreni page. That does little more than fill up the lead section. Not every common name needs an explanation. There are probably more common names for this genus anyway.
The edit was with the summary (poach text from species art: Antaresia childreni), and that was probably inadequate under GFDL. Sorry about that. I added a citation and changed the context, and attempted attribution. I failed to do this when I used one of your articles as a template for the subspecies, I mentioned that above - oops. I 'filled up' the lead with an explanation, no harm in mentioning it elsewhere in that article.
A. s. stimsoni. This name is not mentioned because A. s. orientalis is not recognized by the ITIS taxonomy. You can't mix competing taxonomies: they conflict. That's why A. s. orientalis is only mentioned in the Taxonomy section of the A. stimsoni page. For snakes, use of the ITIS taxonomy over that of the NRDB (EMBL) was agreed to in WP:AAR in 2006. ITIS contains fewer mistakes and is more authoritative; it's not bleeding edge. Nevertheless, the NRDB is our only taxonomic source for the Elapidae and Colubridae families, as the ITIS project for snake taxonomy is still a work in progress. BTW, ITIS is updated once every year. As for the geo. range ref. for A. s. stimsoni -- "found inland from the west coast" -- nothing like that is mentioned on the NRDB page. Perhaps you would find it in L.A. Smith's 1985 publication, or in Franz (2003), but this is really a moot point.
Just to to repeat: The range is supported by the ref at the end of the sentence, published by the university you chose to delink. ... was my attempt to establish the text, not the website, as the reliable source for the citation. Please don't repeat accusations of misrepresenting sources when I have answered them. The seemingly accepted name was backed up by the other weblink, the ITIS link was possibly out of date in my view. Surely the numerous references in RS at that site, and on the web, would make the name an accepted taxon, or at least worht a mention. Can you give links to the discussion?
M. s. imbricata. Very good! Of course, I'm disappointed that you've so far refused to adopt the common Pythonidae style that I've worked so hard on, but that can be settled later. The important thing is that you've made a significant effort. Thank you!
I adopted the MoS and common sense I think, it is easy for someone to improve and I hope they do.
Not a series? One of the problems WP has with its natural history articles is that, all too often, it's editors make little use of the taxonomic hierarchy. When I started my work here in the Viperidae section, it seemed that every other article included a description of the eliptical pupils and fang mechanism. What's more, these descriptions were inconsistent, which irritated me to no end. IMO, the aforementioned information should only be found in the Viperidae article itself! Once all of that general information had been removed, it was clear that those species articles had very little to say. What's more, the articles for the higher taxa (if they existed) were little more more than lists of species. That's when I started writing articles like Viperinae, Atheris, Bitis and Echis that are all accessible via the taxobox links in the species and subspecies articles anyway.
I've read some of those, liked 'em.
Disruptive? Let's not be over-dramatic. All I seem to be guilty of is a desire to list the common names above the lead section. On the other hand, I could accuse you of editing without thinking, but everybody has a right to learn (my initial efforts were much worse). I've always tried hard to explain what I do to those concerned. Likewise, you should first try to understand other people's work; not just go in and start making changes to things you don't yet fully understand. That's what I call disruptive. --Jwinius (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You simply reverted me out hand, and it is self serving of editors to expect others to read their opinions before adding to 'their' articles. You could accuse..., gosh that is real clever - 'cos you aren't, you just saying... There is a term for this. I have attempted to discuss the edit, your tack is more disruptive. WP:OWN is disruptive, so was removing my contribution and failing to simply point out a policy or guideline that I have contravened. Your patronising comment is unwarranted and inaccurate. Please stick to discussion of content, after you restore the edits or provide citations - as I did.cygnis insignis17:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this hasn't worked out so far. I like your contribution with M. s. imbricata, but not the rest. You don't seem to appreciate the taxonomic issues involved, the way I've used the taxonomic hierarchy to keep various subjects separated, and the hard work I've put into applying a common format to all of the articles in this series. Is my lead section controversial? Yes, but some people actually like it and to a degree it has been accepted. Is WP:OWN my problem? It's possible, but I bet all heavy contributers have been accused of that. I work every day to protect hundreds of articles from degradation due to vandalism and hyperbole and sometimes it isn't easy to tell the difference between bad faith and good faith edits. From you I got a less common impression: the edits that showed up on my watchlist were poor, but looked like they were in good faith, so I corrected things as I saw fit and left an explanation for you. I was then happy to learn that you did a very decent job on M. s. imbricata, but otherwise you've been rather stubborn. Nothing personal, no hard feelings, but that's just how it looks from my point of view. I'm all for cooperation, but at this rate we're not going to get very far. --Jwinius (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have made some strong statements, and not addressed my response to that. You implied I was taking credit for your work, and have made a sweeping statement regarding my contributions. You had better seek a review of my edits, because I am undeterred by your obstructive tactic. If they are poor, you had better have me blocked from contributing. You invoke vandalism and bad faith, and where I fall in that spectrum. I now consider this to be a personal attack, rather than simply bad form, you should follow this up or get out of way. I think your arrogant assessment is motivated by a desire to be clear of your unjustifiable revert. Any deviation from the request I have emboldened above, only serves to be obscure what should be a simple discussion. I have given my appreciation of your contribs, apparently not enough, but I stand by my claim that you are 'owning' the articles. Just respond to the request in bold and stop behaving like a prick. cygnis insignis13:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Morelia
Regarding your edits to Morelia, it's interesting that it's possible to include a type species indication in the taxobox, but I'm not sure we want to do that. That's because the next question would be, "When will the same be done for all the other snake genera articles?" Since that would mean modifying over 90 or more articles, you'd then have to ask the question, "Is it really necessary?" IMO, not really, because in all of the genus articles that I've worked on the type species is already indicated in the species table. So, we'd just be duplicating information that's already there. On the other hand, we could use the taxobox instead of the species table for type species indication, but in that case, are you going to modify all of the articles, or just this one? It would still represent a lot of pain for very little gain. By the way, if we did decide to to that, it would be a mistake to remove Gray, 1842 as the authority for Morelia and then mention that publication as the authority for the type species instead. --Jwinius (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"disruption"
Hi Rotational. Please dont make a POINT in this way, you have already caused significant disruption by ignoring requests to stop formatting to your personal preference. And you must not make personal attacks, as you did in the edit summary. Please see about expanding the content of wikipedia instead, you have a talent for that! cygnis insignis09:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly do not disrupt or vandalise articles. Except for Rkitko, my formatting style does not seem to affront editors - in fact if you dig out Rkitko's objection to his stalking in the archived admin. incident records, you'll find that my views do enjoy some support. Rkitko is the only one who is pursuing this ridiculous crusade and making a habit of stalking the pages I work on. Rotational (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my views clear above, and have done so before. Your blinkered view that you personal preferences should be enforced on articles has become very disruptive, you have taken up the 'cause' of user accounts that were blocked - only seeing value in those contributions. You fail to heed the advice of many users. You have made a personal attack that completely contradicts my experience of that user, it is a belligerent tactic used in pursuing a trivial issue as a broad-ranging vendetta. You have wasted your time, and my time as well, a valuable contribution from any user. Consider this very carefully: Don't waste any more! Apply your talents to improving pages so I can read your articles, rather than your unfounded personal attacks. cygnis insignis12:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving me the benefit of your views. You seem to have a very low opinion of my views - "blinkered", pandering to my "personal preferences", taking up causes of blocked accounts, failing to heed advice. Do I do anything that carries your stamp of approval? If you go to the trouble of looking up the admin incident referred to above, you'll see that on a number of occasions Rkitko admits to stalking behaviour (I assume that this is what you mean by personal attack). That it contradicts your experience of the user does not mean it doesn't happen. As for being belligerent, nothing could be further from the truth. I have stated repeatedly that I would like Rkitko off my back, so that I can get on with writing articles - he is the only editor who persists in grinding me down - don't take my word for it, look at his history. He did exactly the same to Raasgat, harassing him/her to the point of quitting WP. So please don't label my mild criticism as an "unfounded personal attack". "You have wasted your time, and my time as well, a valuable contribution from any user." - I don't understand what you are driving at here - I don't consider the time I spend on WP as wasted and what you do with your time is your choice - if you want to label it as "wasted", that is your prerogative. Finally, I write articles for the general user - if you find them interesting then I am happy, but do bear in mind that my sole mandate in life is not necessarily to afford you pleasure. Rotational (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
vandal watching
Oops! Thank you for letting me know about the problem which occurred with my vandal reverting for Koala. I appreciate it very much. I will check more thoroughly in future before reverting, so that the problem does not recur. All the best. Figaro (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daisy
Ready? Ok did the nullabor twice in the last four months - took huge number of photos - and had this thing about the place in the middle - couldnt put a finger on it - and then about two weeks ago brought the new de vries book about daisy (long off line commentary about that due - longer than two coffees) and realise that the eucla art is about a 1/10th of what it could be but the refs are in a parallel universe for the mo - very interesting that paul f's work on the art of 2 years ago fits with some of the stuff that de vries works with - arrgh lies and anthros - thats fourteen cofees or fourteen beers that one - all off here anyways - hey have one for me wherever you are next :| SatuSuro 13:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
auwrgh - yo ask me a marirrytime question at dis time of the night as the euclas surf thunders in the moonlight of the easter moon? the bloody maps play with it like bloody pingpong - (no millignaesque ying tongs here) arch of the church or church arch http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=archipelago+of+the+recherche&placetype=0&state=WA+ and its that what they say but thats no guarnetee they have ever tasted tsampa tea or sat with kham warriors or the boys from amdo - so who knows where the eucla surf goes? SatuSuro 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC) yingtong or iddliye ie poe? didja agree or disagree with the bro? archipegalago with the bro? SatuSuro12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah (ow to go through a dark tunnel by Hugo Thirst)
You do it - its all the bloody redirects stuff i get tangled up hitting the wrong keys (tyops with a move? gawd every min min light between here and thuringowacetup will go bleep blip blap in latin probably with footnotes in greek) nah - go on - put the cat out - and show what a master of the southern ocean surf you really are :| SatuSuro10:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hangks for dat - gave me the jeeps thinking of the potential issues that might arrive at the door without invitation from that move - give a hoy if you needs the helps - or congrats - or whatever SatuSuro10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in the deep dark entrails of zillions of edits there in the deep dark past there are reptilius semblances of cryptiod fury at moved umoved and directs of redirects down the wrong alleys of the feared and foremost horrendeous behemoths of vogon imagination aka douglas the adams, where the edits turn into j g ballard the j g or philip dick trasnported cyborg fury with alien acid breath and fumorous gasps of pure vortex removing black hole energy sucking the last ounce... or something like that :| SatuSuro11:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
V.
Evolution_of_seagrasses
101 total; 98 are endemic, 2 also occur in NT and are already categorised. 1 occurs only in NT, the redlink. The outliers are in a section called Tropica:
If you have a look at my contribs, you see that I went on a bit of a category cleanup rampage last night. Did the same thing to Rkitko's Stylidium and Hesperian's Banksia, among others. When one is in the throes of a rampage one tends to elevate the importance of one's own productivity, and downgrade the importance of communicating with one's peers. I suppose I owe you an apology for being so bloody unilateral.
I'll drop you an email to let you know why the rampage; it is very exciting, to me at least.
Me too. No apology necessary, please pardon the curt message and continue your rampage. I had an elaborate message on the topic, but lost the draft on an unfamiliar machine. Not knowing when I would be able to respond, I pasted the info you would need for an AWB run - and ran. Thanks for offering to do that, it threatened to push my edit count to an ostentatious four figures. My resources are currently even more limited; from a coffee table and an arm full of books, to a winbox and no email. I got the tipoff from an edit you made last week, and others since, its all good as far as I can tell. There are a couple of angles to this business that are not well represented in the articles, eg. endemism, or embraced by the regional taxonomy. It is a 'special', spatial, and temporal phenomena, and I have seen where this is problematic. I expect that you have already considered these problems and are implementing the solution. I would like to help a bit with that, when I have more access, and it will be interesting to see how it applies to tricky subjects. Cheers, cygnis insignis06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Flora introduced to Western Australia is to contain only formerly naturalised flora, then it would be better named Category:Flora formerly naturalised in Western Australia, to be a subcategory of "Flora naturalised in" and "Extinct flora of". If it is to contain all flora introduced but not naturalised, then it would contain every garden plant ever grown in a garden, greenhouse or nursery here, which would be uninteresting and unworkable. I think I prefer the former option, but only if I can find data to populate it.
All in good time. I have some Verticordia articles to categorise first, and some other stuff is coming along very nicely indeed.... Hesperian23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh good to see the seagrass watch list is on the ball - I was interrogating the editor not the information (but thanks for it anyways, so efficient!) :| I havent had the opportunity recently to ascertain whereabouts and availablity for coffee chat :| the social flutterbug that i am SatuSuro01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it exists somewhere. I have a good description of the WA distr., some of the rest of au., and web references to Japan, US, SE asia. Africa too, if I remember correctly, Madagascar if not. More importantly; it is common in the Swan River estuary, around a recherché archpegleg, and at that shipping hazard off the coast of Geraldton. Two things needed resolving before I added the distribution, matters of introduction and synonymy, and a proper description wouldn't hurt either. So, another stubby, but one I am likely to attend to eventually. I will relate the source of my fascination with these soggy meadows when you shout a coffee. cygnis insignis06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I don't see anything that needs to be fixed. It's an excellent article and translation! And I'm sure you know you can always self-nominate your DYKs. But if you want, I can do it :-) Cheers, Rkitko(talk)23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor has made a comment on the proposed hook, noting that the "olive of the sea" mention should probably have an inline reference to be included in DYK. Do you know of any? Alternatively, another hook that does have a reference would be good. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)12:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gather you've been busy but I'd appreciate it if you'd decide to withdraw your objection to the material I'd like to include in the article or to put it up for discussion (see my response to your last on my talk page). Thanks. Retarius | Talk04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I understand that you maintain your objection; I also hold to my view that it's not against policy. As I see it, right now it's my reading of it countering yours and, if you want to put it up for review by others, that's fine by me. Please say so specifically, otherwise I shall reinstate it and proceed. I'll abide by your view on isolating the talk page material, as it was your initial post. Retarius | Talk10:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-venomous
Regarding our recent series of edits to Python reticulatus, I believe it's important to mention whether or not any snake species is venomous or not, simply because so many people believe that all snakes are venomous. That may sound silly, but there's a lot of ignorance out there regarding snakes, even among highly educated people. Also, all of the other python articles start out this way, including your Morelia spilota imbricata article, so why make such an issue of it? For that matter, why don't we bury the hatchet and try to work together? It's better for the blood pressure and ultimately more satisfying. --Jwinius (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we can do without it. I apologise for any incivility, I hope we can disagree amicably. By the way, your assumption regarding my history as a contributor is incorrect. Having said that, I will add that we have not met before. As for snakes and venom, debunking common misconceptions may be approaching the problem from the wrong direction. It is more convenient to state what is a fact, rather that listing what they are not. However, as many snakes are, I made a concession to that view when I said: "Morelia spilota imbricata is a non-venomous snake found in southern regions of Western Australia". We should give the reader credit, if they are at our article, they are probably aware that no python is venomous. A good place to mention it would be the description of how it does obtain food and defend itself. Non-venomous is not the most remarkable fact about this creature, I'm sure you agree with that. Cheers, cygnis insignis12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy and relieved to hear that you feel the same way. We got off on the wrong foot and I'm partly to blame for that; trying to maintain (enforce?) the quality and consistency of so many articles for so long has caused my responses to be rather blunt at times. I should mind my manners more often, even though it's not always easy.
Regarding the venomous/non-venomous labels (followed by a geographic range), that was actually never my idea; it was simply part of the format that I "inherited." But, since consistency is important to me, I've seen to it that virtually every snake article I've worked on starts out that way. Of course, I'm all for making make systematic improvements, but as soon as there are hundreds of articles involved, you tend not to make such decisions as frequently anymore -- even relatively small systematic changes can take days of solid work to complete!
As for what people may or may not know about pythons, or indeed snakes in general, if there's one thing I learned early it's how little people know about them at all. At 13, I was already an old hand and patiently fielding the silliest questions about snakes that you've ever heard -- from adults! But, this also brings to mind an issue that is rather sensitive to many people here at WP: the question of who these articles are meant for. For instance, should these snake articles be written for laymen, snake keepers, amateur herpetologists or professional herpetologists? I started aiming for the second group, but as I became more serious and I guess I ended up switching to the third. Only recently, though, a school teacher in Africa pointed out to me that articles, such as Bitis gabonica, are not that accessible anymore to people who know very little about snakes. He may have a point. To mitigate this problem, the EOL project is using an article format with a variable detail level. We don't have that, so all we can do is write articles with better lead sections. Perhaps my best effort at this is with Sea snake, but in most cases I admit there's plenty of room for improvement. The way the current lead section format is constructed is partly a nod towards the novice readers and partly a reflection of my own desire for consistency. So, do I think it looks kind of strange to say that P. reticutatus is non-venomous? Of course, but I assure you that not everybody knows that and it's such a small matter for us to make sure they do. (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Posidonia oceanica, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I had to check the history to see what SatuSuro meant. It's not the sort of language I want on my page but I'm going to restore it and try to talk sense into him, perhaps off-wiki once I've got his attention. I don't think it can be called vandalism and I'd appreciate it if you'd leave that sort of thing to my discretion. Retarius | Talk04:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it as a personal attack and possible (self confessed) block-evasion. Please avoid fueling these things, it is obviously counter-productive. What article are you focusing on today? cygnis insignis04:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "fuelling" anything. In case you haven't noticed, talk pages are full of attacks, including on non-Wikipedians. The general policy seems to be to leave them there: plenty of admins have abided by that. You are not being attacked in the post concerned, nor am I. I've been polite; now I shall put it more simply: revert me again on my own talk page and you will make a serious error of judgement.
I request that you take my page off your watchlist; I don't want to hear from you again on this topic: It's on my page, not yours, it's not in mainspace and it's not your personal problem - unless you make it yours. Bear in mind that the fellow is apparently savvy enough to follow all of this and extremely angry. Do you want him visiting you? That could provide some serious distractions couldn't it? And thank you for adding the reference to Estelle Blackburn. Retarius | Talk05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations; you're at AN/I, although I recommend you not be there any more than you already are. I'll drop you an email. Hesperian11:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I've been off in the mountains today so I'm just catching up with what's happened. I'm not all that familiar with the technical side of the placeholders. Perhaps I can think about your points and get back to you tomorrow? Best --Kleinzach (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look but I don't really understand about the simplified upload form so I think I should leave it to you to decide whether or not to introduce this point into the discussion. As for your general concern - I share it and I've started a new section to deal the general question of WP style. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
release your seagrasses of wa art - I have just been rearranging the shark bay material and it is perfect fit! see Wooramel Seagrass Bank cheers SatuSuro 09:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
shiver my timbers me ole solipsistically slopping potential puns from the depths of the king goerge pelagix zones matey the fouring 25ths havent blown ya away yet? sheer bloody belligerence of seeing things connected (just wait till i get to the caves of the nullabor or the endemic parrots of the mid west that'll shoot my socks off) made me think sharkus interactus why not? trust the whiteys are biting down your way (heheheh) great white shark that meant - and that your machine arrives fit healthy and panting after the walk from this godforsaken smoke and haze hole - oh well cheers for the mo :) SatuSuro09:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Interested in dryandra/banksia sesselis variants down your way if any - and the local varieties of scaveola (ie dune dwelling blue flower salty smell beach loving - not cultivars in nurseries) SatuSuro07:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have had a quiet wikipedia since I last a short timed interlocution with you matey - this ships is personed by landlubbers with more straw between the ears and the nose than a cat in a haystack - and pednats with the eyese of a wombat - and the ears of a lesser dunnart - and the thinking capacity of western ravens feasting on roadkill - good to see your voice after all this time - if you had any suggestions regarding the sandboxed one - it would be good - the lead sentence has a long story off wiki sometime :) - arrgh the slivey toves have been quiet while youve been away :( SatuSuro09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See you can tell he is being to the point - he is now a walking encyclopedia of elections in wa - we hope to download him sometime :) SatuSuro11:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After such a long time mystifying and mysteriouslising about your fate in the deep dark realms of the cretaceaous sequence that lies south of the barking mount, it is bloody good to see your scrawl reappear in the realms of the goldfishbowl that cannot count its toes but can tie its bootlaces with its teeth! As the rest of the world play with funny money to prop up the weird things called stilts with paper at the top that is called debt - its bloody good to see you can expand wooramel and get back into the swim. :) SatuSuro12:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - so there might be a start from that instead - do you think that the percentage of non seagrass species justify the broader category/spread? SatuSuro12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted you again. I uploaded the image to be included in a Taxobox on wikipedia, and the cleaned-up image is much better suited for this purpose.
I would not appreciate it if you were to revert other cleanups. But thank you for the notice; I will no longer upload the original image when I add an image to the Commons. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See S. Australia, Australia, numerous other WP articles for the exact same footnote on the S. Ocean nomeclature problem. See especially Australia and the Southern Ocean The one option that everyone decided against was going with simply "Southern Ocean" with no other explanation, as this is the English language WP, not the Australia WP, and the IHO, the world authority (and, in fact, most of the non-Austalian world) define (surprisingly to Australians) the body of water south of Australia, down to 60 degree N, as the Indian Ocean. DLinth (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big problem she dosnt identify where they have been ascribed from - the aboriginal names not so hard to pin down - but hey there are some double ups with the same name - havent gone to florachaos or other sites to see hwat they do SatuSuro08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Young's is a compilation of her two earlier north and south - and is wa only - dated 2006. the list has other states varieties too which i havent checked. SatuSuro 08:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thats why florachaos might be worth a check i might try later tonight or tommorow against the red links - got non stop rain up here - you getting any? SatuSuro08:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day from the hills, viz Assemblages of plants and invertebrate animals of tumulus (organic mound) springs of the Swan Coastal Plain have been prognosticating upon the 27th August update pdf of Priority ecologocial communities for WA at hesps talk page and wondered did you ever plan to go beyond that famous article - either it or others? SatuSuro07:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. There is some troglodytic blowhole communists up north, and a collection of wild caves that have a commie subversives manipulating the biota above. All the rest are flora only, and therefore boring, but they can all do with an art (and a list). cygnis insignis07:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ok will try getting the august pdf into a list - its really sgnificant sign you are in redneck country with langauge like that SatuSuro07:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling you. I've instead made a redirect of the fll original title, which should not be a problem. There was something else: why did you remove the Wikisource link? Completion has never been the criterion for interlinking; hardly anything on Wikimedia is "complete". I think the link should be restored, because the Wikisource text does have some useful content (having spent my recent time there compiling Vol. II), but I won't do it before you've weighed in. —Anonymous DissidentTalk23:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Parasites for deletion?
Forgive my inexperience - I did mark/nominate this page for deletion... but obviously I am doing something wrong. What else do I need to add to schedule it for termination? Aderksen (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at Romaioi's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've no desire to withdraw it, there are others who have since agreed that the article should be deleted, and, as I said, I'm neutral now- I don't really mind either way. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "new editor" has been blocked numerous times (under at least two different usernames) for sockpuppeteering, personal attacks, ignoring advice, generally being disruptive and wasting a lot of people's time. This is his third incarnation that I have dealt with, and I'm now watching his edits in detail- I was more lenient than most in not blocking him on sight. Seriously, something like this is not going to deter him from writing about that stuff. J Milburn (talk)
That's not what I stated at all, I stated that I was lenient by not blocking him on sight. My nomination of the article had nothing to do with who the editor was, I was simply giving you a little bit of background- you had the mistaken view that this was just some poor new user who was being forced out because his article was nominated for deletion. I have spent hours with this person, and I am still assuming good faith in not blocking them on sight- despite the fact they have already abused numerous 'last' chances from numerous admins. Please see User talk:Bjaco18 for more details. I don't need to bother with SSP- not only can I tell who it is, but they have admitted as much on my talk page. Don't think I nominated the article because of who the author was- I nominated it because I thought the encyclopedia would be better off without it. Now, I'm not so sure- I still think it is a little overspecific (it may be redundant, there are probably no equivalent articles) but I can see there is a case for it being kept. Plus, there aren't that many admins who were blocked this many times and had so many socks. I really don't appreciate you describing my edits like that- this seems to be a classic case of assuming good faith on the user blocked many times, and assuming that it is the admin who is the one assuming bad faith and having some vendetta. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is a `dab'? I really don't understand what you're objecting to here. Please explain why you want to delete this redirect. Tkinias (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PROD vs SD vs RFD
First of all, G8 does not apply here, as it redirects to a dab page, which counts as existing. Just because it's not relevant does not mean there is no target. Secondly, you're PRODding the redirect, not nominating it for speedy deletion. There is a rather significant difference, so your citing of G8 is nonsensical. Thirdly, PROD is only used for articles, not redirects. If you want to delete a redirect, you must list it at WP:RFD. That's how it works. I've already reverted you twice now, I won't do it again (3RR and all that), but please understand why I was doing it and don't attempt to PROD the redirect again. Thank you. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you reverted me while I was writing that. You're now in violation of WP:3RR and may be blocked. I don't want to report you for this as you don't seem to understand what you're doing; for the third time, please list the redirect at WP:RFD instead of PRODding it. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but your reply does not make any sense and doesn't address the reason why you continue to revert me despite my numerous clear explanations why your edits are incorrect. I will explain it one more time, and I will revert you one last time. If you revert me again, you will be reported to WP:3RRN. CSD G8 does not apply in this circumstance. If it redirected to a deleted article, it would be applicable, but this is not the case and it can't be deleted under G8. Here is a list of redirects that can be deleted under G8. Notice the difference. Please, for the last time, take the redirect to WP:RFD. Please! This is a stupid edit war, and it shouldn't be happening. Please. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm really sorry that this happened and that I had to threaten you with a block (ugh), I just get frustrated when the PROD process isn't followed correctly. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Fix to link
I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days- the edit to the python article was made before you left your last message, and I honestly didn't see it- I wasn't deliberately ignoring you. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make now. I felt the article was not appropriate, and I did AfD it. The contributor has been encouraged and made to feel welcome, despite constantly abusing the trust of the community and receiving numerous blocks (and, for God's sake, it's not an "alleged" case of ssockpuppetry, it's the same person). What do you want? What grievous error of judgement do you feel has been made? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there's no need for me to report said user anywhere- I've assessed the situation and feel another block is not warranted. If someone else feels that it is, they are welcome to either block them themselves or contact another administrator to give an opinion. Could you please tell me in plain English what you feel the problem is? J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I could have made it any plainer. The AfD was not the best way to encourage someone who is "trying to help". If you have chosen not to list the user, for whatever personal reason, then you could have done the simple edits that saw the article in question kept. If you don't know how to do this, I will be happy to help. You have chosen to 'adopt' the user and bring my attention to that, instead of discussing and improving legitimate content in main space. What do you want? cygnis insignis12:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where the problem is here. I thought the article should be deleted. I nominated it for deletion. Suddenly, I have you shouting about God knows what on my talk page. Do you feel I was in error in nominating the article? Is that the problem? If that's the only issue, I really don't see the need for all the accusations. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm starting to see this. I was not starting an AfD to encourage the user to do anything- I started an AfD because I thought the article should have been deleted. It's you who started talking about scaring new users and such- my nomination was purely because I thought the article should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoser AfD
Hi Cygnis, I take it you are referring to the articles discussing Hofer's taxonomical work? Those articles boil down to a few citations of his articles. Under WP:PROF, a few citations is not enough to become notable. Any scientist publishes articles, many of those get cited a few times, so that is normal. To become notable, one has to rise above that. In the present case, my grad student has been cited more than Hoser, so those references in and of itself do not establish notability. Academia is a bit different than what is covered for other people in WP:BIO, which is why WP:PROF exists. In most cases, academics do not become notable under the general guidelines of WP:BIO and there rarely are articles about them. So WP:PROF says that they become notable if their work has had a more than usual impact on the field. To get there, one usually has to have several hundreds of citations, although that may be lower for some fields, depending on "citation culture". In taxonomy citations are less frequent, but the few that Hofer has don't make the cut in my eyes. Hope this clarifies things. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. The traditions of taxonomy force people to cite. You cannot deal with a group without citing all synonyms and their "authorities" (I put that between parentheses, because this does not mean "authority" in the common sense, but in the taxonomic sense). If one sees things that way, those citations are less significant, not more. To give another example, in most fields of science, if someone manages to publish bad research (which unfortunately happens more often than you would like), nobody will cite it and that's the end of it. In taxonomy, given the nomenclature rules, if someone publishes a bunch of rubbish names, they still have to be dealt with and they will be listed ad eternam in any article covering the taxonomy and nomenclature of that particular group. In your reasoning, all one has to do to become notable is to publish a bunch of scientific names in a valid way and wait until someone writes an article to put the record straight.... --Crusio (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten that "venomoids" section and found a newspaper article that discusses Hoser's venomiods specifically, could you have a look at the new version to see if you think it is still a BLP problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
October 2008
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Deforestation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. There is already a place to discuss this on thep talk page o that article. 'Edit wars are the worst kind of vandalism'Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the main progenitors are responding to my comments about the insanity of one list of newspapers - i still reckon they need to have three or more - any thoughts? SatuSuro06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how have you been?
We bumped into each other a long time ago. One of your recent edits popped up on my watchlist so I thought I'd drop in and say hello. Happy editing, JehochmanTalk17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a blue marble (the earth supposedly), and is located under the header at top right. I am unable to provide a link, I think the template generates it somehow. cygnis insignis17:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Death adder
Hi Cygnis, I'm sorry that I had to revert your recent edit to the Death adder disambiguation page, but considering our recent conversation on subject I think you knew that was going to happen. Why be so confrontational? There's no need for that. If you really want to improve things, why not start with the Acanthophis article itself? Judging from the looks of it, there's still plenty to be done there. --Jwinius (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
