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

Why have you renamed this article? There has been no contention about the common name and no discussion about the change. Unless you give a satisfactory answer to this question I will undo the rename. The agreed standard in Wikipedia in the fish project is to use common names in preference to latin names unless there is contention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Thorne (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is contention. Look again. Look at Dwarf galaxias. Hesperian 13:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean. You think Dwarf galaxias (Australia) is a better title than Galaxiella pusilla? You've got rocks in your head then. I am not interested in arguing over whether scientific names or common names are better in general. But when a common name is ambiguous, the scientific name shits all over any other disambiguation title. Hesperian 13:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, Wikipedia proceeds by consensus, and the agreed concensus about naming fish articles is to use the common name where one exists and is actually in common use. Using a bracketed disambig such as Dwarf Galaxias (Aus) and Dwarf Galaxias (NZ) would acheive this aim. I can't speak for the New Zealand fish but there is no question that the Australian fish is generally known by the common name. Finally, stating your personal beliefs as if they are some sort of holy writ and resorting to name calling and foul language does nothing to further your argument. I do not have time right now, but I intend to rename the article in the next day or so. You have not raised anything of substabce to justify your change. You opinion is not Wikipedia policy. Nick Thorne ^talk 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be looking into the history of the redirections of the species names to the fruit names within the Anonna articles -- I would have not gotten involved in that if it hadn't been suggested at the Plant Project pages.

Those perhaps need more editing and also a look into what is going on in the Categories I made for them at the commons. It is the same person working on both these wiki? I found and uploaded images then for species we did not have images for and was looking at the whole tribe, I think, eventually. I tried to put that out of my mind, so, sorry if I am not completely accurate with the recollection of the events right now. -- carol (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see two issues:

1. Why did you redirect Annona longiflora to Annona reticulata? Is it really a synonym, or have you confused it with Annona longifolia?
2. [1]

Hesperian 04:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while so I have no idea where the information came from which caused me to redirect the species. Thank you for digging that out and looking it.

They were interesting plants :) -- carol (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperian, we're finding copyvio left and right, you can't fix one sentence and presume that one sentence was 100% of the copyvio. There's about 50 articles still to go through on WT:Requests for comment/CarolSpears, and it's really unhelpful to go around undoing work while we're trying to fix it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't undo it. You gave a great edit summary that said exactly which sentence was a problem. So I fixed the sentence. What's the matter? Hesperian 05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It rings a bell of certain wikipedianess:

xxxx submitted to the consideration of the yyyy an immense work, extending to all known beings and substances. It consisted of 27 large volumes of manuscript, employed in displaying the general relations of all these matters, and their distribution; 150 volumes more, occupied with the alphabetical arrangement of 40,000 species; a vocabulary, containing 200,000 words, with their explanations; and a number of detached memoirs, 40,000 figures and 30,000 specimens of the three kingdoms of nature. The committee to which the inspection of this enormous mass was entrusted strongly recommended xxxxx to separate and publish all that was peculiarly his own, leaving out what was merely compilation. He obstinately rejected this advice; and the huge work, at which he continued to labour, was never published. SatuSuro 14:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you realise that was the text for the previous user page picture - it seemed so apt :( SatuSuro 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah mate; when I first posted the image I tried to pull an ironic caption out of what you've quoted above — I especially liked the "publish all that was peculiarly his own, leaving out what was merely compilation" bit — but I couldn't find a hook. :-( Hesperian 13:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

While I appreicate your interjection into the issue with this article, could you please revert the article to the least disputed form, instead of having it stuck on the disputed version. i note that it is one peson who has reverted the page to include the information without discussion, even after several prompts to do so. There were at least two people to revert it to the state previous because of the on going discussions on the matter. Thank you for your time. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on how to proceed can be found here. ;-) Hesperian 05:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a person who has reverted changes made to Senecioneae three times making a claim of being a mentor. The mentor is calling Senecioneae Sunflowers which in case I am mistaken is Heliantheae. Could the mentor be blocked for the 3 revert thingie? (I was blocked for much much much less than this). -- carol (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blah blah blah (because of edit summary games I write things here) -- carol (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol I am not your mentor and have not called myself your mentor. Please, alongside the taxonomy articles, read the posts written to you to try to understand what is being said. I am not your mentor and I am not calling anything anything, I am simply reverting all of your taxonomies, as they have not been confirmed. I read the article from which you got your Liabeae‎ information, and your information was so far removed from what was actually said that I don't think that you should be adding any information on taxonomy to Wikipedia. You also should not add information about geology, because just because a mountain shares a continent with another mountain, that doesn't mean the geology is the same. You essentially said the US equivalent of the Appalachians are the geological equivalent of the Sierra Nevada when talking about African mountain ranges.

As long as your accuracy isn't, your additions must be checked before they are made. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be of interest. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hesperian Just thought I should send you a copy of my comments on the end of your little witch hunt. Yes you won, bully for you, I hope it makes you feel like a big man. I look forward to when I bump into you in the flesh so we can sort this out the old fashioned way; face to face. that will be fun!!!02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

hallo Moondyne, I do admit that when I signed onto Wikipedia I was not aware that it was a concensus community of knowledge Nazis but now that I am aware of it I will make the appropriate adjustments. I was under the obviously mistaken impression that Wikipedia was a venue for sharing facts, knowledge and information. The notion that the Stradbroke Galleon story is a pet theory of mine is total rubbish as it has been written about, discussed and investigated for more than 100 years by historians and historical groups such as the Royal Historical Society of Queensland, the Maritime Archaeology Association of Queensland and many more too numerous to include here. There exists, in various libraries, books and communities a large body of written and oral history concerning the galleon story which I have attempted to fairly and accurately place in the WP domain. The fact that a story is not accepted by "mainstream" academics is not a valid reason for deletion of either of my contributions. What has occured here is a classic example of manipulation of an information resource by a vested interest group (i.e. Hesperian and his friends) who are representatives of the "mainstream" view. Hesperian complain about the media coverage I have recieved but this never appeared in any of the WP contributions I made and Hesperian's mention of the media coverage demonstrates the core reason for Hesperian's antagonistic attitude, simple, old fashioned professional jealousy. Thus valid historical data is being deliberately surpressed by Hesperian for personal reasons. For example the Portuguese walking stick handle which was found in an Aboriginal midden, identified by a Spanish Musuem offical and story told to me by a UQ Archaeology PhD student is very relevant to the theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia. This kind of knowledge suppression is not what Wiki is about but I guess you do not care as you appear to be part of the happy little click or have been sucked in by Hesperian and his little band of mates, which is a pity, but history is full of the suppression of information by vested interest groups so why should I expect Wiki be any different. Still it is dissapointing. Happy trails. Gregjay (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moondyne"

I am sorry your article had to be deleted. It is very frustrating to work so hard on something only to see it trashed. But I remain of the opinion that the article was not balanced, and could not have been balanced, because your theory is so fringe that it is beneath the notice of profession archaeologists. Hesperian 02:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comments re:Carol Spears are great... maybe I'm not alone in just feeling a little unsettled by some aspects of what's happened / is happening... I hope tempers can calm to the point where we can find a way through this situation and help everyone back to productive editing - please do let me know if there's anything you think I might be able to help with? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)you can even have your thongs back... ;-)[reply]

Ta. Hesperian 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool is the word - just pinched it from you :) - cheers SatuSuro 04:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I noticed. You're welcome to it. Hesperian 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - It reminds me of about a thousand loose threads i havent gone down :) SatuSuro 04:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you accused me of.[2]

"This last month Carol has been trying to work whilst other people have been going through deleting most of her contributions. In the last few days it has reached the point where someone is reverting every mainspace edit she makes. I'm not exaggerating. Every mainspace edit Carol makes is reverted virtually immediately, citing an apparent need for it to be fact-checked."

(Emphasis added.)

[3]

And here is a link to her history to help you establish your claim against me that I was reverting every mainspace edit she made. Here are the last 10 edit histories of articles she edited, made right before you skewered me with your unfounded, unsupported, undiffed accusation. Is this every? Or even close to every, even in the last 10?

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]
7. [10]
8. [11]
9. [12]
10. [13]

Where is your evidence in your accusation? It's not there. Editors are correcting her edits, and you come by and support her edits and accuse others of stalking her, without diffs or supporting evidence (because the evidence doesn't support what you say). --Blechnic (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I know you want me gone, I'm not that stupid.[14] --Blechnic (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to harass and attack Blechnic - one of the few people helping to clean up the copyvio problem Carol created - as a "stalker" and "harasser" because he's trying to actually solve the problem? As far as I'm aware, you have not assisted with cleaning up the copyvio mess, and therefore are probably ignorant as to how deep it is. Frankly, the entire situation has been very chilling - I reported a problem, then got roundly attacked for reporting it, by both Carol and others. Blechnic spent a lot of time helping to sort out what the problem is, and now he's getting attacked. And then you come along, and parrot Carol's claims that dealing with the major problem she caused was harassment or stalking.

This really isn't on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree that a mark has been overstepped when such nouns are being used to describe people whose primary intent is to help the encyclopaedia. I've seen some of the extent of Carol's edits and the work that will be required to fix them, together with her unwillingness to help in fixing them or even changing her style to make it easier for those who are, and I think it's an important part of the process that that be brought to the community's attention. We have few enough quality editor hours dedicated to content as it is without seeing them wasted needlessly on fixing contributions that in all due fairness should not have been made (or seeing quality editors leave because they feel they're losing a battle against ever-deteriorating community standards). Orderinchaos 15:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now everyone is going to pile on Hesperian? Who's next?

I've been staying out of this after some early posts on the RfD. Frankly, I'm not sad to see Carol gone; it was difficult to engage with her over factual inaccuracies in her edits, even prior to the copyvios coming to light. And I'm happy to see other editors taking on the task of cleaning up her contributions; I don't have the time to participate in that. And had those of us who had early dealings with Carol assumed a bit less good faith and been a bit more clear about our admonitions, things might have turned out differently.

But, given all that, I think there has been a certain frenzy to the community response that I find unsettling. Although copyvio, plagiarism, and factual inaccuracy are all serious charges (and all at least to some extent well-substantiated), they are not necessarily synergistic, despite the rapid-cycling among them in the RfD comments. They are all outcomes of Carol's editing style. It's not like she went out of her way to commit three separate sins; they are all simply the result of her being who she is.

It would be a shame to see Hesperian's talk page protected because the dispute was taken here from Carol's. Perhaps everyone could give it a rest.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the rest should be everyone stop blaming, saying I reverted every edit, calling my actions a "frenzied response." However, this won't happen, so I will leave, which was Hesperian's intention to begin with. --Blechnic (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The frenzied community response was by a number of editors and admins that had no connection with the situation before or afterwards. One person does not constitute a community. I do not endorse (or disavow, having not carefully evaluated the evidence) any of Hesperian's accusations.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think things with CarolSpears got amped up and over-heated but everyone involved had good intentions and were just trying to do the right thing. I think that the best thing at this point is for people to just go back to their business and try to put it aside because no good can come from good people finger-pointing, arguing and getting upset and angry with each other. I disagreed oh so strongly with Hesperian with regard to CarolSpears and her indefinite block but Hesperian is my friend and he is a fine gentleman who just tries to do the right thing. In this case, I believe that he felt strongly and sincerely that Carol was treated poorly. And Hesperian is the sort of fellow who will stand by his mates and he will back someone most passionately if he feels they're being treated shabbily and that is all that happened here. Good people disagreed, things got amped and heated but at the end of the day, everyone was just trying to do what they believed was the right thing. And so I propose that we just recognise the good intentions and move on from this; there's really no point in continuing to thrash this out. Blechnic, my personal opinion is that Carol is trolling us now and has been for some time and her comments at Commons to Herby about her use of socks here on WP and to Bidgee about his intelligence read to me like blatant trolling. If this is the case, I'm sure that she will be most delighted to see the upset and drama that she has caused for you and so I know that you're very upset but I want to suggest that you don't give Carol what she wants by getting upset and fighting with people and then talking about retiring. She seemed most delighted when you retired last time and I'm sure she would be thrilled to see you upset again so I just want to suggest that we don't giver her what (I think) she wants. Please consider. Cheers, Sarah 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in too many real world things, how Carol Spears feels or wins won't be weighed. I know you mean well, Sarah, but I think interest has died. --Blechnic (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You crafty bastard! You ruined my plan to implode the blogosphere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.155.137 (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have licked your daughter's nipples. Hesperian 12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's probably on your watchlist, but just in case, I've expanded this article with references. I've tried to make it "fair and balanced", but I know that statement's also used by FOX News, so doesn't mean much! Please let me know if there's anything I can improve, I don't normally get involved in such BLP and politically sensitive articles. I've also asked SatuSuro using the same copy-pasted message. :) Somno (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff; I don't see any BLP issues any more. But personally I would have made it chronological by event, rather than chronological by unfolding of the investigation. i.e. "Bosco firebombed the building; it burned down; police investigated; police charged Bosco; Bosco confessed" rather than "The building burned down; police investigated; police charged Bosco; Bosco confessed to having firebombed the building." Hesperian 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I considered that approach. I can't remember why I chose to write it following the investigation (probably influenced by the way books and movies are written... although this isn't a book or movie) but happy to change it if that reads better. Perhaps a better lead that mentions Boscovich and Catts would solve the problem? I'll have a go at rearranging it later. Thanks, Somno (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself like tocs and headings to separate - but i suspect the text as it is couldnt cope with that SatuSuro 05:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I wasn't sure what to do about some of them, there were a few grey areas. There are a few where there is a feature which is named after the old general name for the area used by the Dutch, like Cape Leeuwin/Leeuwin's Landt as you mentioned. What if the template was limited to places named by the Dutch which are still in use, and the Portuguese names were noted? --Roke 09:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology and apologize for being such a tenatious bitch about the whole thing, which was not worth the energy spent. --Blechnic (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) PS I'm more a drama queen than a rageoholic. Drama seems necessary to be heard on Wikipedia above all the strident cries for affirmation of brilliance. Next time you see me on AN/I, feel free to shoot me; or not.[reply]

Hello, reviewing NYScholar's talk page archives, I noticed that you have dealt with this editor in the past. Currently, at The Dark Knight (film) and Talk:The Dark Knight (film), we have been dealing with this editor, who some of us feel have been patronizing the rest of us. Regarding an issue with WP:EL, NYScholar's arm had to be twisted to accept the consensus for the inclusion of a link. The editor has made a lot of decent edits to the film article but seems combative whenever any of his/her changes are challenged. There hasn't been a serious incident, but I'm concerned about future conflicts with the lack of cooperation on his/her part. Do you have any suggestions in this regard? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't help you. I previously blocked him, and it was overturned as a bad block. You want someone who will be accepted as a neutral referee, not someone who will be perceived as having a bias against a party to the dispute. Hesperian 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I was not aware of what happened (having only seen your name and some discussion in the talk page archive). Thank you, anyway. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd mind reviewing this with respect to the claim I made and the format of the statement. Do you have any material which can verify this? (ignore my email). Moondyne 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From p. 210:

"Etymology. Named for Dr Rica Erickson (1908–), author, historian, wildflower artist and botanist, who wrote Orchids of the West (Erickson 1965), and continued to paint orchids and write about them into her 90s (e.g. Hopper and Erickson 2003). Rica's work has inspired generations of orchid enthusiasts, and she remains passionately committed to the conservation of orchids and other wildflowers."

Hesperian 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect and thanks. Moondyne 10:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i didnt know and didnt get to my messages on time. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wont happen again. You just get caught up in emotion when you try to keep something you worked hard on. Im new to this stuff lol Kelvin Martinez (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I carried on like a pork chop the first time one of my articles got nominated for AfD too. You learn to roll with these things after a while. WP:FUCK is good reading, although it is easier said than done in situations like this. Hesperian 03:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that "ballot-stuffing" revert to my talk page earlier. Saves me the hassle of doing the job myself :) The offender appears to have stopped. -- Longhair\^talk 04:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, per the thread above this one ;-) Hesperian 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperian, the list of Australian islands I came across accidentally while looking at different Australian categories. It was less incomplete than now, but I agree it is never going to be a perfect list. This list works in conjunction with other lists - islands of the Indian Ocean, islands of continents, etc. In total, as an existing body of work it needs to be respected and improved where possible.

The initial purpose of my work was to do some gap analysis, to find out what is documented (to add them to the list) and to find where there are missing pages. I have an interest in categories and think in the long run, where pages exist, that categories are more useful. The lists do allow red links to be added.

Note: Thank you for reminding me of the Abrolhos island list. There is already a category of for Houtman Abrolhos, which someone has put a lot of work into and it is very comprehensive. I was not trying to replicate that, just to extract the islands part of the information. There are too many of them and I will but a See also ... link into the list to point to this page. Stellar (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a category for Houtman Abrolhos, which someone has put a lot of work into and it is very comprehensive. Is there really? I must have a look at that, as this is a topic that interests me a lot. Thanks for the pointer. Hesperian 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Moondyne 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how that could have come about... Orderinchaos 03:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you'd noticed, but at long last there appears to be significantly improved imagery available around the Abrolhos using Google Earth. For example, the stone jetty on Gun Island is now clearly defined. Sadly World Wind is still crappy. Moondyne 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that... but why is this topic heading Landsat? Landsat TM only gives you 30m x 30m resolution. These are surely IKONOS or something of that ilk. Hesperian 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't now that. Moondyne 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised you're a sock of NYScholar.[15] ;-) Hesperian 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, haha. Could you adjust this section title and while you're at it, add "Regards" after my last comment please. Moondyne 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[16] Hesperian 03:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moondyne 03:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they are case sensitive. Thanks for changing that. Stellar (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got him SatuSuro 06:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

got who? Hesperian 14:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gmail to explain SatuSuro 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, that was ages ago; no chance of me picking that reference out of the edit soup before me. I was going to nominate it for deletion just to see the priceless look on your face, but unfortunately I was able to find some reliable sources for it. Hesperian 12:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (p.s. just kidding)[reply]

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