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.

 *blink* Orderinchaos78 13:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• blank* - please check my recent edits - we have a serial issue... SatuSuro 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that SatuSuro 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, im working hard on my wiki-ness :)ive realised that if me and wiki are to work, then i have to be more polite and ALWAYS be nice to people. Thanks for the help SMBarnZy 12:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its too much like watching grass grow. I have decided though that you should ask Jumbo for a payrise. Signing off. —Moondyne 13:00, March 2007 (UTC)

Every single WikiProject uses quality categories of the form Category:FA-Class plant articles (i.e. capital "C" for "Class"), but importance categories of the form Category:Top-importance plant articles (i.e. lower case "i" for "importance") for importance. Ridiculous. WP:PLANTS is the only exception, using lower case for both. Although it is trivially obvious that we are right and everyone else is wrong, I do wonder whether us being different is likely to upset some of the assessment bots. This is just food for thought; no need to respond or leap into action. Hesperian 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when I was setting up the template, I copied and pasted from so many places I can't remember where the lower-case class categories came from, but at least I was consistent! I did the same with WP:CPS assessment. And looking over this list of articles I see that WP:PLANTS isn't alone. For example: Category:FA-class Munich articles, Category:FA-class Radio articles (why a capital "R" for radio?), and Category:FA-class Italy articles. I don't think the assessment bot has any trouble with case-sensitivity. It seems to be doing a fine job with those WikiProjects and WP:CPS as well as the initial WP:PLANTS. Good eye, though, I never would have seen that! --Rkitko 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not rating lists by importance? I would have been inclined to replace Category:List plant pages by Category:Plant lists by quality and Category:Plants lists by importance. Hesperian 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another excellent point! I hadn't considered that this morning before I had my coffee. I suppose I'll have to create ((Top-L-importance)), ((High-L-importance)), etc. (L for "list") in the main template space (i.e. ((Top-importance))). Do you see any problem with doing that for use on only one WikiProject? I haven't created many templates, so I'm not aware of naming conventions or deletion policies. Those are my only concerns. Otherwise it's a great idea, although some may argue it adds unnecessary complexity to the project banner. We do have so many lists in our project, though! It could definitely be used. --Rkitko 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want ((Top-L-importance))? ((Top-importance)) doesn't categorise - it merely produces a pretty coloured box with the word "Top" in it. Unless you're determined to make Top-class lists show as a different colour to Top-class articles, you should be able to use ((Top-importance)) for both. Hesperian 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't figure out a way in the syntax of the template to rate a list as "Top" without it categorizing it into Category:Top-importance plant articles. Is there a way?

Using ((WikiProject Plants|importance=Top)) will use Template:Top-importance but it will also recognize and categorize it into Category:Top-importance plant articles. If you use different syntax, such as ((WikiProject Plants|importance=Top-L)), the template as it's currently set up will try to use Template:Top-L-importance for the colored notice on the left hand side of the template and can be told to categorize it under Category:Top-importance plant lists. Is there some way to use a "list=yes" parameter to shift the way the template recognizes the "Top" parameter so it will still use Template:Top-importance but use a different category? I'm at a loss, but I'll keep tinkering with it in User:Rkitko/sandbox5 to see what I can do. --Rkitko 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be done. I'm no expert on template coding but I'll figure it out eventually. Meanwhile, you can solve your problem by turning Template:Top-L-importance into a redirect to Template:Top-importance. Hesperian 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, with the "list=yes" parameter, I can only get it to add the "Top-importance plant lists" category. Can't figure out a way to remove the "Top-importance plant articles" category. See User talk:Rkitko/sandbox for the example. I'm no expert in template coding either, but I can look at an example of one working and cobble together one for my own purposes. Know of any WikiProjects that sort their lists by importance and quality? --Rkitko 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting news about the Dryandra - is it creating a lot of wikiwork? The storm didn't do any damage to me or my work; but my building was closed for a few days :)

Anyway I'm here to talk categories; there seems to be a push on cfd to merge flora and fauna cats back into a bigger entity - Europe for example was listed on the 8th; and I think the US has been done already. There also seems to be a move to add endemic to the cats (see Category:Natural history of the Galápagos Islands; its also happening with bird cats); this would clear up some problems (millions of categories on an article), but I think it creates others (native, like in the case of animals in Australian and PNG, and naturalized species etc.). So do you think we should move the Australia cats to Endemic flora/fauna of state? Species with large distribution just get stuck in Mammals of Australia or something similar? Flora seems to be sorted. It's a mess. --Peta 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow thanks for that! :) SatuSuro 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Indeed! it was good night from him and might be good night from me SatuSuro 12:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Porongororps needs a once over SatuSuro 11:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperian, would you mind having a look at this comment left on my talk page: User_talk:Greatwalk#Calendars

User:Pak21 refers to my inclusion of material that is currently under consideration on AfDs. He may, in fact, be correct in his assessment, but throughout these discussions he has been quarrelsome (beginning here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetry454 and ambling through a series of subsequent AfD discussions. By the time he reposts this same 'concern' to Talk:Calendar reform#Mention of proposed calendars, I don't believe anyone can be bothered answering one more time. I find Pak21's approach difficult, and I don't really trust his assessment...so I am seeking a second opinion.

If possible, I'd like feedback on two points:

• Was it wrong to merge material to Lunisolar calendar for the reasons Pak21 states or otherwise?
• Is there some way to address deletions of appropriate material? Pak21 has been removing all references to these calendars in other, valid articles in spite of the fact they could be the subjects of perfectly valid Wiki articles at a later date. Examples of Pak21's deletions can be found at Calendar reform and List of calendars and Lunisolar calendar (aside from the material I merged).

Thanks...I look forward to hearing and learning whether or not I've done something out-of-turn. Also, how best to deal with circumstances like these. Warm regards, --Greatwalk 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your help with this was much appreciated...Thanks. Are there guidelines for referring to merged material that several authors contributed to over a period of time? Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did explain the reasoning for the deletion of the information at Talk:Calendar reform#Mention of proposed calendars. but received no reply. Secondly, as the consensus was to delete, can either of you please explain to me what the reasoning behind these edits by Greatwalk (operating under an anonymous IP) which re-add links to deleted articles? Thirdly, the material added to Lunisolar calendar was far more than "a couple of sentences": this is a copy-and-paste merge of an entire article currently at AfD. The point here always has been that none of this information has a single reliable source and therefore (as Hesperian notes) can be removed from an article at any time. Provide sources, then re-add the information. Don't shoot the messenger. --Pak21 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Firstly, fair point. Your edit summaries suggested otherwise, but your talk page comment places your removal of that material on legitimate grounds.

Re: Secondly, this is simply the behaviour of someone who, despite the deletion of the articles as unattributed, believes the material to be attributable. Since Greatwalk believes it possible to create a suitably attributed article, it is perfectly consistent for her to retain the redlinks to those locations. Note that I'm explaining the reasoning, as requested; I'm neither endorsing nor condemning it.

Re: Thirdly, thanks for correcting me on that, but my take on the GFDL aspect remains the same.

Hesperian 10:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...Pak, you received no reply because myself and two others (at least) had already responded to this v question, on more than one occasion. Your style seems to ignore responses that don't agree with your own interpretation, plain and simple. I'll drop a comment on Talk:Calendar reform#Mention of proposed calendars if you like, but it is a bit disingenuous (as far as I'm concerned) to say you weren't aware of the grounds people had for keeping these links before you asked this question. Do I need to leave comments on Lunisolar calendar and List of calendars too? Regards, --Greatwalk 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes...I did complete one edit without signing on, but I also claimed full credit for it: I certainly was not attempting to hide my identity. --Greatwalk 11:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. No-one with any brains would see anything nefarious in the occasional un-logged-in edit. Hesperian 11:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse my actions with respect to GFDL issues as being "disengenous" again. I regard GFDL issues as of the highest importance to Wikipedia, and I do take these into account when merging articles. Please assume good faith and do not make personal attacks such as this unless you can show that I have ever even once disregarded the GFDL. --Pak21 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! you know me too well! BarnZy + AC = Match :) Thanks for the idea! SMBarnZy 11:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, im quite bored - i need something to make an article on, preferrably Aquinas related or Western Australia related. any ideas? SMBarnZy 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to know alot, do you know of any Aquinas Alumni not listed on the page currently? SMBarnZy 12:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love those Excel dates! —Moondyne 12:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy.

1. copied out of WP into Excel,
2. reformatted
3. copy into http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~sdouglas/table.cgi and converted to wiki table
4. copied back to WP

—Moondyne 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might still want to do that if you want to wikify the dates. —Moondyne 01:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bloke here has been putting a bit of advertising around Special:Contributions/155.143.248.122. On further checking he has linked to external websites of professional photographers. Is this ok or is it considered advertising? Fancyfootwork 23:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the cats at ken s - cycling backwards fast this am, warning the next one is not exactly anyones hero either... SatuSuro 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would withdraw your accusation of personal attacks. I made a general comment, and you chose to jump in front with the express intention of turning it into a personal attack. Thats not my fault.

It's true that I think that anyone who would consider 100+ year old artsy nudes of kids from a famous early photographer to be child porn is someone who has issues. I did not intend you or anyone else to take it personally. Had the original poster claimed to personally view the images as porn rather than instead proposing that the images violated the letter of an oddball set of legal test, then I would not have made my point so bluntly. That said, I saw no reason to revoke it when you later attempted a human shield maneuver to get me to retract my statement. :)

We don't have to agree and thats okay with me. I hope it's okay with you, because your current approach is unlikely to change my position.--Gmaxwell 05:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pursue this analysis of the discussion viz your "human shield" comment.

1. You've now withdrawn to a more defensible position, but your original assertion was essentially "if you have concerns about these images, you're a pervert"
2. I didn't and don't consider that a personal attack, but I do consider it a blatant ad hominem argument.
3. I attempted to call you on your ad hominem argument with what you have aptly named a "human shield manoeuvre".
4. You chose to pull the trigger again. The result: a personal attack by anyone's reckoning.

You won't be getting a withdrawal from me. But at this point I'm prepared to file away what I've learned from this interaction and let the matter lapse, if you want. Hesperian 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started to respond and thank you for offering to discontinue a non-productive thread, but then I looked and saw the latest aggressive response on WP:AN, and am no longer interested in thanking you for anything. I'd really prefer, and at this point I feel I must insist, that you remove your unfair claims of personal attack.

I don't think it's totally unreasonable to characterize my initial argument as containing an ad hominem element. An appropriate response to my position would have been to specifically call it a ad hominem rather than disrupting the discussion with an attempt to twist my response after the fact into a personal attack.

Had you done so, I I would have stated: I do not consider that aspect of my position to be an argument ad hominem. Imagine for a moment that we had a machine which generated purely random abstract images. You obtained a sample of people, and discovered that some of them claimed the images to be child porn. On this basis should I conclude that the images may be child porn or should I instead consider that possibility that some of the subject have an abnormal and overactive sexual imagination? I would argue the latter because the very nature of the image precludes the possibility of the images being child porn. I believe in this situation the nature and origin of the images precludes the possibility of them being child porn as a matter of fact, and that the subjective position that the images are child porn is evidence of some malfunction on the part of the viewer. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't make me your mortal enemy.

To me it appears that rather than addressing my argument you have chosen to derail the discussion by claiming that I'm attacking you. I feel that to do so is unfair and intellectually dishonest, and to claim it about a comment I made before you had joined the discussion and before I was even aware of your existence crosses the line into the realm of the utterly outrageous.--Gmaxwell 06:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that "latest" comment at AN before I was even aware that you had posted at my talk page.

One of your comments at AN was a personal attack on me. I will not be withdrawing that assertion, as I have community standards to uphold, as do we all.

You have a very strange notion of "outrageous" if you think it's okay to go around calling people you've never met perverts, but think it outrageous that they should consider that a personal attack. That's just ludicrous.

I have no interest in debating with you the merits of your very greatly modified position, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Hesperian 06:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i will put it back within 20 mins, as soon as the test for WP 1.0 bot is completed. --Parker007 05:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Too bad woodchipping is red; I've been seeing this quite a bit lately - articles of generic scope but importance only to Australia coming up red. Wish I could remember what the other recent example was.... Hesperian 05:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Needs work, but a start. - Fred ^(talk) 13:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... (cyclone list) its just what the wa project needed - I think I'll need to buy a brewery for... SatuSuro 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC) gmail in a minute or two SatuSuro 06:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the brewery. No reply from Jimbo yet so it looks like I'm buying the 1st round. —Moondyne 07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Out for the day possibly, will explain an aspecct of yesterdays issue by gmail SatuSuro 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no reply as yet from my emailed request either Gnangarra 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of having an unreplied email from you. Can you give me a timestamp or subject, or send again? Sorry for my disorganisation. Hesperian 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont panic, I was referring to the email I sent to Jimbo re meetup as noted above by moon Gnangarra 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response recieved only opportunity is am on the 24th note that the confrence starts at 0900 so we need to plan freeing himup by 0830. Continued on the meetup talk page Gnangarra 02:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you speedily deleted this article as "inflammatory, no salvageable content". It was marked as CSD:T1, but that only applies to templates. Did you intend something along the lines of "Once all the garbage is deleted, there will be nothing left, so it's basically empty", or am I missing something. Note that I did not get a chance to read the article, I'm just a new New Page Patroller asking as a matter of procedure. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, This article was speedy deleted as T1. My understanding is that that reason only applies to templates, and not to articles. I was about to replace the ((template:db-disparage)) with ((template:prod)) because of this. (Mind you, I have no problem with the article's deletion, as it was definitely NPOV, OR, and unsourced.) Just curious. I'll check back here. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you guys want it undeleted, you only have to ask. Hesperian 05:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no preference, just wondering about procedure, and thanks for explaining same. Of course, the author may have a different position.  ;-) --Butseriouslyfolks 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'd love to use that tag to speedy some articles. I guess AfD it is. I voted delete already. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read this half of your thread, so apologies if I've misunderstood. In the case of ((WP Banksia)): yes, the auto-assess was a quick fix. Yes, there should be a plants-importance parameter. Earlier this month a genus of about 90 species got transferred to Banksia, so we have our work cut out for us at the moment. I'll get back to the template eventually. Or feel free to have a crack at it yoursel(f/ves) if you want to. Hesperian 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I'm glad I understood it correctly as a quick fix. If you go here: User talk:Rkitko/sandbox and remove the "nowiki" tags from the first transcluded template, you can see my experiment with the plants-importance parameter. Think that works? I know you're busy with the new species and all (how exciting!), so let me know and I can add it (with testing, of course) to ((WP Banksia)) as well. On a side note, I can't believe how much botanical work is being done in Australia right now. I'm extremely jealous. Most of these revisions are coming about during preparation for volumes of the Flora of Australia, correct? The volume that will include Stylidiaceae is years away and I can't wait until Juliet Wege completes it. I've been anxiously awaiting this since I can barely cobble together a small piece of the subgenus and section taxonomy from available published papers. The last monograph was written in the early 1900s and is now considered so out of date because about 150 new species have been discovered since then. Still very exciting. I wish I could be a part of it, but I'm a several years away from a PhD and on another continent. Well anyway, I digress. Let me know what you think of the test template :-) --Rkitko ^(talk) 07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the ((permprot)) rollout? Has this been discussed? Are you going to follow up by protecting these? Or is someone else? Or should I? Hesperian 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding templates are all protected and tagged with ((protected template)) already – I'm just tagging the talk pages with ((permprot)) in cases where it hasn't been done. I'm not going to protect or unprotect anything – apart from anything else I'm not an administrator, so I can't. Thanks – Qxz 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) SatuSuro 04:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cultivar "in the strict sense of the word", dear sir or madam, is a plant produced by human selection and vegetatively propagated to perpetuate its characteristics. Niceties such as registration with the ICNCP are not germane to the fundamental meaning of the word. Cultivars of elm have been recognized for almost three centuries, long before the inception of ICNCP I suspect, and that should not be allowed to devalue the horticultural distinction. As for my inclusion of tradenames on the index page, this was done primarily for the convenience of the reader / researcher. It is a fact of life that most plants become generally known by their tradenames, not cv. name, and I therefore think it important to retain the style adopted. Ptelea 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem I'm not alone here. I have four references, all published this century, that make no mention of the ICNCP in their definitions either. My classification is based simply on that given in the references I have to hand, notably the accession lists of major arboreta such as the Arnold (available via the multi-site search engine [1]). I am not in possession of the ICNCP listings, but if such an esteemed establishment as the Arnold Arb. is prepared to classify an elm, eg Bea Schwarz, as a cultivar, then that's good enough for me. Adopt the Wiki definition without question if you will, but I think this will only create unnecessary complexity and confusion, and there's surely enough of that in the sphere of elm taxonomy already. As for trademarks, I note Wiki gudelines permit their usage to discriminate between names used in the pharmaceutical industry, and I would contend that horticulture is analogous here.

Ptelea 11:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he hasnt been done before we look - is requesting to be put out to pasture I would suggest SatuSuro 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And is biting warnings - I would suggest a look SatuSuro 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand - it happened last time - bovine dexterity in evading the final chop _ I was tempted to paste the contributions on the talk page - but figured there might be an issue if I did that.. thanks. SatuSuro 11:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yor initiative in contacting AABGA, presumably we'll end up with two lists of cultivars, ICNCP-recognized and 'other'. No point in pursuing the argument over trademarks, I've made my case; if you or others choose to override me, so be it. What concerns me most is the sanctity of the content I've spent far too much time assembling. Ptelea 12:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Doubtless you will copy me any rsponse from the AABGA[reply]

Are blocks supposed to be used as punishment, that seemed like that one was intended to be. I mean, I have followed this "thing" a bit, just in passing (I failed the Percy Henn GA nom) so I do know the user has been disruptive in the pass, but isn't it possible (at the risk of making a personal attack, which is not my intention) that Auroranorth might just catch on really slowly, it does seem like he's been trying, occassionally. Anyway, just a comment. Take it as you will. IvoShandor 12:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Nevermind. Sheesh about covers it, sorry. IvoShandor 12:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that the block will actually accomplish anything, I am sure. Good luck. IvoShandor 12:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I definitely didn't think there was any malice involved, so don't think that. But all the same, I thought it best to inquire. Thanks for the prompt explanation, like I said, I am familiar with the user's pattern of behavior so it was no surprise to me. But I do appreciate you taking the time to explain to me that this isn't just some random admin's random decision. I knew there was probably more to it anyway, than just you or Moondyne blocking him. I tried once to help him. Seems never to do any good. Sorry if I made you feel like I was accusing you of something, I didn't mean to. IvoShandor 12:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no problem. I can't stand it when problematic users accuse good, hard working Wikipedians of vandalism, not taking the wiki seriously etc. Grrr... IvoShandor 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the hell this is supposed to mean: In two weeks time, What was that? 2 will come into effect for the following:? That's from Aurora's talk page, and includes you me and Moondyne. IvoShandor 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It was just so freakin' weird. I honestly can't explain that person's actions at all, they make no sense. Perhaps this user has used his reformation as a veiled attempt at continued disruption. IvoShandor 11:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment, I'll respond here. We can just rename the project WikiProject U.S. Ghost towns. Originally, when I conceived the idea, and proposed the project the scope was to be the entire world. However, that was a massive undertaking and one that such a broad project could never hope to conceivably undertake with any real overall effect on the quality of the coverage or articles. I just forgot to rename it. I would be happy to include other countries, any of them, as I am far from U.S. centric. If there is interest. Or just break the project into task forces. But no one seems to even really care about the project anyway. : ( IvoShandor 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag away. Check it now, :WP:GTS, still needs some work, outlined in the scope. Maybe it will make more people care. IvoShandor 12:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[after another edit conflict] I fully concur with Aurora's block in order to protect the wiki from further damage. This short term block demonstrates that you assume good faith. What it accomplishes is that the user can now brace himself for a long term holiday from WP when he next causes damage.

As for the other one, see [2] and the html comment above. What do you think? —Moondyne 12:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well - the copyvio and the misuse of template space were really a continuation of what was going on before. Re: other, have had to fix a few of these again (and then there's this apparent duplicate). Found them while checking CJ's new assessment system. Orderinchaos78 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinascruft :D DanielT5 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and no worries, I can see your busy. Your presence on the field has been noted. Fred 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I'll go back to that spooky ensemble cain and destructus - then reptiles. Fred 07:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Wilco. Fred 11:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you will take my comment on the ghost town project the right way - sheesh - I think it should be the new WA Project code word for thats it! SatuSuro 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Im not sure how to reference that bit: "(32°1′23.2″S, 115°51′49.6″E)" ive never seen it on a website, but i remember fixing it on te google search, so it was correct, because before it was in the middle of the river - would like having the google page work as a reference? SMBarnZy 10:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Peninsular City, i have decided to remove it as a reference from the article, and rely more heavily on OHG. Cutting out two new hockey and footy ovals is a bit narrow isnt it? id consider that unencyclopedic - to include that? maybe cutting the 15 acres of bush is almost, but its slightly narrow.

And the AfD - i thought that like if something had reliable secondary sources it was OK? obviously not? thats what WP:N said?oh well, im not too concerned.

Were there any other problems with references? because i cant get OHG out of the library until the 20th. SMBarnZy 11:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for the geo-science ref - it is almost scary how much some admins know O>O SMBarnZy 11:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, quick question - should i include page numbers for all books refernced?SMBarnZy 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to no wrong doing. The truth in the matter is that i actually read OHG and PC, not word for word, and i remeber reading it somewhere and i presumed it was PC, my mistake - i think ill read it again. And find the source for you SMBarnZy 11:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if i am to reference the page numbers - then will i have a separate reference for each diff page number eg: Aquinas College Student Diary 2006 - Page 1 for referencing page 1, and Aquinas College Student Diary 2006 - Page 2 for referencing page 2 at the bottom of the article?SMBarnZy 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks alot for clearing that up for me! Champion :) SMBarnZy 11:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why Scotch College has an article on this? This information would make the GGS article rather long, don't you think? The houses are named after influential people in history. I'm new (but I've edited frequently on my IP), but I can see that there is rather a lot of ambiguity in this. Seventy dot 11:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i think the articles shouldnt exist, but they do look nice. I think it would be good if there was some sort of agreement on this! because i think its somewhat unfair for one school to have a list of houses, and another school (using the exact same like thing) not to have it. It makes it seem like there is a bias towards a school SMBarnZy 12:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the GGS house system is very notable (more notable than the Scotch houses) as they all have a rich history and are named after very influential people (see above). Seventy dot 12:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Id tend to disagree, there is no secondary source for it. and this is an article about the house system of a schools importance that is rated as "Low" SMBarnZy 12:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source -> Page 62 of the Guildford Grammar School handbook, stating the housemasters, mentors and house names. Seventy dot 12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can you help me with bringing up the page history of the GGS house system page - I would like to copy my template into the main Guildford Grammar School article. Thanks in advance

Seventy ... dot ... 12:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Seventy ... dot ... 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my mistake. How can I display this as a link, rather than make it appear as a category at the bottom of the page?

Seventy ... dot ... 01:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought there was a bit of Dutch in you [3]? I hope you haven't been outed? —Moondyne 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Whoops. —Moondyne 04:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this sort of thing. Banksia marginata, silver banksia If you think it can fit into the banksia project, I will upload them. Their antiquity makes them notable, perhaps. Fred 16:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You not only answered my last question, but my next two. The above is by Ellis Rowan, who is a woman artist (or a flowering plant one) ;-) Fred 23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done. He's no Einstein. —Moondyne 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know that BigMacintosh (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of Auroranorth? Real96 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auroa was block and Seventy dot (talk · contribs) started from the same IP then that was blocked as a sock of Aurora and User BigMacintosh appears from the same IP straight away. I think Hesperian actions are sound in this case. Gnangarra 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rkitko, You might like to have a closer look at Category:Bushfood. It is in both Category:Fauna of Australia and Category:Flora of Australia. Consequently articles like witchetty grub, which is an animal, is being tagged into WP:PLANTS. Hesperian 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Egg on my face! Thanks for noticing. I'll go through by hand and remove the non-plant ones. I caught a few mycology-related ones that snuck through, too. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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