Copyvio at Franz Bauer.
To advertise at this space, please contact 654 3789
Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award | ||
For the Cygnis Insignis relentlus While we sleep there he is churning away priceless new articles and confounding us with the breadth of his knowledge and info collection - thank huey we have eds like him Satu Suro 01:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
While i appreciate your recent comments, I guess, it is becoming too much tiring to edit anything on Wikipedia. The editors are becoming over-cautious. I agree that i added a link, which was redlink, but it became red as the article itself was deleted. I don't see any problem with the article as well. I feel it was as per guidelines. It was a stub, i could add further information later, but the moment i post article, it is deleted (speedydelete). I can show maybe 5 - 10 additional articles, which are in the same field, but not good and not as per guidelines. I am talking about Social Networking.
I am not new to Wikipedia and have edited many times in the past (even i added many articles, with IP only and not as a registered user). Things were much better during those days. I agree Wikipedia is trying to fight spam and advertising, but the editors are creating a wall too big to allow anyone to enter into editing phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodMorningManji ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Was that you? Hesperian 05:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw "Pobblebonk" on the list of new WA articles and thought, what the heck is that?! Thanks to you, I've learnt something new today! :) Somno ( talk) 03:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
More contested than one of your frogs mate - good luck to em Satu Suro 03:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the congrats on Cockle Creek, and it being selected as a DYK link on the Wikipedia main page for 25 October, 2008. I am contributing a few new Tasmanian articles, as my interest takes me, arising from a 10 day holiday I had there in sep-oct. Articles on places and peoples - some interesting histories I'm finding. Travel really does broaden the mind :)-- Takver ( talk) 11:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Expanding Earth theory. Vsmith ( talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
gmail in a mo Satu Suro 14:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
As for length of the coastline i suppose we should defer to the geoscience online art - but having found the other distance in the beach book - i included it - maybe it should be edited out i dont know Satu Suro 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I am suprised the dogs of war havent gnawed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory Satu Suro 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Deltasaurus. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Don't revert to unreferenced stubs. cygnis insignis 04:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'm not sure why you replaced the disambiguation page with a redirect, as there are several terms to disambiguate. The ethnic slur term is mentioned in List of ethnic slurs, so the link would be changed. I'm going to restore the disambiguation page, possibly without this entry if you still have objections. Korg ( talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The Wiktionary link is an easy way to direct the reader to basic information, though a link to actual Wikipedia content might still be under consideration. Cheers, Korg ( talk) 00:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Royal broil 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the centenary? Satu Suro 12:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC) In my most recent archive - 565 DYK for Centenary of Western Australia - Satu Suro 12:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I keep trying to stop editing to give time to other issues before i go over east again - it is getting hard to actually simply sign off, so trying to cut the habit of wanting to check when i should be sorting through some stuff before i go Satu Suro 12:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have withdrawn the AfD on the Australian band Spy vs. Spy, since the article has been cleaned up significantly. I am very glad that the article is remaining. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have nominated Paul Myners, Baron Myners ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. cygnis insignis 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It was added to the "List of famous fig trees", which is a list of famous individual trees. Not sure what the anon had in mind when s/he added an entire species to a list of individuals. Hence the "huh"? Guettarda ( talk) 16:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks to me like Stylidium rupestre. Fairly prevalent near Albany and blooms into December. -- Rkitko ( talk) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
On the Stylidium violaceum images, I'd say you're right. The scapes are entirely glabrous, the floral throat appendages match the description I have of S. violaceum, and the leaves are linear, almost grass-like. This one's very hard to misidentify. Oh, and by the way, I ended up e-mailing Juliet Wege for help on that identification. Hope you don't mind. She had an auto-response that said she'll be out of the office until December, so we won't get a quick answer on that, but when we do it will be by the expert! Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 13:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:One more thing - it seems like you've found one of the rare mutants, unless it's a trick of the camera angle. I count two different flowers on that scape in the first image that have two additional petals in the corolla. Those floral mutants happen from time to time. Rkitko ( talk) 13:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
How did the article come to be nominated 3 minutes after creation? cygnis insignis 01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC) and 06:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page. Nothing personal was taken. You are correct and I apologize for the incorrect edit. I checked WP:MOSNUM and it allows that date format so long as it is not in a sentence; tables and other usages (like in a ref as it's used in Xanthosia rotundifolia) are acceptable. I too prefer not to get in a discussion over date formats, other than to say it has been widely discussed and there appears to be consensus. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your change to History of Western Australia, links are generally excluded from the first few words of the articles title. cygnis insignis 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, the page has been unprotected. Kaldari ( talk) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the bad edit summary there; just in case you didn't look closely enough, it isn't your edit that I reverted. Hesperian 13:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I shall take your demand under advisement.
Do you genuinely believe that the Linnaean system should displace the 1500-year old project of creating an all-encompassing English language? It's a source of loanwords, necessary for Hesperian's "ugly little plants", but pedantry for Norway maple.
The WikiProjects I have taken most part in listen to non-specialists; we get little enough reader feedback. Rather than setting up a new Latinate priesthood, we should try, where feasible - as it is here, for a language "understanded of the people". Producing a beautiful article which is pointlessly unintelligible to the common reader is a waste of everybody's time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, are you in Albs too? Maybe catch you sometime in New Year after holidays are over. Best Regards -- Hughesdarren ( talk) 11:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I believe this content more fairly belongs in the Stirling Range National Park page, could you justify to me why you think it belongs in the Stirling Range rather than revert my edits on the belief I am a newbie? (I started editing under another account in 2003) - Schnob Reider ( talk) 01:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Back - will try to crawl away under a rock again soon Satu Suro 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
it is all art - bum ti bum tiddly de dumb. something like that. Satu Suro 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to be less enigmatic. Do you want me to add that pic to the article? Or do you want something on sandalwood in the Harbour? I am a simple journalist and innocent of Wikipedia custom... Davidcohen ( talk) 10:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You're going to end up in deep shit soon if you don't pull back.
I too have been the victim of procedural reverts devoid of any rationale. I get how much they shit you.
But that will not be obvious to anyone who takes a cursory look at the situation. What will be obvious is that you continue to move a page whilst knowing that the matter is disputed. I don't think you can bank on the average administrator trying to see it from your point of view; no, the average administrator will just belt you with the banhammer and move on.
Hesperian 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what sources you are working from, but I have a copy of Allen's Freshwater Fishes of Australia on my bookshelf. I don't have access to a scanner at the moment, but the entry on L. salamandroides is only a page long if you'd like me to type it in to an email.
Hesperian
10:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Relevant: [1] Hesperian 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And another thing; one that had been on my mind for a long time. I keep putting off mentioning it, but Moondyne's retirement has come as a bit of a shock and right now I'm in no state to do anything but talk to me mates.
I seem to have permanently lost the ability to focus single-mindedly on a topic. Instead I always have several irons in the fire, and the best I can hope for is the discipline not to take on too many things at once. It is probably a bad sign that I'm already looking ahead at what I might take on next. I have two projects in mind, and by coincidence both are topics that I fancy you might like to collaborate on.
Over at Wikisource I have less than 100 pages to go of Diary of ten years, and once that is done there is room for me to take on something new, and I was tossing up having a fresh crack at Curtis's.
Here on Wikipedia I have recommitted to finishing my long-neglected North Island and B. sessilis articles, and then I was thinking of having a go at Cephalotus.
Any thoughts?
Hesperian 11:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It was only done to give recognition to Ian who generously donated many photos to Wikipedia. GrahamBould ( talk) 06:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/13/2465210.htm Satu Suro 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yo ho no briney, or slimey - they the begatters of fictions louder than words - the rats of the word, the carrion of the truth - they wouldnt know where their parentage sprung from - forsooth - they might knot know who they are - yet they flay us with their rags of petulance and their ignorance of so much. To think I was one once. It is better a memory than a practice. Satu Suro 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh shiver me timbers and dross the floss I left the reply on my talk - sqwuawk - Hig-saw, crypto-jokeology, or journalism? - where did the egg come from did the chicken dross the hoss, or the road, and why the chicken - did it come before the hatch? - i suspect you have a hot potato on hand - Mr and Mrs Plagiarism will be so pleased with such a pleasant child SatuSuro 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SatuSuro" Satu Suro 13:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
My best question of the day so far before I seek the solace of sleep where are you located? I love it I could wax ten times more than I did in reply - parts of me are in darwin, sydney, strahan, and 800 metres above the sand flat of our fellow trepidatious contributors - as to the chick and the flea - always remember the kangaroo tick that crawls when standing above the ermophilla whyen taking a whiff - ah sleep it beckons and the temors of the myriad of unreproducable thylacine ghosts will whimper into the aether above and through the south west forests Satu Suro 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You might want to review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Cheers, Jack ( talk) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You know that wasn't a typo, but you'll be happy to know that I'm not going to disagree with you on this. Take a look at my user page and see if you can spot what's changed. It happened after this discussion (just skip to the end if you're feeling lazy). Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
no here http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search~S1?/Xg+m+storr&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D/Xg+m+storr&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D&SUBKEY=g%20m%20storr/1%2C34%2C34%2CB/frameset&FF=Xg+m+storr&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D&3%2C3%2C i would drink to that Satu Suro 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No, that would not be good. See here - we treat them presently in Centaurea pending a complete revision of the genus, but note that "Plectocephalus is part of the basal grade in Centaureinae and is not closely related to Centaurea in a narrow sense".
It is really just the Australian plant that is ambiguous, and it seems to have jug flower as a name used for nothing else. C. cyaneus is "Cornflower" to almost anybody, with "basket flower" an apparent retcon from the superficially similar Plectocephalus (try Google on "basket flower" centaurea).
So "basket flower" refers to the present Centaurea sect. Plectocephalus (the future Plectocephalus) both most unambiguously and most frequently (as per Google, about three times as often for Plectocephaluses than for either of the others). To redirect and disambiguate at Centaurea is in line with WP:PRECISION and the Plants project's naming convention. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 20:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent change to the taxobox in
Agkistrodon piscivorus, I discovered relatively late (2007?) that omitting the "name=" entry would result in the article title being used. After I realized this, I've often felt tempted to remove them systematically, since for articles like this one they are superfluous. On the other hand, I also felt there was a danger that, once removed, it would look a bit more like an invitation for someone else to put them back, except with a common name. To me, maintaining such entries looks a little more like the authors were saying "We deliberately chose to have this name here."
Do these thoughts seem overly cautious, or even paranoid to you? Perhaps, but after having written so many articles, being so stubborn and encountering so many policy wonks, I guess I've become this way. --
Jwinius (
talk)
11:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent removal of the taxobox from
List of boine species and subspecies, I think the reason we often get into disputes is because of this sort of action: you see something that doesn't agree with you, so you change it and leave an explanation in the edit summary, after which I disagree, revert and leave another short explanation in the edit summary, after which you revert, etc., etc. This cycle has got to be broken. I think it would be easier for both us to get along if we were first to comment on each other's work before we go in and change things.
In this case, I have always added taxoboxes to the lists I have made, and I've made more than a few of them. It's something I learned to do from other examples: since they provide a picture and some links to higher taxa, I see them as being useful to those not familiar with the relevant taxon. Now, one of these lists is missing its taxobox.
Anyway, maybe you know something I don't know. Is there a rule that says a list can't have a taxobox? If so, I think it would be a good idea to add a picture and some links in the introduction. Cheers, --
Jwinius (
talk)
12:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your inquiry. I've responded on my talk page. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I renamed it into Draco Volans (zoology) because it was impossible to create a direct internal link to Draco Volans. Systemizer ( talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Draco volans (zoology), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. cygnis insignis 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Youre mailing yourself on this matter? Shouldnt you be letting s-one else know? Satu Suro 07:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahah the slimey tove bites back to the bandersnatch, who snatches it, then lewis carrol goes up in smoke over his own logic, and the mushroom recreates itself by transmorgification, and we get back to being slaves to the keyboard. sigh Satu Suro 07:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Draco volans (zoology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. cygnis insignis 06:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've endured days of personal attacks and incivility from User:Mokele and User:Jwinius on my talk page and at Talk:Python reticulatus. I would like to take this situation to Wikipedia:Requests for comment but can't do so until another editor besides myself was warned them on their talk pages. If you are still of the opinion that “I've waded through the incivility, bold assumptions, uncited assertions, expletives and other obstruction to this good faith contribution...obnoxious pattern of behavior..." a comment to that effect on their talk pages would be helpful in starting the corrective process. If this isn't the case, or you feel that I have been inappropriate, please indicate that. Thanks and best wishes. -- Boston ( talk) 06:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
[2] Claude Riche's greatest contribution to botany was getting lost. During the search for him, Labill. discovered Anigozanthos and Nuytsia! Not to mention B. nivea and repens. Hesperian 11:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I restructured it a bit, feel free to revert if I've messed something up. As I'm not one of WP:WA's "plant editors" (I use that as a term of endearment ;), I do have a question that may be obvious: the quote from the Carrs sounds strange to me, like it should be the first description of Australia's flora? Also, should their names be linked? They don't have articles, but they'd be notable enough for articles? Somno ( talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well done! Satu Suro 06:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If don't mind having Bearded Dragon (pet) – we have Pet skunk, too. We need a genus page, too, of course. I wonder if "Bearded Dragon" is a subset of "Pogona" (then the genus article has to be Pogona), or if "Bearded Dragon" is just the common name for Pogona, in which case the genus article might as well be at Bearded Dragon. Do you know which one is correct? Rl ( talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the lecture. I am not a child and I do not appreciate it - nor do I appreciate or approve your censure of me, or about what I have done.
I do my best with regard to Wikipedia. If I accidentally omitted noticing that the taxobox for Bearded Dragon was missing, I apologise for this unintentional omission.
Maybe I was ill when I attempted to undo the vandalism to the page. Apart from this, I am on a dial-up system and I am not allowed very much time on the internet by my internet provider (sometimes I am only allowed a few minutes on the internet, therefore, I am forced to make very quick edits before I get disconnected). Reverting vandalism takes up a lot of the time I am allowed to be on the internet.
There should be zero tolerence given to vandalism at Wikipedia — and only non-vandalism edits should be allowed to appear on any Wikipedia article. This could be achieved if edits were checked by administrators before being allowed to appear on articles — after all, a delay would be preferable to vandalism. It is possible - after all, this is how things are done at IMDb. Figaro ( talk) 14:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This is in response to your reversal of my edit. "Section still under consideration, removal may be viewed as hostile."
In the template at the top of the policy it says: "Any edit to this page should reflect consensus. Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first."
Please note I am not deleting or adding text new text to the article I am deleting text that was not in the article two days ago and readding text that was in the article (with a few other minor changes in response to Hesperian's edits of yesterday, an edit he was perfectly entitled to make but which he needs to build a consensus if others object to them). This is how consensus is meant to work so my edit was not hostile. -- PBS ( talk) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the reason you keep placing this article's right-facing portrait on the right? Rotational ( talk) 10:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't use language like this [3]. If you're so annoyed as to say that, just step away from the computer until calm William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I've been working on articles relating to the plants of Hawaiʻi, sandalwood species, or ʻiliahi as they are known by the natives, accounting for some of them. I was actually inspired to work on these articles by a commercial encouraging viewers to visit the Hawaiian Islands, which at one point states "these plants are the story of Hawaiʻi." Although I have been to the islands several times, I learned very little about the native flora while I was there other than the fact that much of it had been replaced by non-native species. I've added references relating to the Hawaiian species on the Santalum article, as I was thinking they might be of use if anyone were to creates said articles. As much as I would like to write them myself, editing articles is distracting me from more important matters. TDogg310 ( talk) 22:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis insignis, I just saw that you edited the Homo floresiensis page, referring to the dead link, and I was wondering if we could get your input on the taxobox. You deleted it a while ago, but someone else just suggested that we should have it (see discussion here). Your edit summary made it sound like there was a pretty clear rule about when to include and when not to include the taxobox, so if you want to add your 2cents that would be great. I admit that I'm sort of torn about whether the presence presupposes species status, and the degree of agreement in the community necessary before inclusion of the taxobox. You'll see that the article is just finishing up FAR, so your comments on this now would be quite timely. Cheers, Edhubbard ( talk) 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to confess categories do little for me: categorisation seems rather arbitrary; pages you'd expect to see in category X often aren't; the UI is poor, with one click and wait per level while you're drilling down (WP's response time consists of a long wait in the server's queue, followed by quite rapid transmission; so it might be better to have fewer, bigger chunks). If I want info on a subject I use WP's or Google's search, and I get my modest knowledge of tools from discussions or from seeing what other editors use in articles I like or am reviewing. -- Philcha ( talk) 09:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
As an oggle warner (yes I warn people away from it regularly - they may be rich from their logarithm but hey I can lead anyone into just as useful and effective search engines anytime) and as a regular category creator and tagger - the above leaves me reaching for my rum (port) and ... Satu Suro 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok got that out of my system - whicher range has very important issues - a scarp (yes) and a Declared Rare Flora zone (at least 14 maybe more now) and a natural gas holder (mind you the gas reserve is almost untappable due to the reserve being in a difficult shape size and location) with the water czars wanting to walk all over it (busselton and margaret river want its water the buggers) and make dams - and its worth looking on google earth - if the buggers dont stuff it up sooner than later - see it before it gets stuffed up
Satu
Suro
13:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
btw after all that your spider man is excellent if you dont mind me saying Satu Suro 14:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeehah! well done! Satu Suro 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Does it violate NPOV to hope that spiders of Australia never becomes a blue link because of my own personal bias? Somno ( talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh hell you have given me a very different idea about arak - what a way to think of it! Satu Suro 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahah gadjah the goa - been there in the 80's and have some very very very boring photos of the area near it - somewhere in the vaults :) Satu Suro 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis insignis, only now found your appreciative comment about Phonognatha graeffei – that's so nice of you. After a season away somewhere, they are now back, hooking up again. My favourite is the folded paper dweller. There was a hatching, but so tiny my camera didn't cope. PS, how cool to be a spider named after a man called Rainbow! :) Julia Rossi ( talk) 11:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have been inclined to simply ask him to engage the community, but when I found out he'd been warned before, I thought leniency wasn't possible. I take a very hard line on copyright issues. Blueboy 96 05:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
A little editing for readability of the one section would help, possibly of most of the material I've added. I only had a few hours to edit before returning to my own research full force. These predatory pelagic snails are among the most fascinating organisms, in my opinion, like the mainless lions that bring down cape buffalo or something. If it's possible to get it together in time for a DYK it would be a good one--they have weird impossible deadlines for DYKs, though. -- KP Botany ( talk) 09:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cygnis insignis for the clean-up you already did on Janthina janthina!
To WPGastropods members and other interested parties:
If you have not already done so, please look at the thread of messages at: A very large and widespread CopyVio problem
And read the message on the Gastropod talk page conversation. from an admin who is an expert on fixing CopyVio problems, Moonriddengirl (talk).
Also please look at/read through the two new subpages created from the WikiProject Gastropods talk page, and listed at the top of
[4].
I am sorry but I have to be careful not to type too much, because I hurt my hand and fingers early this week, so rather than attempting to explain the progress so far in detail, I am leaving it up to you to read the messages and work out what is going on.
Thanks so much, Invertzoo ( talk) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis, I appreciated your message. I have not said this to anyone else but I been shattered by the reaction to what I have done. I have been pretty stupid, mainly through unbridled enthusiasm clouding my judgement - the reaction is justified. To cap it all, the provenance of my photographs in the articles has been questioned. Where will it end? I suppose I will continue after this is over, but I am losing the will. Cheers, & all the best. GrahamBould ( talk) 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC) BTW, What was "I pointed something that was 'not done' and you happily undid it" all about, I don't remember. GrahamBould ( talk) 06:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the alert I gave the admins about your changes to Janthina Janthina caused you some distress. That was not my intention and I apologize. Having dealt with software copyright infringement in my work, I felt a need to point out that we had to be even more careful moving away from the suspect text than we would be for normal edits. I should have taken the time to say that in a way that focused more on the changes and less on you. I hope you will accept this apology and not let this incident disturb you further. Celestra ( talk) 05:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the [example] I gave the admin about your changes to [AN/I] caused you some distress. That was not my intention and I apologize. Having dealt with ... infringement in my work, I felt a need to point out that we had to be even more careful moving away from ... normal edits. I should have taken the time to say that in a way that focused more on the changes and less on you. I hope you will accept this [ apology] and not let this incident disturb you further. {{ plagiarism}} 06:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you take it that way; it is intended as a sincere apology for expressing myself poorly. I didn't accuse you of plagarism, just correcting possible plagarism in a way that appeared to conceal, rather than correct the problem. I thought your actions were incorrect, but done in good faith. Celestra ( talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I Hadn’t merged anything before but it didn’t seem very controversial and as katipo is unlikely to have a huge discussion about a proposed merge, I thought I would just do it (there would probably be tags on the page forever if not). Anyway, I followed what
Wikipedia:Merge states, i.e. paste any useful information into the destination page and delete all the text from the source page and replace it with #REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]]
. Based on what I read in WP:Merge I do not think it is possible to merge 2 histories together, but if it is, let me know and I will go about getting it done. Cheers. -
Mr Bungle |
talk
00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is regrettable. I tried (and indeed try) to weed out bad typo-fixes when performing a chore like that one, which diverts my attention, but as that has obviously failed, I will now turn off typo-fixing (I obviously can't trust myself). Thanks for the spot. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis,
I think we should stick with general English unless there's a particular reason for local pronunciations. Since Albany is pronounced the same in Aussie as in RP or GA, there's no point in making our non-Australian readers bone up on Australian phonetics before they can be sure what it's supposed to sound like. Many of them already have a difficult time with the IPA. Also, most Aussie place names are given in general English, so we have two competing systems. The pron-en-au template hasn't been in active use for a couple years now. When I created it, there was some interest in it and I thought it might go somewhere, but it hasn't, so I'd like to phase it out. That would bring Australia into line with other Anglophone countries. In the dozen or so cases where the Australian pronunciation is notably distinct, we can always link directly to the Australian English phonology article. Making Australian distinct from English is rather like Americans insisting on using imperial units; the logical conclusion of that approach is to have pron-en-liverpool and pron-en-brooklyn etc. templates and making Wikipedia less accessible. kwami ( talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
youire still up for air me mat e from the sou th - trust all is well in your parts of the shire - and that its all in working order Satu Suro 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I thoink my talk page might or not amuse - the espanol message made me think i was in Hobart - ahh to have the cool wellington breeze pierce through the thermals again - I hope to find some PD images of the cunning little buggers sometime - any thoughts of where or how? Satu Suro 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEAD, the lead must summarize the whole article, including criticisms. Removing the criticisms is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Cygnis ... if you have a look at the cleanup project created to tackle the problem GrahamBould caused, you'll see why no admin is willing to unblock him. That's the definition of a community ban--when none of the over 3,000 admins is willing to unblock a user. Or in this case, given the legal danger he put the project in, no admin will unblock him without facing calls for him to be desysopped. If you want to discuss it, though, you're more than welcome to start a discussion at WP:AN. Blueboy 96 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that the context template on your user page puts the page in the category of articles needing context. If you're doiong it as a joke, may I suggest using the following instead? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article with a good introductory style. |
Thank you for your picture. ;) Gustavocarra ( talk) 14:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis, Could you please explain your reasoning for reversing my edit on the Yagan article as against the NPOV policy? My edit was as follows:
original: Throughout the repatriation process, many sections of the international media treated the story as a joke. One example given by Adam Shoemaker is a US News & World Report story headlined Raiders of the Lost Conk, in which Yagan's head is referred to as a "pickled curio", and Colbung's actions are treated as a publicity stunt; this treatment stands in stark contrast to the respectful tone in which the same newspaper covered the work of International War Crimes inspectors uncovering mass grave sites in former Yugoslavia.[20]
: removal of:
this treatment stands in stark contrast to the respectful tone in which the same newspaper covered the work of International War Crimes inspectors uncovering mass grave sites in former Yugoslavia.[20]
My reason for the edit was that the removed fragment only serves to advance the author's opinions, not to enhance anyone's knowledge of Yagan. While it contains a "cited fact", that fact is inappropriate to the current context. The description of the 'pickled curio' article makes a clear enough case that the story was treated as a joke by the media. The fact that the discovery of mass graves in Yugoslavia were not treated as a joke by US News & World Report is both obvious and irrelevant; the only purpose such a statement serves in this context is to equate the Yagan situation with the latter war crimes, which is editorialising. It was in the spirit of making one small stab towards a more NPOV in a remarkably non-neutral (as noted by numerous other users on the talk page) article that I removed that small fragment. Unfortunately the original author of the article appears to be quite determined to undo any changes which others make in attempting to help it conform to wikipedia's NPOV standards.
Anyway, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks for the, um, neutral, welcome:-)
67.188.117.117 ( talk) 11:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Kay
Still dont have a definitive site but the stuff on that page now gives some good indication as to possible location, from bit I have read the town was moved a couple of times before being abandoned altogether, the cemetery site was why I came into looking for. I've also been sidetracked after starting that and hadnt revisited, thanks for the reminder. Gnan garra 12:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Orphan#This maintenance template should be placed on the talk page you wrote "Image missing, coordinates missing, I assumed that editors here are aware of those community discussions" I am not. Could you place links into the statement on the Orphan talk page to the discussions? -- PBS ( talk) 11:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
How have I misread the naming convention for Thylacine page? The only mention of bold'ing text is in reference to alternative names (like "Tasmanian Tiger" and "Tasmanian Wolf"). The scientific name usually isn't considered an alternative name, at least not here at Wikipedia: Nearly every animal page on Wikipedia uses italics only for the scientific name. The scientific name, in this case, does not seem to warrant any special treatment. At the very least, assuming I haven't missed something simple, we have identified a weak spot in the MoS that should be fixed. Jason Quinn ( talk) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
El lobo marsupial o tilacino ( nombre científico Thylacinus cynocephalus), también conocido como lobo de Tasmania, tigre de Tasmania y tilacín, fue un marsupial carnívoro del Holoceno. Era nativo de Australia y Nueva Guinea y se cree que se extinguió en el siglo XX. Se trataba del último miembro viviente de su género ( Thylacinus), viviendo los otros miembros en tiempos prehistóricos a partir de principios del Mioceno.
Very impressive work on the Gazette issue. Let me know when you get through all the issues at the NLA, OK? (How much automation is there in the layout you've done for Wikisource? there's various key documents that could be done the same way, but re-doing a whiole issue (mostly of minimal intrerest) is a high price to pay for the bit one wants to cite. But if there's a reasonable degree of layout automation, it might be worth it. However, right now I'm assembling all the references cited by anyone on the "History wars" talk page in the (probably optimistic) hope that this will lead the debaters to agee to cite for and against and leave it NPOV, instead of having a minor History war on the side. "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be collateral damage" department. On identity, there's some really interesting themes, eg Russell Ward's the Australlian legend (we are all bushmen, eg Clancy of the overflow - now out of vogue, but lingering). Then you've got that "Faces of Australia" thing with the blended photos of a representative sample. There was a neat cartoon on the Cronulla "Riots" with a Leyton Hewitt figure fighting someone in a turban? and an aboriginal guy standing out back saying "when you get around to decideing who was here first ..." or some such. There's QANTAS's "we are Australian". It's probably a coffee-table book rather than Wiki, but. regards Keepitshort ( talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I will undo it now. I'm sorry about that--- I just wanted to start a discussion on the topic in a new section. Likebox ( talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
G'day Cobber. Sorry for my tardy reply but I'll look at him shortly. Will need to get cracking for dyk-I can knock something up. – Moondyne 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 02:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What about Help:namespace, then? kwami ( talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Cygnis, Thanks for your message - I'll add the updated references, it turns out that the original Isle of Tortuga site (run by Dutch maritime historian Mr Mark Bruyneel)no longer exists, but all of the relevant info has been moved to a new site. FYI: a Dutch historian recently published a children's book on Piracy and to celebrate the event he invited all descendants (including my father & younger brother) to the city of Hoorn, where they were "kidnapped" to the local museum and released to share a drink with the author. Whatever happened to Simon the Dancer's treasure? My apologies for this tardy reply, I've been more active on the Dutch & Indonesian wikis lately, not to mention Uncyclopedia to keep a healthy perspective on "facts & fiction". Cheers for now, and keep up the good work Frankly speaking ( talk) 11:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
For your misguided attempts at sarcasm, and the assumption that I don't have a sense of humor. ;) – blurpeace (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL! I am probably going to cop it! See my further contributions to the Yagan debate ;-) Melba1 ( talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Lol. Savour the moment ... or something. :-) Graham 87 16:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You wanted an illustration?
-- Tony Wills ( talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In Tea and Sugar Train it says;
So, take your pick, but whatever you pick, make it consistent. 77.163.159.230 ( talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Cygnis, the removed statement read For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal because it is easier to pronounce and remember than the Latin scientific name; they also often convey cultural and historical or other associations that are not so evident in Latin (e.g. barking owl, German shepherd). It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms. There are several important points made here about common names:
In the examples given (barking owl etc.) the actual organism referred to by the common name is irrelevant - it was the "content of the name itself" that was being referred to - you seem to have missed this point. In my view this statement is uncontentious, it is not demeaning the utility of scientific names as you seem to assume. My concern is that the important points being made have been removed. Could you please re-edit the sentence to remove the "opinion" but yet still making these key points dispassionately please? Otherwise I think it best for me to revert again. Granitethighs ( talk) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the "Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?" has found a suitable place on the web (which, unlike wikipedia, has room for everything), and hopefully we won't have to deal with this non-notable conspiracy theory here again. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
For this. :) Cheers, →javért stargaze 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I could not understand what you were trying to say on my talk page. However, see the Common Names article talk page for latest developments thanks. Granitethighs ( talk) 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
On the Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur page, why did you change it to read "one of the smallest primates" if you agree that it is the smallest of the mouse lemurs (same sentence)? Mouse lemurs are the smallest primates, so if Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur is the smallest of them, then it would be the smallest primate species in the world. Even the smallest monkey, the Pygmy Marmoset is four times its size by weight. What else, besides a yet undiscovered mouse lemur species, is possibly smaller? – Visionholder ( talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your cleanup of the disambig; looks better! Just so you know, the standard consensus established at wikiproject botany / horticulture is (as in the scientific community) to abbreviate genus prefixes in a list of plants where there is no ambiguity if they are left out.
Yup, not done yet. I still have to rework the lead and remove {{ inuse}} WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not remove them! I have to limit my editing of the Naming conventions, or face more accusations like this one. So why not register your wish to revert the changes and the reasons why, and providing they are reasonable I will back you up, and providing there are not serious objections, you can do the reversal yourself. -- PBS ( talk) 18:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
See these edits by User:M -- PBS ( talk) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. To deal with a few of your points:
This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xan dar 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
[8] Hesperian 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you again reversed BrixtonBoy's edit about the mills being a metaphor for churches. This is a recognised theory. I do not believe it, but someone has advanced it. It has been referenced and so should join the other theories about the meaning of Blake's poem. I would be grateful if you did not start an edit war over this. JMcC ( talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a great idea. There's this link which I am sure you've read, which would be a great start. He seems to have been a very great man. I am not a historian, though, and my competence is limited, but I would love to read what you write. Likebox ( talk) 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Regards your revert to aquatic ape hypothesis and Elaine Morgan, could you provide a bit more justification? Here is my rationale for my changes:
I included the subjects that Morgan wrote on (feminism and television scripts) to demonstrate that her writing is not of a professional scholar, scientist or researcher writing in her area of expertise. This is relevant to the page because she may be the primary proponent but she is not a specialist in any of the areas relevant to the AAH. It's not POV-pushing, it accurate, sourced, and in my opinion extremely relevant, but perhaps I am missing something. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "story" in your edit summary either. I acknowledge that "feminism" can be both a political and sociological topic and a near-pejorative description of an extreme point of view. I meant the former and would happily substitute a more accurate and appropriate word and wikilink if you can think of one. Also, the change from "Elaine" to "E" in the citation templates is minor but aligns it with the products of Diberri's template generator, a habit I've developed.
Regards the Elaine Morgan page, it's mostly about this edit.
Regards this edit
Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the way you think. We're naturally going to have people with nothing serious to contribute, so it is better to have them spinning their wheels on pointless lists than trying to write articles and failing miserably in the process. - Biruitorul Talk 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you just not like templates? I find it a useful way of sorting information in a visual way. What exactly is uncited about it, and since when did templates need to be cited? Please explain. Litho derm 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
please don't try to manage things that you don't understand.
The help page about interlanguage links (have you read it ?) indicates that "an interlanguage link is mainly suitable for linking to the most closely corresponding page in another language". In the case of es:Elephantidae we have 2 possibilities : Elephantidae or Elephant. When reading the spanish article it seem clear that the most closely corresponding page is Elephant. So this interlanguage link must be added to Elephant, not to Elephantidae.
Furthermore, the interwikis are maintained mainly by bots. These bots, in automatic mode, are unable to maintage interwikis when they are refering to different pages. So the operator must act manually. But it's a complex operation because some languages have only one page, whereas others have 2. The manual resolution can be impossible. So when you want to move an interwiki from one page to another (what I did with oc, la and an Elephantidae because I don't have opinion about them and don't want to make an edit war...) you must also update the other language pages to solve conflits. It took me one hour. So stop reverting if you are not able to make the correction properly.
The situation on articles Elephant and Elephantidae is not perfect, because some of the articles interlanguaged with Elephant could (should ?) be transfered to Elephantidae. But the person who will make these transfers must update interwikied pages, and refer to the content of the article, not just the name.
I know you didn't even opened the interlanguaged pages of Elephantidae because you restored de:Elephantidae, which is a redirect to de:Elefanten !
If you don't have other arguments than the name of the page ( pt:Elefante is more similar to Elephantidae than es:Elephantidae (please don't correct it if you don't do it on all Elephantidae interlanguage links)). Don't make your decision just because of the infobox, because the important is the content.
I'm not a newbee on interlanguage resolution ( and do more with my bot account), you should try to trust me when I say that I know what I do ;).
Regards
-- Hercule ( talk) 12:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Although I find the solution still less than satisfactory, the things that convinced me are that the es and it editors are satisfied with elefante redirecting to the family, and that of the two en articles, the better one for iw is Elephant, given the assertion that having two articles iw to the same article cannot be bot-maintained. It seems like a limitation of the bot, but I'm an "eventualist" in this regard, and since I don't maintain iw links, I'd prefer to stay as much as possible out of the way of the editors who do, except in the case when links are clearly wrong.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 02:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
For information, I had a discussion on swedish wikipedia to make some updates. I let a message on Elephant talk page. If you see someone updating interwikis from Elephant to Elephantidae can you inform me ? So I'll run updates after verifying this person is aware of the impact.
Regards
-- Hercule ( talk) 19:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You think Assemblages of plants and invertebrate animals of tumulus (organic mound) springs of the Swan Coastal Plain is a long title? Check this out. Hesperian 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I've posted my reasons for the revert on Biologyoracle's talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biologyoracle. I hope I've explained my reasons properly! Cheers, Alphard08 ( talk) 12:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful that you added an image of Roderick to the article. Thank you! Gillyweed ( talk) 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
A while back, I added to Kingia the observation that Westall's painting View of the south side of King George's Sound contains the earliest known image of the plant. Being the complete and utter idiot that I am, I failed to provide a citation for this claim, so I don't know where to go back to in order to read around the topic.
I'm now reading Findlay's Arcadian Quest, in which she puts the argument that Westall's pictures are mostly not objective scientific recordings of landscape, but rather artworks constructed from an agenda. This applies to his field sketches, but even more to the oil paintings that he later worked up from them. When I first started reading it, I was afeared that I was about to drown in postmodern tosh, but she's convinced me with solid, pragmatic, indisputable evidence. As one example, she shows how
Findlay's arguments are somewhat weakened by the occasional glaring error, such as interpreting salt-prostrated trees as fallen branches. And in this case, she rightly gets all hot and bothered about a Port Jackson plant being placed in a King George's Sound landscape; but of course the real problem here is that a King George's Sound Kingia has been wrongly labelled as occurring at Port Jackson. And in Westall's defence there, the only caption I see on the sketch says "Grass Trees"; there's no mention of Port Jackson.
To come to the point: WTF is going on here? Hesperian 13:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad you like them ... I like them a lot. Do make an edit to Isaac Crewdson as we have a joint DYK hook here. Oh and #Victuallers is just a null destination which I use when I want to display the name but not allow people to click and get an error message.
It occurs to me that, should you be inclined to tart up the article Banksia verticillata with pretty pictures of your own taking, you would, by virtue of your geographic location, be decidedly at an advantage over most anyone else so inclined. Hesperian 14:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you added a merge template to the Leafcutter ant article a while ago. However, that template suggested the proposal should be discussed on Talk:Atta, the talk page of a disambiguation page, and I couldn't find a related discussion anywhere. I've now reworked the article and made the problem addressed by your proposal more clear. I therefore removed the merge/split proposal and was hoping you could have a look at the article. - Fama Clamosa ( talk) 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
William Blake}}
Hello, I wanted to ask you about your concerns with the Blake template. As for it being an "un-cited amalgamation of links" (or something to that effect), there really isn't anything I can do. No Wikipedia guideline compels templates to be cited- and what an awkward mess they'd be if they were! However, if your complaint has more to do with how the template disrupts the functionality of the "What links here" tool, I'm sure that that issue can be resolved, and am willing to investigate whether a solution can be found or indeed already exists. Please let me know. Thanks,
Litho
derm
23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a POV. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or assert project proprietorship." Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Hello, please join the discussion at Talk:The Raven. As noted prior to your latest reversion, the featured picture is properly sourced. Procedurally, I will be reporting this to the edit warring noticeboard since you have reverted four times in under 24 hours and (thus far) declined two editors' invitations to discuss the matter at the article talk page. Would gladly withdraw the report if this can be ironed out by normal means. Please see WP:BRD. Durova 412 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you were aware, when you created this article, that your pal Ferdinand had painted this species. Plate 110 of Stephan Endlicher's Iconographia Generum Plantarum. Such a pity I can't find a scan online. :-( Hesperian 13:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I have left a totally incomprehensible message at this talk page, what has happened... Satu Suro 11:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Makeemlighter ( talk) 03:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, that would be because he didn't? If Richard's father is a Samuel Shepherd, it's a different one. Richard was born in 1842, and Samuel Shepherd died on 3 November 1840. Kinda physically impossible for them to be father and son. Ironholds ( talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I also removed WP:Autoreviewer per the language of your request wanting all "rankings" removed. Further, apologies for missing your request- my talk page has been insanely busy the last 72 hours, usually with multiple messages whenever I click the orange bar; hence my missing your request; for which I apologise. Courcelles ( talk) 02:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything i should do aside from maintaining my WM:AU membership? BTW, thank U for appending your references and POV to Talk:Battle of Pinjarra#Discussion. Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:AWNB#Bessie Rischbieth Hesperian 23:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of another Charles Vacher in the ODNB:
-- PBS ( talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW is Vacher French for Cowherd/cowman. (Thought I recognised it from the article The Vache) -- PBS ( talk) 02:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions concerning Jane Crewdson Vernon White . . . Talk 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I split that page out from the main list of Australian films of the 1990s. Quite possibly there are non-notable redlinks in the list, and each entry should probably be trimmed down to 3 or 4 "stars" per film. Lugnuts ( talk) 06:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Long. time. no speak. Trust all is well (cheers) Satu Suro 12:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) time.wave. sine. wave. its all the same. (bloody hicks and his boson) out of work. out of money. hmm this time last year in St Petersburg, walking a lot. bleah. Satu Suro 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Concerning Edwin Wyndham-Quin, 3rd Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl, I have had a little fiddle with the text but need to look closer at the Times obit and the ODNB article, which I have printed out. Why the interest in "Q", please? Vernon White . . . Talk 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort you made, I'm sure others will too. Regards, cygnis insignis 18:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Ann Candler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion,
[extensive blather removed]
Public Domain. Completely forgot about that. Sorry about that. :)
[More pre-configured crud]
-- Talktome( Intelati) 15:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Richard Garnett (philologist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Yousou (
report)
15:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Richard Garnett (philologist), a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{ hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Please also see WP:AGF Yousou ( report) 15:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Richard Garnett (philologist). Please use the {{ hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. I also recommend you see WP:NPA Yousou ( report) 15:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Richard Garnett (philologist), you may be blocked from editing. Yousou ( report) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Richard Garnett (philologist), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Next time is WP:3RR and WP:AIV FYI. Yousou ( report) 16:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Garnett (philologist). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yousou ( report) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Toddst1 (
talk)
16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Cygnis insignis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
No grounds or unblocking provided. Everyone thinks they are justified when they engage in edit warring; that's exactly why we don't tolerate it from anyone, right or wrong. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Cygnis insignis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The opinion of the responding editor at the notice board, diff cygnis insignis 17:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I was being far from disruptive. The opinion of another admin diff Please unblock, so that I might continue to do what I was doing - creating content, harming no one. cygnis insignis 17:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC) *I will add that I left the unjustified template in place and continued on. cygnis insignis 17:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I will continue creating articles, the article in question (that I created) is now protected. What is to be gained from blocking me?
Decline reason:
You did not "leave the unjustified template in place", you deleted it one, two, three, four, five, six times, and probably more - no point going on trawling through the history. Edit warring is forbidden, however right you are, and those who indulge in it are blocked, because if allowed it means that articles end in the version preferred by the most obstinate contributor, and those who would rather contribute than fight are driven away from Wikipedia. JohnCD ( talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Cygnis insignis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
"those who would rather contribute than fight are driven away from Wikipedia." I'm not likely to do anything other than continue contributing. The reverting editor gave no basis or response, he was not blocked (I'm not asking that he or she should be, I refuse to play that game.) I did, in fact, continue to [eventually] edit the article and ignore the tag. If there is nothing left to edit war over, then this is merely punitive. cygnis insignis 18:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC) If so, consider me punished, a mark on my log. cygnis insignis 18:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC) *Please check the last five edits, the unjustified speedy was left in place article history cygnis insignis 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You broke the rule against edit warring and the rule against removing the speedy deletion template on an article you created. Please sit out your short block as consequences for breaking these rules, and resume editing tomorrow. Diannaa ( Talk) 19:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In my analysis, two mistakes were made here, which is why the matter escalated. Such comments as I see above are actually not likely to de-escalate the situation. Evidently matters got overheated, and that's all that needs to be noted. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Is importing bios from DNB a project that has been discussed somewhere? Would you please point me to the discussion/project? Ladyof Shalott 01:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
... for the confusion, but the Spalding Clubs (there have been three by now) based in Aberdeen take their name from John Spalding the Scottish historian, rather than Spalding, Lincolnshire. Charles Matthews ( talk)
on the 'ole en chanel' - trust all is well Satu Suro 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to make sure you're aware of this; if you feel James Henry Leigh Hunt is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Leigh Hunt, you could always go to WP:RM and request to move the current Leigh Hunt to Leigh Hunt (disambiguation) and then redirect Leigh Hunt to James Henry Leigh Hunt. I'm not advocating one way or another, because I don't know enough about the topic to say what's best, but if you want a discussion that would be the way to go. -- JaGa talk 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Not sure if I agree that "James Henry Leigh Hunt" is the "primary topic", which according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box." Hunt published under the name Leigh Hunt (see, e.g., The Story of Rimini) and critics, academics, and biographers have always written about him using that form of the name (see, e.g., Nicolas Roe's recent book). I have not come here, however, to challenge your move to "James Henry Leigh Hunt", though I wanted to share my thoughts about it. I originally wanted to say this: I'm glad you agree that the much more familiar name "Leigh Hunt" should be mentioned earlier than it was. Now that I look back at my edit, "best known as ...", I'm thinking that it might read better as one of the following: "usually known as"; "better known as"; or "commonly known as". Do you have a preference?
Now that I think it over, it occurs to me that a better way of doing the DAB while leaving the title of the article as is would be to make an automatic redirect from "Leigh Hunt" to "James Henry Leigh Hunt", adding a hatnote referring to the DAB page. Any thoughts about that?
I like what you've added to the Leigh Hunt article. Hunt is an important essayist and poet (though admittedly not of the highest order in either category; at least I don't think he is) of the Romantic period who is not as well remembered today as he should be. I see a couple of things that need adjusting, which I will attend to shortly. The main thing (Hazlitt is a specialty of mine) is that only a few Examiner articles made it into The Round Table book, those in the series specifically designated "The Round Table". Regards, Alan W ( talk) 16:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edit corrected my omission here. Yes, your edit was necessary. Thank you. -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the wording at WP:INTDABLINK some, hopefully making it easier to understand. Comments/criticisms are welcome. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Further, if more time, perhaps months or even years go by before the next editor goes through the link check process, when they arrive they will be presented with one of two scenarios:
Any editor could have fixed that link, and a reader would find it at the dab if they hadn't. Why do you proffer (b) "we can change it to link to the dab page via the redirect as [[Mercury (disambiguation)|Mercury]]."? When would this situation arise? If someone was working backwards from the page "Mercury", cleaning up incoming links, they would need to sort legitimate redirects—which should be widowed—and cross references from other dabs. This backend solution, creating pages in mainspace with "(disambiguation)" appended is a supposed way of tracking these cross references. This, the only reason proffered, is a confounding and arcane imposition, fixing something that isn't broken for one approach to maintenance is an abhorrent one. What the label is trying to do is compress the information about the cross reference, Spaulding … see also: disambiguation for the spelling Spalding, why not just say that?! The answer is that it suits someone to add complexity for their own convenience, to undertake their preferred method of cleaning up links to articles they have no interest or investment in. This label has tripped me up more than once, in a situation I thought I had already resolved. I thought yet another 'disambiguation expert' had created yet another page; it is used as an actual title, though not at that page or its target, and fails to make the situation unambiguous, it is only meaningful to a priest of one church of disambiguation. Clarifying the navigation of these pages is something I do frequently (in the course of creating the actual content it leads to), creating additional pages would do nothing to make this any less "tedious"—the description of yet another 'expert' interpreter of the dissembling word-jazz at that guideline—there are other ways to do it. cygnis insignis 07:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
"If someone was working backwards from the page "Mercury", cleaning up incoming links, they would need to sort legitimate redirects—which should be widowed—and cross references from other dabs." I don't understand the bold part in this sentence. Why should "legitimate redirects be 'widowed'" and what does "widowed" mean? And when looking at incoming links from redirects, that's a separate issue - you can tell the "what links here" tool to ignore those. And what are "cross references from other dabs". Again, a legitimate link to a dab page is like "For other uses see Mercury". The problem is distinguishing intentional from unintentional links to Mercury in article space (not redirects).
"This backend solution, creating pages ...". No one is creating pages - just the one redirect (a redirect is not a page), like Mercury (disambiguation) → Mercury, for every dab page at its plain name.
You use the terms "confounding", "arcane" and "abhorrent" to refer to this method without explaining what's wrong with it.
There are other ways to do it? Such as? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If I don't use Mercury (disambiguation) as you suggest, and just leave all the intentional/legitimate links to the dab page linking direct to Mercury, then every time you or anyone checks incoming links to Mercury you will see at least all those and have no way of knowing if there are any new ones that need to be checked, and so will have to check all of them. That seems highly inefficient, especially if you multiply the problem by the enormous number of dab pages that are at the plain name.
Note that the goal of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links is to get rid of all links to every dab page - if you don't change intentional/legitimate links to link to the disambiguation redirect then they will remain linked directly to the dab page and the goal will not be achieved. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that the reason I used the journalist as the main article is because of the reasons stated at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. According to Special:WhatLinksHere, she has 24 links compared to the 14 the author has. http://stats.grok.se shows that the journalist's article has been viewed about 800 times this month, compared to the 115 views the author's has. A Google search doesn't show any results for the author until page 2, where the first page is exclusively the journalist. The author's article stated that "She was remarkably handsome and attractive" so I doubt the main reason this was moved was because off looks, so I plan to return the journalist's article back to the Sarah Austin page if there's not objections. -- wL< speak· check> 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Luxborough Galley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miyagawa (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
On 24 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luxborough Galley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the crew of the ill-fated slave ship Luxborough Galley became cannibals? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
trust it is a good one for you - must catch up some decade or so :) Satu Suro 15:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to the Captain R. T. Claridge article. The article is essentially in maintenance phase now (minor tweaks notwithstanding, but substantive information on this fellow has been exhausted for now, and Wikipedia has an excessive amount of incmplete articles requiring attention), and your effort in that regard is appreciated. On the topic of the F.S.A., I noted your contribution at the time,and thank you. I did not subsequently list Claridge on that page, as I was able to establish that Claridge was an antiquarian (which was sufficient for elucidating the F.S.A. abbreviation), but not which specific branch (e.g. London, Ireland, Scotland, Rome). Nevertheless, I left your link, because one of the things about incomplete information within Wikipedia is that threads are needed here and there for someone to pick up on. It is precisely by this means (a red link to a non-existent article) that I came to create the Claridge article in the first place. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 05:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Bin thinking about getting back to some grastro arts - trust all is wlel with you! - app ew ear! Satu Suro 12:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And to yez all, hope you have a prosperous one. There is a lot of that going around, the summery gastro, lob in I will when I sail back to shore. Charges of piracy are in my wake, and the fog has waylaid my course, but my little privateer vessel has a crew of one - cannibalism can not be on the menu! cygnis insignis 13:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
yearghh ohhny epp on the menu indeed - arrghh shiver me timbers yeehah! we havent had such a gastronomic conversation for so long in front of the freo veges ! Satu Suro 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll ping you about that soon :) cygnis insignis 13:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comment. I'm afraid I'm not the world's most patient soul when it comes to throwing away information. This was a rather carefully and generously conducted AfD compared with most but it's still sad to see the time and energy of people who are obviously rather more concerned about the quality of Wikipedia overall than the average tied up like this. Happy New Year! Opbeith ( talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
"Cignus" is much like Cygnus ... and I just wondered if you has seen this image? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
email your postal address sometime - gotta wiki tshirt for you Satu Suro 12:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
A tag has been placed on Robert Pitcairn (antiquary) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hang on}}
at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on
the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 13:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Abigail Mandana Holmes Christensen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Carl Sixsmith (
talk)
20:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on John Ellor Taylor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the
the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Singularity42 (
talk)
15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked the spammer. I got your message, but since you left the entire message in the edit summary, it confused me for a bit. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mary Unwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Unwin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Unwin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
For something that you just 'threw' together, it reads really well. You're right its an article that was sadly overlooked. I've done some minor expansion edits & added a few pictures of his works. I will try and add some additional references as well (given time). Dan arndt ( talk) 06:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
...About that (timing)... Some (like you, perhaps) might be smart enough to take mood, quality, and timing, etc. into account; but others (like me, perhaps) are not, and only "get it" (whatever "it" is) after-the-fact—and even then realizing that what was done/said (original intent) takes on a completely different (unintentional) meaning later on. This must be the difference between being a player and being played. I more resemble the latter, and I can only hope that the game is for good and not for ill in the end, and that time has been well spent and not wasted. Cheers, Londonjackbooks ( talk) 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio at Franz Bauer.
To advertise at this space, please contact 654 3789
Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award | ||
For the Cygnis Insignis relentlus While we sleep there he is churning away priceless new articles and confounding us with the breadth of his knowledge and info collection - thank huey we have eds like him Satu Suro 01:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
While i appreciate your recent comments, I guess, it is becoming too much tiring to edit anything on Wikipedia. The editors are becoming over-cautious. I agree that i added a link, which was redlink, but it became red as the article itself was deleted. I don't see any problem with the article as well. I feel it was as per guidelines. It was a stub, i could add further information later, but the moment i post article, it is deleted (speedydelete). I can show maybe 5 - 10 additional articles, which are in the same field, but not good and not as per guidelines. I am talking about Social Networking.
I am not new to Wikipedia and have edited many times in the past (even i added many articles, with IP only and not as a registered user). Things were much better during those days. I agree Wikipedia is trying to fight spam and advertising, but the editors are creating a wall too big to allow anyone to enter into editing phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodMorningManji ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Was that you? Hesperian 05:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw "Pobblebonk" on the list of new WA articles and thought, what the heck is that?! Thanks to you, I've learnt something new today! :) Somno ( talk) 03:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
More contested than one of your frogs mate - good luck to em Satu Suro 03:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the congrats on Cockle Creek, and it being selected as a DYK link on the Wikipedia main page for 25 October, 2008. I am contributing a few new Tasmanian articles, as my interest takes me, arising from a 10 day holiday I had there in sep-oct. Articles on places and peoples - some interesting histories I'm finding. Travel really does broaden the mind :)-- Takver ( talk) 11:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Expanding Earth theory. Vsmith ( talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
gmail in a mo Satu Suro 14:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
As for length of the coastline i suppose we should defer to the geoscience online art - but having found the other distance in the beach book - i included it - maybe it should be edited out i dont know Satu Suro 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I am suprised the dogs of war havent gnawed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory Satu Suro 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Deltasaurus. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Don't revert to unreferenced stubs. cygnis insignis 04:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'm not sure why you replaced the disambiguation page with a redirect, as there are several terms to disambiguate. The ethnic slur term is mentioned in List of ethnic slurs, so the link would be changed. I'm going to restore the disambiguation page, possibly without this entry if you still have objections. Korg ( talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The Wiktionary link is an easy way to direct the reader to basic information, though a link to actual Wikipedia content might still be under consideration. Cheers, Korg ( talk) 00:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Royal broil 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the centenary? Satu Suro 12:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC) In my most recent archive - 565 DYK for Centenary of Western Australia - Satu Suro 12:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I keep trying to stop editing to give time to other issues before i go over east again - it is getting hard to actually simply sign off, so trying to cut the habit of wanting to check when i should be sorting through some stuff before i go Satu Suro 12:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have withdrawn the AfD on the Australian band Spy vs. Spy, since the article has been cleaned up significantly. I am very glad that the article is remaining. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have nominated Paul Myners, Baron Myners ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. cygnis insignis 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It was added to the "List of famous fig trees", which is a list of famous individual trees. Not sure what the anon had in mind when s/he added an entire species to a list of individuals. Hence the "huh"? Guettarda ( talk) 16:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks to me like Stylidium rupestre. Fairly prevalent near Albany and blooms into December. -- Rkitko ( talk) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
On the Stylidium violaceum images, I'd say you're right. The scapes are entirely glabrous, the floral throat appendages match the description I have of S. violaceum, and the leaves are linear, almost grass-like. This one's very hard to misidentify. Oh, and by the way, I ended up e-mailing Juliet Wege for help on that identification. Hope you don't mind. She had an auto-response that said she'll be out of the office until December, so we won't get a quick answer on that, but when we do it will be by the expert! Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 13:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:One more thing - it seems like you've found one of the rare mutants, unless it's a trick of the camera angle. I count two different flowers on that scape in the first image that have two additional petals in the corolla. Those floral mutants happen from time to time. Rkitko ( talk) 13:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
How did the article come to be nominated 3 minutes after creation? cygnis insignis 01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC) and 06:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page. Nothing personal was taken. You are correct and I apologize for the incorrect edit. I checked WP:MOSNUM and it allows that date format so long as it is not in a sentence; tables and other usages (like in a ref as it's used in Xanthosia rotundifolia) are acceptable. I too prefer not to get in a discussion over date formats, other than to say it has been widely discussed and there appears to be consensus. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your change to History of Western Australia, links are generally excluded from the first few words of the articles title. cygnis insignis 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, the page has been unprotected. Kaldari ( talk) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the bad edit summary there; just in case you didn't look closely enough, it isn't your edit that I reverted. Hesperian 13:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I shall take your demand under advisement.
Do you genuinely believe that the Linnaean system should displace the 1500-year old project of creating an all-encompassing English language? It's a source of loanwords, necessary for Hesperian's "ugly little plants", but pedantry for Norway maple.
The WikiProjects I have taken most part in listen to non-specialists; we get little enough reader feedback. Rather than setting up a new Latinate priesthood, we should try, where feasible - as it is here, for a language "understanded of the people". Producing a beautiful article which is pointlessly unintelligible to the common reader is a waste of everybody's time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, are you in Albs too? Maybe catch you sometime in New Year after holidays are over. Best Regards -- Hughesdarren ( talk) 11:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I believe this content more fairly belongs in the Stirling Range National Park page, could you justify to me why you think it belongs in the Stirling Range rather than revert my edits on the belief I am a newbie? (I started editing under another account in 2003) - Schnob Reider ( talk) 01:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Back - will try to crawl away under a rock again soon Satu Suro 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
it is all art - bum ti bum tiddly de dumb. something like that. Satu Suro 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to be less enigmatic. Do you want me to add that pic to the article? Or do you want something on sandalwood in the Harbour? I am a simple journalist and innocent of Wikipedia custom... Davidcohen ( talk) 10:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You're going to end up in deep shit soon if you don't pull back.
I too have been the victim of procedural reverts devoid of any rationale. I get how much they shit you.
But that will not be obvious to anyone who takes a cursory look at the situation. What will be obvious is that you continue to move a page whilst knowing that the matter is disputed. I don't think you can bank on the average administrator trying to see it from your point of view; no, the average administrator will just belt you with the banhammer and move on.
Hesperian 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what sources you are working from, but I have a copy of Allen's Freshwater Fishes of Australia on my bookshelf. I don't have access to a scanner at the moment, but the entry on L. salamandroides is only a page long if you'd like me to type it in to an email.
Hesperian
10:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Relevant: [1] Hesperian 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And another thing; one that had been on my mind for a long time. I keep putting off mentioning it, but Moondyne's retirement has come as a bit of a shock and right now I'm in no state to do anything but talk to me mates.
I seem to have permanently lost the ability to focus single-mindedly on a topic. Instead I always have several irons in the fire, and the best I can hope for is the discipline not to take on too many things at once. It is probably a bad sign that I'm already looking ahead at what I might take on next. I have two projects in mind, and by coincidence both are topics that I fancy you might like to collaborate on.
Over at Wikisource I have less than 100 pages to go of Diary of ten years, and once that is done there is room for me to take on something new, and I was tossing up having a fresh crack at Curtis's.
Here on Wikipedia I have recommitted to finishing my long-neglected North Island and B. sessilis articles, and then I was thinking of having a go at Cephalotus.
Any thoughts?
Hesperian 11:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It was only done to give recognition to Ian who generously donated many photos to Wikipedia. GrahamBould ( talk) 06:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/13/2465210.htm Satu Suro 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yo ho no briney, or slimey - they the begatters of fictions louder than words - the rats of the word, the carrion of the truth - they wouldnt know where their parentage sprung from - forsooth - they might knot know who they are - yet they flay us with their rags of petulance and their ignorance of so much. To think I was one once. It is better a memory than a practice. Satu Suro 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh shiver me timbers and dross the floss I left the reply on my talk - sqwuawk - Hig-saw, crypto-jokeology, or journalism? - where did the egg come from did the chicken dross the hoss, or the road, and why the chicken - did it come before the hatch? - i suspect you have a hot potato on hand - Mr and Mrs Plagiarism will be so pleased with such a pleasant child SatuSuro 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SatuSuro" Satu Suro 13:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
My best question of the day so far before I seek the solace of sleep where are you located? I love it I could wax ten times more than I did in reply - parts of me are in darwin, sydney, strahan, and 800 metres above the sand flat of our fellow trepidatious contributors - as to the chick and the flea - always remember the kangaroo tick that crawls when standing above the ermophilla whyen taking a whiff - ah sleep it beckons and the temors of the myriad of unreproducable thylacine ghosts will whimper into the aether above and through the south west forests Satu Suro 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You might want to review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Cheers, Jack ( talk) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You know that wasn't a typo, but you'll be happy to know that I'm not going to disagree with you on this. Take a look at my user page and see if you can spot what's changed. It happened after this discussion (just skip to the end if you're feeling lazy). Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
no here http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search~S1?/Xg+m+storr&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D/Xg+m+storr&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D&SUBKEY=g%20m%20storr/1%2C34%2C34%2CB/frameset&FF=Xg+m+storr&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D&3%2C3%2C i would drink to that Satu Suro 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No, that would not be good. See here - we treat them presently in Centaurea pending a complete revision of the genus, but note that "Plectocephalus is part of the basal grade in Centaureinae and is not closely related to Centaurea in a narrow sense".
It is really just the Australian plant that is ambiguous, and it seems to have jug flower as a name used for nothing else. C. cyaneus is "Cornflower" to almost anybody, with "basket flower" an apparent retcon from the superficially similar Plectocephalus (try Google on "basket flower" centaurea).
So "basket flower" refers to the present Centaurea sect. Plectocephalus (the future Plectocephalus) both most unambiguously and most frequently (as per Google, about three times as often for Plectocephaluses than for either of the others). To redirect and disambiguate at Centaurea is in line with WP:PRECISION and the Plants project's naming convention. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 20:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent change to the taxobox in
Agkistrodon piscivorus, I discovered relatively late (2007?) that omitting the "name=" entry would result in the article title being used. After I realized this, I've often felt tempted to remove them systematically, since for articles like this one they are superfluous. On the other hand, I also felt there was a danger that, once removed, it would look a bit more like an invitation for someone else to put them back, except with a common name. To me, maintaining such entries looks a little more like the authors were saying "We deliberately chose to have this name here."
Do these thoughts seem overly cautious, or even paranoid to you? Perhaps, but after having written so many articles, being so stubborn and encountering so many policy wonks, I guess I've become this way. --
Jwinius (
talk)
11:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent removal of the taxobox from
List of boine species and subspecies, I think the reason we often get into disputes is because of this sort of action: you see something that doesn't agree with you, so you change it and leave an explanation in the edit summary, after which I disagree, revert and leave another short explanation in the edit summary, after which you revert, etc., etc. This cycle has got to be broken. I think it would be easier for both us to get along if we were first to comment on each other's work before we go in and change things.
In this case, I have always added taxoboxes to the lists I have made, and I've made more than a few of them. It's something I learned to do from other examples: since they provide a picture and some links to higher taxa, I see them as being useful to those not familiar with the relevant taxon. Now, one of these lists is missing its taxobox.
Anyway, maybe you know something I don't know. Is there a rule that says a list can't have a taxobox? If so, I think it would be a good idea to add a picture and some links in the introduction. Cheers, --
Jwinius (
talk)
12:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your inquiry. I've responded on my talk page. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I renamed it into Draco Volans (zoology) because it was impossible to create a direct internal link to Draco Volans. Systemizer ( talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Draco volans (zoology), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. cygnis insignis 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Youre mailing yourself on this matter? Shouldnt you be letting s-one else know? Satu Suro 07:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahah the slimey tove bites back to the bandersnatch, who snatches it, then lewis carrol goes up in smoke over his own logic, and the mushroom recreates itself by transmorgification, and we get back to being slaves to the keyboard. sigh Satu Suro 07:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Draco volans (zoology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. cygnis insignis 06:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've endured days of personal attacks and incivility from User:Mokele and User:Jwinius on my talk page and at Talk:Python reticulatus. I would like to take this situation to Wikipedia:Requests for comment but can't do so until another editor besides myself was warned them on their talk pages. If you are still of the opinion that “I've waded through the incivility, bold assumptions, uncited assertions, expletives and other obstruction to this good faith contribution...obnoxious pattern of behavior..." a comment to that effect on their talk pages would be helpful in starting the corrective process. If this isn't the case, or you feel that I have been inappropriate, please indicate that. Thanks and best wishes. -- Boston ( talk) 06:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
[2] Claude Riche's greatest contribution to botany was getting lost. During the search for him, Labill. discovered Anigozanthos and Nuytsia! Not to mention B. nivea and repens. Hesperian 11:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I restructured it a bit, feel free to revert if I've messed something up. As I'm not one of WP:WA's "plant editors" (I use that as a term of endearment ;), I do have a question that may be obvious: the quote from the Carrs sounds strange to me, like it should be the first description of Australia's flora? Also, should their names be linked? They don't have articles, but they'd be notable enough for articles? Somno ( talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well done! Satu Suro 06:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If don't mind having Bearded Dragon (pet) – we have Pet skunk, too. We need a genus page, too, of course. I wonder if "Bearded Dragon" is a subset of "Pogona" (then the genus article has to be Pogona), or if "Bearded Dragon" is just the common name for Pogona, in which case the genus article might as well be at Bearded Dragon. Do you know which one is correct? Rl ( talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the lecture. I am not a child and I do not appreciate it - nor do I appreciate or approve your censure of me, or about what I have done.
I do my best with regard to Wikipedia. If I accidentally omitted noticing that the taxobox for Bearded Dragon was missing, I apologise for this unintentional omission.
Maybe I was ill when I attempted to undo the vandalism to the page. Apart from this, I am on a dial-up system and I am not allowed very much time on the internet by my internet provider (sometimes I am only allowed a few minutes on the internet, therefore, I am forced to make very quick edits before I get disconnected). Reverting vandalism takes up a lot of the time I am allowed to be on the internet.
There should be zero tolerence given to vandalism at Wikipedia — and only non-vandalism edits should be allowed to appear on any Wikipedia article. This could be achieved if edits were checked by administrators before being allowed to appear on articles — after all, a delay would be preferable to vandalism. It is possible - after all, this is how things are done at IMDb. Figaro ( talk) 14:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This is in response to your reversal of my edit. "Section still under consideration, removal may be viewed as hostile."
In the template at the top of the policy it says: "Any edit to this page should reflect consensus. Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first."
Please note I am not deleting or adding text new text to the article I am deleting text that was not in the article two days ago and readding text that was in the article (with a few other minor changes in response to Hesperian's edits of yesterday, an edit he was perfectly entitled to make but which he needs to build a consensus if others object to them). This is how consensus is meant to work so my edit was not hostile. -- PBS ( talk) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the reason you keep placing this article's right-facing portrait on the right? Rotational ( talk) 10:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't use language like this [3]. If you're so annoyed as to say that, just step away from the computer until calm William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I've been working on articles relating to the plants of Hawaiʻi, sandalwood species, or ʻiliahi as they are known by the natives, accounting for some of them. I was actually inspired to work on these articles by a commercial encouraging viewers to visit the Hawaiian Islands, which at one point states "these plants are the story of Hawaiʻi." Although I have been to the islands several times, I learned very little about the native flora while I was there other than the fact that much of it had been replaced by non-native species. I've added references relating to the Hawaiian species on the Santalum article, as I was thinking they might be of use if anyone were to creates said articles. As much as I would like to write them myself, editing articles is distracting me from more important matters. TDogg310 ( talk) 22:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis insignis, I just saw that you edited the Homo floresiensis page, referring to the dead link, and I was wondering if we could get your input on the taxobox. You deleted it a while ago, but someone else just suggested that we should have it (see discussion here). Your edit summary made it sound like there was a pretty clear rule about when to include and when not to include the taxobox, so if you want to add your 2cents that would be great. I admit that I'm sort of torn about whether the presence presupposes species status, and the degree of agreement in the community necessary before inclusion of the taxobox. You'll see that the article is just finishing up FAR, so your comments on this now would be quite timely. Cheers, Edhubbard ( talk) 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to confess categories do little for me: categorisation seems rather arbitrary; pages you'd expect to see in category X often aren't; the UI is poor, with one click and wait per level while you're drilling down (WP's response time consists of a long wait in the server's queue, followed by quite rapid transmission; so it might be better to have fewer, bigger chunks). If I want info on a subject I use WP's or Google's search, and I get my modest knowledge of tools from discussions or from seeing what other editors use in articles I like or am reviewing. -- Philcha ( talk) 09:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
As an oggle warner (yes I warn people away from it regularly - they may be rich from their logarithm but hey I can lead anyone into just as useful and effective search engines anytime) and as a regular category creator and tagger - the above leaves me reaching for my rum (port) and ... Satu Suro 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok got that out of my system - whicher range has very important issues - a scarp (yes) and a Declared Rare Flora zone (at least 14 maybe more now) and a natural gas holder (mind you the gas reserve is almost untappable due to the reserve being in a difficult shape size and location) with the water czars wanting to walk all over it (busselton and margaret river want its water the buggers) and make dams - and its worth looking on google earth - if the buggers dont stuff it up sooner than later - see it before it gets stuffed up
Satu
Suro
13:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
btw after all that your spider man is excellent if you dont mind me saying Satu Suro 14:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeehah! well done! Satu Suro 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Does it violate NPOV to hope that spiders of Australia never becomes a blue link because of my own personal bias? Somno ( talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh hell you have given me a very different idea about arak - what a way to think of it! Satu Suro 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahah gadjah the goa - been there in the 80's and have some very very very boring photos of the area near it - somewhere in the vaults :) Satu Suro 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis insignis, only now found your appreciative comment about Phonognatha graeffei – that's so nice of you. After a season away somewhere, they are now back, hooking up again. My favourite is the folded paper dweller. There was a hatching, but so tiny my camera didn't cope. PS, how cool to be a spider named after a man called Rainbow! :) Julia Rossi ( talk) 11:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have been inclined to simply ask him to engage the community, but when I found out he'd been warned before, I thought leniency wasn't possible. I take a very hard line on copyright issues. Blueboy 96 05:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
A little editing for readability of the one section would help, possibly of most of the material I've added. I only had a few hours to edit before returning to my own research full force. These predatory pelagic snails are among the most fascinating organisms, in my opinion, like the mainless lions that bring down cape buffalo or something. If it's possible to get it together in time for a DYK it would be a good one--they have weird impossible deadlines for DYKs, though. -- KP Botany ( talk) 09:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cygnis insignis for the clean-up you already did on Janthina janthina!
To WPGastropods members and other interested parties:
If you have not already done so, please look at the thread of messages at: A very large and widespread CopyVio problem
And read the message on the Gastropod talk page conversation. from an admin who is an expert on fixing CopyVio problems, Moonriddengirl (talk).
Also please look at/read through the two new subpages created from the WikiProject Gastropods talk page, and listed at the top of
[4].
I am sorry but I have to be careful not to type too much, because I hurt my hand and fingers early this week, so rather than attempting to explain the progress so far in detail, I am leaving it up to you to read the messages and work out what is going on.
Thanks so much, Invertzoo ( talk) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis, I appreciated your message. I have not said this to anyone else but I been shattered by the reaction to what I have done. I have been pretty stupid, mainly through unbridled enthusiasm clouding my judgement - the reaction is justified. To cap it all, the provenance of my photographs in the articles has been questioned. Where will it end? I suppose I will continue after this is over, but I am losing the will. Cheers, & all the best. GrahamBould ( talk) 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC) BTW, What was "I pointed something that was 'not done' and you happily undid it" all about, I don't remember. GrahamBould ( talk) 06:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the alert I gave the admins about your changes to Janthina Janthina caused you some distress. That was not my intention and I apologize. Having dealt with software copyright infringement in my work, I felt a need to point out that we had to be even more careful moving away from the suspect text than we would be for normal edits. I should have taken the time to say that in a way that focused more on the changes and less on you. I hope you will accept this apology and not let this incident disturb you further. Celestra ( talk) 05:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the [example] I gave the admin about your changes to [AN/I] caused you some distress. That was not my intention and I apologize. Having dealt with ... infringement in my work, I felt a need to point out that we had to be even more careful moving away from ... normal edits. I should have taken the time to say that in a way that focused more on the changes and less on you. I hope you will accept this [ apology] and not let this incident disturb you further. {{ plagiarism}} 06:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you take it that way; it is intended as a sincere apology for expressing myself poorly. I didn't accuse you of plagarism, just correcting possible plagarism in a way that appeared to conceal, rather than correct the problem. I thought your actions were incorrect, but done in good faith. Celestra ( talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I Hadn’t merged anything before but it didn’t seem very controversial and as katipo is unlikely to have a huge discussion about a proposed merge, I thought I would just do it (there would probably be tags on the page forever if not). Anyway, I followed what
Wikipedia:Merge states, i.e. paste any useful information into the destination page and delete all the text from the source page and replace it with #REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]]
. Based on what I read in WP:Merge I do not think it is possible to merge 2 histories together, but if it is, let me know and I will go about getting it done. Cheers. -
Mr Bungle |
talk
00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is regrettable. I tried (and indeed try) to weed out bad typo-fixes when performing a chore like that one, which diverts my attention, but as that has obviously failed, I will now turn off typo-fixing (I obviously can't trust myself). Thanks for the spot. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis,
I think we should stick with general English unless there's a particular reason for local pronunciations. Since Albany is pronounced the same in Aussie as in RP or GA, there's no point in making our non-Australian readers bone up on Australian phonetics before they can be sure what it's supposed to sound like. Many of them already have a difficult time with the IPA. Also, most Aussie place names are given in general English, so we have two competing systems. The pron-en-au template hasn't been in active use for a couple years now. When I created it, there was some interest in it and I thought it might go somewhere, but it hasn't, so I'd like to phase it out. That would bring Australia into line with other Anglophone countries. In the dozen or so cases where the Australian pronunciation is notably distinct, we can always link directly to the Australian English phonology article. Making Australian distinct from English is rather like Americans insisting on using imperial units; the logical conclusion of that approach is to have pron-en-liverpool and pron-en-brooklyn etc. templates and making Wikipedia less accessible. kwami ( talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
youire still up for air me mat e from the sou th - trust all is well in your parts of the shire - and that its all in working order Satu Suro 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I thoink my talk page might or not amuse - the espanol message made me think i was in Hobart - ahh to have the cool wellington breeze pierce through the thermals again - I hope to find some PD images of the cunning little buggers sometime - any thoughts of where or how? Satu Suro 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEAD, the lead must summarize the whole article, including criticisms. Removing the criticisms is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Cygnis ... if you have a look at the cleanup project created to tackle the problem GrahamBould caused, you'll see why no admin is willing to unblock him. That's the definition of a community ban--when none of the over 3,000 admins is willing to unblock a user. Or in this case, given the legal danger he put the project in, no admin will unblock him without facing calls for him to be desysopped. If you want to discuss it, though, you're more than welcome to start a discussion at WP:AN. Blueboy 96 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that the context template on your user page puts the page in the category of articles needing context. If you're doiong it as a joke, may I suggest using the following instead? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article with a good introductory style. |
Thank you for your picture. ;) Gustavocarra ( talk) 14:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis, Could you please explain your reasoning for reversing my edit on the Yagan article as against the NPOV policy? My edit was as follows:
original: Throughout the repatriation process, many sections of the international media treated the story as a joke. One example given by Adam Shoemaker is a US News & World Report story headlined Raiders of the Lost Conk, in which Yagan's head is referred to as a "pickled curio", and Colbung's actions are treated as a publicity stunt; this treatment stands in stark contrast to the respectful tone in which the same newspaper covered the work of International War Crimes inspectors uncovering mass grave sites in former Yugoslavia.[20]
: removal of:
this treatment stands in stark contrast to the respectful tone in which the same newspaper covered the work of International War Crimes inspectors uncovering mass grave sites in former Yugoslavia.[20]
My reason for the edit was that the removed fragment only serves to advance the author's opinions, not to enhance anyone's knowledge of Yagan. While it contains a "cited fact", that fact is inappropriate to the current context. The description of the 'pickled curio' article makes a clear enough case that the story was treated as a joke by the media. The fact that the discovery of mass graves in Yugoslavia were not treated as a joke by US News & World Report is both obvious and irrelevant; the only purpose such a statement serves in this context is to equate the Yagan situation with the latter war crimes, which is editorialising. It was in the spirit of making one small stab towards a more NPOV in a remarkably non-neutral (as noted by numerous other users on the talk page) article that I removed that small fragment. Unfortunately the original author of the article appears to be quite determined to undo any changes which others make in attempting to help it conform to wikipedia's NPOV standards.
Anyway, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks for the, um, neutral, welcome:-)
67.188.117.117 ( talk) 11:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Kay
Still dont have a definitive site but the stuff on that page now gives some good indication as to possible location, from bit I have read the town was moved a couple of times before being abandoned altogether, the cemetery site was why I came into looking for. I've also been sidetracked after starting that and hadnt revisited, thanks for the reminder. Gnan garra 12:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Orphan#This maintenance template should be placed on the talk page you wrote "Image missing, coordinates missing, I assumed that editors here are aware of those community discussions" I am not. Could you place links into the statement on the Orphan talk page to the discussions? -- PBS ( talk) 11:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
How have I misread the naming convention for Thylacine page? The only mention of bold'ing text is in reference to alternative names (like "Tasmanian Tiger" and "Tasmanian Wolf"). The scientific name usually isn't considered an alternative name, at least not here at Wikipedia: Nearly every animal page on Wikipedia uses italics only for the scientific name. The scientific name, in this case, does not seem to warrant any special treatment. At the very least, assuming I haven't missed something simple, we have identified a weak spot in the MoS that should be fixed. Jason Quinn ( talk) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
El lobo marsupial o tilacino ( nombre científico Thylacinus cynocephalus), también conocido como lobo de Tasmania, tigre de Tasmania y tilacín, fue un marsupial carnívoro del Holoceno. Era nativo de Australia y Nueva Guinea y se cree que se extinguió en el siglo XX. Se trataba del último miembro viviente de su género ( Thylacinus), viviendo los otros miembros en tiempos prehistóricos a partir de principios del Mioceno.
Very impressive work on the Gazette issue. Let me know when you get through all the issues at the NLA, OK? (How much automation is there in the layout you've done for Wikisource? there's various key documents that could be done the same way, but re-doing a whiole issue (mostly of minimal intrerest) is a high price to pay for the bit one wants to cite. But if there's a reasonable degree of layout automation, it might be worth it. However, right now I'm assembling all the references cited by anyone on the "History wars" talk page in the (probably optimistic) hope that this will lead the debaters to agee to cite for and against and leave it NPOV, instead of having a minor History war on the side. "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be collateral damage" department. On identity, there's some really interesting themes, eg Russell Ward's the Australlian legend (we are all bushmen, eg Clancy of the overflow - now out of vogue, but lingering). Then you've got that "Faces of Australia" thing with the blended photos of a representative sample. There was a neat cartoon on the Cronulla "Riots" with a Leyton Hewitt figure fighting someone in a turban? and an aboriginal guy standing out back saying "when you get around to decideing who was here first ..." or some such. There's QANTAS's "we are Australian". It's probably a coffee-table book rather than Wiki, but. regards Keepitshort ( talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I will undo it now. I'm sorry about that--- I just wanted to start a discussion on the topic in a new section. Likebox ( talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
G'day Cobber. Sorry for my tardy reply but I'll look at him shortly. Will need to get cracking for dyk-I can knock something up. – Moondyne 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 02:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What about Help:namespace, then? kwami ( talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Cygnis, Thanks for your message - I'll add the updated references, it turns out that the original Isle of Tortuga site (run by Dutch maritime historian Mr Mark Bruyneel)no longer exists, but all of the relevant info has been moved to a new site. FYI: a Dutch historian recently published a children's book on Piracy and to celebrate the event he invited all descendants (including my father & younger brother) to the city of Hoorn, where they were "kidnapped" to the local museum and released to share a drink with the author. Whatever happened to Simon the Dancer's treasure? My apologies for this tardy reply, I've been more active on the Dutch & Indonesian wikis lately, not to mention Uncyclopedia to keep a healthy perspective on "facts & fiction". Cheers for now, and keep up the good work Frankly speaking ( talk) 11:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
For your misguided attempts at sarcasm, and the assumption that I don't have a sense of humor. ;) – blurpeace (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL! I am probably going to cop it! See my further contributions to the Yagan debate ;-) Melba1 ( talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Lol. Savour the moment ... or something. :-) Graham 87 16:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You wanted an illustration?
-- Tony Wills ( talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In Tea and Sugar Train it says;
So, take your pick, but whatever you pick, make it consistent. 77.163.159.230 ( talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Cygnis, the removed statement read For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal because it is easier to pronounce and remember than the Latin scientific name; they also often convey cultural and historical or other associations that are not so evident in Latin (e.g. barking owl, German shepherd). It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms. There are several important points made here about common names:
In the examples given (barking owl etc.) the actual organism referred to by the common name is irrelevant - it was the "content of the name itself" that was being referred to - you seem to have missed this point. In my view this statement is uncontentious, it is not demeaning the utility of scientific names as you seem to assume. My concern is that the important points being made have been removed. Could you please re-edit the sentence to remove the "opinion" but yet still making these key points dispassionately please? Otherwise I think it best for me to revert again. Granitethighs ( talk) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the "Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?" has found a suitable place on the web (which, unlike wikipedia, has room for everything), and hopefully we won't have to deal with this non-notable conspiracy theory here again. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
For this. :) Cheers, →javért stargaze 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I could not understand what you were trying to say on my talk page. However, see the Common Names article talk page for latest developments thanks. Granitethighs ( talk) 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
On the Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur page, why did you change it to read "one of the smallest primates" if you agree that it is the smallest of the mouse lemurs (same sentence)? Mouse lemurs are the smallest primates, so if Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur is the smallest of them, then it would be the smallest primate species in the world. Even the smallest monkey, the Pygmy Marmoset is four times its size by weight. What else, besides a yet undiscovered mouse lemur species, is possibly smaller? – Visionholder ( talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your cleanup of the disambig; looks better! Just so you know, the standard consensus established at wikiproject botany / horticulture is (as in the scientific community) to abbreviate genus prefixes in a list of plants where there is no ambiguity if they are left out.
Yup, not done yet. I still have to rework the lead and remove {{ inuse}} WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not remove them! I have to limit my editing of the Naming conventions, or face more accusations like this one. So why not register your wish to revert the changes and the reasons why, and providing they are reasonable I will back you up, and providing there are not serious objections, you can do the reversal yourself. -- PBS ( talk) 18:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
See these edits by User:M -- PBS ( talk) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. To deal with a few of your points:
This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xan dar 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
[8] Hesperian 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you again reversed BrixtonBoy's edit about the mills being a metaphor for churches. This is a recognised theory. I do not believe it, but someone has advanced it. It has been referenced and so should join the other theories about the meaning of Blake's poem. I would be grateful if you did not start an edit war over this. JMcC ( talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a great idea. There's this link which I am sure you've read, which would be a great start. He seems to have been a very great man. I am not a historian, though, and my competence is limited, but I would love to read what you write. Likebox ( talk) 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Regards your revert to aquatic ape hypothesis and Elaine Morgan, could you provide a bit more justification? Here is my rationale for my changes:
I included the subjects that Morgan wrote on (feminism and television scripts) to demonstrate that her writing is not of a professional scholar, scientist or researcher writing in her area of expertise. This is relevant to the page because she may be the primary proponent but she is not a specialist in any of the areas relevant to the AAH. It's not POV-pushing, it accurate, sourced, and in my opinion extremely relevant, but perhaps I am missing something. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "story" in your edit summary either. I acknowledge that "feminism" can be both a political and sociological topic and a near-pejorative description of an extreme point of view. I meant the former and would happily substitute a more accurate and appropriate word and wikilink if you can think of one. Also, the change from "Elaine" to "E" in the citation templates is minor but aligns it with the products of Diberri's template generator, a habit I've developed.
Regards the Elaine Morgan page, it's mostly about this edit.
Regards this edit
Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the way you think. We're naturally going to have people with nothing serious to contribute, so it is better to have them spinning their wheels on pointless lists than trying to write articles and failing miserably in the process. - Biruitorul Talk 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you just not like templates? I find it a useful way of sorting information in a visual way. What exactly is uncited about it, and since when did templates need to be cited? Please explain. Litho derm 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
please don't try to manage things that you don't understand.
The help page about interlanguage links (have you read it ?) indicates that "an interlanguage link is mainly suitable for linking to the most closely corresponding page in another language". In the case of es:Elephantidae we have 2 possibilities : Elephantidae or Elephant. When reading the spanish article it seem clear that the most closely corresponding page is Elephant. So this interlanguage link must be added to Elephant, not to Elephantidae.
Furthermore, the interwikis are maintained mainly by bots. These bots, in automatic mode, are unable to maintage interwikis when they are refering to different pages. So the operator must act manually. But it's a complex operation because some languages have only one page, whereas others have 2. The manual resolution can be impossible. So when you want to move an interwiki from one page to another (what I did with oc, la and an Elephantidae because I don't have opinion about them and don't want to make an edit war...) you must also update the other language pages to solve conflits. It took me one hour. So stop reverting if you are not able to make the correction properly.
The situation on articles Elephant and Elephantidae is not perfect, because some of the articles interlanguaged with Elephant could (should ?) be transfered to Elephantidae. But the person who will make these transfers must update interwikied pages, and refer to the content of the article, not just the name.
I know you didn't even opened the interlanguaged pages of Elephantidae because you restored de:Elephantidae, which is a redirect to de:Elefanten !
If you don't have other arguments than the name of the page ( pt:Elefante is more similar to Elephantidae than es:Elephantidae (please don't correct it if you don't do it on all Elephantidae interlanguage links)). Don't make your decision just because of the infobox, because the important is the content.
I'm not a newbee on interlanguage resolution ( and do more with my bot account), you should try to trust me when I say that I know what I do ;).
Regards
-- Hercule ( talk) 12:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Although I find the solution still less than satisfactory, the things that convinced me are that the es and it editors are satisfied with elefante redirecting to the family, and that of the two en articles, the better one for iw is Elephant, given the assertion that having two articles iw to the same article cannot be bot-maintained. It seems like a limitation of the bot, but I'm an "eventualist" in this regard, and since I don't maintain iw links, I'd prefer to stay as much as possible out of the way of the editors who do, except in the case when links are clearly wrong.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 02:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
For information, I had a discussion on swedish wikipedia to make some updates. I let a message on Elephant talk page. If you see someone updating interwikis from Elephant to Elephantidae can you inform me ? So I'll run updates after verifying this person is aware of the impact.
Regards
-- Hercule ( talk) 19:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You think Assemblages of plants and invertebrate animals of tumulus (organic mound) springs of the Swan Coastal Plain is a long title? Check this out. Hesperian 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I've posted my reasons for the revert on Biologyoracle's talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biologyoracle. I hope I've explained my reasons properly! Cheers, Alphard08 ( talk) 12:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful that you added an image of Roderick to the article. Thank you! Gillyweed ( talk) 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
A while back, I added to Kingia the observation that Westall's painting View of the south side of King George's Sound contains the earliest known image of the plant. Being the complete and utter idiot that I am, I failed to provide a citation for this claim, so I don't know where to go back to in order to read around the topic.
I'm now reading Findlay's Arcadian Quest, in which she puts the argument that Westall's pictures are mostly not objective scientific recordings of landscape, but rather artworks constructed from an agenda. This applies to his field sketches, but even more to the oil paintings that he later worked up from them. When I first started reading it, I was afeared that I was about to drown in postmodern tosh, but she's convinced me with solid, pragmatic, indisputable evidence. As one example, she shows how
Findlay's arguments are somewhat weakened by the occasional glaring error, such as interpreting salt-prostrated trees as fallen branches. And in this case, she rightly gets all hot and bothered about a Port Jackson plant being placed in a King George's Sound landscape; but of course the real problem here is that a King George's Sound Kingia has been wrongly labelled as occurring at Port Jackson. And in Westall's defence there, the only caption I see on the sketch says "Grass Trees"; there's no mention of Port Jackson.
To come to the point: WTF is going on here? Hesperian 13:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad you like them ... I like them a lot. Do make an edit to Isaac Crewdson as we have a joint DYK hook here. Oh and #Victuallers is just a null destination which I use when I want to display the name but not allow people to click and get an error message.
It occurs to me that, should you be inclined to tart up the article Banksia verticillata with pretty pictures of your own taking, you would, by virtue of your geographic location, be decidedly at an advantage over most anyone else so inclined. Hesperian 14:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you added a merge template to the Leafcutter ant article a while ago. However, that template suggested the proposal should be discussed on Talk:Atta, the talk page of a disambiguation page, and I couldn't find a related discussion anywhere. I've now reworked the article and made the problem addressed by your proposal more clear. I therefore removed the merge/split proposal and was hoping you could have a look at the article. - Fama Clamosa ( talk) 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
William Blake}}
Hello, I wanted to ask you about your concerns with the Blake template. As for it being an "un-cited amalgamation of links" (or something to that effect), there really isn't anything I can do. No Wikipedia guideline compels templates to be cited- and what an awkward mess they'd be if they were! However, if your complaint has more to do with how the template disrupts the functionality of the "What links here" tool, I'm sure that that issue can be resolved, and am willing to investigate whether a solution can be found or indeed already exists. Please let me know. Thanks,
Litho
derm
23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a POV. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or assert project proprietorship." Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Hello, please join the discussion at Talk:The Raven. As noted prior to your latest reversion, the featured picture is properly sourced. Procedurally, I will be reporting this to the edit warring noticeboard since you have reverted four times in under 24 hours and (thus far) declined two editors' invitations to discuss the matter at the article talk page. Would gladly withdraw the report if this can be ironed out by normal means. Please see WP:BRD. Durova 412 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you were aware, when you created this article, that your pal Ferdinand had painted this species. Plate 110 of Stephan Endlicher's Iconographia Generum Plantarum. Such a pity I can't find a scan online. :-( Hesperian 13:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I have left a totally incomprehensible message at this talk page, what has happened... Satu Suro 11:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Makeemlighter ( talk) 03:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, that would be because he didn't? If Richard's father is a Samuel Shepherd, it's a different one. Richard was born in 1842, and Samuel Shepherd died on 3 November 1840. Kinda physically impossible for them to be father and son. Ironholds ( talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I also removed WP:Autoreviewer per the language of your request wanting all "rankings" removed. Further, apologies for missing your request- my talk page has been insanely busy the last 72 hours, usually with multiple messages whenever I click the orange bar; hence my missing your request; for which I apologise. Courcelles ( talk) 02:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything i should do aside from maintaining my WM:AU membership? BTW, thank U for appending your references and POV to Talk:Battle of Pinjarra#Discussion. Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:AWNB#Bessie Rischbieth Hesperian 23:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of another Charles Vacher in the ODNB:
-- PBS ( talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW is Vacher French for Cowherd/cowman. (Thought I recognised it from the article The Vache) -- PBS ( talk) 02:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions concerning Jane Crewdson Vernon White . . . Talk 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I split that page out from the main list of Australian films of the 1990s. Quite possibly there are non-notable redlinks in the list, and each entry should probably be trimmed down to 3 or 4 "stars" per film. Lugnuts ( talk) 06:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Long. time. no speak. Trust all is well (cheers) Satu Suro 12:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) time.wave. sine. wave. its all the same. (bloody hicks and his boson) out of work. out of money. hmm this time last year in St Petersburg, walking a lot. bleah. Satu Suro 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Concerning Edwin Wyndham-Quin, 3rd Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl, I have had a little fiddle with the text but need to look closer at the Times obit and the ODNB article, which I have printed out. Why the interest in "Q", please? Vernon White . . . Talk 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort you made, I'm sure others will too. Regards, cygnis insignis 18:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Ann Candler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion,
[extensive blather removed]
Public Domain. Completely forgot about that. Sorry about that. :)
[More pre-configured crud]
-- Talktome( Intelati) 15:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Richard Garnett (philologist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Yousou (
report)
15:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Richard Garnett (philologist), a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{ hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Please also see WP:AGF Yousou ( report) 15:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Richard Garnett (philologist). Please use the {{ hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. I also recommend you see WP:NPA Yousou ( report) 15:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Richard Garnett (philologist), you may be blocked from editing. Yousou ( report) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Richard Garnett (philologist), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Next time is WP:3RR and WP:AIV FYI. Yousou ( report) 16:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Garnett (philologist). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yousou ( report) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Toddst1 (
talk)
16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Cygnis insignis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
No grounds or unblocking provided. Everyone thinks they are justified when they engage in edit warring; that's exactly why we don't tolerate it from anyone, right or wrong. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Cygnis insignis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The opinion of the responding editor at the notice board, diff cygnis insignis 17:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I was being far from disruptive. The opinion of another admin diff Please unblock, so that I might continue to do what I was doing - creating content, harming no one. cygnis insignis 17:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC) *I will add that I left the unjustified template in place and continued on. cygnis insignis 17:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I will continue creating articles, the article in question (that I created) is now protected. What is to be gained from blocking me?
Decline reason:
You did not "leave the unjustified template in place", you deleted it one, two, three, four, five, six times, and probably more - no point going on trawling through the history. Edit warring is forbidden, however right you are, and those who indulge in it are blocked, because if allowed it means that articles end in the version preferred by the most obstinate contributor, and those who would rather contribute than fight are driven away from Wikipedia. JohnCD ( talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Cygnis insignis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
"those who would rather contribute than fight are driven away from Wikipedia." I'm not likely to do anything other than continue contributing. The reverting editor gave no basis or response, he was not blocked (I'm not asking that he or she should be, I refuse to play that game.) I did, in fact, continue to [eventually] edit the article and ignore the tag. If there is nothing left to edit war over, then this is merely punitive. cygnis insignis 18:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC) If so, consider me punished, a mark on my log. cygnis insignis 18:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC) *Please check the last five edits, the unjustified speedy was left in place article history cygnis insignis 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You broke the rule against edit warring and the rule against removing the speedy deletion template on an article you created. Please sit out your short block as consequences for breaking these rules, and resume editing tomorrow. Diannaa ( Talk) 19:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In my analysis, two mistakes were made here, which is why the matter escalated. Such comments as I see above are actually not likely to de-escalate the situation. Evidently matters got overheated, and that's all that needs to be noted. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Is importing bios from DNB a project that has been discussed somewhere? Would you please point me to the discussion/project? Ladyof Shalott 01:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
... for the confusion, but the Spalding Clubs (there have been three by now) based in Aberdeen take their name from John Spalding the Scottish historian, rather than Spalding, Lincolnshire. Charles Matthews ( talk)
on the 'ole en chanel' - trust all is well Satu Suro 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to make sure you're aware of this; if you feel James Henry Leigh Hunt is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Leigh Hunt, you could always go to WP:RM and request to move the current Leigh Hunt to Leigh Hunt (disambiguation) and then redirect Leigh Hunt to James Henry Leigh Hunt. I'm not advocating one way or another, because I don't know enough about the topic to say what's best, but if you want a discussion that would be the way to go. -- JaGa talk 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Not sure if I agree that "James Henry Leigh Hunt" is the "primary topic", which according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box." Hunt published under the name Leigh Hunt (see, e.g., The Story of Rimini) and critics, academics, and biographers have always written about him using that form of the name (see, e.g., Nicolas Roe's recent book). I have not come here, however, to challenge your move to "James Henry Leigh Hunt", though I wanted to share my thoughts about it. I originally wanted to say this: I'm glad you agree that the much more familiar name "Leigh Hunt" should be mentioned earlier than it was. Now that I look back at my edit, "best known as ...", I'm thinking that it might read better as one of the following: "usually known as"; "better known as"; or "commonly known as". Do you have a preference?
Now that I think it over, it occurs to me that a better way of doing the DAB while leaving the title of the article as is would be to make an automatic redirect from "Leigh Hunt" to "James Henry Leigh Hunt", adding a hatnote referring to the DAB page. Any thoughts about that?
I like what you've added to the Leigh Hunt article. Hunt is an important essayist and poet (though admittedly not of the highest order in either category; at least I don't think he is) of the Romantic period who is not as well remembered today as he should be. I see a couple of things that need adjusting, which I will attend to shortly. The main thing (Hazlitt is a specialty of mine) is that only a few Examiner articles made it into The Round Table book, those in the series specifically designated "The Round Table". Regards, Alan W ( talk) 16:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edit corrected my omission here. Yes, your edit was necessary. Thank you. -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the wording at WP:INTDABLINK some, hopefully making it easier to understand. Comments/criticisms are welcome. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Further, if more time, perhaps months or even years go by before the next editor goes through the link check process, when they arrive they will be presented with one of two scenarios:
Any editor could have fixed that link, and a reader would find it at the dab if they hadn't. Why do you proffer (b) "we can change it to link to the dab page via the redirect as [[Mercury (disambiguation)|Mercury]]."? When would this situation arise? If someone was working backwards from the page "Mercury", cleaning up incoming links, they would need to sort legitimate redirects—which should be widowed—and cross references from other dabs. This backend solution, creating pages in mainspace with "(disambiguation)" appended is a supposed way of tracking these cross references. This, the only reason proffered, is a confounding and arcane imposition, fixing something that isn't broken for one approach to maintenance is an abhorrent one. What the label is trying to do is compress the information about the cross reference, Spaulding … see also: disambiguation for the spelling Spalding, why not just say that?! The answer is that it suits someone to add complexity for their own convenience, to undertake their preferred method of cleaning up links to articles they have no interest or investment in. This label has tripped me up more than once, in a situation I thought I had already resolved. I thought yet another 'disambiguation expert' had created yet another page; it is used as an actual title, though not at that page or its target, and fails to make the situation unambiguous, it is only meaningful to a priest of one church of disambiguation. Clarifying the navigation of these pages is something I do frequently (in the course of creating the actual content it leads to), creating additional pages would do nothing to make this any less "tedious"—the description of yet another 'expert' interpreter of the dissembling word-jazz at that guideline—there are other ways to do it. cygnis insignis 07:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
"If someone was working backwards from the page "Mercury", cleaning up incoming links, they would need to sort legitimate redirects—which should be widowed—and cross references from other dabs." I don't understand the bold part in this sentence. Why should "legitimate redirects be 'widowed'" and what does "widowed" mean? And when looking at incoming links from redirects, that's a separate issue - you can tell the "what links here" tool to ignore those. And what are "cross references from other dabs". Again, a legitimate link to a dab page is like "For other uses see Mercury". The problem is distinguishing intentional from unintentional links to Mercury in article space (not redirects).
"This backend solution, creating pages ...". No one is creating pages - just the one redirect (a redirect is not a page), like Mercury (disambiguation) → Mercury, for every dab page at its plain name.
You use the terms "confounding", "arcane" and "abhorrent" to refer to this method without explaining what's wrong with it.
There are other ways to do it? Such as? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If I don't use Mercury (disambiguation) as you suggest, and just leave all the intentional/legitimate links to the dab page linking direct to Mercury, then every time you or anyone checks incoming links to Mercury you will see at least all those and have no way of knowing if there are any new ones that need to be checked, and so will have to check all of them. That seems highly inefficient, especially if you multiply the problem by the enormous number of dab pages that are at the plain name.
Note that the goal of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links is to get rid of all links to every dab page - if you don't change intentional/legitimate links to link to the disambiguation redirect then they will remain linked directly to the dab page and the goal will not be achieved. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that the reason I used the journalist as the main article is because of the reasons stated at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. According to Special:WhatLinksHere, she has 24 links compared to the 14 the author has. http://stats.grok.se shows that the journalist's article has been viewed about 800 times this month, compared to the 115 views the author's has. A Google search doesn't show any results for the author until page 2, where the first page is exclusively the journalist. The author's article stated that "She was remarkably handsome and attractive" so I doubt the main reason this was moved was because off looks, so I plan to return the journalist's article back to the Sarah Austin page if there's not objections. -- wL< speak· check> 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Luxborough Galley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miyagawa (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
On 24 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luxborough Galley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the crew of the ill-fated slave ship Luxborough Galley became cannibals? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
trust it is a good one for you - must catch up some decade or so :) Satu Suro 15:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to the Captain R. T. Claridge article. The article is essentially in maintenance phase now (minor tweaks notwithstanding, but substantive information on this fellow has been exhausted for now, and Wikipedia has an excessive amount of incmplete articles requiring attention), and your effort in that regard is appreciated. On the topic of the F.S.A., I noted your contribution at the time,and thank you. I did not subsequently list Claridge on that page, as I was able to establish that Claridge was an antiquarian (which was sufficient for elucidating the F.S.A. abbreviation), but not which specific branch (e.g. London, Ireland, Scotland, Rome). Nevertheless, I left your link, because one of the things about incomplete information within Wikipedia is that threads are needed here and there for someone to pick up on. It is precisely by this means (a red link to a non-existent article) that I came to create the Claridge article in the first place. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 05:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Bin thinking about getting back to some grastro arts - trust all is wlel with you! - app ew ear! Satu Suro 12:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And to yez all, hope you have a prosperous one. There is a lot of that going around, the summery gastro, lob in I will when I sail back to shore. Charges of piracy are in my wake, and the fog has waylaid my course, but my little privateer vessel has a crew of one - cannibalism can not be on the menu! cygnis insignis 13:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
yearghh ohhny epp on the menu indeed - arrghh shiver me timbers yeehah! we havent had such a gastronomic conversation for so long in front of the freo veges ! Satu Suro 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll ping you about that soon :) cygnis insignis 13:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comment. I'm afraid I'm not the world's most patient soul when it comes to throwing away information. This was a rather carefully and generously conducted AfD compared with most but it's still sad to see the time and energy of people who are obviously rather more concerned about the quality of Wikipedia overall than the average tied up like this. Happy New Year! Opbeith ( talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
"Cignus" is much like Cygnus ... and I just wondered if you has seen this image? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
email your postal address sometime - gotta wiki tshirt for you Satu Suro 12:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
A tag has been placed on Robert Pitcairn (antiquary) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hang on}}
at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on
the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 13:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Abigail Mandana Holmes Christensen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Carl Sixsmith (
talk)
20:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on John Ellor Taylor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the
the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Singularity42 (
talk)
15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked the spammer. I got your message, but since you left the entire message in the edit summary, it confused me for a bit. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mary Unwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Unwin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Unwin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
For something that you just 'threw' together, it reads really well. You're right its an article that was sadly overlooked. I've done some minor expansion edits & added a few pictures of his works. I will try and add some additional references as well (given time). Dan arndt ( talk) 06:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
...About that (timing)... Some (like you, perhaps) might be smart enough to take mood, quality, and timing, etc. into account; but others (like me, perhaps) are not, and only "get it" (whatever "it" is) after-the-fact—and even then realizing that what was done/said (original intent) takes on a completely different (unintentional) meaning later on. This must be the difference between being a player and being played. I more resemble the latter, and I can only hope that the game is for good and not for ill in the end, and that time has been well spent and not wasted. Cheers, Londonjackbooks ( talk) 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)