User talk:Cygnis insignis/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:57, 16 March 2009

Refactored

To do

Copyvio at Franz Bauer.

polygraphische by Alois Auer
albumenized salt print (photograph) 1853

Your add here

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)[reply]

Crinia

Was that you? Hesperian 05:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is yes, one moment. cygnis insignis 05:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article

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)[reply]

Oz historic places - Stew

More contested than one of your frogs mate - good luck to em Satu Suro 03:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Expanding Earth

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Expanding Earth theory. Vsmith (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gmail in a mo Satu Suro 14:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is not to renew my geographically challenged award! cygnis insignis 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never - simply something that needs to be not left in the egg beater lest the rottweilers get hungry - which reminds me the story about... anyways cheers for the mo :) Satu Suro 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Leave it, they are both correct: Coastline paradox cygnis insignis 15:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can't get your imagery out of my head ... does the story include a souffle? cygnis insignis 15:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Morelia spilota spilota

On 27 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morelia spilota spilota, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

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)[reply]

It may be a new account, but it ain't a new user. It is an ~1-year-old user who started again under a new account. Hesperian 06:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you think they would like an apology, given they're at a tender age. cygnis insignis 06:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abos

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)[reply]

Did you notice I added two other entries to the disambiguation page? I understand why you removed the reference to the slur, but not why you removed the other content.

As far as I can see, the list is sourced, though maybe some entries should be improved or better sourced; how a link to it would constitute original research? Korg (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the dab page. I've added a link to the Wiktionary entry (another possible solution would be to add a link to the Abo disambiguation page). I hope you'll find that acceptable. Thanks and regards, Korg (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK for Limnodynastes dorsalis

On 1 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Limnodynastes dorsalis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AfD on band

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)[reply]

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.

RfD nomination of Paul Myners, Baron Myners

Ficus

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)[reply]

I see Hardyplants figured it out and fixed it. Guettarda (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stylidium id

Looks to me like Stylidium rupestre. Fairly prevalent near Albany and blooms into December. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The glandular leaves are a give-away. Not many species of Stylidium possess glandular leaves like that. I'm pretty certain it's S. rupestre, even if the location data doesn't fit exactly what FloraBase gives. There's a flickr image, too. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! You know, that's the first new Stylidium article in months. I exhausted myself on the Utricularia and haven't been in an article-writing mood for a while. I've cobbled together a list of species organized by taxonomy at User:Rkitko/sandbox, but I hesitate to take it live since the taxonomy is shaky at best. Juliet Wege is preparing the treatment for the Flora of Australia and I hear Allen Lowrie is writing a book on the Western Australian species. I hope both of those can guide the taxonomy a bit better. The most recent source I know of off-hand that mentions the placement of S. rupestre is Mildbraed's 1908 monograph, but I'll have to go back and confirm that it wasn't mentioned in either of the more recent species descriptions penned by Wege or Lowrie when they added new species to section Saxifragoidea. I'll check in the morning.

Speaking of Cephalotus, did you see this? Just terrible news. Rkitko ^(talk) 05:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I hate to ruin your confidence in my identification ability, but I've begun to question my choice. A recently described species, S. planirosulum shares many of the characteristics with S. rupestre. The main difference that I can discern from them beyond their geographic differences is that S. rupestre has an entirely glandular scape, while S. planirosulum may have glands on the base of the scape but is otherwise glabrous. From that image, it looks like the scape is only glandular at the base, but the leaves aren't as adpressed to the soil as Wege says it typically is in her description of the species. Thoughts? I lack a detailed understanding of your local geography, so perhaps you can shed some light on whether it's possible this is the correct name. Curiously, I can't find a blatant difference between the two species, but Wege doesn't even mention it in her species description, saying S. planirosulum is easily confused with S. lineatum. Apologies for the earlier false impression of confidence. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

regular and mutant petals on *Stylidum violaceum*

: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)[reply]

That's one interesting plant, there! It has one flower with one additional petal and another with two additional petals. Even the throat appendages are doubled. It's great that you got photos of this oddity. I wonder how frequently that occurs in this species. --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Catanzariti

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)

Hi. I am not aware that there is any time limit on nominating an article for deletion. Since the author asserted notability, it was not possible to nominate the article for speedy deletion. As I believed (and still do) that the subject's notability does not warrant a Wikipedia article, then it was nominated for deletion discussion. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I am not aware of one either, but that does not answer my question. I am aware, of course, that you want to delete it - speedy or otherwise. A new account created an article on an apparently non-notable person and three minutes later it was at AfD. I am genuinely mystified as to what the background could be, and how you can decide in three minutes that someone was nn. Are you saying that you were predisposed to that belief? cygnis insignis 07:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not approach Wikipedia with any predisposition. I had never heard of Catanzaniti until I read this article. I came across the article while new pages patrolling. As an experienced editor it did not take long to form an opinion that the subject did not meet notability requirements. Hence the AfD. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that. I'm meant no offense, if any was taken, the statement on what, and when, you believed was slightly ambiguous. I initially thought it must be a recreated article, or perhaps previously discussed. I'm experienced enough to know that other editors can conclude things that would take me days to ascertain, but I'm still surprised by it. Regards, cygnis insignis 08:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM

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)[reply]

revert

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)[reply]

Fair enough but if you remove my wikification then you must find a way to get things better cause the main problem here is not that the first few words are wikified but that there is no direct link to the Western Australia article in the introduction. This is the important matter. Regards--Kimdime69 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is here a strategical divergence, you are more focused on the form (not get the title of the article wikified) and, I am more focused in the content (get the article linked properly). I assume that content is more important than form so I would suggest you to revert your change. If I was in the french version of wikipedia, the one where I am normally working, I would expand the introduction in order to get both things done but as I am not enough fluent in written english to do it properly I refrain myself to do so but you could do it, even if you know nothing about the history of Western Australia, instead of asking on a project if someone can fix it. Regards--Kimdime69 (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Goldman

Sorry about that, the page has been unprotected. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

revert

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)[reply]

Reply

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)[reply]

Thank you for making my day.

I was not countering your personal preference with one of my own, the system of nomenclature has been adopted by everyone. By your reckoning I can publish an 'english' name, then move articles to that new name - cool!

The first statement is either irrelevant or false, depending on the meaning of adopted intended; the name Norway maple is widely adopted, after all. The second, however, leads me to wonder whether you are discussing any of this seriously. The guidance I contend for deals with names which are well known, at least as well known as the Latin; your proposal, while complimentary, would satisfy neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page until you have decided to read what you reply to, be civil to your fellow editors, or - as a minimum - spell Cygnus correctly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

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)[reply]

Stirling Range National Park

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)[reply]

Just was reverted again by someone else, forget it, there will be two separate articles, or the Western Australians can sort out their own national parks pages. This kind of thing is why I retired from wikipedia (for a year anyway) in the first place. - Schnob Reider (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate

Back - will try to crawl away under a rock again soon Satu Suro 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray or commiserations - take your pick. cygnis insignis 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuckili-doo the friggly poo, the didgerie flue, the plottery fly the dingly cry, the googly fart,

it is all art - bum ti bum tiddly de dumb. something like that. Satu Suro 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, oh! hang on ... do you mean? Oh no! I should have known – cygnis insignis 13:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it was ... nah not that either - forgive the ... they only do be doo, they dont do be doo didly doo, and when it comes to the 3rd step to the right they pom tiddly pom rather than yell youre all bloody sassenachs with a lift of the right leg into middle air and expell blustering curses in gaelic - they grab the standard lamps and chuck em over the left shoulder like cabers - oops i think i have the wrong universe - the hole and rock are very inviting Satu Suro 14:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.Right.uR. .., the triple crowned one. Nevermind, it all has to end somewhen. cygnis insignis 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed between the hole and rock and fallen caber is it an infinitely expanding universe or decreasing ? sleep will sort that out on this hot night, sure the answer will be there at sparrows fart Satu Suro 14:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fremantle Harbour pic

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)[reply]

mud

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)[reply]

Ta for the advice, or whatever it is.

I remember the outcome of one of them ... They don't shit me, I'm attempting to improve the content of our document.

Thanks for your view, a bit 'average', but welcome as always. My attempts at objective contributions to the stub have supported that edit. That should be obvious. The objecting editor has misrepresented his source in the article. That is not so obvious, unless one checks the source. The same source gave support to another authoritative name, given in my rationale, the other named source gives "Other Names for ...", but this was reverted to the 'stable name'. The stable name was my last move, and my first, by any reckoning of policy and guidelines; it is given as that in every source in the article. If it didn't use the name, and was a current source, it would have required me to make yet another dab. All this should be axiomatic, even to your "average admin".

I suppose the alternative is to refer to a list of Noachians, preferably in a medieval monk's bestiary (in the vernacular), and hammer those at our readers. All this recent blather about the accepted nomenclature, and other sciencey stuff, can be stuffed into a section named 'other uses' or 'in popular culture'. It can then explained that the [primary] name may be contradicted by other sources and that explanation of the morphology, toxicity, edibility, and other usefulness, also have a catholic and agnostic system of nomenclature, with various referents, that is conflated by these 'popular' publications. cygnis insignis 05:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Type into mainspace instead by adding the facts on one of that books celebrities, pages 1, 7, 12, 13, 23, 42, 117, 119, and check that citation in my previous move rationale (Allen, 2002, xiii). I would, but ... cygnis insignis 10:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I wasn't paying enough attention. Mine is Allen 1989, so those page numbers don't match. Hesperian 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant: [1] Hesperian 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing

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)[reply]

I'm shocked too! I often model articles on his contributions instead of trying to glean sense from policies and guidelines, the user's influence is worth noting along with the substantial contributions.

How can I proof the "Diary"? I read the North Island article ages ago, but forgot to watch it. I suggest you leave a typo or something, so it ends up on other watchlists :P

I will have another look at Curtis's, a few procedures and guidelines would be useful for such a large project. How about we get the B. sp. in order, with djvu etc., then seeing what the best approach might be? I found a couple of shortcuts in the conversion process, such as dealing with the OCR, and much of the drudgery can be avoided. If you think it would be useful, I will have a go at drafting them.

Cephalotus [follicularis] happens to be on my short list of candidates for a coordinated attempt at a complete wiki treatment, sisters and language, for a number of reasons including bias. I even reckon we could get a book out of it eventually. Another is a biog. redlink, which I was going to suggest to ... oh crap!

cygnis insignis 13:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proofing the diary starts at wikisource:Index:Diary of ten years.djvu. Each page has a colour. If a page is maroon, I haven't proofed it yet. If green, I've proofed it and someone has valididated it. If yellow, I've proofed it, but it needs someone to validate it. Click on the page, proof the text against the page image, edit it, fix any errors, click the green radio button, save. The page won't turn green on the index page until you've purged it by clicking on the "Pages:" link.

Okay re: your Curtis's plan. Re Cephalotus follicularis(!!) I'm looking forward to doing the discovery and taxonomic history on that one—Bauer, R.Br., Labill.—all the usual suspects. Ha, which one was that? Hesperian 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, I can read it at the same time.

Will cook up a draft for comment. Re (!!), I got a surprise when I obediently created Neatypus. They are some of the best reasons for choosing Cephalotus [sic], a near complete set of PD sources would be an interesting venture, can you think of anyone who might interested in Mediawikiproject:Cephalotus?

An early visitor to our shores, with several 'firsts', with an interesting tale of subterfuge, with images as sources, with a great work for Source, with a name that is commemorated in WA placenames, but without almost no mention in our document. The first name is synonym for the 'red' of the link. I'm sure I can think of more clues, s/he^[1] is notable for lots of reasons. cygnis insignis 14:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ ;-)

Intriguing. Many of the clues suggest someone who I have a strong interest in; about whom I have collected four books; of which I have just this week read two. But the "red" clue has lost me: certainly it has been a very long time since he was a redlink. Later today I'll whip up a list of places and things named after him and his ships, and you can tell me if I'm right. (Am about to leave you a message over there too.) Hesperian 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got it figured out now; I was way off target with my first guess. I know virtually nothing about her. What is this work for Source? Hesperian 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wangow in French is required, but her letters may be available. cygnis insignis 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should come clean; initially I was thinking of William Dampier; perhaps I was fixated having read a couple of books on him this week. Early visitor to our shores, check; several firsts, check; an interesting tale of subterfuge, check, if you count the dispute over whether he was a pirate or a privateer; great work for Source, check; a name that is commemorated in WA placenames, check. It had me looking at William (name)#origin to see if it was red in any way. It was this final clue that put Rose into my head. Hesperian 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed that was what you would think, so I added the s/he ref to steer you off that course. Well guessed. cygnis insignis 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image attribution

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)[reply]

OK GrahamBould (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. GrahamBould (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/13/2465210.htm Satu Suro 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yup wo yo not too slow - probably within 8 weeks Satu Suro 14:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common names

You might want to review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes by common name

"typo, remove: The latter are available through the ITIS on-line database. ITIS does not contain *all* valid taxa."

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)[reply]

Sorry, I see your point. "subporder" was the typo. --Jwinius (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day long time

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)[reply]

Basket flower

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)[reply]

OK, let's just put it on hold til I'm done editing the article. It'll be easier to see then than (Centaurea has not seen significant editing since about 3 years ago :o ...) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

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)[reply]

Just nosing through old posts. You may already know this but omitting the "name=" allows the article title to be italicized. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the cycle

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)[reply]

Motivation

Thank you for your inquiry. I've responded on my talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draco Volans

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)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Draco volans (zoology)

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:

unneeded redirect, result of erroneous move

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)[reply]

Youre mailing yourself on this matter? Shouldnt you be letting s-one else know? Satu Suro 07:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfD nomination of Draco volans (zoology)

obstruction and incivility

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)[reply]

Hi Boston, I hope you don't mind me changing the section heading. I put that view in a 'comment out' I wanted to tip you off, not add to the ruckus, I too have been frustrated a good editor's tendentious ways. More than once I have been explicit in pointing out what I believe are problems with OWN, incivility, AGF, and other issues. Behaviour acquired elsewhere on wiki, I suspect, the tendency to bomb discussions with great wads of text and drag it to the level of a personalised debate on the topic. You will find others have made similar points on his talk page, but I have also added to the accolades there. He will accept contributions to articles in his scope, but only after a protracted debate; it is very much about who contributes the edit, not the content itself. He seems to assume others are foolish or vandals, unless he is convinced otherwise.

Don't take it personally. It is a strategy that usually works, and becoming common in our community, the intertwining of ad hominem remarks and content dispute would make an RfC difficult. You would need to establish that this is a pattern of behaviour, and get some advice from someone less sceptical of those forums.

And don't pay any attention to Mokele, he is a pompous git. I give him as wide a berth as possible after he casually made a death threat against the subject of a BLP at an AfD.

Hope this helps, cygnis insignis 07:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. nivea

[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)[reply]

Yep, the second time he managed that. I added some of that to another article, Relation du Voyage à la Recherche de la Pérouse, but there is tonnes of stuff I haven't added. There are some vague references to this and the flora. BTW I think the note for the image at NLA may be wrong, I'll check it later. cygnis insignis 11:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The catchily-titled work Novae Hollandiae Plantarum Specimen

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)[reply]

Cheers, it's helpful with articles like these. I become so distracted by what is not in the article that problems creep into what I have included - I can't see them for looking! I asked you because I hope to make it digestible to any intelligent reader, your edit revealed a couple of minor problems with current version. Even better is the fact that you have queried the only part of the article I didn't write! (We should keep this between ourselves ;)

In short, no, it is not the first description of Australian flora. The first was by some pirate. The first book was by some other poms. Labillardiere described a greater number of plants in his bestseller, but his next work, Nov. Holl. Pl., was the first flora.

Hopefully this is clarified in my hook: ... that French botanist Jacques Labillardière's book Novae Hollandiae plantarum specimen, published in 1804–1806, was the first major scientific study of Australia flora?

Actually, that needs a copyedit too. cygnis insignis 08:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying "any intelligent reader" and not "any dummy who knows nothing about plants". ;) Somno (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Novae Hollandiae plantarum specimen

On February 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Novae Hollandiae plantarum specimen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Satu Suro 06:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, but the credit should be shared by Hesperian and Somno. I've attempted to write the stub a couple of times, but hit a wall for various reasons. One of them was Relation du Voyage à la Recherche de la Pérouse, a bestseller published several years earlier, which is often blended into references to the author's contribution to the flora of Australia. DYK that the role of the the French and Dutch expeditions was actively downplayed by the Howard gubment? If I had found a secondary reference for this you would! cygnis insignis 09:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep my alleged portion of the credit - it's not like I did anything aside from read it and ask some silly questions. :) Somno (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humble and intelligent, what a great "guy" :P What is it that those well intentioned educators say, "there are no silly questions, only silly answers". cygnis insignis 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pogona v. Bearded Dragon

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)[reply]

Thanks for that, but that is surely a trick question ;-) I put my rationale on the talk page of the article on the genus. cygnis insignis 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Pogona to Bearded Dragon. Seems as though it's the correct common name for the genus, feel free to correct me though. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bearded Dragon is a now a pet dragon article with a taxobox. I would have preferred separate articles, like in the case of skunks I mentioned above. Ah well... Rl (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason pet skunk has its own page is because it has been selectively bred over hundreds of years for its fur. Jack (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you questioning the notability of an article on 'Beardies'? cygnis insignis 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

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)[reply]

Edits to policy pages.

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)[reply]

Your summary was co-edit recent changes see talk page. I'm not sure what you meant by coediting, but it seemed very likely you had selected some comment on that talk page as tacit endorsement of your position. The issues are still emerging on that section, and were being actively discussed. By the time I had considered the edit another user had restored it on the basis it was yours. I tend to sympathize with that user's view, but I have no evidence that you are a "purely disruptive editor". I did consider your removal to be disruptive to the discussion of it, as was your revert. The tactics you have tended to employ seem to be gaming the system, my experience of your edits has led to a dismal view on your contributions to reasonable discussion. Please try to see solutions, and facilitate a consensus, rather than harrying those you have nominated as opponents. cygnis insignis 14:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to assume good faith. If you had looked at the edit history of the policy over the last few days and were to look at the talk page you would have seen an explanation for the edit I made. The person who made a partial restoration of my edit did not do it because it was mine they did it to advance their position as expressed on the talk page (As you would have seen if you had read the talk page and looked at a diff between my edit and theirs). I suggest that rather than believing what others say you look at my edit history and see if I am a "purely disruptive editor". Also you need to look at how policy pages are edited, it is not the same as editing articles, as the default is always to ere on the side of the last stable version, not on recently introduced changes and it is up to those who wish to change the consensus to build a new consensus. "co-edit" stands for copy edit and it is used frequently in Wikipedia discussions. --PBS (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, you have misrepresented what I have stated. And now you are being patronising in your assumptions, your take on policy editing is in stark contrast to your approach. I am firmly of the opinion that your contributions to main space, or the facilitation of those, could not equal the amount that could have been produced by the large body editors whose time you have wasted with the relentless promulgation of your personal views. I'm sure you think you are editing with good faith, but a position of authority on policy is not justified by a history of tendentious editing of them. If you use that ridiculous abbreviation for a word only one character longer, I have no doubt that example of needless jargon "is used frequently in Wikipedia discussions". Go! you self promoting zealot, you priggish policy warrior, you are a distraction to legitimate improvements. cygnis insignis 15:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ponsonby Peacocke

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)[reply]

Caution: civility

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)[reply]

Thanks for your message, but I fail to see what is uncivil about it. I think it is accurate description; he has engaged in edit wars with innumerable contributors and wasted their time by insisting that each explain why they should accord with the MOS. I believe that I can show how my message may have reduced disruption, with supporting diffs, but I would rather be contributing to article space. This is what I have been doing since I made that post; the user's tendentious edits, as opposed to good ones, are a very old story. You would not have to look too deeply into either of our histories to realise your "caution" was misplaced, please take the time to do that. Regards, cygnis insignis 20:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this so often, I'm thinking about creating Wikipedia:Edit warring time bandits. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santalum

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)[reply]

Taxobox on Homo floresiensis

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)[reply]

Hi, Cygnis, I certainly meant no slight, and wasn't at all trying to make this personal by naming you on the talk page. I was mostly just thinking that, as the person that had made the edit, you might know more about the rules regarding these things than I did. I'll fiddle with the stuff on the H.F. talk page... perhaps the easiest thing is just to remove mention of your name, but still leave that it was removed with your edit comment. Thanks for the SNAP :-) Edhubbard (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC) ....[reply]

Hi again. In your comment on my talk page, you said there was a discussion that was archived... was that on the H.F. page, or on a template page for taxoboxes? I just looked at the H.F. talk page and didn't see an archive (although now that I look, it probably should be done, some of that stuff is really old). Thanks, Edhubbard (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see where the taxobox was discussed now, and will essentially summarize your point (which I agree with now that I've seen the discussion) from the archive in the current discussion.

Regarding FA, as I've worked on two FARs to keep the little gold star, I'll defend that a bit here. I guess my feeling (and this came up during the previous FAR) is that, so long as we maintain a neutral point of view, accurately state that there is an ongoing controversy, and try not to actually make any decisions about the status of the controversy, the article can be fairly stable. Joel and I worked pretty hard to reduce references to "H. floresiensis", and more neutrally refer to "LB1", "LB2", etc, etc during the previous FAR, which I think (I hope!) helped a lot. The article will, of course, grow in complexity and detail as the controversies continue, but the scientific debate certainly isn't a problem for the article being stable (as long as there are no edit wars). Another potential (and more difficult) concern about the article is that the very name assumes that the species identification is valid. If it turns out that the species is reclassified (e.g., H. erectus floresiensis) or eventually ruled to be some sort of H. sapiens, then we will have some serious work to do, but for now, at least the current name is the one that people will look for, and is a stable point of reference. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that, with the article sort of being edited here and there by different people, at different times, adding new information and so on, the article probably could use a thorough read-through for consistency of tone, NPOV and so on (actually this is probably true for at least half the FAs on wikipeida!). One of the other people involved in the FAR has recently been through it once, but that was more for English and flow. If you have time, it would be great to have some fresh eyes just to read it over. I will try to do it myself this weekend, too, but a couple of reads probably could only help. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation (re {{Annotated image/Basic arthropod internal structure}})

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)[reply]

aaarrrgggghhh

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

btw after all that your spider man is excellent if you dont mind me saying Satu Suro 14:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Joseph Rainbow

On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Joseph Rainbow, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeehah! well done! Satu Suro 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh that dude looks just like a certain Wikipedian (who shall remain nameless)! Hesperian 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL cygnis insignis 01:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that - have been thinking about taking the beard off :) Satu Suro 02:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Spider message

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)[reply]

Copyvios

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)[reply]

On second thought, I forgot he's probably still in bed and hasn't had time to respond. I've unblocked, but with a request to respond as quickly as possible at ANI. Blueboy 96 06:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

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)[reply]

Update on CopyVio problem

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)[reply]

Your message

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)[reply]

[1] ;-)

[1]

@@ Line 503: / Line 503: @@
 Thanks so much, [[User:Invertzoo|Invertzoo]] ([[User talk:Invertzoo|talk]]) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
+==Your message==
+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. [[User:GrahamBould|GrahamBould]] ([[User talk:GrahamBould|talk]]) 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:57, 16 March 2009

Refactored

To do

Your add here

Recent Comments on profile of GoodMorningManji

Crinia

New article

Oz historic places - Stew

Cockle Creek, Tasmania

Expanding Earth

DYK for Morelia spilota spilota

October 2008

Abos

DYK for Limnodynastes dorsalis

AfD on band

RfD nomination of Paul Myners, Baron Myners

Ficus

Stylidium id

Peter Catanzariti

MOSNUM

revert

Emma Goldman

revert

Reply

Coffee

Stirling Range National Park

Seasons Greetings

Unfortunate

Fremantle Harbour pic

mud

And another thing

Image attribution

FYI

Common names

Snakes by common name

G'day long time

Basket flower

Taxobox

Breaking the cycle

Motivation

Draco Volans

Proposed deletion of Draco volans (zoology)

RfD nomination of Draco volans (zoology)

obstruction and incivility

B. nivea

The catchily-titled work Novae Hollandiae Plantarum Specimen

DYK for Novae Hollandiae plantarum specimen

Pogona v. Bearded Dragon

Vandalism

Edits to policy pages.

Stephen Ponsonby Peacocke

Caution: civility

Santalum

Taxobox on Homo floresiensis

Categorisation (re {{Annotated image/Basic arthropod internal structure}})

aaarrrgggghhh

DYK for William Joseph Rainbow

Spider message

Copyvios

Editing

Update on CopyVio problem

Your message