User talk:Cygnis insignis/Archive 2

Refactored[edit]

To do[edit]

Your add here[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Royal broil 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[edit]

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[edit]

Ficus[edit]

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[edit]

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]

: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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

revert[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Unfortunate[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Snakes by common name[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Draco Volans[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

obstruction and incivility[edit]

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[edit]

[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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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}})[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

An apology[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please, stop apologising; I have assumed that was your intention. My intention in mirroring in statement was that you might reflect on it; this was possibly too subtle, or a little juvenile, and a bit of sardonic indulgence. Both your posts make assertions that are unfounded and vague, I am not disturbed or distressed by them, however, I consider your "alert" to be unhelpful. You probably have a more optimistic view of AN/I than I do, and the ability of its readers to appreciate the subtleties of the issues presented. Neither have you recanted or redacted the statement, despite there being only evidence and opinion that contradicts your view.

Let us get back to the topic of content, and the second link in my 'rephrasing', you will note that an attempt to invoke template:plagiarism redirects to copyvio. Can you give your view, in a nutshell, on what the difference is between these two concepts? cygnis insignis 16:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that I misunderstood your first reply. Regarding this reply, I hold a different opinion about the utility of my poorly worded alert; it had the intended effect of directing the admins to the proposal on the project page, and your edit, to evaluate and provide guidance. I can see that your opinion is also reasonable, since the end result might have been the same either way.

Regarding your question, my view is that plagiarism is an ethical problem, while copyright violation is a legal one. Plagiarism is about claiming another's work, either ideas or words, an one's own. If the work isn't expressly made available for copying freely, copying the work without license is also a copyright violation. I think they link the two together here because the foundation is primarily concerned with the legal liability, but they may also see ethics as a cultural or even environmental reality and chose not to be judgmental.

As I understand it, merely stating a firm policy is sufficient to prevent the foundation from having any legal liability as long as the foundation is not aware of an acute or chronic problem. Once the foundation becomes aware of an acute problem, like this, they have to actively correct the situation to avoid any appearance of condoning copyright violation. Reacting this way also helps discourage repetition and avoids allowing a chronic problem to develop, as it did at that music sharing site, or as it seems to be at UTube.

Rephrasing information that is properly cited is neither plagiarism nor a copyright violation, in my opinion, but mechanical rewording is. The problem with that one edit was that it is awfully difficult to tell the difference between rephrasing and rewording when the sentence is on the order of ten words long. One can read that reference and chose to capture the information gathered about the color as "The shell is violet, with a paler upper surface." The organization is similar to "The shell coloration is violet, much paler on the upper surface," but that organization is fairly obvious, and the two sentences have different complexity and tone. The difficulty, for me, comes from the highlighting given in the diff, which gives the appearance of removing one word and replacing "much Xer on the Y" with "with a Xer Y." As an original entry, I would have no qualms, but as a correction from a copyright violation, I would have done it differently; I would have had one person remove the problem sections based on the history and another replace the information using a different source.

I'm afraid that was a pretty big nutshell, but nobody ever accused me of being pithy. Celestra (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katipo[edit]

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)[reply]

Re: AWB[edit]

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)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at OrangeDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Albany[edit]

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)[reply]

The phon-en template links to a generic English IPA key that basically acts as a "sound-alike" key. For example, English cities are transcribed with ars in them, even though their inhabitants speak non-rhotic dialects. If /ɑr/ is defined as the sound in 'car', then it doesn't really matter, because each reader will pronounce it with or without an [ɹ], depending on the way they say 'car'. So, yes, it is adequate for Australian cities, but won't give you an Australian accent. If all we want to say is that it's pronounced with a flat rather than broad A, then pron-en is perfectly adequate. (We might also want to add a footnote to make this explicit.) If, however, we wish to indicate exactly how the inhabitants themselves pronounce the name of their city, in their own accent, then we need something more precise. What we do with most English-speaking cities is link to pron-en for the generic international pronunciation (including phonemic differences that matter to people, like whether the A is broad or flat), and then say "locally X", where X links to help:IPA. In the case of Australia, we can instead link to a dedicated phonology article, which I think is more useful. It's just that, in the case of Albany, I don't see a point in doing so. It wouldn't hurt, of course, though it might confuse people why we'd bother to say, "/ˈælbəni/, with a flat A, locally [ˈælbəni]." kwami (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cor blimey[edit]

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)[reply]

wow thats a lot of upmerging why i dont even do that many cats in the same time :( Satu Suro 15:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah well over-editing on wikipedia - melbourne for easter - surf comp, afl and comedy fest all in one weekend with the younger two teenagers - should have got to albany by now - must try and still plan to come down soon - its my dissapear time - i better go - catch ya later Satu Suro 16:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dare question Tasmanian iconicity? wow you must be from albany :) Satu Suro 23:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs? ah thats a big ask at some hundreds of tas stubs :) Satu Suro 23:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good an unusual time of day to speak - gotta go kids to school ect - till later Satu Suro 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bat numb[edit]

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)[reply]

See WP:LEAD[edit]

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)[reply]

GrahamBould[edit]

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)[reply]

{{Context}}[edit]

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)[reply]

Ta! cygnis insignis 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thylacine[edit]

Thank you for your picture. ;)Gustavocarra (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about NPOV decision[edit]

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]

edit: 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[reply]

Clarence[edit]

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)[reply]

This maintenance template should be placed on the talk page[edit]

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)[reply]

No. But then I have not looked. Like you I try ignore the problem. Usually I only rant if when removing such stuff someone starts to argue there is consent to place this stuff at the top of a page, I have been involved in. The latest one I have had is a bot that stuffs a copyright violation onto pages which clearly originate on Wikipeida, [5], my comment to that is now in the bots talk page july archive, but I have just noticed that it still doing it (User talk:Coren#Royal Prerogative (United Kingdom)) Sigh! -PBS (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding of scientific name of the Thylacine[edit]

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)[reply]

You have answered your own question, and I agree it is not an alternative name; those refer to the authoritative, verifiable name. If the redirects from the significant alternates are in bold, why isn't the ubiquitously cited name? If it were the title it would be both italic and bold, I assume you noticed this while you were reading every fauna article in our document. Anyway, good news!, someone agreed with you, maybe they saw it as distracting the reader from the IPA for one of the common names. cygnis insignis 11:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
— es:Thylacinus cynocephalus

I ended up starting a debate over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#To_bold_or_not_to_bold_the_scientific_name_of_a_species.3F regarding this issue. It seems that the community is split regarding if a scientific name is an alternative name or not and if the bolding should occur. I welcome you to bring your opinion into the conversation. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in bold Thylacines, some new things yous can put in the article. Here is the first English description and reference,from the Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser of Sunday 21 April 1805: An animal of a truly singular and novel description was killed by dogs the 30th of March on a hill immediately contiguous to the settlement at Yorkton Port Dalrymple ; from the following minute description of which, by Lieutenant Governor Paterson, it must be considered of a species perfectly distinct from any of the animal creation hitherto known, and certainly the only powerful ard terrific of the carniverous and voracious tribe yet discovered on any part of New Holland or its adjacent Isands. &c. &c. &c." You can read the detail for yourself here [6]. He likened it to a hyaena, and in fact they were often referred to as "hyaenas" in the complaints of the Van Diemen's Land Company about them killing sheep. And here is a story about one grabbing a child: "A curious circumstance happened at Mr. Blinkworth's, Jerusalem, the other day. A native tiger, as it is called, boldly entered his cottage, where his family was assembled, and seized one of the little children by the hair, but fortunately missed its bite. Mr. Blinkworth who was confined to the house wilh a lame hand, alertly seized the animal by the tail and dashing it on the ground speediiy killed it." True. Read all about it in the Hobart Town Courier of 17 April 1830, here. [7]. regards Keepitshort (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ta. I'll be sure to let you know! Some automation, if I ken your meaning; but it is as you describe it, laborious if one is uninterested in the subject. Newspapers are very tricky, the NLA have undertaken a great work. I will take requests, with a vague promise to complete them 'sometime', preferably in that place. cygnis insignis 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for more people to add to the discussion although it has died down now. I think this issue requires a much bigger debate. This would be a HUGE policy change affecting many, many articles. The Thylacine page is unimportant. Do whatever you like with it for now. This issue deserves a much larger discussion and I have been considered starting an RFC about it. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy change! Redirects are put in bold, the reader 'knows' - perhaps after navigating the taxonomy - that he has arrived. You pointed out it would both bold and italic if it were the title, you presumably see the reason for that. RFC is always to some extent 'noisy', and 'not always' productive, please consider: the benefits to the reader, the productivity of those editors with a vested interest in these articles, the potential disruption of those with no interest or significant contributions to the articles, and my assurance that there are many more articles that already follow this convention (have done for years!). A few editors changed a number of articles; that is not the basis for a policy change, especially without any compelling rationale. There is are more urgent matters for attention in our biota articles, such as expanding their content. cygnis insignis 16:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page edit[edit]

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)[reply]

I put a copy of your comment in the original spot, and linked to the next section. I hope it is ok. If you want to delete the second copy, please do so. Sorry about that.Likebox (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already drafted the article in user space (User:Likebox/HistoryWars), at least for the part that is there. The new sources I introduced kept on getting deleted.Likebox (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanked and noted. cygnis insignis 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this is appropriate to ask, but the edits have recently gone through a little edit war. I reported PBS for 3RR, but nothing happened. I am just asking you, if you have time, if you could perhaps merge the two version until something neutral comes out, because PBS will block me if I touch the page again. I understand if you don't want to get involved too, or if your opinion on neutrality is not the same as mine.Likebox (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Lhotsky[edit]

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)[reply]

DYK for John Lhotsky[edit]

On June 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Lhotsky, 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.

Wizardman 02:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. –Moondyne 04:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

self reference in template[edit]

What about Help:namespace, then? kwami (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land ahoy! re: renegadoes Jan Janszoon & Sulayman Reis[edit]

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)[reply]

Trout[edit]

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)[reply]

LOL! I am probably going to cop it! See my further contributions to the Yagan debate ;-) Melba1 (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: a moment[edit]

Lol. Savour the moment ... or something. :-) Graham87 16:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boopork, MoreBook[edit]

You wanted an illustration?

--Tony Wills (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want an illustration ... oh,

Very purdy! Cheers, cygnis insignis 07:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straight track[edit]

In Tea and Sugar Train it says;

The train travelled along the world's longest stretch of straight track, which is straight for 310 miles (498 kilometres).

So, take your pick, but whatever you pick, make it consistent. 77.163.159.230 (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I suppose that was a bit lazy. I put what I know here. cygnis insignis 09:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common names[edit]

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:

Ease of pronunciation
Ease of remembering
That they convey cultural or other associations

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)[reply]

Thanks for the spam removal[edit]

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)[reply]

Many thanks[edit]

For this. :) Cheers, →javért ^stargaze 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common names[edit]

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)[reply]

Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur[edit]

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)[reply]

What a lovely name, I meant to discover a bit about that page title. The Philippine 'monkey' was where I started, which referred to the second smallest Microcebus as the "smallest primate". The refs I glanced through indicate this Tarsius is the smallest primate, which is what I had in mind, and referred to as the "smallest monkey". It is still all a bit of a mess, this monkey business with the nomenclature. I found an interesting comment on this at Talk:Prosimian today. cygnis insignis 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Philippine 'monkey' page and added a ref, as well as the Lemur page (which I'm currently re-writing offline). –Visionholder (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, those references seem to contradict the citation "Dammhahn M, Kappeler PM. 2005. Social system of Microcebus berthae, the world's smallest primate. Int J Primatol 26(2):407-35." cygnis insignis 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many recent sources that can be used to cite for this. The problem is that a lot of people will pick up a 20-year-old book on primates, read about the Pygmy Mouse Lemur and insist that their published reference is just as reliable (ignoring the fact that it's out-dated). In time I will get all of these inconsistencies tracked down and cleaned up. For now, though, I have bigger fish to fry... like my rewrite of the Lemur article. –Visionholder (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Bethlehem disambig...[edit]

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.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, it's one way of handling it. I'm aware that they can be, which I do to avoid being tedious, but I often find it necessary to expand them. I occasionally find myself having to page up to the genus name, it seems some believe it should be abbreviated whenever possible, it is especially distracting when multiple species or genera are mentioned. The convention is probably well known to the general reader, and unambiguous in any following occurence, but I tend to show restraint anyway. In this case there is no downside, no prose considerations, and ambiguity is inherent in that type of page ;-) cygnis insignis 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aquatic ape hypothesis[edit]

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)[reply]

Now done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming coventions[edit]

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)[reply]

See these edits by User:M --PBS (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting[edit]

You know, I remember that revert, and afterwards, I thought -- maybe they were correct. But I didn't take the effort to revert-the-revert. I think it seems okay. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common names[edit]

Thank you for your thoughts. To deal with a few of your points:

Pretending these newly coined english names, divorced from actual common usage, can replace their universal referents creates a battle-ground. - in over 99% of the cases involved the names are not newly coined, they are one common name picked over another. Birds are no respecters of linguistic boundaries and the unfortunate fact is that there is no "right" way to pick between Rough-legged Hawk versus Rough-legged Buzzard. Both are right, for a given value of right. Both have deep roots. We can't have both in the article title. By choosing the IOC route we are trying to take away the need to make this choice - instead we go with what they suggest. We'll win some and lose some but the process reduces the need for endless constant fights (except of course that it doesn't always do so).
We are telling the reader that their perfectly legitimate common name, perhaps meaningful in an ethnobiological context, is deprecated, wrong, based on the arbitration of single committee created a couple years ago - again, no, we are not. We are simply putting the article somewhere. We can't put it everywhere, that would be forking. We have to put it somewhere, right? You do understand this, I know you do. There are only a tiny number of commonly known birds that have been given completely novel names, and most of these have been in intractable situations where the fight between two names are simply too hard to sort out. And the system is not without opportunities for even the smallest reader to change them, the IOC welcomes comments with open arms. I have made extensive comments backed up with research on one name I think is intolerable, and have been rewarded with a nice email back, and explanation of why that happened (lack of communication) and a promise to discuss it at length at the next set of changes. They have recently changed a whole swathe of New Guinean bird names because again there was a lack of communication, these have been moved back to what was the more common ame used by those that are familiar with the birds.
The IOC cites this project as evidence of acceptance, this mutual reinforcement is highly problematic in itself. The apparent need for each to refactor the others faux-taxonomy of English names suggests that we are not reporting facts, we are helping to create them; with our web dominance, our Google ranking, and as a embryonic nomenclators proxy. - unavoidable. Our position as the higest ranking search for so many things means that we cannot help but influence the debate one way or the other. The act of recording the world invariably changes the world. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.[edit]

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. Xandar 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

misrepresented much?[edit]

[8] Hesperian 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And did those feet etc[edit]

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)[reply]

It does not really matter who said what and when. If I have the sequence of events wrong, then I apologise unreservedly. However I think the point still stands: there is a theory that the mills are churches. It is not our job to pass judgement on whether we agree with them or not. It should be mentioned if it is properly referenced. If the theory has not been added to your satisfaction, would you edit it rather than deleting it? JMcC (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Henry Melville[edit]

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)[reply]

Aquatic ape hypothesis (2)[edit]

Moved to Talk:Elaine Morgan (writer)#Aquatic ape hypothesis

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.

The formatting changes are pretty banal, Pinker's List is unrelated to the AAH and shouldn't be in the same section. Her books are easily separated into the substantial body of AAH works and unrelated text, though per the guide to layout they could equally easily be a single section with all books together.
the section should have a {{main}} template for the AAH instead of being linked in the paragraph
Morgan's position on the AAH is best described as advocacy and I think it's a more informative section title than just the name
The savanna theory isn't really used anymore and within the AAH is more of a caricature than an accurate description of a prevailing or discarded theory. It's also a redirect to bipedalism (probably not the best choice, see for example here or here).
the section was quite long for what should be essentially a brief summary on a tangential page. Though it would be a good choice for the aspects of the AAH that relates most specifically to Morgan's actions and I could see re-adding some bits to it.
regards the part of the edit I think you probably most strongly objecting to, the section gave more credence to the theory than is due. On the main AAH it's pretty clear that it's a fringe theory with no real mainstream support. In particular, the quote from Colin Groves is undue weight in my mind for reasons I've enumerated elsewhere - it's a single quote that represents the sum total of the book's contents regarding the AAH and it ignores the many other sources that indicate the theory does not have legs in contemporary anthropology. New Scientist, in addition to being an interview, is a popular magazine and not a scientific journal. Her talks at Oxford, Cambridge, University College London, Tufts and Harvard are undated, so it's unclear if she's referring to "in the last week" and "over the past four decades". In addition, using the interview to justify "her opinions are now being considered by a broader audience and have achieved some recognition in academic circles" reads as original research to me. In my opinion the interview can't be used to justify the idea that the AAH has mainstream support. I don't consider this POV-pushing, it's pretty well established that the theory has no real mainstream support. I'm not trying to POV-push, I'm trying to represent the contents of the main page more accurately. It's not a matter of "some critics remain", the sources support the idea that it's more accurately "not taken seriously". If you'd rather I provided citations in this version, I have no problem with that as they are readily culled from the main AAH page.

Regards this edit

the TED lecture I moved out of the EL section because it is linked as an inline citation, but it is certainly defensible that WP:ELYES supports a second mention as an EL.
the {{IMDB}} is pretty banal and I can't think of a good reason not to use it.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ooops! We're not supposed to do that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the relevant discussion to Talk:Elaine Morgan (writer). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your statement on talk:elaine morgan, it is greatly appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dictators list[edit]

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)[reply]

Blake template[edit]

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. Lithoderm 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid my edit. Let me know when you have time to discuss it. cygnis insignis 05:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Interwiki#Interlanguage_links[edit]

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)[reply]

I never insulted you or anybody here. I'm just trying to explain you that you don't know anything about interwikis and should try to think that I know what I do. I would never think explaining you how to write articles here...

I just tell you exactly what you tell me : "The links are placed for the benefit of readers, not your convenience". That's why "an interlanguage link is mainly suitable for linking to the most closely corresponding page in another language". For this reason the adding of spanish and italian interwiki seem wrong. And even if it's not wrong, the correction is not simple as you think. It implies to make large update. This update can be done, but someone must manage it.

Since the beginning you think I don't know what I do, and you are arrogant with me. When I explain you don't try to understand.

--Hercule (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How you 'know' all that, with absolute certainty, is a mystery" I know interwikis management because I practice it since time. So I know that the same article should not be used as interwiki in different articles. That's what I'm trying to explain you.

"Perhaps your omniscience can provide the answer to this question" This is not omniscience, this is practice and interrest on a subject that doesn't seem to interrest you (and there's not problem about that) and then don't know (and then you should trust people knowing it).

"What is an 'elephant'?" This question has no interrest on the subject of what we are talking about.

The question is : Which article should host es:Elephantidae as interwiki. Elephantidae or Elephant.

You decided it's Elephantidae without understanding the content of es:Elephantidae ! I'm sorry but I can't consider it's an important opinion.

Now Curtis Clark, who can read spanish says the article es:Elephantidae is also containing content of Elephantidae, and so restored interwikis. But he didn't changed links on Elephant. That's the new situation.

I agree es:Elephantidae contains a mix of the contents of Elephantidae and Elephant. I always agreed about that !

I have explained to Curtis Clark the problem with his revert. And asked him to revert himself. But I think it's possible his opinion about es:Elephantidae is different of mine. That's why I indicated him that if the spanish article (and italian) should be linked to Elephantidae, then what he did is not suffisant. We should decide what is the unique article that should be link to the spanish (and also to the italian, it can be different) and resolve the interwikis conflict.

That's the current situation. I'm waiting his answer.

I can understand my english is not very good and then some points were not clear since the begining. I also perfectly understand you don't understand easyly the issue because you don't know interwikis management. That's why I explain it to you.

--Hercule (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you understand the issue ;). But I think you should wait the opinion of Curtis Clark, who understand spanish, don't you ?

There is also the case of the italian article that must be solve before to update other languages pages.

I also inform you that the problem appear on many languages : see eo:Elefanto, or pt:Elefante for exemple. A real correction seem quite impossible to me. But if you think you're able to do it, I can help with my bot :p

--Hercule (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[9] + [10] = ?

I go to sleep, I'll read your links tomorrow. But your edit on spanish Wikipedia is still incorrect. Indeed all the interwikis of the page must be corrected (ie set the english page one). But you should not try to correct it before we have the opinion of Curtis Clark and decided what to do with italian interwiki. I fact I can do the correction with my bot, but it's easier if you don't change interwikis on other pages (if you're interrested I can explain more precisely tomorrow). This afternoon I was at work, that's why I had to spend one hour to make it manually.

Regards --Hercule (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to have really understood what you want to demonstrate with the links you gave me. Sorry. --Hercule (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, thanks for this response. I restore the interwiki on Elephant, the correction on es article.

I agree to continue discussion about the best link to do, but please let me make the updates if we decide to do it. I have the tools to make it correctly ;)

Regards --Hercule (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

sv:Användardiskussion:Nordelch#interwikis_of_Elefanter --Hercule (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1up[edit]

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)[reply]

Remarkable! cygnis insignis 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: edit summary, I'll get around to that one (the one you subpaged) eventually.... Hesperian 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lion edit[edit]

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)[reply]

Roderick Flanagan[edit]

Wonderful that you added an image of Roderick to the article. Thank you! Gillyweed (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens[edit]

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

the oil painting View from the South Side of King George's Sound is not a faithful reproduction of a field sketch, but rather
the topography from the sketch King George's Sound, View from Peak Head, with the vegetation in the front fiddled
including the superimposing of the Kingia in the sketch Port Jackson, Grass Trees.

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)[reply]

Alex George to the rescue. This from a source on Westall that only recently came to my attention: "Critics have commented on the addition of vegetation and figures and stated that some were taken from drawings made elsewhere. In the case of the prominent 'grass tree' it is, in fact, the drawing titled 'Port Jackson: Grass Trees' that contains an intruder, the left-hand plant and detail of a 'head' being Kingia australis which is restricted to south-western Australia." Maybe not all the confusion is gone, but at least now I have a source for it. Hesperian 08:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image maps[edit]

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.

I see some applications for the other place. I removed myself from the nom, thank you though :) The credit should go to you. Keep in touch, cygnis insignis 11:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. verticillata[edit]

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)[reply]

Leafcutter ant[edit]

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)[reply]

Blake template 2[edit]

{{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, Lithoderm 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline says the content of templates is exempt from guidelines and core policies? Explain how the collection of links and labels provide some benefit that could not be done with article content or a category? Assuming a user can find the content fork, through a double-transclusion, how are they to improve it without citations? The set of links has, presumably, some threshold of relevance, and it seems from the templates documentation that applies to inclusion elsewhere. I'm reading this assemblage as things under the 'top-level' topic "William Blake", that is only one possible interpretation and not a fact. Any number of content templates could be generated by this means, an article on one of his poems could include 18th century art, and 19th C, the editors of other version (no small matter with Blake) and by extension the extant template on preRaphaelites. Or should that be merged?! That this author template is not included in other author articles indicates some of the major problems with this approach. Consider the consequences of including, for example, the Rossettis and explain how this addresses these issues.

Resolving the second issue would be great, please let me know how that can be done. cygnis insignis 11:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my answer in general would be that this template deals largely with articles that are most directly related to William Blake- that is, his works. Where other individuals are mentioned, they are usually only notable because of their relation to Blake- where would Calvert, Linnell, Tatham, Richmond, and Gilchrist if they hadn't been involved with Blake? The dustbin of history, that's where. Their names seldom arise outside of scholarship on Blake. Where this is not the case (Bloom, Fry), I believe I have added appropriate caveats in the template documentation. As for templates not providing any information that is not presented by categories or articles- the template gives a visual structure to information that cannot be provided in the article space, and the template provides a simultaneous viewing of the component articles that cannot be provided by categories. It is like a chart- a helpful way of logically organizing information.

Your issues seem to relate to navigational templates in general, rather than the Blake template in particular. These templates are very common in articles on major artists, as I'm sure you are aware:[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24](I have at least 8 more open in tabs but you get the idea). As such your concerns should be presented to a larger forum; I will post links to this discussion on the visual arts wikiproject and the village pump. Regarding the second issue, I don't know immediately how to resolve it, but as I said I am willing to investigate it. Lithoderm 05:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"provide some benefit that could not be done with article content or a category": Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates states "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping.".

The other issues seem to be about inclusion criteria for this specific template, and should be discussed by editors interested in the topic. Paradoctor (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent navigation template and extremely useful to the reader who wishes to investigate other articles which are relevant to Blake - without having to trawl through text to find links or bring up various category pages, which is another navigation means but one which some people don't find convenient and which is not immediately accessible in the same way as the nav template, where everything is immediately and clearly laid out.

As for a benefit not provided by a category, one might as well say what benefit is provided by a category that is not provided by a nav template. We provide various means in tandem: links in the article, categories, nav templates and lists for the convenience of the reader.

Nav templates are not cited. The cites should be in the articles linked to. The fact of The Tyger being in Songs of Innocence and of Experience is established in the article on The Tyger. Then a link to The Tyger is placed in the nav section headed Songs of Innocence and Experience. This is perfectly straightforward.

The nav template should provide links to the articles which the reader might wish to go to in order to explore the subject of the main article, namely William Blake, and a range of articles relevant to it. Here we use common sense if necessary via consensus on particular inclusions. This is why we are called editors and not drones. The Ancients are so strongly associated with Blake that I don't see any problem with this link or the links to the associated artists. The article on e.g. John Linnell highlights his connection with Blake. Under "Scholars and critics", the article Donald Ault shows clearly his important connection to Blake. There does not seem a similarly strong case with Peter Ackroyd, so perhaps this could be removed.

I don't know why the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood has been alluded to. The article on them doesn't mention Blake and nor does the eponymous template. Let's not make hypothetical problems. If someone wishes to include the Rossettis, it's up to them to make this viable (under a heading of "Legacy" perhaps?). Then that can be examined.

"That this author template is not included in other author articles indicates some of the major problems with this approach." Not a problem. The template is used to give links relevant to the template subject, which may not be viable in reverse, e.g. Template:WWII history by nation, which has a link to History_of_Belgium, where only part of the article deals with WWII. History of Belgium does not include the navbox Template:WWII history by nation.

"What links here" will bring up all the articles where the template is included. That is the same with all such nav templates and is system-wide. Any such problems need to be addressed elsewhere, not with this specific template.

In summary: I do not see any problem at all here. It is perfectly in line with accepted practice.

Ty 13:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what the reader is interested in any other aspect of the article, any sort of collation from separate articles could be championed in this manner. Lists contain citations, are easily improved, and give the option to a reader; clearly more an advantage; nav-boxes silently define a topic or subject and are transcluded by an arbitrary decision. How will that be settled, debate? How are the redlinks to articles, one acting as labels, "extremely useful". cygnis insignis 15:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anyone wanting to the consider the application and implications of Nav-boxification, uncitable and arbitrary tranclusion of oversimplified article content merged with an inflexible and gaudy display that is redundant to the category system, might consider reading the guideline and talk of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. This is not a "series of articles" that gain from the advantages, it suffers from the many disadvantages. I use one 'nav-box', the relationship to other articles can be verified by citations, a topic or subject as loose as this will always be POV. cygnis insignis 15:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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

Edit warring[edit]

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. Durova⁴¹² 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. cygnis insignis 22:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[25]. Cordially, yandman 13:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go chase yourselves, ya blockheads. cygnis insignis 13:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adenanthos terminalis[edit]

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)[reply]

I remember hunting for that work, maybe for that image, but I don't know how I would have known that. I do 'know', without having seen it, that it is the 'greatest botanical illustration' of Adenathos in history (unless he did another one). Where is this mentioned, in a separate volume? cygnis insignis 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best places to discover early plates is in Flora Australiensis; in this case, Volume 5, page 355.[26] Hesperian 14:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would know what I'm thinking, one day ... cygnis insignis 14:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is too long since[edit]

I have left a totally incomprehensible message at this talk page, what has happened... Satu Suro 11:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh the piece of string, I get it, just a simple r can really spoil a lede para :) Satu Suro 12:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at Makeemlighter's talk page.
Message added 03:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Makeemlighter (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

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)[reply]

Samuel Shepherd[edit]

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)[reply]

So fix it! ... it is not particularly useful to note that here. I amended my passing comment on the talk: to note the error, and removed the link from a lazy stub, perhaps some good will come of it. cygnis insignis 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer removed[edit]

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)[reply]

Keeping up with other sandgropers[edit]

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)[reply]

You a local? A peculiar question, how about "do what you will unless it interferes with another's will"? I don't know anything about WM:AU, so I don't know what else to suggest. There is no need to thank me, and, I suggest, no need to give a personal sign off at general discussions of content - counter-productive in fact. If you need instructions, keep it simple, read good books, discover facts, improve articles with them, and keep it enjoyable for all ") Cygnis insignis (talk)

Yeah, i'm down in K-Town. I know Wikimedia Australia still seems a little under-organised. Thank U for your suggestions; i'll do my best. _me thoughts? ^past 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bessie[edit]

WP:AWNB#Bessie Rischbieth Hesperian 23:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ODNB Vacher, Charles[edit]

There is no mention of another Charles Vacher in the ODNB:

--PBS (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW is Vacher French for Cowherd/cowman. (Thought I recognised it from the article The Vache) -- PBS (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Phillip, a couple more clues for whoever uncovers whether there is a connection or not - I see three possible explanations, nothing I can put in an article.

L. vacca. Websters compares it with Vaquero and notes it as SW US term for what often known as a Stockman, until 'wikipedia decided' that meant something else, primarily :P cygnis insignis 09:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Crewdson[edit]

Thank you for your recent contributions concerning Jane Crewdson Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, though I'm a bit embarrassed to be thanked for these things, the contribution was a century old text. There was a probable connection that is difficult to make, if you go to #Image maps (above) you'll find another Crewdson who was a 'Quaker' minister. Maybe you are familiar with the related articles, its not something I know much about. cygnis insignis 06:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created Crewdson, for what its worth. cygnis insignis 06:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me particularly valuable to have WP articles, however short, elderly and stubby for people who are in ODNB. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 22:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding lots of reasons why that is true lately. Adding a fact only takes a minute, having a stub allows facts and links to arrive from any direction. I'm using the 1st edition, nearly all of which would be in the Oxford edition. cygnis insignis 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Australian films of 1993[edit]

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)[reply]

No problem - if anything it highlighted the issue and I did a productive edit because of it! There's no reason to list 20+ actors in a table for any film. Lugnuts (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, it seems haphazard. Creating a redlink infers notability, and fouls 'what links here' along with the information in the article. cygnis insignis 09:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very[edit]

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)[reply]

Wyndham-Quin[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks for looking into that, the Eton or Trinity education had me puzzled (maybe both?). I'm afraid the answer to your enquiry is 'need to know', sorry. cygnis insignis 14:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do my edits answer the question? He went to Eton and then TCD. His son went to Eton then Christ Church, Oxford (Times Obit). The ODNB article says of the son: "Lady Dunraven, however, remained strongly protestant; the boy was sent to Rome for education, and forbidden to communicate with his mother. This produced an obstinate resistance. Lord Adare, as he then was, after some tuition in Paris, went to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1858." Hope this helps Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief!

I appreciate the effort you made, I'm sure others will too. Regards, cygnis insignis 18:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ann Candler[edit]

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]

I'm speechless, except to suggest you do something useful! cygnis insignis 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain. Completely forgot about that. Sorry about that. :)

…

[More pre-configured crud]

--Talktome^(Intelati) 15:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second piece of advice: do not refactor other peoples talk pages, or remove their comments. cygnis insignis 16:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see your comment. Sorry. :) The "[More pre-configured crud]" was supposed to ease the tenstions. Sorry.--Talktome^(Intelati) 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I refactored your response was because I was embarrassed, I was sorry, and remembered Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. And I also forgot to check on the possibility of the public domain, sorry. This is my last response.--Talktome^(Intelati) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll carry on now. Owning information is a privilege, not assumed, and providing it is why we are here; templates do not do that—convey information—very effectively, or at all. Ask the question if you have doubts, regular or not. cygnis insignis 16:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Garnett (philologist)[edit]

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)[reply]

October 2010[edit]

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)[reply]

It was my intention. Do something useful. cygnis insignis 15:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

…! prove it. Go and report me for 3rr, and show why it fails to be notable. Don't template me again! cygnis insignis 15:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Richard Garnett (philologist). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cygnis insignis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I take the opinion of the editors of the DNB over someone with bot and a capacity to tendentiously revert. cygnis insignis 16:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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?[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Then it is punitive, not protecting the documents, or its contributors. That is just an arbitrary application of the tool. The other user could have taken it AFD, or got a second opinion, they chose implement some protocol (a 'rule') and are rewarded for semi-automated beligerence toward innocent contributions by getting someone blocked. cygnis insignis 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point having rules if there are no consequences when people break the rules. Edit warring is forbidden, however right you are, and those who indulge in it are blocked. I urge you again to take the day off and resume editing tomorrow. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why wasn't the other editor blocked for edit warring, when I was contributing with the tag in place. I removed it, it was incorrect, and despite my request to check what they were doing they tendentiously restored the tag. I removed the misuse of the twinkle, isn't that a 'rule'. Their effort is a few seconds work and sit back and watch the excitement, the normally focused and industrious user is now compelled to negotiate with some log in over something that is baseless and benefits nobody. You lot need to step back and look at the situation, and who was doing what, historically and recently. This block achieves nothing, it is stopping me contributing - as I was when it happened - it is not edit-warring to continue on a article someone fancied seeing deleted. This sort of thing would greatly discourage any sensible user, the other user is only encouraged to continue this gaming behaviour. cygnis insignis 20:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:28, 31 October 2010 contributing to article, template is now ignored + 5 more edits to improve main space. No contact with templating user, nothing that could any way be construed as disruption. They wanted their speedy notice, they got it.
16:55, 31 October 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Cygnis insignis ‎ (You have been blocked from editing to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war on Richard Garnett (philologist) [27]
17:05, 31 October 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Cygnis insignis (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2010-11-01T16:54:48Z (account creation blocked) ‎ (Edit warring and repeated WP:CIVIL issues)
I could lay out every relevant diff in a timeline, I would prefer to create content and not be insulted for my trouble. cygnis insignis 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that you are exhibiting a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTTHEM and still do not seem to understand the issue here. Unless you understand it and modify your attitude, you are likely to have more trouble. To spell it out: Wikipedia is a collaborative project which can only prosper on a basis of co-operation and mutual respect. The "flaming" culture of some parts of the internet has no place here. Hence the policy WP:CIVIL and the guideline WP:AGF.

WP:Edit-warring is forbidden because if allowed it means that articles end up in the version preferred by the most obstinate combatant, and those who prefer contributing to fighting are driven away. It is forbidden even if you are sure you are right, even if you are right. WP:3RR is a "bright-line" offence. You wrote above "it is not edit-warring to continue on a article someone fancied seeing deleted." Wrong. It is, if you break 3RR. Being right is not a defence.

When a speedy deletion tag was put on your article, I don't know whether you didn't read it or thought it didn't apply to you, but it told you what to do: add {{hangon}} and explain your reasons on the talk page. If you had done that, you could have gone on with editing and in due course, as eventually happened, if the speedy was not valid a patrolling admin would have declined it.

Do you not understand why that would have been a better course of action than six or seven reverts, and edit summaries like this and this? What you did has generated a remarkable amount of ill-will and wasted time for no gain whatever compared to following the rules: a textbook example of why those rules are there.

JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

re John Thomas Smith[edit]

Thanks for the nice message re John Thomas Smith - judging from your comments you may know even more? Hope you can find time to add it. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNB[edit]

Is importing bios from DNB a project that has been discussed somewhere? Would you please point me to the discussion/project? LadyofShalott 01:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, let me know if you can't find what you are looking for, or if you want to do something in particular. cygnis insignis 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I noticed a couple of your new articles while looking at new pages. I'm glad to know about this project! LadyofShalott 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most productive I have seen, much credit for that goes to Matthews. There are lots of ways to get stuck in. cygnis insignis 02:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You can be forgiven ...[edit]

... 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)

good to see you[edit]

on the 'ole en chanel' - trust all is well Satu Suro 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and you stop am passing through the north-west passage stop what is your position over. cygnis insignis 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

still same place, roger over and out Satu Suro 09:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ahoy matey another sighting over the rigging! ave ya been blown off course ? Satu Suro 06:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mere buoy thrown out of a snark hunt, named as a captain whose signal was mangled by later refs. "see more"

Arrgh shiver me timbers there's never enough silver coins flowing down the galley when the copyists come to port (or starboard) Satu Suro 06:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Hunt[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm aware of it [28], why do you want to make sure of that? Do you see a problem? cygnis insignis 18:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just looking at your edits I got the impression you thought James Henry Leigh Hunt was primary, so I wanted to let you know about your options. --JaGa^talk 19:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, "James Henry Leigh Hunt" is 'primary' for James Henry Leigh Hunt, according to the sources I used. cygnis insignis 19:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Any of those options, or perhaps "referred to as Leigh Hunt". It is unambiguous in context, but one consideration is that people commonly styled their name in this fashion, another was the complexity of the names origin (which was interesting). The full name is helpful as the title, disambiguating itself too, and this left the other possibilities for users to select from at what they typed. Actors, for example, are sometimes credited by surname only, there was also another editor. I think what I did is one of the simplest solutions to what ever direction people are arriving at this, perhaps with a surname and an initial. More interesting than these idle after-thoughts was getting these elusive refs to "R. Hunt" sorted out.

Lastly, ta, I'm surprised the fact was missing. I've read more about Leigh Hunt, and a little more of his work when I was looking at the articles. Your William seems more interesting, drop me some recommendations for articles or books. I should probably be more familiar with that journal. cygnis insignis 19:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal! I should probably look to see what you were talking about, presumably this 1817 work. cygnis insignis 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should say I find "my" William interesting; been reading him for years and years. My own favorite is Table-Talk. (Easy enough to find with Google.) Most of our William Hazlitt was written by me, and if you look through that you'll get a better idea of what you might like (no point of my repeating here what I put on that page). If you're big on Shakespeare, then Characters of Shakespear's Plays is a must. The Spirit of the Age is a great series of sketches of his contemporaries, mostly poetical and political figures. Hazlitt and Hunt were good friends and shared the same political views. I could go on forever about Hazlitt so I'll cut myself short now. :^)

About the Hunt DAB, what you say about the name is reasonable. I was just thinking that it seems to me that this Leigh Hunt is probably the one most searched for. I know he must be by far if you're looking in the literary area. So I was thinking that maybe "Leigh Hunt" should redirect automatically to "James Henry Leigh Hunt", and on that page there should be a "hatnote" pointing to "Leigh Hunt (disambiguation)", which would be the current "Leigh Hunt" page renamed. Or something like that. The only reason I hesitate to just go and do that is that, and maybe you know this, it is possible that some other Leigh Hunt is really very well known in, say, sports. I will say, though, that if I do a Google search for Leigh Hunt, all of the top hits are the man who was born as "James Henry Leigh Hunt" (though mostly under the name "Leigh Hunt"). This suggests that mostly people looking for Leigh Hunt are looking for this one, and it can be annoying and confusing to have to do an extra mouse click to get to "James Henry Leigh Hunt". See what I'm saying? Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add, yes, your link to the www.archive.org The Round Table is the book I was referring to. Most editions leave out Hunt's contributions, but I found at least some of them somewhere, I don't remember now. They have a certain charm; but I think that Hazlitt's essays have more meat in them. --Alan W (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah … I just realised I read some of his Characters before, he is good! Thanks for the recommendations; the articles would have facts, but I welcome your personal opinion.

I recognise the simplicity of having a likely target as the first hit, but a user is both seeking and clicking and I'm not sure this is a likely search. A couple of other considerations: the DNB had it this way, and their scope is more limited than ours, deferring to an outside authority is preferable; a user seeking that author knows what the target is and will more easily find where to click, it is those who are less certain who need the simple path names. The last reference to Cussler's character{{cn}} weighed heavily in favour of dabbing there, (if literary topics are more likely targets;) with a curious note on two more Leigh Hunts.

If gutenberg hasn't done them already, I will read and transcribe them. Regards, cygnis insignis

Regarding the DAB, well, as the old expression goes, there is much to be said on both sides. But as you say, anyone seeking "our" Leigh Hunt will find him soon enough, so, even if I can't say honestly that I agree with you 100%, you certainly haven't done any harm.

I could go on and on with my own opinions about Hazlitt's essays. Briefly, he seems to me to have a lot to say to us in the 21st century. He zeroed in on essentials of human nature that have not changed, seeing right through the illusions of his contemporaries. And he had a way of expressing in very precise terms what most of us might have just vaguely sensed; so that often I find myself saying, "Yes! that's exactly it! Bull's-eye!" And if you don't quite grasp what he is getting at the first go-round, he'll turn his subject at a slight angle and show it to you again from that perspective. Razor-sharp thinker, and had a knack for choosing the exact words to express his ideas (though apparently he worked very, very hard at it all his life--and he even explains all that in some of his essays on prose style, on criticism, and so on). As I said, I could go on and on, but I must stop now. Very late in this part of the world (I gather that you are "down under", so it must be mid-morning where you are). Regards, Alan W (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Klaproth[edit]

Your recent edit corrected my omission here. Yes, your edit was necessary. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, ta for letting me know. cygnis insignis 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

INTDABLINK[edit]

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)[reply]

I see, if the link wasn't added then the unnecessary page would be widowed. There are many reasons not to do this, but they are probably unrelated to whatever is happening on the other side of that page. cygnis insignis 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the link wasn't added then intentional links to the dab page could not be easily distinguished from unintentional ones. However, if all intentional links go to the "unnecessary redirect" to the dab page instead of directly to the dab page, then they are easily distinguished from the unintended ones that go directly to the dab page by using "what links here" on the dab page. Those redirects are apparently unnecessary from the perspective of the reader, except they are indirectly beneficial to the reader in that they allow editors to eliminate improper links more efficiently thus improving the reader experience. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Repairing these unintentional links is a tedious process because you have to read the text" … you want a way for process editors to get their mega edit buzz, or look busy, without having to bother themselves with actually reading content, as well as avoiding the creation of encyclopædic content? Don't worry about it then?! a reader will know which article was intended, and others enjoy resolving ambiguous links. cygnis insignis 23:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you agree it's better to clearly have nothing to fix (all intentional links to the dab page go to the dab page redirect) than a situation which requires reading text to figure out if each link to the dab page is intentional or needs fixing, and which is left at the end of that process in a state that is no less clear to the next editor than it was before? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I went to Mercury, clicked on "what links here", went to the first link, found that it was wrong, and fixed it. If I or someone else goes through all the links to the Mercury dab page we have two choices about what to do when we come to a correct link to the dab page:

(a) we can leave the link as [[Mercury]], or

(b) we can change it to link to the dab page via the redirect as [[Mercury (disambiguation)|Mercury]].

Whether we go with (a) or (b) presumably we'll eventually get through the whole list.

Once we're done if someone else goes to Mercury and clicks on "what links here" before anyone else adds any more links to the Mercury dab page they will see one of two things:

(a) a bunch of links that need to be verified to see if they are intentional or unintentional links to the dab page (though we know they are all intentional - but that new editor won't have any way to know that), or

(b) no links - nothing to check.

Isn't (b) preferred?

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:

(a) All the new links to the dab page, both intentional and unintentional, that have been added since the last check, plus the intentional links to the dab page that were already verified as being intentional, or

(b) Only the new links to the dab page, both intentional and unintentional, that have been added since the last check, and require verification.

With (a), note that all of the previously-verified-to-be-intentional links cannot be distinguished from the new links, so they have to be checked again. Again, isn't (b) preferable? What's the downside? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

When would the situation -- "come to a correct link to the dab page" -- arise? Inside a hatnote for one... "For other uses see Mercury".

"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)[reply]

I did explain, you need to read everything I said—maybe twice—not dissect it and kick around the now bloodied mess. It doesn't matter you call it, a redirect is a page that exists for a good reason, it is a disambiguation page with one link: you don't need to see it, it goes to only target. A widowed redirect would be one that linked to a dab page, a spelling variant, but has nothing in article space linking to it, a legitimate widow. I appreciate the problem, I am able to resolve links to disambiguation pages without creating an unnecessary redirect! I ask again, WHY does Mercury (disambiguation) need to exist? cygnis insignis 17:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too am able to resolve links to dab pages without creating an unnecessary redirect. But I can't do that without also leaving some links from article and template space to that dab page -- because some are intentional/legitimate -- thus leaving a situation indiscernible, without analysis, from one in which that dab page has unintentional/illegitimate links to it from article space. The reason it's helpful for Mercury (disambiguation) to exist is so that I can change those links to it instead of being direct to the dab page, thus leaving a situation with no links direct to the dab page at Mercury. That way if you check the number of incoming links to Mercury you will only see some if some new ones were created since my check, thus signaling the need for another check. If no new ones have been created since my last check/correction, then the incoming link count will be zero.

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)[reply]

Disambig page for the name Sarah Austin[edit]

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. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Her looks were not the reason she was mentioned in the Dictionary of National Biography, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, those entries give extension mention of her published works. This confers greater notability than self publishing. I know what the targets of 'what links here' were, because I went through and disambiguated them, they include a mention at the school she attended, a list of self publishing bloggers, and captions to group shots of her circle of associates. Indeed, they are largely circular references, if some internationally recognised authority creates an entry on her, the person would begin to equal the notability of the author who's still mentioned 150 years later. cygnis insignis 05:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luxborough Galley[edit]

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)[reply]

DYK for Luxborough Galley[edit]

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)[reply]

happy chris[edit]

trust it is a good one for you - must catch up some decade or so :) Satu Suro 15:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
Message added Scrivener-uki (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Captain R. T. Claridge[edit]

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)[reply]

I enjoyed that, you ought to be pleased. When I have some time, would you like my opinion on some small matters of style or slight adjustments to pov? I think the post-nominal FSA usually indicates the 'original' antiquarian society of London, "FSA (Scotland)" for the Edinburgh society, and have a vague recollection of seeing this name connected to the topic. I don't bother to list all those I find, and thought twice about using that as the target for F.S.A.; I do add the category for the same, for what that is worth. There is a lot of missing articles and facts—the more you fix, the more you find—efforts like this are valuable I believe. Thanks for calling by, please do so again. cygnis insignis 10:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

App ew year[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll ping you about that soon :) cygnis insignis 13:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manar Group[edit]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Group, Looks ready to close, would you like to visit again? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late of course, but in case you're interested I did a quick search and with a little wading through mirror sites found a couple of map mentions - see Manar Group. I've e-mailed the info contact at CSIRO for the Torres Strait Islands Atlas as I couldn't find an index, but he seems the obvious point of informed contact. Opbeith (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing I can add to that comment, thanks for letting me know. The practical reason to ignore the stub was that the reference is likely to emerge [one day], but it is hard to find [again, on demand]. Regards, cygnis insignis 12:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Steamboat[edit]

File:Cygnus (steamboat) 01.jpg, circa 1895

"Cignus" is much like Cygnus ... and I just wondered if you has seen this image? --Tenmei (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the resemblance is uncanny :-) cygnis insignis 12:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pls[edit]

email your postal address sometime - gotta wiki tshirt for you Satu Suro 12:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ta! I'll give you a hoy sometime, I'm away from my home port. cygnis insignis 12:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shiver me timbers I am afloat in a few odd anchorages over the next few horizons - event and oceanic - so give a fog horn or two before you do Satu Suro 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Pitcairn (antiquary)[edit]

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)[reply]

The Speedy Deletion process isn't based on notability, I'm sure the subject of the article may indeed by notable, that was not my assertion, but with the fact that there is no indication of such in the article itself. Simply saying X is a British antiquarian isn't really an assertion of notability. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I do not believe saying one is a British antiquarian is an assertion of notability under our guidelines, as available at WP:BIO. I'd hardly call all antiquarians notability by definition, and the profession is the only fact included in the article aside from his year of birth and death. There is not claim of notability by simply asserting someone's profession. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please refer to WP:BIO for our own notability guidelines for people. No claim under these guidelines is made in the article, sorry. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abigail Mandana Holmes Christensen[edit]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Ellor Taylor[edit]

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)[reply]

Block request[edit]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mary Unwin[edit]

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)[reply]

Nomination of Mary Unwin for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Reveley[edit]

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)[reply]

Timing[edit]

...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)[reply]

[1] ;-)

[1]

Refactored[edit]

To do[edit]

Your add here[edit]

Recent Comments on profile of GoodMorningManji[edit]

Crinia[edit]

New article[edit]

Oz historic places - Stew[edit]

Cockle Creek, Tasmania[edit]

Expanding Earth[edit]

DYK for Morelia spilota spilota[edit]

October 2008[edit]

Abos[edit]

DYK for Limnodynastes dorsalis[edit]

AfD on band[edit]

RfD nomination of Paul Myners, Baron Myners[edit]

Ficus[edit]

Stylidium id[edit]

Peter Catanzariti[edit]

MOSNUM[edit]

revert[edit]

Emma Goldman[edit]

revert[edit]

Reply[edit]

Coffee[edit]

Stirling Range National Park[edit]

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Unfortunate[edit]

Fremantle Harbour pic[edit]

mud[edit]

And another thing[edit]

Image attribution[edit]

FYI[edit]

Common names[edit]

Snakes by common name[edit]

G'day long time[edit]

Basket flower[edit]

Taxobox[edit]

Breaking the cycle[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Draco Volans[edit]

Proposed deletion of Draco volans (zoology)[edit]

RfD nomination of Draco volans (zoology)[edit]

obstruction and incivility[edit]

B. nivea[edit]

The catchily-titled work Novae Hollandiae Plantarum Specimen[edit]

DYK for Novae Hollandiae plantarum specimen[edit]

Pogona v. Bearded Dragon[edit]

Vandalism[edit]

Edits to policy pages.[edit]

Stephen Ponsonby Peacocke[edit]

Caution: civility[edit]

Santalum[edit]

Taxobox on Homo floresiensis[edit]

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

aaarrrgggghhh[edit]

DYK for William Joseph Rainbow[edit]

Spider message[edit]

Copyvios[edit]

Editing[edit]

Update on CopyVio problem[edit]

Your message[edit]

An apology[edit]

Katipo[edit]

Re: AWB[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Albany[edit]

cor blimey[edit]

Bat numb[edit]

See WP:LEAD[edit]

GrahamBould[edit]

{{Context}}[edit]

Thylacine[edit]

Question about NPOV decision[edit]

Clarence[edit]

This maintenance template should be placed on the talk page[edit]

Bolding of scientific name of the Thylacine[edit]

Talk page edit[edit]

John Lhotsky[edit]

DYK for John Lhotsky[edit]

self reference in template[edit]