User talk:Hesperian/Archive 47

Gasp

a desert like talk page - may i orfishially congrat u on the sesselis FA status - may you not be detrimentally afflicted by such an achievement - there are many more erbs and orests as yet un touched by you that need the gift of the dab hand and the skill of coping with FA gate keepers - for that alone you must deserve a round or two - whenever SatuSuro 13:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I rather feel as though all I do is write content. When it comes to the FAC spit'n'polish, I must defer to Cas. Hesperian 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, content is overrated. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit. I hope I didn't just dish Cas a backhanded compliment. He writes more content than me, actually; and he does the FAC polishing.

In hindsight, I find it hard to believe I constructed a non-sarcastic sentence around "all I do is write content". :-)

Hesperian 03:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Common names

You reverted what I had done before I had a chance to add the citation. Citation is now added - thanks.Granitethighs 04:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian, you seem to like throwing your weight around. In the light of our common interests I would have hoped that you would use whatever authority it is you have in a more constructive and productive way. I do not take what you have said lightly and suggest that you live up to your claims - there is not one rule for me and another for you. I referred to a particular article making the statement that modern scientific taxonomy is "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles." The article was by Raven, Peter H., Berlin, Brent, Breedlove, Dennis E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. Science. New Series 174(4015): 1210-1213. The citation was to page 1210. I do not have that reference to hand but I take my research sufficiently seriously to trust my judgement. I agree that if I have made an error then I should at least humbly recognize both the error and its import. If I have made a mistake then I will willingly no longer edit on Wikipedia. However, having said that, then the reverse must apply. If I am correct then you should immediately withdraw from editing and, if you do not, then I shall suggest in the appropriate arena that you be permanently blocked. Your approach is not a helpful one. I shall be interested to hear your response and explanation - especially if you have immediate access to the article. There remains the question of why you should take the approach that you have taken. I think that on the talk page to Common Names this becomes clear from a previous altercation. Unfortunately it seems you have, over a long period, maintained resentment about unimportant things said in the past (which I had long since forgotten).Granitethighs 05:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read what I have written and think you might assume I have avoided the content of the rest of the paragraph. As I hope you would know, the origins of scientific binomial nomenclature in "folk" taxonomy - which is what it is describing, is often referred to in botanical texts. I can easily find other references if that is what is at issue (though I suspect it is not). Granitethighs 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating article - thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was well worth reading. Reading it, you see how radically the DNA revolution changed our thinking. But as for the applicability of that article as a reference - no, it doesn't support the paragraph. Not even kinda. Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

editing others talk page contributions.

You really should have talked to me first explained why you think it inappropriate for those postings before editing them. I clearly do not think it inappropriate to advertise this debate more widely. Did you know it was talking place? Even if you think it is not related to the other talk pages, there is clearly a link between WP:RM and the RfC because I have made it in the RfC. So for the moment I will only restore that edit and await you comments on my talk page as to why you think the other posting are inappropriate. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You really should not have spammed that message across a series of unrelated project talk pages, PBS. I stand by my removal of them as "completely unrelated".

"I clearly do not think it inappropriate to advertise this debate more widely." Nor do I, so that's one straw man we needn't waste our time beating.

"Did you know it was talking place?" Yes. It is the stupidest idea I've heard in years, and I opposed it just like you did, for much the same reasons.

"Even if you think it is not related to the other talk pages, there is clearly a link between WP:RM and the RfC because I have made it in the RfC." ... which makes it a biased post, arguably in a biased forum. At least the others were neutral.

Hesperian 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously missed my request "await you comments on my talk page"

If you do not think it inappropriate and as I was advertising in places where there are editors who's opinion I value (even if I do not always agree with them), and as the format was neutral, I do not see why you removed them without discussing it with me first, and you still have not explained why you think the RfC is "completely unrelated" to the talk pages of the three content polices. Instead IMHO you chose to interpret the sentence in the narrowest context possible without giving a constructive answer, which is a shame as it does no one any favours.

Rather than answering yes, it would have been more informative for me to tell me where you heard about it (as that might help explain why you think my posts were inappropriate).

My posting to the talk page of WP:RM was neutral and gives the editors there who disagree with what I said about WP:RM a chance to say so in a forum where I have raised it. -- PBS (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"You still have not explained why you think the RfC is "completely unrelated" to the talk pages of the three content polices." An explanation is unnecessary. I have complete confidence in your ability to guess, correctly, why I think an RfC on desysopping is "completely unrelated" to the Manual of Style. Hesperian 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI -- PBS (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Ta. Hesperian 01:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Maybe its rutting season in the himalayas? the goats or one of the other fauna in the vicinity? you seem to have a few rocks that keep falling your way when you call rock! - I think a hard hat might be insufficient for the populating goats and their fallout... hmm maybe I was thinking, maybe it is duck? Or maybe something that rhymes... But then it is Friday... Have a safe one SatuSuro 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Adenanthos cacomorphus

On March 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adenanthos cacomorphus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

-- Cirt (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice one mate, and thank you for this. A beautiful genus ... — cygnis insignis 13:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I'm working on the taxonomy now. This is one of those species that Labillardiere published without so much as a dip of the hat to Leschenault, who collected the specimen it is based on. Hesperian 13:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Says who? :-) cygnis insignis 13:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Says Ernest Charles Nelson and Denis Carr, though Edward Duyker is a little more cautious. I'll hit save within five minutes or so, and then you can read all about it. ;-) Hesperian 13:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

hello

• Hi. I didn't come here to harass you, argue, etc. I will only say one thing: "Admins". Theoretically, admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard of behavior. I know it never, never works that way, but that's the way it should be anyhow. So if you have an axe to grind against you-know-who (and I don't care if you do or not), then as an admin you should either be calm, or be silent. But. Admins never do either. So I'm wasting my time. But at least I tried.
• I bear you no ill will; I just categorically disagree with your actions. I'll watch for a reply here, but if you're pissed at me, I won't reply again. later • Ling.Nut 05:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I got as far as "I hold admins to a higher standard than I hold myself", and gave up. Hesperian 05:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're taking sides; I'm not. That's the key point. But whatever. Cheers. • Ling.Nut 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)