User talk:Fred.e/Archive 2

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry and "we"

Responded to your comments on my talk page. Blueboar 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley poem

You rather surprised me by thinking the poem Brian > Brine was callous; perhaps you hadn't factored in that John Tyndall was one of Huxley's two closest friends (the other being Herbert Spencer), and THH would never have done anything hurtful to him. He knew JT would see the witty side of the poem. Of course, one can't say all that on the page. The humour which develops between two people who meet often can develop in unusual ways, of course.

Meandering on, it occurs to me that Tyndall, Huxley, Spencer and Wallace were all extremely outspoken and tough-minded by present-day standards -- have you ever read Wallace's critique of Romanes? Talk about tough talking! Darwin, on the other hand was a sweetie: his letters are full of charm as well as cunning.

One thing I was trying to achieve was to repeat the really critical quotes that lay at the heart of THH's ideas, plus including some novel quotes which are amusing and/or significant. None of the quotes I add are taken from the web, incidentally.

Macdonald-ross 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your sig

is quite something - sort of - eloquent - without letting on - quite marvelous - in fact Satu Suro 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riverviews

Don't you just hate it when that happens! Put it up if you think its any good - there's at least 3 4 people who've got it on watch. —Moondyne 08:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of BR, ... —Moondyne 08:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs indeed

You should at least invent a new sig for such occasions something like oink....User/Talk....oink - anything less would be remiss (or a miss)Satu Suro 10:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A(nother) email coming your way shortly :) Orderinchaos 12:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to real life in a pub with at least a pint sometime Satu Suro 14:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley poem source!

Not every day I can find these quotes a second time! The poem is found in Adrian Desmond's Huxley, p637 in the Penguin ed (that's vol 2 in the hardback); Desmond gives 'TH to JH [that's Hooker], 4th Dec 1894, HP 2.454' [Huxley papers at Imperial College London], and it's been published before in the L&L of THH. Hooker was Brian's father. I was re-reading these and other sources, and failed to record all details.

Sorry about the Tyndall rubbish -- that'll teach me to keep better notes. Desmond comments "The fast wit weaving round Old Testament allusions greased a social edge; it made the prose frictionless". I think he's saying that the cleverness would help to avoid offence (I wonder; Hooker was a much straighter person than Tyndall -- who, you will remember, was killed accidentally by his wife). The date means that Hooker's son would have been fully adult, so we're not talking about a child falling into a brine vat. Macdonald-ross 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The women and children

Nothing wrong with being bold, but given the prior consensus you may want to run it by WP:DRV real quick as a formality. Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola amigo!

Hey there, long time no see. How's everything going? Just thought I might drop by, nothing better to do with a Monday night ;) --Ali K 13:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With exams less than two weeks away, it was more a case of me procrastinating :P--Ali K 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes

The three previous messages combine strangely, I say get rid of the deck chairs immediately, something must be sinking! Otherwise, not enough warning about how low can you go this evening (up here probably freezing by 7 am) - cheers - Satu Suro 13:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transport edit summary

LOL! :D Orderinchaos 04:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) (And my recent contributions history should give some clue...) Orderinchaos 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of those edits, those have been edited. Laughed at the edit summary as well. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marron (Dragon Ball) photo.jpg

Hello, Fred.e. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Marron (Dragon Ball) photo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Fred.e/C. cainii. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley

Hi Fred, the image is from Huxley's essay On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind, and is from http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/SM3/GeoDis.html . Paul B 21:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. It's for the articles I put it in, and is explained in them. Paul B 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It arose from a bizarre discussion on the Mongoloid race page. Paul B 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and writing on THH

Thanks for your thoughts and encouragement; it had been some time since I tried to do any serious writing, and now I remember how difficult it is... I tried a few paras out on my agéd Mama and another relative on Sunday: all went well for a while, until I glanced over my shoulder and found them both asleep!

Yes, I am troubled by 'see below' refs, which must come out in the end. For now the long story of skulls and brains finds itself split between two sections. It may be a special sub-section is needed. Biogs are so difficult: here we have a guy going full blast on at least six fronts simultaneously and somehow or other all this needs to be summarised and organised so that readers new to the sublect can find their way around.

I've also been thinking of THH's breakdowns, which I'm pretty sure are low spots on a mild-to-moderate bipolar disorder. His family is famous for 'mental troubles', and this contrasts with the ultra-stable Darwins. But if you really want tough-as-old-boots Wallace is the man. I've quite a liking for Wallace, and have copies of all his books, but I've kept out of his Wiki page because I know someone else is having a go. I can always look at it in a few month's time. Wallace is a really difficult person to biog because his mind is so unusual. I've always felt I understood Huxley, whereas Wallace is psychologically almost inexplicable.

I might come back to you on things like templates; but best I keep writing while the mood takes me. Macdonald-ross 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atlantis

Fred.e, to some extent that's a judgment call; Plato certainly qualifies as "literature". However, it's impossible to write an article about Atlantis without discussing Plato extensively, whereas recent songs, novels, movies, etc. are potentially interesting things to mention, but not absolutely necessary in the article. It's basically a sub-article for more trivial mentions of the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred, I take your point about the name of the section. I'm the one who changed the name from "Atlantis in popular culture" to its present form, because I find the notion of "popular culture" to be very vague, and somewhat elitist. It's easy enough to banish TV series and science fiction novels to the category of "popular culture", but let's say that Mark Twain had written A Connecticut Yankee in Atlantis, or John Adams (composer) had written an opera about Atlantis. Those wouldn't meet most definitions of popular culture, I think, yet similar items get included in the "X in popular culture" lists all the time. To me "X in art, literature, and popular culture" is more inclusive, and gives a better idea of what the contents of the article/section actually are--see, for instance, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. But I agree with you that the rest of the Atlantis article is talking about literature, and the title of the sub-article could therefore be seen as inaccurate/deceptive. I don't have a better idea for the title right now, though.

As for changing Atlantis in art, literature and popular culture into a list, that might be a good move. Essentially, it is a list right now, just a disorganized and poorly formatted list. To be honest with you, I don't plan to expend much energy on that article, it's just a way of diverting lots of trivia away from the main article. But someone who's interested could turn it into a good list, I bet. It's also possible to write a genuine article about Atlantis' cultural impact in the 20th century--there are even scholarly works that discuss this. However, that would be a ton of work, and I won't have time for it in the foreseeable future. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance request

Hello again FayssalF, hope all is well. I have been paying a bit of attention to articles associated with 'race', 'colour' and ethnicity. I have attempted to suggest on the Black people talk page recently, for example. My position is that distinctions, classifications and races of human beings are an almost completely meaningless one; identification of individuals and communities is subjective terminology. We are all so closely related that any categorization is too general to be useful. It may be an elective process that leads people to identify themselves in this way; it has also been used to classify 'otherness' in a society or nation. This may have been for good or ill, but it needs qualification and identification. In many pages of our document, there is use of this vague term as if it something more absolute; a classification with a discernible characteristic other than a shared belief. I believe this view is incorrect and this is supported by nearly all references on the subject, at least those written in the last century. You may agree or not, I am pointing this out to give some background should you act on the following request. If you have some time, and feel so inclined, could you review me as an editor and community member. I do know a couple of other very experienced editors, but I'm asking you because I don't - so please be candid (I know you will be nice :-) Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal w/ that tomorrow. I've just sent you an email. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re women & children

well, i think it's a bit ORish, but i'm not going to fight about it if the tag disappears :) ⇒ bsnowball 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Ahem

I'm sorry, my mind reading cap is on the fritz. Perhaps you'd care to share what you're talking about? CJ 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to remove only the {{Project afro}} tag since it's only a redirect page. CJ 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

secrecy

Given that Freemasonry was removed from the list of Secret Societies (along with similar fraternal orders such as Knights of Columbus, Elks, etc) there is some precident for my edit. I agree that the categorization choices are a bit of a mess... that is why we created a seperate Freemasonry Project and category... it does not really fit in any of the established larger ones. And of course you can use me as a source (I can see it now... "according to noted Wikipedia editor Blueboar...") after all... isn't it obvious that I know what I'm talking about while everyone else is talking out their ass (don't quote that) :>) Blueboar 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carey

Interesting. That suggests that he was known informally as Warren rather than Sam, so a lot of people have got it wrong. Cheers, Grant | Talk 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Arrgh, jack wong we matey is jack sue and' jack wong sue - as in http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/aSue%2C+Jack%2C+1925-/asue+jack+1925/-2%2C-1%2C0%2CB/exact&FF=asue+jack+1925&1%2C7%2C wow i am very impressed by your artistic flair on your user pages - must dust up mine sometime hope youre managing to keep your windchill factor down in your part of the woods - re your conversation with jimmy about things - check the longish art about him here - its the closest to home art I have ever read yet - http://www.reason.com/about/ - worth a read Satu Suro 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Eyre

Hi! You offered to add full citations to Jane Eyre (character), which would be awesome. I still haven't learned how to do that. Thanks! Elbeonore 19:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is...

The comment (before you edited it) very clearly required citation, and gave a clear format for the references. You changed it such that it allowed anyone to add anything regardless of citation (changing from "must" to "should"), and also changed the allowable reference format to one we don't use in the article. MSJapan 05:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format aside, my point is that you changed the entire sense of the comment. Half the problem with that list is that people just add things with no citation, and no attempt to get a citation. If someone wants to add something, they must have gotten it from someplace, and by requiring the citation, it prevents having to clean out the entire article every few months. Also, WP:NOT an anarchy - meaning that "anyone can edit" does not give one carte blanche to do what one wants, but rather that editing must be done responsibly with an eye to what the given article's standards are. MSJapan 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley page experiences

Time to say thank you, Fred.e, for your interest and help; I must say it's been an experience which I wouldn't have missed. The way editors swing in like gods — δευς εξ μακινα-style — with their helpful comments is admirable, and they've taught me some good tactics. Having said that, I'm stimulated by the Hist of Sci Newsletter to produce a sort of mini-blog of my own...

Wikipedia — is it a hopeless quest?

It's the chorus that's the problem: I've spent hours and hours coping with the kind of changes that imply something like 'if I was writing this I'd say something different'. The difficulty of attaining consistency of style (hard enough when it's just oneself!) is multiplied no end when changes are made which quite alter the tone and style of the original. In a way, it's best if the change is quite barmy — it's the ones which have some sense that cause the trouble!!

Here's some ideas for newcomers based on what it's like to be on the receiving end of not-too-wonderful changes: 1. If you want to make changes in a site about some important concept or person, look at the history first. If someone's been working on it for weeks the chances are they'll fix the problem themselves, so best to drop them a note in their talk page. I've had people change a page while I was changing it myself. 2. Clear factual errors are special: they should be changed pronto with ref if poss, and an explanation. 3. Perceived errors of balance should be discussed on the topic discussion page before anything else. It's simple courtesy and respect for someone who has spent more time than you on the topic. 4. Out there, I sense a preconception that entries should be dull, flat, mealy-mouthed and stating only the most hackneyed of clichės. I suggest that whilst a topic should be accurate and (if important) comprehensive, it should also be readable and interesting.

On the other hand, if no-one has been attending to the topic, then potentially it's yours! But do ask yourself whether you are prepared to put in the work to do it properly.

Macdonald-ross 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link to prose ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions

Perils of promotion

I've spent all this week wondering what's hit the THH entry, and finally discovered it's been given an exalted rating, which is great of course, and thanks to editors for their votes, but everyone is now trying to change the text!

I thought, for example, that Wiki guidelines gave two options for references, the traditional name+date, and the numerical in-line refs. I stuck with the old-school method but now someone has spent what must be a lot of time changing the system. This is all mis-placed energy: why don't they take one of the many stubs and turn it into a worthwhile entry? It's really not a justification to make changes on the basis of 'I'd have done it differently'! There should be a rationale behind changes, and the courteous thing to do is to discuss the rationale beforehand.

Maybe I should ask for it to be demoted to a 'B' so I can get a bit of peace to work on it...

Serious point: don't you think the THH page ought to be of high importance, not just mid-importance? If science education and evolution are not two of the most important topics in the C19 then I'm a monkey's uncle — er, I mean, a monkey's grandson!

Meanwhile, let's see if Bates can be improved a bit. Regards, Macdonald-ross 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hux photos

I've put 4 Huxley photos in jpeg form onto an A4-page of M-soft Office just to show you what they look like. I think some/all should go onto the THH page, but the 'HelpGraphics' page needs another 'HelpGraphicsforstupidpeople' because I can't understand a word of it... and so have absolutely no idea how to get the photos onto the page. They are long out of copyright, so I don't forsee any problems. If you'ld like to take a look I could send the page to you as an attachment to an e-mail, that's if you feel like sending me your e-mail address! Regards, Macdonald-ross 17:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Ape graphic dated 1860? (I'm away from sources) -- because that was the year of the debate and also Owen and Wilberforce's reviews. I'll check with my copy when I get home. Regards M-R. Macdonald-ross 11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of All England at York

Hi Fred... What can you tell me about this body? I see from their webpage that they were founded in 2005, claiming to be a "reconviening" of an older body by the same name. Do you know the background of this "reformation"? I see that they recognize GLdF... which UGLE does not... so I have to ask: do you know if UGLE recognizes them as regular or not? Do they recognize UGLE? (Not that matters of recognition and regularity matters here on wikipedia - except, perhaps, as a minor fact to note in the article - It simply helps for me to know where things stand so I can write about it in a NPOV manner.) Blueboar 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved]

Yawks

I'm glad you ask Blueboar - I can say almost nothing. The reasons should be obvious ;-) As you are aware, they instituted in the last few years. They are, or claim to be, the representative body of an institution dating back to the eighteenth century, the ninth century and - probably - beyond this date (as per Bierce's observations). But then, 'they' would say that, wouldn't they. What can you do, there has never been a law against pretending to be a prestigious and antient order. Anyway, you deleted it as a red link, it wasn't. I undid that. How is everything else going? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redlink when I deleted it... Your edit fixed that. As to their claims, you have it right... there is little harm in claiming to be an ancient order. What I have an issue with is presenting that as fact in an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia it must be made clear that it IS jsut a claim, and clear who is making that claim and why. I have no problems with the claim being made, I just want historical accuracy. Ta. Blueboar 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write an article about them and add the modern claim as a section. That would put it in some perspective and context. I understand that it gets complicated, but that is only likely to be explained with more text and links, not less. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australians

I didn't undo your contribution, I removed single word. The reason I removed "howevere" was because it implies an inconsitency, or a perception of inconsistency. None exists in this case.

"Aboriginal communities have problems with alcohol, however a greater percentage of Aborigines are teetotallers" is fine because the first point could be percieved as inconsistent with the second. Similarly "Aborigines are more likely to be criminals, however they are also more likely to be victims of crime" would also be acceptable because the second point could be perceived as inconsistent with the first.

"Aborigines have problems with crime however Aborigines in communities are more likely to be victims of crime" is not acceptable because the two points are in perfect agreement: the reason crime in communities is a problem is because of the large number of victims.

Aborigines are indisputably a race. You may wish to argue that race has no biological validity, which is fine, but Aborigines are indisputably a race from a sociological, cultural and legistlative perspective

The issue here is not a debate about whether there is a relationship bewtween race an crime. What is at issue here is that Aboriginal communities have far, far higher crime rates than the nation of Australia in general. There is no debate on this issue, it is not a fallacy, it is a matter of fact and is not open to dipute by any reputable source that I am aware of. If you can provide references to reputabe sources who dispute that Aboriginal communities have far, far higher crime rates than the nation of Australia in general fact then by all means do so. Until then we should leave things as they are.

I'm not quite sure what you see as being the problem here. These things are all simple and undiputed fact AFAIK. Ethel Aardvark

Perth Meetup Notification

	Perth Meetup v t e Next: 2 November 2024 (watch) Last: 6 October 2024
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

You are invited to a meetup of Western Australian Wikipedians on the 19th August 2007 in the tearooms of Tranby House. Please sign on the Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 if you are able to attend. you recieved this message as your account has been active during May, June 2007 and your user page is listed in the Category:Wikipedians in Western Australia Gnan garra 03:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hux poem & photos

Well, the latest salty Brian is definitely interesting; though I worry about the text on the left; needs more of a gap between normal text and poem, I think.

Oh, P.S. re photo subtext: please spell my name Macd not McD! And the good quality photos (like young Hux) could be larger; don't quite know how; I resized the info photo successfully; looks great!

Macdonald-ross 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Fred, poem's a salty mess now; It must show as four lines. Macdonald-ross 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the layout I gave originally was taken from my source. Macdonald-ross 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now seems OK with new layout Macdonald-ross 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titles suggested:

youngest: Young Huxley R.N. age 21

next youngest: Huxley at 32 by Maull & Polyblanc

next youngest: Huxley in midle life by Wingham

next youngest: Huxley in power by Alex Bassano

last photo by Downey, Hux is at about 65, so date must be c.1890 BUT not much later '1890s' is too loose -- see the photos of Hux in 1894/5, really looks old. Macdonald-ross 11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC). I don't have anything but comparison to go on, suppose 1888-1891 is about the range Macdonald-ross 11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, please see my changes to Downey photo summary; photo is almost certainly not by Daniel Downey, but by the firm he co-owned. Daniel was dead by the date I estimate, and moreover the Pritchard ref gives John Edwards as their main photographer. I can't change Downey's name without losing the photo!! -- must be connected to the pic in some way. Can you think of a solution? Macdonald-ross 13:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Strategy

You have helped a good deal here! Sincerely, thank you. Now I have in mind the following plan:

find better examples of the poorer quality graphics
get them scanned and prepared by my graphics wizard
post them to you, or (bit unlikely) learn how to upload them
meanwhile, you might note a better version of Vanity Fair Hux is available on web -- see Google graphic search. If it is possible legally to grab and use it, that's great. Otherwise I'll have to arrange for photography or scanning (I own the complete set of V.F. charactes related to evolution).
lastly, remove old versions and substitute new. At that point Hux might be worth featured article status...

Ah friday afternoon with the vandals

As for the visigoths, huns and others I am immediately reminded by conversations long in the past where Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals would stiffen the drink, and my fredulance would splutter forth such witticism that would merely drown les patterson isms basic vocabulary on the talk page that even the more astute pun tweakers would look quizzical and mystified by the text. Trust all is very well - very long time no speak trust the rain is all external wherever you may be Satu Suro 07:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - north groyne - never a groin shall meet - hudman road quarry boya the source of all goodness for that one and south mole the one above the chin - arrgh - what delightfull places to be in a full force gale or was that gail - where the salt and the spray could put fear into the more seasoned rottnest vandals as they puke in the ferries... gawks it must the gaggle of teenagers in the kitchen all each subsequently opening the freezer and fridge to see whether the house had anything for them - so much for astute ascetic notion of teenager free life... nah if you had read my edit history - some vndlas on their verandahs for their friday bash at wkpdia sigh Satu Suro 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrghh even further than the groyne and mole of life - but in the armpit instead? arrgh hope it smelt ok :| Satu Suro 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

must catch up for a cappucine and the potential for a freo harbour auth art at least - i have heaps on them Satu Suro 09:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh? I spent 200 of the little wonders to get this damned imac up to a reasonable speed :| as for book buying - that will need bottle of red wine and an afternoon Satu Suro 09:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Fred.e, thanks for the comment. It is different to email - in email there is a history of what was said and how the comments flow. I just wonder how people keep track of the different discussions. I did see the list of "talk" but it seems somehow too abstract. Maybe when I get to know people.

Aust Literature - the field is wide open. There seems to be enough work patching up and completing pages, and that is without adding the missing pages. It is very easy to find things to do.

Hope people keep talking to me so I can keep finding out things. Regards Stellar 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome again! By the way he said that it seemed like he wanted me to go because I'm new. Oh well! Thanks again and:

MAJ5 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MAJ5 ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Tact

If you're not aware (I have no idea whether you looked or not), what MAJ5 was/is objecting to is my addition of a standard note (as in it is used on all XfDs) when votes are made by new users with little or no contribution here. Why don't you look at his Special:Contributions/MAJ5 and see what he's done in the span of a week since he registered, and then tell me whether a standard note was warranted or not before you assume I'm biting a newbie just to do it? May I also point this same user started an MfD for the exact same thing as I did on another user. Why would the voting therefore be inconsistent? I should have thought by now it should be apparent I don't act without reason, and there's something going on here; the conduct complaints are a distraction, and actually, what he said to you was an outright lie, because I never told him to go because he was new.

I think you're too willing to assume things when they suit your perception of me. MSJapan 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to close the case, MAJ5 was busted as a sock. MSJapan 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure...

I think I might leave Wikipedia. People are mad at me for some reason. I will ttys. MAJ5 ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola amigo!

Hey Fred, it's that time again! Was just snooping and thought this might bring a smile to your face. Hope everything is going okay. Are you planning on going to the next meetup? Stay safe in these windy times, Regards --Ali K 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine. Ah yes, I am always around, even if my contributions dont lead you to think so. What we really need is 2 days of solid rain and then our damns should be fine and dandy :) --Ali K 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, its good to know you are around :) You lost me.. his/her driving?? --Ali K 09:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. *click* sorry! I dont usually look at my own userpage all that much. Besides I am tired and the work keeps piling up ;( --Ali K 11:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooh! Thanks for the gift! It's lovely! --Ali K 11:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muchos gracias

Hey ole buddy got ya pidgeon post - as for the dames they look just fine... (maybe like everythings just gonna be fine)... dont give up the day job just yet- cheers Satu Suro 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today

Ah a goon today is a goon tommorow long goon the goon Satu Suro 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Hux comment out

You're right, this is a comment. Its function is to lighten the otherwise sombre section on mental problems in the family—a topic I thought about for some time before introducing it. Also, the extent of the support for Hux was indeed quite extraordinary; and (in my humble opinion) does justify the comment.

I see many Wiki entries that don't come alive; there are various issues, some contributors think they should only say good things about their subjects (hagiographies); other think the language should be cathedral in its dispassionate removal of all traces of the turmoil of life...

The biographical Rubicon was crosssed, I think, by Lytton Strachey's Eminent Victorians, which contained the first non-hagiographic portrayal of Queen Vic. Or maybe by Dr Johnson in his dictionary. Anyway, perhaps you might turn this over in your mind and see whether you still feel it should come out. Regards, Macdonald-ross 12:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

           ———————————————————————————————————

OK, let's live with the excision! As you hint, there are plenty worse things that can happen to a Wiki page...

I didn't plan for Hux to get so long and complicated, but the fact is that he was a complex person. Though I thought I knew all about him when I started, I soon discovered that I didn't; balancing it all has been a real sweat. There are only a few topics to go: I must give a mention to Edward Forbes, who helped him at Rattlesnake stage; and I must put in some of his ideas on mammals. Macdonald-ross 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (see also graphics note above)[reply]

Hux layout

I think salty Brian looks OK as is; the other layout changes were made because on review I felt some were not really working at all; and some were taking up too much space for too little benefit. I played around quite a bit before going back to simpler format. The system is a bit rigid; doesn't work well when photos are next to lists, for example.

My Hux Vanity Fair will be digitized nest week; and I will have a couple more photos to show you. Regards, Macdonald-ross 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it...

...you've just seen my comments on the FAR in question? Needless to say I think it's a joke of an FAR from a user with not enough experience to know how things work around here. I'm kind of sick of this category of users as i've had to spend the last god knows how many months trying to deal with them, and right about now i'm got my head buried in an RfC on an offshore user who's sucked dry every last piece of WP:AGF I have left. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, i've said as much as I have to say already on Hammers, let god sort it out. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Airport is my baby at the moment. Got some good comment back on a peer review request, so just plugging away at it piece by piece to see what I can come up with. Also looking at coming up with some better shots for the northern suburbs railway stations. Not exactly interesting stuff, but necessary none the less. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wern't in the valley drinking as well today were you? Either that or you've been knee deep in Dr Seuss books as well. I've got zilch on additional transport options, short of star trek inspired teleporting or use of underground digging equipment which will no doubt cause you to take a wrong turn ending up somewhere in Shanghai. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You both should have been there - we were indeed underground at one stage - just wait till the piccies start showing up in very obscure articles or perhaps commons :| Satu Suro 08:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Guitars

Thanks for taking that on. Hesperian 13:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um

Why the discussion about me? Let's keep it to content related. Michellecrisp 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poesy

When the drums beat for the scarp and the windshear comes brutally across the tarmac, the pipes the pipes they just keep on going. (For busy persons and gaelic speakers who are interested in either freds or satu suros mental health = this may be to do with the lack of active articles about the defunct scottish pipe bands in perth and the lack of good historical contents in the stubs - but then again...)( I have clear memories of the old original hangar of the 1950's ) or the plumbing in the old galvanised rusted up pipes my father in law used to have work on in central perth. Cheers - the lines are open Satu Suro 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK anything on scottish pipe bands of the past? Earlier forms of the abernethy wet lands? I must ask however Sam and... at 65's welcome to the dark side page - that is even more elliptical than the late richard brautigans rolling stone article/book of poetry in the 1960s about loading mercury with a pitchfork. Satu Suro 00:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh they are bamboozled my friend - their culture is laden with heavy metals (probably in their molar fillings) - and despite ac/dc they know not the sweet call of the pipes and ask what is it? - funny its staring them in the face :| Satu Suro 06:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmigod - the 16 year old says that a lot - youve got it - sheer poetry at the gras - another bottle of red to that man in the corner with the grin Satu Suro 10:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so well put Satu Suro 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Territory - is the answer and the question - am in a very seedy horrible screened LAN dive in the nether regions of western midvale trying to take stock of an adsl modem and its recent uncivil conversations (and lack of conversation) with the place of a large pond. The place of the pond techs are claiming 3 days - and my boys have me sitting next to them in the god forsaken location.

Hopefully normality will return at some late date, cheers Satu Suro 04:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Hi Fred, you're right - the fair use rules say that it should only be in the club article(s), not the players'. The logo should be removed from them accordingly. —Moondyne 12:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have enough brainpower at this time of the morning to deal with...

A merge issue on Transperth_A-series_train? It was a bad copy/paste merge which gives up some GFDL issues. I've followed the procedure to mark it for cleanup, but if you've got enough brainpower to deal with it, it would be appreciated. Thewinchester ^(talk) 19:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suburb edits

why not look at the edit history of the suburb I've most worked on [1] before being selective about my Carlingford edits. Michellecrisp 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised at the tone of your recent message to me. I've said it before it seems a number of people and I'll say including you have tried to dissuade me not only on the FAR but say "why not pick on other FAs or other localities" "why do you show interest in a small suburb in Perth". I have since clarified that I will listen to input from others who have contributed to the article on FAR. One major reason for putting it up to FAR is I wanted a larger audience (especially those who have successfully done FAs for other articles) to look at that article and see if in their opinion it matches WP:WIAFA. Leaving it to the Talk Page would not have done that. Can we at least wait till the outcome of the review before trying to dissuade me. Certainly it was the first time I've asked for FAR review and I did it when someone suggested that if I had serious concerns about the article then put it up for FAR. I followed the process as outlined on the FAR page. This follows discussion lengthy discussion about my major edits with some editors. In addition, perhaps you would like to comment on the specific points I have raised. after all the FAR is looking at why it may not meet the criteria so I have given specific examples requested by others. Michellecrisp 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition can we please keep discussion civil, you start with commending me with Newtown and then gradually launch into an attack of me "sweeping comments" etc. I have attempted to address specific concerns raised in the FAR. Even Hesperian said to me " I apologise for the way in which some WP:WA editors have responded to your FAR request on Hamersley" Michellecrisp 08:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said this here: [2] asking why my interest in this suburb? and Orderinchaos "I guess I just don't understand why you've taken on this issue on an FA when there are *thousands* of articles which have far worse problems which are lying there for months unfixed". [3] Michellecrisp 10:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned only one editor that has been aggressive and uncivil with me. I did not want to name this user to start a flame war. It's pretty obvious who it is and you are in regular contact with this user. Can I say no other editor has displayed a genuine lack of civility to me. Michellecrisp 10:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh!?: Any others interested in the inconsistency of the above statement, need only look a little further above to see the latest unspecified indignation, misattribution of quotes and repetition of innuendo. It is verifiably unproductive and hope the editor takes note of my request. It is a serious accusation that remains unsubstantiated. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 10:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to be honest, Fred, not sure what you're going on about from following the conversation. the serious accusation is not clearly spelt out when and where it was said. Michelle has asked you for clarification.
— LibStar 00:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

can you refer to me what exact statement are you talking about? this tone is becoming uncivil. If it is such a serious issue amongst all the flying accusations on Wikipedia and misinterpreted statements, you're obviously getting worried about, please make a request for oversight. As for the other editor you pretended to not know who I was talking about, there is nothing wrong to talking to this editor, that's not my point. I just don't want to refer this user by name. Michellecrisp 11:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the last few messages from you to me are getting increasingly uncivil and the tone is becoming more accusatory. I hope you are realising that. I don't want an apology and then for you to continue down this path. i.e. apology-accusation-apology-accusation. this is a good faith comment. Michellecrisp 11:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hay if you can make my user page better than edit it, Its all good mate. Plesiosaurs yer they rock. Enlil Ninlil 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NAH

shannananah nah - maybe you are engrossed by the bearded nerd staring out of the side of the buses - I used to know malone when it was still in his garage - not yet, maybe but not today - I need the kgs of apology - for 3 hours trying to get uncontactable tech help sunday night - the crappy screens and the horrible music will be enough to move the boys to the more sophisticated ambience of down town victoria park tommorow - the screens i am using at the mo would be enough to induce a range of medically described conditions within 24 hours Satu Suro 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah just one little password and the very very very big server. solved. unfortunately. Satu Suro 09:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gossypium australe

Traduction faite. Merci.Berichard 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assemblages of plants and invertebrate animals of tumulus (organic mound) springs of the Swan Coastal Plain

Interesting stuff. Do you think we might move to its alternate name (with a redirect of course!) for the readers sake? —Moondyne 08:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bassendean sand needs an article if anything ever needed one Satu Suro 09:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well - probably best from an overview of the available sands from the swan coastal plain perspective - the larger picture first the detail later - Satu Suro 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australians

Hey there I noticed you worked somewhat on the Emancipation section. It includes a long list of court cases etc which don't really seem associated with "emancipation" as such (ie, the right to a political voice). Can you think of another heading which would fit in there? Does the information subsequent to coverage of the Referendum belong in the History section, or somewhere else? This section is quite different to the "main history article" History of Indigenous Australians - the idea of main article links is that a section should be in "summary style" of the main article.Ga rr ie 05:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

worst

This am - page 49 - had a brief on phytopthera ramorum - so poetic the thought of pirate sheep on the run - and sudden oak death - one can only imagine the possible puns and acronyms from that lot - and the melbourne airport fog - worthy of more than poetry when 20,000 pass get diverted (george harrisons comment would have been alerted too) ah the daily dross and what it brings - apart from rain Satu Suro 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a superfluous comment

Ah, very droll.[4] Hesperian 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had cause to quote a more pithy comment, [5] ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment didn't strike me as particularly worthy of quotation. But then again, "schoolcruft" didn't seem particularly pithy either, until The Winchester was so kind as to inform me it was, write an essay about it, and fight for its survival to the bitter end. I suppose in days to come people will quote this sentence too, stroke their beards and say "He was blissfully unaware of the profound importance of His canon; so modest, so self-deprecating... and yet a complete megolomaniac." Hesperian 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of the frumious bandersnatch ↑ my son Satu Suro 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[long bit of shouting]

[Warning from the harbinger of the masonic mormons, Watchtower Sentinel 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC), transcluded][reply]

Don't transclude discussions, whether you agree with them or not...

Obviously, the user was an issue, and nobody warned him strongly enough, and it got worse, because you let him labor under the apprehension that it was tolerable behavior. MSJapan 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billardiera

Hi Fred, the answer to your edit summary question is yes and thankyou. Your question raises the pertinent question about pre-linking/red linking longish species lists in genus articles which I have opened for discussion here. --Melburnian 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read

... your edit [6] here and am inspired by the light blue redlink to sign up there. The image I threw in was from NLA, btw. I imagine any questions I have, regarding this venture, can be gleaned from what you have done already. Cheers, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! If you wish to pursue A Specimen specifically, I can email you a 2.4Mb PDF of the book. Or you can pull it off Gallica yourself. I recommend copy-pasting one of the pages I've already done, so we maintain a consistent format. On the other hand, I am sometimes guilty of typing in ALL CAPS where Small Caps are called for; so feel free to correct my various typographical errors, and I'll fall into line behind you.

There's also heaps of sources related to W.A. history that would merit transcribing, so if botany's not your thing, you should still be able to find plenty to do.

I don't think you'll have any trouble. Wikisource is much much quieter than Wikipedia, so you're not likely to get beat over the head with the rulebook if you make a boo-boo. Happy to try to answer any questions.

Hesperian 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific specimen? Why yes, but that turned out to be a typo ;)

Ah, yes, sorry about that. I had robbed you of the opportunity to do Billardiera scandens before you knew the opportunity existed. One of the many paths now laid out before you is: pick a different red link at A Specimen of the Botany of New Holland, write an article about it, obtain the text, transcribe it into Wikisource, link to it from the Wikipedia article, preferably sans typo. Hesperian 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it. With some embarrassment I confess I've never read a single word of your Aunt Gertie. Hesperian 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? A Yellow Raft in Blue Water is hwat comes up first if your fictitious ida a novel is wiki searched - friday turteenth in ireland must be a strange place Satu Suro 03:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious? Sounds like I'm not the only one whose cup is half full. "Ida; a novel" is a 1941 novel by Gertrude Stein. Hesperian 03:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hesp is cheating, he won the last quiz. I did note that the article on A Yellow Raft ... does not contain a credit for the auto-translation from Croatian. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok I do keep up with some of the stuff between fred and self - sometimes I just lose it in the gyre and the gimble. As for cups, tea anyone? Satu Suro 04:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tea has been spotted - see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard - its just a manner of getting it out of the well, through the parallel universe - and into the bucket :( Satu Suro 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well its the get the fridge set up mob - put the tea in right way up first, in the freezer, take it out two days later, turn it up side down and voila they say perhaps, maybe voici or even lihat itu disana - and whatever they say is considered science - and the tea didnt have a chance to answer back. Take a deep breath - and put it on your watch list - you never know - all that you hold dear might pass by you on that page as they keep forgetting to turn the fridge off. sigh, moan and grimace Satu Suro 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crackers mate, read this!

"We, the undersigned, in order to take away all distrust that exists or might exist amongst us, bind ourselves herewith, ON THE SALVATION OF OUR SOULS, AND ON THE SOLEMN OATH THAT GOD SHALL TRULY HELP US TO BE TRUE TO EACH OTHER IN EVERYTHING AND TO LOVE EACH OTHER AS BROTHERS; also promising not to do each other any injury whatsoever in person or possession without first verbally declaring to each other the breach of the peace, in knowledge thereof we have signed this contract on the 12th July, 1629, on the island Bataviae's Kerkhof."

Fringe Notice Board

Hi! I think you might have misunderstood the purpose of the WP:FTN. It is to make sure that fringe (i.e., not mainstream) and minority theorys or interpretations are properly included in wikipedia. One challenge with many subjects is that there are theories that are questionable based on the evidence. The purpose of the notice board is to have a place where outside editors can be engaged to help the encylocopedia to include the fringe that should be there, and not give undo weight to either minority theories or the main stream theory, but to have balance. And I think that your perspective, with an interest in outside theories and events, would be a useful addition to the notice board. --Rocksanddirt 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! I agree that the tone of some of the board text, and items listed is a bit off putting. I think the original intent was to do as you suggested and quiet the minority or fringe view points. I also think that the purpose of the board has changed from it's original intent. I hope you can help out! Have a great day. --Rocksanddirt 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OH! Yes, it's not a project. It is one of the administrator's notice boards. This one however, isn't like the one's for vandalism, or 3 revert restrictions, as most of the items that will come there are the content arguements that will need independent editors to look at only. It certainly has the potential to be the contentious drama filled rants that inhabit some of the other ones, but I hope it doesn't. It's one of those things to do when you don't want to work on a project or article (for me anyway). --Rocksanddirt 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk. Moreschi ^Talk 20:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at 2007-07-21

well said sir

Indeed the most civil comment I have seen in the last half hour : | Satu Suro 13:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC) As for the subsequent activity - it would appear that you might need some sleep sir Satu Suro 00:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) bighting bots didtn get ya? Satu Suro 00:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offline

Special:Emailuser/Moondyne. I am going offline in about 15 minutes. —Moondyne 15:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire at will. —Moondyne 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FTP

Nice; thanks for that. Hesperian 00:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Do NOT leave ANY comments on my page or alter it in ANY way.Lestervee 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hey, noted those references you added to Karrinyup. Thanks for that, because some of them were relevant to Garden City and I have put those in there too as that article was suffering a reference deficiency. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I forget, I've just nominated Norman Brearley for inclusion in DYK. Used the thing about getting the first license, but No. 1 going to Amy Johnston should push it over the line. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The power of redirects. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. formosum

Platylobium formosum by George Raper in 1789. Fred ☻ 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting... mostly because it appears to be wrong. The name Platylobium formosum was first published in Spec. Bot. New Holl., which nominally dates to 1793 (although I am a bit confused about this - it would appear that there were 1793 and 1795 editions or issues, and some content didn't appear until 1795 - but it certainly didn't predate 1793).

Smith refers to P. formosum being the same plant as is given that name by him in Linn. Trans. Vol. II, but that didn't hit print until 1794.[7] The fact that Smith is able to reference this and give a page number suggests that our transcription may be a 1795 edition. Obviously there is some confusion around all of this, but I think we can say with absolute certainty that the name Platylobium formosum was not formally published before 1793.

But to complicate matters further, the Linn. Trans. were printed editions of speeches given before the Linnean Society, so probably Smith publicly disseminated his intended name in a speech, before he formally published it. One could probably make a case that Smith came up with the name and communicated it to Raper as early as 1792, but I think it more likely that the painting postdates A Specimen, and I think it exceedingly unlikely that it would be so early as 1789.

I guess these questions are not likely to be answered unless one of us cares enough to dig very, very deep. There is no in-depth biography of either man.

Hesperian 04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, forget all that, the NLA entry say "Title devised by cataloguer based on information supplied by vendors' agent." Evidently no information was supplied on what plant Raper had painted, so they took a guess. Compare the two images - the different leaf venation, the absence v presence of leaf petioles, flowers mostly terminal versus mostly axillary... they've got the species wrong, mate. Hesperian 04:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some truly Ducie background information here. Based on that I'm willing to grant that it was painted in 1789. Also, I hadn't realised that Raper was not a botanical artist but was rather a midshipman who liked to paint. Such a hobbyist could be forgiven for misrepresenting some plant detail. So is it P. formosum or is it not? I don't know. If it is, then this painting predates formal publication by four years, and would represent an excellent anecdote for the article. In fact, it is probably a good anecdote regardless:

It is not known who first discovered P. formosum. It may have been discovered as early as 1789; in that year, HMS Sirius midshipman George Raper painted a flower that has since been tentatively identified as P. formosum.^[1]

The first botanical collection of material ascribable to the species was by First Fleet surgeon and naturalist John White, probably in 1793. White's collections were passed to botanist James Edward Smith, who published the first formal description of the species in his 1793 A Specimen of the Botany of New Holland. White placed it in a new genus that he named Platylobium from the Latin platy- ("broad") and lobium ("portico") yadda yadda yadda....

Hesperian 06:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australoid

I assume your message refers to the above article. All you have done is decimate it and add POV, which is asserted as dogma. It's also incorrect. Take the following paragraph "Huxley's model was shown to be unsupportable and was rejected by the [Royal Society]], Huxley and his fellows found that no basis for the separation of the species into races, correctly anticipating the extremely low genetic diversity revealed in the Twentieth century - a monotypic species." This is incorrectly formatted, uncited, undated (when was it "rejected by the Royal Society"?). It's historically misleading. Huxley actually believed that many modern races were affected by intermixture with Neanderthals, and the concept of "genetic diversity" is largely meaningless when describing the views of a scientist who lived before modern genetics really existed. And his "rejected" typlogy was extremely influential. We have to maintain a neutral point of view, and your edits did not represent that at all. 06:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation for what? Please try to explain yourself clearly. Paul B 07:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you still haven't provided any evidence at all that "it was rejected" or what was retracted by Huxley. Nor have you explained what you want "cited". The article is full of citations. Theories of racial difference were common at the time. Read the articles in the 1911 EB on race. Pretending these theories didn't really exist won't make them go away. Taxonomies are neutral in themselves, it's their development and use that is the issue. People like - say - Genghis Khan managed to massacre millions of non-Mongolians without the benefit of race-theories. Ethnic massacres are nothing new and were not caused by mere typologies created by very liberal and humane people like Huxley. Paul B 07:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[new section]

I'm not the one being rude. The people who come to my page and accuse me of rule breaking when there is no proof are the ones being rude. NobutoraTakeda 17:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) You can see from the history that the one guy claimed I was "vandalising" without grounds in order to defend the other, so they could throw out half assed accusations against me in order to try and undermine my argument to defend a page that they care about. NobutoraTakeda 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thewinchester is angry at me because he said there was no need to delete list of state leaders by year Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State leaders by year‎ even though I pointed out that there is already a catagory detailing the same thing. I copied and pasted a small portion of one and the other to show that there is overlap. This does not break any of the vandalism rules, and the only thing close is "random numbers" which is something like a bot or has no purpose. Pointing out the repetition and redundancy of links is not vandalism. However, the two are trying to act rude and snide to try and bully me around. Even though you may claim the person is a good editor, they are not showing anything of the sorts now. NobutoraTakeda 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) I do not know what time it is, but my time schedule is Pacific time (satalite internet from the outskirts of British Columbia). I hold strange hours. I wish people would merge more things or try to make there only be one page instead of dozens of tiny ones (or thousands for the world leaders). Own and other issues cause editors to not want to change unless they come up with it themselves I think. Thats the problem with editing random articles, you offend the people who make them. NobutoraTakeda 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your protein pills and put your helmet on

This is Ground Control to Major Tom, You’ve really made the grade, And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear, Now it’s time to leave the capsule if you dare. For here, Am I sitting in a tin can, Far above the world, Planet Earth is blue, And there’s nothing I can do. Translations cost extra. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Billardiera scandens

There is a request pending regarding the Billardiera scandens DYK nomination. Please respond here. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of expanding the article a little as I have a few refs at hand --Melburnian 08:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred. That quote would be a good one to incorporate in the article. I'm sure you can improve/expand on what I have added, I did it in a bit of a rush.--Melburnian 08:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On July 19, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Billardiera scandens, 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.

Well done Fred.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes

Yes, but the merge suggestion at the top would be an even better outcome. With no disrespect to its creators, its mainly copy-pasted from the individual group articles and reads like a year 10 school book. —Moondyne 08:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Good call by you then. Now, if only someone would do it! (I'll get there one day). —Moondyne 12:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NobutoraTakeda

Wow, you deserve a medal for dealing with User:NobutoraTakeda. Bearian 00:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Monash AfD

Odd. Well, the AfD tag was subst automatically by TW as always-- If it was broken, I'm not sure how it got that way. *shrug* — Coren ^(talk) 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry— I really don't see what error you are referring too. Could you elaborate? — Coren ^(talk) 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipity

'twas yesterday morning was at May Gibbs centre in south perth and got the book Satu Suro 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coercion

I did not really think of this as coercion. I am just asking a lot of questions so that I understand. (If we were discussing Category:Luminosity functions, I would explain what they were and why I think the category should probably be deleted anyway.)

What I do consider to be coercion is marking articles related to WP:CFD discussions as unreferenced. This has forced people to add references to articles twice today. (Check suicide.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the first example, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 21#Category:Accidental suicide victims . Then look at the edit history for suicide. For the second example, see Author citation (botany). User:KP Botany added several citations following the nomination of Category:Botanists with author abbreviations for deletion. In both cases, the editors needed to add citations to these articles to strengthen their positions at WP:CFD. (It also leads to improvements in the articles as well, which is very good.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not contemplating suicide! (Gee, I did not think that my message would be interpreted that way.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations to the article because it was tagged unreferenced and appeared on my watchlist. Unreferenced articles require citations, this is good writing policy. I even routinely add references to articles that I vote to delete. I added references to two articles I added attack prods to. The articles were both deleted in under half and hour, but they were deleted well-edited and referenced in the few more minutes they lasted on Wikipedia. I get articles from suggest bot to add references to, also. This one, by the way, was not unreferenced, it simply didn't use standard references--its sources were in the text, if you had read it. And I referenced it before I even looked at the CfD, because adding references was more important.

Be certain to ask other botany editors, and check my edit history. This is what I do on Wikipedia, I reference botany articles. Again, faulty speculation on your fault as to my personal motives. Please stay away from describing why I did something, to me, to other users, without first asking me--it's certainly the easiest way to learn.

Hi, Fred. Excuse me for using your talk page for this comment, however, Dr. Submillimeter does tend to talk all over Wikipedia about people he disagrees with in his CfDs. KP Botany 06:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Disbelief

I have replied on my talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a third opinion - see his response also on on my talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. Insult was not my intent. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discourse and formats

Thanks--I always welcomes copyedits, even minor ones, maybe especially minor ones. KP Botany 18:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS And thanks for the laugh. KP Botany 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please come back, we snipe at each other all of the time. Botany is the most dynamic field in all of the sciences right now in time, and it's rather difficult working in a field, writing for a popular audience, when not even the scientists know what a Scroph is. I haven't seen such a dry sense of humor on all of Wikipedia, nor have I had so much fun laughing on Wiki in a long time. The rest of them will get you eventually. KP Botany 19:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just categorize plant stubs by genus, and you'll be fine. Anything else you need help categorizing, feel free to ask me, or WP:Plants, and one of the guys will usually just categorize for you. KP Botany 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, actually, I don't usually categorize, usually one of my cadre of stalkers categorizes after me. I only know about the genera thing from talking to others about a related issues this week.

KP Botany 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) I wouldn't go there--it's hard enough with what they say. KP Botany 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category tree

Wow! I tried it with Tuva, and it gave me: [–] Tuva [+] Cities and towns in Tuva [+] Political parties in Tannu Tuva [+] Tuvan culture

Thanks.KP Botany 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks

Thanks for the thanks. matturn 10:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Durack

Excellent expansion - you have a genuine knack with the words. I reckon the family would be quite deserving of a page on their own, and a more than just a dab page. It an interesting idea, so if you don't get there first, I may. (I might have a re-read of Kings first though, as a refresher. Its one of my favourite books). —Moondyne 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto dit dah dah dit - re notes and refs - I would tend to have refs and further reading myself - but its a matter of mister citation and his gaggle of lovely children - Satu Suro 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duelling headings (leave your banjos at the door sure) - i still reckon refs for the refs and further rdg for the place you just put bib! Satu Suro 02:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=james+edward+smith&Search_Code=FT*&SL=Submit%26TYPE%3Dam%7C7&PID=21359&SEQ=20070725122904&CNT=25&HIST=1 looks good - not sure when i am back on cheers Satu Suro 02:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Spencer pic

small triumph!! uploaded my first pic successfully! Some others don't upload: maybe a size limit?

re Hux: as you see, they just won't leave those verses alone, will they? I'm not changing them back, however, I'm working on William Flower. Macdonald-ross 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New and upgraded

Nice articles, bringing Sowerby up to snuff and creating and English Botany. KP Botany 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Despite your hard work, the community very clearly doesn't want to keep a distinct article on Radio Monash on notability grounds. My comments were more to remind those who kept saying "merge" that they should try to remember someone has to actually do it. When the article was relisted because a previous merge was never done, it is pretty unhelpful to get a lot of people saying "merge" again. Mango juice^talk 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal astronomy

There's no evidence in the article's text that the practices of Australian Aboriginese people had any astrological tendencies. Since neither of us knows for certain, I am merely going by what the article says. There's no mention of any astrological nuances to their practices, and if there is it apparently didn't strike the original creator of the article as significant enough to include. Samuel Grant 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hux, Sowerby, Eng Botany

Sowerby looks and reads well: succinct, authoritative, really worth while! When you get the Allen book you'll see a note that there were ten members of the family engaged in natural history, though not all on illustration.

I've edited a para in Eng Bot just to illustrate the old point that long sentences are snares and always need careful checking. It's good to see pages like that go up because this whole 18thC nat hist world is under-recorded on the web, and in print as well.

I've pretty much come to an end of what I wanted to do with Hux, barring the Water-babies illustr which needs rescanning. I'm pushing for Hux to be graded as 'High Importance' for reasons which should now be more obvious. And yes, I think it does deserve FA now, as much as Wallace! -- but perhaps it would be best for you to put it forward, since I've just done the High Importance request. I'm quite pleased to have filled several small but important gaps in the last two days. Research on the graphics that won't load continues...

I've asked ConfuciusOrnis to fly in and sort out the refs, reminding him of my preference for Harvard but not insisting. I assume he will do so, hopefully in time for the reassessments.

It goes without saying, but still I'll say it, that I've been greatly helped and encouraged in low moments by your advice and optimism. Thank you! Macdonald-ross 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Atkinson

Well, thankyou Fred. What a nice thing to see in my talk page. I have now taken a photo of a photo of a newspaper photo of her! It was at the National Library of Australia and I was given permission to do so since it is way out of copyright. I haven't downloaded it yet but I fear it won't be a good one. It would be better to scan it. Anyhow, I'll get to it next week and will see how it all looks...Thanks again, Sterry2607 06:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good fact to add, particularly as I had put those initials in the Infobox. I hope you don't mind but I've rearranged the Oxford Companion reference to list under Lawson so that it is easier to locate when you see it in the Footnote. I'm never sure with these Oxford Companions whether to enter under the bio writer or not, but it's probably good to do so where they are identified. I might check out that bio. I wouldn't mind fleshing her out more over time. Anyhow, if you don't like what I've done let me know. Sterry2607 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's staring you right in the face?

Oh, I didn't catch that either, and I think I italicized titles in another article the same day.[8] Shame on you, Fred. KP Botany 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No node is good nodes?

Yes, I'm fine with an illustration, if you have a preference, my only point is that if you're showing vascular tissue and including nodes in a single illustration you have to show what happens at the nodes, or even mention that something happens. Yes, dicuss merging, please, I got a response from AMIB that said it's not done, just put a note on the other pages saying they're the same as the primary account. Do you know better? KP Botany 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goof

Hey, don't worry about it, I saw the two reversions within a minute of each other and figured as much. I think we've all made a few mistakes like that on this site (I know that I have!).

Cheers,

Lankiveil 12:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop quiz

[9] But what's your point? Hesperian 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put a twist on a cliche, those who learn from history... Anyway, I will take my own advice and turn wide eyed to the future. Fred ☻ 03:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC) book token on its way[reply]