User talk:Hughesdarren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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) 04:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Hughesdarren. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi there! Quick question from someone who is not into trees, plants, shrubs and everything that has to do with it: the article acacia states there are 163 species in the genus acacia, but there are 613 articles in the Category:Acacia right now. How? Kind regards, Coldbolt (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know and have no real expertise in the area. I've been filling in redlinks on the list but don't any real expertise in the area. The refs all say Acacia but since even the page for Acacia sensu lato (containing all of the 960 Australian species} is still referred to in the taxobox as Acacia, so I think it is OK. Will seek advice. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: Can you explain this one? Hughesdarren (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Short non-technical answer. Acacia and Acacia sensu lato (and some related articles, including Racosperma) have had some misinformation since 5 November 2015. The person who made the misinforming edits does otherwise good work on South African organisms. I'm rather conflict averse and haven't wanted to get in a fight with them to fix the articles. I brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive66#Acacia, but it seems that nobody else wanted to get in a fight about it. The Acacia article ought to reflect the view that there are 900+ Acacia species, almost all of which are native to Australia.
Longer technical answer. It has been apparent for some time that Acacia should be split into multiple genera. A genus name is anchored to a type species; in the event that a genus is split, the species most closely related to the type species keep the genus name and the less closely related species get placed into new genera. The type species of Acacia was originally an African species. Based on the usual rules, splitting Acacia would result in 163 mostly African species retaining the name Acacia and 1100+ species shuffled off into 4 other genera (including 900+ Australian species which were proposed to go to the genus Racosperma). To reduce the number of species which would have to be renamed, a proposal was made to change the type species from an African species to one of the Australian species; this kind of proposal is unusual, but by no means unprecedented. The proposal passed at a meeting in Vienna in 2005. Australian species would stay in Acacia, but African species would have to be renamed (to Vachellia). African botanists were not happy about this. Some of them decided to take the highly unusual step of forcing a second vote on the proposal at the next meeting. The next meeting happened in 2011, in Melbourne, and the proposal passed again. I empathize to some extent with the Africans; the Melbourne meeting can hardly be called a fair vote; many more Australian botanists attended and voted than would have in another location (such as Vienna). But there probably shouldn't have been a second vote in the first place, and there was nothing sinister about having the vote in Melbourne; the meeting had long been scheduled to be held there.
At this point, Wikipedia is presenting a mish-mash of competing views on Acacia and the other genera that have been split out from it, largely due to a South African editor who refuses to acknowledge that this has been voted on twice, with their faction failing to win both time. They are apparently not alone; there may be an unprecedented third vote on the issue at the upcoming meeting in China (presumably the Australian faction won't be over-represented there).
Hughesdarren, you're fine making articles on Australian Acacia species; Acacia being largely Australian is the current botanical consensus. If you come across any Racosperma synonyms for Acacia species, it wouldn't hurt to make redirects. Fixing up the Acacia, Racosperma and Vachellia articles might be contentious. Plantdrew (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Update: Racosperma was just moved to Acacia, and the previously article at Acacia was moved to Acacia (Vachellia). There's some badly needed clean up needed that I'll try to do some work on over the next few days, but the article at Acacia is now about the most recent concept of the genus. Plantdrew (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


great start! had a very luxurious lunch out the back when were down. Added the qulifier as on commons there are more london hotels than there are.... many... so figured best to do so. cheers and keep up the good work! JarrahTree 07:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

street location[edit],_Albany - needed, as it stands it could be anywhere :) - hope you can help on that one - cheers JarrahTree 05:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Allocasuarina helmsii[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Allocasuarina helmsii, and it appears to be a substantial copy of

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Gsg headmasters.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Gsg headmasters.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Gull Rock National Park[edit]

I have paraphrased some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from (page 89), a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

some tangents..[edit]

  • Saggers, Thomas O (2012), Crossing the Kalgan : a history of the Lower Kalgan bridges and jetty (Second edition ed.), Kalamunda, WA Tangee Publishing Pty Ltd, ISBN 978-0-9757936-3-3 

there might be more where that came from JarrahTree 09:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

    • If I read those refs right there was a bridge until 1930 - washed away, then the 1939-1940, then the one you are referring to is another one from the 50s, so also it would seem the 1930-1939, the lower bridge made do for the crossings in that time JarrahTree 09:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Grevillea tenuiloba[edit]

Hi, I'm LatymerKing. Hughesdarren, thanks for creating Grevillea tenuiloba!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. it just needs a few more references, and a little bit more detail, and then you're set!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. LatymerKing (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi, Your edits of Napier include continually removing a reference, if you have updated information you can add it with an accompanying appropriate reference, see the section of verifibility above. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Firstly let me apologise for my newness and inexperience on editing an article. But, as it was clearly wrong, I thought, for the sake of accuracy, I should fix it. Thank you for now agreeing to some of my updates, which I know to be correct as I am the previous owner of Napier Downs and am referred to in the article. I still have a few issues. One the location as 130km from Derby is correct, but it is NOT also 130km North of Fitzroy Crossing. If you look at a map, you will see this is impossible. There is no reference verifying this, so I assume that someone has just had a guess. It is actually approx. 150km North West of Fitzroy Crossing, which is what I tried to amend. The area of the lease is approx. 380,000 ha. I am not sure where you got the area that you have stated. The article that you refer to says it is It covers more than 400,000ha and carries about 20,000 head of red brahman cattle. That, in fact is not accurate, but it will do. The sale price was not disclosed and merely speculated by the article in Beef Central that you refer to. I wonder if anyone verifies the articles that are used as a ref. I know in the case of Beef Central it was not verified and they simply wrote the article with speculative information. The sale was actually completed in September 2015. The line... In 1910 Napier Downs occupied an area of 90,000 acres (364 km2) and was still owned by M. C. Davies... is also incorrect. I attempted to amend this but you have not allowed this. If you read the article that is referred to in the reference, it clearly says 900,000 acres and not 90,000. According to the pastoral lease, a copy of which I hold, it states that on 30th June 1969 the area of Napier Downs was 1,000,000 acres. I am happy to provide any further information and assist in the accuracy of this article. Leut1 (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leut1 (talkcontribs)

Thanks for replying - I have fixed what I can but the rest of the information that has a reference will stay. Wikipedia requires verifiability (see pillars above). I'm not too sure if you realise but 1 million acres is the same size as 4047km2 or 404700ha .... so the lease can't be both 380000ha and 1 million acres.... so I'll go with what the ref and the lease says on that one. No editors check references, unless two separate sources contradict each other or the sources themselves are inherently unreliable (like a blog, an advertisement abd perhaps Beef Central). Thanks for your offer of more information but unless accompanied by a reliable source it would be unlikely to be edited in. By the way, ff you do spot errors made like to 900,000 acre one then by all means do fix it but make a note in the comment that this is what the reference says. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the amendments. Just to answer your comment about the lease size. The lease area has changed over the years by way of resumptions and boundary changes, whilst it was 1,000,000 acres in 1969 it has changed many times since. The current lease area is closer to 380,000 ha. It is actually 386,679. It is unlikely that you will find this confirmed in any news article. Leut1 (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Leut1 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Leut1 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
No worries - I figured that would be the case - I'll make a note on the article talk page, and maybe it will be confirmed in the future. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks, would you also like to amend the article on Kerry Stokes with this updated information on Napier Downs.. price and herd size? Thanks. Leut1 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, you can do it or I will if you like, if you do make any changes sure you leave a comment in the edit summary box (just above where you click the save changes buttone). Other editors (and myself) are always deeply suspicious of a blank edit summary. It will pop up on my watchlist when you make any changes. Cheers and regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Corymbia porrecta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Melville Island and Bathurst Island
Corymbia flavescens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Axillary
Corymbia polysciada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Axillary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)