User talk:Hesperian/Archive 13

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

SatuSuro User page

Has been dogs breakfast too long - I have hundreds if not thousands west coast tas photos ...that I never even printed in the 70's!... that I am planning to upload. Gnang has been very helpful with showing the workings of commonist - have to choose my times as the boys are over enthusiastic users of world of warcraft and its holidays... sigh SatuSuro 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUS and similar

Have given some thought to assessments and the way forward. While I don't make use of IRC often, it might be best to make use of that medium to thrash out the many ideas floating around in our heads for a way forward. What do you think? -- Longhair\^talk 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rict

Can you guys (Hesp and Longhair) have a look at this User talk:Rict I ran into him this morning an issued a 24hour block, posted a note at WP:AN/I I gather since no admin responded I must have done someting right, but would appreciate if your opinion. Gnangarra 03:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion I did unblock, also emailed the user since that had been activated (good indicator). I had already point OIC to the guy and the link as I think there maybe some useful stuff on those pages. Gnangarra 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dryandra

Keep up the starting the stubs as long as you will add some detail later. I think your idea of starting them and adding the link to information is very good and encpurages people to write about it. Keep up the process of "mapping them out" Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They're fairly dense stubs: they list common name (if one exists), subgenus, series, authority, habit, and a high quality link. This genus is a very closely related to Banksia, which has a WikiProject that has taken two species articles to featured status in the last year. I don't think you have to worry about these stubs being abandoned. ;-) Hesperian 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if I'm making new pages patrol difficult for you. Hesperian 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Govt Gazette cites

Any idea how to do these properly on Wikipedia? I've had a go at note 7 on the Gwelup article as it has only one and so is fairly harmless. The note I scribbled down today was: "Approved 17/5/67 (1967:1631) Gwelup triangle (marked on map) zoned urban by MRPA under relevant Act. Refers 812/2/20/1 Pt 'C'" Orderinchaos78 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) That seems to be a reasonable way to do it. I checked up the title of the Gwelup article today in the Battye so that's now exactly as it should be. Wanted to get it right there before trying it on Hamersley :) Now the bit I dread, keying in pages and pages of stuff from two days of research. The biggest challenge in the final article will be to avoid detail to the point of irrelevancy and tell an interesting story with the sources. Orderinchaos78 12:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Go cat

Hi, if I was feeling bolder I would add thylacine to your creation. Ref: Murujuga, but there is no citation template for rock paintings.

• [[Category:Amphibians of Western Australia]]. My contribution to your new cat, my version of a barn star. Two parents and one article. A bit nerve wracking the first time creating one. I found my sandbox in a couple cats when I was even newer here. Report errors pls. Regards Fred 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you were in the category for a few moments. Also wondering now if this should be a list? Fred

Top

Too true. My read of the importance scale is that top importance articles need to be read widely - but who the heck is going to judge that? If someone has a beef with my top ratings then let them make a call on where an article is at. At present I am just going to go through the list I have been working on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian history/Exploration, and pick out those explorers who I know are well known and rank them top. The remainder I will rank lower - probably much lower. Hope you had a great new year... SauliH 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion you made for a bottom up approach has merit. Does that mean then that each project manages it's own Talk page templates? This would be a major upheaval in the way things are done. The logistics of setting that up, and not causing a crapfight seem daunting. I think I'll just crawl back to my own world! SauliH 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Category

Is it me? Have I been doing too much editing already - or do we not have a category for main pages 'Cat:Australian maritime history' yet? or am I going wp tage crazy? SatuSuro 06:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

SOCK! SatuSuro 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you understand what I meant by that! SatuSuro 10:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Check your recent IA talkpage revert and longhairs IA main page revert - the same person I bet a 6 pack of boagsSatuSuro 11:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Oh well when someone gets tired of reverting his dual behaviours and shifts - and does a checkuser, I wont hold you personally to the sixpack as I accept your explanation, but nevertheless the evidence is there...SatuSuro 11:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as I dont get jumped by any minders of holey grails or similar items from the ether  :( SatuSuro 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is simply a matter of populating the red link on my talk page yes? SatuSuro 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Amphibious west australians

If you want to link to a category instead of putting a page into that category, put a colon in front of the word "Category", e.g. "Category:Amphibians of Western Australia" makes "Category:Amphibians of Western Australia". Both. We should create a List of Frogs of Western Australia, and categorise it into Category:Amphibians of Western Australia.

You gave me that tip before, but I did not think to apply it to that situation. The User:Transhumanist has some useful stuff wiki editing I'm starting on - perhaps you suggested him as well.

Regarding cats and lists, that would seem to be solution. I had been looking for articles on biota unique to WA for the category. Is there a guideline for inclusions regarding this? Don't want to poach from parent category. I would think lists, perhaps with notation, may function as checklists for regions and so include visitors (eg, birds) and those also occurring interstate.

Thylacines have been found in Yallingup caves - ...searching ... a search revealed only another project idea.

• WA cave list ... and wild caves

Next stop, that geo who joined project. Regards, Fred 14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Scorpio80. I criticised him for uploading photos with blatantly false copyright claims, so now he is systematically going through every photo I ever uploaded and challenging them. Such childishness. Adam 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perth/Metro

I feel a bit miffed when I see all that stuff and we show no sign of comprehending or relating what the Dept or the WALGA have in their publicly available info . Also - if there is a sockpuppet - shouldnt there be some criteria to question the proposal - it smells like someone who cannot even write english! SatuSuro 02:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK good - the walga have metropolitan regions as part of their admin structure - I think using the word would at least reflect reality a bit better! unless someone trawls the walga and dept websites for something even more accurate...SatuSuro 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that - but the metro councils have regional groupings (the regional councils) and also regional reps on the WALGA - I think we need to have a qualifier within the articles to dientify them as metro councils - I am sure there is something in the local govt funding act that makes the diff. (one of my jobs a long time ago was with the WA LG Training thingo - but its long since gone) sigh SatuSuro 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - there is I am sure a distinction in the act, and in the funding act - as well as the walga - and the ways that federal funding comes in as well.Considering my past experience in the area I should have had the info to hand. Unfortunately the combinaion of a backlog in house duties before the kids mum returns from her time away - and dads taxi duties - and tag obssessiveness (Indonesian, Tasmanian, West Australian, and maritime a sad last) cannot do at the moment. Sorry SatuSuro 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure for Hamersley

Now that a narrative's starting to come into place for Hamersley, I'm trying to figure out how to structure it. The usual chronological structure doesn't seem to favour this particular topic, although of course it should largely follow chronology. Prior to 1967, almost nothing happened and it would seem to give that information undue importance to put it first. Orderinchaos78 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Might need your help. I finished the Aboriginal history, only to find that it's 3 paragraphs and only peripherally related to Hamersley. :| I am thinking a reduced version will probably fit the bill, with what I've been able to write and source helping to supply content for another article on the Mooro people (which could be broadened out considerably from the sources I've got copies of). Orderinchaos78 12:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be great :) It's difficult finding PD maps to use. I also have a couple of historic ones I can do - not sure which ones to include though, as I don't want to crowd the article out. Orderinchaos78 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good one - thanks. I might use the "main" feature for this one (and create a Mooro article) - seems appropriate. Orderinchaos78 12:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I don't mind :P And you're talking to someone who recently edited 400 Melbourne articles for the sole purpose of changing an infobox. So maybe we're all a bit insane :P Orderinchaos78 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Having tagged uncountable Indonesian stubs I'll agree! SatuSuro 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a trademark pending on WP:INSANITY is there? Orderinchaos78 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bots

Thanks, I will look into that. Are you monitoring my User page? Adam 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Adam 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Privacy

I didnt think you could access that? SatuSuro 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC) An issue found is an issue pursued :) oops I'm out of the sign in oh well - SatuSuro accidientally logged out at - 124.178.16.50 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Natural history

If you can get hold of the much expanded second edition of the first volume of the Flora of Australia (1999), and if I recall correctly, it has an essay on both the current understanding of the natural history and one on the historical development of the theory. It also has a great list of all the people that contributed to the description of the flora. I will go over to the library and check before I send you on a mad goose chase to find a copy. I did start an article covering the current understanding, but never really finished it. --Peta 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I was sort of right, there is one chapter on the evolution of the flora, and a second on biogeography. The biogeorgaphy chaper includes an extensive discussion on how concepts of Australia's biogeography developed from J.D Hooker to those that developed after the idea of continental drift emerged in 1915. On the question of what is too old - my strategy is always to go for the most recent review or book and work back from the refs inculded there if necessary. --Peta 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Peanut Island

Hi Wknight94,

From the deletion log:

23:43, 31 December 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Peanut Island" (WP:CSD#A3 ---- content was: 'Peanut Island is an island in Florida, United States.{{florida-geo-stub}}Category:Islands of Florida')

I'd like you to reconsider whether "is an island in Florida, United States" qualifies as No content whatsoever? The article was an awful sub-stub by a newb, but I don't think it qualified for speedy on WP:CSD#A3 grounds. Judging by the article history, two admins (me and Grutness) came across that article before you, and we both tried to improve the article rather than seeing it as speediable. Hesperian 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but "Peanut Island is an island in Florida" is not an article. It wasn't even sourced. I have a better idea: create an article called List of Florida islands and add a single line, "*Peanut Island" - that would provide just as much context but add a lot more value. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the article has no value then take it to AfD, or propose a merger. Don't speedy-delete it citing a criterion that doesn't apply. "Peanut Island is an island in Florida, United States" is not an article with "No content whatsoever". It is not "an article consisting only of links elsewhere". It is not "a rephrasing of the title". It is not "an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title". It simply doesn't meet CSD#A3. The reality is, you speedily deleted it because you thought it was a crappy stub with no merit. That's not appropriate. Hesperian 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What in the world is this about? You're starting a fuss over a nine-word article? The point of the A1/A3 combination is that it applies to an article that adds no value to the encyclopedia. We're not losing anything by deleting that article as it was. On the contrary, any blue links to it would have misled people into thinking an actual article existed there. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A1 goes out of its way to avoid being interpreted as grounds for deletion of articles like this: "Little or no context.... Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub."

I can see where this is going. I'll say "that deletion was out of process", and you'll say "but the article was crap", and then I'll say "but the deletion was out of process" and then you'll say "but the article was crap", then I'll say "but the deletion was out of process", then you'll say "but the article was crap". I guess neither of us wants to waste our time on this any further. See you 'round the 'pedia.

Hesperian 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Crap" was your word, not mine. As far as being out of process, I can wikilawyer too: WP:STUB suggests "Often that means three to ten short sentences, but less text may be sufficient to qualify as a stub for articles on narrow topics, and complicated topics with more than ten sentences may still be stubs". I don't see how an entire popular island near West Palm Beach would qualify as a narrow subject - therefore the article didn't even qualify as a stub - therefore WP:CSD#A1 would certainly apply. If you'd like me to restore it and then delete based on A1 instead of A3, I can - but let's keep in mind that, in the time we've already wasted on this ridiculous thread, we could have created 10 actual Florida island stubs. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well! That's the first time I've ever been accused of wikilawyering. Listen to yourself. You think A1 says you can delete really short articles, when A1 says, and I quote, "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete". That's not Wikilawyering; that's grade-school English. Hesperian 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll finish the grade-school English quote for you, "...if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub." I disagree that it qualified as a stub according to the passage in WP:STUB that I quoted. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Read A1 again. All of it. It doesn't say you can delete articles that you don't think qualify as a valid stub. If says you can delete articles that have little or no context. You don't get to delete articles because you think they're too short. You're abusing your admin tools, man. Hesperian 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Differing interpretations of speedy deletion criteria do not warrant such serious accusations as sysop abuse. Please desist and assume good faith or I'll be bringing this up at WP:AN/I. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't mean to imply that you were doing so on purpose; for that I apologise. But I do think you're misusing your admin tools. If that doesn't satisfy you, I guess I'll see you at AN/I. Hesperian 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Still a serious charge in my opinion, esp. when I think I'm right and that that article was a perfect example of an article with too little context to bother keeping. If you look through any admin's logs, you'll find something you disagree with. For example, your deletion of John Cornforth with the edit summary of "...we don't use disambig pages when there's only two pages". First, we have plenty of dab pages with only two entries: e.g., John Seigenthaler off the top of my head. Second, since that article had been moved to a dab page just three days earlier, I wouldn't consider it a non-controversial move so it should have gone to WP:RM. Third, your move edit summary implies that WP:CSD#G6 applies as a deletion reason but that criteria specifically mentions "...removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article" while the disambiguation page you deleted pointed to two articles, not one. Maybe my use of the phrase "wikilawyering" was a bit much, but my general rule of thumb is that, if you need to read a policy that closely to determine if there's a problem, the least you should do is leave phrases like "misusing your admin tools" out of the conversation.

BTW, as a peace offering, I've created a nice stub for Peanut Island. I vote for less quibbling over criteria interpretation and more encyclopedia writing. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't want to be the winner. I want Wikipedia to be the winner. Arguing over whether an article's value was 0.0 or 0.1 is not even worth mentioning, let alone fighting over, and Wikipedia doesn't win if we do either. We should always resist the urge to pursue such arguments and just get the article to a 10.0 ASAP. Good night... —Wknight94 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I could find something I disagree with in any admin's logs, and I'm not surprised that you found one in mine. I considered your deletion an error, but not something to get bent out of shape about. What upset me was your defence of it while leaving it deleted. When someone comes to me and say "Hey I don't think you got that one right", and has a legitimate argument, I undo my action immediately, even if I disagree. Only then do I engage in further debate or alternative action. I believe most admins do the same, and consider it a basic courtesy, especially to fellow admins, who are under obligation not to wheel war with them.

Some context: the Cornforth issue was discussed here.

Hesperian 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's an interesting philosophy that I'll admit I hadn't considered. To me, when I'm right, I'm right so I'll take action and not undo that action unless I've definitely misread a policy or a policy has changed. On the flip side, I won't take offense if another admin disagrees with me and simply undoes my action. I don't consider that a wheel war unless I feel strongly enough about it that I mention it - but they won't even explain their action. To me, an admin is allowed one revert of another admin's action. You disagree. That's fair and a fresh viewpoint for me - something I will definitely consider in the future. I still think I was right in my original action but I suppose I could have undone it first and discussed second instead of vice versa.

As far as the Cornforth issue, I'm not going to read that because I honestly don't care. I'll gladly defer to your judgment on that case. I was just bringing up the point that every admin needs to make tough judgment calls that may seem questionable to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We certainly shall. I will definitely consider this approach in the future so thank you. I guess I've more often come across admins who blindly change block lengths and undo article protections without discussion - but I'll confess to not having paid that much attention to notice otherwise. So I learned something and we got a nice stub article out of the deal - wins all around! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, re: this edit, did you try to do [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|]]? I knew you could do that pipe trick with disambiguated names but I didn't know you could do that with namespaces too. TEST TEST TEST. So I learned yet another thing... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um

I just found the Rivers project -have tagged the Swan River and some in my other areas of expertise (sigh) - am interested whether you think it might be of interest as to how wa watercourses fit with that projects ideal article? SatuSuro 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stuff

1. WA fauna ta. Will try to get to fauna Flora next.
2. frog image? prompting any and all to think of other WA inhabitants. Like the Western Banjo Frog or Pobblebonk, Limnodynastes dorsalis (Gray, 1841). I have been populating new Cat, perhaps some should not be included. A couple of frogs are from NT or QLD also. I will ransom them for more WA amphibian pages.
3. WP:RM is for when you want to make a move that only an admin ... Yeh, I thought it was overkill. But I was in a WA promotion mood today. As Wild Oscar said,

   "There is only one thing worse than not being talked about; and that is being thrown in Reading Gaol for ...!"

Thanks for info. I thought there would be no harm done, from my quick scan of the WP:RM page, to list under maybe contested or whatever. As you say, "... The unfortunate reality is that the only people likely to even notice this move are our good friends Ghostieguide, Gnangarra and Moondyne. Oh, and SatuSuro, who notices everything. (LOL!).

Fred 11:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL ya gotta be careful that disambig page has more than laughing out loud on it! SatuSuro 12:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah saw that one (List of Volcanoes in WA) our geol friend seems erratic - might try to alert him - my backlog after having cleared the 1,000 indonesian stub limit - is beginning to bite - the maritime category I havent started yet (you are most welcome if you ever wish) - the tasmanian tagging is getting complicated in that I recently found the lakes rivers and mountain project tags of use - the west oz mystery boys are still out there - need to trawl more - and the indonmesian grab a stub project that I am doing without awb -might come a real cropper if some busy body tries policy down the line on the indonesian stubs with up to 400 justifiable afds if they sniff it - and there are about 10 potential fa or ga's on the west coast of tas that really need a lot of work yet - anmd as for the rest, I gotta slow down my keystroke speed thingy I keep getting some very weird spelling. SatuSuro 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wow

and had the same thought on cats and super cats. But for this thread, people might think 'Fred' was a sock puppet. Fred

I had assumed that aspect of sock puppetry, but did not want to seem too cunning. Just sent an invite t'otherside regarding amphib. to liquidGhoul, admin who specialises in them. Fred 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas College, Perth article

Hey i was wondering if you could AfD the "Aquinas College Perth Academic Studies" page - once you see it, you will realise why. Thanks =) Smbarnzy 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas College Perth Academic Studies is the article i want AfD - it is a complete load of bollocks - listing the subjects the school offers? what a joke of an article. The redirect would be useless as no-one would specifically look for that page - they would only look for the main page - Aquinas College, Perth Please AfD ASAP. Thanks =) Smbarnzy 13:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

worst australian

Point taken and agreed with re thinking - the ref to invisibility is re his presence or recognisability in the 'open' outside of his osborne park factory - actually I am opting out of too much more comment in the article imprvement as I believe the nespaper ceased in any reasonable sense of being a newspaper somewhere in the 1980's. At least I am consistent in my bits on the talk page. SatuSuro 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I think that most newspaper articles that I have checked (not many) is that the wikipedia entries feel like business entries in a commercial website - minimal history and over emphasis on all the clowns currently in their roost. In the case of the west - all the important stuff about it is long gone - when they left st geos terrace is a good symbolic point. the changes - bit like the closing down of the midland workshops - are not necessarily good or bad in a larger view - its just the turkeys who try telling us something when its actually something else again. Many I know havent read it for years. Their lack of sourcing stories is one of the most obvious recent parts of their decline - its seems they dont care to even let us know the source of info. Most reasonable newspapers actually show which wire service they access - 'the west' of course knows better. Enough. I might get carried away - they are also the largest destroyers of cultural heritage in australia (possibly) - ask anybody who knows - andd they may have either dstroyed or thrown out more historical photogarphs and negs than any other body in australia holding such items... and that my dear hesp is where I part company with anyone inside or outside the osborne park factory who claims it to be anything but a b-s machine SatuSuro 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - longwinded - the most important thing about the west is its history not its current context at all ever - and that is the irony 0 becausee they do not look after that which they are important for. I hope thats clearer! SatuSuro 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow I dont know if I am that au fait with the vocabulary of the worst of the culture that inhabits the border issues between mexico and canada (!) but you seemed to have hit a nerve - but the problem is that theyre think theyre great. SatuSuro 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - meant to cite my inspiration -Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better. In press conference with Canadian PM, and apparently forgetting about the country wedged between Canada and Mexico, Washington, D.C., Sep. 24, 2001 - originally at http://www.dubyaspeak.com/geographer.phtml SatuSuro 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing that most annoys me about the West is the strongly biased political coverage under the current editor. Broadly speaking, if Labor and Liberal do exactly the same thing, one gets roasted for weeks while the other gets ignored or even excused. And let's not mention their polling methods... One example that comes to mind was when they surveyed four marginal Labor seats concluding they'd all go 62 to 38 2PP to Liberal - based of course on a tiny sample in the single most traditionally Liberal suburb in each - and then bring out some expert (the same one every time) to comment in detail on the results of their poll. This sort of thing forces other news outlets (mainly Seven and the Sunday Times) into an opposite bias, and I don't believe that two biased sources of opposite views actually contribute a great deal to political understanding - I'd rather just have the news, like, things which happened that day, and exposing the sorts of travesties that really do matter rather than clouding the pages with crap. Orderinchaos78 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree with you re "rather just have the news".

I like news... unless it is a load of crap (e.g. the single desk issue).

I like analysis editorial... unless it is biased and unintelligent (e.g. the political analysis).

I like opinion pieces... unless they are blatantly self-serving (e.g. the recent opinion piece on how contempt of court laws need to be reformed, published the day after Armstrong was summonsed for contempt of court again.)

I even like the comics!

In fact, the only thing I really can't stand is campaign editorial (e.g. that ludicrous month-long campaign for compulsory place-of-origin labelling on fruit and vegies)

Hesperian 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

B telmatiaea

It was about 1500mm x 1000mm so it must have been a reasonable age, got some other I'll up load tonight. based on the tag it isnt a cultivar, but its in the same sopt that I got the flower spike last year, Epica is located opposite but I'm not happy with the pics of the whole plant, some ok close ones, setting what should be a very good show of flowers. Also got one that I need to ID first plus porcupine, showy, and burdetti which were all in flower. Ended taking 54 images, digital is good, have to find away for you to see the lot and select then ones you think are worth uploading. Gnangarra 11:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

no I dont think you have gone made, each arrangement is important to the overall arrangement of the genus, as for the image think I'll give them a generic Banksia_##_gnag name and load here(commonist is supposed to be able to do a bulk upload here) then you and Cas can select the ones wanted and then we can just delete them all and load only the required to Commons, What do you think? Gnangarra 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They all available here User:Gnangarra/gallery, note that they have been reduced in size to 800px and compressed in file size, full size version will be uploaded to commons. Gnangarra 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

additionally some images appear to be the same, my camera has an option to take 3 consecutive shots which is useful when the wind is moving the branches. Gnangarra 14:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Grace Bussell

Ahh you noticed, thanks. Original source at [[1]] stated "On 20 February 1882, Grace married Frederick Drake-Brockman, a member of a famous pastoralist family, in St Mary's Church, Busselton. Frederick became the Surveyor General of Western Australia, and was responsible for mapping out telegraph routes and roads in the state's north-west, as well as marking out the second line of the rabbit-proof fence from the Murchison to Eucla."

On looking up "Frederick Drake-Brockman" I found: [[2]] & [[3]]

Seems that our Fred became Surveyor-General for the Department of Lands and Surveys in 1915 - until presumably his death in 1917 Ghostieguide 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Biota

... and categories. Amphibians, Birds and C for ...?

I updated the taxobox, are you familiar with the wikipedian who produced it? Fred 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Amusing note re Hamersley

Data collection finishes tomorrow. Want to know why I couldn't find the last piece of the puzzle? Whoever put the structure plan on file at State Records (not the SR staff themselves, probably a department staffer) can't spell Hamersley. :) I'm starting to get to a point where I understand the story and now just have to figure out a way of telling it with the reasonably extensive list of sources I now have. (Not even sure where to put them for collaborative purposes - it's ended up as 50k of text files on my hard drive!) Orderinchaos78 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Etherbased surreality

Nullarbor (demo party) for your early morning check - if it still exists! SatuSuro 15:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Oh well it still does - and no one else has - so I welcome the newbie SatuSuro 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, lots of messages this morning. Working my way through. Up to Gnangarra's gallery at the moment. Will get to it eventually. Hesperian 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Never apologise - I've dealt with it anyways - have a look if you have the time. Also I think your point about the wesst is excellent - well said - I think its something that evokes a range of emotions we all need to deal with and get on with the article! SatuSuro 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that there is a position on this sort of stuff where I can see the deletionists point and I also see the issue from another point of view. I think I'll go buy a copy of the west and have breakfast :) SatuSuro 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.