User talk:Hesperian/Archive 35

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.

and i was about to say something further

I'll leave it for a gmail sometime instead (nothing like getting an edit conflict while an archiving is happening :) SatuSuro 11:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I was up to 41Kb with no sign of a wane in my incredible popularity. ;-) You know you can always copy a thread back from the archive if you want to continue it. Hesperian 11:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No big deal i was gonna probably bore you very silly with a very obscure question about west australian tree based lichens (as in my user page)- I am always stunned when i find users with over a years editing and empty talk pages :) SatuSuro 13:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually now you mention your opularity (sic) - watcha think about Xanthorrhoea and Xanthorrhoeaceae merged idea? its been sitting there a long time and looks untidy as is SatuSuro 13:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta - thanks for that - have been meaning to add my piccies of damaged and disintegrating west oz varieties for ages yo commons SatuSuro 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)::[ec}

[edit conflict] Gone; and less popular by the minute. Hesperian 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

John Carter (endocrinologist)

Hi. I can't see what you have done on this page except for your comment that OAM's are not notable. Carter isn't an OAM but an AO, which is the second highest honour awarded in the Order of Australia. That seem to be notable and his listing in Who's Who in Australia suggests notability as well. Castlemate (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What I did was remove the {{notability}} tag, because I agree with you that AO's are notable. I take your point re OAM v AO. Hesperian 02:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Email

Ping! Euryalus (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pong!

Do you have advice what i can get my sessilis piccies at commons verified against? - would you recommend a ref for a check? online or off ? any advice would be appreciated as i think i have the straight one (commons strettle road) kings park one (cygno) - its the latest and whatever else that needs to be checked SatuSuro 03:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Or can i answer my own question at florabase? do you think SatuSuro 03:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had time to / got around to checking them yet. I had a brief look at the first one you uploaded, and I suspect it is not B. sessilis. Some other species. Which is exciting. My plan, when I get around to it, is to check against The Dryandras with half an eye on FloraBase. I don't think you'll have much luck with FloraBase alone. I think you said you have access to The Dryandras? By all means have a crack at it yourself if you can and want to. Else I will get around to it soonish. Hesperian 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No hurry - I actually want to go back to my strettle road and another (ie most resent) images as I am convinced they are both sesselis - and will get my hands on a copy of dryandra asap and probably keep out of everybodies way - just dont let me start asking questions about lichens ok? SatuSuro 03:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proteaceae

You're more rampant on Proteaceae than Phytophthora (but in a good way:)) Melburnian (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything with "Angiosperms" or "Magnoliophyta" in the taxobox has a fair chance of being on my watchlist, but you can AWB away to your heart's content, my watchlist can take the heat. Melburnian (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Think it will be gone by the am anyways

Had thought i might have caught you before you were off - no big deal SatuSuro 14:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Gnangarra got it SatuSuro 15:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

comic

Of all the errors my category checking script has turned up, I think this one would have to be my favourite. :-D Hesperian 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But Mr Hesperian whats the joke? (throwing multiple latin dictionaries back into main part of shed in case it was obvious)SatuSuro 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Slow - it was the diff - ok - good one got it - oops - never thought the vndls got into rearranging cats - and to think how many i used to have on my watch list :( SatuSuro 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the perpetrator was PolBot. Hesperian 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW yagans head page 9 in the worst this am has probably pinched without any compunction :( SatuSuro 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for the heads-up; I'll have a look. Hesperian 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As my edit summary says - cited from the unciters - they do bylines but never sources - hmmm SatuSuro 01:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gawd

my suprise at your message - i am getting worse at plant identification as the days go past :( - thanks for your explanation - i might just take photos and leave it in the capable hands of gnang and your kind self - dont let me start asking about the damned lichens SatuSuro 12:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Ill try uploading extra images with the correct name rather than the ones so far SatuSuro 12:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The strettle road sesselis, the kings park sesselis and the glen forrest banksia from the distance for the ordinary punter are the same - playing with the baby nikon trying to get either the bloody bees or simply the thing in focus during a breeze the banksia glen forrest has a texture that is like chalk and cheese - the darker green the furrier look and the lighter coloured underside i realise now is the very big diff from the sesselis which is the same on under and above - by jove i have got it! - as well as a flower much larger - ok thanks for that i feel much better for this now - thinking aloud i have solved the issue its the underside of the leaf that is the big telling point - lighter colour! SatuSuro 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Asarum can. & Hexastylis

Why are you changing the ranks of divsion and class to "unranked"? also why are you using Magnoliid rather than Magnoliopsida? Thanks Earthdirt (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely everyone involved in angiosperm taxonomy has adopted the APG II system these days. Wikipedia has been very slow to adopt it because no-one could be bothered correcting all the taxoboxes. That's what I'm doing now. The APG II system uses rankless clades for everything above the rank of order. That's why "Angiosperms" and "Magnoliids" are unranked: they are clade names, not ranked taxon names. Ranked names like "Magnoliopsida" have been abandoned; see for example the last paragraph of Magnoliopsida. By the way, Magnoliid is not another word for Magnoliopsida. Angiosperms equates to Magnoliopsida, and Magnoliid is a clade within that. Hesperian 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Magnoliidae

If we relied only on validly published names, then some pages would have no name at all, or else a name that is logically impossible to apply. What would we do for seed plants? What would we do for the combined fern-Psilotum-Equisetopsida group? Some clades have been recognized solidly in multiple studies with extensive evidence, but have no name published under the ICBN. The only options are to (1) use a PhyloCode name, (2) use an incorrect name, (3) invent a name, or (4) designate the page and group with a number and tell people "this group has no name". Of these options, I prefer the citable published PhyloCode name, even if the PhyloCode is not yet formally in effect. Note that this only applies to a dozen or so plant groups at very high "rank". --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seed plants is an appropriate title. It is neither (1) nor (2) nor (3) nor (4). I suppose you think it is (2), but an explicitly informal name cannot be incorrect.

"citable published PhyloCode name, even if the PhyloCode is not yet formally in effect" is a contradiction. That source explicitly states that it is offering up nomenclatural food for thought, not publishing formal names. By treating them as formal names, you are misrepresenting the source.

Hesperian 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Backburning radars

I quite genuinely hadn't spent ten seconds thinking about it, so no worries and no hurry. I promised you some sample text also, which you'll note I haven't done yet. Euryalus (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the email. Sorry for failing to respond, I'd forgotten about it and didn't check the email account. Will have a read and get back to you ASAP. Euryalus (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility:

Hey, just a friendly reminder to keep civil on the Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations#Cas Liber and Vampire: page. I've replied to your comments there. It's just a benign discussion over an obscure side of an obscure page. Don't make it anything more than it is - nothing much really. : ) Cheers Hesperian. Spawn Man (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have occasionally observed a tendency of certain Wikipedians to accuse others of incivility in order to gain a edge in a dispute. Hesperian 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I can win discussions on my own merit thanks. I'm not saying full-blown incivility, but suggesting I don't know what considerate means is slightly offensive, and saying that Cas made more edits than me on vampire, when I wasn't meaning that nomination, is counterproductive. I could sense an argument brewing and I wanted to cut it off before it began. It takes two to argue, and I think it was because you thought I was accusing you of placing cas's name when I was referring to someone else. My intentions are only just Hesperian. Let's be friends and make the system a better place - this also protects you from being accused of placing people's name inappropriately if they take offense... Spawn Man (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of placing the name of the kind of person who would take offense over such a triviality. I wouldn't place your name, for example. Hesperian 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I won't take offense to that. Why are you being so hostile Hesperian? Have I offended you in some way other than the one I explained? Spawn Man (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment removal

Hi Hesperian. May I ask why you removed my comment in this edit? I personally see nothing wrong with discussing the matter. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 11:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you may. Discussing the matter is a good idea, but responding to a straw poll vote within the straw poll fractures the poll, and can sometimes scare other people off voting. Many a poll has yielded no result because it ended up unreadable, drowned in a long thread of discussion. I encourage you to find some way of restoring it into the discussion section above, or into a new section below. Or, if you really strenously disagree with me, go ahead and restore it to where it was. I'm not going to waste our time arguing over it; I'm not the poll police, I was just doing what I thought best. Hesperian 11:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you do indeed bring up a good point and I understand where you're coming from. While I disagree with the removal, I find it rather trivial, and I don't find it terribly necessary to restore it. Just for future reference, removal of legitimate talk page comments is generally discouarged. Happy editing, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 11:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some more picts

From todays outing, I was suprise there one Genus from this lot that Melburnian hasnt edited. Gnangarra 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Thysanotus in The Gooseberry Hill National Park. This was at the top of the Zig Zag
• 
  Thysanotus in The Gooseberry Hill National Park This was the bottom of the Zig Zag

...whereas I have edited them all, but with less guts to my edits. I note that he actually created two of these genus articles; pretty hard to argue with that. I have invited my favourite buckeye to identify your Stylidiums for you. Hesperian 13:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the second flower is Hemigenia incana[1] - there's another genus to start - I'll check these out further tomorrow Melburnian (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice photos. Third photo is Stylidium affine Sond. and the fourth is Stylidium ciliatum Lindl. Don't have articles for either of those, yet. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The first photo looks like Lechenaultia biloba ... do you have any zoomed-out photos of this Gnang? Melburnian (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ok looking at florabase I've gone with that taxa, #2 shows more of the plant structure but probable not enough I didnt do any wider as its was raining, will return there in the next few days and get some more, any specifics you want. Gnangarra 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Lechenaultia biloba
• 
  Lechenaultia biloba
• 
  Hemigenia incana
• 
  Strylidium affine
• 
  bonus material
• 
  Stylidium ciliatum
• 
  bonus material

I couldn't spot the typical small crowded leaves on the first shot, but they are apparent on your second one - that's exactly what I was looking for the ID check - thanks! Melburnian (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Its been a productive day in addition to these 12 other have been uploaded, I have more that need to be identified like, any thoughts Gnangarra 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Isopogon xxxxxxx

WBFAN

Heh. I can't tell if he intentionally made it look like I !voted, or what. Thanks for letting me know before I got in trouble for voting twice. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In all possible good-heartedness, I'm going to say I'm going avoid you from now on, and I suggest you avoid me from now on. Not only have you made several passive-aggressive comments which hurt my feelings, but you have since tarnished my good name by accusing me of making a "tricky edit" in an attempt to character assassinate me and make out as if I had tried to make someone vote twice. Thank goodness Julian saw it was only a good-willed botch and as such stopped your attempt to turn everyone against me. I'm am sick of your passive aggressive comments and it made the whole discussion quite an ordeal - everyone else didn't get personal nor did they use impersonal terms such as "one" in an attempt to segregate me from others to make me feel isolated and ashamed. I feel you have a repressed anger issue which was vented on myself and I do not appreciate it as I was nothing but civil to yourself and am continuing to do so. I think it's best if we try and stay away from each other as I feel no joy in arguing pointlessly with people who enjoy getting personal in an attempt to make themselves feel superior. I supported your comment to change the page's title. I was always a fan of your work on here, but I'm quite disappointed that the manner in which you conduct yourself is quite abrasive sometimes. I hope we can be friends at a later time, but for now, let's just let the wounds heal over until we learn to trust each other again. No offense is to be taken from this message - I always find it productive getting your real feelings out rather than replacing them with backorder comments. Cheers Hesperian and have a great day! : ) Spawn Man (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Spawn Man ad hominem count update:

6 accusations of passive-aggressive behaviour;

4 accusations of incivility;

2 accusations of "getting personal";

1 accusation of aggression;

1 accusation of that I am venting repressed anger;

1 veiled accusation that I am a bully;

1 hint that I am trying to drive a wedge between him and Cas;

1 accusation that I have engaged in character assassination;

1 accusation that I have done all this in order to feel superior;

1 threat to take the dispute to "a different forum".

=

19 ad hominem arguments.

Hesperian 05:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is on the person - I was describing your behaviour which is different. Trolling (1) is another behaviour which you can incorrectly add to your list. The fact that you're still attacking me instead of wondering why someone finds you offensive (in fact replying with the very thing that person finds offensive and is avoiding you for) is just a confirmation my choice of disengaging was correct and that there will be no winning this discussion with you Hesperian(2-3?). I've been civil, offered numerous points at which you could check your behaviour and even suggested a mature solution and this is the kind of depravity to sink into(4). You're better than listing out wrongs in an attempt to win an argument(5). Say how you feel and why you feel it right to attack me and/or make fun of my feelings by categorizing them into a silly latin term(6-8??). I sense that you will just add more to your latin tally with this and future comments, so as of now, I give up and let you be difficult to yourself(9-10). In fact I'll even tally them up as I go along because I'm just that kind of helpful guy. Have a nice day Hesperian and I must say, your knowledge of latin is pretty honorable - and I mean that in a totally non-anything way. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you're both upset, but there's no profit in this for anyone. You're both great contributors, and you're both great guys. If you want to solve this, get a third party to mediate. But I think the best thing to do is to just leave the issue alone, stop dwelling on it. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong. It really doesn't. Please just let this go, both of you. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset, Guettarda. I would describe myself as mildly exasperated. I shall take your sage advice and have nothing further to say on the matter. Hesperian 06:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Biota

Hesp - I was just wondering if you were aware the Andy is currently blocked? It might be polite to suspend the TFD until he can contribute. Guettarda (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Guettarda; I have withdrawn it for now. I will certainly nominate it once he has returned... or once it is determined that he won't be returning: I see there is a push for a community ban. :-| Hesperian 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons/satu gallery and drummond

There are a few more that you melb or gnang might want to have a peek at SatuSuro 04:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My word, there are some nice pics over there; I think the pick of the bunch is this one, which I hazard a guess is Drosera glanduligera. Hesperian 05:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct - confirmed from page 17 of Ireland and Macey (WIldflowers of the northern bibbulman track and jarrah forests isbn 0-9750767-0-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatuSuro (talk • contribs)

You're absolutely correct. The densely hairy inflorescence with orange flowers is a key diagnostic for this species. Not too many orange-flowered Drosera's out there! Nice photos =) Rkitko ^(talk) 11:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou - Im not v pleased with the selection to date - but thats another story - thanks for the encouragement - top marks to gnangarra knowing about the reserve - you wouldnt think driving past not knowing its context that it had stuff there - but once youre in there things start jumping out at ya - in a manner of speaking. SatuSuro 12:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember

DNFT...okay? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger that. Thanks and sorry. Hesperian 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yagan

Maybe but we dont have a yagan national park yet - his dad got it - :) SatuSuro 13:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC) No big deal must remember to give you a lecture in aboriginal anthropology the next time we are near a beer or two SatuSuro 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Glad to be back. I'm not sure where to start, but going over my watchlist is a bit daunting! Cheers, cygnis insignis 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, really! I'm betting it's more likely something you did, and I copied. I will check it out, when I'm back. BTW, have I got this right? cygnis insignis 11:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: [2] I can reshoot without much trouble. cygnis insignis 17:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"odd that this wasn't linked"

I meant to say that I picked that up from here. Click on All tab and scroll to the end. There's a few orphans down there with no page links. Moondyne 07:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversation

at self and cygnis talk page needs your perusal - not my rubbish but the marine plant stuff SatuSuro 13:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. "cate for flora by place"? Hesperian 13:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think thats him not me - we are trying to see the best way to create a marine/seagrass art - i had a very peremptory item in a sub page and now there is something astronomically better than it - on his user page - I think you need to get him to verify what he is concerned about - I just wanted to alert you to the issue SatuSuro 13:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have alerted him as such - thanks for that - appreciate it SatuSuro 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC) They? its just mr cygnis so far - my start isnt a mere shadow of his user page :( SatuSuro 14:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Hmm - do you think your other talk item will bite back :( - .... ? SatuSuro 14:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

taxonomy

I was going to ask if an article should go into the cat of its own name, and the suburban subcat (as a suburb), but I fear your answer. Can I suggest you venture into botanical taxonomy instead, by pointing out this? cygnis insignis 00:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the category should go into its own suburban subcategory! Nay, I think your solution is better, at least until such time as we have distinct suburb and city articles. Will do. Hesperian 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Exterminator

Thanks for that - very dodgy bunch on the commons this am :( SatuSuro 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Southern Ocean

FYI, in my recent tweak to Western Australia, I said "we don't debate in articles" in my edit summary. Just so there's no confusion, I meant that the article doesn't use terms like "arguably", not that we as editors shouldn't debate or revise the text. (I wanted to make sure it didn't come across as a comment on our discussion.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently by "we don't debate in articles", you mean "in articles, we should adopt a point of view in debates rather than presenting both sides". Hesperian 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(r. to Hesperian)No, that's not it at all. In the main article, Australia, the ocean is named using the international terminology ("Indian Ocean"), with a footnote clearly describing that the local (i.e. Australian) definition considers it to be the Southern Ocean. It makes sense that other articles about Australia should follow the lead of the main article, and both sides are clearly presented. On the other hand, saying "arguably" seems to suggest that it should be called the Southern Ocean. Again, it seems clear it should follow Australia; one could say "either the Indian or Southern Ocean, depending on definition used" but that sounds clunky. As a parallel, I'd refer you to the discussions over how to describe Pluto, where once again Wikipedia uses the definition of the international body. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted self - I personally think it is a bit more complicated but havent yet found appropriate refs to counter the problem as yet opologies for playing around in your talk page :( SatuSuro 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to this - I would question the reasons as to why geosciences australia and state authorities use it per http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=southern+ocean&placetype=0&state=0 - if that is the case the above is missing the point - the articles indicating and utilising local institutional usage is sufficient - to get lost in should, would and arguably is redundant - the usage imho is the relevant issue - if they are wrong - footnotes can illustrate misuse or errors - not the text of the articles SatuSuro 03:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Off

I am getting off - the rash spreading over my screen with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protected_areas_of_Tasmania&action=history is another cfd i cannot remember seeing being mentioned anywhere and the bloody bot is putting cfd and no date or anything - theyre all cretins - every last one - cheers SatuSuro 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

More secrecy: [3] Hesperian 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BFJA Awards

could you please add BFJA Awards in incert list in Template:Infobox Actor.--Jayanta Nath (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Hesperian 11:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote

Since this problem crops up fairly often, I will set up and maintain some kind of notification system, so that these things don't take us by surprise in future. - any clues beyond something similar to the battery of check thingos i have on my user page for the indonesian project in all its labyrinthian issues ? - or something v different? SatuSuro 13:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The script I use to track the flora of Australia category tree can easily be adapted to list all the categories in the Australia category tree; that's about five minutes work. I'll dump all the categories into a page in my user space, and use Special:RecentChangesLinked to track edits to them. Every now and then I'll have to run it again to update the list. That's the technical bit. The social engineering bit is this: I have a firefox bookmark folder called "daily", which I "open all in tabs" every morning. I'll add the Special:RecentChangesLinked link to it. Despite what you've said at AWNB I don't think category pages get edited very often, and I don't think it will take me more than a couple of minutes per day to check that day's edits for CfD/CfR tags. Hesperian 13:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks very much for explaining that.

BTW - I am v pleased that someone had the intelligence to put actually this on category talk pages (when in edit mode):

Attention It is very unlikely that anyone will view this category talk page to respond to comments or inquiries made here. Please consider visiting the Help desk for a more prompt response or reviewing the Categorization FAQ for quick tips.

That came to mind many times over the last 2 years. Anyways thanks for the explanation and cheers SatuSuro 13:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My script is rolling along now. I had no idea it would take so long, as I didn't realise we had quite so many categories. I'm up to 1300 categories, and I still haven't got past the People of subcategory. I think my favourite so far is Category:Paralympic judoka of Australia. Hesperian 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat delayed by the Category:Military of Australia tree, which contained the entire World War I category tree, the entire World War II category tree, the entire Gulf War category, the entire Vietnam War category.... :-( Hesperian 01:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes trawling our Australian categories is an education in itself (i think going through it should be some sort of lesson of the abject penury of those who create categories and ferociously refuse to tag projects on the category talk pages) - so few have ventured... please alert the final count - it would be appreciated.

In the battle with the dropping out server last night I was trying to think aloud about the categories created that are not tagged - and between swearing at the server down sign and trying to make sense - your script is finding cats that are tied to the cats not the project tags - correct? Its the sneaking suspicion somewhere somehow that there might be cats that by virtue of their identity dont find themselves onto the australian tree - or am I confusing the cat tree with the untagged/tagged talk pages. I blame the rain for the unclear thinking :( SatuSuro 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh hell dont bother to reply - I have just seen your contribs - and realise you have been grappling with the cats - hope the scratch markes are not infectious :( SatuSuro 04:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You see there is fun there - in between the thousands you plod through - there may be one absolute lark on a talk page or a bad spell, or a plaintive request unread for two years :| SatuSuro 05:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Hesperian/Services/Category changes/Australia: one renaming debate found. Hesperian 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the deck got taken away completely - forget the chairs :( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAustralian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board%2FAfD&diff=240839358&oldid=240838171 odd to say the least SatuSuro

Forget the chair and deck, I personally think the ship is lost :( SatuSuro 06:35, 25 September 2008 (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.