User talk:Hesperian/Archive 43

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.

Binomial sorting

Background options

Sorting by DEFAULTSORT/PAGENAME

There are two problems with this, one systemic, one ephemeral

1. bunching of most or all of the category under one letter
2. While the addition of case insensitive sorts is underway this may break sortorder

Both these problems are shown at Category_talk:Abies

However in general categories this is the appropriate sort order: see for example Category:Onions

Sorting by specific epithet

The option of sorting categories of binomials by the second part of the name is a useful one: the benefit is that

• categories a broken down: instead of having all items under one letter (though correctly ordered) they are under the letter of the specific epithet: [[1] is a slightly imperfect example.

The draw-back is that items which belong in the category under a non-specific key are mixed with those that have one.

Sorting by lower-case specific epithet

This enables species and varieties names to be sorted in a separate cascade from common names, lists, main articles, sub-families etc. An example is at [2]

1. Problem: if large categories contain many "normal" keys then the species will be hidden:
   • Solution at this point split the category, as has been done with Banksia

Additional notes

To add an article under one or more names that are distinct from the article name, create a redirect with that name and categorise it appropriately. It may still use DEFAULTSORT and/or individual category sort-keys to order that name as the editors see fit.

Proposed solution

1. Sort in binomial categories by lowercase specific epithet where possible
2. Sort in all other categories by the pagename or default-sort, or category specific sorts (for example top-sorting List of, removing "Flora of" from state articles in cat:Flora of US, etc..)
3. Migrate to canonical DEFAULTSORT as is being done across WP: starting at the beginning of the alphabet. This will mean that no ordering that is not already broken will be broken, and those that are broken will be fixed.

• I would take care of 1, where an explicit category sort order has not already been set (and will look at lower-casing those with a hard-coded title-case specific sort order).
• I would take care of 3, where no default has been set, and in when it is a casing change.
• 2. is part of ongoing maintenance.

Can you clarify "migrate to canonical DEFAULTSORT as is being done across WP" please? I dispute that a "canonical DEFAULTSORT" exists, and would be very disturbed to discover that it is already being rolled out across WP. This "canonical DEFAULTSORT" issue is the only problem I see here, and it is a big one. At this point I haven't seen any cogent rationale for capitalising specific epithets in the DEFAULTSORT. Hesperian 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK the evidence that it is widely being used is in the Abies talk page. Approximately half of them had the case-insensitive defaultsort. I have yet to see why this creates a problem, except in the transition. (The alternative approach, which I guess I would have favoured if anyone had asked me, would have been to put those capitals after the first letter, in titles, to lower-case - however since this was contrary to how proper names are sorted I suppose it did not occur to anyone.) Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

You consider a single category evidence that something "is being done across WP"?

I think what actually happened is that someone added this "canonical" defaultsort idea to a guideline somewhere, and Rjwilmsi picked up on it and did one of his big bot runs, as a result of which the guideline was challenged and the "canonical" defaultsort bit removed. Rjwilmsi then stopped making these changes, but it would seem that he stopped too late. The proposal now has a life of its own: it must be the right thing to do because it is already half done! I think not.

I suspect we are talking past each other because you presume that the DEFAULTSORT should implement a case insensitive sort order, and therefore we need only agree upon the particular mechanism. Whereas I do not even agree with the starting premise. Why must we impose a case insensitive default category sort order upon every article? What is the rationale? I guess it might be based on the assumption that the majority of categories are better sorted this way. Possibly that is true. But if the majority of taxon categories are better with a case-sensitive sort, then there's no point imposing a case-insensitive default on all these taxon articles, right?

Hesperian 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me two taxon articles which would be sorted differently with a case-insensitive sort? (Either from an "ideal" perspective or from leaving them as they are.) I am completely missing what the problem is here. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Not offhand, no. But if it doesn't make a difference, then why make all those changes? I'm still wondering why you think every category on Wikipedia should have a case-insensitive sort by default. That's a huge assumption, and a sweeping generalisation, and hardly something that should be decided by a single person who likes to do big AWB runs. Hesperian 05:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Banksia Boring Moth and Banksia borealis. Hesperian 07:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

• Category:Acacia aneura shows that "var. " needs to be removed from the sort order if it would be the leading part. What else needs removing like this?

• "subsp.", per Category:Banksia integrifolia. Also "ssp.", an alternative form of "subsp." that we prefer not to use.
• I don't know if examples exist yet, but the same situation applies to all other intraspecific ranks: "subvar.", "f." and "subf."
• The infrageneric ranks: "subg.", "sect.", "subsect.", "ser." and "subser." per Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name; e.g. Banksia ser. Abietinae should sort under "A" not "s".
• The "×" symbol; e.g. Acer × zoeschense should be in Category:Acer under "z" not "×".
• The ' and " symbols per cultivars like Corymbia 'Summer Red', which should be under "S" not "'"

Hesperian 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that I have added + and a few others, I think. But they are all exceeding rare. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Talk:Common name

Hi,

As your note about edit-warring on this talk page is immediately following my comment, it rather looks like you are referring to me. Could you perhaps tweak it a little to make the subject of your comment explicit? Thanks.—Ash (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I posted in the wrong section. Thanks, fixed. Hesperian 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Banksia prionotes

Am flattered that you'd ask. Been a bit busy but will check it out in next day or so. –Moondyne 02:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mintrick

Please read User talk:Casliber#Mintrick and the section of my user talk page that it in turn links to. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

hey, I'm having trouble with this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mintrick

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.55.127 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tryall (East Indiaman)

Why did you object to the move of "Tryall" to "Tryall (East Indiaman)"? I tend to favor consistency in naming vessels as many vessels belonging to different categories may have the same name. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Because everyone else on Wikipedia favours not disambiguating titles unless it is necessary to do so. Hesperian 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not true for Royal Navy ships or US navy ships, which all have their name modified by their date of acquisition or a pennant, even when there is only one vessel by that name.Acad Ronin (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Monitor. HMS Queen Mary. The first two I looked at falsified your claim. Hesperian 00:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

True. I should have said "generally". Even in the area where I am mostly working, Royal Navy warships of the Napoleonic Era, those of in the area have not converted all the vessels to the common standard. That doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea and that we aren't working towards that end. I would think that the idea of a consistent disambiguating approach is particularly relevant to the "Tryall" as it conveys information in a case where there is some ambiguity in the name of the vessel as the article points out in its opening sentence. Also, the first reference uses a variant name, "Trial". Acad Ronin (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If indeed "we" are working towards pre-disambiguating all ship titles according to a common standard, then oughtn't Step One be to update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)? Hesperian 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "we" referred to people working on the Napoleonic Era Royal Navy ships. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) also says: "If there is only one article for a given ship name, you should still pre-emptively disambiguate it, creating a redirect from the plain name". There were at least two vessels named HMS Trial that I am aware off, though no articles exist. Besides, one can always costlessly ignore extra information, but perhaps for someone looking for the "Tryall", pre-emptively disambiguating could save them some search effort. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there were two ships named "HMS Trial" is irrelevant; this Tryall was not one of His Majesty's Ships. As far as I can tell, you are not arguing that you are applying the standard naming convention; you are arguing that your preferred naming convention is a great idea and ought to be accepted as the standard. That discussion should be had at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), not here. Hesperian 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Banksia P and North Is

Is this a sign of a permanent return to FAC :) ???? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, mate. I enjoy taking articles 99% of the way. The last 1% is not so much fun, and I tend not to get around to it unless I have someone like Cas to give me a shove every now and then.

And the FAC process seems not as effective as it used to be.

Hesperian 05:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I can help. I've been renovating old Australia FAs (at FAR or preemptively) YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Banksia sessilis....Banksia menziesii.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm mostly underemployed because of the 1 FAC at a time rule until you get 2 supports. Nobody ever reads my FACs so I often wait 20 days for two supports, and there's a big backlog that I've copyedited and are waiting :( :( It sucks writing about stuff nobody is interested in (or maybe I pissed them off personally) YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of that rule. I'm in breach, since B. p. still only has one.

I can't understand what has happened to FAC since I was there last. I feel these articles are being bikeshedded rather than reviewed. I never thought I would have anything good to say about GA, but Sasata's GA review of B. p. was bloody good. It was what I would expect from a FAC review, not these trivial MOS conformance checks.... Pardon me, I'm feeling a little disillusioned. Hesperian 23:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well last year, if I got an article to 1-0, I nominated a second because mine were taking too slow; multiple times no complaint. This year I did it and got told off, so have wiated for the second since then, though if you don't get reprimanded, all power to you. Having said that, the complaint came when I nominated two cricket articles, so maybe that's why they didn't notice. Well the thing is that FAC standards have risen a lot, so I can't see many FACs with a flagrant violation of comprehensiveness etc that a topic outsider can see, so it's pretty much up to an insider to own up to any content faults. In the last 8 or so Australian FARs, teh non-Aus nominator only complained about no refs and not content, but after teh books were consulted, many comprehensiveness issues were discovered. I can take care of MOS for you. I'ts pretty straightforward. Seems like cricket jargon scares everyone off on my part, apart from maybe other issues.... YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. There are two of us on the nomination ticket for Banksia prionotes so I think that is another reason for some slack to be cut. People will turn up - the slowness is more pronounced at esoteric articles, other more core ones are getting quite a bit of input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not going to holler about too many Australian FACs. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I try to read some other folks' in the meantime. Or do something fun and uplifting Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh...Sandy likes to say there's karma; if you review other people's stuff they review yours. Maybe only if you pass their stuff.... YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it's in your realm, I think Fauna of Australia is a sitting duck for FAR and it's only a matter of time :( YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Hesperian/Archive 41#Flora of Australia. ;-) Hesperian 03:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the broad ones can be difficult because there is so much detail that needs to be distilled and so forth, and a rank outsider can easily create something topsy-turvy. It's easier to work from leaves to the trunk but that can take years; Ngo Dinh Diem still nowhere while stacks of subarticles are being put together. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, simply referencing what is there shouldn't be hard for a person in the FF field. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. my comment above: "I can't understand what has happened to FAC since I was there last. I feel these articles are being bikeshedded rather than reviewed.", I think it is about time I ate some humble pie. The process started off with people scoring quick points on stuff like alt text and minor MOS issues. Then there was a lull, and I thought "what, that's it?!" But eventually the reviews started coming in: good, solid, thorough reviews; reviews of a quality that only comes from dedicated and experienced reviewers investing serious time and effort in the articles. I was wrong. Hesperian 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well they aren't cheap shots, just that MOS and alt text can be dealt with in a set and mechanical way efficiently, so people do it systematically. Hope to see more of you around then YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The quick and easy stuff is bound to happen before the hard stuff. It was stupid for me to think otherwise. Hesperian 02:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort

"But if the majority of taxon categories are better with a case-sensitive sort, then there's no point imposing a case-insensitive default on all these taxon articles, right?"

Thing is the taxon categories are getting their own sort key. What would be happening is imposing case-sensetive sort on other cats. Rich Farmbrough, 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

... which are equally capable of getting their own sort key. The point is that this is the default. You want to roll out a policy that any category without a defined sort should be assumed as having a case-insensitive sort. That is what I object to.

I think this should be discussed on the guideline talk page. The two of us do not suffice to make a decision here, even if we were capable of agreeing. Hesperian 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Noise

No wonder there is so much noise on my watchlist. Check out the history of Joshua Gregory. Since I created it in September 2005, the story of its "improvement" goes like this: dab a link; fix a typo; fix a category (bot); add a category; dab a link; add persondata; unicodify; fix a link; fix an ISBN (bot); add a DEFAULTSORT; tweak a citation template call (bot); vandalise article; clumsily remove vandalism, along with all references and categories; tag as uncategorised (bot); add unreferenced category (bot); remove uncategorised tag (bot); add uncategorised tag (bot); remove uncategorised tag (bot); add uncategorised tag (bot); revert to version with references and categories. The result: 21 edits for this. What have we become? Hesperian 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen many pages with histories similar. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

recovery session

Yeah, needed a session or two in rehab as well. I been busi outside of wiki working. Did you get the email on that abrohollis book that was just released? Gnangarra 02:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sorry I didn't reply. If need to learn to reply to emails straight away, because if I don't reply straight away, its gets buried under more emails and I never see it again. It is one of several reasons I now have to pay Mr Battye a visit. Hesperian 04:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

North Island

Hi there - I was just lookign up WP:CITE for another FAC discussion, and came across the following: "If you are quoting from, paraphrasing, or referring to a specific passage of a book or article, you should if possible also cite the page number(s) of that passage." I'm not going to raise it at the FAC, but some of the North Island geology material at least is based on particular paragraphs in Late Tertiary-Quaternary geological evolution of the Houtman Abrolhos carbonate platforms, northern Perth Basin. You may wish to revise the citation(s) to identify page numbers, possibly by switching to the footnote / biblio system, such as used here. It can be a bit of a pain - I've just gone through a tedious restructure of the refs at Great Southern Group, to avoid future objections at FAC on these grounds. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this approach works really well when you are citing a few sources many times over, but on different pages. It is a bit annoying when you are citing each source approximately once, but every citation gets broken into two for no benefit.

But you're quite right that it should be possible to give a citation that provides both the page range of the chapter, and the specific page of the cited material. It should be possible to do that without completely separating the references from the footnotes. I wonder how you do that.... Hesperian 11:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Clade

I noticed that you have been involved in the debugging of Template:Clade in the past. In case you miss it, would you be able to take a look at my newly posted question at Template talk:Clade, especially if no one else answers? –Visionholder (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

G'day. Replied. Hesperian 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry, I'm not familiar with this syntax. Last question (posted on the talk page) is how to do alignment. After that, I should be set. –Visionholder (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted unread. Whatever you have to say to me can be said in public or not at all. Hesperian 14:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I already said those things in public, but you just verified that your actions are only here to be hostile and not to have a true discussion. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt I verified whatever it is you want to think. Hesperian 14:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		to Hesperian, for Wikipedia:WikiProject Banksia/Sequences...'nuff said :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Are you going to join in? Hesperian 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked

I'm really very disappointed with your response. It shows a complete lack of understanding. My intention was to withdraw my nomination because of the overwhelming strong keep!! Flattering is not on? That was COMPLETELY not my intention, I genuinely was trying to withdraw my nomination and "no consensus to delete" I thought was formally the way of saying keep. I tried to withdrew the nomination and cited the reasons why, I also retracted my statements to avoid further conflict. Then the belligerent person you are you have to NOT ONLY OVERIDE WHAT I HAD DONE, but you had the nerve to report me at ANI completely unnecessarily for doing the decent thing and withdrawing my nomination. I withdrew my nomination or that was what was intended and I spoke to orderinchaos to try to settle the situation rationally without the hostility. I have a right to withdraw my nomination, and your bad faith after this clearly shows you enjoy conflict and are a disgrace to your project for not actually seeing I was trying to work with you and not against you. You ought to be stripped of your admin tools for sheer lack of civility and understanding of good faith.

If you had kindly asked me I would have changed it to strong keep and to whatever it was that made it a withdrawal not a closure! I believed no consensus to delete meant keep. I really am very confused as to how you thought it was trying to be flattering. The obvious result was strong keep. It was my nomination and I have a right to withdraw what I say and the nomination. I was actually trying to do the decent thing and end the conflict. What you've done in the last few hours illustrates to me you are keen to continue a conflict which was settled yesterday. The ANI report was completely inappropriate and I clearly made abig effort to appease the sitation yesterday and would have been happy to alter it to strong keep. Really extremely disappointed. Himalayan 08:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It was intended to be a withdrawal so that it was it should be. The reasons are plainly obvious anyway. Please don't further cause conflict over this when I had actually tried to do the decent thing and withdraw my statements and nomination yesterday. I don't need to be overridden with a closure by an admin which looks on the records as if I didn't try to appease the situation and understand the concerns. I accepted their concerns, and I should be given credit for that and withdrawing not being overridden because I didn't withdraw it properly. I withdrew my comments withint the discussion (whihc I have a right to do) because I didn't want to create an further ill feeling or misunderstanding about my concerns. I am disappointed with the lack of good faith over this, particularly by you. I certainly was not trying to flatter anything, it was a resounding strong keep plain and simple. I do have feelings... You've upset me because I accpeted your concerns and tried to withdraw but you misread my intentions completely. I even sent you a nice cold beer at the Aussie noticeboard to show I had good intentions but I really feel you went too far with this than needed. Himalayan 09:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't report you to ANI. Hesperian 10:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, well I'm not happy with what took place last night. I had genuinely intende dto withdraw as an obvious keep and tried to correct the situation today with a speedy keep. I think it was blatatnly obvious that the template was going to be speedily kept I actually looked at another kept TFD Greek dimos and tried to emulate it. I believed "no census to delete" was the formal requirement of saying keep. If you'd ask me I'd have happily turned it to speedy keep because I was so keen to end the conflict and try to move on to discussing it rationally without the conflicting comments. The thing is closure by another party so soon if it isn't a self withdrawal is not usual done on here, usually nominations are allowed to last a week to give a fair turn out. I think the decent thing to do would have been to ask me to kindly withdraw it with a speedy keep and address your concern in exactly the same way I should have address my concerns with the template at the AUS noticeboard with you all first. I do believe we have all assumed bad faith over this and I'm sorry that I initially caused anger by the TFD. But please lets try to discuss the existing template together and not be like this. I was quite shocked to see that my withdrawal wasn't enough. I was trying to do the right thing. Why is it nobody ever seems to want to respond to me when I have good things to say but people will respons to negative things. I tried to clearly indicate I meant well last night when I posted a beer at your noticeboard as a peace offering, what has happened since has upset me. Himalayan 13:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if my injecting some levity into this seems disrespectful but ... Hesperian has a noticeboard? :) I think the matter *is* largely over from most perspectives - we are working together on this now, the past can be left there and that is what is important. I had hoped to look at the map this evening but I'm dead tired so will do it in the morning instead. Orderinchaos 13:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well plain and simple, I think my "no consensus to delete" (meaning keep) was misinsterpreted as simply "no consensus", that was what caused the latest problem. Well I think the TFD spoke for itself that is it is clear there was a resounding speedy keep!!! and I did try to affirm this today, shame I wasn't here last night to say actually affirm that "no consensus to delete" means literally keep, in the strongest way. As I do not make a habit of nominations as much as it may seem of late, I was not aware of the correct way to withdraw. Keeping it simple I just want to see a good quality svg map within the templates which is very easy to add plain coordinates too and map! Phew.... Himalayan 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your email, and the above. I think the nomination was a very bad idea, and people got pissed off and mistrustful of you. You then did what you could to sort out the issues and re-engage more constructively. But it was too late; many of us were suspicious by then, and interpreted everything you did suspiciously. I apologise for my part in that. Hesperian 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks for understanding. Regards. The maps look good in the Aussie infobox anyway... Himalayan 11:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Actually Sandy just moves them from the main FAC listings page to the log page and the FA listing page and then the bot adds the start and does the one by one archiving, although we can just add the start without waiting for the bot to do it for you YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks and thanks (for updating the board, for letting me know, and for the "well done" ;-) Hesperian 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for another FA! Melburnian (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats :) Aaroncrick (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And you'll be back soon no doubt! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, now to strike while the iron is hot...for Banksia cuneata, Banksia sessilis or Banksia menziesii or something else? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting/archive1

Hi sir, I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "Number 18 is out of date order, or the date is wrong." Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Very clumsy. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to delete all that from the FLC discussion if you want. I should have put it on the talk page or your talk page. It adds nothing to the FLC. Or I can remove it if you want. Hesperian 00:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Needn't matter. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Hesperian 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

It appears to have undergone some crazed denial-of-service attack. ;) I've been revisited by hundreds of ghosts of stubs past. Melburnian (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2009 (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.