User talk:Granitethighs

History of botany
The Talk:History of botany/GA1 page hasn't been created by anyone, so as you can see it's not under review, hence why I removed that; had I not it would have sat there indefinitely with no one picking it up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 12:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of botany
The article History of botany you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:History of botany for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey you... please wake up
Hey... where have you gone Granitethighs? I hope you haven't let that most abysmal "administrator" get to you. You have done some superb work here, way beyond anything he could ever achieve. This stuff is kind of definitive. Don't let one miserable arsehole get in your way. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

GA nominations
Hi Granitethights - I just wanted to let you know that procedures have changed at GAN over the last few months, and now everything on the GAN page is done by bot. To nominate an article, you simply place the GAN template at the top of the talk page, and the page is automatically entered onto the GAN page for you. The bot is removing your entries from the GAN page because there is no template on the talk page. All of the instructions for the new process are found in the instructional boxes at the top of the GAN page, if you wish to know more or need a refresher on the GAN template syntax. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Anselme Riedlé
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Anselme Riedlé, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.freebooknotes.com/wiki/Peter_Good.

It is possible that the bot is confused 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 Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding this article - you are correct that it isn't a copyright violation, but when copying any creative material from one wikipedia article to another (such as the "Other gardener-botanists..." section), you do need to attribute the source of the content as described in Copying within Wikipedia. I've added attribution for this article. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Félix Delahaye
The article Félix Delahaye you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Félix Delahaye for eventual comments about the article. Well done! AGK [&bull; ] 00:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cultivar
The article Cultivar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cultivar for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jez ... and for tidying up around the edges ... and for stepping in for the former assessor.  Granitethighs  23:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on Talk:Sustainability regarding File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif ... see Talk:Individual and political action on climate change
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on Talk:Sustainability regarding File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif (Environment, Society, and Economy relationship Venn diagram) in Sustainability, and indirectly in Individual and political action on climate change (see Talk:Individual and political action on climate change). 99.190.85.150 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.128.35 (talk)
 * See wp:tea 166.137.141.189 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If of continued interest, User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, this time on User Talk:Zodon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 and User talk:OhanaUnited  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics).   99.181.147.187 (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If of interest, more ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_Cities_Climate_Leadership_Group&diff=432283159&oldid=432278426 99.181.140.6 (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It continues, wp:Tea. 99.181.141.69 (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Your account now has autopatrolled rights as per requested by [User:Dadas]] at WP:RFP/A. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User-specified image sizes
Hi Stemonitis - thanks for your interest in the exploration article. I am not much of a user of images and am not sure what "User-specified image sizes" means. Could you please explain on my talk page - thanks.  Granitethighs  09:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See Picture tutorial; basically, readers can choose how large image thumbnails should appear on their screens, but this flexibility is prevented if a fixed width is given. You can use the  parameter to alter the relative sizes of thumbnails (" " on its own is equivalent to " ", if I remember rightly), without overruling the readers preferences for overall thumbnail size. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocean acidification misunderstandings with chemistry, carbon, and the usage of organic and inorganic ...
How do I get an editor who understands the difference between organic (carbon in molecule) and inorganic in Chemistry, and "organic" and inorganic"'s other current means in the article Ocean acidification. Two editors are editing the article inaccurately to say "inorganic carbon cycle", which is impossible as a carbon cycle would have carbon in some molecules.  Is there a list of editors to call-in who understand this?  If you don't know, do you know who might?  99.43.139.176 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How is Notability determined, regarding Talk:Planetary boundaries?
How is Notability determined, regarding Talk:Planetary boundaries? 99.181.140.154 (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmental history
I left a message on the talk page of the Environmental history article concerning its style and structure. As far as I can tell (I'm no Wikipedia expert), you contributed most of the content in the article right now. Your expertise is evident, and it appears you've already put a lot of work into it, so I think you would be the right person to improve the article.

Incidentally, I have no expert knowledge of environmental history at all - I stumbled on the article while reading Donald Worster's "Nature's Economy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.170.15 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I got through "Development of the subject". Some of the deleted material from the introduction could be re-incorporated elsewhere. In general the two biggest problems with the article are that it cites a few scholars over and over (Worster Nash and Hughes especially), and that it stinks of the academy. Including direct quotes from the same people eventually gives diminishing returns, especially since their verbiage to content ratio is pretty high. Unlike a term paper, this article does not need to be a certain length - the difficulty is to take the cushioning out and shift the genre to Wikipedia w/o losing content.

Anyway, please give feedback, and do with my changes what you like. I will try to come back later and work on the rest if this process improves the article. Also, all but the most important of the "seminal works" should probably end up on a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.170.15 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lord Howe Island
I see you've been doing lots of good work on the Lord Howe Island article. It may not be of any help, but I thought I'd mention that I'm compiling a list of the Lord Howe biota on one of my subpages User:99of9/LordHowe. (My plan is to take photos of some of these species when I go to the Island next year). It's amazing how many redlinks there are. --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It was an easy call, it's a very solid B already.  You've also done well with the photography.  Those are the kind of pics I was hoping to get, I'm glad the article didn't have to wait until I go next year.  They're the encyclopedic range of photos you only get when an active wikipedian visits a place.  Can I request that you categorize under Category:Lord Howe Island when you upload in Commons?  I'll be happy to give some comments when you're ready to go for GA. --99of9 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Some comments based on reading --99of9 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC) :

section 1:

 * Giving both the common name and scientific name of each plant/animal looks a bit ugly. If there is a wiki page, I'd suggest linking to it with only the common name.  If there is no page, I suppose it's worth being specific with both (is there convention on this?)
 * Take some detailed numerical figures out of the lead? Put some history into the lead? This is a good point but the statistics seem important in the lead and there does seem to be the convention of using both metric and other standards in the lead seems WP convention. I also agree about the history but the lead iis aready possibly sjightly too long so I am not sure what to leave out. I welcome suggestions.
 * "The island was uninhabited and unkwown..." could come before details of the European arrival.✅
 * Move the White Gallinule image up into the section where early watercolour sketches are discussed?✅
 * "In the 1850s vessels avoided the mainland as crews would abandon ship for the goldfields" it took me a little while to comprehend this. Perhaps "In the 1850s vessels avoided the mainland where crewmembers may abandon ship for the goldfields"?✅
 * "As well as George Campbell (who died in 1856) and Jack Brian (who left the island in 1854), the third, Nathan Thompson, brought three women from the Gilbert Islands, Botanga, Bogoroo and a girl named Bogue." was unclear to me. Are Botanga and Bogoroo places or women's names?  Was Bogue included in your count of three women?✅
 * "From 1860 to 1872 forty-three ships had collected provisions, but from 1873 to 1887 there were fewer than a dozen" This sentence occurs twice in section 1.4.✅
 * "With Bowie was a team of scientists" Who is Bowie? You just mentioned John Wilson as the guy who was sent out.✅

Section 2:

 * Reads well, but the wikilinking looks a little odd. Yes, there's very few now but none seem to be appropriate. ✅

Section 3:

 * More info is available from the ABS and could be useful in expanding this ✅
 * "there was a suspension of games and labour" What does this mean?  I presume it's referring to Sunday sabbath-observance.  Adding "(on Sundays)" might help.✅

Section 4

 * "the most popular decorative palm in the world distributed by the Lord Howe Island Kentia Palm Nursery". Huh?  The most popular of all decorative palms?  Or only those distributed by LHIKPN?  Surely the latter title is not hard to achieve.✅
 * "a dry atmosphere and low – ideal for indoor conditions". Low what?✅

Cultivated plant taxonomy
I reduced the number of columns in the references section from 5 to 2 because it makes it much easier to read at normal window widths and doesn't take up any more vertical space. Most references sections only use one column, but since these have been abbreviated well, two columns works. With more columns than that, many of the items are broken up so much that it's really hard to follow. -- Nonenmac (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Franz Boos
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Franz Boos, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.surfingincognito.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2VuLndpa2lwZWRpYS5vcmcvd2lraS9Vc2VyOkdyYW5pdGV0aGlnaHMvU2FuZGJveA%3D%3D.

It is possible that the bot is confused 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 Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Turnabout
Thank you for your kind words. I always appreciate getting a barnstar, and yes, you do have all the required authority to award one. If you go to this page, you just select the one you want and then copy what appears in the "What to type" column. Then paste it on the user's talk page, substituting whatever message you want for the word "message." Et voila! Sunray (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And thank you for the barnstar. It is much appreciated. Perhaps we should resume work on getting the article to FA status. I'm fairly busy at the moment, but hope to have more free time soon. What is your timing like? Sunray (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on Sustainability.
Thank you for checking on Sustainability. (",) 99.181.130.125 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No Thank you for changing Sustainability.
You did injustice by reverting my additions to the article on Sustainability. The article implies that sustainability is only in regards to environmental sciences. This is totally incorrect. Sustainability is actually a major part of DoD acquisition programs to assure that a technical system has a maximal life-cycle - that once designed, it remains in production and operations for a maximum amount of time consistent with cost-effective practices. Nothing lasts forever, not even in environmental sciences. To suggest that sustainability is only relevant to environmental sciences does not do justice to the definition or the practice. Even sustainability in regard to the biological and life sciences comes at a cost - environments today are engineered whether you like it or not. I am an subject matter expert in the field of sustainability engineering.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Botanical garden
Hi Granitethighs,

Is see the last couple of months, you have made many edits to Botanical garden, no doubt to improve it. I have been away from Wikipedia a long time, but I notice from the dates these only started in May. Now I am kinda back and as usual I humbly submit to you that if you need a second pair of eyes, i.e. constructive criticism, I would be glad to help out there or anywhere else.

I am very proud of the work we did together on this article, you as the lead and me as the devil's advocate. It looks much better for it, I think. So if I can fill that role again I would be happy to. Off the back of it, I also translated some botanist and botanical articles from French to English Wikipedia - sometimes only as stubs but at least better than nothing. It was a pleasure to do the major edit you did together with you, with someone who realises that criticism is constructive and not destructive, even though the perils of putting conversational style (in Talk) while doing it in a written style (er, writing) sometimes makes it seems harsher than intended. You did a bloody good job there and I am glad, I hope, I could lend a little support if only as a devil's advocate. It would be a pleasure to do so again.

My best wishes Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for yours. I am struggling in user space with voguéo, which is taking me far longer than it should. Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability FA
Hi GT: Further to our recent exchange, here are a few preliminary thoughts about further improving the "Sustainability" article. The first thing that struck me was when I began to prepare a reply to IP 96.244.247.130. I thought that some of his criticisms were easily answered in the article. For example, his point about "infinite [sic] sustainability" was dealt with in several ways in the in the (longer) article that we had peer reviewed, back in the day. The IP said: "... the economic and engineering analysis of such manufactured technology tends to be ignored. Sustainability must consider life-cycle, for everything has a beginning and an end. Infinite sustainability is only a fantasy." I guess he means "ultimate" sustainability. We did address this with reference to the laws of thermodynamics (and the Natural Step as a way to apply those laws to the problematic of sustainability). We also referred to life cycle analysis (which represents an even more practical way to address it). But those references are no longer in the main article. So when the IP refers to "political purposes", he is making an interesting observation. If one reads all of the subarticles, it seems clear that we have covered all those bases. However, the main article now contains only the a synthesis--which may easily be construed as "political," simply because there is no evidence, nor countervailing viewpoints, expressed.

I also wanted to mention the recent addition to the article by Dyname42 (talk • contribs on "Sustainability ethics," which I reverted. I've had an exchange with him on my talk page here. He is a PhD student from Michigan pursuing a doctorate in philosophy with an emphasis on environmental philosophy and agrarian ethics. I've invited him to discuss his proposed addition on the article talk page and mentioned that we are talking about a drive for FA status. In his proposed addition, he states: "... while sustainability has become a prominent topic and popular buzz word within the past two decades, there is little consensus on it's exact meaning." I had thought that we had also dealt with this, but perhaps it too is not apparent to readers with the current iteration of the article.

I'm trying to look at the article from the perspective of readers and raters, maintaining a beginners mind. Sunray (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries
Would you mind looking at planetary boundaries, and assessing whether you think it has a place in the sustainability article. Thanks.--Epipelagic (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A point of information about some recent edits you will have noticed: this editor, as you will see if you examine his edit history, is a dedicated POV pusher who (for what reasons I have no idea because he has never offered a rational reason) is determined to suppress any mention of planetary boundaries or safe operating boundaries on Wikipedia. Apparently this is part of a wider pattern, and another editor has already suggested an RfC may be the only way out. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lord Howe Island
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Lord Howe Island you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Night w   23:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your patience and effort during the review. I'll do a thorough check for grammar and sourcing issues today and then pass it once finished.  Night w   04:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, likewise. The credit stays with you and 99of9, given the time and effort you both invested. Thanks for sticking with it!  Night w   16:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional characters ... pending deletion
Hello,

You may be interested in the discussion regarding deleting a list article regarding fictional Carpenters. You have in the past created a List of surname Spencer. I created a list of real and fictional Carpenter because other editors/admins told me to do so from the Carpenter surname page. Now others want to delete it. I was happy with the way it was and would be happy to merge the fictional Carpenters with the list of surname Carpenters. Any input, pro or con would be welcome.

See: List_of_fictional_characters_with_surname_Carpenter

Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you for your contributions to Talk:Sustainability and Sustainability. :-)  See WP:Tea  99.109.125.146 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Trade designations/Selling names
I think that the section is now clearer and I've included an example with small capitals, as per the ICNCP. I find explaining legalistic codes like this clearly but yet accurately to be difficult, so please keep checking anything I write there! Thanks. Peter coxhead (JeromRP (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)ser talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 10:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you...
find out how many hits per day an article receives? --Greenmaven (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It is actually 'page view statistics' not 'hits' - but I found it. This will greatly add to my interest in articles. Best wishes --Greenmaven (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Botanical garden / Physic garden
Hello. Saw your note and revert. I've ce the new article to avoid duplicity in wording. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sustainability
Hello. Sorry, but von Carlowitz was indeed in relation with the word "sustainability" (Nachhaltigkeit). There is quite a common agreement on that. --JeromRP (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Bambusa vulgaris
I took the article on Bambusa vulgaris to a peer review here. Would you take a look and advice on improvement? Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TopicTOC-Sustainability
Template:TopicTOC-Sustainability has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Illia Connell (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Help me
What is going on?  Granitethighs  07:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A user has nominated the template for deletion based on its lack of use and, well, you can read the nomination yourself at Templates for discussion. If you oppose, you need to comment there, explaining why the template should be kept. To inform the main part of the rationale, that it's unused, please see WP:TFD, where a basis for deletion is stated as:
 * "The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used."
 * So you might explain why it does have a likelihood of being used, or otherwise should be kept.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK it seemed quite usefulatthe time - suppose it had better go.  Granitethighs   10:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on Sustainability
Regarding, didn't you already resolve this issues a year ago? It seems to have come-up in regards to and Wealth edits. 99.181.132.75 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of sustainability
I guess you have noticed that I spilt out the Bibliography of sustainability. Any thoughts? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
jmanooch 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Common names
Hi Granitethighs. If you have recovered sufficiently from the inexcusable flurry of gross attacks you had to endure from an incompetent user, it would be really good if you renewed your engagement with the article on common name. It is a tricky, but important area, difficult to source, and you seem as equipped as much as anyone else, certainly far more than your pathetic detractor, to contribute here to what is potentially an important article. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please help a little with the horticulture of Buckinghamia (genus)
G’day R. r r (in very small case!) from J.S. (easy to google and also find in history)!

Please come in here and help us just a little with the horticulture of Buckinghamia. Less than 100 additional good words will get the article where It is intended to get linked in a hook line of words in the "Did you know" (DYK) section of the main page. Now any number more good words will be very welcome.

I confirmed today from history—after V. hinted "!" years ago—how did i not guess and not confirm via history until now?!—… …, that we know each other. We’re old MEL contacts, in the sense that we know each other from the late 1980s, when i spent a lot of time, a bit like WP, doing a major graphic communication final high school year assignment on all the Australian native rainforest plants of the gardens and designing, at a high school standard, a walk through all the individual trees, shrubs and vines there. I was also inspired by the rainforest plants walk then already well established in Sydney botanic gardens. In MEL i was checked up on by D.A. and sometimes yourself, if i recall. At the moment i’m learning the forest in the Wet Tropics (capitals!!! :) ).

Anyway, i'd really like you to help a little please, on Buckinghamia horticultural interests. When they were first used horticulturally, in Australia, if possible please? When first used in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane botanic gardens, and of course further afield in parks, gardens, streets and other government lands, etc., please? ——--macropneuma 09:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC) —updating, correcting and clarifying my previous words—--macropneuma 02:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Botanical biographies in Rees's Cyclopaedia
Hullo, I have been working for some while on the Rees's Cyclopaedia pages, and am just now compiling a list of the biographies of botanists. I have just noted the various lists of botanists of the period you have compiled, and don't want to conflict with anything you might have in the pipeline. I originally aimed to list the lives written by James Edward Smith taken from his wife's book about him, but on comparing that list with my copy of the original work I find its not accurate in that a great many names are missing, so its been a case of working through the work page by page - and trying not to get too side-tracked!!. It will be several weeks before it gets posted, though. Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

An old edit
Hi, I've just fixed an old problem caused by this edit in Systema Naturae. As the paragraph stood, an IP editor has I think correctly observed that the second sentence was, despite the citation, a copyvio. I've named and wikilinked Stearn and added quotes and the page number. Just thought you should know. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Nomenclature
Category:Nomenclature, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fgnievinski (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Ten years old edit
I've been purging my sins by expunging instances of "maily" which are in the main "mainly", but then came across Pierre-Paul_Saunier, specifically Pierre-Paul_Saunier. Do you think that there "maily" was probably supposed to be "family" ? Shenme (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Shenme - thanks for spotting this - yes, please change to 'family'.
 * PS is your name derived from the Chinese Shenme - 'What?' Regards Granitethighs  Granitethighs   02:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

External links to avoid
Hello, I saw that in your recent edits, you added external links to the website "https://plantspeopleplanet.org.au" to various articles, for example here and here. From what I can tell, all these edits violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID. It might be best if you removed these external links again. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Phisph7 - the WP conditions concerning External Links seem complex and convoluted. Would you outline your concerns as succinctly as possible please?  Granitethighs   11:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I moved your response here to keep the conversation together. The general point is that external links should be used very sparsely, i.e. one should only use one if there is a really good reason to, not just because something on this or a similar topic is discussed there. Some of the points relevant to your edits from the list of links to avoid are:
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page.
 * 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
 * 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to be difficult, but I do need a little more justification for your recommendation. The links I added were not made lightly but (1) from a conviction that they would be of interest to the reader and enhance the information provided in the article. I will present a case for each if that is what you want. (2) the site plantspeopleplanet, it is true, is a site that I maintain but I am, I would also claim, a recognized authority both within the field that the web site covers, and within Wikipedia itself - you could examine the web site more closely to form your opinion - and also my Wikipedia home page which, I believe, speaks for itself in terms of my 'notability criteria' and editing history (3) the additions I have made I believe are directly related to the subject of the article, so I see no problem here. There could be issues in relation to 'a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject' but it might be best to discuss this on a case by case basis  Granitethighs 
 * "plantspeopleplanet.org.au" seems to be a personal website by someone named "Roger Spencer". He claims to be from Australia, just like you. If it is you, this would raise various other problems like WP:COI. Since so many links to this website originated from you, this falls under WP:LINKSPAM. This website is not very well known and is not a reliable source of information. The external links you added do not qualify for the high requirements for external links described at External links. I think the case here is very clear. The best way forward would be for you to go ahead and remove the links. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to run this website, you should disclose this on your user page and you should avoid adding external links to your website because your behavior clearly violates WP:COI. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My intention, as always, has been to make Wikipedia the best possible resource for its users. The web site is indeed my own - if you consider this a COI then please remove the links you consider inappropriate.


 * Alright, I'll go ahead with the removal. Thanks for your understanding. Phlsph7 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Glad you've reached agreement. Granitethighs, you must be quite well-read on the topics you've blogged. The sources you used will very probably contain much that is useful and relevant and that can be cited reliably. I do hope you'll use that reading to improve Wikipedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Horticultural botany


The article Horticultural botany has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The subject does not appear to be notable. Internet searches failed to find significant coverage of horticultural botany in reliable independent sources, and the article itself has never had a single citation."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Averixus (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)