User talk:Hesperian/Archive 39


 * 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.

Jack
Has been awol for longer than usual - maybe the balinese heat has got to him

dont worry about your sanity - just check out my and graham87's talk pages to see we are further gone than you mate :( SatuSuro 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

has answered at his talk and has confirmed he is not around much this month SatuSuro

You might have thought you saw something here
And you'd have been right, it turns out I can't count. (If you don't know what this is about, don't for the love of god look at the history) :P &mdash; neuro  (talk)  11:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tee hee. :-) Hesperian 11:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

over due
Nov. Holl. Pl. is up, though it needs some attention. There is an interesting line on an early use of 'Australia' to refer to the continent, but Hopper's wording contradicts the article on Smith and Sowerby's 1793 work and the etymology section of Australia. Any thoughts on this first, someone could DYK it with a push. cygnis insignis 12:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Overdue indeed; an excellent choice for your attention. I would gladly defect to the French (or is it Latin?) Wikisource if only I could find an online scan. Oh how I've searched. Nor BHL nor Google nor archive.org nor Gallica nor Real Jardin Botanico have it. Still I keep searching every few weeks, even though I already know I won't find it. Hesperian 13:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Something's wrong; I keep trying to create the redirect from Novae Hollandiae plantarum specimen but it keeps redirecting me. ;-) What the hell happened to your policy of attracting editors by leaving loose ends?! Hesperian 13:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked too, sigh, perhaps everyone is embarrassed by his post-revolutionary sneakiness in consorting with the enemy. I'm guessing the French WS will be home to it, luckily this is another language I pretend to speak. There is a reprint with an english intro from 1966ish, so a scan is potentially available. Do you think the library would mind if I jammed one through a fax machine? I thought about moving the page over the redirect, whatev..., thanks for the boost. I wonder if it's long enough? cygnis insignis 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You've lost me there. I'm no expert but I was under the impression that he wore his heart on his sleeve politically speaking.
 * By the way, did you know he was involved in the great Napoleonic museum pillage?
 * If I was god-king, we wouldn't be using title case; but I'm not, and we do. Somewhere I heard someone argue that title case ought not apply to Latin works; and perhaps the same argument could be made for French works; but personally I can't be fucked arguing over it; I'll follow the mob on this one. I seem to have become addicted to semicolons. :-( Hesperian 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Page 21, second last paragraph is as far as I got re. "Australia". There is an interesting aside on how to cite Jill Douglas Hamilton Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon, which I'm adopting too. cygnis insignis 03:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also found reference to other firsts, this time re. Capt. Damp. collections. cygnis insignis 03:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for that Melburnian (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And on an unrelated matter, thanks for this. Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to revert grammatical travesties wherever I see 'em. Hesperian 04:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PD-Australia again
There seems to be a dispute as to whether PD-Australia does stretch back to 1955 or whether it needs to be pre-1946, juding by the challenge at the following FA - Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - help/clarifications needed. Jappalang thinks pictures of Bradman's 1948 team aren't old enough for PD-Australia citing URAA and something I don't understand.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hesperian, thanks for your kind note.

I am working through various topics specifically related to the Australian Light Horse, 1899-1920. To date, my first article was on the Battle of El Buggar Ridge, a re-writing of the Battle of Beersheba and amending a few other which touch on the Light Horse. I am highly appreciative of the ground breaking work of the early article authors as they were aiming to get as much information down as quickly as possible. Folks like me who are specialists in a particular area can build on these foundations, correct any errors and make the story more accurate and readable. Cheers Bill Woerlee (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox
Hesperian, could you be so kind as to help me copy the taxobox template over to another site? I can't seem to simply copy and paste the code. I am completely unable to decode the wiki-coding. Please leave a message on ConservapediaUndergroundResistor's talk page, or I will probably miss any reply. Thank you. -ConservapediaUndergroundResistor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.91.19 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What other site? Hesperian 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki. See, the taxobox could then be modified for anything and everything. But no one can seem to decode it. I think it's because of the sub-templates. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll pass. No offense to you or RationalWiki—I wish you the best of luck in your forlorn battle against the world's fruitcakes—but I can think of many things I would rather invest my free time in than this. Hesperian 02:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any ideas on how to copy, though? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that springs to mind is you might try plugging it into Special:ExpandTemplates, and copying the output. Hesperian 03:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the coding looks wrong when one does that. It's too short. Do you know what templates are in there? Then one might be able to copy it. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.91.19 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to give me the names of other editors here who might be able to help? --CUR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.91.19 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea; maybe ask at the Village pump. Hesperian 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening
Hi Hesperian, is there a reason that the WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening tag is so rarely seen on plant article talk pages? Some past history? Or just lack of interest in that project? I'm not thinking just any plant article, but ones that are clearly used in horticulture. It's a dormant wikiproject that might be helped by having the project showing up on appropriate plant articles. There's a related discussion about this going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening Thanks. First Light (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself only, lack of interest. ;-) Seriously, I have no idea, but probably just lack of interest and activity in the project. Hesperian 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lack of interest seems to be the verdict, then. I've found it surprising, considering the extraordinary interest, activity, and good cheer at WikiProject Plants. Wishing the best to you and everyone in Australia right now. First Light (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm about 4000 km away from the fires, and (touch wood) haven't suffered a personal loss, so your concern is misdirected in my case. But it is good to know that there is so much goodwill towards those who are suffering. Hesperian 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

References v bibliography
Dude, this is completely silly: adding an empty notes section and demoting what are real references to a bibliography makes the article worse not better. And it totally doesn't fall under the edit summary "Clean up using AWB". Hesperian 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This one is even worse; you've effectively moved the reference into the further reading section, rendering a referenced article unreferenced! Oh, except that the further reading section is renamed and demoted to a subsection of the references, which gives the false impressions that all that extra reading has been used as references when writing the article. Do you understand that "references" are not just any old relevant text; they are the texts that have been verified as supporting the article content? Hesperian 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem dude! I was getting the articles ready for some inline cites. There are various ways that people list reference sources. The most useful are inline cites. Books listed at the end of an article are OK though - certainly better than nothing! Have you discovered Google Books yet? That's great, and that's the way I'm going. As Wikipedia develops so we discover more and more helpful ways of doing things. I hope to get around to putting inline Google Books cites in those articles soon, and then you'll have a clearer idea of what I am doing. Regards.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just dropped an inline Google Books cite into Georgiana Molloy. There is no one agreed way of setting up the references section - as you are uncomfortable with the term "Bibliography" I have called the book list "Source texts" - but you are - of course - free to change this to your preferred terminology. There's no need to alert me to what you change it to, unless you want to. I'm really easy about it all! Regards again.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What I care about is that we maintain the distinction between the texts that were used to write and/or verify the article, and the texts that weren't. Hesperian 11:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am aware that some editors like to "double cite" a text. That is, it is given an inline cite, and then it is additionally listed as a reference text. It is not an approach I personally use so I don't set things up that way, though I have nothing against that method, and can see benefits (experts in the field can see at a glance which texts have been used to build the article, and can see if a significant text is missing). It was not my intention to reduce helpfulness, simply to prepare the articles for accepting inline cites. Forgive me if I blurred the texts in that article, I was doing a quick AWB sweep in preparation for coming back to them later. If my edit misplaced something then please simply put it back. I thank you for your consideration in bringing this to my attention, and I will look to see how I can avoid making such slips in future.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I meant at all. I too, do not like to double cite my texts. This is a different issue. Your edit to Peter Good merged the non-inline sources in the References into the Further reading section. When I put an text into the References section, I am affirming that the text supports the article content. Either I have used that text as a source for material in article, or I have explicitly verified the article content against the text. When I put a text into a Further reading section, I am merely saying "This text is about the topic of this article; if you want to explore this topic further, you might like to read it." There is no suggestion that that I have read that text myself—I probably haven't—and there is no suggestion that it supports the article content—it may not. The distinction between References (i.e. supporting material) and Further reading (i.e. relevant material) is absolutely fundamental to sourcing; it you don't get the difference, you are the wrong person to be cleaning up these sections. Hesperian 12:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for clarifying that. And I'm sorry my explanations have not been clear enough for you.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now added some inline cites to Peter Good and restored the ref section I put in earlier. I haven't removed the texts you put there, but as you see, they are now listed twice. I hope this demonstration of my intention is clear enough - however, if you are still uncertain please get back in touch. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 14:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that's fine. Hesperian 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cliffhanger
2nd sentence. Melburnian (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh crap. Thanks, I'm on it. Hesperian 12:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
What round of RFA thankspam would be complete without thanking the nominator? (Well, it's incomplete anyway, since I didn't thank all the voters because it'd take forever to write a personal message to everyone, and I didn't want to create an impersonal thankspam template... but anyway...) Thanks for your nomination statement, for your belief that the RFA would be successful, and for your advice about the olden days when you had to walk barefoot through the snow for miles to get anything deleted. Much appreciated! :) Somno (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue over at Indigenous Australians
Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Premier for disruptive edits on Indigenous Australians some time back. An anonymous editor with a rather similar editing style is currently arguing ad nauseam on Talk:Indigenous Australians for inclusion of fringe theories - see Talk:Indigenous_Australians/Archive_6 and more recently Talk:Indigenous_Australians for recent contributions. (I am also editing from anonymous IP, but I think it should be fairly easy to tell us apart by content...) Any thoughts? --144.53.226.17 (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fucking hell; what a crackpot. If I was there, by now I would be responding to every comment the same way: "put up or shut up". Euryalus and Gnangarra are already there; they are both admins and competent to handle this, so I'll abstain from this one. Hesperian 10:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasonable suspicion its him but I'll have another look through the editing history tomorrow. It would be a new IP range but the contribution history is very similar. Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's NSW Bigpond. Previous efforts were from a different NSW Bigpond range and also from University of Newcastle. Orderinchaos 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Willeton shs
Needs a monty python bigfoot - cheers SatuSuro 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)
Your recent comment is too rude. Please withdraw it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes sir Colonel sir. Hesperian 11:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Something smells
Any thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Corp - or is the paranoia creeping in :) SatuSuro 12:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) My checks on clusty and google first pages show nothing SatuSuro 12:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh well some stuff at the oz noticeboard - so I am not gone yet (in one sense at least) phew SatuSuro 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Inkscape
Whadya know about clickable links?. Seems to work when the image is in its own browser window but not when thumbed inside a WP article. Is there a trick? Djanga 13:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea; sorry. Will have a look around later. Hesperian 13:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Kalumburu on the map is linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalumburu,_Western_Australia if you want to see it (you have to hold down the shift key and click), but please don't waste any time on this, as it was mainly idle curiosity rather than a specific need. I think a location map would be a more elegant way of doing this if I was bothered.  I may drop a query in at Graphic Lab/Map workshop anyway. Djanga 13:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh... the word, not the icon. It is essentially an external link, I see. e.g. you won't find it in Kalumburu's whatlinkshere. My guess is that if these links ever start actually getting used, someone will notice and make a rule against it. Hesperian 00:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Short answer: It's all about callback handling. Clicking on your link works only when clicking on the image is not already defined as doing something.
 * Long, nerdy answer:
 * It's all about chained callback handling.
 * When you click on the image thumbed in an article, your operating system works out what window you clicked in, and passes the click to your browser. Your browser figures out that the click occurred in an image, and passes it to its image handler. The image handler notes that the image is linked, so consumes the click and causes the target page to be loaded. Thus the click gets no further.
 * But when you click on an unthumbed image, the click ends up at the image handler in the same way, but the image is not linked, so the image handler doesn't know what to do with the click, so it passes it down the chain to the SVG event handler in the hope that some other handler might know what to do with it. The SVG event handler figures out that you've clicked on a clickable embedded link, and the rest is history.
 * Hesperian 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NC
I looked at WP:Naming conventions/Proposal and the draft; btw, you left out the s of conventions in notifying me; you may want to check other notifications to see if there is a link.

I do agree with much of it; I do not think NC is broken, though, and I would not be surprised if you got a response of "this is already in the present text." Where are you discussing this?

As a first comment, I think that the claim that titles should be NPOV will open a door to a great deal of nonsense; the case the Greek revert-warriors make for themselves in the Macedonian swamp is that only "FYROM" is neutral. (The Macedonian nationalists are equally unreasonable on nothing but "Macedonia" for the Republic ever, but there are many fewer of them: Macedonia is a smaller and poorer country with less presence in the West.)   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your approach. It has the added advantage of removing the cruft that PBS complains about, and IMO it has exactly the right amount of prescription: "Here are tried-and-true principles of Wikipedia and items of common sense, and it's your job to balance them to create article titles." It would also provide a good framework for rewrites of guidelines such as NC (flora) (which I still think should be NC (plant taxa)): explanation of the specific problems inherent in the field when dealing with the principles--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's well-written and an accurate reflection of the realities of implementing the policy on Wikipedia. It won't do away with PBS's complaints, however, as his complaints are so single-minded that I suspect they're not really about the cruft.  I say this because I would be concerned about attempts to deal with his particular complaints rather than his repetitious complaining.  --KP Botany (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It does look good. I also learned something - why I have always pronounced "Nuremberg" as "Nürnberg".  I was unaware that the German spelling was different from the English one.  (My mother's German, btw).  Guettarda (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, great work. A very common sense explanation of how real contributors work and how a world-class encyclopedia would/should be guided. First Light (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
That's different; it covers descriptive titles, where we have no real choice but to make something up. ''This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. '' Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your revert to Djanga RE
Ah, my apologies, I thought that red links shouldn't be used. Thanks for pointing that out,  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 05:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Doing real work
(PS I would have given you a flower, but I'm too busy and lazy right now. I'll find one for you later.)


 * Thanks KP. I'm well out of my comfort zone here. But I'll persist a little longer, because it might turn out to be worth it. Hesperian 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

further

 * Cheers mate :-) Hesperian 22:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Over 100,000 edits is a bit freaky! Well done :O  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy crap, I ain't cracked 50k yet... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? I didnt think I'd said anything about his edit count - thats another thing again :) SatuSuro 09:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Crikey guys, that's mostly just a couple of big AWB runs. My contributions to this encyclopedia are around about equal to Djanga's (207 edits!) Djanga and I are opposite sides of a compelling proof that edit counts, as a measure of usefulness, are crude to the point of uselessness. Hesperian 22:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly, bullshit! I agree with your sentiment Hesperian, but even if you take away (say 30K) the AWB edits it still eaves an awful lot of very high quality contributions.  There's no denying it, you set the highest standard in both quality and quantity.  Djanga 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In all seriousness I would curse neither of us with that mantle. Of the participants in this threa t d, Cas can have it. Hesperian 00:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Threat or thread? ;) OK, I'll call it a draw between you and Cas.  Djanga 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Parapraxis methinks. Well, shit; have it your way then; it doesn't make a scrap of difference anyhow. Hesperian 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of AWB runs?? Bullshit!  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Plant families
Well, that's kinda my area, but far be it for me to write what I know about when I can endlessly debate the ridiculous with idiots having self-love monologues. Actually, I completely avoid my real area of expertise to avoid being chased out of it by the idiots. --KP Botany (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Email
Received with thanks. No interest here. Cheers. Djanga 11:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty grim, wasn't it. Hesperian 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm. A bit sad. Djanga 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bottlenose dolphin vandalism
I know you get involved in Tree of Life issues so I was wondering if you take a look at Bottlenose dolphin. It seems to have been hit by a wave of IP vandalism the last few days and may be worth semi-protecting for a little while. Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given it three days of semi, which might discourage them if it is being specifically targetted for some reason. We can review on expiry. Hesperian 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Parent/child cat
I have come across so many parent/ child categories confusions in the Indonesia project - can you think of any good reason to leave parent and child cats on the same art at all? If I got the opinion from a project tag tragic such as yourself i would feel better when i start exterminating them en masse (before you respond I know I am conflating cats with project tags - but hopefully youll get my gist ) SatuSuro 03:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 99% of the time they should be removed.
 * Some people make exceptions for the case where a category subdivision only partly exists. For example suppose that you have Category:Flora of Australia and Category:Flora of Western Australia, but no-one has gotten around to creating Category:Flora of South Australia yet. And suppose you need to categorise a plant that grows in Western Australia and South Australia. You put it into Category:Flora of Western Australia. You can't put it into Category:Flora of South Australia because it doesn't exist. Some people would put it into Category:Flora of Australia, so that it is clear that it occurs in Australia outside of Western Australia.
 * Hesperian 03:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I understand your explanation - cheers SatuSuro 03:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually hit the jackpot to make me want to jump in the pool again - clever bunnies who may use hotcat and put Java as a cat - for the Sun platform - and as a consequence the intermix between the java (place) and (platform) will bore me horribly one night trying to separate the bastards :( SatuSuro 04:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

re: assessment working group
Thanks for the message. I think it was decided pretty early on that this project functions fine without any coordinator or admin types calling the shots or otherwise assuming any form of control. I found the original bot spam message somewhat badly worded to be honest and simply ignored it, hoping it would go away :) -- Longhair\talk 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie


Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Thanks dude. Hesperian 03:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

easy 2C that it is not 2B
I am having a bad reaction to this months Scientific American and here is the reason as best I can state it:

To I am Sam or not to I am Sam, that is the Sam I am; Whether 'tis That Sam-I-am! in the mind to Than Sam-I-am! The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to I do not like arms against a sea of troubles, And by that Sam-I-am!, end them. To Do you like, to green eggs and ham?; No more; and by a I do not like them, to Sam-I-am. we I do not like The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir green eggs and ham. — 'tis a I do not like them, Devoutly to be Sam-I-am. ...

The goal was to make sentences of statistics work as variables within the classical linear mathematical sentences which express parts of reality reliably. The problem is that one method of calculation or the building of the solution sentence uses an equal sign and the other doesn't. One structure expresses itself clearly and can be proven, the other structure is too easily whatever the desired outcome is at that moment and can be re-restated to say something entirely different the next time.

The problem is really at the use of the equal sign. Statistical calculations use a "mostly equal sign" and not often for the integrity of the facts. -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I think the real problem is that someone has just posted an interleaving of Shakespeare and Dr. Seuss on my talk page. Hesperian 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS
""Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." I was the [first major contributor; I choose to use the American style." [[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]] (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's honestly starting to sound like a game of tag. I think that means you're "it", but I'll defer to the greater experience of others on this one :) Orderinchaos 03:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes made with AWB
Hi there. I do not understand the changes you made to Leontopodium discolor. Why are the different classifications, now unranked? Bare in mind in your explanation that my biology education only goes as far as high school many years ago.imars (talk) 09:24, 5 March 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.