User talk:Hesperian/Archive 4


 * 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.

Edmund Henderson
Found this image in archives, added to your article, still serching for others. Ghostieguide 10:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

ACOTF
Thanks -- Ian &equiv; talk 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Styles clarification
Hi, I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29. Thanks Arniep 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Honorifics
Hey can see you are really getting into it! :) Don't ever get into my Javanese princes when I start doing them, otherwise you'll go mad on that one   : )  Have fun.SatuSuro 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. -- Ian &equiv; talk 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was the Ken Michael edit that got me started, but it's good to see you've done the mopping up. -- Ian &equiv; talk 01:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyways. That should be months off yet before I get into that one. :)  SatuSuro 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ian, but the problem with the javanese, is that when I was doing fieldwork and presenting a report, if you dont actually say (or write) "Sri Sultan" for plain indonesian, or various javanese honorifics in the javanese language, its almost like being a danish cartoonist!

James Thomas
Amazing... I've never noticed that. very interesting Ithin you are right apart from one eye which seems to be part closed, Ithink it is the same person. as for the house. I live on Knutsford so I will check.Ghostieguide 10:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Styles
We've just had a long debate about this and my understanding is that we voted for a policy of deleting all prenominals. That was certainly what I thought I was voting for, although my initial position was to favour the retention of "Dr", "Sir" and "Dame." User:Mackensen wrote the actual wording of the policy so perhaps you could clarify the matter with him. As for whether policy is binding on people who didn't take part in the vote on the policy, I have been repeatedly told that it is, as for example with the 3R policy, which I didn't get a say in and don't agree with, but now (usually) comply with. Adam 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you have a go at the article on the Queen Mother, "'The' [sic] Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" a propos of the prenominals policy? Masalai 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Confused
I'm confused Drew. The discussion at the MOS talk page (which I admit I didn't participate in) and the subsequent change to the MOS was IMO a good outcome and reasonably well laid out. I understood it to be about removing "The Right Honourable" or "His Excellency" and the like courtesy prenominals. I didn't take it to be about removing titles like Sir, Dr, Lord or Lady etc. Sir was specifically referred to as to be left in a prefix which you explained clearly in User talk:Adam Carr just now. The lead in Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is setout according to the policy. Am I missing something? -- Ian &equiv; talk 07:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole topic is a mass of confusion. Adam 07:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Henry Brockman
Hi Drew, do you happen to know Henry Brockman's middle initial or something like that? There are quite a few notable Henry Brockmans and I think it would be helpful to move to a Henry X. Brockman page if there is a middle initial available.

Best Regards, Brockmanah 14:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good on the Australian Politician move. By the way AJackson wrote an article on Gen. Edmund Drake-Brockman but it had to be deleted because it was a quote from the Australian Biographical Dictionary. I received permission from the ANL to post the picture. If you happent to be interested, it is an article that needs to be written for a worthy notable. Here it is: Edmund_Alfred_Drake-Brockman

Also, I link the notable English-derived brockmans into this page when I come across them: brockman, in the event there are any you'd care to develop. Regards, Brockmanah 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw your edits and editions to the brockman page. Thanks! I noted that you added a list directly to the Australia section rather than lumping all the English-Derived brockmans toegether as I had. That might make more sense. The surname has as much German use as English though the genealogy appears to be distinct. So I was pondering breaking up the English and American notables into the appropriate sections. Let me know your thoughts. Brockmanah 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomas McCarthy Fennell
Noticed on your sandbox article you state the Hougoumont Departs Portland, wheras my Refs suggest, London, Which is correct?

Hougoumont

 * How dare you steal my article!... just kidding. I was planning on writing an article on the Hougoumont this week, but it's great that you've beaten me to it. One of the most interesting things about the Hougoumont is there were many more literate convicts on board than usual, because of all the Fenians. So there are three different diaries of the voyage extant: J. S. Casey's, Denis Cashman's and Thomas McCarthy Fennell's. Drew (Hesperian) 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agghh sorry, :-) Just sorta got interested, Thanks for filling in the gaps. I'm iterested to know why it sailed, particulaly with so much presure not to send any more convicts and a specific policy not to send political prisoners to WA. Gonna look out for the book you ref on Thomas McCarthy Fennell's page. Seems Tuesday is edit day . Ghostieguide 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't recommend the Fennell memoirs; they were written many years afterwards and contain a lot of errors. Also very flowery language, frustrating to read: this is how he accuses some of his fellow convicts of being wankers:

But it recoils from horror from further mental suggestions or investigation as to the cause, dare not sift it through fear of the contagion. But it is to be greatly feared that those forbidding acutriments are compelled to be worn on account of some unmasterly passion, some iniquitous indulgence some bodily debasement revolting to the senses and unfit for mention. Drew (Hesperian) | Talk 06:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Similar Flowery Language to the Martin Cash Biograpy, That however is the funnyest thing I've read all day, I shall memorise it and use it at some stranger in the pub tonight :-)Ghostieguide 06:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re HMS... you are reading my mind I think. After some research today, I was thinking the same thing, I fell into the same trap. Change it back until we prove otherwise. Thanks again for your input. Ghostieguide 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just read your updates, Well done finding the picture, I looked everywere for one. Must congratulate you on your research. This is fast becoming the best place to look up convict history Keep it up please.. Ghostieguide 10:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thinking of creating Scindian next, Your input is most welcome. Ghostieguide 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you live near Freo, you might be interested that the prison is planing special tours and events on Catalpa day 7th April this year.I'm not quite sure what's planned yet, but let me know if you are interested. Ghostieguide 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The notes page is very usefull. a project page would be good thanks Ghostieguide 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, You do indeed, Send am email via my user page, for more detail. Ghostieguide 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yagan pronunciation
Hi, just replied to your question on my talk page. Dougg 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Avondale
I have just completed writing a new article on the Avondale Agricultural Research Station at Beverley. I was wondering if you could take some time, have a look and then give me some pointers. Thanks Gnangarra 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank for the suggestions and the wikify of the page. I followed the mark currie link it went to another person, have now created a page for him. One question how do you create a disambiguation page?  Gnangarra 14:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Baron Parke
Hi Drew, I'm actually not an expert on Parke -- I more or less just copied that info out of the 1911 encyclopedia and wikified it! But Googling seems to show that the 19th century judge commonly referred to as Baron Parke is indeed James Parke, Baron Wensleydale. For example, the "Baron Parke" mentioned in this U.S. Supreme Court decision is clearly our man. So we can be reasonably confident that your book is referring to him. --Cam 16:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My Support Of SPUI
If you'd like me to remove it, just ask him to tell me to do so. However, the provactive tone of voice you just used with me probably won't work in convincing him, since that kind of perspective was the reason he put it on his page in the first place. Karm a  fist  04:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Since i've done nothing wrong, pretty much, yeah. Then again, you could just try being WP:CIVIL and ask SPUI like I said above, but as my situation has shown, policies don't particularly mean anything anymore, so I don't expect any miracles. Karm a  fist  05:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
Because basically, everything is in WP:IAR mode now due the cabalistic atmosphere. I don't see any other option, but if you have one, please let me know.

Until that changes, IAR civil disobedience is necessary. I just hope it isn't too long, because some policies that are actually followed instead of endless bickering would be nice, for once... Karm a  fist  05:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Arbcom/Jimbo
Process is important, but if "the other side" doesn't respect it, you really don't have any option unless they decide to agree to follow it, which currently isn't happening. Oh, and by the way, I don't agree with your belief that SPUI violated WP:POINT: he did nothing to disrupt the encyclopedia, if anything, those who disliked his eccentricities have done more to disrupt things than he has considering that we've probably lost several hundred transporation related edits from SPUI during this time frame -- just because a few people couldn't either ignore or respect the viewpoints of another person. Karm a  fist  05:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Ah, I see now. We're seeing this from two different perspectives. To me, the arbcom isn't the big deal here, it's SPUI. I care about him, I respect everything he's done, I don't want him to leave this place angry and slighted -- I think the arbcom was wrong, but that's irrelevant compared to me trying to help a friend in need. You see it as an act of rebellion, that i'm just doing it because it goes contrary to what the arbcom said, trying to reduce their impact, or at least that's how it seems you're seeing things. I think the arbcom's wrong, for sure, but that doesn't even register compared to me wanting to help out and show compassion for a friend in need during a time where he may leave the project out of disgust for the current situation of things. Karm a  fist  02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: AWB
Hi, I was replacing redundant files and editing all the pages that showed the image was linked from, in that particular case the image was actualy linked from a template so it was basicaly just a null edit to refresh the link cache of the page (if you put an image in a template and then put the template on a page and then remove the image from the template the page the template was used on still show up under "file links" on the image untill the actual page is edited). The reason it showed up was because the AWB tool automaticaly remove exess whitespace and move stub templates and categories around a bit when you open some pages in it, so it was more of a "dummy edit" than a true null edit, same result except it created a new revision. I was too lazy to turn "general fixes" on and off all the time, hence a few such "empty" edits ocur. --Sherool (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki68
That was a way too many vandalism flags on the bot at once error, I've reverted back to the previous version. Tawker 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, sorry about the delay, things were a little crazy. I've left a note explaining what happened on Wiki68's talk as well. Tawker 05:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Velela
I recently noticed your comments at User:Velela's talk page about alleged sockpuppetry, including the link to an alleged and now-deleted email on a sub-page of your user page. I thought that was a bit off, but didn't find time to mention it. Now you restore material that Velela removed from his (own!) talk page. It really is starting to look a bit like persecution of Velela. So, now I feel compelled to make a little complaint.

In your (now-deleted, purported) email, you list a number of reasons why you suspected Velela of sock-puppetry, and which accounts you believed to be sock puppets, and they included me. I know for certain that I am not a sock puppet, and you will notice that David Gerard also did not block me as such (my IP is completely different: the same continent, but otherwise different). If your arguments lead you to believe that User:Stemonitis is a sock puppet of User:Velela, then your arguments must be flawed. I don't know whether the other alleged sock puppets are truly so, or whether Velela's rebuttal is true; I haven't discussed it with him. I also don't care. The point is that just because people edit similar articles, it doesn't mean they're sock puppets. I know Velela from outside Wikipedia (in fact, he introduced me to it), so I keep an eye on what he edits, just out of interest. Thus, we end up editing similar articles, including Geoffrey Bolton.

Velela's other point is also true. Sock-puppetry, while discouraged, is not actually banned. No violation of the three revert rule occured, no sock puppets took part in votes. In short, nothing illegal happened (unless I've overlooked something). It would probably have been best to assume good faith rather than seeking a ban so soon: perhaps a comment on the talk page - a warning of some decsription, rather than immediate punitive action. I think an apology to Velela would probably now be in order.

And can't he remove comments from his talk page? They're still in the edit history, so they'll never be invisible, unlike your email, which has now vanished. "The truth is out there" - not any more! --Stemonitis 09:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My removal of the email was simply a matter of cleaning up my user space. I did not realise that my deletion of it would result in User:Velela immediately attempting to expunge all records of the affair. Velela's talk page is not just his; it functions as the community's record of his conversations. It is a recognised principle on Wikipedia that users do not have the right to remove warnings etc from their talk pages. You suggest that my deletion of the email is inappropriate, yet defend User:Velela's removal of the affair from his talk page. This is inconsistent. Nonetheless I have restored the email, since the affair has apparently not yet reached a conclusion.


 * As for you being a sock-puppet, follow-up emails from David never mentioned you, and I got the distinct impression that David had misread my initial email and not actually checked your account against Velela's. The fact that you have now decided to pursue this in Velela's name has increased my discomfort. I will ask David to confirm that you are not a sock-puppet of Velela. Hesperian 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The removal of the email was not my major concern, but rather the way you have gone about the whole affair. You have not assumed good faith, and continue not to do so. I honestly don't care if you think I'm a sock puppet of Velela; you may think what you like, and I could understand that suspicion. Your assumption, however, that, just because more than one person has a different opinion to you, there must be a conspiracy going on is simply unjustified. More than one person thought the list format to be OK at Geoffrey Bolton; more than one person thinks you have acted less than perfectly in that regard. When you get your reply from David Gerard (and may I apologise to him herewith for wasting his time - that was never my intention), you will surely realise that. Please, I was asking for a degree of good faith, and you respond with a further accusation of sock-puppetry. Everyone makes mistakes; this would be a good time for you to admit that that includes you. I apologise if I've worded any messages poorly or otherwise misled, but all I wanted was for you to accept that your chosen course of action was not the best one. Let us leave it at that and move on. --Stemonitis 12:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Velela was a sockpuppeteer. My suspicions were correct. Your assertion that I haven't assumed good faith won't stick because subsequent events have clearly shown that I was dealing with a bad faith editor. I was the victim of a bad faith editor who used four sock-puppet accounts against me. If in dealing with this difficult situation I am found to have falsely accused one good faith editor, I will most certainly apologise, and the community will forgive me for it, because the community will understand that I have acted in good faith and integrity throughout. Hesperian 12:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A slight correction: your edits were altered by an alleged sock-puppeteer (I prefer this neutral terminology to words like "victim"; I would not like to consider someone the "victim" of my edits, since I believe them to be constructive). Actually, I am sincerely uninterested in whether or not User:WABolton or User:Melancholia or User:Chrisjk are sock puppets; that is not my point. (Incidentally, that makes maximally 3 sock puppets and one good faith editor, not four sock puppets as you stated above; Velela cannot be considered a "bad faith editor" on the basis of one article considered against the hundreds he has improved, I feel). My point is that we cannot know whether the accounts are sock puppets or not (as shown by your suspicion of my being a sock puppet), and in cases of doubt, good faith should be assumed. It is possible, although perhaps unlikely, that these further accounts are what Velela claims them to be: those of visitors from abroad using the same computer as himself. It would be very difficult to prove the case either way.
 * In my opinion, you acted somewhat precipitately, and were over-sensitive to criticism of your edits. It was an understandable mistake, and an honest mistake, I don't doubt, but a mistake nonetheless. It would be very nice for all concerned if you could admit that and give a potentially productive editor the benefit of the doubt. --Stemonitis 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from paw42
Thanks for spotting and reverting the vandalism to the Primo Levi article, which I am working on in the odd spare moment. Is this vandalism directed at the subject matter or merely mindless. It's the first time I've come across this sort of thing. Thanks. --Paw42 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Page
And so the vandalism begins. -- Ian &equiv; talk 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We had Sydney Riot of 1879 there last week which was fun. -- Ian &equiv; talk 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rollbacking my talkpage
Hey, not a problem. As you can see, I'm having a bit of fun with this troll. An amusing way to end the working week! Have a good weekend. Cnwb 03:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenwich University
I removed both your "notorious degree mill operator" description of Bear, and your opponent's "world-famous education author" description, because they obviously indicated a situation where consensus was required. In an attempt to achieve consensus, I placed a message on the talk page and created a stub on John Bear. Please don't revert to your "notorious degree mill operator" version again until we have reached a consensus on the talk page. Hesperian 07:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He is not my opponent, and it is not "my version". I just per principle revert any uncommented IP edits which change articles of alledged diploma mills into glowing reviews (This has been happening a lot). Thue | talk 07:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough, but you reverted my subsequent edit too.
 * You seem to have an interest in diploma mills; I would appreciate any help you can give to John Bear, which really is an awful stub. Like I said, I only created the article in order to broker a consensus between two diametrically opposed views. I really know nothing about the subject. Hesperian 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, I didn't notice your edit :(. I have just made a somewhat throughout google search, and as far as I can tell John Bear seems to be legit. Though some people on usenet flame him for being a fraud, there seems to be no firm evidence against him (and the flamers don't seem to be trustworthy), and my feeling is that he is not a fraud. Thue | talk 09:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yagan
Nice one! Good article. SilkTork 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but the amount of vandalism going on at midnight (our time) is enough to give anyone the bee gees !! Best to have slept in IMHO SatuSuro 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I'm on Wikibreak until February 25. I expect I'll occasionally get to check my messages, but I won't be able to do much on the 'pedia. If you have an administrative request, you should ask someone else. If you want to leave me a message, please leave it above this notice. Hesperian 11:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now back until Wednesday. Hesperian 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Have a good one, Cheers Ghostieguide 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias
Dear Hesperian.

You wrote "If you're going to write obviously POV statements like 'Stirling's vindictive vengeful policies', it would be better if you didn't edit the articles at all. Can we try to keep it neutral and verifiable please?"

Regarding Stirling's "vindictive and vengeful" policies towards Aborigines, one can see it in his massacre of women and children in the "Battle of Pinjara"; his inaction in cases where Aboriginal people were murdered in cold blood by settlers; and the fact that the Albany community (with the Aboriginal community led by Mokare) campaigned against authority for the Albany settlement to be transferred to Stirling, because they had heard of the massacres being perpetuated around Perth. Stirling had been impressed by Arthur's "Black Line" attempt in Tasmania, and attempted to use something similar in capturing Aboriginal people in the vacinity of Lake Monger (with similar lack of success). He was very quick to prosecute Aboriginal people, individually and as a group, but failed to accord justice against whites in cases of inter-racial difficulties. The news of the massacres that Stirling had allowed was one reason why the Colonial office replaced him with Governor John Hutt. Sounds verifiable to me.

Warm regards John D. Croft 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Octavius Ryland
http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/mbexec/message/5538/surnames.ryland/250 158.143.162.119 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Help - Vandalism, Not NPOV Article
Hi Drew, I need some Advice I have twice in the last week reverted the Canning Vale College as it hasnt complied with NPOV read as and advertisement for the school. Tonight I again reverted the Article as it contained derogatary remarks about the school and teaching staff including Names.

Am I doing the right thing with this article, can you read the previous edits. I previously left a note on the talk page with a suggested focus for the article. I do have a personal association with school with two of my kids being students there. Gnangarra 11:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gnangarra 13:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Extended Break
Getting too far behind on shifting things. Decided to bow out. Please feel free to email otherwise I will get back to you after the move. Keep happy! SatuSuro 01:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your wishes, I'll still be lurking, but probably wont answer anything, or contribute a thing in the time - wiki wise anyways. Have fun SatuSuro 07:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Scindian passengers
I have proposed this article for deletion, as it appears to be unencyclopaedic - a list that may not be of interest to many people. Please do not take this personally, and please note that no personal attack is intended. See the article for information on challenging this proposal. Stifle 01:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No Worries with your Star, Like me, Your modesty is your only failing :-). Look forward to your inputs again. Ill just keep plugging away. Btw the Research section of the Prison is open to you, 9-5 weekdays, ask for Rob Beresford He is very Helpful. Catalpa tours happening on Monday 17th April. Hope you can make it. Ghostieguide 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For your action on the matter of User talk:J is me and User:60.225.217.77. As you may be aware I have reported this/these editor/s as suspected sockpuppets of User:Licinius at Vandalism in progress. Grant65 | Talk 12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help and advice. User:Petros471 has offered to help. Grant65 | Talk 04:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Ambi
Which is why we have Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Ignore all rules. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. FYI, I did a google search for verification on the name and came up with the blog but didn't read it fully. It is obviously not her identity to which it can be discredited to save other people from such future mistakes. -- Zondor 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Xerochrysum
Hi Hesperian - could you add author details (and anything else of note!) to Xerochrysum and Xerochrysum bracteatum please? I tried to look them up but the ANBG database was down when I tried - thanks, MPF 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (why are good sites always down when you want them!?!) - MPF 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Images
Thanks I had loaded other images since then in my commons account, I was just upset finding the message on the image with no message left on my talk page, I thought I had uploaded with correct copyright. I was upset more when I went to the user page to ask why only to see other editors alsoing having the same issue with him, and him having being cautioned before about his methods.

Nachoman's image loaded to replace the other I was kool with, it was take at the same place, just that he had better weather and therefore a nice image. Thanks for taking the time stop past and fix up the pages Gnangarra 04:46, 10 March 2006 (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.