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.

Two years ago, you were the 297th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, today's Banksia verticillata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 297 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hesperian,

I have made some edits to Banksia serrata and asked Cas Liber to check out my edits. However, I know he's busy so here's my request: Please have a look at the changes I have made. I am fairly new to the Wikipedia enterprise (although I know a bit about botany) and would appreciate your advice. (I will add some stuff on fire recovery for this species soon.) Thank you.

Gderrin (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gderrin, welcome to Wikipedia. Your edits to B. serrata look excellent to me; thanks for contributing. In case you haven't found it yet, the botanists here hang out at WT:PLANTS. Hesperian 00:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed description of Category:Australian peers (which you created) to reflect its actual usage and its status as a sub cat of Category:Australian recipients of British titles. Barely any of the titles in the category had an Australian Territorial designation. If you disagree (and want to pretty much empty out the category), feel free. Cheers, Bazj (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question. I was trying to edit the Pool A table of the WC 2015 article to reflect that Australia has qualified. I see it is done now. For future reference, how should one go about doing this? I couldn't edit it from either of the two pages where the table is displayed.Sujith (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sujith, the table is transcluded from a template. Edit the page, and where the table should be you will find the name of the template:

((2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A))

Now that you know the name of the template, you could manually go to Template:2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A, and edit that.

Or, you could look just below the edit box, and just below the "Save page" button, and you'll see something that says something like "Templates used in this section". If you click on that it will open up and give you links to all the template. Click on Template:2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A, and you're there.

Cheers,

Hesperian 12:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hesperian, why is this file being called an exact or scaled down duplicate? It's clearly not – it's an edit of the original file, meaning that something has changed. It was also the one promoted as an FP, so deleting it is kind of a big deal. I'd really appreciate this being reversed. Julia\^talk 23:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that the creator of the image uploaded my edit to the original image's page without giving credit. So yes, it's a duplicate. Sorry. Julia\^talk 00:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want both versions to be there, I am happy to restore the deleted file and revert the other one for you. Hesperian 00:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, I think it's okay. The edited version is preserved so that's what I care about. Thanks anyway. :) Julia\^talk 01:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Rock on. Hesperian 01:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good to see youre still around in at least a sense of the 'send her down' aspect of things... trust all is well, there is the long promised lunch meetup sometime... User:JarrahTree 00:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate. Hesperian 01:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Nice to see you're still around. I thought I'd take the opportunity to also ask you for a reality check regarding the WGSRPD and flora categories. I've been pretty aggressive in trying to arrange the category hierarchy into the non-overlapping WGSRPD hierarchy, but recent discussions over the last few years at CfD have seen country categories, mostly in Europe and mostly fauna, upmerged to regional or continent categories based on arguments regarding WP:NONDEF. You introduced me to WGSRPD and set up the Australia categories that way, so I would value your insight. Feel free to hit me with a clue by four or WP:TROUT if I should just give it up.

Anyway, hope all is well! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate. Yes, I'm still here. In fact still check in every day. But my contributions are going to Wikisource instead. I have nothing helpful to add, sorry. I think you're doing the right thing. I agree 100% with you. I think the people arguing WP:NONDEF are wrong-headed. I think WGSRPD is the perfect solution to our geographic categorisation issues. I think that WP:NONDEF is irrelevent, and that it is a coatrack for the real concern, which is overcategorisation. I've made that argument many times, and it gets no traction. Seeing all these upmerges is just depressing. Hesperian 04:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In fact, you were helpful. Sometimes with the flood of recent CfD discussions it's easy to begin questioning my own opinions. (NB: all linked fauna discussions are still open and I haven't bothered to participate.) The same small group of editors !votes on all of these discussions every time, probably 4 or 5 at most. I'll be more concerned when they set their sights on flora categories again. I'm not unsympathetic to the NONDEF arguments entirely, as with this category on flora and fauna on Indian postage stamps that I nominated for deletion as it's not a defining attribute of the plant or animal. But that's quite different from the position of those editors that a species' distribution isn't defining. Anyway, thanks again for fielding the question and the thoughtful reply. Hope the work on Wikisource is less depressing and more peaceful! Rkitko ^(talk) 19:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GreenFacts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GreenFacts_(2nd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jacques de Selliers (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elliptio congaraea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliptio congaraea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

same, must be mightily xxxxxxxxxxxxx looking at this shit everyday, same, same.... oh well trust all is well in your world, long time since i left my mark on this talk page, felt it needed something before the year is out... aka satusuro JarrahTree 00:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Hesperian

I see that way back there you deleted an article on Billy Rancher as non-notable. That article certainly did nothing to establish his notability, but he was a major figure in the Seattle/Portland music scene of the early 1980s, who died of cancer in his late 20s. Major enough that there is a full-length biography of him (Rocky Road by Bill Reader) and at least one TV documentary, plus I'm sure a ton of press coverage that could be found (though all from before the Web era, so probably not on line). I'd like to revive the article, but just thought I'd check in first to make sure the deletion was because the article didn't establish notability, rather than because you were familiar with him and nonetheless felt he didn't rise to the level of notability. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Go for it! Hesperian 00:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! It wasn't even about the same Billy Rancher. Probably the one it was about wasn't notable. - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Deleted again then. If the subject is different then better to start with a clean slate. Hesperian 05:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

check it out....(chuckle) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic! Hesperian 00:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

couldnt have happened to a better contributor/person...  !! JarrahTree 01:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you vote you get canvassed, hahaha. have a good christmas new year cheers JarrahTree 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate, thanks, you too. Hesperian 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fin-fish. Since you had some involvement with the Fin-fish redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metafiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ebenezer Cooke. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cetaceans of Australia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. DexDor ^(talk) 19:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Hislop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hislop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of northern South America, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Prevan (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hesperian.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7,014 Revisions (+9 minutes), 858 Authors, 170 Page watchers, – Pageviews (30 days), Created by: Hesperian (134,998) ·

your wp en edit count looms on the top of my user talk page - clearly your priorities in life are well away from wp en edit counting :) I cannot believe your restraint... only 2 edits from a big 000 ! HNY, etc JarrahTree 01:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Well here's one of them! Hesperian 01:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Every time I edit pages you have created (quite a lot) it stares out at me 134,999 - JarrahTree 23:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. ;-) (I have 144k on Wikisource so not likely to make a fuss about a mere 135k here am I.... Hesperian 23:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive, to say the least - this nightmare jungle here sure is showing the very definite lack of editors of yours and moondynes quality - a sad loss JarrahTree 00:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is something about send her down hughie - good to see your moniker on the watch list - JarrahTree 03:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vict.. Since you had some involvement with the Vict. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 02:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:37, 1 February 2017 (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.