Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PBS (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 18 March 2010 (→editing others talk page contributions.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Hesperian/Archive 47/Archives

Gasp

a desert like talk page - may i orfishially congrat u on the sesselis FA status - may you not be detrimentally afflicted by such an achievement - there are many more erbs and orests as yet un touched by you that need the gift of the dab hand and the skill of coping with FA gate keepers - for that alone you must deserve a round or two - whenever SatuSuro 13:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I rather feel as though all I do is write content. When it comes to the FAC spit'n'polish, I must defer to Cas. Hesperian 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, content is overrated. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit. I hope I didn't just dish Cas a backhanded compliment. He writes more content than me, actually; and he does the FAC polishing.

In hindsight, I find it hard to believe I constructed a non-sarcastic sentence around "all I do is write content". :-)

Hesperian 03:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Common names

You reverted what I had done before I had a chance to add the citation. Citation is now added - thanks.Granitethighs 04:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian, you seem to like throwing your weight around. In the light of our common interests I would have hoped that you would use whatever authority it is you have in a more constructive and productive way. I do not take what you have said lightly and suggest that you live up to your claims - there is not one rule for me and another for you. I referred to a particular article making the statement that modern scientific taxonomy is "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles." The article was by Raven, Peter H., Berlin, Brent, Breedlove, Dennis E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. Science. New Series 174(4015): 1210-1213. The citation was to page 1210. I do not have that reference to hand but I take my research sufficiently seriously to trust my judgement. I agree that if I have made an error then I should at least humbly recognize both the error and its import. If I have made a mistake then I will willingly no longer edit on Misplaced Pages. However, having said that, then the reverse must apply. If I am correct then you should immediately withdraw from editing and, if you do not, then I shall suggest in the appropriate arena that you be permanently blocked. Your approach is not a helpful one. I shall be interested to hear your response and explanation - especially if you have immediate access to the article. There remains the question of why you should take the approach that you have taken. I think that on the talk page to Common Names this becomes clear from a previous altercation. Unfortunately it seems you have, over a long period, maintained resentment about unimportant things said in the past (which I had long since forgotten).Granitethighs 05:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read what I have written and think you might assume I have avoided the content of the rest of the paragraph. As I hope you would know, the origins of scientific binomial nomenclature in "folk" taxonomy - which is what it is describing, is often referred to in botanical texts. I can easily find other references if that is what is at issue (though I suspect it is not). Granitethighs 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating article - thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was well worth reading. Reading it, you see how radically the DNA revolution changed our thinking. But as for the applicability of that article as a reference - no, it doesn't support the paragraph. Not even kinda. Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

editing others talk page contributions.

You really should have talked to me first explained why you think it inappropriate for those postings before editing them. I clearly do not think it inappropriate to advertise this debate more widely. Did you know it was talking place? Even if you think it is not related to the other talk pages, there is clearly a link between WP:RM and the RfC because I have made it in the RfC. So for the moment I will only restore that edit and await you comments on my talk page as to why you think the other posting are inappropriate. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)