User talk:Hesperian/Archive 49/Archives

I'm leaving this note on the talk pages of three editors whose work, particularly in the area of policy/guidelines, I particularly respect as being thoughtful and clear, though we don't always agree: User:Hesperian, User:Kotniski, and User:Philip Baird Shearer.

Hi, if you have some time I would appreciate a critical review of a series of edits I've made to WP:D as summarized in this diff. Of course, it's easier to follow by comparing the original version, to the current version. My goal was to bring clarity in meaning to the page, not to change the intended (or only reasonable) meaning of any of it. I know that clarity in meaning is an area in which you excel, so if you could make sure I didn't screw up, I would appreciate it. There has been some concern expressed at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Too_much_emphasis_on_.22search_term.22.2C_to_little_emphasis_on_.22refer_to.22 that my edits have amounted to significant change in meaning, and I've done my best to address those concerns. If you agree to do this review, you might want to read that first to get some perspective. Anyway, thank you very much for considering. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that diff is throwing the weirdest database corruption error for me. It is showing me the difference between a version of George Simpson (administrator) and a version of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Freaky. Hesperian 01:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fixed. Thanks OIC.[1] Hesperian 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I accidentally deleted the last digit of the older id. Thanks for finding it (H) and fixing it (OIC). I've fixed it on the talk pages of the other guys. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my answering "for him" gives him yet another excuse to not answer. Okay, I'll shut up now. I'll try anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my impression. Hesperian 00:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...is being reviewed at Talk:Adenanthos obovatus/GA1 - all pretty straightforward apart from where sterility links too...any ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...aaand is now through. Now cuneatus for GA and obovatus for FAC - be nice if there were some more material to add...I'll see what I can find in the next week or so. I wonder where Wrigley got the 1824 date for both in the UK - there might be a bit of something to add there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been too busy to take full advantage of Nelson's PhD thesis. I'll certainly be flipping through looking for any reference to either species.... Hesperian 04:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an edit conflict; I thought I had handled it correctly, but I guess I did something wrong. I've had edit conflicts before, this is the first time that's happened to me. Sorry about that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manar_Group&action=history for comments by Gadfium, do you have a reference you would like to add to the article to keep me from taking it to WP:AfD? Jeepday (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate. My position is pretty simple really. PDH was one of the finest editors we have ever had. At one point she was a top-20 editor by edit count, and that was with solid content contributions, not mindless cleanup. She has numerous excellent articles to her name, including several FAs, and she was involved all over the place in maintenance, policy formulation and dispute resolution. I never saw her write a crap article or make a bad decision. She was my hero. ;-) If the community wants to delete this article, that's fine with me, but I won't let it be deleted by PROD simply because she is no longer around to defend it. Hesperian 03:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]