This comment suggesting another user should "get [their] mom or dad or care-keeper" was not what I meant by talking it out without making it personal. If you can't discuss a simple disagreement over grammar with another user without resorting to that sort of ad hominem sniping sarcasms, take a break for the day or at least for a cup of tea. I've enjoyed discussing various topics with you, so I very sincerely regret having to issue this caution, but I will not tolerate anyone taking that tone with my fellow contributors. To avoid digging a deeper hole, I ask that you please do not respond to this, at least not right away. Just take a moment to think about it. If you still feel the need to respond, I'm watching your talk page, but know that I'm not looking for excuses or apologies. We all lose our temper or make jokes in bad taste sometimes. What I'm looking for a change in tone, and that usually doesn't happen without a moment of contemplation. —LX (talk, contribs)07:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brown square.
I did not intend that the first comment get taken so wrongly. I think that the situation has actually been over-thought (over intellectualized) into difficulty (and/or things for the bots to do) and I was a little offended that the opinion that what English wikipedia does is what should happen here. I am pretty sure that Polish wikipedia has some horrible mangling of the word Australia on its pages, for example. I was very personally offended that my work was undone without mentioning it. It is cool writing given the circumstances. The conversation started by me saying that it is my opinion that the original decision was made for reasons that are pandering to a 20% (or less) who want to make trouble.
Do you like that image of the brown square there?
Define "not cool"? Also, I am not really in the mood to asskiss right now, I would rather have sympathy for speedy categorization of things, if anyone asks or cares. -- carol (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had several cool discussion when the work I had done was mangled without telling me within a few hours though. I took it public when it became clear to me that the incident was not going to be discussed, cool, hot, direct, semi-direct. What temperature would "no discussion" be rated with? The action was being done without discussion and continued to happen without discussion. Please do look at the histories of the files. Where I live and have been for the last several decades, it is not names that hurt but the actual actions. Is it different where you are? Apologies for things that should not have been a problem are quite often a problem as well; I don't like to need them, myself. -- carol (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts at communicating fail. It would be nice if you could have put the protection onto Category:Flora of Northern Territory and Category:Fauna of Northern Territory when this happened to the work I was doing. I have no hidden agenda and I have no need to make other category work like the one I am making does. I do like to see the example of what happens to civility at the only means to communicate I had left.
I have no clue if the word "civil" has different meanings in Australian/American/British English. I do see that you have made a lot of comments lately that have been more disruptive than helpful. Please, take a step back&calm down before you are forced to take a commons-break. Finn Rindahl (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that I should talk to people who are making something and tell them that I am going to be changing it? Or is communicating before making changes the wrong thing? I tried it both ways. Neither seems to be acceptable to the people who started the reversion and template pasting. How to make something stop and not be disruptive? -- carol (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is good. Doing things that are inconsistent with established conventions used in a lot of categories without changing them all (and major changes like that are usually best discussed first) just to make a point is not good. I'm rather confident in guessing you would not have tried to rename Category:Northern Territory to Category:The Northern Territory if it weren't for the edit war over the definite article in categorising its flora and fauna. Civil is, in my experience, used much the same way in Australia as in other English-speaking countries, although perhaps prefixed with "bloody" a bit more often. —LX (talk, contribs)08:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to go over that. All I am able to do is ask that edits to what I am doing "please cease"; it is kind of easy to just sit and wait for a version of the asking to kind of seem offensive. Not only did I not want to change Northern Territory, I did not change "the" edits to Nature of category, but it is a real pain to use that way. I suspect that it is a pain to use if you are typing the location, pasting a list of the location and writing software that directs phish into the category.
Also, I am really bored discussing things which seem obvious :)
Is there any particular reason why you can't take Pete's talk page off your watchlist and post your chit chat somewhere else? He has made it pretty clear that he doesn't want you posting there, and I am struggling to see what disregarding that request is achieving for you, unless your purpose is to piss him off. Hesperian03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. There is no reason to keep it there or to remove it as near as I can determine. I have a mindset that was made mostly at the English Wikipedia Plant Project and this feeling of OWNERSHIP of users where it should be collaboration and not collaboration finding the tiniest little bug or offense but collaboration in a good and unbiased presentation of available facts (this sentence does not want to end)....
I suggest not even humbly that the perception that people have that there is a problem means that the problem exists in the person with this perception.
How do I talk to the English Wikipedia Plant Project and also might I add YOU DON'T OWN ME! Do you own Petey? -- carol (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"YOU DON'T OWN ME!": Is that how my message has come across to you?: that I am saying down girl to my pet Carol? To continue the pet metaphor, there does seem to be a perception amongst some contributors here that I am the local Carol-whisperer. If that is so, it is only so to the extent that you allow it, as there is absolutely no way that I could pull it off on my own. But I think the most likely solution is that they have misinterpreted that fact that you are obliged, occasionally, to tolerate me.
Does it really matter wherein the problem lies? Pete is upset about you posting your chat on his talk page. For those of us too lazy to attempt a deep and historical analysis of the situation, the solution is obvious. If you would like I will create User talk:/dev/null for you....
I humbly submit that respecting Pete's wishes here would be in line with that spirit of good collaboration that you so admire.
"How do I talk to the English Wikipedia Plant Project"? You're banned from that community, so the short answer is, you don't. The long answer is a work in progress - get yourself unbanned? create a community here?
Sharing the information about what I am doing here on your talk page did not work, in fact, it was detrimental to actually accomplishing anything. I am deeply sorry about that and would like that it had worked the other way.
I had a community built here, then I got banned at English wikipedia -- for reasons that I outlined previously and to the best of my understanding, the people who voted for that in those few hours are not part of the Plant Project. Upon the ban there, the community here started to change and the language that started to be used was the same language that exists at English wikipedia and did not exist here.
You are suggesting a collaboration with one Plant person who my attempt to collaborate on that persons talk page not only failed but ended up in the negatives on a productivity chart with a user who does not have an inkling for the English language beyond Ewp catch phrases and no concept of linear events.
Can you give an example of how collaborating here with English wikipedia plant people has been productive? I can show you an example of how there was a perfect collaboration here among the more productive plant people. -- carol (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that your contributions to my talk page did not have the desired effect; I don't know what specifically you are talking about, nor what the desired effect was. I keep telling you I am socially inept, but you continue to provide me with paragraphs dense with hints and nuances. For example, I am curious whether the conversation about a car you used to drive was really a conversation about a car you used to drive. If it was something else, then I'm afraid I missed it.
I did used to drive a car like that and I did not know it was a muscle car until it was gone. I have deeply loved all of my vehicles, honestly and sometimes I felt like it was my strong binding with them that held them together. That sentence is literal.
In the non-literal sense, I feel like that car sometimes but at the same time, English wikipedia is not the demolition derby.
I have had 5 to 6 years to think about my life and the things in it. Here is a problem with imagining a person and deciding things due to the imagination; via location and other things. If you imagine a female who can fix cars and knows a little about them; I am going to suggest that you will probably imagine a manly female and one who perhaps prefers women as mates. There is a stereotypical image like this. What the imagination and the stereotypes do not "fill in" is details about not being able to afford mechanics and brothers who break cars or just make expensive type repairs that don't actually repair the problem. My younger stepbrother was like this and I had a joke once about how I replaced two brothers (one whole and one step) with a stool and a manual. There are masculine people who like to show up, fix everything for the little lady and then go off onto new adventures. Liking to do that does not insure that they knew how to fix automobiles and the mindset makes it difficult for the little lady to communicate what the real problem with the automobile is.
Yes, I can give you one such example: I have a memory of one time when you pointed out, to one of the English Wikipedia plant people, that the images s/he was uploading were crap, thus prompting him/her to upload images of a quality amenable to restoration, which restoration you then undertook.
I remember Curtis Clark making the suggestion that Hesperian might have had a location bias. That there might be a mindset in the rest of the world that anyone who is in California must be a person of alternative lifestyle choices. It was just "hinted" at though. California is a very large in area state and the alternative lifestyle area is rather small comparatively although there is no requirement to live there. Perhaps due to some of the unusual (I really hope they were unusual) problems I have had, I am interested in people being paid enough to live where they work and in the rules either being updated to reflect the new facts or applied equally. And this having nothing to do with gender or dating preferences -- although, if it be must be known, I am fairly conservative minded in my ideas for myself this way. I was born female, I am female and always considered that since I was this that my ideas were naturally feminine. Psychological and sociological definitions are at best each individually a fad or an experiment in suggestion which turns out to be a fad.
So, I am confused now. Is wikipedia a pickup (not a vehicle -- a "dating" thing) environment or is it a web interface whose purpose is to have collaborative creation of factual content?
I have had homosexual friends; I think I can make homosexual jokes with the best of them due to that pleasant encounter. The lesbians I have known have not had a very good sense of humor. That might be a limitation in my experience though; I don't know that I could make "lesbian jokes" the same. One thing that I found interesting while hanging out with the classic car club members (it is/was a homosexual front) in Michigan, our tastes in men were different. So there is about 2 decades of living where I want to live and 5 years of living in the alternative lifestyle state of California of my thoughts about all of that, simplified in the fond wish that you really are in Australia and perhaps have some problem with media images from here.
I should have been very sad if the book had ended with John Doolittle stuck on Spidermonkey Island for the rest of his life. :Hesperian05:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image restoration is cool, it is not a scientific collaboration though; however it can be a part of one. The science of botany seems to be in the classification of and the native origins of plants (literally). Then, here is the thing about image restoration and English wikipedia -- they have a pet image restorer; it is one who I think is a fake user, but when I sense a fake, I like to keep making it work until it fails. en:User:Durova is the "girl" for image restoration; complete with being a part of my ban there and also the ability to claim that all of the image restoration accomplished by that one user is perfect and the ability to get a gang of users to call the asking "how do you know your histogram works" to be "rude". As long as that user is around and so successful there among the admin there and the A list and since the restoration of images like that is not so scientific, why don't you get that chosen and accepted and successful user to collaborate with you? I read from that users last few entries in Wikipedia FP (which is exclusive, it seems to only new people and the wikipedia fAke list) that she would like to have more people working with her.
I'm not trying to induce you to collaborate with me, Carol. I was giving you an example of what has been a successful collaboration, as you requested.
There are people on Wikipedia who set their own agendas, and people who pick up on the agendas of others. I suppose it is a spectrum rather than a binary thing. I am way over at the independent end. I decide what I want to work on, I work on it until I get bored, then I move on to something new. I rarely ask for help, and rarely seek to collaborate with others.
I have benefited immensely from certain people of the other type, people who have seen what I was working on, gotten excited about it, and pitched in to help. Those people's efforts were much appreciated by me, but I didn't ask them to pitch in, and I don't consider that I owe them anything. They pitched in for their own reasons, and were welcome to pitch out at any time.
If I were to contact Durova over this, it would be for advice on how I might go about restoring these images myself. From what I can tell, she seems to enjoy teaching others, so such an approach would perhaps be welcome. She seems nice enough, A-list or not.
I remember reading someone (Mabberley?) bemoaning the fact that the word botany has come to mean plant systematics, so that people who study plant anatomy and physiology are compelled to call themselves plant biologists.
I am really not liking the "predictability" of the template filling in. I strongly suggest and encourage you to get the person at wikipedia who was instrumental in my banning there and who only does image restorations and nothing else to assist you with the image restoration.
There is a stench (not literal) about how the Wiki Plant Project people do not know nor care for the way this software can be used for scientific application and collaboration when they are here or recently there at English wikipedia even. While I do not have an opinion about which method of listing is the correct one; I think it is really cool how the software can manage all of them -- I got this idea from 1)collaboration with Wiki Plant Project before the banning and 2)my online reading for a few months.
Please answer the following question before anything else: What would be the reason that you do not get English wikipedias chosen image restorer to work with you since the task needs no knowledge of the science or software to accomplish? -- carol (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Passing over the assertion that Durova is the English Wikipedia's chosen image restorer...) I don't really know the reason; perhaps there is none. In fact, perhaps I should ask her.
I doubt whether the first image in w:Banksia victoriae is B. victoriae, because I can't imagine who would have collected seed from where it grows in the early 1830s. Brown, Labillardiere and Leschenault were all way too early, and I think only the last of these collected anywhere near the vicinity where B. victoriae grows. Gaudichaud was surely too early too. Drummond and Hugel visited, I think, too late; there's virtually no time between when they collected and when the plant was figured: certainly not enough time to allow seed to be sent to English, germinate, and flower. I suspect that Bentham was wrong: the figure shows B. baxteri not B. victoriae. This intrigues me; I would love to get to the bottom of it. Does it really matter whether I call it botany or history or wasting time on trivia? Hesperian06:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was interesting, except now I am banned from the place where finding and sharing that kind of information occurs by people who apparently only do image restoration. See en:WP:FPC and count the entries there. It is a cry for "Look at me" and there is also there a plea for working with her. Allow the people who caused the situation to flourish in it; enable the enabled; yadda.
There are many cool things about the science and the history. I enjoyed doing a little for all of it. The feeling here is that there is a "punishment" for trying to get all of the wiki to work together, although the rocket people seemed to have accomplished this with the wikinews without too many problems. The idea of copyright problems is an old one and I did click on a wikisource document about a lawsuit against wikimedia right before I started to be followed around with the plagarism problem. Once again, not my problem but it became my problem. I would like to see this go to the people who were instrumental in my banning there. There should be no problem with cleaning the commons occurance of the images for the article at the same time as the stub is made or expanded. It is really simple.
Understanding the copyright problems for images here should not be a problem. The plagarism claims that were made there were much larger crap than occurs on my website; being wikistalked and the stalker encouraged is a problem which should not be mine; instead, the people who allowed it and encouraged it to be a problem.
Putting a link to the original document that assigned the "auth" -- should not be a problem. It is typical of the science to do that and interesting when the document does not seem to actually exist....
Seriously, one of the participants of my ban is pleading for others to join her with her image restoration project. You are asking me to restore images here. I suggest that there is a problem here which does not involve me and is pointing directly at your perfect solution. -- carol (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave EncycloPetey alone. If it is impossible for you to make an edit without having to interact with him, contact someone neutral who's involved in the area in which you work. Otherwise, just don't talke to him, please. He's asked nicely, he's gotten frustrated, and now he's getting sick of it, so please let him be. Thanks. —Giggy08:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made thousands of edits and then tried to collaborate with a Plants Project person from English wikipedia. In my opinion, he has never asked nicely, but that is not a point and my opinion was not asked for. Let me ask you this: how many edits equals "an edit" in your vocabulary? -- carol (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how your edit count is at all relevant to the subject at hand. Clearly, he does not wish to collaborate with you, despite your wishing to work with him. Please don't press the issue when he'd just like some peace and quiet. —Giggy08:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I'm happy to talk to you, and since it's on your talk page, you're not actually bothering anyone else. —Giggy08:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My experience in with the Plants people was interesting. Petey marked one of my articles as a start. I read what a start article was supposed to be like and was kind of miffed/offended/put-out/upset/angry. A few months later, I was looking into what one of the Banksia people was doing as far as rating the articles. The difference between Petey marking my article as a "Start" and the articles which were being marked as a start by the Banksia person was astounding. The Banksia start article was basically a photograph caption.
Here, the Banksia project person who is also an administrator here is only interested in image restoration. So, I came to an interesting and actual scientific-like (as much as botany can be called a science) point here and went to talk to the person who had marked my article as a start which was more than just a photograph caption. It should not have been constrewed as "bothering" anyone, in my opinion. The lack of personal in what I had to show should have been considered "interesting" to anyone who has displayed an interest/ability/study in this field. -- carol (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this Start-Class Banksia article that needs rerating? I've just been through them all and the shortest article I could find was w:Banksia archaeocarpa. Considering this is an extinct species about which little has been published, the brevity is probably warranted; other articles, though longer, are worse. Yet I can't find anything that even vaguely resembles "a photograph caption". I consider myself a very hard judge when it comes to Banksia article assessments — really you have to be when you're assessing your own work. For example, when Dryandra got folded into Banksia, w:Banksia, w:Taxonomy of Banksia and w:Ecology of Banksia were all outdated, and I demoted them all to start, despite them being 27KB, 25KB and 30KB respectively, and all well referenced. I vaguely resent the implication that I am a soft rater.
And what makes you think I am only interested in image restoration? I've uploaded more than a Tb of imagery, including over 150 self-made maps, some satellite imagery, some of my own photos, heaps of historic Australian photos, and heaps of page scans. Because you restored a few images for me, you think that I'm interested in nothing but image restorations? Bah.
Excuse me: it is the only example that is provided of collaboration and it is always the suggestion of the direction that I should go in. Do forgive me if I missed something in the interaction.
It was not a Banksia article it was the ranking of articles by a person in the Banksia project. My problem with that was only worth mentioning a little when I saw it. It was mentioned today (in this batch of 24 hours) as the one of the reasons I look elsewhere when there is a "scientific" application of the interface here. The other being that the only collaboration that is suggested from that same project is image restoration which as I mentioned does not generally necessitate having learned anything about the science and I emphasize that I would like to see the people who participated in my banning there who do image restoration to begin to help you with that. Should I count the number of times it was suggested by you and compare it to the number of times anything else was suggested?
The start article which is to me the equivalent of a photograph caption should be among the last things I wrote on Petey's english wikipedia talk page.
One of the quotes of the day is about sitting through shakespearean plays just to hear where the quotes come from. That is a little boring; however the opposite of "he doth protest too much" is "he doesn't protest too much" but instead we have here "all this one has suggested is image restoration". -- carol (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommended it because I perceive that it is your biggest strength, and an area that apparently doesn't lead you into conflict with others. Evidently you think I have recommended it out of some grubby self-serving desire to promote my own agenda. You needn't worry about me suggesting it again. Hesperian13:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well they can be fixed after the templates have been worked on. Don't tell me what to do again! I'm sick of you keep tell me what I can and can't do. Also keep off my talk page unless it's something important and don't move your comments or my comment from your talk page to mine. Bidgee (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence agrees with what I requested, thank you.
Using the word please and explaining the unusual situation for the request is not me telling anyone (including you) what to do. Usually, in English, the word please preceeds a request and not a demand. Native speakers use the word please that way. "Please" make a note of that somewhere and refer to it before responding to anything I request again.
Is the word "sick" that you used here being used literally or figuratively? In either case, your "sickness" is being caused by your own perceptions and can be easily remedied by simply not editing anything that I have edited within the last few hours. That is a prescription for good health, not a demand.
I do only put important things on your talk page. If you can understand this, I actually have no desire to communicate with you at all and kind of would like it if you did not work here or if you feel you must work here, at least have expanded abilities, insight and a larger view of the world. I don't get all of the things I want and that is fine by me. "Please" note that when assuming that I put things on your talk page because I want to communicate with you.
After this, respond at the point of the message and keep your sickness problems on your talk page. Things should be healthy here. See the about to be added template and note that I am not using the word please here.
You did tell me what to do and when I say "I'm sick of you keep tell me what I can and can't do" I'm telling you that I'm over it (Telling me what to do). You don't put important comments on my talk page. You copy and paste stuff from you talk page on to mine, you rant on about the same old stuff on which I'm sick of. Bidgee (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, leave Bidgee alone... he has every right to work here, and you're about to lose that right if you keep this up. Leave EncycloPetey alone too (same thing there). --SB_Johnny | talk09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was testing a template and needed a category to remain a certain way for a while. SB, who needs to be left alone? Is it about productivity or is it about sickness?
It's about mutual respect. If you need an empty category to experiment with, make a category to experiment with (leave a note on it explaining why so someone doesn't delete it by accident). It's not appropriate to ask someone to not do the work they want to do. --SB_Johnny | talk09:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, about respect huh? Mutual respect. I will think about that and see where I can improve upon that. I am impressed that User:Bidgee looked up the information that I had looked up and put there. So, do not allow my request to seem like it was not made out of respect. The category was created recently I think and its creation had a lot to do with work on some templates. Since User:Bidgee is so into it, I will let that person explain it all. The work with the dataset and the work with the categories that have images and those that don't have images. The ease of working with templates so that new categories do not get created just to be deleted. User:Bidgee should be able to explain all of this so I will leave you two in each others capable management to work through all of this.... -- carol (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, if the template is in the experimental phase, just use a dummy category. If you want, you can just add categories to a few images on Wikiversity, and experiment with the template there (parser code works the same), and then when the kinks are worked out, bring it back to commons and implement it. "Category wars" are bad enough without experiments being run in the middle of the road.
What is "e/c" and it is a dataset that is here, the categories, images and such do not exist at wiktionary. It is changes that will last for minutes most of the time. It is a new road and the road isn't finished yet. What is "e/c"? -- carol (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after e/c with Lycaon :-)) e/c = "edit conflict". Carol, the images on commons exist on all the wikimedia wikis. They are redlinks, but the images are there. You can add categories to those by hitting "edit", and then you can copy the template over and finish working on it, and then bring it back to commons and start implementing it. It will look the same there as it does here, but you'll have peace and quiet to figure out any issues with the code.
.png){kind=link}