User talk:Blechnic/Archive2

{{WikiProject Plants|class=Stub|importance=low}}

Wiki drama trumps all, good editors are encouraged to leave, and bad editors are supported. Just someone show me one good contribution by CarolSpears that shows that she's worth all the time spent on her, rather than just reverting the reams of cybercrap she's introduced to Wikipedia while insulting other editors and questioning the intelligence of other editors on en.wiki and Commons. --Blechnic (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Blechnic/CarolSpears problem edits

Interesting that en.Wiki editors apparently have a guideline which says, "If an editor is pissed off about the quality of Wikipedia cuss at them and encourage them to get the fuck out of here; in fact, slam the damn door on their way out. And, while you're at it, make false accusations against them to make them look like shit."

Isoberlinia doka Hydnora africana Anogeissus leiocarpus Laportea aestuans Florissantia Euryops chrysanthemoides Uvaria chamae Azorella selago Alchornea cordifolia Okoubaka Coffea magnistipula Gahnia Antiaris Morus mesozygia Alexandr Innokentevich Tolmatchew Cushion plant Auguste Jean Baptiste Chevalier Horace R. Clayton Shotgun Players Santi Santamaría Monterey Formation Eric W. Sawyer Nestor J. Zaluzec Ngadda River Marine bacteriophage Wheat yellow leaf virus Flexiviridae Dependovirus Komoé River

Link to current attack Blechnic location, please centralize all attacks on Blechnic to one location rather than to an assortment of user talk pages to make sure as many Wikipedians as want can get in on the fun.[1]

Spears has been indefinitely blocked. Her socking has likely ensured it will stick. We're now able as a community to deal with the effects of her actions, which will need the best on board. In short, the community has (eventually) come round to your view and those of others that she had been given too much free rein. Now that this has occurred, I suggest dropping this and moving on - people able to produce quality content are a rare thing these days and I can see you're in that category. Orderinchaos 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a truck driver.

I was reflecting on the events of this past few weeks, and it occurred to me that you remind me quite strongly of an editor who left a few months before you started, someone who had my respect, and whom for no particular reason I was quite fond of, although unfortunately she was vulnerable to occasional explosions of unfettered rage. Because she was such good value, I was inclined to forgive her and make excuses for her during her odd bouts of sillyness, just as I have made excuses for Carol in recent times.

So anyway, the thought occurred to me that you might actually be this previous user, operating under a new account. If you were, and I knew it, I certainly wouldn't have been so harsh on you. I would still have thought that you went too far in your pursuit of Carol, and made some errors of judgement, but I would have communicated that much more gently, and I certainly would not have used words like stalking. On the contrary, I would have been inclined to defend you as doing your best in a difficult situation, and bound to make the occasional error.

You can see the double standard there. Whether or not you are this other user should not make a scrap of difference. The fact that I don't know you doesn't give me license to harsh out on you; especially not while I am serving up liberal dollops of benefit-of-the-doubt elsewhere. I wish that I had viewed what you were doing, and what you were trying to do, with the same empathy as I viewed Carol's transgressions.

So, I am sorry for responding so aggressively to you, and especially for using words like stalking. I hope I have learned something from this, so that it doesn't happen again.

Hesperian 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently opposed this image on the basis of only one side of the leaf being shown, I wanted to point out that "gumtrees" don't really have a recognizable topside and underside. The two side are indistinguishable on this species although and I can't speak with certainty I would say this is borne out in all "gumtrees" since the leaves hang straight down toward the ground - no difference between the sides as you would see with a maple or oak, for example. I will of course keep your suggestion in mind when I do some similar photos of some other species.
As to your suggestion that the image doesn't show "glossy green" I can only say that this image gives an accurate representation of what I see when I look at these leaves. The leaves are not glossy in the same way that, say, oak leaves are. It is very subtle, I would almost go as far as to say describing them as glossy is misleading unless you've seen it for yourself.
You also suggested that this is not a full adult leaf, the tree is ~70 feet tall so thats some strange immature tree :-). There are gumtrees that have much longer and more slender leaves than this, there are also some that have almost round leaves but that is irrefutably an adult leaf. You are, however, right that the leaves of the sapling are round and I think I can see where some confusion may have arisen. Thanks, benjamint 11:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Just move the image up, for example to just before a text paragraph you want displayed next to the image. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Simply place {{clear}} where you want a separation (click the link for details). I've done it for you. If you do want an image to be included in the See also section, just move it there. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blechnic - I'm looking this copyvio over, and I went to the website that you suggest is having its copyright violated. It's one of the articles referenced, but I don't see any of the sentences from that page being directly copied from the other page. There are, admittedly, far too many citations to this one page, but I'm not seeing a direct cut 'n paste. However, I suspect that I may have missed what it is you're pointing to, so wanted to ask where exactly you think the violation is (like, "Second paragraph contains third sentence of article", etc) Cheers in advance, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, once I read through your interactions with the author, I took another look, and noticed the issue. A bit too subtle for me to begin with! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution[edit]

Per various policies, I have deleted the article as it was, and restored it with the information that is not a copyright violation. That means that the copyrighted information has been completely removed from the public history, and the existing article should not infringe on the real author's rights. Please let me know if this outcome is satisfactory or not, and I'll try to address any concerns you may have. Also, feel free to let me know if you feel the material that remains is a copyvio, though my initial checks suggested it isn't. Best wishes, and thanks for your help Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]