User talk:Melburnian/Archive 4

• Archive 1 – Nov 2005 - Mar 2008
• Archive 2 – April 2008 - Jan 2009
• Archive 3 – Feb 2009 - Dec 2009

WikiProject Algae

WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Wikipedia for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Wikipedia. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of my league, but I'm pleased to see the project up and running and I have it watchlisted. Melburnian (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthotroche

G'day mate,

Out of curiosity, what possessed you to convert the genus article Anthotroche into the species article Anthotroche walcottii? Titles get changed all the time, but it is not often I see someone to alter an article's topic.

Hesperian 05:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. It wasn't until I saw the above redlink that I realised that it had been at the species title all along. I suppose when faced with a genus article at a species title, it is up to you how to harmonize them.

Oh well, it was an excuse to say hello. :-) Hesperian 05:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page in my absence - much appreciated. Orderinchaos 08:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, good to be able to assist two interstate-travelling content sourcers at once :) Melburnian (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Compartmentalization of decay in trees! --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Plant photo's

Hi all, I'm doing some cleaning on my drives and archive a couple of thousand photographs but thought I'd upload a few flowers to my Flickr account locations and dates are noted but the images are only 600px if you need a larger version drop me a note. Gnangarra 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I didnt really need the ID's but its appreciated, I just put them there for ease of uploading to view in case there was any that might have been wanted for articles here. Gnangarra 05:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty nice collection there. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

thx, if you ever get over this way(especially in sep/oct) I'll free up few days to run you around some these areas. Gnangarra 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Comesperma scoparium Broom Milkwart Photographed in bushland adjacent to the Cemetery, Quariading Western Australia Flora Base description
• 
  Grevillea integrifolia Entire-Leaved Grevillea Photographed in bushland adjacent to the Cemetery, Quariading Western Australia Flora Base description

Here are the ones you've requested Gnangarra 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks! Melburnian (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm it hinks theres a problem

you requested the same photo for two species.. Gnangarra 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

fixed replaced with JFNP_5217 no change in file name Gnangarra 06:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Alpine Heathland

Is my categorisation of the environment in File:Mt Anne from High Shelf Camp.jpg as alpine heathland correct? I just wanted a second opinion. The elevation of the camera would be 1150 meters roughly. I was mostly going from the descriptions here. The pandanis only ever got to maybe thigh high and were much, much smaller than some of the ones at lower altitudes such as near lake dobson on mt field. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This guide to plants in the park says "The upper zone, from 880 to 1220 metres, is subalpine woodland dominated by the endemic Tasmanian snow gum E. coccifera. Higher up, the more exposed areas carry alpine heath and shrubberies on moorland." It certainly looks like alpine heath. Great shot! Melburnian (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hakea

Can we get your opinion at Commons:User talk:Gnangarra#Another please? Hesperian 06:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bah you silly buggers - what a lot of doubt - they are so bloody obvious - do I have to provide refs and cites to prove my point? Have a good weekend :) and you also have a gmail changed mind - will gmail them not you - sorry for the intrusionSatuSuro 09:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Ommatoiulus moreletii

I appreciate the quick response. Factsontheground (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Are you comfortable with this? If you aren't then it is very likely something could be done about it. Hesperian 11:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Seems not to be too problematic ... so far.--Melburnian (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Adenanthos

G'day mate,

Great to be collaborating with you again. If you have any more Adenanthos pics floating around, I'll be happy to expand any stubs you see fit to create.

Hesperian 13:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the expansion on macropodianus, it's barely 24 hours since I stumbled upon that little plant. I don't think I have any photos of the redlinked species, I'll keep a lookout for the ones that are in cultivation in this part of the world or allegedly so from a quick internet survey (list below). I'll make stubs for the redlinked ones below on a "build it and they will come basis".

• Adenanthos - 'Green Carpet', 'Mallee Legend', 'Waratah Bay'
• Adenanthos barbiger
• Adenanthos cuneatus - 'Coral Carpet', 'Coral Drift', 'Lighthouse', prostrate form
• Adenanthos cygnorum subsp. chamaephyton
• Adenanthos detmoldii
• Adenanthos ileticos
• Adenanthos macropodianus
• Adenanthos meisneri
• Adenanthos obovatus
• Adenanthos pungens 'Coral Cover'
• Adenanthos sericeus - 'Silver Streak’, dwarf form
• Adenanthos x cunninghamii --Melburnian (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's of any use or interest, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Adenanthos. There are 46 articles. I'll be satisfied to get them all to C-Class, when means we're 10% finished already. Hesperian 13:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Already have it watchlisted :). 46 articles make it much less daunting than Banksia or Grevillea and many others.--Melburnian (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Adenanthos macropodianus

On March 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adenanthos macropodianus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 03:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:218.185.54.44

I think the next time this Broadford clown vandalises the article, we should block indefinitely. That IP has only been used for vandalism. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, let us say 3 months whoever of us catching him at it again. It is just tedious really. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Melburnian. You have new messages at Bidgee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bidgee (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

NSW Waratah

Hope you don't mind - I added you as co-nominator to Telopea speciosissima as you've done plenty over the years from go to whoa :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bah

I was out in the bush near the coast today, and I noticed that the woollybushes there, which I had always assumed were A. cygnorum stunted by salt-laden winds, had laminate leaves. So I took a branch home, and have just identified it as A. meisneri. I didn't have my camera with me, and my branch is too wilted and beaten up to pose for me now, so that's an opportunity lost. :-( On the other hand, I know where to go back to later in the year when it ought to be flowering. :-) Hesperian 11:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I saw a forlorn specimen in a pot in a nursery yesterday. It was probably pining for its coastal home. --Melburnian (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supplying a photo of the ROCOR church in East Brunswick. I will begin work on User:Russavia/RusOrthAust in the nearest future, as I begin to get more photos of the various ROCOR churches in Australia. An article on the actual church may be done also if I can ascertain it is notable for WP standards. Thanks again, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you alter the page Boronia imalayensis? I am trying to find if this plant is rare or not. And no-one wishes to answer any questions. It is a simple question. Is the plant rare, vulnerable or endangered. And no-one in the NSW national park, or the Royal Botanic Gardens wants to answer the question. Phone calls, personal face to face questions and e-mails are all ignored. Why did you delete my remarks? Poyt448 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a direct message to me in the first instance would have been more polite. Poyt448 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies from me as well. Sorry for being aggressive.

I'm very frustrated trying to find out whether if Boronia imlayensis has a rare status. Trying to get an answer from the NSW botanical authorities is almost impossible. They refuse to answer questions. They block my e-mail. They dodge the question. All I ask is a simple question. Why can't I get a simple answer? Surely a plant like the Imlay Boronia should be "rare" or "vulnerable", possibly "endangered". I saw so many of them last November on the mountain. Why is this all so difficult?

I've seen your name many times on Wiki, and you have contributed wonderfully well. regards Peter Poyt448 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Flick Photo 3

Voila! the one you wanted and a 2nd one Gnangarra 13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• 
• 

Australian place name convention

Hi Melburnian. There is currently a discussion being held at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention. Your opinion would be very welcome there. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken

I have the damned things (juveniles) in full flower within 20 metres of here - will try what you are concerned about - however the petiolaris leaves are dealt with the images taken for the commons set SatuSuro 07:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Melburnian (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My rant at cas's page is my frustration with bothering with getting badges for piccies - dangly bits or stupid clouds are sometimes put more at a premium here or at commons - and the actual vital identifiers are ignored SatuSuro 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for vital identifiers in Wikipedialand. --Melburnian (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK got it - you founds the subsp links - what a relief! ta SatuSuro 13:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

flickr photo 4

Voila Gnangarra 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tetratheca hirsuta

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tetratheca thymifolia

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for updating the latitudinal distribution on the article Mirbelia rubiifolia. I have little knowledge of small Australian plants. It's surprising that Plant Net are wrong in this case, saying the southern limit is Jervis Bay. (My interest is the rainforest trees of south eastern Australia). But when outdoors, I like to photograph beautiful things, despite not knowing what they are. Regards, Poyt448 (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination: Acacia leprosa 'Scarlet Blaze'

Hello! Your submission of Acacia leprosa 'Scarlet Blaze' at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Acacia image

I've replied on my talk page but thank you for reminding me to fix my error. I've as VI what happens with the incorrect species ID.

On a different plant/weed I was wondering if you know that this species (start of the flower) is? I'm guessing it is a thistle which get to around 1-1.5m tall. Bidgee (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's a Variegated Thistle - Silybum marianum[1]. Melburnian (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks again

• 
  1 possibly Dillwynia, Blue Mountains N.P.
• 
  2 don't know this one, Ku-ring-gai Chase N.P.
• 
  3 un-labelled at the small botanic gardens at Dee Why

Hi,

Well done in finding the reference to the wonderful Wilsons Prom. And what a great place that is. The Plant Net references suggested this plant does not go as far south as Victoria. But indeed it does.

I still have many, many yellow and red flowers of the pea family to attempt to identify. Incidentally, the wildflowers now at Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park are the best in years. It's a spectacular sight in August.

Please advise if you think my identification of any of these photos is not correct.

kind regards Peter Poyt448 (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer: any assistance with identification would be appreciated.

Yes, I think that spectacular pink & white flower at the Blue Mountains is the Woollsia. Incidentally, the first of these three yellow & red flowers was growing right next to it, (at Bedford Road, Woodford). Poyt448 (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo 1: I'll see if I can find some kind of plant listing for the Blue Mountains area.

Based on this, perhaps Dillwynia elegans or Dillwynia retorta. Melburnian (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo 2: Do you know which of the plant communities that the second photo was taken in?[2]

I think it's Bossiaea heterophylla. Melburnian (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo 3: Cultivated plants are tricky as you can't narrow down the list of suspects.

Dillwynia sp. Melburnian (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with, may have to do it over a few days though. Melburnian (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the second photo was taken in low heath country on skeletal sandstone soils. I thought the first one might be Dillwynia sieberi, why did you exclude that one as a possibility? I have no idea about the cultivated one. These pea family plants are far too difficult for me. On the weekend I found three plants of varying degrees of rarity growing in situ. Eucalyptus squamosa, Eucalyptus luehmanniana and the extremely rare Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii. I'll stick to these types of plants, at least I can identify them! cheers Poyt448 (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding photo 1, I haven't found anything that pinpoints Dillwynia sieberi to this area, but I can't rule it out. I wonder if this area is part of "Blue Mountains Heath and Scrub" as described here as it includes the Faulconbridge to Woodford area. I notice that the associated plant list includes Woollsia pungens as photographed by you, and two Dillwynia species - Dillwynia floribunda and Dillwynia retorta.

Ping

HI Melburnian, User_talk:Hesperian#Banksia_telmatiaea I hope will be of . And I'll dig up the photogenic pea during the week for youGnangarra 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Acacia leprosa 'Scarlet Blaze'

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lasiopetalum

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Everlastings...

I never thought of them much until I saw this in a garden centre. It is the brightest (almost fluorescent) yellow flower I've ever seen:

strawburst

Trying to get an overview on cultivars is a challenge...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree cultivars are generally much harder to deal with than species and all the more so for this genus. Have you tried US Patents search for Xerochrysum cultivars? You can put "Xerochrysum OR Bracteantha" in the query box[3] and hit search to get some detailed information on a large number of cultivars. The trick is that the cultivar names are often not the same as the names that they are marketed under, for instance your very nice plant on the right is listed under 'Stabur Yel'. There's also some info from the Canadian government.[4] Melburnian (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I can add it now :) Funny how they are still using Bracteantha - sad that genus name lost out temporally really as it is a nice sounding name :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Canna (plant)

Hey. Thanks for reverting the category additions to Canna (plant). I've been trying to discuss this and other issues with Look2See1 (talk · contribs) here, but I don't seem to be getting through. I've been trying to clean up after this user, but s/he seems to be a really enthusiastic newbie that is creating a lot more problems than s/he is cleaning up. I wouldn't say it's disruptive, but Look2See1's mucking around in categories has not shown any improvement, even after I've left several messages of specific examples and links to guidelines. Wondered if you wanted to take a stab at it? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll check it out, hopefully tonight (AEST) when I can have a proper look through. Melburnian (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Melburnian, saw this after my posting below. Besides my genera mistake, what are the other cat. issues here with Canna (plant) ? I'm sorry to bother you, and am not a 'newbie' to botany after four decades in the profession, but do not understand the Canna problem and want to learn.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Melburnian, thanks for your post on my talkpage on an 'interim' list article for the phytoremediation plants. I'm working on one for the Sierra Nevada-Sequoia National Park flora-fauna to remedy that debate and benefit all the other parks in the range. With Category:Phytoremediation plants and Canna (plant), where it is specifically mentioned and linked in the Phytoremediation article [without species], I am still baffled why a link is not sensible and want to understand. Meanwhile it is your decision, until the list article is done an issue is mute.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your reply completely clarifies the Canna-Phyto cat. question completely, thank you so much for taking the time. It is furthermore a good step applicable in my general cat. use education. - with appreciation---Look2See1 t a l k → 05:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for plant articles

Hi Melburnian, sorry I mis-assumed plant species comprehensiveness on that genera-cat. link, I do understand the classification system well. Looking from California I figure you deserve claim to all species in those wonderful native Australian genera. But - back to science... Thank You---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tips

Hello friend. I require some useful tips about plant articles. Can you suggest some? Thanks--Sainsf<^> (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bushfires in Victoria

Great work on fixing the article. What a nice way to be proved wrong! --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Good job. –Moondyne 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Victor Harbor

Is there any reason why you removed the category? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(If so, feel free to remove it - with an explanation. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Hi, it was part 2 of this [5]. It's a PhotoCatBot check request category that asks editors to check whether the request has been fulfilled. Four nice photos have been added to the article since the request was put in, so I removed the request and then saw the check request category was still there on the next edit so removed that as well Melburnian (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow

happy christmas to you too! thankfully someone in the australian project has a sense of humour (re your user pages) and facility to play with it as well :) SatuSuro 12:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

ditto :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys :)

sent :)

Hello, Melburnian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— MelbourneStar1 (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Received, thanks. Melburnian (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Melburian, thanks for your intervention on the Heatherton article - I'd lost patience so sincerely appreciate your input. M1rtyn (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, its a tricky business when major landowners use historical addresses that don't equate with their current gazetted physical location.Melburnian (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know your Opinion

Hi Melburnian :) I am asking for your opinion (so no future disputes are made) on the new change of the Cheltenham, Victoria article. I have made a new section on the article, titled 'Health'. Please express your opinion on my talk page...I hope this is fine with you. I have done research, with sources inccluded.

If you like what is mentioned, I can do something simmilar for the Heatherton, Victoria article. Thankyou :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Willis Island

Thanks for your timely post on Willis Island. I was please to know they got the staff out. Jimb2 (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was too. Melburnian (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Elm picture

Now at File:English Elm Preston Park Brighton.jpg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wombat State Forest

rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 12:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful edits to the new article I created, at The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Much appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't cross my mind...

Hello, Melburnian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch heritage buildings

Hi there, good work on the Christchurch heritage building articles. What a shame that it needs a devastating earthquake to acknowledge those architectural gems. I've uploaded a lot more photos and you'll find them in this category and some of its subcategories and in this category, in case you are keen to start some more articles. Schwede66 02:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Melburnian. You have new messages at Schwede66's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Timeball Station - I'm gutted about this one; it's really sad. Are you keen to start writing this one up? Have watchlisted your talk page, so you can reply here without a t/b. Schwede66 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Very sad indeed. I'll make a start over the weekend. Thanks for all your good work on the other articles. Melburnian (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are just about to drown in DYK credits. I've got six of our articles on the nomination page at the moment. And I've got a few more photos without having got myself into dangerous situations (the biggest danger are the cops, some of whom are a little overzealous). Keep an eye on my commons contributions. Schwede66 08:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK noms and your uploads of historical photos. Hope the overzealous police aren't ours :\ [6] I'll keep an eye on your commons uploads with this state-of-the-art tracking device:[7] --Melburnian (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Kenton Chambers is being pulled down today; Category II. It's deep within the cordon, so I'd be surprised if it gets reported at all. Most of the people working on the top floor are known to me, and one of them got told by Police. Not sure where "T & G Building" comes from. I don't have photos. Schwede66 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an indicator of the sheer scale of this disaster that the loss of individual heritage buildings barely rate a mention. There's T & G Building, Geelong, T & G Building, Brisbane, T & G Melbourne[8] and others.--Melburnian (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an update on the happenings here. I've written Scott Statue, as that one was finally reported. It's within the core of the CBD, so I haven't been able to 'venture' there. There cordon's been pulled in and I now live outside it, so my photo expeditions may have come to an end. We went east yesterday, and I came across Holy Trinity Church and Englefield Lodge, in case you are still keen to write up Chch heritage. Have also uploaded Church of the Good Shepherd, Christchurch to Commons; all these are Category I. Schwede66 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You've done a nice job on the Scott Statue article. Church of the Good Shepherd, Christchurch seems to have some decent source material available and the Mountfort connection, so I will give that one a go. Melburnian (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Holy Trinity Avonside.--Melburnian (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Patterson Lakes, Victoria - 18,000 bytes of plagiarism?

Hi Melburnian! :) I was just wondering, if you would be able to tell me what the policies on Wikipedia, are for copying large chunks of information from other websites to an article? Because If you take a look at the Patterson Lakes, Victoria article, and most, if not all of that article has been copied from other sites, word-for-word. Nearby Cheltenham, Victoria, it's article is 4,000 bytes short to Patterson Lakes, and already the article features more than 30 references, 30 more than Patterson Lakes. It is worrying because this article is so large, but knowone really has contributed anything by themselves...only copied and pasted information. What is more shocking than copy + paste, is the editor who seems to be contributing the most...User:1subwoofer...The same user that had copy + pasted on the Parkdale Secondary College article.

What can I possibly do? This user has already been asked to provide references, but has failed to comply, and if this user was to stop editing, we still have 18,000 bytes of copy + pasted information... Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you find obvious copy and paste copyvios on the article, delete the copy and pasted sentences/paragraphs(s) and (importantly) identify the source web page address (assuming it's a web page) in your edit summary. If there are copyvios from several sources, it is best to remove them one at a time, showing each source in each individual edit summary. Once this is done, a warning should be left on the user's page.Melburnian (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Melburnian, It may take a while, but I'll do this at the best of my ability, :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jumped the Gun :| Slightly however...The user has not provided any references to back up his/her "Close-Paraphrased" sections, has not provided summaries, but has simply changed words...Plus, when a section is copy + pasted into a google search engine, it comes up with a number of different sites with the section in bod, meaning other site(s) have used that information, and it is hard to know who got there first.

Yes there are many mirror sites. One way to tell if a site is a mirror see if other articles on the site copy other Wikipedia articles.--Melburnian (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this grounds for removal of sections that do not have references, did not have a Edit summary? Because If I was that user, I could make something up, add it into the article, and know it wouldn't be challenged because there are no references in the whole article. If it is not grounds for removal, could you please help me get through this? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of a grey area and requires judgement. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." If you find specific issues with the article that need addressing, it would be a good idea to mention them on the article talk page (as you have started to do) which I will watch, and it gives others a chance to respond as well. Melburnian (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for your input on this, I will notify a few users who seem to be editing the article the most, User:1subwoofer will be the first. Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Durham Street Methodist Church

Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Godley Statue

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, have you seen this? So far, the second-most viewed DYK this month. Schwede66 08:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lyttelton Timeball Station

Hello! Your submission of Lyttelton Timeball Station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed that, but I'm not sure whether the fix needs its own reference. Schwede66 08:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll triple check it but I think you'll be good to go based on that source. - Dravecky (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Melburnian (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rolleston Statue

Hello! Your submission of Rolleston Statue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sydenham Heritage Church

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rose Historic Chapel

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Victoria Clock Tower

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Passing observation

• 
  DYK
• 
  FP

Two Australian plants on the main page. Cool. --Melburnian (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rolleston Statue

Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lyttelton Timeball Station

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Church of the Good Shepherd, Christchurch

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Holy Trinity Avonside

Thanks from the DYK Project and Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ID assist

Any ideas these single leaf growths were in the boranup reserve(herb layer in Karri forest) south of Margaret river any thoughts as to what the might be, there was a reasonable population I saw ~50 in the area I covered, mostly in pairs like this though each leaf looks like its a separate plant Gnangarra 14:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be Cryptostylis ovata[9][10][11] --Melburnian (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks does look right, shame I saw no flowers since it flowers Nov-apr but then again its been a weird summer Gnangarra 02:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, while it's been hot and dry there it's been cool and moist here. --Melburnian (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Bush Ochre

I think the ID is correct, but I don't really know anything about these plants. My caption was straight from the ID at the gardens (I still have a photo of the ID label with the original photo) - but they could have got it wrong.

Yes, they look very similar; however going on the descriptions and other photos the Bush Pearls look to be very low growing compact plants, while the Bush Ochre is described as "0.6-1.2 metres tall", which seems to match a bit more with my photo (I think I've cropped a bit off the top, having a look back at the original). However it also says the Bush Ochre has "bronze and yellow flowers", with flowering in sprin--Melburnian (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)g, summer and autumn - the flowers must come from the pink buds, unfortunately mine seems to show no flowers, having been taken in mid-winter.

Do you think it's wrong? --jjron (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
  Bush Pearl
• 
  Bush Ochre
• 
  Bush Ochre

The Plant Breeders Rights Database mentions that 'Bush Ochre' has a light density of pubescence on the perianth tube and a higher density on the ovary (the bulge at the base). That means that the yellow green colour shows through more above the ovary, giving the overall "bronze and yellow" effect. This effect can be seen best on fully developed flowers.--Melburnian (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Shrug. It looks more like what you're identifying as the bush pearl if you're certain they that labelling is right (one of your photos looks to have an id label, but it's unreadable in the photo). As I say I def have the Bush Ochre label photographed with this plant. I went to the Gardens and took those photos not long after the Australian Garden first opened, so I guess they may have had it mislabelled at the time (?). --jjron (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As with yours, the three that I uploaded were labelled, and like you, I always take photos of the labels (always 1-label 2-plant). It is true that any of the above photos may potentially be mislabelled. When this happens, I find it is usually misplacement of labels (ie moved around) rather than incorrect labelling. I'll check these out on my next visit to the AG.Melburnian (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's wrong. Just checked the originals again. Yes I did photograph the label, but the time stamp is several minutes later than the photos of the actual plants, and (the kicker) in the background of the sign-photo are parts of plants that look more like your bush ochre. Thinking back - and it was almost five years ago - I seem to remember pretty sparse labelling on the plants, maybe a side-effect of the gardens only being recently opened. So what may have happened is I photographed the bush pearl (if that's the right name), looked around for an identifying sign and eventually found that 'bush ochre' sign on a similar looking plant nearby that, being considerably smaller, I decided must have just been a more recently planted, less mature version of it. If you agree this is probably right I'll look into renaming it in the articles etc it's in, and moving the file on Commons to a new name over the next few days. --jjron (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We can't be 100% on this, but that makes three of us that think it is not correct, so I think changing it is the right way to go. I've also found some October 2006 photos of Bush Pearl on my drive that match the one the I took above.Melburnian (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll make the changes probably this weekend. Good spotting (and also by the anon IP). --jjron (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Melburnian (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And it is done: . I think I've changed all the links - editing those foreign language wikis, esp. the Asian ones, is tricky business. --jjron (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, visits to interwikiland can be interesting. Thanks for that.--Melburnian (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User or Article?

Hi Melburnian! :) I was just wondering, I was editing the Jersey Shore (TV series) article a few weeks ago, and a user by the name of Twizzler Belmer had made a false edit [12], so I reverted it and told him/her that I reverted it for... Today I had a look at what I said, and then had a look at this persons page, The Only thing I am totally baffled about is that if you have a look at this ----> Twizzla Belmer ...could you please tell me is this an article or a User? Because this person did make an edit on the article. I also can't see his/her contributions list. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The user's userpage had been redirected to mainspace. Now fixed.--Melburnian (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Garden Cosmos and Asteraceae

Can you revert version to as 12:53, 4 April 2011 Melburnian (talk | contribs) m (4,448 bytes) Cosmos (plant)? Lepota (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't support a reversion, as I agree with the edit summary given[13] Melburnian (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

aargh, citing a sentence...

Do you have a Flora of Victoria or sometthing which can source:

"It is widespread in medium rainfall eucalypt forests across Victoria. It is a common understory shrub, sometimes small tree, in heathy and shrubby forests in part of its range."

I was looking (unsuccessfully) for something online... :( cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a bit of a dig around at home tonight and see what I can come up with. Melburnian (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

phew! thanks for that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Comesperma

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Crataegus tanacetifolia photo

Hi Melburnian,

I've just had an email notification from Crataegus specialist Knud Ib Christensen, who knows that I've been editing Crataegus entries on Wikipedia, but is not himself a Wikipedian. He points out "I found a classical misidentification: the image of Crataegus tanacetifolia is actually an image of Crataegus orientalis (probably subsp. orientalis)! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crataegus_tanacetifolia".

This is a common mistake in botanical gardens collections!! I thought that you'd probably want to deal with the situation rather than have me just remove the photo. Best regards, Nadiatalent (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've removed it from the article and interwikis and put in a rename request at commons.Melburnian (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Now at File:Crataegus orientalis, Pirianda Garden, Victoria, Australia - 20061126.jpg.--Melburnian (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! I've added it to the Crataegus orientalis page. It would be good to get a photo of ripe fruit, to replace the lead image (which is mine, but I don't often get to Denmark to see that tree). Nadiatalent (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I took some photos today of the same tree in fruit and uploaded them to commons.--Melburnian (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's wonderful, but I can't find the photos in Commons. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've directed the Crataegus orientalis article commons link to the commons category, so hopefully they should show up now. --Melburnian (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you've probably seen on the talk page that Knud Ib Christensen confirms from your additional photos that it is subsp. orientalis. I've added the photo that I think shows the diagnostic characters particularly well to the Russian and Azerbayjani pages as well. That's a really nice addition! (I'm too unsure of those languages to add more photos to them.)

P.S. Strangely, the commons category still isn't working (perhaps it's some kind of time-lag problem that will eventually clear itself). Nadiatalent (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the subspecies to the commons descriptions. I temporarily had a problem diplaying the new commons category photos on my work computer, that then showed up after I logged on. I'm sure, as you say, the problem will clear itself. Melburnian (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo ID

Wondering if you could ID of this Banksia (flower and leaf photos: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Bidgee (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The leaves and flower spikes look like integrifolia, but in one shot (File:Unidentified Banksia flower (3).jpg) there are older spikes with persistent grey flowers which looks a little odd. If there are still older spikes which are bare with open follicles then it is a planted integrifolia.

Now to confuse things, the Wagga branch of the Australian Plants Society saved some seed of a few rare local forms of Banksia marginata which had large immature leaves which looked like integrifolia leaves, and grew into a largish plant up to 5 m high. They were fascinating as the seedlings gre very thick potato-like trunks. I suspect, however that the adult leaves were truncate at the ends and narrower. There is another stand of a similar large leaved form on Gulpa Island at Deniliquin, a plant of which is growing in my garden. Anyway, if you can take a photo of the oldest cones on the plant, that would tell us. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, I was initially thinking this was a straight-forward integrifolia ID but then wasn't quite sure and was in the process of dropping you a note when you answered here. As you say, photos of the oldest cones would make things clearer. Hopefully Bidgee, they would resemble either one of these.Melburnian (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah let's hope so...unfortunately the salicinae are good at throwing up hybrids and hybrid swarms... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I need to ask the folks in Wagga where they planted the local provenance marginata around town....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to easy getting a photograph of this Banksia as it is in a fenced off area (there is away around it but council may not be impressed about it), so just limited what I can photograph from the fence. 8, 9, 10 and 11. There are two bushes, one closest (35.108886°S 147.370852°E / -35.108886; 147.370852) to the fence it is the tallest one (3-4m tall) and the other is closest to the path (35.108875°S 147.370909°E / -35.108875; 147.370909) next to the lagoon (around 1.5-2m tall) is the smallest. Bidgee (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny. just looked at my Deniliquin marginata - geez it looks like integrifolia, so this might be the local form. I will try and ring some folks tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC) adult leaves - look heaps like integrifolia but are much thinner-fealing, juvenile leaves. Took a photo of the flower spike but well out of focus.. :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the adult leaves look very much like integrifolia. Its interesting that the very small adult leaves of the Illabarook trees have much greater similarity to dwarf heathland forms than these.Melburnian (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Ok I've got a few more photos of some plants/weeds that need ID'ing but I'll do one for now, I'm hoping someone may know. This (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) is something I've not seen before, most likely flushed down during the flood in December. Bidgee (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That one appears to be Datura stramonium.Melburnian (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Never seen it before and didn't know how I could describe it on Google Search! I've uploaded more photos by have put them on a temp page so it doesn't clog-up your talk page. Bidgee (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The first one appears to be Tamarix aphylla[14] and, at a cursory glance, the second one looks like Allocasurina torulosa (deep furrowed bark, purplish tinge to the foliage), which were commonly planted down here in the 80s. Eucalyptus, hmmm others do much better with this genus than me. A closeup of the gumnuts helps a lot, and a trunk shot would be good too.Melburnian (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, moved the photographs. Would be good to see the gum nuts but hard to get to as the ones that fell on the ground were washed away by the above average rainfall earlier in the year. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Am useless at eucs too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified parasitic plant

Dear merburnian,

Thank you for your help concerning the identification of File:Conopholis sp1.JPG. It is indeed a Balanophoraceae taxon, which I have further identified as Balanophora fungosa.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help, an interesting plant! Melburnian (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

For your info: Have look on [15], which confirms the presence of Balanophora fungosa in Thailand. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the images look very much like yours, and it is good to confirm occurrence. Melburnian (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Magnolia

Thanks for this edit. I was drawn into editing the article because the hatnote was improperly bolded; I then removed the italics from the subject in the opening sentence because, in my ignorance, I did not realize that "Magnolia" was also a scientific name. Thanks for correcting my error. 98.71.218.201 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit confusing when the genus name and the common name are the same. Thanks for the note. Melburnian (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cranbourne, Victoria

Hi Melburnian! :) I have a worry and a concern reguarding the Cranbourne, Victoria article. There have been around three Ip-editors that have made edits that have used the word: "UK2K" All rivisions, I have reverted as they constitute to Vandalism. But only today, I did a little research on google, and found out UK2K stands for : "U Keen 2 Kill" There's even a facebook page about this, and also when you type this word in Google it comes up in the suggestions "UK2K Gangs" ...Here are the Article edits:

• May 14 -[16]
• April 7 - [17] - Editor explained what the UK2K is.
• April 5 - [18]

This article has experienced a lot of vandalism. I'm probably just paranoid, I don't live there, but to know that there are gangs just a few suburbs away, makes me feel a little 'unsafe'. I'm not asking the page to be protected just because of these edits + other vandalism...I just want to know what you think about this, or what I or others can do to stop Ip's making such edits on the article. Sorry if I sound stupid, I just am worried, and curious too -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's really best to just revert and ignore. I've put the article on my watchlist.Melburnian (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nadgee Nature Reserve

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Cactus article

I notice you changed "litres" back to "liters" again. I've done this several times as far as I remember. For some reason this article seem to attract inappropriate edits. Would it be worth considering semi-protection? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I made this post, it has been changed by an anonymous editor and reverted once more. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

These disruptive edits have been persistent and the editor uses a dynamic IP so I've semi-protected for a week. Melburnian (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)