Who was the 'you' in your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=431484678&oldid=431483416 post] at [[User talk:Sandstein]] directed at? <font color="#C4112F">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">presiding officer</span>]]─╢</font> 13:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Who was the 'you' in your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=431484678&oldid=431483416 post] at [[User talk:Sandstein]] directed at? <font color="#C4112F">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">presiding officer</span>]]─╢</font> 13:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can I just say, I am actually serious about my request that you stop following my edits. I've currently got a moderately lengthy .txt file on my computer containing a not insubstantial list of pages to which you have either obviously tracked me, or at the very least made a special effort to comment in threads by or about me. Not all of your contributions in this regard are altogether 'good' on their own merits, let alone the fact that they involved following me around Wikipedia. Since they do not show any concerted effort to correct policy violations, for instance, there doesn't seem to be any obvious justification for this trend, and I would ask that you simply and voluntarily put a stop to it. I don't track your edits, and I would appreciate it if you didn't track mine. Thanks, <font color="#00ACF4">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">senator</span>]]─╢</font> 14:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
==Talkback==
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Sandstein|Flying Fische|ts=13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)}}
{{talkback|Sandstein|Flying Fische|ts=13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)}}
thanks for helping with the american white ibis article. do you wanna talk/discuss about it on the white ibis discussion page or do you prefer here? I noted you shifted the diet to behavior. shouldnt it be on a category on its own since it isnt technically a behavior? that's what my professor told me. just wanna hear your opinion on it. do you think it is ready for nomination for GA status? benongyx (talk· contribs) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain on the article talk page. Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Benongx here. I expanded the lead paragraph and did some minor changes. the citation area has also been corrected. do you wanna take a look to see if it able to be nominated for GA status? cheers, ben. (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi. i am benongyx. thanks for all your advice. it is really helpful. im still in the process of editing and correcting what i wrote. could you give me some time to adjust the article? i'm not really sure what you have been changing and I think it is better you let me adjust the article first. cheers!
Hi, I'm a newbie, and I thought a photo of what I was told to be Pleurotus nidiformis would be good to put into creative commons. (1) I have since discovered the page Omphalotus_nidiformis which reclassifies (?) Pleurotus to Omphalotus and (2) looking at the existing photo of Omphalotus nidiformis, it appears that my friend's S.E.Qld fungus is (a) not South Australian and (b) has a darker centre. Now I'm afraid of adding anything AT ALL since it may be struck down. What should I do, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacis alfredo (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your redirection. What happens, though to the photo, now? Lacis alfredo (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had planned expanding the article at some stage. If it is jammed in now it makes it look a little 'busy' Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More unIDed fungi
G'day Cas,
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[2]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilio
FloraBase has an entry for this, but no other information.[2] Know anything about it? Hesperian 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I found it.[3]Hesperian 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and I see your name in the Acknowledgements too.... Hesperian 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you might want to have a look at this too. Hesperian 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banksia and climate change
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of [Banksia] species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK that the most important Hindu Temple in Bali has a single sentence of coverage? oldid :( Jack Merridew 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get 5 days, right? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
Oh crud, sorry Jack - Alastair's poem was very timely. Yes, 5 days it is. Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ma'af lads, I'll be watching for black bamboo while I'm in Timor ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaaa. ok, that redlink will turn blue sometime soon....Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that. There are some pics at Commons:Category:Pura Ulun Danu Batur and I have some, somewhere. It's quite picturesque and is shown prominently on things like Lonely Planet covers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.)
It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go.
As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction."
has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc.
As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato)
Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)
Arianewiki1 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O-kay...taken it to the talk page.Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bract pattern
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Interesting - Gah! Forgot to ring Alex - evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Special edition triple crown question
Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.
Here are discussions (one and two) about a special editiion triple crown for the WikiProject Video games. If this is something you don't handle or are too busy to handle, I more than understand. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25talk 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sounds fun. I should have some time free in a few hours. I ducked on now to make a statement quickly. Casliber (talk· contribs) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly my bedtime here, but tomorrow I'll take a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just browsing through old posts. I have an idea for this one now, just need some time...Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - makes for some dry reading. Hadn't realised it was 10 populations out of 27 which have become extinct since 1996.. :( Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PDFs sent... let me know if need anything else. Sasata (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paper
An interesting abstract: [4]. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks - charismatic genus hahaha :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the opening paragraph they call it "famous". :-) Hesperian 01:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. Casliber (talk· contribs) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've watchlisted the article. Waiting to see that link turn blue. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Just buffing sessilis now before I go to bed. It is shaping up nicely. Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian 14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you recall seeing a source for its ability to recolonise disturbed areas? as nothing's turning up online...Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phew - you found something - what a relief and to think I have a copy as well :( SatuSuro 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." [my emphasis] Hesperian 13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I need to sleep now, but in the am...Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll lurk a bit and copyedit. Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I've got you, I've just proofed Wikisource:Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/42, which has three Greek words with diacritics. I'm reasonably certain about two of them, but the middle one has that ~/^ problem that I seem to remember asking you about a long time ago. Could have have a quick look for me? Hesperian 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, should be a rounded circumflex thingy - I changed it. I really need to sleep now....Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, thankyou, and goodnight! Hesperian 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More bedtime reading
[5]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cup
2010 Wikicup Semi-finalist
Awarded for progression into the 4th round (semi-finals) of the 2010 Wikicup
I noticed that you have Betelgeuse "on the radar". I’d be interested in taking the article to "FA status" with you. In reviewing it briefly, I notice that nomenclature is an issue. In fact, pursuant to your feedback on Talk:Pleione (star), I realized that nomenclature is an issue in the design of all star articles. So I decided to invest the time to fully research it. If you have a moment, I’d be interested in your reaction to the ideas put forth. And let me know when you’re ready to start with Betelgeuse. I’m ready when you are.
Sadalsuud (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I will tidy up a few things first and let you know when ready. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty psyched to work with you on this. So I already decided to do some cleanup. The Starbox really needed some work. So that's now all up to date with refs included. Also I created a personal sandbox and imported the latest version to completely redesign the article's structure. There is not one single word changed in the article itself — just moved a few blocks of text, added headings and sub-headings, and repositioned some pics. I think it works better. If you have a chance, take a look at the redesign and let me know if you think it works. You can find it at User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox.
Sorry to jump the gun on you. I won't do anything more on this until I hear from you. Sadalsuud (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool. I have the Richard Hinkley Allen book and the Kuntzisch book to get the etymology right - I also have a longer oxford dictionary (with magnifying glass). Will pull out books and go from there in the next 24-48 hours. Feel free to tweak and/or add any bits of text you can. Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll update a few things, copy it over and post a short note on the talk page. I'm not sure about the sub-headings for Observational History, but that section was so big, it needed some structure to it. We can modify the sub-headings as we go along. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a few minutes spare now so was doing a bit of copyediting to make the lead a bit more snappy. I will look at all the etymology stuff tonight. Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! I'm going to call it a night. Tomorrow, I'll look at expanding the Visibility section. I just cut and pasted the last two paragraphs from the former "Characteristics" section. It needs to be massaged a bit. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the existing "Visibility" and "Properties" sections to User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox and will focus on just that for the next 48 hours with the idea of transporting a coherent block of text back Betelgeuse in the next few days. Right now I'm doing a lot of reading. There's a lot of information on this star. So I'd like to give myself a couple of days to pull all the elements together. That way, I hope to have both these sections flow properly. Before I do this "block transport", I'll let you know, so you can offer any suggestions.Sadalsuud (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I am focussing on the etymology stuff at the moment. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to come up with two new sections that are ready for transport to the main article. You can review them here: at the "New Visibility Section". I put them in context, so you can see what the article looks like. As I indicated a few days ago, I won't make the transfer until you've had a chance to review first. Let me know what you think.
My main concern is the ESA copyrighted information at the bottom of the Visibility section. Let me know if that is handled appropriately. There is still much more work to do. I have quite a few more sections planned, but decided to at least get these two ready for prime time. If you think they work, I can copy them over later today. I await your thoughts.Sadalsuud (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great - I was just thinking something along these lines about how to find it and our theories on how far it is have evolved over the years. Stick it in and we can continue copyeidting from there. I am not sure which bit is copyrighted - can you highlight? Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the very last paragraph in the The enigma sub-section — right under the VLA satellite dish picture. I introduce the copyrighted info with these words: "According to the information provided on ESA's website...." Just click HERE! and you'll see it there in bold as well. What follows is almost verbatim (with a few tweeks), then as you'll notice there's the ref #36 which, if you click on it, takes you to the Reference section where you can click on the web-link called "Gaia overview", which of course takes you directly to the ESA source material.
I thought about simply paraphrasing the essence of the ESA information, that way avoiding any copyright infringement. But frankly, it was so well written and informative that I thought it would be a more honorable gesture to copy it verbatim and provide the reference.
What do you think? Should I rewrite this section "in my own words"?
Just so you have a little context, what I love about this sub-section "The enigma" is I noticed with every single article I read on the internet all these conflicting quotes on Betelgeuse. My first reaction was "That's bizarre! Everybody's got a different story to tell" It was at that point that I really saw an opportunity to do a great job and explain why all the information on Betelgeuse is so conflicted. The essence is that we still haven't quite figured out how far Betelgeuse is. So this section from ESA is a perfect conclusion to the section. The Enigma section starts with the distance estimate of 56 parsecs in 1920, does a fair job of explaining what has happened in the interim and then concludes with "What's next". So that's why I definitely want the ESA information in there. It pulls all the pieces together for the reader.
In any event, I'm glad you liked it. I'm pretty happy with it myself, although it would be great if we can get an astronomer like RJHall to make sure everything works. As I see it, I'm a pretty good "guinea pig" for this sort of thing, as I try to understand the subject form the layman's perspective. Having an astronomer looking over my shoulder wouldn't hurt.
One last thing. I got your note... All systems go... I'll be cutting and pasting into the main article shortly. As each new section matures, I'll let you know. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I too love actually spelling out who says what and why rather than just presenting facts as facts. There are similar issues in taxonomy, botany etc. and very often the answer is just not so clear cut. I will look at the copyrighted material in a minute. Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Visibility sub-section
Hi Calisber. I've got a new section for you to look at. To be honest it's not quite finished. But given my commitment to have something ready within a day or two, I've produced a "condensed" version for prime time. There are two more additional paragraphs that I am still working on. I will try to include them soon.
Like last time, I have imported the most recent version of Betelgeuse into my User page so you can see the new section in context. It can be found by clicking: HERE!. That will take you to a new Visibility sub-section which I've entitled "Rhytmic dance" — an effective metaphor, I think, for the star's oscillating character. Consistent with comments made a few weeks ago at Talk:Pleione (star), I'm using standardized terminology for "major headings" and descriptive terminology for "sub-headings". I think it works. Let me know your thoughts.
If you wish to see the other sub-sections I'm working on, you can click: Here!. You will notice an extensive Contents Box and think I've possibly gone mad! No need for alarm however. I just found that I needed to bring some organization to the drafting of these sections, so I'm using the Contents Box as a kind of outline tool. That way, when I read an article, I have an idea where the new information fits, I can cut and paste for future editing, and then come back to it later. I hope you find this Contents Box helpful in understanding how I'm trying to tackle this project. If you have any idea as to how it can be improved, let me know.
The two additional paragraphs I'm working on for Rhythmic Dance you will find by clicking on the Rhythmic dance sub-section. I gave them an olive colored font, so they stand out.
The scope of this project has turned out to be far more than I ever imagined. There is so much information to absorb — kind of like putting together a giant jig-saw puzzle with 10,000 pieces. What I'm finding is you can't just work on one section at a time, as every piece is interconnected, and you need to have a sense as to where all the pieces fit. In any event, you'll see how each section is coming along. Some sections are more advanced than others.
I'm enjoying the challenge of it. I believe the goal of completing the different sub-sections by mid-August is still achievable. Let me know if you think the condensed version is ready to be transported over to the main article. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - so the version you want to import is the condensed one above the olive text? Looks good - I find it easier to work with when I see it in the article, so bring it in. I think the olive bit is worth bringing in sooner rather than later and working from there. The prose can probably be tightened a bit - that will be easier to acheive once read as a whole. My approach is generally get all the content in first, then do the copyedit. Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just imported it and refined it further. Click HERE! for the latest. I actually included 4 out of the 6 paragraphs that I'm contemplating. The extra 2 paragraphs I will add in the next week or so as I gather more information. This first import holds together pretty well by itself, I think, and may not need the extra paragraphs. The extra information will simply discuss additional variability issues like periodicity. It's always a judgement call as to what constitutes "too much information". We'll see. What makes Betelgeuse so challenging is there is a lot of conflicting information out there — just like all the conflicting information I saw regarding distance. My intent is to at least cover the different findings and put them into perspective. Sadalsuud (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Importing chunks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8
Hi Calisber. When you have a chance, I've got a few new "chunks" for you to look at. Click HERE to see comments.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angular diameter/distance... whatever?
Hi Calisber. In notice you've been busy the last few days. When you have a moment and have been able to review the "chunks" enumerated above, your thoughts on what to do here would be really helpful. Click HERE to see comments. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Observations on Import #3
I finally got most of those "chucks" cleaned up over the weekend and, pursuant to your suggestions imported them into the main article. Also, I've posted some observations related thereto for your insight and comment. When you have a moment, click HERE to see comments. To see recent changes, simply go to the Betelgeuse article. I look forward to your thoughts and any ideas you have for GA review submission.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidering strategy
Hi Casliber. When you have a chance, I've posted some recent thoughts on the future direction of the Betelgeuse article, and would value your insights. Click HERE to see comments.----Sadalsuud (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
System launch + GAN?
Hi Casliber. The "Star system" section is close to complete. Just needs a few refs and xrefs, I think. Click HERE to review and post any comments or concerns. Thanks again for your focused attention. --Sadalsuud (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just completed the import if you'd like to make any changes. Click HERE to view.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angular rework
I've reworked the Angular anomalies section to create a more balanced argument. When you have a chance, please review HERE and let me know your thoughts.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is more sequential and hence clearer. I'd go with the rewrite. Casliber (talk· contribs) 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steps toward FA
I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. When you have a chance, your insights on a few other issues would be helpful. You can find them HERE.--24.203.198.172 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright?
Hi Casliber. Your suggestion to post a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy produced a very useful result but also triggered a copyright violation requiring some attention. Your insights as always would be valuable. You can see my comments by clicking HERE.----Sadalsuud (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Circumstellar Dynamics Done
Hi Casliber. I think this section is finally done. Though it's a bit of a rush job, I think it will stand up. Click HERE to see comments and get to the latest version in the sandbox. Thanks again for your on-going support of this project. I'm pooped! Fortunately, we're almost there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns at the crossroads
Getting close to the finish line. There are a couple of concerns, however. When you have a moment, can you review comments HERE? Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pleione GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to say that I've had to divert my attention to the Pleione article, as you probably guessed. I noticed your contributions, and in fact, provided some xrefs, which I believe are accurate. I hope to have all the GA improvements done by Saturday. If you have a chance to give it a quick lookover in a few days, that would be great. This weekend, I'll try to get the "Organizational history" section up to standard, get your thoughts, and then propose the article for GA review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm done for now with Pleione (star), at least until Modest Genius has a chance to review the latest revisions. Hopefully, it will pass the grade. If you'd like to take a last look, that would be great.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you noticed, but we got GA status on Pleione. Now I can come back to the Betelgeuse article in earnest. There's only a few minor edits needed after which I'll finally submit the article for GA review. The only missing element is a discussion of stellar mass. When mass was originally addressed back in July, I simply referenced Jim Kaler, though now I recognize the conversation to be more complex. Once addressed in earnest, it will clear up any confusion from the Fate section which quotes a different metric. Bottom line? Hope to get all this done in a few days and submit. Any last thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pretty busy IRL lately. I am more than happy to let you take the dirver's seat WRT mass as you have a handle on all the mass calculations - will try to follow with copyediting ideas and/or observations and boring format fixes. Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. With the summer now behind us in Canada, I too have become very busy with work and other stuff. We'll at least get this to GA soon and then we can plan from there. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organizational history upgrade
I've now turned my attention back to Betelgeuse and decided to post a new section on the talk page Major surgery on Observational history section?. Given that this section was the focus of early contributions, I have intentionally avoided editing "other people's work", focusing as you know on adding new sections. But as I point out, the job needs to be done for various reasons and I thought it would be useful to put everyone on notice and invite comments. The last thing I want to do is create an edit war. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gotten started. Check out Herschel's discovery section for recent edits. As I point out on the Talk page, I'm trying to keep most of the early contributions while giving the whole section a "historical" focus. I think it works. Your insights however would be useful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally nominated for GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to let you know that Betelgeuse has finally been nominated for GA review. Updated observations HERE! Thanks again for your on-going participation in this process.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA corrections complete?
I noticed you were able to make a few corrections pursuant to the GA Review. The review was clearly quite favorable. I made a few other changes and responded. Let me know if you see anything missing. You can see my comments Here!. Thanks again. We're finally getting there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been watching Louie. Very dark, highly recommended. Ceoil (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not seen it here. Looks good...Casliber (talk· contribs) 12:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am, who watches TV on TV anymore[6]. Grandad. Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am buying a new desktop soon. I have one with a noisy fan which sounds like watching TV on a (noisy) aeroplane :( Casliber (talk· contribs) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just go back from a weekend break with no innernet..now where was I.....Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American Alsatian Sourcing
Hello Casliber- You reviewed the American Alsatian a year back now for Good Article and since then there has been some new reliable sourcing added to the article. You mentioned at that time that if new reliable sources were included to let you know. The following sources have been added and/or improved:
Imam, Bassam. "Animalogy: Dogs and Other Canids". free e-books.com. Retrieved 2010-11-08.,
"American Alsatian: Appearance". Rightpet.com. July 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-08.,
Sicard, Gary (February 2008). "American Alsatian (Shepalute)". MolosserDogs. Retrieved 2009-06-08.
Thank you again for your help. Shepaluteprez (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see - will take a look when I can. Casliber (talk· contribs) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figs
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please
Can you give me rollback rights? I need to keep vandals like you off my user talk page. :) OrangeMarlinTalk• Contributions 20:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where's my fkn "pretty please with sugar on top"? Fkn manners these days...but seriously, was going to add IP block exempt but started reading all the checkuser yada yada. Let me know if you really want it but it seems that that calls for some logging etc. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP block exempt? Not even sure what that is. I spend a lot of time in various hotels, so I use probably 50 IP addresses over a couple of months. I think once I ran into a blocked IP, but my guess is that people who cruise the internet in a hotel are not looking to vandalize WP. Well, at least I hope. By the way, what do you mean by "reading all the checkuser yada yada."? Is that in reference to me? OrangeMarlinTalk• Contributions 03:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what I mean is - if you look at this page (actually not sure a non-admin can but here goes --> Special:UserRights/Casliber, it has a caveat "If you intend to add IP Block Exemption to an account, please consider asking a CheckUser to verify the need, notify the user of its conditions using == IP block exempt ==
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption., and log the action at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption/log." and Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Administrators_guide - i.e. not quite sure but it seems to be saying it'd like to know what your IP is before granting an IP block extension, so I figured it was unnecessary unless it had been a big problem. Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to toss in - IPBE (IP block exemption) is intended to be used for editors of known reputation and a generally clean record (so yes, OrangeMarlin would qualify) who are caught in an IP hardblock or hard rangeblock that prevents them from editing even when logged in. Occasionally, known editors (sometimes experienced editors from other projects) who because of political necessity must edit via proxies, will also be granted IPBE. A checkuser is done before granting it to ensure that the editor is actually using a hardblocked IP, and they will be done again periodically to ensure that the IPBE is still required. It's not a permission so much as a tool to enable editing under technical circumstances outside of the control of the editor. Hope that helps. Risker (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. After many years of editing, I think I was caught in a block (not of my own doing) once. Apparently, a neighbor on the same IP range for my cable company was causing trouble. I couldn't figure out why I was blocked. I doubt I'll ever need this, but kind of cool. Didn't know some of these things existed! Thanks again. OrangeMarlinTalk• Contributions 07:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want it (IP block exemption) or not? Casliber (talk· contribs) 08:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I must have misunderstood you. You wrote that you had granted me the privileges, now I see that you were just giving me info. Sure, I'll take it. Might be useful someday. Thanks! OrangeMarlinTalk• Contributions 08:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian detained by campus police for taking pictures
Hi I saw you were on the ArbCom and was wondering where I should take this problem to. Earlier today I was taking pictures of buildings of a two-year public college in New Jersey called Union County College (UCC) when I was detained by campus security for a half an hour. Most pictures were of buildings, classrooms, plaques on walls, an empty gym. I was going to add them to the UCC article. Two pictures had students (all over 18 yrs old) in it (but I got their email addresses and permission to use their photos). I was detained and questioned. Campus security said: no pictures. They didn't take my camera. About student pictures, I am not sure what the overall rules or legality is, so I won't post pictures of students. But buildings? Empty classrooms? Paid for out of taxpayer dollars? A public two-year community college in New Jersey? I'm miffed. Sheesh. Any advice what I might do? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Community colleges, even those paid for by "taxpayer dollars", are private property. Security of such institutions is difficult at the best of times, and they are frequently the targets of, shall we say, the less desirable activities of humans (theft is just the starting point). Most institutions will tolerate the photographing of the exterior of their buildings (although if they aren't visible from a public street, they could even prevent that if they wished), but few allow interior photography without prior arrangement. This is not something that the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, or (especially) the Arbitration Committee can change. Having said that, I am very sorry that you had such an unpleasant experience when you were acting altruistically to try to better this project. I hope you're okay; it must have been very disconcerting. Perhaps making contact with a student council executive member, the head of a department, a member of the board of regents, or contacting their community relations department might help clear the way, if you are able to persuade them that it would be beneficial to the college to be shown in such a light on one of their top google hits. Risker (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't have much to add to the above - there are all sorts of concerns about child safety these days so am not surprised you were hauled up for questioning. If the US is like Australia you see security firms at alot of schools and clubs. I am sorry to hear about what happened, but I guess the lesson is to play it really safe when taking photos in any situation where there are children or someone might interpret waht you are doing as suspicious. Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Casliber, and thanks Risker, for your comments. I appreciate your attention to this; I see it as a kind of support. The two photos where there were people were over 18 years old (not children, legally adults in the U.S. and I got their permission and email addresses as well) but my thinking is not to even upload these photos. I got excellent feedback from the ANI page and, at this point, my course is to: (1) upload the remaining non-people photos, (2) post a few of them to the UCC page if appropriate. (3) Ask Wikipedia about whether drawings-as-substitutes would be a good idea. (4) Further research the college to see what's going on (ie are they trying to hide something?) I used to be an investigative reporter and my sense is something is amiss, but who knows. (5) revamp the article possibly (6) contact the college on Monday to try to get some clarification. (7) email the students to explain why their photos won't be used in Wikipedia (but possibly urging them to take their own photos and upload them.) I'm thinking about possibly hiring a lawyer to sue the college but I don't know how likely I'll follow through on this, because I bet a lawyer will listen, shrug their shoulders and advise me not to pursue it, there's no real (ie financial) harm done, it's not a straight case of privacy or freedom, but the issues are complex and murky, and still being worked out in larger places such as society in general.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration comments in the WPUS Newsletter
Thanks for taking the time to draft up those comments about the collaboration for the newsletter. I just added them a little while ago here if you want to take a look. I'm not sure the last 2 sentences quite make sense but I can't put my finger on exactly how to reword it yet. Please also feel free to fix or change anything else that doesn't look right. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions about the newsletter. --Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bird id help req
HI Cas(everyone else watching)
I took this photo on the 27 March at Ngilgi Cave in the northern area of Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park, it size was about 2/3 ~ 3/4 of a silver gull. Any thoughts of what it could be? thanks Gnangarra 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
looks like a Grey Shrike-thrush. Have a look on google images for a diverse array of views to satisfy yourself as well. nice one :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ldefinately looks like it thanks Cas Gnangarra 04:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mail
Hello, Casliber. 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.
... but since it's easy to miss I thought I should mention that I referred in passing to an edit or yours. BTW, you used one ~ too many in that edit. (I am glad this no longer happens to me, now that I am using the US International layout. Under Windows I can type ~ twice to get ~~, but a single ~ does not appear unless I type a space as well.) HansAdler 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going back to put my name in it when I saw someone added it. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. It will take a little fiddling. Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Systematic Botany again
You think you can help with this? I think it might have the key information regarding typification of Camarophyllus. Circéus (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yep. sent. let me know if it got there. Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It did arrive fine. Unfortunately without including the key information, oh well... Circéus (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Casliber, I just wanna to know that, can we close this peer review; as I've resolved all the comments of reviewers. I think it's a time to nominate this article for feature list, please reply me as soon as you get this. Bill william comptonTalk 12:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? Nothing else jumped out at me and the others gave it a thorough working over. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I almost posted on ANI about you, LOL, I thought you were telling me to"Fuck off"! I gather you mean to tell people to stop bantering and get on with work, including myself. Agreed, I do hope this is what you mean. Honestly I was a little taken aback that more people are against infoboxes than I'd anticipated and my "bumchum" comment was more a WTF, how come you turned up on this guy's talk page to indicate I'm incorrect... I wouldn't have bothered making a map if I'd have thought nobody would find the locators useful!! Regards ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to make a joke. I actually like infoboxes but felt the banter had started going a bit pear-shaped so needed some sort of humorous circuit-breaker with a witty dig at civility thrown in. You gotta pick yer moments....NB: I still have my standing list of bits and pieces with some short notable stuff to make into DYKs...anyone is welcome to do and cross off. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, yeah there is too much to do on here desperately... User:Nvvchar/Loire River is one of them. Can you believe that the longest river in France contains one source but a Just Bieber song contains near 100? You betcha that doesn't surprise you in the slightest... Priories LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Data requested yonks ago, lately retrieved with many apologies for delays from the wikiwankingwonk.
Couldn't for the effing life of me find that vol which contained the info on star names in Japanese dialect you asked about until I stumbled across it this morning while cleaning up where my disrespectful cat cocked its leg, on a pile of TLS's near my desk. I tremble to add these details because, with my rotten reputation as someone who is always looking for a political angle, it ain't going to help that Obama must be mentioned.
In Japanese dialects Betelgeuse or α Orionis is configured with Rigel β Orionis as the opposite sides of Orion's Belt
Thus, in the dialect of the coastal village of Obama in Fukui prefecture, the two were called wakiboshi or 'sidestars' because they lie on either side of the belt. In the dialect of Ikishima (壱岐島) island in Nagasaki Prefecture, the pair were known as ēte-boshi (相手星, standard Japanese = aiteboshi or ‘opposing stars’) in the phrase kanatsuki no ēteboshi. Here kanatsuki is equivalent to karatsuki, and thus the phrase meant the 'opposing stars of the Belt of Orion'. The same idiom existed in Wajima (輪島) dialect further north in Ishikawa Prefecture.
In 1950, a quite distinctive and archaic dialect term for the two stars was retrieved from the dialect of Yokokura village (横蔵村) in the Ibi district of Gifu Prefecture. There Betelgeuse and Rigel were denominated respectively by two famous clan names. The two clans were the Taira, otherwise known as the Heike, and the Minamoto, or Genji. These two clans conducted an epic struggle to wrest control over Japan during the historic Genpei war of the early medieval period, a devastating conflict that was memorialized in the The Tale of the Heike, an early masterpiece of Japanese literature. The crest of the Taira is red (揚羽蝶/Ageha-chō or 'swallowtail butterfly'). The crest of the Minamoto is gentian blue (笹竜胆/sasa-rindō, or 'bamboo gentian'). Thus, in Yokokura, the red supergiant Betelgeuse was called Heike-boshi (平家星, the Heike star) and the blue supergiant Rigel the Genji-boshi (源氏星, the Minamoto or Genji star), corresponding to the the respective colours of the two stars. The reference is Nojiri Hōei,Nihon no hoshi, Chūkō Bunko, Tokyo 1976 pp.243-245. Nishidunny aka Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. I will read and digest and add once I have finished off a couple of other chores...Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, thanks for looking at this article. Another great job from you. Camp Gully rainforest is worth a look, it's a pretty special place, despite minor weed problem in some areas by the creek. I couldn't find any geological information regarding soil enrichment. As the diverse rainforest area is quite a small patch. And other rainforest areas up and downstream are mostly Jackwood & Doryphora with practically no sub-tropical species. The highlight of the day was finding the snail, it was a glorious thing. BTW, I've ordered a laser range finder, and hope to be able to measure some of the larger trees on my travels. Could be fun, if I can figure out how to use it.Poyt448 (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, isn't technology amazing? I was contemplating infrared goggles to go looking for night animals on night bushwalks...Casliber (talk· contribs) 12:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aldebaran in fiction
Good catch on the Tolkien. I was actually wondering about that as I was updating the articles. Is there are article or section on the Heavenly Bodies in Tolkien? μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean wiki article? There is Middle-earth cosmology....or you mean more outsde stuff to reference and cite? I'd rather just stick all the referenced stuff into the star articles...so it hasn't been a priority (unless there is a huge amount on a particular star). Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cosmology link has what I was looking for, thanks. I am not looking to change the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the COTM didn't see much action this month. Any suggestions on how we can improve that? I also looked through the Chesepeake bay article and I don't see anything jumping out at me for improvements. Do you have any ideas? --Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I don't get an idea from reading the article about how populated the bay is around it - how many towns are actaully on or right near the bay? Once discussing community like this, one can then sink in the Bay area publications section at the bottom (well, notable publications anyway).
The Tourism section - how many people visit, when do they come? why? (major attractions). impact?
I am not a fan of See also sections - many of these might be worth a sentence or more in hte body of the text, which would also explain why they needed to be mentioned in context of the bay.
There are three things. The srtructure needs tweaking which I'll do in a minute. I also think the flora and fauna section needs buffing. If you can get started on the others at all that might interest others. Aude was going to go to the library. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks, I am getting ready to get on the road and I should be back home on a couple hours and I'll work on it then. I also solicited help from a couple other folks that commented about this article and I will contact more later. Thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Banksia marginata
I'm happy to promote it whenever- it's good enough. I left a few more thoughts on Talk:Banksia marginata/GA1 a few minutes ago- I don't know if you saw them. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
heh, thanks. Casliber (talk· contribs) 23:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gorilla
Hello, I was thinking of doing some improvements to the gorilla article, since the collabration thing has been delayed. Should I do it or wait for Mammal Collabrations to start running again and for the article to be voted collabration of the month? LittleJerry (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would just get stuck into it, and when you're done, ask for a peer review if you are unsure about whether it'd pass GA. I might post some ideas on the talk page if I get a chance. The other person to ask would be Visionholder (talk· contribs) who is interested in lemurs mainly. Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just try to get it to B-class status though. LittleJerry (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber, you fully protected this article indefinitely. An editor has made an unprotection request here. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Newyorkbrad's talk page. Message added 11:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Headley
Thanks for the comments so far; I've fixed or replied to them all, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber. On the talk page of this article you mentioned it needed something about bereavement and loss, etc as causes of depression. I was wondering if you might be inclined to add something, or if you could point me to a review/textbook that I could use to knock something up. An editor has been keen to add content to the article and has just added [7] something related to life events. I have put it under a new section heading, Life events. I feel it is not appropriate to the article because it seems a little speculative, but don't have the expertise to take it on. If any of this interests you, your input would be welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me have a think about it. Will get back to you. Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 15, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 15, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fyi...
I have started the process of rebuilding your userpage. I'm breaking it down into modular chunks that can be transcluded. → ROUX₪ 07:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings and salutations. I am working to clean up some of the WikProject related templates and categories and I noticed that Category:WikiProject user templates is chock full of User pages. I think this is probably an error but I am not sure how to fix it. Any ideas? --Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt is is/was an error. Look at the subcategories and see if any can go in them instead. I can think of a "user by nationality" subcat which can be added, also "user by religion", umm "user by sporting team supported". If I were interested I'd just create those three and move a bunch of qualifying ones first off and see what is left. Once you've had a look through some other subcats might come to mind ..."users by pets owned" etc. cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 01:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, thanks. I'll settle for just users. It seems like mixing apples and oranges putting users with User templates. --Kumioko (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahoy
I've left you a comment starting with the words, "I agree..." and thought it was such a historic occasion I should let you know here :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback?
This edit was not a rollback. You can tell this from the fact that it had an edit-summary which was notm Reverted edits by User A (talk) to last version by User B. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 13:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaaaaaa, what a trickster you are (chuckle), sticking "rollback" in the edit summary...Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also mentioned in the edit-summary that my hands are larger than a human's. So if you have so much faith in me always telling the absolute truth... ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have realised the doubts on veracity when someone has something alluding to politics in their signature...Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! so you never twigged! NaziInstigatedSatanicHebetude-IirritatesDeeplyAnarchistsNoteI. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha...oh crap/oh snap, that reminds me about the jolly red giant, and here I was getting diverted (again) into botany.....Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which reminds me, if you ever sight Peter Hurley's book In Search of Australia(1943) I'd appreciate it if you drop me a note about the bunyip legend (which tribe) on p.131! Hurley, you must know, was a botanist who wrote under the pseudonym of 'Waratah'. No hurry, I think in years.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy, I can pick up that book at the library next week. Bunyips are cool....Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bother. I just have this private whimsy about ornithological legends, here the Cygnus atratus peculiar to your downunderdumpish wetlands. Thanks, pal.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows swans are black, not like those white aberrations from up over. Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll report you to Arbcom if you get a fact like that wrong! Black swans have white wing tips, as James McAuley knew when observing them off Jeanneret's beach:
'As evening softens, in a long black line
That flashes white the swans fly, beating loud.'
Better, I'll report you to Canberra. They'll revoke your passport and send you back, stateless to swan about up there.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Firsfron's talk page. Message added 08:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
COTM
I did a bunch of changes to the COTM today and I added a couple more to vote on since the activity seems to be low I thought that might help to pick things up. I also added them to the newsletter. If you have any ideas please let me know. I was going to go ahead and adjust things for the new article but since there is a tie I wasn't sure which to choose. Is there a usual tie breaker? Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny - I just posted this second on the noticeboard. I'd give it 48 hours starting from now (on musing about it for a few minutes, I am happy to let Chesapeake Bay slide off the nom. I am going to ping someone who might be interested in this. Casliber (talk· contribs) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chesapeake bay was the article for April, it looks like Wallstreet or Lake Erie might get it for May, unless I am misunderstanding you. --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Sorry to be a pest but I want to get the Newsletter wrapped up and sent out and I would like to include the COTM. Do you have any advice about what article we should pick for May. Tom did a massive and impressive rewrite of Wallstreet already and I think if we do a little more scrathcing around we can get it to GA or better by the end of the month. Either is fine with me though. Both articles are worthy in my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured Wall Street was a better choice than Lake Erie as I figured maybe two geography articles in a row wasn't so cool....Casliber (talk· contribs) 04:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
Please check your edit. It looks like some stuff up has occurred, and you might want to revert yourself and add the notice again? I don't want to take the time to figure it out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WQA
Hi there Casliber,
I came across your Mfd nom of WP:WQA and whilst I appreciate your concerns with the process, I don't think Mfd is really the correct place to address them. I've made a note to this effect on your thread at the WP:AN.
I think the problem with discussing it at a deletion debate is that its not geared towards making active improvements, I think that once again, the main consensus we will get is the vague sense that the process needs improvements, but the nature of Xfd process means this will just be taken as a 'win' for the keeps and nothing will actually occur.
I'm greatly in favour of starting an RFC with the stated aim of coming up with actionable improvements to the process, even if that involves scrapping it and starting from scratch or just removing it entirely. Perhaps this would involve collecting some kind of empirical data about how often WQAs are resolved satisfactorily, how many alerts progress to other forums etc.
Your input would be appreciated, Regards,Bob House 884 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you might be right. A black/white battleground rarely gets anything done. Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that your MfD notice at the Village Pump appears to be almost the exact same one that you used at WP:AN. I seem to recall that you were encouraged to strike the pejorative sections of your notice so as to not constitute and Canvassing attempt. Would you please extend the same change at the Village pump so as to remove another case of poisoning the consensus well? Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
clarification request
on the delete WQA discussion you replied to my query: many of these boards have the wiki-equivalnet of tumbleweeds blowing through them. Do you mean users don't use the boards, or there's a lack of editors monitoring / replying on the boards? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. Anytime I try to gather consensus, such as merge/move discussions, in fact anywhere apart from AN/I or XfD really, I find boards really quiet...including this whole RFC which has been going for 3 months. I linked but so far it's been very quiet. --> Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/dispute_resolution#Too_many_noticeboards_or_venues_for_Dispute_Resolution.3F. I figure if it is this quiet, then maybe amalgamating some noticeboards is in order (?) Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE drive newsletter
The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
An idea for the Collaboration
I just had a crazy idea for the collaboration and wanted to run it be a couple folks (naturally you are one of them). What do you think about a bot that would notify all the WikiProjects on the talk page of the article selected for the USCOTM and any users who edited the article that the article had been selected as the collaboration of the month?
I think it would be rather easy to create a simple notification template that says something to the effect of:
"An article you have edited (or that falls in the scope of for the WikiProjects) has been selected as the United States Wikipedians Collaboration of the Month for the Month of Month Year. All interested editors are encouraged to help improve the article or vote for next months article." or something to that effect. --Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, we would obviously want to factor out bots and Ip's and possibly anyone who only edited the article once, possibly only in the last X number of editors for very long lists. Posibly also excluding inactive editors. --Kumioko (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. I think similar things have been tried in the past with oter project collaborations. Not sure of their success rate.Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, ideally I would like to Engineer it in such a way that it could be useful for multiple things (Peer reviews, A class reviews, Collab notifications, etc). Of course it would need an opt out/opt in feature like the newsletters for those that do or don't want it. I will craft up a proposal over the next couple days. Maybe we can have it in place in the next month or two. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably find this worth watching
[8] He's a pretty good speaker. I created a stub about the book, which is probably worth getting to DYK, although I'm not sure I have the time to expand it enough this weekend. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting will look later when I can have the sound up. Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and, rest assured, I won't bother you again with such a brazen request for what was merely a fortuitous piece of off-wki curiosity. Best Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ref
Please fix one of my refs for the European hare article. I have no idea whats wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page. Message added 09:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page. Message added 10:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Enough
If you're so clueless as to have never heard of AWB, and so bizarre as to think that linking the word 'Europe' to Europe is a bad idea, then you'll excuse me for not valuing your feedback and asking you to keep it to yourself in future. Please do not edit my talkpage again unless leaving me a notification required by policy. Please do not feel obliged to follow me around Wikipedia tracking my edits and commenting in the same places I comment. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 10:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, see Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_not_be_linked..unless you're unfamiliar with Europe, but last time I checked it was a major geographic feature called a continent. I think knowing about linking (especially if one is slapping wikify tags on articles) is more basic that some automated program, but YVMV.....Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"All discussions on the are subject of En dashes in article titles discussion (interpreted inclusively) are subject to civility and 1RR restrictions". But discussions aren't ordinarily reverted at all, so what does 1RR mean in a discussion? Art LaPella (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put that in just in case. I think we've all been surprised before at the places revert-wars can happen - e.g. removing of incivil comments etc. The point is to really clamp down on acrimony and insist that everyone take a deep breath and think before typing. Casliber (talk· contribs) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've kind of warned 99.90.197.244 (talk· contribs) about their 10RR editing at human evolution. Now the IP is making some nonsense commentary in Talk:Human evolution. I'm not sure if the editor is English or just pushing some odd POV, but I seriously think this person should be blocked from editing for awhile. Please help. OrangeMarlinTalk• Contributions 06:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sirius links
Hi! As I told you, Sirius is now running for FA in the Spanish version. Some people have noticed problems with external links in the references. Some of them don't exist now, since the English article became featured three years ago. I thought maybe you'd want to check those links. Regards, Kadellar (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, time flies. I'll take a look. Only found two - one which was redundant and the other I used the wayback machine for. Casliber (talk· contribs) 12:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, Sirius has become FA in Spanish, thanks to you and the other people who worked on the English article! Kadellar (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Muy bien! :)) Casliber (talk· contribs) 00:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your post, let me know what you're looking for, there or here. One problem is that our brains automatically throw out information as we read, and things like "the length of the little line" are one of the first things we throw out ... leading people to think they remember what they read, when they don't. Another problem is that there's a clear split between older and more recent usage, and between American and non-American usage (as I just detailed at WT:MOS#Style guides). These problems make the issue more contentious than it would otherwise be. Personally, I've been fiddling with dashes and hyphens for years when during copyediting for review processes, and no one ever cared, but obviously people care now, so let's do whatever's needed to lower the volume, which in my experience means backing up what we're doing with sources rather than making it up as we go. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the more structure the better - what I envisage is a separate subpage on WT:MOS, with a preamble section which includes all the May discussion plus some notes on outstanding issues. We then clarify outstanding issues and set up how to vote on each. This must be circulated broadly around the 'pedia so we get some numbers once voting starts. The key is that however excessively fine-split motions are, it needs to be more. For instane here - Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC:_simple_resolution_to_disagreements_over_dashes - packaging six uses into one motion is a bad idea. They need to be split out individually. Right now I am waiting for hte clerks to post the motion and invite uninvolved editors and admins to coordinate as facilitators. Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll probably be more useful citing style guides, so for purposes of this case, I won't be "uninvolved". I'll hop in after some structure develops. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peer reviewing this article, you suggested writing a short summary of each of Mrs David's books. I thought it was an excellent idea, and did so, but it rather ran away with me, and I have made it a separate article at Elizabeth David bibliography. If, perchance, you were minded to look in and make any changes or suggestions you thought suitable I should esteem it a favour. Tim riley (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers). Message added 10:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
And a further reply, and please count this as a pre-emptive Wikiquette alert notification that if you don't retract your aspersions and personal attacks, you'll be reported there. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dash troubles
Are you overseeing that dash RFC thing? I was a bit confused about what stage of the process this is currently meant to represent. Is this already in a stage where we're supposed to cast !votes on individual sections? Perhaps a procedural clarification could be added somewhere. Thanks, – Fut.Perf.☼ 11:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically we are not supposed to be voting yet, but PMA has laid out and itemised the questions. If there are no further ones then I guess we can proceed. I'd rather not go and "unvote" everyone's votes as I want as much input as possible - I think as long as some admins keep an eye on proceedings and the final vote page orderly we can get a consensus. Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, I would appreciate it if you could do something to address this kind of thing. There seems to be some fear here (not just this user, by the way) that if we can't come to an agreement then everyone remotely involved is going to be banned or something. I noted earlier that the way the motion was worded was a little creepy, and hopefully you didn't mean it that way, so I think it would be helpful if you could do something to clear this up. The way it is now, people who can contribute constructively to this debate are scared away, and that is not helpful. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow your last comment; did it seem that I'm trying to "railroad" the discussion in some way? I support splitting off that bit to some other section; I would have put it on the talk page if the talk page had a talk page :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific future conative referred to convincing Ohms Law to just vote rather than be scared. My green notes are as read. Look how some sections are and we've had only 3 or 4 editors involved. God forbid what it will look like in 6 weeks unless we keep it focussed/collapsed/footnoted/somethinged...Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hello! Thanks for the review and the suggestions at the Sack of Amorium FAC. I don't know if the subject interests you, and I intend to bring it to FAC eventually either way, but there's a WPMILHIST A-class review going on for Thomas the Slav. If you have the time, I'd be grateful for a review by you. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 16:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Melaleuca fulgens
A minor issue/question with your DYK nom at T:DYK... you can see details there. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responded there--thanks, Khazar (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me
Hi Cas, when you get a chance can you delete my user page. No controversy, just maintenace, I dont want people I know in real life knowing I pretty it so much, and it'll be back as the current version straight after. Ta dude, and here is an epic metal classic by way of return.by the way we had the queen in during the week. She seemed fine, husband was a bit odd. [9]. Ceoil 16:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate. Ceoil 18:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Gaultheria hispidula
Hello! Your submission of Gaultheria hispidula 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! Just need an inline citation for the fact in the hook. Cheers - Basement12(T.C) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah... for whatever reason I usually get mainpage appearances when I'm stuck on vacation crippled with a crappy laptop and spotty internet connection. Been meaning to update this article for a while now (especially PMID20467482, but there's some other recent papers too. Ah well, at least the world didn't end today!Sasata (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah. Will check the papers. Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
update - added that one. Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! When I'm home I'll make some other tweaks (list-defined refs) and perhaps add a couple additional new sources. Sasata (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that the Magpie-lark is also called the Mudlark in Australia, but I have no idea how common the use of "Mudlark" is. It seems to me that the current article at "Mudlark" about people collecting items in mud is a rather uncommon use of the word these days, and therefore this meaning might not be the primary topic. I am also not sure if Mudlark should be redirected to Magpie-lark or if "Mudlark" should be the dab rather than "Mudlark (disambiguation)". Snowman (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good question. My recall is that "Magpie-lark" and "Peewit" are the two most common names I've seen in bird books, but they note "peewee" and "mudlark" as alternative names. I use "peewee" myself which my family understands and uses. This is a good question as the other use (for mudlark) is archaic too. I will ask on the australian birdwatchers' forum and try and tally up the responses and where the respondents are from - this could be an interesting study. These are very tame and friendly birds and very common site in urban areas. Casliber (talk· contribs) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... so it turns out to be a more difficult to answer than I thought initially. Snowman (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I think I might buff it for GA/FA. I was amused a couple of years ago when there was a young bird in my father-in-law's garden. He'd feed it some bird seed and it would happily come and walk around and explore the lounge room and dining room. Later, when it wanted to be fed it would land and walk around outside the glass doors and ruffle its feathers and fluff itself up and wait expectantly until my father in law would feed it. it was an interesting exercise to figure out who was training whom. 07:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
After a few weeks the hits on the new dab Mudlark (disambiguation) will help to gauge how many of the hits that go to "Mudlark" (people searching in mud) then go onto the new dab (the only signpost on article pages to the new dab is on "Mudlark"). I suspect that there is no primary topic supposing that you do not come up with something about Australian bird names that you have not heard about. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that rejigging it as a dab page and looking at the pageviews is a very good idea. Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started an article, Flying High Bird Sanctuary, about an Australian bird sanctuary some time ago, and out-of-the-blue someone has added a speedy tag despite the article being well sourced. I think that it is worthy of an article on the wiki, and I would be grateful for your opinion either for or against deletion. Snowman (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-think: I would agree with you that the current sources are not very good. I understand that it is often difficult to find good independent sources about zoos, and often the zoo's own website is used as a source. Snowman (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users being harassed
Hello, sorry if I am bugging you or if I'm not doing this right, but as far as I know you are an administrator, so I just wanted to alert you to something.
The user Fatty2k10 has been making abusive edits and having edit wars for weeks now, and every time he gets a warning he just blanks his page, which prevents other members from seeing them and therefore preventing a block. His talk page history proves he is very abusive to other members of Wikipedia, for example in one case where he called someone a prick just for giving him a warning. His user page states he is retired, however he is still rapidly making un-constructive edits to Wikipedia and numerous people are trying to get him to stop via the talk page, but again, he just blanks it.
Please take a look into this if you have any spare time, and take whatever action you feel is necessary. Thanks --Andy4789 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Fatty2k10 has returned their latest retirement and I've tried to engage them in a proper discussion over their edits again rather than sending templates but this was the result. Do you have any thoughts on how/if I should continue with the matter? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll take a look. Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for sorting out that troublesome user, and getting us all to work together. I hope it works out well, and that the user(s) who was abusive will now see a different side. Andy4789 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, thanks - I haven't finished yet and will see what else helps out. :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something's missing
I think I may need to thank you for this, but I'm not sure. "**@FT2 -"Scott was reasonably within policy and practice by every standard I can find" - is really stretching things. He pretty clearly did." leaves something dangling. I think you must have cut something out somewhere in the course of editing.—Kww(talk) 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did muse on several variations and added and removed stuff before I finally decided to post, but I felt FT2's comment was a somewhat extreme interpretation that needed disendorsing (by me anyway). I'll revisit. I was about to say, yeah it's missing alot of cuss-words but that would have been facetious and hopefully jocular.... Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have responded on the page (implicitly) to what FT2 said. Because something is a "reasonable" interpretation (and I think mine are) does not mean it cannot be "reasonably" be thought to be wrong. Even I wouldn't argue that what I did here was clearly within policy - I think it is justifiable if one considers the bigger picture (but even that does not mean, with hindsight, it was the wisest course).--Scott Mac 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 is arguing that BLP and admin discretion in exceptional circumstances allow a latitude with the normal rules and process (and seeming consensus). I agree. However, I fear in his attempt to make things "clear" he is in danger of wikilawyering in the opposite direction. I'd rather not rely such minutiae either in prosecution or defence. The nature of exceptions is that are usually justified on pragmatic grounds, and thus unclear and situational. You clarify them, and you just tie your hands to another inflexibility - or open the door to all sorts of undesirable things being justified.--Scott Mac 22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This isn't a cut-and-dried black-and-white sort of problem and portraying it as such is facile and divisive. If all of us arbs are pretty set on our views (and hence a case opening is numerically impossible), then the sooner we close it off and start focussing on how we'll proceed from here...after all...
It's also about using {{#tag:ref|blah, blah, blah [[#CITEREFAuthorYEAR|Author Year]].|name=anchor-name}} to link to references from inside other references.
125.162.150.88 (talk) David 11:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] (and note the [edit] links following the cite doi entries in the footnotes and references sections)
Generally folks get a bit less interested when there are unstable taxa - with Accipitridae there is some work that suggests the Elanid kites (Elaninae) are an earlier offshoot than the Osprey(s) - Pandionidae - hence some rejigging is in order. More amazing is that some research suggests the Elanids might be basal to both accipitrids and owls (!!) As if there isn't enough on my plate....Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wut? I was asking about teh method of referencing... unstable taxa would be our "Holy Community", no? The cites in scientific articles will have DOI available far more frequently than, say, Miley Cyrus and I would think typical editors of such would have a bit better neurological arrangement so that they would be able to deal with the syntax. The goals here would be linkage between the footnotes and the full cites in the reference section, proper structuring of those cites with templates, and sharing complex cites between articles via the doi templates. I only went to this article because it was using several of the doi cites as White-bellied Sea Eagle (the other being {{cite doi/10.1016.2FS0305-1978.2896.2900049-X}}). 125.162.150.88 (talk) David 12:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, I like the new cite doi thingies. Much quicker to add. Casliber (talk· contribs) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the ticket. Gonna need a lot of hands as there must be tens of thousands of bird articles. Then there would be lizards and such. Spread the word.
This pretty clearly illustrates how modern referencing techniques can de-snot article prose. Three of those went all the way off to a doi template. [Accipitriformes] ;)
125.162.150.88 (talk) David 14:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bald Eagle should have {{cite doi | 10.1016/S0305-1978(96)00049-X }} invoked, but you protected-it-forever. See this and this for several ways to do it, depending on just where you want the cite to appear down south.It's now shared by nine articles 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello old friend
How's the workload? Could you fit in a speedy copyedit for me? I'd owe you [another] one... --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure - which article? Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. It's at FAC - I'll mention your name there. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers)
Hello Casliber! Thanks for commenting back to me on the AFD. I thought that although I agreed with User:TreasuryTag's nomination they had made it a rather unpleasant experience, so I didn't really feel I could vote. I see you had a run in with him: I think it must have made his day when an administrator commented on his AFD nomination, he got no ambush someone in authority! I also see that he's threatened you with some sort of Wiki-etiquette tribunal. Oh well I found it all very unfriendly and off-putting, so I think I'll leave him a note on his very bare discussion page. All best, Chris - aka TehGrauniad (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chris, you might want to have a check of the page history and look at the diffs of some of the material that has been removed, as well as this thread and this thread. Find two or more comments where folks have been frustrated by his (1) propensity to get the last word in, and (2) some inept tagging, and set up a request for comment. It will be validated. If you don't want to I will later on today but am busy for the next few hours. He won't listen to a request by a single user. Casliber (talk· contribs) 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is definitely his way. It seems that his editing exists for the most part to rock the boat. Wikipedia is very nice in that it tolerates problem editors, which is a lovely thing to do, as sometimes problems are just down to misunderstandings. I think a little wikilove can go a long way, but I don’t think it’s helpful for this user who has been on Wikipedia for c.5 years, and seems to relish skirmishes, and it seems in one case he’s managed to push someone over the edge. As he’s ignored my message do you think that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is the right way to go about this? TehGrauniad (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) For what it's worth, the person I "pushed over the edge" was back to editing Wikipedia within five days, so that doesn't weigh terribly heavily upon my conscience. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 10:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @talk:TehGrauniad - does a bear shit in the woods...is the pope Polish German....does a fish have a watertight arsehole? I am off to have some dinner...if you set it up, I'll take a look. Made you-know-who look anyway (chuckle/lightly taps fingers on side of nose twice)Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think TreasuryTag's behaviour onwiki is becoming more and more unpleasant. I get the feeling he's running out of friends. It's a shame. When I mentored him back into the community, he really showed a lot of promise, to the extent that I hoped the community might consider him for adminship. I'll try contacting him again, because that AfD and some of what I've seen at ANI is just unpleasant. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(seriously) TreasuryTag. I was about to post, seriously, just knock it off. Now. But I think it is just too late. We'll see what the community thinks. Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome! I make it a practice, as an admin, to readily agree to virtually all userfy requests! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply there. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can I just say, I am actually serious about my request that you stop following my edits. I've currently got a moderately lengthy .txt file on my computer containing a not insubstantial list of pages to which you have either obviously tracked me, or at the very least made a special effort to comment in threads by or about me. Not all of your contributions in this regard are altogether 'good' on their own merits, let alone the fact that they involved following me around Wikipedia. Since they do not show any concerted effort to correct policy violations, for instance, there doesn't seem to be any obvious justification for this trend, and I would ask that you simply and voluntarily put a stop to it. I don't track your edits, and I would appreciate it if you didn't track mine. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Sandstein's talk page. Message added 13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]