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]
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]
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]
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: [2]. 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
[3]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Betelgeuse FA?
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]
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]
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]
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)This is really intresting![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]
You'll probably find this worth watching
[4] 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]
Does this seem right to you?
[5] I can follow it up next time I'm at the library, but I thought you might know off the top of your head. It seems like a competent effort and I don't want to scare them off. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly ok - I am dubious about GAD and panic disorder so removed. Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I might read up on the evolution of the concept. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
All of the following species are worth 2x points; let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating in one or more for bonus points in a later round. Sasata (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha - thank heavens for European mushrooms :))) - yeah, I'd like to buff Clitocybe nuda (which was one of the yummiest mushrooms I've eaten), and we really should be improving the other mass-eaten edibles. Also I buffed the sickener for DYK so would be good to finish the job....Casliber (talk· contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll move Clitocybe nuda and Russula emetica closer to the top of "the list". I agree the popular edibles would be good to do as well, but they're hard ... we'll see how free time & motivation plays out over the next few months. Sasata (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tufted Tit-Tyrant Etymology
Hello. I've been working on the Tufted Tit-Tyrant article and was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at the bird's scientific name, Anairetes parulus, and figure out the etymology. Also, while I can guess where the subspecific names aequatorialis and patagonicus come from, would you be able to reference their meanings? Thank you for your time. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look in the morning. Bookshelf with possibly helpful books is in room with sleeping people in it....Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I don't want to pester you, but do you know when you'll be able to take a look at this? I know Jimfbleak raised the lack of translation as a nitpick at the Long-tailed Ground Roller's FAC. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Angophora floribunda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petiole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR
(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on WT:FAC)
thanks for the heads up - I have JSTOR access already (now where is my coffee....)Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some plants needing IDs
Hi Cas, I'd already let Melburnian know about my unidentified plant uploads from the Geraldton/Dongara/Kalbarri region at this Commons category, but I'd also welcome your input. Thanks in advance :) Orderinchaos 09:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Casliber. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 11:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American Robin
Hi, Casliber! On 19 January 2008 you made this edit [6] to American Robin, whose accuracy I have challenged on the article's talk page. Could you take a look at it and check whether the source really says this? Thanks! Duoduoduo (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tea Leaf - Issue Two
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. - Sarah (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be aware that HighBeam Research a pay for use search engine is offering Wikipedians free access subject to some basic criteria I didnt see your name on the list given the amount of work you've done already I thought you'd benefit from gaining access see Wikipedia:HighBeam/ApplicationsGnangarra 04:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have been really busy and not really looked into it. I get a pretty good selection via UNSW, but I might have a look at the list of titles available. Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Casliber. Another Waratah hits the pages. You and JJ are a powerful team! Whiteghost.ink 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and there'll be another in a few days too :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alloxylon flammeum
Did you intend to use an image in your DYK nomination for Alloxylon flammeum? There seems to be an image with a red caption to the right of the nomination but it is not used in the article and it is not apparent from the hook that an image is part of the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Fixed now. Casliber (talk· contribs) 11:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was wondering if you might have any photos of the Australian/New Guinean endemic genus Cartonema, or know anyone that might. I've been wanting to start some species specific articles in this genus, but I really would prefer to have photos first. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, never heard of them. Err, Gnangarra (talk· contribs) is in WA, but not sure if he's ever taken a photo of one. Can only ask :) Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Commelinaceae; always ignored! Thanks for passing on Gnagarra's name; I'll give it a shot :-) DJLayton4 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback request
Hi Casliber! I would like to request rollback rights, as WikiProject Brazil will need members capable of handle some tasks (such as reverting vandalism, rapidly). Kind regards; Felipe Menegaz 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. take a look now. Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm working to reactivate WikiProject Brazil and this will be very helpful when the project is ready. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Alloxylon flammeum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telopea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say thank you for your detailed review and criticism during the Rwanda FAC. Feels like it was quite a long road, but I think the article is much better for your input, and I'm glad to be finally celebrating its promotion! All the best — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness
Whatever that is about, it seems to need the attention of a checkuser, sysop, or resident psych. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, aware of it. sigh. Casliber (talk· contribs) 08:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The process was fine - there are a several references that need formatting, and [7] is not a Reliable Source I'd think. I suspect something has been published somewhere that the writer can replace with.
I often just roll up my sleeves and format the refs myself if they're simple. Anyway, just tidy (or get the writer to tidy) the refs. The other main issue is checking that the text reflects the sources but does not paraphrase them. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you help me, please? I had re-written the article, it now needs some corrections with grammar and stuff, I think. Cheers; --Nephiliskos (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nephiliskos, why did you completely remove the inline references for the legacy section? Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what was wrong with Thor Jensen in reception? I'd just combine into preceding section and make it Reception and legacy so all material can be in one place. Casliber (talk· contribs) 22:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Talk:Minnesota State Highway 7/GA1. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Imzadi 1979→ 04:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 23:14, April 14, 2012[reply]
Hi, I saw your change to the "nomen dubium" statement on the Banksia oblongifolia page, and am still puzzled. The description looks okay, I think, it includes some leaf shape description, at least, so it isn't one of those "the plant is pretty" or "it has a different DNA sequence" problems that don't qualify as descriptions. The paragraph on the wikipedia page is still, I think, difficult to read, so it would be good to rephrase it or shorten it. What did you decide the problem was with the description? Thanks. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me that had a problem with the Description but Alex George who published a monograph of the genus in 1981. He wrote that the description of the leaves was insufficient to diagnose the species as the description could apply to some other species found in the same area. Furthermore the material that was used for the description has been lost, so it is unclear whether what Salisbury had was oblongifolia anyway. All australian authorities have followed George thereafter in this. Given our role at wikipedia is to reflect/report opinion and not create it, that's what I've done (personally I liked the name aspleniifolia...)Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am glad you brought that up - as I had not realised it mentions the leaves are hairy underneath. The other issue is how Salisbury was perceived (i.e. negatively) on account of his getting Brown's work and publishing it before Brown himself and trumping him on names. I might ask Peter Weston and Alex George about it...hmmm. 21:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think there is still a problem here, as it sounds as if Salisbury's names are being ignored, but they are actually validly published according to the code. I don't see Salisbury's work listed in Appendix VI or the names listed as rejected. The original wording about nomen dubium seems to be correct, but completely out-of-date because the situation would be in need of nomenclatural action. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase used in the text is " he concluded that it does not diagnose the species to the exclusion of others and is hence not a validly published name" - i.e. George concluded it is not a valid name as if it is, then it has precedence. I'm guessing it is nomen illegitimum on basis of 6.4 something here, but none of the links fit really. The issue is 32.2. "A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which in the opinion of its author distinguishes the taxon from other taxa." - now, George feels that the description is insufficient diagnosis, which is a prerequisite for valid publication, yet there is not link to what it should be called if it fails this criterion....Casliber (talk· contribs) 12:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you remove my rollback? I only ever end up using it accidentally, trying to click "Undo" on a slow computer. Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - any of your old GAs you want to push to the next level after a break from looking at them? Happy to help kick-start/review some if you want a push. Casliber (talk· contribs) 00:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't really thought about it. Honestly, I haven't been that interested in it for a while. J. Spencer (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe polishing off Gryposaurus? - might be nice to promote that one. Sometimes it's good revisiting after a few years for a fresh look, polish up, add and expand so it is exhaustive and send to FAC (?) Casliber (talk· contribs) 02:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Western Jackdaw
Yesterday I had an editing conflict with you when working on the Etymology section of Western Jackdaw. I tend to make all the alterations in a paragraph or section before saving it which makes a conflict more likely. I propose restricting my editing of the article to the morning here - in practice that means times between 6.00 and 12.00 as recorded in the "History" of the article. If we cooperate on this it will prevent conflicts and unnecessary duplication. An alternative would be for me to edit the article during the 18.00 to 21.00 slot but I usually work on new articles at this time, my evening. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I usually do lots of little edits. Rather than use set times, you can stick this template - Template:Under construction at the top of the page just before you edit and I will leave it until you take it down. Does that sound easier? Casliber (talk· contribs) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably stick to my evening when you are likely to be asleep. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I am in Sydney FWIW. Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
R&I Review
While I remember, may I trouble you please to review your oppose here? I've tweaked the wording. Roger Daviestalk 13:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Science lovers wanted!
Science lovers wanted!
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more geography; anything you can think of that might be missing? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is within striking distance. Only thing maybe is more detail on what is on the island now. I'm not sure I get a clear sense of that from the article. Also, we should be able to get some images...? Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solaris
Celestra (talk· contribs) wants me to seek your approval of the {{Edit semi-protected}} request I've made at Talk:Solaris (2002_film)#Proposed wording of Lem criticism. To be honest, I have no dog in this hunt: I thought I was being helpful. But as an IP editor I realize I sometimes have to jump through extra hoops. If you don't approve, no worries. Thanks, 72.244.206.162 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping the article improve to FA standards by your constructive comments on the PR ! --RedtigerxyzTalk 18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. When you recently edited Eucalyptus robusta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swahili (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet Home (video game)
I need yer help as administrator. A user named "Niemti" has replaced my re-work completely with the old version without seeking talk with me before doing that. All my hard work is ruined. --Nephiliskos (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nephiliskos, looking at the changes you made first up, I am not entirely surprised hat someone reverted. Why did you make that change in the first place and remove chunks of cited and nicely laid-out content? Casliber (talk· contribs) 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to present a clearly lined-up content, easy to follow and well-referenced. The old version was full of redundations and some of the sources were questionable. I have no problem with discussing about workings, but I´m not sure if it had been just a sign of good manners, if ye talk with the editor first and tell him about yer doubts or simply smash down other user´s work, no matter how "good" or "bad" it was. At least Niemti could have informed me. --Nephiliskos (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well what to do now....why not open discussion on the talk and raise particular concerns about certain references there? Casliber (talk· contribs) 15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've put boatloads of hours into trying to clean up the mess that was there. It's still not great, but at least it's not horribly inaccurate. I think I've removed all inappropriate uses of primary sources, I can't do anything with "History", but I hope treatment text is now at least not misleading. If you have a time, could you glance at it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, letting you know that I reviewed this and there's just one small thing - I think you have the wrong page for the Boland ref. Other than that, I'm ready to tick it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Project Management Interview, Michigan State University Reasearch Project
Hello Casliber,
I am a student of Michigan State University working under Dr. Obar on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. Thank you for volunteering to be a part of our project; we are glad that you have expressed interest in participating in our interviews of Wikipedia admins. I apologize for the lateness of this message, but if you are still willing to join in our work, please email me using Wikipedia's email function so that we can contact you formally.
Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP
Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas for reviewing Bal des Ardents. Your review made me laugh - but also good suggestions (one of which I've just realized I haven't fixed!). Truthkeeper (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People started editing and re-editing the genre for the band Combichrist so to avoid an editing war, I placed a tag by the genre and asked users to sort it on the main page. 89.244.71.38 (Who keeps changing their IP, and has stated so) has ignored the request and reverts the edit each and every time I ask hin to sort it on the talk page. He's been abusive on the talk page, and has said he'll keep reverting the edits, rather than debate the issue properly, as an adult. Each attempt has been ignored, so I'd like to request semi protection for the Combichrist page so it can't be abused by random ip's like the user has been doing, as it's the only way to end the editing war and stop him posting abuse. Thanks. Alinblack (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
damn, sorry Alinblack, I was hopping on- and offline in bits and pieces so read this then got distracted. Looks like someone has semirpotected it so hope that works. Casliber (talk· contribs) 22:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FAC
I'm looking for FACs to review ... is there a special reason the Banksia article has not been transcluded? Sasata (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! (wondered why it was so quiet...)Casliber (talk· contribs) 22:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Seminole Speedway. Message added 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. When you recently edited Western Jackdaw, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Corvus and Brehm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas. I just did a clean up at Depression (mood) and noticed that a while back you cited the above but didn't add the actual text details. Do you by any chance remember which title you were referring to? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aah yes, it'll be Sadock and Sadock psychiatry which has to be......that oneCasliber (talk· contribs) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we might work together on Pelican or did you have another editor lined up for collaboration?
Both pelican and jackdaw have 3x multipliers, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(a) anyone is welcome to roll up their sleeves and hoe in (b) 3x multipliers? even better.......Casliber (talk· contribs) 09:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the term pelican is generic, should we use lower case for pelicans in general and upper case where referring to a specific species? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what we do. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 09:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney meetup
Hello, you expressed interest in future meetups, a meetup will be held on Saturday May 5th at the Alexandria Hotel, further information can be found on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing you there!
I was looking for what I could find on pelicans only known from fossils and I came across this book. Either the Wikipedia article Pelican is plagiarized from the book or the book, published in 2008, used the Wikipedia article verbatim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are books which harvest wikipedia articles and free content. I think the mobilereference company is one of them. Casliber (talk· contribs) 23:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of bothMatthewedwards (submissions) andGrandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.— --SupernovaExplosionTalk 03:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed a couple of things but have left you to deal with explaining why this is a reliable source. It looks OK to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Red-tailed Black Cockatoo is a large cockatoo native to Australia. It is more common in the drier parts of the continent. Five subspecies are recognised, differing most significantly in beak size. Although the more northerly subspecies are widespread, the two southern subspecies are under threat. Adult Red-tailed Black Cockatoos are around 60 centimetres (24 in) in length and sexually dimorphic. Males are completely black in colour, excepting their prominent red tail bands; the slightly smaller females are black with yellow barring on chest with yellow grading to red spots over their crest, cheeks and wings and have yellow-orange tail stripes. The species is usually found in eucalyptus woodlands, or along water courses. In the more northerly parts of the country, these cockatoos are commonly seen in large flocks. They are seed eaters and cavity nesters. As such, they depend on trees with fairly large diameters, generally Eucalyptus. Populations in southeastern Australia are threatened by the reduction in forest cover and by other habitat alterations. Of the black cockatoos, the red-tailed black is the most adaptable to aviculture, although black cockatoos are much rarer and much more expensive outside Australia. (more...)
Hey, so I was looking through your userpage like a good wikistalker, and noticed that you'd put Betelgeuse on your to-do list. I have a bunch of astronomy-related sources sitting around my room (thanks to the lovely Andromeda), and put 2 and 2 together. If you're not too busy, would you be interested in a collab? Keilana|Parlez ici 00:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, funny you should ask. Essentially the situation is this - Betelgeuse was always on my to-do list but my hard-core astrophysics knowledge is a bit lacking. Then Sadalsuud (talk· contribs) turned up and was a real juggernaut in buffing it up to the max for a GA nom and pass. Since then Sasata (talk· contribs) did a really thorough look-over and that's where things stalled. I wanted to tighten up the folklore/mythology bit at the end and Sadalsuud has been inactive. I was planning on asking Sadalsuud if he was still interested and then double checking the physics/maths with some of the more technical-minded editors at the astronomy wikiproject before letting loose at FAC. I am happy for 2- or 3-way FAC noms (as collab editing is what we're all about) and staking this baby through the heart off my to-do list would be great. So have a look at the article and I'll ask away at the wikiproject and see what sadalsuud is up to. Nishidani was kind enough to find some folklore stuff which I can't remember if I added or not. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go take a look then! Betelgeuse is one of the first variable stars I observed and thus is close to my dorky, astronomy-loving heart. :) I'm always up for a collab, whether it's this or something else. (Funny note, I was just working on Aquarius (constellation) for a bit and thought for just a moment that Beta Aquarii was somehow editing.) Keilana|Parlez ici 01:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, review done. Once it's all scrubbed shiny and ready to go, I'd also think sending an email to a few of the people whose papers are cited in the article to ask them to come look-see would be a good idea. We can ask User: Mike Peel for UK-based folk as well. That's worked nicely before. Iridia (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'll get onto it a bit later. Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nit pick
Sorry to be nit-picky, but with regard to your comment here, please note that I've produced three featured articles in addition to the GA you mentioned - one of which, as I've said here, I produced specifically to demonstrate an ability to work effectively in a emotive, conflicted topic area. Also, wouldn't the 63 DYKs I've written count as "audited content"? Prioryman (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ye-eah, mostly (depending on which editor you ask as we both know there are sections of the community with a less-than-sanguine opinion on DYK). Previously it did help that Jayjg had well and truly done a heap of stuff (one or maybe two FAs (???)) - need to dig that out of the archives somewhere.....punting effort deep into net positive territory is a plus in situations like this...damn I should be replying over there....Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the discussion about Jayjg that you mentioned: [8]. It's a very comparable case - I remember reading it at the time and I've followed pretty much the same approach. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How weird! I could have sworn that "angustifolium" was a spelling mistake. I thought all plants with this sort of name were called "augustifolium". Well, live and learn. What else is angustifolium? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah yes. Lucky we aren't writing in some cursive script....Casliber (talk· contribs) 06:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-organised the Fofs chronologically and noticed that you seem to have skipped this one - Feragho and Occam are topic banned - and was wondering whether it was intentional. Roger Daviestalk 12:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Somebody has raised some pertinent questions on Talk:Depression (mood). I'm not sure I agree, but I think they deserve a better informed response than I can offer. I've had serious concerns about the article all along. I've been trying to keep it a simple directory to the relevant articles, but feel there's something not quite right about using DSM/ICD descriptions from the syndromes to define the mood. Don't know. Anyway, if you have any thoughts, they'd be very welcome. Maybe, if there's substantial literature on dysphoria, we could use that for the basis of the definition of the mood - they seem to be interchangeable terms. Don't know. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Muhlenbergia capillaris
Hey there, now that the issue with Casey has been resolved can you go ahead and approve the article? Regards --SKATERIs Back 12:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber. Could you look into this DYK nomination? It was promoted to prep 3 by you, but another admin found two lines with CV. The problem has been fixed since then, but I think the nomination is not in the list of those for reviewing currently. Mohamed CJ(talk) 16:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about missing that. Will get to it later today. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the picture is representing the French Marie Sklodowska Curie (she is from Poland!!), who lives in France. Is not this a bug? What do you think?
Top811 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I had not seen that before...hmmm...I guess she illustrates naturalised French people? I must admit I haven't edited or had an interest in the article previously. Maybe raise it on the talk page or look through the archives. These articles often end up with extended discussion about who is in the infobox. Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Western Jackdaw
I am in agreement with Andrew Gray that by using lower case letters for jackdaw but uppercase for Western Jackdaw the article is anomalous. To say "A jackdaw and a Rook" seems wrong. Would it be a good thing to capitalise jackdaw throughout the article? I'll be happy to do so if you think this would be best. Alternatively we could replace "jackdaw" with "Western Jackdaw" throughout the article or "Western Jackdaw" and "jackdaw" with "Jackdaw" throughout. (I tend to think the last idea might be the best - the bird to me is a jackdaw not a western jackdaw, a term I have never met before.)
On another matter, I am concerned by the alterations being made by Ornithodiez to the article Pelican. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this problem on American White Ibis and White Stork among other birds....let me compare the pages..I meant to read some of the sources for pelican to get my head around them. Hackett was a landmark one but some taxonomists had problems with it. Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've basically finished working on Cactus; there's always extra that could be added but I think all the main topics are covered. Growers will always want more (and sometimes add poorly sourced bits I have to remove), but I believe what is there now is adequate and is within WP:NOTMANUAL.
I'd welcome another view on whether it should now be re-nominated for GA. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Peter, the article looks fantastic, nice work! Yes, put it up for GAN (I may review it myself). Sasata (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go for it. Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks to you both for encouragement. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cockatoo is any of the 21 species belonging to the bird family Cacatuidae. Along with the Psittacoidea (true parrots) and the Strigopoidea (large New Zealand parrots), they make up the parrot order Psittaciformes. Cockatoos are instantly recognisable by their showy crests and curved bills. Their plumage is generally less colourful than that of other parrots, being mainly white, grey, or black, and often with coloured features in the crest, cheeks, or tail. On average they are larger than other parrots. Cockatoos prefer to eat seeds, tubers, corms, fruit, flowers and insects. They often feed in large flocks, particularly when ground-feeding. Cockatoos are monogamous and nest in tree hollows. Some cockatoo species have been adversely affected by habitat loss, particularly from a shortage of suitable nesting hollows after large mature trees are cleared; conversely, some species have adapted well to human changes and are considered agricultural pests. Cockatoos are popular birds in aviculture, but their needs are difficult to cater for. The Cockatiel is the cockatoo species that is easiest to care for and is by far the most frequently kept in captivity. (more...)
I liked that a lot! You said you like German things? See my talk for today's collection - I archived Easter and swamp, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peer Review Request
Hey Casliber! I'm working on getting Aaron Rodgers up to GA, maybe even FA. Would you mind conducting a peer review for me before I put it up to GA?--SKATERIs Back 02:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adriatic Sea
Hi! Thank you very much for taking time to perform GA review of the Adriatic Sea article. Your comments helped improve the article and I appreciate your effort.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. A nice read and I hope to see it at FAC sometime soon Casliber (talk· contribs) 12:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Skater's talk page. Message added 02:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Also, are you going to look over Aaron Rodgers? Never got a response :p SKATERIs Back 02:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heck - been busy ++++. Began looking over it.... Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries mate, take your time. Was just wondering. --SKATERIs Back 03:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on the peer review, I really appreciate you looking over it :). Wish I had a better eye for detail.--SKATERIs Back 07:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking up the copyediting task of Mysore. Please continue to post your questions in the FARC entry, and we'll try to address them and update you there. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the rest in the next few days. Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Krod Mandoon disrupting arbcom pages
Hi Cas. Please can you look at this report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. The user Krod Mandoon is obviously a sockpuppet, trolling on arbcom pages, and, from his edits, is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Echigo mole. He might have decided to borrow somebody else's mobile phone just to complicate things. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been very busy today - looks like this has been sorted. Casliber (talk· contribs) 16:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peer Review
Hey Casliber, I know you've been busy but I was just wondering if that was all that you could find wrong with Aaron Rodgers and if I was good to put it up for a GA nom. If you aren't that's perfectly fine, just new to the process :).--SKATERIs Back 18:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK prep to queue
Casliber, I wanted to remind you to bump the prep count after you've moved one or more prep areas into queues, so that the next prep area to be promoted is shown first, rather than leaving the just-moved (and now empty) prep areas at the top of the preps list. Thanks for keeping the queues stocked! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh....knew I forgot something.....Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!
We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.
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.
Faisal bin Abdullah DYK
Thanks Casliber for your support.Egeymi (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Dichelachne crinita
Hello! Your submission of Dichelachne crinita 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! Chris857 (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One small issue remains over a sentence in the lead. Chris857 (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
would you please watchlist this? (asking because I know you're familiar with FA stuff) — Ched : ? 11:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My undo
Hi, I didn't realise it was the opening section. Which on most articles isn't referenced. Apologies.--Chip123456 (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also. Think that when somebody adds information to Wikipedia, they should add the reference with it to avoid this happening! Apologies for the quick revert.--Chip123456 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take more care reverting people. At least have a look at the material. You could even try looking for references yourself. Casliber (talk· contribs)
When I joined Wikipedia, and added Unreferenced parts, I was told that I needed to find references before I add any information, which I have carried through until today. I do the same to other users, so I don't see why this should be different. I'm again, very sorry if I've caused any distress through the revert. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So don't play tit-for-tat and take it out on others. This place is supposed to be collaborative, not prodding others with some sort of deletion-stick. Can you see this is only going to annoy others and so on and so on?Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the constructive criticism.--Chip123456 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the time to say what you wrote on the article was great. Hope I'm not prodding you, just following the policies/guidelines. I was just reverting it because that is what I was told to do when I joined. So, always give people 3-4 minutes after to add the source. I don't get the tit-for-tat bit, because I wasn't trying to do that or annoy you. Thank you again, for your feedback.--Chip123456 (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the point I'd like to make is you often never know what folks are doing IRL (I've burnt pancakes while ducking back to the computer to revert or add something), and sometimes folks are busy. Also if it looks plausible and it's a pretty accessible topic, maybe just have a google and see if you can add sources sometimes. It makes this place a whole lot friendlier. Is there any stuff you like writing about? If you do, you can always drop me a line for a second set of eyes on an article. Good luck anyway, Casliber (talk· contribs) 10:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Again, I am sorry, I hope I haven't caused too much distress. Also, thanks for the comment on my review. I have replied to your comment and look forward to your reply. Thanks. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
State of play is this - Sadalsuud (talk· contribs) has reemerged and is taking time to digest where things are up to on Betelgeuse - given he added huge amounts of content I figured it was good to let him get up to speed before pushing on. I looked how small CMi was and figured it's an easy 5x expansion - good to show what core articles can still end up at DYK. My star sourcing ain't as up to speed as my biology though so am still rough round the edges....Casliber (talk· contribs) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you need anything give me a poke, I have about 15 constellation-related books sitting on my desk for Andromeda and Aries and could set you up with something. I'll also definitely give a comprehensive review of Betelgeuse at FAC, you guys have done a great job with it. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta run now, but some basic stuff for CMi would be a help - refs for when it rises/sets/polygon stuff etc....I haven't got much current on that, just the stars.Casliber (talk· contribs) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Patrick Moore's "Data Book of Astronomy" is excellent for, well, data. SIMBAD is great for finding scientific papers on stars to make things seem less crufty. The polygon stuff is available here in a .txt file, which is kind of hard to parse at first. I've got more sources sitting around, let me know if you want more names or data - I do have an excellent text called "Islamicate Celestial Globes" that I could scan for you if that helps. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Grunt, groan) gawd, getting info on Canis Minor is tough! I thought it'd be an easy 5x expansion but am struggling.....any constellation info that can be added would be a great help. I think I need about another 180 words or so....Casliber (talk· contribs) 07:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's difficult. Let me see what I can do... *digs through giant book pile* Keilana|Parlez ici 08:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's what I found. You could definitely expand the mythology section a lot more. Ian Ridpath's Star Tales is excellent, it's located here. That's especially useful for the Chinese mythology. I've also found a few papers on more ancient mythology (e.g. Mesopotamia, etc.) Try [9], [10], and [11]. As for books, I'd also recommend the Cambridge Guide to the Constellations, as well as Julius Staal's "New Patterns in the Sky" and William Tyler Olcott's "Star Lore". If you need to expand the History section further, give some background on the various star atlases and some uranography stuff. I'm willing to help write/source if you need it, just drop me a note! I've got a lot of free time this weekend and week. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 08:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical plants
Hello, How are you? I need your help.
I thank you your help in the articles. I ask you: Can you find more people willing writing in tropical trees, genera and families? I ask you if you could enlarge some articles making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to genera and families and writing information and asking people if they are interested in writing about topics as tropical trees articles, tropical forest articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know Wikipedia forums that could be interested about these type of articles? They are welcome too. I thank you very much.
I am from Spain and my mother language is not English language. Many country side areas, and Natural areas and Living beings are in Countries where population cannot collaborate with Wikipedia, but their Natural World and its highly economically valuable species are very important too in the human knowledge and developtment of the mankind. People should have information because these matters are important, not just a curiosity only. This unknow world is from Poles to ecuator, in unoccupied oceanic areas closely to Europe, in Deserts as Sahara, or whatever. But to me the main aim is to gather the abundant information disperse about living communities and living beings that have existed for millions of years because they are disappearing and in 20 years they will are not longer exist. Curritocurrito (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree - there is a lot to write about that's for sure....as far as finding more people, I don't know. Very hard to convince people to write about something they have no interest in. Better to make people interested in tropical forests write wikipedia articles..Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Echigo mole again
A sockpuppet account Jello carotids(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·filter log· block user ·block log) who has already been blocked for trolling on the WP:AN thread that another user opened on Echigo mole has been blocked as "sock troll" by FPaS. He also opened a SPI report on me similar to that of a previously blocked sockpuppet of Echigo mole, having located legitimate alternative accounts, used either for collecting information on the use of vodafone IPs for socking or collecting large numbers of rough diffs as a preliminary to submitting evidence on arbcom pages. Jclemens has not run a checkuser on the blocked account Jello carotids. Instead he is suggesting that my collapsing on AN and reversion there and elsewhere, which are similar to those of mutliple other users, are a sign of battleground behaviour. He has restored the SPI report on me deleted by FPaS. On 29 March, Southend sofa(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·filter log· block user ·block log) made a similar report which was dismissed by several administrators as without merit. Southend sofa, because of a set of anomolies in their editing related to other sockpuppet accounts of Echigo mole, was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole 2 weeks later by DeltaQuad. When the SPI report on me was listed, one of the alternative accounts in use for the arbcom review was listed and all the raw diff files were present. 3 days later, since the rough diffs were still needed, I coalesced the rough diffs into one file in a new account that was reported by Jello carotids, identically to Southend sofa. Jclemens seems to be militating to change the way serial wikihounders whose sockpuppetry shouts out through a megaphone are treated. He seems to be doing this in only one specific case, where he favours the sockpuppet, known for continued harrassment and wikihounding of an established user for 3 years, to the detriment of that established user. Please could you take a look at the SPI report on me (a declared account) and the two outstanding reports on Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]