:Aha yes, I know that issue :) - will get back to you tonite re that one. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:Aha yes, I know that issue :) - will get back to you tonite re that one. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#23 September 2011|23 September 2011]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Hakea macraeana]]''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the plant '''''[[Hakea macraeana]]''''' was first described in ''The Australian Journal of Pharmacy''?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[]].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Hakea macraeana|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Hakea macraeana]].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Hakea macraeana|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template talk:Did you know/Hakea macraeana]].}} }} }}You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Hakea_macraeana quick check])</small> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|DYKSTATS]] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
}} [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 08:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
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. --liquidGhoul11:38, 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? Circeus00:20, 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 | contribs02:01, 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. Circeus04:52, 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. Circeus01:02, 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]
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.
XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of [Banksia] species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian23:59, 22 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. :(
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 Merridew10:54, 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 Merridew10:54, 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)
Arianewiki118:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I saw that you have edited Millwall pages. Do you support Millwall.
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. Hesperian10:23, 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.
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. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (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. :-) Hesperian23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Special edition triple crown question
Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.
The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hesperian11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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? Hesperian04:42, 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. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paper
An interesting abstract: [4]. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian23:52, 15 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. Hesperian14:03, 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." Hesperian14:23, 17 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] Hesperian13:17, 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. Hesperian14:05, 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. Hesperian02:01, 25 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.) Hesperian03:26, 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]
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]
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)Hesperian08:43, 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.
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. Hesperian04:16, 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. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.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 SatuSuro01:51, 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. Hesperian11:17, 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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Hello Casliber- You reviewed the American Alsatian a year back now for Good Article and since then there has been some new reliable sourcing added to the article. You mentioned at that time that if new reliable sources were included to let you know. The following sources have been added and/or improved:
Imam, Bassam. "Animalogy: Dogs and Other Canids". free e-books.com. Retrieved 2010-11-08.,
"American Alsatian: Appearance". Rightpet.com. July 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-08.,
Sicard, Gary (February 2008). "American Alsatian (Shepalute)". MolosserDogs. Retrieved 2009-06-08.
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)[reply]
Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
heh, see now I can see your userpage so I can say, "de nada", and you'll know what it means. But I don't actually speak Spanish anyway so that was more of a gesture of...I don't know what really.... :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - alot of the ibis article was expanded by a new user, I tagged along finding more stuff and expanding more...but now some re-reading and more buffing is needed. Do-able but need a bit of time....Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
heys. i see that the american white ibis is currently being reviewed. is there anything i can do to help? What are the things that require adjustments? sorry for being away for so long. im currently doing marine research on an island now and internet is limitedbenongyx (talk) 04:20, 15 Aug 2011 (UTC)
This reminds me of your rescue of Talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow/GA1. I'm alos very aware of your other achievements, including a recent dust-up at Arbcom. So:
We have finished a draft for inclusion in WP:MOS, and it requires your attention as the ArbCom member with oversight of the matter. Would you please deal with this, when it is convenient?
That is to say, one factious editor has compiled a draft, and ignored all criticism ; the usual small clique has supported this misbehavior, and the draft is filled with the usual demands for mandatory use of dashes with which this process began. We've had two polls, and on each of them half of those polled has opposed mandatory use of dashes; JeffConrad has shown at some length that the draft misrepresents the sources: see WP:MOS#Endorsements, and final points to fix, for much more, and a list of objections, including Kwamikagami's
If it would help, three texts have been proposed which make better sense and have more support than this: Kotniski's draft; Tony's original proposal; [Simple English Wikipedia] paragraph covering all these issues (which Art LaPella brought up on WT:MOS. (The last would need a sentence saying that dashed compounds are preferred in certain conditions; but it would still be shorter than anything else, and uncontroversial.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, is it safe to assume that with this resolution of the en dash guidelines, the moratorium on moves between hyphen and en dash is no longer in effect? Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... is just about ready for FAC I think. I will be leaving in a day or two for about a week, but will help out with the FAC when I return. I stubbed Julius Schäffer to get rid of the redlink; there's probably a DYK in there, but there's slim pickings on the interweb... feel free to try if you think you can scrape up a bit more info. Sasata (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, I deleted this. Given the allegations of criminality made in the deleted text, should it be erased completely? Or since it's only accessible to the incorruptible (!) is it OK for it to stay? If the former, who has the power to do the deed?
Regarding (1), yes I think it is oversightable. It falls under "Libelous/potentially libelous statements". I am taking care of it. (2) I have been meaning to take a look. Been busy. I will see how it can be improved. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is not going to be sorted out there soon. There are several issues. Where are the policies on merging and adding free content to the wiki? What happens next? Snowman (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some options, one of which is a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. On an article level, I am curious to see how this might help develop an article. I am thinking that maybe improving Hyacinth Macaw to GA or FA and looking back and seeing if it helped us is a good experiment. As well, I think we should look at the least developed bird article we have (i.e. the one with the greatest difference to on of theirs) and import and improve and see what we think. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that the discussion may be gaining its own momentum, because some contributors are beginning to advance the discussion over there. Watchful waiting. What could "Wikipedia:Requests for comment" achieve? Snowman (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem on wikipedia is that many discussion only attract a handful of users. The RFC tag is a way of alerting a wider audience. It also has an inbuilt option in that an admin is required to "close" the debate and summarise the findings. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be a good idea if the discussion had an adjudicator/assessor for final summing up. I have had a look at "Wikipedia:Requests for comment", but it looks like it is mainly concerned with user behaviour or disagreements. Is "Wikipedia:Requests for comment" the right place for an opinion on the long discussion on the ARKive project? I think that the discussion has turned up some issues which ARKive should address, and some Wiki guidelines in which some Wiki editors see loopholes. Snowman (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bit of a cold/flu at present (middle of winter here) so have been sleeping rather than editing. I need to read up on what has been happening. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got anything on this from the Hyacinth Macaw Wiki article?; "The acuri nut is so hard that the parrots cannot feed on it until it has passed through the digestive system of cattle.[5]". How many cattle are there in the Pantanal? In-line citation is a dead link. This video on YouTube apparently shows a macaw in a tree eating a clean acuri nut. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK requires an editor to almost "ambush" an article - i.e. it has to be expanded five-fold in five days to be eligible, and this is not the case with this one, sorry. One thing to aim for is Good Article status - but have a look at the Good article criteria first and try to fix everything you think may need fixing. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Housekeeping is certainly one of my specialties and I would love to work on it, I'll start soon! {{SUBST:MySig}}
DYK
Thanks for the review of Template talk:Did you know/Roman amphitheatre. It's not a very good article, I'm afraid; what it lacks is some discussion of architectural variants, construction etc., but Bomgardner's work (the only one I have access to at the moment) addresses this only in the discussion of individual venues, so it's hard to do without synthesis. You left some advice ("Recommend looking at it", "Just compare..."); is this addressed to me or to other reviewers?
(a) I meant that for you - you have the book, I don't - so just double check - I changed one sentence as I can see page 37-38 in google books and thought the wording veered on the too-similar (this whole process is a tightrope walk between OR on one side and copyvio on the other!) - if you're statisfied, then I am happy to AGF on it. (b) Ok - will look.Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1711:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber. At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Trial unprotection you wrote "Any further acrimony on the MOS page will be taken very dimly". I know you are busy, but could you please give me some advice about how to proceed when faced with the unfortunate events witnessed there today? I don't feel that further lock-down is appropriate since editing of the page has stopped, however the personal attacks and reverting editing against consensus by one editor do appear to be going against the generally good spirit of consensus-building seen there since you unlocked the page. Thanks for any attention you can give this. GFHandel♬01:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that by "reverting against consensus by one editor" he probably meant "editing against consensus by one editor"; I did the reverting of Pmanderson's edits, which seems to have been the consensus thing to do; his disruption then extended to calling us both liars, which is characteristically incivil of him. Is there any simple way to constrain such behavior? Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor help
Cas, as a respected admin sort, would you be so kind as to watchlist a couple articles, notably Horses in warfare (HIW) and saddle? Relatively new user doesn't seem to understand WP:MOS, WP:UNDUE and WP:AGF very well, is doing some minor POV-pushing on Japanese-related themes, but the real problem is getting a bit hot under the collar whenever questioned, and dragging random others in, one of whom warned Ealdgyth, of all people, about "edit warring" over at HIW. User:causa sui locked down saddle for a bit, at my RfP request (but warned ME about "edit warring" too...sigh). Anyway, someone who is a calm hand like yourself, has been around the horse articles some, and knows the usual forms that wiki-drama takes when WPEQ is involved would be welcomed to at least lurk and keep an eye on things, including maybe the contribs list and talk page of the new user in question. I can be such a crab sometimes, but I think on this round I've tried to be patient more than usual. Need more eyes on these. Thanks. Montanabw(talk)04:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article because I saw it listed at FAC and decided to take a look. It seems to be to be rather poorly written and not to meet the GA prose criterion in my opinion. What's your view? MalleusFatuorum16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes when reviewing for GA I modify my strictness on aspects such as prose and comprehensiveness, so for a person I know will be gunning for FA I will try to give it as far a shove as possible in the right direction. If an editor who I do not recognise, I will try to cut them some slack to get them interested in the whole Auditing process. That said, I concede I somehow missed the first glaring grammar error you pointed out - looking at the version as it was after I had a bit of a tinker. The "Stone Age" sentence I can't see in that one so has been readded. Yes the immigration sentence was there, and the defensive castle. "After the war the city became part of newly independent Second Polish Republic" I can't see in the version I reviewed, but the last one was (oops). Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect perfection at GAN either, but neither do I expect to see the kind of glaring errors this article is riddled with. I think it's either got to be fixed up or delisted. MalleusFatuorum21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ok. Some were nestled in a stream of text but most were pretty glaring. I will take a look at the page and see if I can clean things up a bit (including how I missed them in the first place..). Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I know - it gets worse, this bit I changed was paraphrasing the source way too closely. I've changed it but we really need some other sources to get a well-rounded picture to write it better. Yep, I was looking at it thinking, "fuckity, fuckity, fuck", I fucked up. I have recommended it be withdrawn from FAC and I wouldn't oppose a GA review either. I'll post on WP:Poland to see if some folks have some sources etc. 01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No, not a wikicup issue as I've tried to keep and eye on GAN and review here and there to keep the flow-through, more a limited-time-plus-too-hurried, focussing on some other issues and being sloppy and missing some obvious stuff, and too much AGF with sourcing. I have always been a bit of a slob which is why I value obsessive people here who keep me on track with content here. I think being lenient here backfired in a big way. 01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought about this for a few minutes and I am thinking thusly - I posted to WP:Poland and requested help. If at least one or two Polish editors can help with the content, and I can copyedit, then I think it is worth holding off GAR for a few days and seeing how it eventuates. If no-one does, I can't copyedit the article to the extent it needs without a chance of muffing the meaning, in which case it should be discussed and probably delisted. So my advice would be to leave it and come back in 48 hours and see if some Polish editors have joined in and we can take it from there. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black-cheeked Gnateater, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a field study in Brazil found the territories of the 11.5 cm long Black-cheeked Gnateaters(adult male pictured) to average 2.94 hectares (7.3 acres)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Well I see you discovered the collaboration page, I was planning to show it to you today once it had some structure to it. As I'm sure you could tell it was still a worki-in-progress and there were many things I had left to, I only created the /history page a few hours ago. i hope that the basic structure of it is something like you envisioned, you may need some great changes I hadn't even thought of, but I hope your'e pleased with what it looks like so far. Also, I think that we should include a tab for the collaboration page on the WP:JUDAISM project pages. Comments? Magister Scientatalk(3 August 2011)
Abortion articles discussion
I saw your comment about what the committee can do. I have some possible ideas, but I have no idea if they are any good. Possibly stalling and see if it still seems like an issue in a week or two. Ruling on the med cab closure. Possibly ruling that the matter should be dropped for a few months. <shrug> just some ideas - this one seems tougher than I thought when I initially got involved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like it
I think though you perhaps misunderstood my intentions, when I referred to it as "WP: JEW Collaboration", I meant to indicate that a collaboration which was part of WikiProject Judaism (often abbreviated to as WP; JEW or WP: JUDAISM) was being revived. Also the template I created, and subsequently moved after your advice to a more suitable name, is not intended to display the current Collaboration. It was intended to be put at the bottom of each month's votes and nominations so that when looking back through historical collaborations, it would be visually obvious to see which article was chosen for that particular month. In any case, I apologize for the ambiguity of both situations. Magister Scientatalk(3 August 2011)
Hi again! Good to hear from you. I was just thinking maybe you should write to our friend Sandra LLoyd,who is the passionate Curator of the Cooktown Botanic Gardens - she would probably be of more help than I could be. She is a botanist and an excellent photographer and I am sure she would be happy to help you. Here is her email address; sandylloyd@activ8.net.au or at work at: botanic.gardens@cook.qld.gov.au. Do write to her and feel free to say I suggested you contact her. Best of luck with it all. John Hill (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, I am a fairly new editor, although my start date was in 2006, I really didn't start messing with Wikipedia until late last year. The reason I mention this, is that getting to know the Wikipedia culture and jargon can be a bit of a task. Occasionally an editor can have negative interactions with admins, and often positive interactions with them as well.
The reason I write you today is regarding what I see as a fundamental issue in Wikipedia with Civility. I've seen your efforts (Casliber and Newyorkbrad) in Wikipedia and from what I can tell you are fair minded and rational when it comes to evaluating situations, so I thought I would bring this to you.
Editor A makes a user page that contains some degree of political statement and essay on politics, which admins discover and say it is WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:SOAPBOX and a violation of BLP. A discussion ensues in MfD which Admin A closes (with some discretion) in favor of deletion. A deletion review occurs, where again, it is closed by Admin B (with some discretion) in favor of continued deletion. A discussion is brought to AN/I regarding these events.
Editor B feels that these admins applied discretion inappropriately and creates a user page called "AdminWatch" listing 4 diffs with the heading "poor admin actions", along with an intro saying that admins need to be held accountable. Before 18 hours have passed, this user page is then speedily deleted without warning by an admin involved in the prior AN/I discussion.
So begins the drama, over whether Editor B created a "shitlist" or is simply documenting administrative actions with an eye toward accountability. The "AdminWatch" page is temporarily undeleted pending a deletion review, after some discussion, this is closed by an admin in favor of keep (because of the contentiousness), who then immediately puts it up for deletion via an MfD.
So essentially we have two camps. Those who unequivocally see this as a "shitlist" and those who feel that recording records of admin actions that we disagree with should be allowed in the spirit of permissible dissent. "AdminWatch" as it stood 18 hours after its creation ( here ) and "AdminWatch" now ( here ), slightly modified to try and excise any perception of personal attack.
Neither version strikes me as bad. But, the greater issue here, in my opinion, is whether an individual editor is allowed to record what they perceive as 'bad' actions done via the admin tools. Several editors say "we have forums and noticeboards for that, it should be enough. Other editors say, if you're recording an overall or chronic pattern, you can't always immediately bring it to those venues.
The editor that began the "AdminWatch" page has been in Wikipedia for 5 years, with a clean history and seems to be generally willing to compromise, so I'm personally puzzled by the hard-edged reactions I've seen, and I would like to find a way to accomodate realistic criticism in Wikipedia without it becoming so contentious. I almost feel that this rises to the level of needing ArbCom intervention. Any suggestions? -- Avanu (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC) (cc'd to Newyorkbrad)[reply]
A cockatoo is any of the 21 species belonging to the bird family Cacatuidae within the parrot order Psittaciformes. They range from the Philippines and the eastern Indonesian islands of Wallacea to New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Australia. Instantly recognisable by their showy crests and curved bills, cockatoos are generally larger than other parrots. Their plumage is mainly white, grey, or black, and often with coloured features in the crest, cheeks, or tail. 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 that of suitable nesting hollows when large, mature trees are cleared; conversely, some species have adapted well to human changes and are considered agricultural pests. (more...)
Have you seen what has just happened at 'Tree shaping'? After a very thorough discussion SilkTork has summarily closed the move request with 'No action'. I agree that it was a good idea to go to the extent of making a formal move request but something rotten is going on here.
Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - one thing it'll need - nothing in the lead should need an inline ref as all material in the lead should be in hte body of the article (where the references should be). Will think of other issues soon. Independent eyes are good. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what I mean is, the inline references aren't necessary in the lead, as all should be elsewhere in the article where the material is. I'll show you in the article. Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if you could exchange the lead hooks from Queue 5 and Prep area 3. I believe Crisco intended to put Rosendale Theatre in prep area 2 anyway, because the article was being retained for August 19, New York time. Thank you. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Template_talk:Mycomorphbox. Message added 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for taking the trouble to assess some of my recent work, and offering some constructive comments on pituitary apoplexy. Once I get around to finishing that, it might come on the GAC radar. JFW | T@lk16:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for unprotection
Hi Casliber. A couple months ago you protected Ricardo Gabriel Álvarez per my request in WP:RFPP. Now that the speculation concerning this footballer's transfer has ended, I don't see a reason to keep the page protected. If you agree, please unprotect the article.
Hey. Just checking to see what's up with this review. It started off well with your comments reponded to, now no one's posted anything in a month. Hopefully it can be wrapped up soon. WizardmanOperation Big Bear15:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism from further moves for the time being. I've come here because the protected tag which I believe you placed in the essay says that the essay may still be edited, but I'm finding that I can't edit it, and I'd be grateful if you might look into that. My interest arises because there is what one might call an orphan of a recent edit in the essay, in the section title "Expressing your I-just-don't-careism": this was a change introduced in a general "censoring" of the essay in this diff, reverted in this diff, but re-instated in this diff, and now stands out like a sore thumb. Thanks for your time. Nortonius (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work you do in creating and improving articles on biological topics! Recently you helped make Paxillus involutus a Featured Article, but you've been busy all over. Thank you; your work is much appreciated. – Quadell(talk)
:Did you know nominations/Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker
Hi. This is a very small thing, but given the way small things get blown out of proportion at DYK these days, I figure I'd best not take unilateral action to fix it. I was surprised to see that I didn't get a DYK credit for Cuban Friendship Urn, after I extensively edited the article and nominated it for DYK (giving myself a "DYKmake" template instead of "DYKnom" because of my contributions to the article), then defended it at DYK. From the edit history, it appears to me that the failure to copy the "DYKmake" to the prep area was just one of those small mistakes we all make from time to time. So, please can I haz the DYK credit? --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I will resist the temptation to template you, but I found your voting suggestion there to be very unhelpful. Without a clear understanding of what exactly folks are voting for, or any kind of rationale for votes, such an effort is pretty meaningless. See also WP:NOTVOTE if you haven't already. Cheers, --John (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(a) they are pretty clear yes/no questions.Furthermore,other uses (like the football use) can be further itemised at the bottom.
(b) each has a discussion section for relevant and concise discussion
(c) I can't imagine that anyone in their wildest dreams would see a morass or wallof text as easier to determine consensus with - really.This way we can get a fuller determination and wider participation and make some sense of it at the end.
I disagree with you on specifics related to your points (a)-(c) above. Seems to me the failure to require a rationale or specifics of what usage we should recommend are the two most obvious failings in designing a strawpoll on a MoS page. Perhaps you could amend it to make the exercise more focused towards finding a solution. A badly designed strawpoll will only polarize the debate without leading to any real discussion, in my view.
Here's the template, I have noticed it but I have never used it before. It's pretty indicative that it's considered bad form when we actually have a specific template warning against what you've done, nicht wahr? Anyway, maybe food for thought for you.
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! --John (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty non-templateylooking template. I was expecting something fancy with a cartoonised polling booth, voting card, stop sign, big hand all in big red attention-grabbing text. Ah well. May as well continue discussion over there. I'll add a template of my own. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see that you're an active reviewer of DYKs, would you mind taking a look at the two below. It would be much appreciated, not to worry if you can't. Thank you.
hey. not sure if you got my message but I would like to help with the review process for the american white ibis. i wrote a message to you on the american white ibis section but i didnt get a response from you. i thought i might catch u in this section instead. do get back to me on how i can help. i was primarily not about to help at the start because i was doing marine research on an island i had limited internet access. hope to hear from you soon. cheers.benongyx (talk·) 01:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.237.25 (talk) [reply]
Thank you
Hi Casliber,
Thanks for helping out on the articles and pointing me in the direction of the improve your writing essays I shall have a read of them later today. Thanks again.
Hello! Your submission 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! Joe Chill (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Tylopilus
On 30 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tylopilus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that pink pores and a very bitter taste help identify Tylopilus species (T. felleus pictured) from other boletes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tylopilus.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'm interested in helping WikiProject Plants, mainly articles that haven't been created yet. Is there any style I should follow besides the Manual of Style's general stuff while writing articles? Regards, HurricaneFan2515:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, well I'm glad you asked. I have tried getting lots of biology articles in different areas to look like each other so we look more like an encyclopedia. Hmmm...generally keep at scientific names. Erm, I generally use headings like in Banksia paludosa which is one of my most recent ones that has become Featured. Just ping me when you make one and I can take a look. We can build a few big and fast for DYK. Another editor, Poyt448 (talk·contribs) does alot of bushwalking and starts alot of articles and I often help format and expand his so lots of the DYKs on rainforest plants from around where we both live (Sydney, Oz) are joint efforts. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk·contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. 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. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got a Sockpuppet, Need a Checkuser
Hey Casliber, I need some help with a sock. Take a look at User:Jonnybooth and User:Algibson, especially their edits to the page List of United States cable and satellite television networks. Just that behavior alone is indicative of sockpuppetry. Algibson claims they aren't one-in-the-same (don't they all?) which raises my suspicions more. But since you are the admin, I thought I would let you make the call on this one. Can you help by doing a CU just on the behavioral part of their edits? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I paused as Algibson (talk·contribs) was around first, so it was unnecessary for him to make a new account Jonnybooth (talk·contribs) as he probably wouldn't have thought there'd be an edit war. I also noted the point of contention was mentioned in the source but as a distributor not an owner, so I figured it is a genuine mistake and added the distributor in the next column. Let's see if this settles it. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information "an historic" is good pom English and is equaly valid with "a historic". We like to leave it as written. Regards. --Charles (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, I was wondering if you had had a chance to check out the growth near your house. I have been avoiding promoting the article until you left note of the success of your "expedition". Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am inviting members of some WikiProjects to take part in evaluating their projects in order to help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand such projects from the inside, to encourage reflection on best practices, and to compile a list of best practices as recommended by a number of projects. I am contacting you because you are listed as an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods. Having witnessed that project's work in the past in my volunteer capacity, I'd very much like to include it. I hope that you will have time and interest in participating. As much or as little as you would like to supply would be gratefully received. The assessment questions are posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Self-assessment. I will myself steer clear of the page until after any discussion seems to have become dormant, at which point I will ask questions to make sure that I am developing a good overview of opinions. Thanks. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great work with this article (as usual). Too bad about the ordinary photo. Yesterday the Hacking River trip was a great success. Landcare will be thrilled. Only 3 Grey Teak there; 2 were fruiting heavily this year. I think I found Johnson's Socketwood near the river. Very excited. Will hope for confirmation from the NSW Herbarium. (Either that or more embarrassment). Yellow Bloodwood is a beautiful species, I really love it. Poyt448 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it is a nice photo of the bark. I am thinking about what eucs to plant in my garden - my wife loves the "Summer Beauty" and "Summer Red" grafted ficifolia hybrids but I am warming to some of our local Sydney ones - I have already planted a Eucalyptus robusta down on the lowest part in a corner and really like hte look of yellow bloodwood. I have been trying to expand Sydney Basin eucs as I am not very good at IDing them, and I find writing about them a great way of cementing them in my head. If you look thru my contribs you'll see the others I've expanded thus far. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Glad you are keen on the local gum trees. They were my first interest in botany some 25 years ago. Identification can be very tricky. My favourite of the locals is Eucalyptus luehmanniana. Not only is it listed as rare, it is a majestic looking sight. (Haven't heard back from the Herbarium or Richard Schodde yet). Am tempted to return to the Hacking River ASAP, and see if I can find the mature Socketwood (if that is what it is). This seedling can't be far from the parent tree, perhaps within only 50 metres, as the seeds are wind blown Poyt448 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber,
I hope you're well. My name is Matthew and I work on the fundraising team at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. For the 2011 fundraiser, we're trying to diversify the people who represent Wikipedia in the banners and the personal donation appeals. While Jimmy's appeal brings in good money, just relying on it is not representative of the people who write and maintain the diverse projects across the namespace. Please let me know if you'd like to participate and we'll set up an interview. I can be reached at mroth@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF)22:39, 9 September 2011 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Cas: I ended up moving Brown Cuckoo-Dove to Slender-billed Cuckoo-Dove based on the scientific name of the bird. Looks like it may be split soon anyway, if not already. Thought you may want to know (since it's your neck of the woods). I hope I did the right thing......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me contacting you as I remembered you are an administrator, well to the point, I have just had an I.P user contact me on my talk page about a user who is causing problems on the Celebrity Juice article and I'm stuck as I dont know how I can help them, the message is question can be found here thank you Fatty2k10 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:06, 12 September 2011(UTC)
Hi Casliber. I hope it is all right for me to add something as I am the person that wrote Fatty. I just wanted to let you know why I am a bit pissed at OfficialBSB (whether he is registered on Wikipedia or not). I'm not denying that any of his edits are without merit. Some of them are constructive while others aren't. I do revert I admit, but I also sent him messages on his various talk pages as I hope you can see, but he never really responds to me so as to work things out and just reverts back to his edits totally ignoring me. This last time I probably got under his skin with the whole Rufus Hound not being a regular in Series 1 thing, and after a few days he responded by doing this big overhaul. There are things that I think are not necessary like if a whole band like McFly is on the show, I don't feel its necessary to list all the members in the episode listing if you can just click on McFly, though if only half of the band is on that's a different story.
I had been one person who was contributing alot to the page for a couple of years and there was no problem.However around May June time, when the 24PP episode came about for Comic Relief and Holly Willoughby took maternity leave, OfficialBSB, in whatever form, started editing the page.I tried to revert some of the edits as certain ones that he did (such as integrating the 24PP episode as episode 4B in Series 5)but he just reverted again and kept on changing without responding to me on any talk page. I feel he's telling me "It's my way or the Highway" and he won't listen to any reason. That's one thing that is stopping me from actually signing up for a Wikipedia account. I hope maybe that you can talk tto him and help us solve this problem (though I don't know if you'll get anywhere with him) This is the only page that I have had real problems with and I am hoping for any reassurance that I'm not totally in the wrong.
Okay - I am somewhat pressured for time - can you itemise the issues on the talk page where I've made a heading? I will try to go through myself but can be difficult over several hundred revisions without being familiar with the material. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber. I'm sorry to bother you again. However, BSBOfficialEditor or 109.150.200.69 (when not signed in) is messing with the page again. Whenever Fatty or I make an edit, this user has to add in useless info. Thursday, I found out who was on the show in two week's time and I added it with a source. Later on that day, he added two guests for next week and the missing guest for the week after, however I checked his sources and nothing was mentioned about them being on Celebrity Juice. So, I reverted his edit and now he has rebutted out of nowhere by adding a list of Appearances that is not really needed and doesn't seem to balance out the page.
I don't want to do anything else, because it seems that once Fatty or I revert or challenge his edits, he likes to stir up some trouble on the page. I think he wants the page his way, but all he's doing is making unnecessary additions to the page. Also, if you see the discussion page for BSBOfficialEditor, you will see on the bottom, that someone else has accused him of sockpuppetry, which I think means using various accounts to get his points across. I'm getting a bit tired of fighting and I would write him but I don't think he would listen to me. If I got rid of his Appearance List, he would just do some further edits. I know you are really busy, but can you look into this matter and maybe talk to him about his disruptiveness. Thanks in advance74.14.183.6 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)samusek2[reply]
Hi, working on the Australian Cattle Dog page to coax it towards FA, I've started separate pages for Halls Heelers and Robert Kaleski as I think these have notability beyond the Cattle Dog. Googling I found that Mary Gilmore mentions Kaleski in her prose poem Hound of the Road:
As you have been kind enough to comment on cricket FAs before, I wonder if you could have a look at George Hirst. It is at FAC here and I would appreciate any comments or suggestions. No-one seems to like reviewing cricket FACs anymore, unfortunately, and it is slightly starved of attention! If it doesn't appeal, or you are too busy, no problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, I'm wondering if you would be able to help me with the citation details for an Australian Plants article containing "Grevillea 'Cooroora Cascade' is an F2 seedling of Grevillea 'Golden Lyre'" found in a Google Books search result here? --Melburnian (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
