User talk:Casliber: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:04, 13 October 2011

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

More unIDed fungi

G'day Cas,

I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324

Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature of fungi

Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN 0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???

LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1]

On Agaricus: 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)

On Boletus: Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).

Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pork

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]

Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 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]

Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.

I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.^[2]

So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)

The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.

Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilio

FloraBase has an entry for this, but no other information.[2] Know anything about it? Hesperian 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I found it.[3] Hesperian 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and I see your name in the Acknowledgements too.... Hesperian 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you might want to have a look at this too. Hesperian 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia and climate change

This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of [Banksia] species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Yes please. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hesperian 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Temple of Besakih

The early morning sun hits the spires of Pura Besakih

DYK that the most important Hindu Temple in Bali has a single sentence of coverage? ^oldid :( Jack Merridew 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get 5 days, right? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(

Alastair Haines (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh crud, sorry Jack - Alastair's poem was very timely. Yes, 5 days it is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ma'af lads, I'll be watching for black bamboo while I'm in Timor ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pura Ulun Danu Bratan — opps; wrong temple; there are thousands. This is still an important one; See also Tanah Lot

See also

Pura Ulun Danu Batur — the second most important temple on Bali. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaaa. ok, that redlink will turn blue sometime soon....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that. There are some pics at Commons:Category:Pura Ulun Danu Batur and I have some, somewhere. It's quite picturesque and is shown prominently on things like Lonely Planet covers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also also

Bedugul Botanical Gardens (Commons:Category:Kebun Raya Eka Karya). Cheers, Jack Merridew

Alpha Centauri

I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.) It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go. As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)

As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction." has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc. As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato) Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today) Arianewiki1 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O-kay...taken it to the talk page.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bract pattern

You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."

I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.

I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?

(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)

Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User talk:2013harry, 19.42, 11 September 2011(UTC)

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?

Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.

If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.

In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.

When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.

As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:

Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.

Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - Gah! Forgot to ring Alex - evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special edition triple crown question

Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.

Here are discussions (one and two) about a special editiion triple crown for the WikiProject Video games. If this is something you don't handle or are too busy to handle, I more than understand. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sounds fun. I should have some time free in a few hours. I ducked on now to make a statement quickly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this. In regard to images, this free game controller image is frequently used for the Video games project. There are more video game-related icons on Commons as well as a category for video games in general. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nearly my bedtime here, but tomorrow I'll take a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just browsing through old posts. I have an idea for this one now, just need some time...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Thanks for the update.

And in addition to the editors listed here, PresN recently become a triple crown winner. His articles (DYK: Music of the Katamari Damacy series, GA: Music of the Final Fantasy series, and FC: List of Final Fantasy compilation albums) are music articles related to video game series. Please include him along with the others. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Latest on B. brownii

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f22r726063l50761/ Hesperian 10:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - makes for some dry reading. Hadn't realised it was 10 populations out of 27 which have become extinct since 1996.. :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot stuff

doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).

But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PDFs sent... let me know if need anything else. Sasata (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia menziesii with persistent florets

While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.

It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paper

An interesting abstract: [4]. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed. Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - charismatic genus hahaha :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening paragraph they call it "famous". :-) Hesperian 01:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the article. Waiting to see that link turn blue. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Just buffing sessilis now before I go to bed. It is shaping up nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian 14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recall seeing a source for its ability to recolonise disturbed areas? as nothing's turning up online...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phew - you found something - what a relief and to think I have a copy as well :( Satu Suro 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." [my emphasis] Hesperian 13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I need to sleep now, but in the am...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of

Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

is

"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."

Hesperian 13:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll lurk a bit and copyedit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I've got you, I've just proofed Wikisource:Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/42, which has three Greek words with diacritics. I'm reasonably certain about two of them, but the middle one has that ~/^ problem that I seem to remember asking you about a long time ago. Could have have a quick look for me? Hesperian 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, should be a rounded circumflex thingy - I changed it. I really need to sleep now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, thankyou, and goodnight! Hesperian 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banksiamyces again

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]

Berkeley & Broome (1887) is online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/13683 — see page 217. There is a picture at Plate 29 figure 18. Hesperian 02:09, 19 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]

Like this. Hesperian 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra) 110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.

I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check.

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 Satu Suro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:

From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":

"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."

At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betelgeuse FA?

I noticed that you have Betelgeuse "on the radar". I’d be interested in taking the article to "FA status" with you. In reviewing it briefly, I notice that nomenclature is an issue. In fact, pursuant to your feedback on Talk:Pleione (star), I realized that nomenclature is an issue in the design of all star articles. So I decided to invest the time to fully research it. If you have a moment, I’d be interested in your reaction to the ideas put forth. And let me know when you’re ready to start with Betelgeuse. I’m ready when you are. Sadalsuud (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I will tidy up a few things first and let you know when ready. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty psyched to work with you on this. So I already decided to do some cleanup. The Starbox really needed some work. So that's now all up to date with refs included. Also I created a personal sandbox and imported the latest version to completely redesign the article's structure. There is not one single word changed in the article itself — just moved a few blocks of text, added headings and sub-headings, and repositioned some pics. I think it works better. If you have a chance, take a look at the redesign and let me know if you think it works. You can find it at User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox.

Sorry to jump the gun on you. I won't do anything more on this until I hear from you. Sadalsuud (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool. I have the Richard Hinkley Allen book and the Kuntzisch book to get the etymology right - I also have a longer oxford dictionary (with magnifying glass). Will pull out books and go from there in the next 24-48 hours. Feel free to tweak and/or add any bits of text you can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll update a few things, copy it over and post a short note on the talk page. I'm not sure about the sub-headings for Observational History, but that section was so big, it needed some structure to it. We can modify the sub-headings as we go along. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few minutes spare now so was doing a bit of copyediting to make the lead a bit more snappy. I will look at all the etymology stuff tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! I'm going to call it a night. Tomorrow, I'll look at expanding the Visibility section. I just cut and pasted the last two paragraphs from the former "Characteristics" section. It needs to be massaged a bit. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the existing "Visibility" and "Properties" sections to User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox and will focus on just that for the next 48 hours with the idea of transporting a coherent block of text back Betelgeuse in the next few days. Right now I'm doing a lot of reading. There's a lot of information on this star. So I'd like to give myself a couple of days to pull all the elements together. That way, I hope to have both these sections flow properly. Before I do this "block transport", I'll let you know, so you can offer any suggestions.Sadalsuud (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I am focussing on the etymology stuff at the moment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to come up with two new sections that are ready for transport to the main article. You can review them here: at the "New Visibility Section". I put them in context, so you can see what the article looks like. As I indicated a few days ago, I won't make the transfer until you've had a chance to review first. Let me know what you think.

My main concern is the ESA copyrighted information at the bottom of the Visibility section. Let me know if that is handled appropriately. There is still much more work to do. I have quite a few more sections planned, but decided to at least get these two ready for prime time. If you think they work, I can copy them over later today. I await your thoughts.Sadalsuud (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great - I was just thinking something along these lines about how to find it and our theories on how far it is have evolved over the years. Stick it in and we can continue copyeidting from there. I am not sure which bit is copyrighted - can you highlight? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the very last paragraph in the The enigma sub-section — right under the VLA satellite dish picture. I introduce the copyrighted info with these words: "According to the information provided on ESA's website...." Just click HERE! and you'll see it there in bold as well. What follows is almost verbatim (with a few tweeks), then as you'll notice there's the ref #36 which, if you click on it, takes you to the Reference section where you can click on the web-link called "Gaia overview", which of course takes you directly to the ESA source material.

If you scroll down a bit on this ESA page, right under the section heading "What's special?", you'll see where I got my information. Now here is where the copyright concern comes in. Scroll down all the way to the very bottom. See the black line? It says "Copyright 2000 - 2010 © European Space Agency. All rights reserved." So I don't know what that means in terms of this Wikipedia article. If I tell the reader in the body of the article that this information came from their website, then provide a reference, and then a link right to the information, is Wikipedia covered insofar as copyright concerns?

I thought about simply paraphrasing the essence of the ESA information, that way avoiding any copyright infringement. But frankly, it was so well written and informative that I thought it would be a more honorable gesture to copy it verbatim and provide the reference.

What do you think? Should I rewrite this section "in my own words"?

Just so you have a little context, what I love about this sub-section "The enigma" is I noticed with every single article I read on the internet all these conflicting quotes on Betelgeuse. My first reaction was "That's bizarre! Everybody's got a different story to tell" It was at that point that I really saw an opportunity to do a great job and explain why all the information on Betelgeuse is so conflicted. The essence is that we still haven't quite figured out how far Betelgeuse is. So this section from ESA is a perfect conclusion to the section. The Enigma section starts with the distance estimate of 56 parsecs in 1920, does a fair job of explaining what has happened in the interim and then concludes with "What's next". So that's why I definitely want the ESA information in there. It pulls all the pieces together for the reader.

In any event, I'm glad you liked it. I'm pretty happy with it myself, although it would be great if we can get an astronomer like RJHall to make sure everything works. As I see it, I'm a pretty good "guinea pig" for this sort of thing, as I try to understand the subject form the layman's perspective. Having an astronomer looking over my shoulder wouldn't hurt.

One last thing. I got your note... All systems go... I'll be cutting and pasting into the main article shortly. As each new section matures, I'll let you know. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I too love actually spelling out who says what and why rather than just presenting facts as facts. There are similar issues in taxonomy, botany etc. and very often the answer is just not so clear cut. I will look at the copyrighted material in a minute. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Visibility sub-section

Hi Calisber. I've got a new section for you to look at. To be honest it's not quite finished. But given my commitment to have something ready within a day or two, I've produced a "condensed" version for prime time. There are two more additional paragraphs that I am still working on. I will try to include them soon.

Like last time, I have imported the most recent version of Betelgeuse into my User page so you can see the new section in context. It can be found by clicking: HERE!. That will take you to a new Visibility sub-section which I've entitled "Rhytmic dance" — an effective metaphor, I think, for the star's oscillating character. Consistent with comments made a few weeks ago at Talk:Pleione (star), I'm using standardized terminology for "major headings" and descriptive terminology for "sub-headings". I think it works. Let me know your thoughts.

If you wish to see the other sub-sections I'm working on, you can click: Here!. You will notice an extensive Contents Box and think I've possibly gone mad! No need for alarm however. I just found that I needed to bring some organization to the drafting of these sections, so I'm using the Contents Box as a kind of outline tool. That way, when I read an article, I have an idea where the new information fits, I can cut and paste for future editing, and then come back to it later. I hope you find this Contents Box helpful in understanding how I'm trying to tackle this project. If you have any idea as to how it can be improved, let me know.

The two additional paragraphs I'm working on for Rhythmic Dance you will find by clicking on the Rhythmic dance sub-section. I gave them an olive colored font, so they stand out.

The scope of this project has turned out to be far more than I ever imagined. There is so much information to absorb — kind of like putting together a giant jig-saw puzzle with 10,000 pieces. What I'm finding is you can't just work on one section at a time, as every piece is interconnected, and you need to have a sense as to where all the pieces fit. In any event, you'll see how each section is coming along. Some sections are more advanced than others.

I'm enjoying the challenge of it. I believe the goal of completing the different sub-sections by mid-August is still achievable. Let me know if you think the condensed version is ready to be transported over to the main article. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - so the version you want to import is the condensed one above the olive text? Looks good - I find it easier to work with when I see it in the article, so bring it in. I think the olive bit is worth bringing in sooner rather than later and working from there. The prose can probably be tightened a bit - that will be easier to acheive once read as a whole. My approach is generally get all the content in first, then do the copyedit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just imported it and refined it further. Click HERE! for the latest. I actually included 4 out of the 6 paragraphs that I'm contemplating. The extra 2 paragraphs I will add in the next week or so as I gather more information. This first import holds together pretty well by itself, I think, and may not need the extra paragraphs. The extra information will simply discuss additional variability issues like periodicity. It's always a judgement call as to what constitutes "too much information". We'll see. What makes Betelgeuse so challenging is there is a lot of conflicting information out there — just like all the conflicting information I saw regarding distance. My intent is to at least cover the different findings and put them into perspective. Sadalsuud (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importing chunks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8

Hi Calisber. When you have a chance, I've got a few new "chunks" for you to look at. Click HERE to see comments.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angular diameter/distance... whatever?

Hi Calisber. In notice you've been busy the last few days. When you have a moment and have been able to review the "chunks" enumerated above, your thoughts on what to do here would be really helpful. Click HERE to see comments. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC) --Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observations on Import #3

I finally got most of those "chucks" cleaned up over the weekend and, pursuant to your suggestions imported them into the main article. Also, I've posted some observations related thereto for your insight and comment. When you have a moment, click HERE to see comments. To see recent changes, simply go to the Betelgeuse article. I look forward to your thoughts and any ideas you have for GA review submission.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidering strategy

Hi Casliber. When you have a chance, I've posted some recent thoughts on the future direction of the Betelgeuse article, and would value your insights. Click HERE to see comments.----Sadalsuud (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

System launch + GAN?

Hi Casliber. The "Star system" section is close to complete. Just needs a few refs and xrefs, I think. Click HERE to review and post any comments or concerns. Thanks again for your focused attention. --Sadalsuud (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just completed the import if you'd like to make any changes. Click HERE to view.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angular rework

I've reworked the Angular anomalies section to create a more balanced argument. When you have a chance, please review HERE and let me know your thoughts.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is more sequential and hence clearer. I'd go with the rewrite. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steps toward FA

I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. When you have a chance, your insights on a few other issues would be helpful. You can find them HERE.--24.203.198.172 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?

Hi Casliber. Your suggestion to post a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy produced a very useful result but also triggered a copyright violation requiring some attention. Your insights as always would be valuable. You can see my comments by clicking HERE.----Sadalsuud (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstellar Dynamics Done

Hi Casliber. I think this section is finally done. Though it's a bit of a rush job, I think it will stand up. Click HERE to see comments and get to the latest version in the sandbox. Thanks again for your on-going support of this project. I'm pooped! Fortunately, we're almost there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns at the crossroads

Getting close to the finish line. There are a couple of concerns, however. When you have a moment, can you review comments HERE? Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleione GA

Hi Casliber. Just a short note to say that I've had to divert my attention to the Pleione article, as you probably guessed. I noticed your contributions, and in fact, provided some xrefs, which I believe are accurate. I hope to have all the GA improvements done by Saturday. If you have a chance to give it a quick lookover in a few days, that would be great. This weekend, I'll try to get the "Organizational history" section up to standard, get your thoughts, and then propose the article for GA review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done for now with Pleione (star), at least until Modest Genius has a chance to review the latest revisions. Hopefully, it will pass the grade. If you'd like to take a last look, that would be great.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you noticed, but we got GA status on Pleione. Now I can come back to the Betelgeuse article in earnest. There's only a few minor edits needed after which I'll finally submit the article for GA review. The only missing element is a discussion of stellar mass. When mass was originally addressed back in July, I simply referenced Jim Kaler, though now I recognize the conversation to be more complex. Once addressed in earnest, it will clear up any confusion from the Fate section which quotes a different metric. Bottom line? Hope to get all this done in a few days and submit. Any last thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pretty busy IRL lately. I am more than happy to let you take the dirver's seat WRT mass as you have a handle on all the mass calculations - will try to follow with copyediting ideas and/or observations and boring format fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. With the summer now behind us in Canada, I too have become very busy with work and other stuff. We'll at least get this to GA soon and then we can plan from there. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational history upgrade

I've now turned my attention back to Betelgeuse and decided to post a new section on the talk page Major surgery on Observational history section?. Given that this section was the focus of early contributions, I have intentionally avoided editing "other people's work", focusing as you know on adding new sections. But as I point out, the job needs to be done for various reasons and I thought it would be useful to put everyone on notice and invite comments. The last thing I want to do is create an edit war. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gotten started. Check out Herschel's discovery section for recent edits. As I point out on the Talk page, I'm trying to keep most of the early contributions while giving the whole section a "historical" focus. I think it works. Your insights however would be useful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally nominated for GA

Hi Casliber. Just a short note to let you know that Betelgeuse has finally been nominated for GA review. Updated observations HERE! Thanks again for your on-going participation in this process.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA corrections complete?

I noticed you were able to make a few corrections pursuant to the GA Review. The review was clearly quite favorable. I made a few other changes and responded. Let me know if you see anything missing. You can see my comments Here!. Thanks again. We're finally getting there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata Review

Noticed that Puerto Rican Amazon is Todays Featured Article. Congrats! Getting Sasata to participate in taking Betelgeuse to FA was a real coup. Thanks. Nothing like detailed insights.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CK

Have you been watching Louie. Very dark, highly recommended. Ceoil (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not seen it here. Looks good...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am, who watches TV on TV anymore[6]. Grandad. Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am buying a new desktop soon. I have one with a noisy fan which sounds like watching TV on a (noisy) aeroplane :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Halpern

You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just go back from a weekend break with no innernet..now where was I.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Alsatian Sourcing

Hello Casliber- You reviewed the American Alsatian a year back now for Good Article and since then there has been some new reliable sourcing added to the article. You mentioned at that time that if new reliable sources were included to let you know. The following sources have been added and/or improved:

Imam, Bassam. "Animalogy: Dogs and Other Canids". free e-books.com. Retrieved 2010-11-08.,

"American Alsatian: Appearance". Rightpet.com. July 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-08.,

Sicard, Gary (February 2008). "American Alsatian (Shepalute)". MolosserDogs. Retrieved 2009-06-08.

Thank you again for your help. Shepaluteprez (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see - will take a look when I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figs

Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).

One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data requested yonks ago, lately retrieved with many apologies for delays from the wikiwankingwonk.

Couldn't for the effing life of me find that vol which contained the info on star names in Japanese dialect you asked about until I stumbled across it this morning while cleaning up where my disrespectful cat cocked its leg, on a pile of TLS's near my desk. I tremble to add these details because, with my rotten reputation as someone who is always looking for a political angle, it ain't going to help that Obama must be mentioned.

In Japanese dialects Betelgeuse or α Orionis is configured with Rigel β Orionis as the opposite sides of Orion's Belt

Thus, in the dialect of the coastal village of Obama in Fukui prefecture, the two were called wakiboshi or 'sidestars' because they lie on either side of the belt. In the dialect of Ikishima (壱岐島) island in Nagasaki Prefecture, the pair were known as ēte-boshi (相手星, standard Japanese = aiteboshi or ‘opposing stars’) in the phrase kanatsuki no ēteboshi. Here kanatsuki is equivalent to karatsuki, and thus the phrase meant the 'opposing stars of the Belt of Orion'. The same idiom existed in Wajima (輪島) dialect further north in Ishikawa Prefecture.

In 1950, a quite distinctive and archaic dialect term for the two stars was retrieved from the dialect of Yokokura village (横蔵村) in the Ibi district of Gifu Prefecture. There Betelgeuse and Rigel were denominated respectively by two famous clan names. The two clans were the Taira, otherwise known as the Heike, and the Minamoto, or Genji. These two clans conducted an epic struggle to wrest control over Japan during the historic Genpei war of the early medieval period, a devastating conflict that was memorialized in the The Tale of the Heike, an early masterpiece of Japanese literature. The crest of the Taira is red (揚羽蝶/Ageha-chō or 'swallowtail butterfly'). The crest of the Minamoto is gentian blue (笹竜胆/sasa-rindō, or 'bamboo gentian'). Thus, in Yokokura, the red supergiant Betelgeuse was called Heike-boshi (平家星, the Heike star) and the blue supergiant Rigel the Genji-boshi (源氏星, the Minamoto or Genji star), corresponding to the the respective colours of the two stars. The reference is Nojiri Hōei,Nihon no hoshi, Chūkō Bunko, Tokyo 1976 pp.243-245. Nishidunny aka Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. I will read and digest and add once I have finished off a couple of other chores...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably find this worth watching

[7] He's a pretty good speaker. I created a stub about the book, which is probably worth getting to DYK, although I'm not sure I have the time to expand it enough this weekend. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting will look later when I can have the sound up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plants!

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, HurricaneFan 25 15:31, 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]

DYK for Callerya megasperma

On 31 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Callerya megasperma, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the native wisteria of eastern Australia is a food source for pencilled blue and narrow-banded awl caterpillars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Callerya megasperma.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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

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.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Grandiose (submissions), Stone (submissions), Eisfbnore (submissions), Canada Hky (submissions) and MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

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 ed17 23:54, 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]

hmmm. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So....what'd you find? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:10, 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]

Thank you

Thanks for the message regarding the DYK for Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard. -- James26 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CU

Hey Casliber, you have CU access right? I was wondering if you can check the CU status of 69.237.119.134 and banned user Catherine Huebscher (talk · contribs). The editing pattern and the vociferous addition of negative content over Madonna (entertainer) is kinda tingling me that this might be a sock. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the SPI so that's a good place to proceed :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Banksia plagiocarpa

On 3 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia plagiocarpa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Banksia plagiocarpa was undescribed for 112 years after it was first collected? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Banksia plagiocarpa.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.

Thank you from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker

On 4 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the species name of the Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker (pictured) means "bloodstained"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Red-headed Honeyeater

On 4 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Red-headed Honeyeater, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Red-headed Honeyeater males (pictured) fight each other by grappling in mid-air and falling close to the ground before disengaging? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Red-headed Honeyeater.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.

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'kay

I'll start on Barbarea bosniaca. HurricaneFan 25 19:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will take a look when it turns blue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a few brief moments to be on wiki today, so don't expect it to be much yet. HurricaneFan 25 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably start seriously working on it on the tenth. HurricaneFan 25 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Colchester

Hi Casliber

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]

Reminds me of all those American shows where they say " 'erbs' " - does something akin to fingernails on blackboard to my ears.... X( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least they don't use blackboards any more. Cheers.--Charles (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus punctata nomination

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]

Haven't been for a stroll as yet but a nice person on flickr changed their licence Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to help assess Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods

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]

DYK for Corymbia eximia

On 8 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corymbia eximia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the yellow bloodwood (bark pictured) tends to grow on the western slopes of plateaus and escarpments? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Corymbia eximia.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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 8 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]

DYK for Eucalyptus punctata

On 9 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eucalyptus punctata, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the leaves of the grey gum (bark pictured) are a staple food of the koala? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eucalyptus punctata.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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

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]

Re: Aniru Conteh

I believe I have met the criteria for the B-Class reassessment per your comments over at Talk:Aniru_Conteh#Teetering_betwixt_B_and_C.... Could you take a moment to look? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I left you another message on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 10 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.

let me know if got through ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Cuckoo-Dove/Slender-billed Cuckoo-Dove

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]

Never much fussed with Columbiformes...heh, will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eucalyptus longifolia

On 11 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eucalyptus longifolia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the woollybutt is useful in the production of honey and railway sleepers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eucalyptus longifolia.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Hey. Would you be able to give a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rogers Hornsby/archive1? I ask since you provided one on my last FAC. It's almost at the three week mark so I'm worried about it being one of the many that slips through the cracks and gets archived. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll try and be ~~really tough~~ brutally impartial ;) (my free time is patchy but will see what I can do) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi advice needed

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.

I hope you don't mind this. I'm just very aggravted about this. Thanks in advance.74.14.183.6 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

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]

I suggest making an account - as I will semi-protect the article so everyone has to be logged in to edit it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eucalyptus eugenioides

On 13 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eucalyptus eugenioides, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the thin-leaved stringybark is so named as the bark fibres can be peeled off the trunk in strings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eucalyptus eugenioides.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur collabration

Is the collaboration portion of Wikiproject Dinosaurs still active? LittleJerry (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, unless someone wants to work on Apatosaurus to GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You got email. Thanks Secret ^account 02:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you got the email. Thanks Secret ^account 06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. Yes I did, sorry I haven't replied. Will write. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eucalyptus oreades

On 15 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eucalyptus oreades, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Blue Mountains Ash (pictured) has a corky wooden skirt that helps it resist fire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eucalyptus oreades.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle dogs and things

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:

But who has written

our dog? Kaleski? Kaleski wrote dogs, not

the dog. It took a woman to write him; and

that woman was Barbara Baynton. She alone

wrote him as the man, next to his Maker,

knew him.

Do you know of any direct connection, or is it a loose reference to Baynton's Bush Studies Marj (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(stares blankly) I haven't read anything of these people other than on wikipedia pages so haven't a clue...sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That puts a bit of a dent in my notability claim :-)Marj (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cas!

Hey there Cas,

Here's something that might interest you - Burrunan dolphin.

HurricaneFan 25 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alloxylon pinnatum

On 17 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alloxylon pinnatum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Dorrigo waratah and its relatives have had red terminal flowers for over sixty million years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alloxylon pinnatum.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible dyk?

Can you see a possible dyk in the recently expanded Queensland Shearers Union? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so...hehehe Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

let's do it! woo hoo! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eucalyptus benthamii

On 19 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eucalyptus benthamii, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that most of the habitat of the vulnerable tree Eucalyptus benthamii has disappeared under Warragamba Dam or been cleared? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eucalyptus benthamii.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Hirst

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]

Free time is patchy today but will see if I can pop in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! If I can ever repay the favour in any way (although many of your articles may be beyond me!), please let me know. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Queensland Shearers Union

On 21 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Queensland Shearers Union, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that members of the Queensland Shearers Union and British Seamen's Union blockaded wool bales produced by non-union shearers in Brisbane in 1890? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Queensland Shearers Union.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bursaria spinosa

On 22 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bursaria spinosa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bright Copper, Fiery Copper and Clouded Footman can be found on the prickly box in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bursaria spinosa.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grevillea 'Cooroora Cascade'

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]

Aha yes, I know that issue :) - will get back to you tonite re that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Melburnian (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hakea macraeana

On 23 September 2011, 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? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hakea macraeana.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting references

In your comments on my article Laminaria hyperborea nominated for DYK, you mentioned the unsatisfactory formatting of the references. I do them my way because I do not know how they should be done. Could you point me in the right direction? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - have a look at the difference, what I did is here. The other place to fetch the parameters from is at Template:Cite journal. It makes it easy to not miss any formatting etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am trying out the template for the Vancouver System and it seems to work. I have done one in Linckia multifora. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, nice - just a couple of things to save yourself some work, we don't need the accessdate nor the publisher in journal articles which have a doi or jstor number, I also reformatted the name. The other thing is that we format number ranges like "281-95", and "281-88" (i.e. last two digits only if the hundred column is the same, and also two digits ever if the tens column is the same). I can't remember where I read this now. I always like to find the full name of the author if I can - sneaky way of showing how many of them are women :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. There's such a lot to learn to get things right! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, Casliber!^^ I wonder if it made sense to discuss the new hiero-boxes I used to present the names of the early kings. I see some problems with the older boxes:

No horus-name, no gold-name, no nebtj-name... NOTHING. The old boxes give no useful information, and if so, these informations are redundant, incorrect or incomplete.
The old boxes call upon the mommahs and poppahs of the early kings. This is highly problematic, since Egyptologists are pretty unsure about any interfamiliar kinships. Few exception are queen Meritneith and queen Hetep-herj-nebtj (the mom of Djoser). Their names appear on seal impressions, together with their titles declaring them as king´s moms. Yes, I know, the Palermostone calles some king´s mommahs, too. But their identities are questioned, because their names do not appear in the early dynastic tombs.
The German boxes I use beat us the opportunity to present all important names of the early kings in words and signs. In german Wikipedia a broad palette of different hiero-boxes also give the chance to even sho titles and rare name forms.

It´s not about meh, ok... I rlly just wonder if it was possible to introduce and use the new boxes instead of the old ones. I´m sure that you will agree with meh after taking a closer look tot it. With best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)PS: I please everyone to respond at mah talk page, so I get it when You are on.[reply]

DYK for Lomatia silaifolia

On 25 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lomatia silaifolia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the cut flowers of the crinkle bush can attract and kill flies when kept indoors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lomatia silaifolia.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.

Orlady (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autotomy etc.

Because I became interested in fission and autotomy of arms in Asteroidea, I have written an article which appears here [8] in draft form. In it I have been practising formatting references better and would be glad if you would comment on these.

I am also not sure whether the article is useful in its present state or if the two main sections should be separated and inserted into existing articles. Your advice would also be appreciated on this point. (Although there are currently rather a lot of red wikilinks in the article, I plan to write species accounts for some of these.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes - my knowledge in the area is meagre -I am guessing that you might want to put a summary into Fragmentation (reproduction) as well as fix up Starfish#Reproduction too. You're thinking an article title/scope like Reproduction in starfish - big problem is subject scope is Asterozoa...which is a redirect?! I hate this when article writing gets quagmired into whole areas which need an overhaul....let me think some more....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had better do a page for Asterozoa to overcome that problem. And if I do as you suggest and call the article Reproduction in starfish, I will need to add information about sexual reproduction as well. That should be interesting!

Are the references OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They look ok at first glance - did not go and check them as I don't know important articles etc. These critters, Somasteroidea, also look like an interesting article and a pretty big group to be redlinked...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I incorporated the part about brittle stars into their article and created a new article Asexual reproduction in starfish. Thank you for your help. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ptilotus nobilis

On 28 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ptilotus nobilis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the horticultural varieties of Ptilotus nobilis include 'Passion', 'Poise' and 'Purity'? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ptilotus nobilis.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.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Persoonia myrtilloides

On 28 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Persoonia myrtilloides, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the myrtle geebung is a food item for native bees, currawongs and possibly kangaroos and possums? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Persoonia myrtilloides.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Cattle Dog

Hi Cas, I've started gathering reviews for an FA and would appreciate your feedback if you have time. Marj (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look in next few days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New venture

Hi Cas, I've been thinking for some time that I should branch out from bird FAs, and try a different challenge, but I've been hindered by lack of resources, since I don't have access to a university library. I was recently reading in Cornerstone about medieval church graffiti, as one does, and realised that I pass one of the featured churches on my frequent birding trips to Norfolk. My younger daughter is a conservation archaeologist, so I have access to books too! I've therefore started St Nicholas, Blakeney. It's nothing like finished yet, but since I'm outside my comfort zone, I wondered if you could have a quick look and let me know what you think, just in terms of the general structure and headings. I'm away this weekend, so no rush (no rush anyway really, I've got all the facts that I can find, just need to make it intelligible), thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea - will take a look in next few days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Gastrodia sesamoides

Hello! Your submission of Gastrodia sesamoides 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! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you in your capacity as [former] administrator.

In one of the articles that I read that has a very vigorous discussion page, there is an ongoing battle between two egos. One of them constantly attempts to introduce a humourous item. The humour is in-context, historically significant, and highly relevant. The other ego, however, keeps insisting along the lines that "Wikipedia explains and discusses jokes; but Wikipedia does not make jokes" and then reverts, thus removing the humourous item. But he does not quote any reference, and his statement does not link to anything at all, and certainly not in a WP:THIS_IS_A_LINK format. So is there such a policy? Is there a link to it? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I've seen some discussion of jokes elsewhere at Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Vulgar_jokes...which particular page were you talking about? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The joke was not vulgar at all. I will tell you the page, of course, but I would rather get your answer first. So to repeat, is there a policy on this, and if so, where? Old_Wombat (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the closest we come to this is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which highlights that a talk page is for article improvement and to stay on topic....must be some others...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really answering the question, Cas (is that an OK cantraction), so I'm going to try another tack. I'm going to go to the discussion page and ask him to provide a reference to his claim "Wikipedia does xxxxx Wikipedia does not yyyy" and see how I go.

As promised, the page in question is Recursion, and the gag in question is a link that would point to itself as an example of same. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cas is my usual name :) - true, this is not an area I usually pay much attention to (article talk page banter - with the balance between humour and off-topic to encourage a sense of community vs too much of same). Will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that's very funny XD Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tricholoma argyraceum

On 1 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tricholoma argyraceum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the flesh of Tricholoma argyraceum has a floury and rancid taste? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tricholoma argyraceum.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.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

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 ed17 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tricholoma portentosum

On 2 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tricholoma portentosum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the highly regarded edible mushroom Tricholoma portentosum (pictured) can be mistaken for poisonous mushrooms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tricholoma portentosum.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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tricholoma orirubens

On 3 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tricholoma orirubens, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the blushing tricholoma fungus formed a fairy ring in Germany which was 80 m (260 ft) across and contained an estimated 10,000 mushrooms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tricholoma orirubens.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.

Orlady (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

... for your help on the Faces of Meth issue. From what I see here, it's hard to believe you've got time to do anything outside wikipedia! :-) DS Belgium (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems like it to me too sometimes....:)Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Telopea speciosissima

This is a note to let the main editors of Telopea speciosissima know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 6, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 6, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Telopea speciosissima is a large shrub in the Proteaceae family. Endemic to New South Wales, it is the floral emblem of that state. T. speciossisima grows as a shrub to 3 or 4 m (10–13 ft) high and 2 m (7 ft) wide, with dark green leaves and several stems rising from a pronounced woody base known as a lignotuber. It is most renowned for its striking large red inflorescences (flowerheads) in spring, each made up of hundreds of individual flowers. These are visited by the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus), birds such as honeyeaters (Meliphagidae), and insects. Telopea speciosissima has featured prominently in art, architecture and advertising, particularly since federation. Commercially grown in several countries as a cut flower, it is also cultivated in the home garden, although it requires good drainage, yet adequate moisture, and is vulnerable to fungal disease and pests. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Love this plant (can't get it to grow, though) and love your work! Whiteghost.ink 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks - I've killed a fair few myself. Lots of crushed sandstone, good drainage, moisture, mild acidic soil...northeastern aspect....not too fussy are they...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe as featured article

I've been thinking of nominating the giraffe article for featured status. How far do you think it is? LittleJerry (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bit to do I think. Will jot some notes on the article page or talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Casliber/Terry (Fawlty Towers)

User:Casliber/Terry (Fawlty Towers), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Casliber/Terry (Fawlty Towers) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Casliber/Terry (Fawlty Towers) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a redirect

Cas, got another issue for you in your capacity as admin and birdo. The Red-browed Finch is aka "Firetail Finch", so FF should redirect to RbF. I suspect that with me being an ordinary dumbass user I cannot create that redirect; and in any case I don't know how. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine FAC =

Hey there! You participated at the previous fluorine FAC, so it may be interesting for you to know a new FAC has been started. Some new content has been added since, so feel free to comment it. A support vote would be surely welcome, but so will be every comment :) Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see - will take a look soon (been insanely busy!) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already waiting :) Besides, sorry for the double posting--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ELs and related issues

Please take note of a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?....ok, will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi.Please help me.Please tell me What I must do? I am new comer to wikipedia.I delete some mistakes and lies about Azerbaijan and Iran.But these two users User:Xooon and User:Alborz Fallah were plotting against me Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orartu to continue their lying about Iran and Azerbaijan.For example:When there is no valid source about Azerbaijani ancestry of a person, they insist to put them in category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent.This user User:Ebrahimi-amir and me are different users.But this user User:Xooon wants to intend we are same.They want to violate the neutrality of wikipedia.Please help me.In advance thanks a lot for your helpsOrartu (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Prostanthera stenophylla

On 9 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prostanthera stenophylla, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the mintbush Prostanthera stenophylla grows in sandstone pagodas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prostanthera stenophylla.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.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A barbaric task lies ahead...

Hi there, Casliber. Once, you trod on Crom's hallowed ground. Now he asks if you would be willing to go again and assess how the chronicles of his progeny Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) would fare as a Featured Article. Your thoughts are appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,will be there with bells on soon-ish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for new Wikipedia editors

Hi, Casliber. I know you're overloaded - partly my fault - but if you find time in the next couple of weeks I would be grateful if you have a look at something I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm trying to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Epacris obtusifolia

On 11 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Epacris obtusifolia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Australian heathland shrub Epacris obtusifolia (pictured) was first cultivated in the United Kingdom in 1804? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Epacris obtusifolia.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.

Orlady (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nom for Gastrodia sesamoides

Hi Cas, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Gastrodia sesamoides and would like your feedback on a possible alt. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gastrodia sesamoides

On 13 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gastrodia sesamoides, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the tubers of the Potato Orchid taste of beetroot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gastrodia sesamoides. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
^ Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, Book III ch.48. Can be viewed online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp184.htm

[1] Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.

[2] Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, Book III ch.48. Can be viewed online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp184.htm

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1,040: / Line 1,040: @@
 Hi Cas, I've reviewed your nomination at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Gastrodia sesamoides]] and would like your feedback on a possible alt. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 07:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
+==DYK for Gastrodia sesamoides==
+{{tmbox
+|type = notice
+|image = [[Image:Updated DYK query.svg|15px|Updated DYK query]]
+|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#13 October 2011|13 October 2011]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Gastrodia sesamoides]]''''', which you recently nominated. The fact was ''... that the tubers of the '''[[Gastrodia sesamoides|Potato Orchid]]''' taste of beetroot?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[]].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Gastrodia sesamoides|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Gastrodia sesamoides]].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Gastrodia sesamoides|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template talk:Did you know/Gastrodia sesamoides]].}} }} }} If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
+}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom -->  [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 12:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)