User talk:Casliber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

Contents

Nomenclature of fungi[edit]

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)

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


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.
References
  1. ^ Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
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)

I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pork[edit]

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)

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)
Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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.[1]

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)

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

Alpha Centauri[edit]

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)

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

Bract pattern[edit]

Banksia menziesii cone.jpg

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Question[edit]

If this is what developing flower pairs look like...
then what are these brown and white furry things?

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)

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)
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)
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)


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:

  1. 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;
  2. "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)

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)

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)

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

Parrot stuff[edit]

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)

PDFs sent... let me know if need anything else. Sasata (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Banksia menziesii with persistent florets[edit]

Banksia menziesii inflorescence with persistent florets.jpg
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets.jpg

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)

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)
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)

Banksiamyces again[edit]

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)

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)
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)
Like this. Hesperian 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.  Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! 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)
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)
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)

As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)

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

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)
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)
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)

More bedtime reading[edit]

[2]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Halpern[edit]

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)

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

Figs[edit]

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)

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)

You'll probably find this worth watching[edit]

[3] 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)

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

FYI[edit]

All of the following species are worth 2x points; let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating in one or more for bonus points in a later round. Sasata (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha - thank heavens for European mushrooms :))) - yeah, I'd like to buff Clitocybe nuda (which was one of the yummiest mushrooms I've eaten), and we really should be improving the other mass-eaten edibles. Also I buffed the sickener for DYK so would be good to finish the job....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll move Clitocybe nuda and Russula emetica closer to the top of "the list". I agree the popular edibles would be good to do as well, but they're hard ... we'll see how free time & motivation plays out over the next few months. Sasata (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Constellation task force assessment[edit]

Certainly Assessment boxes like the one for the cardiology task force are made by User:WP 1.0 bot. Just post to talk there and it can make your box easily. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've not used bots in my time here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have this book?[edit]

Shepherd CJ, Totterdell CJ. 1988. Mushrooms and Toadstools of Australia. Melbourne: Inkata Press. Would appreciate you checking something for me if you do. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I know the book but don't have it. This was written by Queensland authors so different view which is good. I can get it from library either today or thursday (next door to work on these days). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd be able to tell me what it says about Mycena chlorophanos for an article about a similar (bioluminescent) species M. chlorophos. Don't go out of your way to get it, there's no rush, and many other articles to work on in the meantime ... thanks! Sasata (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah ok. Today was tricky for a number of reasons so was unable to get there. Thursday will be doable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Aboriginal Astronomy[edit]

Hi Casliber - thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm

Have fun! RayNorris (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'll have a look and if I find anything specific to nag you on...I will :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Gene migration research, India --> Australia[edit]

This http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569688-genetic-evidence-suggests-four-millennia-ago-group-adventurous-indians points to a gene study you may be interested in.... Likely people from the Indian sub-continent mixed with Australian aboriginies 4xxxx years ago. An maybe brought dingos. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Will read anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Glasser's choice theory[edit]

Could use some work if you're interested. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ok - will take a look soonish....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Orange-bellied Parrot[edit]

Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Wikipedia entry become more obvious. The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010. This is not acceptable. I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given - since 1980 or so - and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen. What do others think? The Wikipedia entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.

Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Will take a look. sounds good - helps with seamless updating and no doubt there is a lot of info that could be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Obsolete Constellations[edit]

I just found an amazing source for articles on them: John Hill's Urania Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool! I was judt giving some feedback to core contest and will look at stub. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Urania's Mirror has gotten a wee bit less stubby. Adam Cuerden (talk)


got any advice for writing a constellation FA?[edit]

Thinking of diversifying and trying Corona B. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's easier than stars as there is less hardcore physics involved, but trickier as you have to make the material not "listy", which it sort of is by very nature. Smaller constellations are easier as there is less material to list generally. Star guide books, alot of which are on google, are good for general overview, how to find things, what's next to what etc. but alot of their factual info (distance/luminosity) is outdated. I have even suspected this in newer reprints/editions where new material is coming out. SIMBAD is a godsend and makes finding other material easy. I was using it as a ref itself but probably better to use the refs it cites. Overall I find astronomy articles more challenging than biology ones - trickeir to make engaging. We can collaborate on CrB if you like as I did plan on taking it All the Way at some point and then having it as a double mainpage with CrA. Collaborating is good as it makes for less work in some ways - each of us can copyeidt the other etc. 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Just popping in during some of the rare free time I have at the moment to say that the hardest part of the constellation articles is figuring out exactly what objects to write about, since there is generally quite a bit of discretion in whether or not something should be in the article. I generally try to write about all stars brighter than magnitude 5.0, and the most-studied astronomical objects within the constellation, as well as a few other things such as extremes (e.g. R136a1) and unusual objects. One tip to find notable stars, I've found, is this SIMBAD query, which lists all Bayer, Flamsteed, and variable stars in each constellation by number of refs. Of course further research is necessary for other stars without said designations, but it's a good start. I would help, but I don't anticipate having much free time at all until at least December. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
StringTheory11 Wow! Great idea/find! That really helps. Agree with what you've said. I think it is good to get these in order as it also highlights what other articles are underdone or incorrect etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup the small size was part of the reason I chose CrB (it's not the only reason though :-P). I'm cool with a collaboration. ST11's suggestions, as always, make a lot of sense. Going to read through some constellation FAs to get an idea of what to write – not least CrA... Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Double sharp, I have started buffing with this one. Just arting with the brighter stars - SIMBAD is best place to start and then chasing refs. Not sure how much you know about them (figuring distance from parallax etc...) so just ask away..or start on deep sky objects and I'll continue with stars (??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Carcinoma in situ[edit]

The carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As it reads right now, which ones are you thinking should have invasive added to them? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I have phrased it badly above, but you seem to have understood me. I should have said that you did not support my use of "invasive cancer" and you preferred the use of "cancer" instead. Actually, to me, it is not as simple as just inserting the word "invasive". Back then, I saw a better phrase in a reference and I thought about using it, because I thought that it would be accurate, readable, and I hoped keep everyone happy; however, the situation become unnecessarily tense and I felt like I was walking on eggs (and you know what that means). I did not get around to developing the article any further nor mentioning the "magical" phrase. I will see if I can find the phrase again. I recall that the solution was to use a short phrase in the place of cancer or invasive cancer in the introduction. I am talking in riddles at the present time, because I want to make sure that I can find that phrase again, and that will mean thinking about the introduction again. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let me know what you are thinking of once you get it clear. It is an intriguing question. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend the amendment belew, because the demarcation between non-cancer and cancer varies according to the literature, as we have seen, and this is made more difficult by a simplified language and vocabulary used to communicate the complex situation to patients. A definition of cancer that includes in-situ cancer is well established, but perhaps the world of the cytologist or histopathologist is a small world, where to say "invasive cancer" is not unusual. This is the current line in the introduction; "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer and enable early successful treatment.". I think that it would be more accurate if it said something like; "The main aim of cervical cytology screening is to detect precursors of cancer and early cervical cancer to enable early successful treatment.". In this new line a full spectrum from viral changes to dysplasia to carcinoma-in-situ to early invasive cancer is included, so the controversy over where to put the non-cancer/cancer line disappears, and the meaning is clear no matter where the reader puts the line in his or her own mind-map. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I reworded it like this to make it flow better yet be inclusive and cover all interpretations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
After some deep thought, I think that your edit is good enough. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you think about making a joint nomination with me to take the cervix article to FA review sometime? I would not be planning to edit much of the "History" and "Other animals" sections, because I do not know much about those topics. I am not usually on the nominator's side of the fence, but I would be willing to step into that role here, partly to test the water. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea - the prerequisites for being a nominator are being reasonably familar with the article and having the ability to address issues raised at FAC. Do you see anything else that needs fixing before listing it at FAC? 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh good. I would like to have a long look at the article before FA nomination, and I expect that I will not feel happy with the article as a potential FA nomination for several weeks. There is some content and page organization in the article (as it is now) that I would like to reflect on. The peer review is also worth re-visiting to see what was not achieved there. I will probably attempt to start a few discussions on the article talk page where relevant. Do you have any time frame in mind or any particular schedule of your own to work around? Of course, I would ask you to constructively criticize my work whenever you think that anything can be improved, and I will try to focus on the issue and answer honestly and objectively trying not to be fractious nor stubborn, with a view to learning from my errors. It think that it will work better like that, than keeping quite or not speaking up when you do not agree with your co-nominator. I am saying that because I guessed that you have not felt easy about not supporting your co-nominator in FA reviews previously. Also, as before, please be alert to my writing style, which can sometimes need re-phrasing owing to clumsy grammar, although the content is often unambiguous (to me at least). Apart from that, it could be challenging writing for general readers and even more challenging writing for specialist readers that are unfamiliar with the small world of histopathology. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio I have no time scale on this so it sorta takes as long as it takes. The refs need fixing for page numbers. The material is pretty good - only thing from PR left is double checking lymphatic drainage really I thought. Anyway. Posting things step by step on talk page is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have though that the "Function" heading would be about normal function. Surly, putting a barrier in front of the cx is not a normal function of the cervix. Also, oc pills are more about pharmacology and modified functioning of the cervix. Should the "Contraception" heading have its own level-2 heading? This has been discussed before, but it is worth starting another discussion on the talk page about this? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the human altering of function is fine there. I think it is fine as a level 3 heading underneath function Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
When medicines affect function, it is called pharmacology. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the introduction; "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in shape". Change to: ?
1. "... the cervix is cylindrically shaped usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in cross section".
2. "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in in cross section" Snowman (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the first one or something like it - will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your amendment looks find to me. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Should there be more consistency in using {{main| under more of the headings where there is an obvious main article else where? Snowman (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio Yes that sounds like a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I expect that I will add some when I do some editing there. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Re Vaginal portion of cervix. Have you got any ideas on what to do with this article on the portio (or ectocervix)? I do not know why WP Anatomy has so many articles on sub-parts. If relevant, I expect that a formal discussion would be needed to consider a merge. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be merged. Will post something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I plan to watch for a while and express an opinion, if needed. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is off to a good start over there. I think that there is nothing on the unreferenced portio page that can be copied over to the cervix page. We could start planing how to present the portio (and its various names) on the cervix page. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In have found what to me looks like a 2003 copyrighted version of File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg, so I have started a deletion discussion on Commons. Commons administrators will now have a look at it. Initially, I left an message with the uploader on Commons to ask a technical question about the image, and I noticed that he is currently blocked for three months, so I did a search for other copies of the cervix dilation image. The image should show the babies head moving down the birth canal as the cervix dilates, but the head looks stuck. The image is on about a dozen or more Wikis, so they might all be removed by a bot in due course. I am not sure if the image needs removing from the Cervix page at this juncture or not, so I wonder what you think about removal from the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear - I suspect it will have to be removed, though maybe hold for a moment and see if an explanation is forthcoming. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently found a photograph of a rare parrot with the wrong copyright and it was deleted from Commons one week after I started the deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds in keeping with deletion discussions elsehwere - around 1 week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: Image was deleted this yesterday. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Cervical cancer article has had a lot of work on it since about June, and it is well worth looking at. I expect that we could shorten (or otherwise amend) the section on cervical cancer in the "cervix" article, because the "cervical cancer" article offers a good readable account. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: I will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Re HPV vaccines. Sometimes, I like to tidy up the linked pages. This article was moved from the singular to the pleural in March 2014. I am aware that there is more than one HPV vaccine, but I would expect this to be on the singular name, unless there something controversial about it that I have missed. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: yes that is unusual and I think I prefer it at singular. I think it is worth discussing on the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Anatomical abnormalities" section looks like a mixture of acquired and congenital diseases. Could this be organized differently? I nearly did a reorganization, but a little re-organization does not change much, and I suspect that it would be easier to do a bit of a re-write. Also, it may be possible to expand the section with a little about the developmental abnormalities of the female genital tract seen in Cryptophthalmos syndrome, Johanson-Blizzard syndrome, Rokitansky Anomalod, and as less commonly seen in Roberts syndrome and Trisomy 18 syndrome. These diseases are not at the front of my mind, however these are in the index of my rather old second-hand book on human malformation. This is not a small change, so I welcome your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: let me take a look. I don't recall it right now and I thought I was happy with it before but will look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I have become unexpectedly busy in real life, so I have not had much time for editing the Wiki. I hope that I will be able to contribute with more editing and work on the cervix article again after about two or three months . Snowman (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: no worries. I found that I have lost interest in it. My free time (of which I have little) has to be enjoyable and thus something I have real enthusiasm for. I found I did get a bit enthusiastic about this one but comes and goes. More interested in frigatebird and brachychiton rupestris now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also orange-bellied parrot - very interesting story. I find writing about extinct species makes me sad (I leave them to FunkMonk) but rare ones are ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Apart from manual editing, I was hoping to write a few scripts for fun to do scanning and mass editing tasks on the Wiki this Autumn and Winter, but can not participate in a meaningful way at the present time. I plan to return when I can and I will look to see what you and User FunkMonk are doing then. Incidentally, have you any thoughts on why discussions about anatomy topics tend to be rather brittle? I might ask that question on the WP Anatomy talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'brittle'? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I will ask open-ended questions instead. Do you have any observations about discussions on anatomy topics? Snowman (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Banksia telmatiaea[edit]

Cas,

Left some comments on Talk:Banksia telmatiaea you may be able to address. Thanks! BTW, have you seen George's protest against folding Dryandra into Banksia? Choess (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Choess: gah! missed this - yes I have talked alot with Alex about this, and also all the proponents of the union. fascinating tale.....will get onto the fixing.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

FAs that haven't been TFA[edit]

Thanks for the message - I'm not quite sure what you are asking for? There only appear to be a few UK geography/places ones on the list at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page. ie:

  • Birchington-on-Sea - which has comments from Nov 2014 on Dweller page.
  • Brownhills - Lead might not fully summarise article, some short paragraphs. Checklinks shows quite a few broken links
  • Herne Bay, Kent - Lead might not fully summarise article, some short paragraphs. Some uncited claims - likely to have been added since FA status. Checklinks shows quite a few broken links
  • Westgate-on-Sea - Lead might not fully summarise article, some short paragraphs. "Outdated" banner on demographics (may be true of others as well if not updated to 2011 census). Checklinks shows quite a few broken links
  • Shaw and Crompton - Looks better than the others on a quick scan but showing lots of broken links

The three Kent ones (near where I was brung up) all have similar formatting & issues - I guess all developed by the same person. I'm not going to put much time into them - I'm currently working on getting all 7 sub lists of Scheduled Monuments in Somerset to FL & working (with others, primarily User:Hchc2009) on getting Magna Carta up to FA in time for its 800th anniversary on June 2015 (we have not even submitted for GA yet). If you are involved in TFA - would suggesting it for that date before getting near a FAC nomination, be too cheeky? I have another possible FA for next year which I'm thinking about doing some more work on (Bristol).— Rod talk 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what you've done (though putting comments next to the articles was what others have been doing) - we're trying to go through this list of old articles as a housekeeping thing. Sounds good, working on a couple of bigger articles - see Spokane, Washington as an example of a small city going though if yer thinking about Brizzle....Magna Carta is a good choice.....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Theta Coronae Borealis[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hi Cas, I just wanted to drop you and Risker both a "Thank you" for taking the time to reply to my query there. Looks like I've really lost touch with how things work there (arbcom) these days. Thanks again for filling me in. Best always to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  15:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

no worries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sigma Coronae Borealis[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Sigma Coronae Borealis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Schalcken the Painter[edit]

Thanks for reviewing my DYK on this article. The issues have been addressed and it is GTG again. Can I be really cheeky and ask you to do the honours once again? Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

have i detected[edit]

an interest in nuytsia floribunda ?  ? a very advantageous organism if ever there was in the south west of australia... I'd hardly call it a bush though, it is indeed a tree. satusuro 11:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

great flowers - I like the idea of it parasitising a lawn. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
between self and gnangarra - we have either on hand, or on commons - heaps of images - and they are out in all stages at the moment satusuro 12:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
First step...take a look at talk page and figure out what we should place article at....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Koonwarra, Victoria[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 3[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday.

Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November.

In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles.

For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges.

Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year.

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2014)[edit]

Us-mexico-border.jpg

The Mexico–United States border spans six Mexican states and four U.S. states, with a total length of 3,145 km (1,954 mi).

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Mexico–United States border


Previous selections: Tourism in the Caribbean • Military technology


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Bottle tree[edit]

Hi Cas, do you have access to/able to email to me [4]?--Melburnian (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

yep. I was reading that today. I also have Kerry Rathie's book on Brachychitons that has just been published.....I think we're doing this one.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Got it thanks. You have a Brachychiton book? - wow.--Melburnian (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request[edit]

I saw you among the page review volunteers and would be grateful if you could help by participating this review and giving your valuable suggestions. Certainly, your points will help and I'm passionately looking forward to hear from you. Mhhossein (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More FA congratulations[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Australian raven to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 10:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Have loaded a couple recently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I know, and that's very helpful (as you always have been during my time at TFAR). I didn't want you to feel left out if I was congratulating everyone else for their November FAs but not you - plus this way your talk-page stalkers get reminded about TFAR too! BencherliteTalk 12:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Trouted[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE

Errrmmm......there's no link....I'm curious......please come back and tell me......cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably a trout for nomming me for adminship :). To put something of substance here, I do hope to get back to working on Serpens soon, and will probably put it up for PR soon. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, will take another look at that soo. A break is often good to then go look at these things afresh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sigma Coronae Borealis[edit]

Thanks for helping the DYK project maintain the main page Victuallers (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Boletus austroedulis ... Sasata (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

cool. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In related news, more bolete taxonomic reshuffling expected soon (just in case you thought it was easy to keep up): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13225-014-0283-8 Sasata (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sasata - damn, the link isn't working - did a letter get left off the end? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
oops, extra letter removed Sasata (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, we should ask M.E.Nuhn what happens next....and whether Suilellus and Caloboletus will be adopted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why they wouldn't be, as they are based on solid molecular evidence. In the specific case of Caloboletus, have a look at this. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
yeah, saw that - agree it strengthens the case for that one quite nicely. Only issue with Suilellus is that Tubiporus was an old genus name with luridus as the type, so whether that would take precendence over Suilellus. Suilellus is a bit of an unfortunate name given genetic distance to Suillus, but it's not as if taxonomy ain't littered with zillions of these errors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Georgian War[edit]

This article has been promoted as Good Article. Extend semi-protection time? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

sure.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...[edit]

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

  • We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
  • In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
  • The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2014)[edit]

Math games - Big Brother Mouse activity day.jpg

Game design is the art of creating rules and mechanics to facilitate interactions between players in a game.

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Game design


Previous selections: Mexico–United States border • Tourism in the Caribbean


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Puffbird may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Per G.P.|title= Molecular support for a sister group relationship between Pici and Galbulae (Piciformes ''sensu'' Wetmore 1960|doi=10.1034/j.1600-048X.2003.03103.x|url=http://www.nrm.se/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jacamar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Per G.P.|title= Molecular support for a sister group relationship between Pici and Galbulae (Piciformes ''sensu'' Wetmore 1960|doi=10.1034/j.1600-048X.2003.03103.x|url=http://www.nrm.se/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation request[edit]

Hey! How do you justify my activities? What else should do I to qualify for Adminship nomination? Mhhossein (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Show me how you would answer the three questions at WP:RFA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I checked the questions and think that I need to work more in AFD to gain more experience. I'll be back after some month. Mhhossein (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok sounds reasonable. good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"I planted some of these in my garden and they looked great"[edit]

Thank you for introducing us to another great TFA, golden everlasting, precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep...and they've all grown leggy and died....such is life. Not fond of annuals or 3-ennials. Maybe more next year. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking a bit Van Gogh on the main page - cool.--Melburnian (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Today it looks bright! Happiness and peace in 2015! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hey Casliber,

Thanks for your hard work on expanding the article puffbirds! SparrowHK (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for kickstarting it. It'll be on the mainpage soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Epsilon Coronae Borealis[edit]

Mike VTalk 07:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Trouted[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for having a easy-to-access trout button.

This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2014)[edit]

Spaghetti with Meatballs (cropped).jpg

A plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Spaghetti


Previous selections: Game design • Mexico–United States border


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Casliber, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
The Herald : here I am

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

thanks! seasons greetings to you too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification[edit]

This is to inform you that Canis Major , which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 4 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

woof! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I had to squeeze the text down to about 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I rejigged it a tad. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

File rename[edit]

Can you move File:Aleister Crowley, wickedest man in the world.jpg to the more neutral File:Aleister Crowley.jpg? Thanks, Seattle (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2014)[edit]

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Natural phenomenon


Previous selections: Spaghetti • Game design


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Voting[edit]

You always vote on talk page. For example, Talk:Dinosaur size. Do you like voting? If you do, here's one for you: Talk:Dinosaur size#Marginocephalia vs Ceratopsians & Pachycephalosaurs.Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Aquilops[edit]

Harrias talk 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Something beautiful for the holidays[edit]

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)
Thx :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Thx :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Nollaig[edit]

Angelos Akotanos - Saint Anne with the Virgin - 15th century.jpg
Nollaig shona duit
RozdestvoHristovo RublevBlagSoborMK.jpg
Best christmas and new year. Another year down, and so much more to write. Thanks for all your contribuitions and being part of the community. Hope January is at least resonabally tolerable for you, and the kids dont drive you mad. If they do, I sanction all actions. Ceoil (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey @Ceoil: ...seasons' greetings ta ye too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Puffbird nomination.[edit]

Hello Casilber, Just asking you whether the article Puffbird is still in the category of stubs, since we expanded it by 5 times. Did you nominate it for Did you know content yet? Sincerely, SparrowHK (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)SparrowHK

nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Puffbird - noone has reviewed it yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

074 Frontal d'altar de Mosoll, els Reis d'Orient.jpg Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Forsooth and thus returned....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

The christmas velociraptor by durbed.jpg

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why

Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town

He sees you when you sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for your life's sake

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why

Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town


Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Christmas Velociraptor, IJReid (talk) 25 December 2014
Clever! Merry Xmas in return....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Dashing through the prehistoric, In a one-t.rex open sleigh, All the teeth we go, Roaring all the way, Bells on Sharp Teeth Rings, Making dinosaurs bright, oh what fun is ride and roar in a one-t.rex open sleigh, Hey!

Jingle teeth, Jingle teeth, Jingle all the prehistoric, Oh what fun is ride and roar in a one-t.rex open sleigh, Hey!


Jingle teeth, Jingle teeth, Jingle all the prehistoric, Oh what fun is ride and roar in a one-t.rex open sleigh,

Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Tyrannosaurus who pulls Santa's sleigh! Dinosaur Fan, 26 December 2014
Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Clever! Merry Xmas in return....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2015)[edit]

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Skyline


Previous selections: Natural phenomenon • Spaghetti


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

DYK for Puffbird[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4
Symbol support vote.svg

Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season.

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all!

114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal!

For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here.

We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup.

Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Ilc 9yr moll4096.png You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Wikipedia logo new year sk.png Happy New Year !!!
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
Indeed :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already[edit]

Hi Casliber. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Same to you/likewise. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur size[edit]

Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs were separated on Dinosaur size already! User:Dinosaur Fan

Umm...great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter[edit]

Trophy.png

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, 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. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Casliber, Thank you for your nomination of Lomatia tinctoria for "Did you know". I do know a bit about botany (especially Proteaceae) but new to Wikipedia editing and appreciate what you have done. (I hope I am doing this note the right way!)Gderrin (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Gderrin Yes this is fine. Any other pages you're interested in expanding? If one can expand them fivefold one can get them on the Did you know.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2015)[edit]

Afwasmiddel.jpg

Dishwashing liquid is a detergent used in dishwashing

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Dishwashing liquid


Previous selections: Skyline • Natural phenomenon


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Balanophora[edit]

Hello Casliber, Thanks for your edits of Balanophora fungosa. I found the paper of Irvine and Armstrong particularly interesting.

Off to Canberra tomorrow to get a better pic of Lomatia tinctoria (I hope).

Gderrin (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Gderrin Heh, it's now just long enough for DYK....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Balanophora fungosa[edit]

Please see comments there. HalfGig talk 22:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hydnellum ferrugineum[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for page protection[edit]

Can you protect Manusmṛti again? Just see the history, first this change[7] followed by a sock[8](see [9]) who edit warred, now the previous user is back and using a new IP.[10]-[11] Bladesmulti (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A velociraptor for you instead for a kitten![edit]

Velociraptor dinoguy2.jpg Talk:Dinosaur size
Excluding myself, you are the first one here! Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Request your possible involvement[edit]

This probably takes some explaining. At the recent ArbCom case regarding Landmark Worldwide I suggested that maybe it might be possible to get together a group of editors with some broad experience of wikipedia and knowledge of the general topic area to get together and review the sources available on the topic with the intention of ultimately starting a broader discussion, probably through RfC, about the issues involved. It is more or less in line with a proposal I made for something like a "content" committee, which would probably be more reasonably called a "comment" committee, given the role I think RfC and the hopefully wide variety and number of editors might play in the real outcome of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content?. ArbCom itself requested some broader input in the topic area in its decision.

I was thinking of editors around here who might have some sort of broad experience in the social/religious issues involved and you were one of the first names that came to mind for maybe taking part in reviewing information presented and evaluating sources and the like. If you would have any interest in maybe taking part in this sort of test run for such a committee, I would obviously welcome it. I haven't actually started a separate section on the article talk page yet, because I wanted to see if there were any responses from the individuals I was considering, or, potentially, anyone else who might be interested. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chorizema ilicifolium[edit]

Thanks again for your help with Balanophora fungosa, Lomatia tinctoria, Telopea aspera and others. I have some Western Australian flower images I am adding to Wikipedia Commons and comparing them with others that are already on Wikipedia. I noticed an image on the Chorizema ilicifolium page that look to me more like Chorizema caudatum. Perhaps they were mislabelled in the Sylvan Grove Native Garden?
Chorizema ilicifolium (flowers) near Walpole, Western Australia.JPG
I was helped at the time by a competent botantist (really orchid expert). May I replace your image on the C. ilicifolium page please?

My image of the leaves of the plant I think is C. ilicifolium: (They do look a bit more like holly leaves I think.)

Gderrin (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Gderrin True - I had not known cordatum to be yellow...but I think you may be right so replace away....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Gderrin (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Psychiatry page protect[edit]

Hello, my friend. Just out of curiosity, why not just block the IP for a few hours? Best wishes, and don't forget me if you need bird tables. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pages gets some vandalism from other IPs from time to time..I am wary of blocking IPs in case I block a shared one so figure semiprotecting is least risky way to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hartog Jacob Hamburger[edit]

Harrias talk 12:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lomatia tinctoria[edit]

Harrias talk 12:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer FAC[edit]

Hi, you have commented at this. I think as of now all the points on all the reviews are responded to, and either settled or awaiting a response from the reviewer (mostly the former), so you may want to revisit it. I'm sorry some of you have had to wait a while for this. There has been a lot of activity, both on this page and on the article itself, as well as the holidays. It's been great to see so many people getting involved in this. Many thanks to you and all reviewers and editors! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Banksia serrata[edit]

Hello Cas,

Knowing your interest in Banksia, I wonder if you agree with me that the Banksia serrata page is a mess! The un-numbered references are all over the place. A user Ryanamay added stuff on 4 September 2007 about fire-retardant bark, with cork like tecture [sic], Banksia aemula anthers and (mostly importantly) lignotubers and fire recovery which I am sure is incorrect. I have commented on the Banksia serrata talk page. I am happy to edit the page but would appreciate your checking later. Banksia serrata is a beautiful species, one of my favourites, that deserves a beautiful Wikipedia page. (I will add something on fire recovery soon.)

Gderrin (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can get this readily featured I reckon - I've buffed lots of eastern species - see Banksia aemula, Banksia ericifolia and Banksia marginata for examples. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2015)[edit]

Mongol Empire map.gif

The history of Mongolia includes the foundation, expansion, and fragmentation of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

History of Mongolia


Previous selections: Dishwashing liquid • Skyline


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forest raven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorrigo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

New FAR coordinator[edit]

Hi Cas, following the closure of the FAC and FAR coordinator proposal earlier today, I've taken the liberty of adding your name to the FAR instructions and the @FAR template. Congratulations and look forward to working with you in the FA coord arena! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ok/noted :-) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2015[edit]

Gratz on your coordship, and looking forward to working with you. In other news: a summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything in the article that I left out from the TFA text that you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

looks fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lechenaultia formosa[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 04:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The return of the banned snake obsessed editor[edit]

Hi Casliber

A "famous" multiple time banned editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VeronicaPR/Archive is back again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Angusticeps&offset=&limit=500&target=Angusticeps

I believe you dealt with him in the past.

Cheers Bigbaby23 (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My free time is pretty patchy over the next week or so. Will look over the edits when I get a chance. Just logged on quickly to do some other stuff but will try to get to it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

DYK for Telopea aspera[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2015)[edit]

The accompanying prose description.jpg

An example of prose, a type of writing that simulates the natural flow of language

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Prose


Previous selections: History of Mongolia • Dishwashing liquid


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Don't spray gasoline[edit]

The last thing Eric needs now is somebody goading him on. Just start keeping diffs of Jimmy Wales' provocations and then go to AN/I for an interaction ban. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any goading, and I can't imagine what leads you to believe that I'd agree to an interaction ban. Eric Corbett 02:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You know for once I agree with you Eric I did not see any goading, but was shocked that your name got mentioned out of the blue and without Jimbo being provoked or the like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
My take on it was that were I an uninvolved admin and it had just happened I would have seen the comment as blockable and acted upon it (given the incendiary history). Pure and simple. On thinking about it, an iban is not really the way to go as neither Eric nor Jimbo follow each other around as such. Anyway, thankfully we have not had a slurry of drama since. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just block the next time, would be my advice. --John (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that. I wonder about the grey areas of "involvedness" (my worries are broader than other folks) but if there is a consensus that is not an issue for a clear-cut violation then I feel more clarity on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
An interaction ban is the way to get JW to stop chipping on this, nothing more, nothing less. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lechenaultia biloba[edit]

Harrias talk 03:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for editing the article in schizophrenia today to add the emerging research part to the article. I have talked more about it in the talk page that you might respond to. Basically the pregnenolone may have been listed lower for some other reason than its efficacy, perhaps it is chronological, or popularity, but it is the only one with evidence for "significant" improvement of negative symptoms. Envisioneerthefuture (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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.Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

I was created an article 240 days ago. Could I nominate it to DYK after expanding to fivefold? I am not sure about nominating very old article after fivefold expansion. --AntonTalk 15:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@AntanO:, which article are you talking about? If it was very short until very recently it might be eligible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Sri Lankan Constitution of 1972 - it was created 240 days ago, but I can expand to fivefold within a day.--AntonTalk 06:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay then, if you can expand fivefold then it is eligible. I will watch it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
👍 Like--AntonTalk 11:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Four Award[edit]

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Turquoise parrot. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hullo[edit]

Can you take a look at this. Complex edits, but much uncited. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was reverted - some might be ok (with sources) for raven article but too off topic for this critter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Balanophora fungosa[edit]

Harrias talk 13:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2015)[edit]

Beethoven symphony 5 opening.svg

The opening of the Beethoven Symphony No. 5, a famous symphony.

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Symphony


Previous selections: Prose • History of Mongolia


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Chuck Swirsky[edit]

Hello, Casliber, it would seem to me that this page, which you indefinitely protected back in 2009, should be unprotected now. - Bossanoven (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bossanoven: - ok, unprotected as of yesterday. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 17, 2015[edit]

Hi Cas. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does this one need more work before hitting the Main Page? Also, the TFA text is too short ... I think we need material from the text below the lead, is there anything you'd like to add? - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A two-fer: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2015. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
noiice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Gangbanger[edit]

You are attempting to logically deduce the meaning of a term when logic isn't always the determining factor in etymology or semantics. In terms of etymology, the word faggot isn't offensive. It's not until you understand the modern connotation that makes sense as an insult in many contexts. In a way, this can also be said about the word nigger, which can be both an insult and a term of endearment depending on the context. I cannot speak to the entire context surrounding Carol's use of the term gangbanger, but I can tell you that completely rejecting the claim that the word does not only imply a person who is also a rapist is arrogant and blind. Some once told me that in Australia, you might call someone a silly cunt, and not in an offensive manner. I've never been there, so maybe you can set me straight if that's wrong, but on the face of it, gangbanger does not only mean someone who gangbangs in the sense of rape. If you gangbang, you are in a gang; that's all it means in the US. Yes, gangbang can sometimes mean the same thing as gangrape, but gangbanger means someone who is in a gang. It does not apply only to rapists, at least not in the US. I once worked with at-risk youths, many of whom were gangbangers who never committed rape, and others were rapists, but not in a gang. Do you see? Take a look at this search and see how long it is until you find an instance that is actually referring to rape. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I never said it had anything to do with rape in this case, that was the "fucking" miss by OrangesRYellow - I meant group sex. but original context helps. and it is easy to be obtuse to goad other people on, especially when they are annoyed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
See, nobody in the US would say they were at a gangbang after they had group sex. We would call that either an orgy or just group sex. I agree that ORY misconstrued Cassianto's comment, but your insistence that they are being intentionally manipulative to harm Cassianto's reputation is enough of a stretch that I think it is prudent to move on and assume they made a really big mistake. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ad hominem[edit]

Both sides are and have been throwing out attacks on the ANI board if you wish to oversight things then please do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, but when you remove only one comment from the side you are on record as disagreeing with you look too involved and biased, so maybe just let someone else handle this. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: Assuming good faith here I am willing to say that maybe seeing Baseball is an outside party the comment should have been removed? Im trying to figure out what made Baseball's comment stick out here among the others is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right, which is why I didn't block all three of you as I am involved. But I think you look silly fighting to keep such a useless and incendiary comment, and is indicative of battleground behaviour. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why this one? cam up just as I saw the page - other commetns should probably be removed too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I undid your edit once because I saw you didn't provide an edit summary and was about to self-revert when you did it for me. As for the other comments I don't know why they aren't removed either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed your comment because you are far too biased to be allowed to cherry-pick comments from the side you disagree with. Remove all the personal attacks or none of them, because as I said, you had no problem with Cassianto repeatedly calling me stupid for not agreeing with his approach, which was out-if-control and hostile. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that you think I should be blocked for making one revert? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If I was an uninvolved admin I would seriously consider it. This comment has precisely zero value, is ad hominem and is superfluous and incendiary, and in a sitaution such as this disruptive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
furthermore Rationalobserver, this is clearly not your first account, so what account did you edit as previously? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm only going to say this once, so please listen. I've edited Wikipedia off and on for several years, though admittedly I didn't do much until last year, when I made my first account, which was in my real name. After a couple of months I realized that it wasn't a good idea to put my real name out there, so I retired that account and made this one. Your cherry-pick was bad, Cas Liber, and had you removed at least one attack from the other side I wouldn't have reverted you. Can't you see that removing a comment from the side you disagree with while doing nothing about multiple personal attacks from the side you do agree with is bad form? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
And BB's comment was nothing that you claimed it to be, at least not any more than previous and following comments were. I personally thought it was on point, and I reserve the right to disagree with you. Or do your superior credentials and experience somehow trump my opinion? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it's gone now already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
NB: I suggest letting the arbitration committee know your former account. There are some people who have been banned who regularly turn up with new accounts and axes to grind and get involved in disputes here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No thanks, as I'm not required to disclose my real name to anyone here. Am I? That retired account was never sanctioned in any way, so there is no need to assume that I am evading a block or ban, because I am not. I do wonder how many people these types of spurious accusations have alienated though, as I've been attacked for both not knowing the proper procedures and knowing them too well. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lisa-Ann Gershwin[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup - The Finals[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 5/Final
Symbol support vote.svg

GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though!

Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all!

Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month.

In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [12] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish!

The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

Good luck to all our finalists!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)