User talk:Casliber

Archives Archive 1: May 2006 – December 2006 Archive 2: December 2006 – February 2007 Archive 3: February 2007 – March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 - May 2007 Archive 5: May 2007 - June 2007 Archive 6: June 2007 - July 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 Archive 8: July 2007 - August 2007 Archive 9: August 2007 - September 2007 Archive 10: September 2007 - November 2007 Archive 11: November 2007 Archive 12: December 2007 - January 2008 Archive 13: January 2008 Archive 14: January-February 2008 Archive 15: February-April 2008 More unIDed fungi G'day Cas, I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs. http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324 Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Nomenclature of fungi Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 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 ἀγαρικόν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180) Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary. All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous. On Lepiota Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale" Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank. The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation. On Psalliota Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring" Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name. On Amanita Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia. A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned." With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici): A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen. A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s). A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus. A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher. A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries. Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina. The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me). Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830) On Boletus Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry). Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 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) B. victoriae Cas, I don't suppose you can dig up a photo of B. victoriae? The article has two images, but both are intrinsic to the taxonomic history narrative, and I am loathe to remove either into the taxobox. By the way, you might like to have a read of the taxonomy section there; there's an interesting story there that you won't have read in anything of George's. Hesperian 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC) I thought the same (re: baxteri). But Bentham gives them both as victoriae in Flora Australiensis, and if I trust anyone, I trust him. Hesperian 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Curiouser and curiouser! I misread those sources - it is only the later seed that is attributed to Drummond. To be flowering in 1835 that seed must have reached England by 1832 at the latest. But Drummond didn't start sending plants and seed back to England until conscripted by Mangles to do so in 1835, and B. speciosa is not in Meissner's 1852 list of species collected by Drummond. As far as I know, Baxter only visited the south coast. I don't think Fraser went further north than the Swan River. Molloy never strayed far from Augusta. Hügel didn't reach Australia until the end of 1833; too late. Where oh where did those seeds come from? Perhaps they were B. baxteri; maybe that's why George has ignored the whole episode. Gosh this is exciting. Hesperian 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC) ndashes HTML ndashes suck. If you're on a Windows box, you can get a real ndash (i.e. unicode) by holding down the ALT key and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad. Hesperian 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Hmmm...thanks for the tip. I'll try that next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for indulging me, dude. :-) Hesperian 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC) If, like me, you're stuck with a laptop without a numeric pad with ALT functionality, n- and m-dashes are the two firsts characters after "insert" in the list placed under the edit window. Circeus 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC) FWIW, I've edited my keyboard layout for "easy" dashes with a little Microsoft utility (yes, I use Windows). It takes a while to set up, but now I can add en and em dashes with only two keystrokes—quite an improvement for WP editing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC) I add shortkeys all the time on various programs. If i used a reallot of weird characters, I'd totally do that to have across windows. Circeus 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Penguins in the cold Hi, I just noticed a bit of a chronology problem around this bit "If the chick hatches before the mother's return..." Is it normal for the mother to arrive before the hatching? There is a event chronology problem around it. Take a look at it at leisure. Shyamal (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Tricky to word this bit. The 'if' applies here solely to that sentence. i.e the father feeds the curd if the mother doesn't come early without any hint of how likely or unlikely this is. The next sentence gives the chick age range (but not likelihood) upon her return. The text didn't have this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Adminship Hey Cas, thanks for asking... No I haven't been in any big dispute so no pb on that level. Adminship would be hard to justify presently as I haven't been editing much during the last few months (check my contributions) apart from responding to various requests on my talk page and uploading images. And then, if I get all these new tools how am I gonna be able to bother you again in your talk page ;) ?ArthurWeasley (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Hey Dr. Fungi OK, I do appreciate what you wrote to me and Firs, but he attacked me on WR, he blocked me despite our past dispute, and he's got a vendetta against me lately. And with respect to Petey, no one is kicking the ass of that little brat, Pilcha who's ruined the article. I'm not going there. I'll stick with the medical articles. Thanks for the calming drugs, but sorry, it didn't work.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC) HSP Mate, thanks for your constructive comments on Talk:Henoch-Schönlein purpura. As you will see, I have actioned almost all your recommendations. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. We have never been through formal peer review, but I don't have the feeling that anything will come of this. If we were ever to proceed to FA, I would need to get an external peer review as I have done on coeliac disease. JFW | T@lk 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Fungus err... where was I? <scratches head> --Dweller (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Gyromitra esculenta...a headache compounded by a lack of information on etymology...I've reffed a few bits but please give more input. I'm off to cook pancakes for brekky - 7am here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Really struggling. It's difficult to be interested in the topic when it's so dreadfully jargon laden and (duh!) there's no story to be told. Is there an FA quality article on a similar topic, that I can compare this to? --Dweller (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I guess you either like it or you don't. It is helpful to have you note what is jargon though. Amanita phalloides was the first fungus featured article. I will have a look at what you've done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC) PS: Do you think Amanita muscaria is an easier bet? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I think any fungus should be capable of reaching FA and my personal lack of interest shouldn't be an issue. Actually, it's a challenge. If I can make it interesting and understandable to me, it should be on the way. I'll check out phalloides and see what it's got that this one may not have. One idea I have is to dissect the article structure and reassemble the same info in a less scientific but more interest-grabbing order. For example, a section prominently located that pulls together all the poison stuff, another on cooking etc changes the article from a feel of "science entry in specialist publication" to "encyclopedia entry" for me. Or do you think this would be dumbing down? --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Heck, theres nothing to lose so have a play. Even if it needs rearranging later, some dejargonising and increased readability would be a boon methinks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Pork LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though. Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries. Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 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. 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) MEDMOS Please weigh in here if you have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) rollback I have around 1200 pages on my watchlist and they garner quite a bit of vandalism, and since you're an admin I was wondering if you could grant be access to rollback to make this aspect of being here quicker? cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC) I'll have a look how to do it but more than happy to. I'd also be happy to nom you for adminship if you want. You should pass easily as longas you haven't been blocked or in any revert wars or other acrimony. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC) I've been offered a run at adminship before and declined. The process seems gruelling, and my forte and interest is in content, not the minute details of policy, and I personally doubt I'd pass with my occasionally erratic approach to editing (busy some months, off in the field in others). Page moving would be useful but I all in all I can't be bothered. But thanks for the offer. And thanks for rollback. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Okay, Shyamal's points were valid. Feel free to toss me to the wolves. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Hang on, I'll set up a template. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Accepted. *gulp* Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) You have mail ) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Note Dear Casliber, you may want to reply to this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) About that request -- I must concur with Henrik -- all he seems to have done is edit while logged out. If you look in the RFCU, the only IP that was confirmed hasn't really collaborated inappropriately with Henrik. There was one article the IP added PROD to that Henrik AfD'ed, but they didn't both take part in the debate. And there was another article where the IP and Henrik both reverted, but not in violation of 3RR, and moreover, over two years ago. It is not against policy for a user to edit while not logged in. I haven't seen any AfDs where both users participated, or any edit wars they were both involved in, or any block evasion, nothing like that. So why was there a block? I've looked thoroughly through Henrik's recent contributions and I haven't found anything that was even suspicious. Mangojuicetalk 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Dear Mangojuice, as I filed that RFCU a while back, I would like to elaborate on my reasons for filing it: in addition to the confirmed IP that he admittedly somestimes edits on when logged out and which has a fairly extensive block history, another blocked account was also confirmed to be editing on that IP along with Henrik. Some of my other concerns though deal with somewhat unproductive edits: thinking AfD is a "vote" rather than discussion, assisting an IP in starting an AfD rather than just encouraging the IP to get an account, arguing to keep when providing a deletion rationale, sweaing in deletion argument, confrontational manner of asking a question, use of word "crap" in edit summary, use of "idiotic" in edit summary, sarcastic comment in AfD, suggests "nobody cares" about an article that editors created and defended in two AfDs, copy and paste and/or rapid delete posts (03:47, 11 January 2008, 03:49, 11 January 2008, 03:52, 11 January 2008, 03:54, 11 January 2008, 03:55, 11 January 2008, 03:56, 11 January 2008, etc.), sarcastic reply in AfD, sarcastic reply in AfD, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) All of which, even put together, seems like no problem. Much less problematic to me than your RFCU report. Henrik has a clean block record, and his user talk page history shows that he has never been complained to about his conduct. From what I can tell, he's a bit confrontational but jeez - that doesn't make him likely to be a vandal. Mangojuicetalk 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Dear Mangojuice, I noticed a few instances of similar edits with the IP and saw that the IP had also been used by an ideffed vandal account (Mean person). A few other IPs seemed similar and given the month long gaps in contribution history, the account looked suspicious, which is why I filed the RFCU, which may (if I'm mistaken, I apologize) be the first one of those I ever filed. At the time, we were uncovering all sorts of sock accounts with similar anti-list/in popular culture edits (such as Eyrian, Burntsauce, Dannycali, et al), which further raised my suspicions of this account's edits. While the RFCU is old, you'll notice that Henrik stopped editing again back in January or so only to return again the past few days. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC) WP:FA I left you a bunch of homework there; you're the man in that cat :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Bearcat Are you a bureaucrat? Basketball110 pick away... 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Nope - the list is thisaway --> Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. What you need one for? I may be able to help. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC) No (I don't need one), I was just wondering. I think you would make a good one. Basketball110 pick away... 01:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Haha, thanks. I'm a little bit busy at present but will think about it :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Getting It: The psychology of est In response to your WP:FAC comment I added a brief bit of background on the subject matter of est and the chronology of the various organizations involved. Also commented about your point re: "Legacy" - it is an interesting through but I have been through lots of sources and I am not sure there is much more to say on the legacy issue. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for striking those two - again not sure if it is possible to address the third point other than what is already present in the article, I've looked through lots of databases for sources on this book and what's present in the article is pretty much what I have found. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I like your "profound impact" wording so I went with that, also noted that at the FAC page. Cirt (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Removed the "superficial" wording, as sort of vague and doesn't add much to that sentence. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Per your FAC recommendation I added some background info from Fenwick re: her motivation for writing the book. Cirt (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC) If/when your FAC comments have been addressed to your satisfaction it might be helpful to enclose our thread with {{hat}} and {{hab}} - our discussion is getting sorta long. As for benefit the author received from writing the work, to the best of my knowledge this is not specifically mentioned in the book itself, nor in the secondary sources that I have been able to find. Cirt (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Don' worry, the nom's only been up 4 hours - got plenty a' time, and yes I'll do one of those funny template thingies. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Okay, just that I have been trying to address a lot of your points as they crop up. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC) The last para starts to discuss some form of legacy. It would be nice (if there are sources) to expand upon this - what is this book's legacy and has it influenced current self-help thinking? If Landmark forum cited it, how did Forum evolve from est and were the changes attributable to this book at all? What about other areas? Or is it largely forgotten and of temporal significance to the 70s only? I believe I have addressed all of these points with the addition of the new material into the article. As I said, there really isn't much more in the sources that goes into this, and there aren't sources which could back up whether any changes from est to Forum to Landmark were attributable specifically to the book itself, but there were many other factors at play and that much detail is starting to stray off this particular topic, and would be better addressed at the articles Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, and Landmark Education. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Umm..I will ask someone who was familiar with alot of this stuff over the weekend to see if tehre is anything else she can think of. Don't worry, if she can't there is no problem. If she can she hasa library jam-packed with psychological and psychiatric texts. Relax, I'll get back to you. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Well I can guarantee you that there is a ton more stuff that could potentially go into those three articles Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, and Landmark Education - just not sure if there are that many more sources that directly discuss this book. However I would always welcome more material from additional secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that analyze/discuss the book, so keep me posted. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Update Any word from your friend? Also, some other points have cropped up at the FAC discussion, and I am doing my best to try to address them. Any chance you could help me out? Cirt (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) She told me that the est thing was mainly an american phenomenon which didn't make much of an impact in Australia or the UK. She hadn't read the book nor heard of it. So it wasn't a huge help. Maybe highlighting that it was an American phenomenon would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Does she have a source we could cite to say it was an American phenomenon? That's probably pretty much accurate, but I don't think I've come across a source that says that. So have I addressed your comments at the FAC page enough that you feel the article is FA-worthy? Cirt (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC) No, this was a verbal impression she had. Sorry. I do agree it is worth putting in to help with the context. I haven't looked at the article and there are a few SOS's out there currently. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Okay, I'll keep looking on a source for that info. Thanks for your input, Cirt (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Moni3 (talk · contribs) responded to your request and commented at the FAC. Perhaps you could revisit in light of this? Cirt (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Wikiproject you may be interested in Dear Casliber, you may want to join this project. You have provided helpful comments in related discussions and I think you would be an asset. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Stubs Eudyptula Kieran McKenna New Zealand Robin Penguin, Tasmania Erect-crested Penguin Droperidol North American landbirds in Britain Robert Burch Aptenodytes Galápagos Penguin Philip Ifil Snares Penguin Fiordland Penguin Tom Huddlestone New Zealand Fur Seal Penguin Software Jamie O'Hara Summerland, Victoria Radek Černý Cleanup Tuxedo Gin University High School (Tucson) Piranha Merge Phillip Island Colon (anatomy) Photosynthetic pigment Add Sources Sty Loren Pope Trifluoperazine Wikify Gallia Aquitania Balun List of birds, Yuma, Arizona (low deserts, river, elevations) Expand Cognitive therapy A Wedding (opera) Viking Press SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC) RFA thanks Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Love Outside Andromeda EC! [2] I overwrote your changes as that old version was a 99% chance of being a copyvio. And I added refs, so no banners up the top now. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I only changed a couple of words before giving up...no wuckers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Quick Move Request If you get a chance, could you move the Piping plover page to Piping Plover, per WP:Birds capitalizing all parts of a species name? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Done Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Of interest [3] Shyamal (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Bagel RFA Thanks Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Norwich City FC history Hi Cas, just in case you weren't aware, Dweller's away from Wiki for a while, I'll attempt to deal with your comments at the above FAC, so I'd be grateful if you could work with me to get me up to speed on anything I don't quite get! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Hog damn. The quote is simply reported in the only online source I can find as "a newspaper quote", so I can't do 'owt about that. The professional/amateur issue would be WP:OR if I added anything, I don't have the paper book which Dweller is using as a reference. So I'm stumped. Still, as Dweller told me, it can wait, even fail, until he's able to come back. Not sure what's best now, just wait I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC) RL issues still pressing, but will be around for a bit today/tomorrow. What do you need help with? Cas, thanks for all your help with this article. Sorry, but fungus issues will have to wait a bit longer as this enforced wikibreak will go on for a while yet. Thanks for all your efforts with the NCFC history - see my note to Tony this morning. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC) This? 'The Cits are dead but the Canaries are very much alive'. I can dig it up out of the book. What's the other? --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) OK, that doesn't sound too serious. I think I can deal with it. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Does that do the trick? --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Would, you, mind, checking, if, I'm, overstating, the, case,? Thanks. , --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Citations Did you see this? Scientific citations in Wikipedia. Thought you might get an especially big kick out of the fifth bullet... --JayHenry (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Doh! See it listed a few threads up. Pretty cool, regardless. --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry: Hey Cas, sorry I left just before we started on pork - I thought I'd apologise in case this was annoying to you. In any case, I really don't see any real reason to come back as of yet. I've ummed and arred over whether I should just force myself back into Wikipedia, but I'm just not feeling it. With advances in my profession and other activities and family members to attend to (As well as that wedding to plan) I just thought I'd let you know, you being my closest 'friend' on here, that despite the note on my user page, I probably won't be returning to edit in this lifetime. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I think my job on here is done. I might nominate Andre Kertesz for main page on his birthday, but other than that I thank you for being nice to me on here and helping me get through some difficult moments. I wish the best for you and your family. Cheers and sincerly (I'd say love at the risk of sounding camp), Spawn Man (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Good luck with your wedding. This place can be a curse and markedly distracting. No I am not annoyed, you need to look after yourself first. if you nominate the article I will second it. Good luck. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC) RfC on User:RobJ1981 You recommended that an RfC be filed on RobJ1981 as per the wikiquette alert against him. Since you were the administrator that recommended that an RfC be filed, I thought I would bring it to your attention. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981 McJeff (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC) G'day G'day esteemed person who has expressed interest in Sydney based meetups at this page (I hope that's the correct wording for the formal greeting!!). You may have heard that Australia is to have its very own 'chapter' of the Wikimedia Foundation - and further, there's a meeting coming up to discuss / enact the chapter's incorporation (details here). I'm afraid that I don't know too much about the details of what this entails, other than having a private hope that we might get a secret handshake, and maybe cheap coffee at wikimania (this is a poor attempt at humour - I'm sure that the Chapter's do great work, and it's a good thing that Australia is to have one). If you're interested in meeting up this weekend (the set date is the 20th) - or later, then please do head over here and sign up, or make a comment at the talk page... the drive to create the chapter has largely come from another town in Australia that I'm afraid I haven't actually heard much about.. and anything they can do.... right? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) My RfA... Thank you... ...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;) EyeSerenetalk 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Peer Review request - 2006 FIFA World Cup Hello! I have added the 2006 FIFA World Cup article to peer review. Please feel free to make any suggestions on how the article can be improved. Thanks in advance for your time :)  ARTYOM  20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Aspirin peer review Hi! I've requested a peer review of aspirin, and I plan on improving it to stand as an FAC. Any suggestions you have are most welcome! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 1999 Sydney hailstorm - vandalism gone crazy Hi. The 1999 Sydney hailstorm page has gone crazy with vandalism recently. Is it to the point of being worth semi-protecting?  HWV 258  03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC) vandals...aaah, bless 'em. The standard has been to not have the mainpage article protected. Don't worry about it -once the day is over, run it by the WT:FA page and see what everyone thinks. It is to be expected. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Nebular Hypothesis Hi, Cas. This article has been languishing in Peer Review for two weeks with only one actual reviewer. May I ask you to read it? Ruslik (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) No problem.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Puerto Rican Amazon I have been a bit busy with college stuff but have read about 150 of the book's pages, there is some nice stuff about the possible evolution line of the parrot and quite a bit on conservation efforts, I will try to summarize those in a subpage by sunday. It was surprising to know that the dinosaurs project is semi-active, a few months ago they were consitently present on the FAC page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) I will begin posting the material on a subpage (probably titled User:Caribbean H.Q./Amazon) before adding anything to the article since we will merge a few thousand bytes to the current version and the prose will need to be tweaked in order to have a comprehensive final product. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Sounds like a plan then :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the delay, studies called. Anyway, the work is already in progress, I have gathered around 4,000 bytes of raw info and will continue doing so until the weekend. When that is done I will leave a note here so we can agree how to include this into the current article, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. the book is a bit old so perhaps the facts should double checked by an expert (perhaps you ;-) in case they might be a little outdated. It was published in 1987 when scientists still had a fondness for afros. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Haha, duly noted. Give me a hoy on the weekend when you're ready for integration to main article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC) well, do you have any other bright ideas? I genuinely never expected to become an admin here. How strange. So, anyway, is it expected that I create a message and dump it on everyone's page? I'm not that desperate to boost my editcount! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Alot of folks aren't happy with the spamnotes. You can just stick a banner on the top of your page explaining and thanking all I guess. It is no big deal. I was nominated by surprise as well. Makes things alot easier though - protecting pages, making tricky moves which will be an ongoing issue with bird pages for a while. If you really want to avoid unpleasantness, you could just drop into WP:RFPP every so often - my yardstick is if an article is copping a vandal from a different IP daily then I will semiprotect. You could post a not saying you will fetch deleted data too. It didn't really make a difference to me as the main thing I do is article creation still. All good. I never worried about new admin school :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) I didn't bother. No-one seemed to take umbrage. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC) On writing Hey Cas; long time no speak. Because of work concerns my editing has dropped off considerably. I'm basically just doing FAR (I can't seem to close anything at the moment) and taking care of one troublesome article. A week from today, I should have a bit more time to collaborate. Probably Leopard; I did up a couple of sections on it last year. Marskell (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Pork I suspect I'm barking up the wrong tree, but no time to look into it. Please feel free to bring the proposed move to a swift end. --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It's no biggie - unless there's a pile-on oppose I am happy to let it stew a bit longer (snigger..I crack myself up sometimes) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Gorgo I can't think of anything off the top of my head but I don't really have time to edit a bunch right now anyway... why don't you send it thru and I can always add stuff later on if necessary. Thanks! Sheep81 (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) OK, I'll give it a copyedit and send it through. If you check in every couple of days that would be grand :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) PR request Hi, I noticed you had volunteered to do peer reviews with a special interest in biology, especially plants. I posted Christmas tree cultivation for review as a precursor to and FA bid and was hoping you might have some time to take a look. I have been doing a bit of work on it of late, after letting it sit for a few months. Thanks for anything you can contribute. IvoShandor (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) ....interesting. I'll take a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your comments and work thus far. I noticed you live in Australia, any photos you could take of Christmas tree farms in your country would be most helpful. From what I understand christmas trees are a relatively new crop in Australia, I haven't found a whole lot but what I have found in compiled in the Christmas tree production article. (You can see what needs filled in there at a glance). If we find enough information we could write a country article, all of this will help me globalize the main article - which is very much a goal I have been striving toward. Right now I am working on several individual country production articles but the only one I have "finished" is about Canada - see Christmas tree production in Canada. IvoShandor (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry to bother you so much, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of this category: Category:Christmas tree farming. Everything we have on Christmas tree farming, live, right now, is in that cat. The only one I didn't write is Tree tyer, which I am not even sure is a notable topic. Now, I will silence myself. :) IvoShandor (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Holy crap, well you learn something new every day. There are some patent pages for the tree tyer, and I'd link to it from other pages. Seems like an important tool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Urgent Help Needed Please give this thread a quick glance Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-harm. If you could phone the authorities it would be appreciated.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, Viridae came to the rescue!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Message Thank you I would just like to say thank you for your efforts regarding the potential suicide thread on ANI last night. This may have been a poor taste message or hoax, but if it wasn't hopefully...... we may have made a real difference. So thank you and if ever there is anything I can do to help you in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. Khukri 08:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC) DYK On 19 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Humidicutis lewelliniae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. --Bobet 13:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Sertraline Casliber, I addressed your comments to sertraline and did some additional clean-up. Do you think the article is ready for FAC? Appreciate any comments Paul Gene (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 1995 Japanese Grand Prix Hi Casliber. I notice you are down as a peer review volunteer under the everydaylife section, covering sports. I was wondering whether you could possibly peer review the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article for me. The peer review is located here. I also noticed your comment at WT:FAC, so thanks for the boost in confidence! Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC) That'd teach me for opening my mouth..I am more into football really but will have a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your comments... and for expanding the lead for me! I've responded to your comments if you wish to take a look. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Fungus You do realize I'm reverting vandalism on this article. I now need to take a shower to remove those awful spores. So, why are you, the avowed mushroom expert around here, not watching the article? Instead you point me to Empty nose syndrome. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Fascinating, didn't come up on my watchlist at all (!) I hate how that happens sometimes, but happens more often with FACs I have transcluded for some reason or other...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) It's not relevant in this case, but I've noticed that my watchlist never shows edits to protected articles. Hesperian 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Hmmm, I did protect fungus in the past, but others such as Emperor Penguin come up on my list - may be it's a glitch when they become un-protected...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) OK, I deserve a big Wiki-hug for watching over YOUR damn article!!! Shrooms. Blech. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC) DYK On 21 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hygrocybe aurantipes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. --Wizardman 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Fungus among us I'm not sure if I should thank you for the pile of moldy bread, or extract some penicillin. But ummmm thanks? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC) editing help Hi there mate! A university class I've been trying to convince to get involved in using WP in their class has today agreed to do so. In the class they rewrote the text of Religious Nationalism. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and edit it mercilessly (as the saying goes). Perhaps if you could convince others to get in on the act too that would be great. Here is the diff of the edit they made [4]. Thanks for your help. On a side note - we should meet up again for a beer, even if it's not for a wikimeetup. I believe Private Musings owes me one anyway! :-) Witty Lama 10:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Yes I will have a look (gawd, fairly dry bloody subject matter but anyway...), and yes we should go out for a few beers some time. Bit tied up this week and next but will plan a evening soon (mid may). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Please note that the section Religious Nationalism has now been separated from the main article Nationalism into its own article Religious nationalism. Please join in and help bring this newly formed article up to standard. Especially important is avoiding a Systemic Bias and adding Citations. All the best, Witty Lama 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The cite it in their training... I think you are mistaken. A psychological study of the Landmark Forum in 2005 in the journal Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice cites Getting It: The psychology of est for background about the training - it is not cited "in their training" by the Landmark Education company itself. So as far as I can tell it is extremely unlikely that there are sources that specifically go to legacy or how the book has been used, aside from what I have already compiled. Cirt (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC) In light of this above explanation, I would appreciate it if you would kindly reevaluate your position. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC) It's late here, I am tired and I will think on it. As I said before I am not opposing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Okay, thanks, please keep me posted. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I have slept on it and figured the best thing to do is get a couple of others to look. If they are happy I'll support as well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Okay, thanks for thinking it over. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) thank spam Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky Drinks and a wiki chat? G'day sydneysider - fancy a 'not quite a meetup but a few drinks' sort of thing? - We can chat about the new aussie chapter, the price of eggs and have our very own 2020 Wiki Summit! - or just sink a couple of cold ones and gass bag about the good 'ol days of wiki, when an editor could get some repsect (not a typo)! I've suggested something here so take a look and sign up if you're up for it... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Request for Arbitration? I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Oh No Casliber [5] And here it was I had almost forgotten our differences! You know, Star Wars already has its own very developed encyclopedia (Wookiepedia) and this entry is already lengthy over there - so why do we need to keep it here, when it is pretty much a carbon copy of that entry, challenges the larger credibility of the project and is a magnet for the kind of trivia and fan-driven in-universe additions that we both agree run counter to core encyclopedic principles. Anyway, I know you disagree with me. Sigh. Eusebeus (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I hate the idea of separate little wikis everywhere, knowledge should be unitary. I am happy to apply notability loosely, and as you know I am an arch inclusionist, unless I am concerned about misinformation, I have actually voted delete a couple of times recently and noticed none of the regular 'judges of content' there. C'mon Eusebeus, have a vote here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_Chiropractic - I'd be amused to actually see you have an opinion of something of importance, something which actually has some implications on peoples' lives? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Black Mo thanks <font=3> Thanks for your comments and support - Black Moshannon State Park made featured article! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Pennsylvania State Parks Groundhog Award, with Featured Article Star This award is given with respect and admiration to Casliber for assistance in helping Black Moshannon State Park become a Featured Article from Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)) Vampires article You may remember me asking about the Japanese vampire which could take off its head (Nukekubi), but I feel kind of miscommunicated because I really only skimmed through the article and it is easy to see how you may think I got confused with the Malyasia section. But anyways, do you think the nukekubi deserves a mention? Sorry for wasting your time in advance. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Amazing. I have to figure out how to fit it in but looks good. Is there some book reference or something? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Um... there are some references in Lafcadio Hearns book, Kwaidan, but I dont know how too reference books. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Interesting. Getting the page number(s) it is mentioned on would be great but I can tweak it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks, but I read the book when I was younger and don't have a copy. It may be a while before I get one. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC) RfA thanks Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Found the guy Yeah, I found the guy who put Atlantic Northern and Pacific Northern instead of the proper North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales. He appears to be Japanese, and I'm pretty sure English is a second language to him. That would explain everything. I know its a little thing, but this is English Wikipedia, so proper grammer should be used. I think there are several dozen pages with these incorrect spellings, all because of this one guy. I told him to revert it himself, seeing as how its his fault. Sorry for blaming you. I misread an edit and thought you were the cause. The guy appears to be on vacation, so I'll try and fix as many as I can. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nebular Hypothesis This article, which you reviewed, is now a featured arctile candidate. Ruslik (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Yay, you got a DYK. On 28 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alphitonia excelsa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. --Hersfold (t/a/c) 12:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Is there a doctor in the house ? Cas, if you have time, please read through this entire FAC relative to FA standards, and let me know if you have an opinion as to what the director/delegate/gatekeeper can do about this. After four supports, I asked one editor to go in and fix MoS, another editor to go in and copyedit, there are reliable sources issues that were there before the four supports, and I'm turning to you for opinion on the BLP issue that was also there all along. Unqualified supports dilute the value of the featured star, and this is occurring across all music and video FACs. The more experienced reviewers are not even looking at the music/video articles, and they are consistently supported by the same editors, in spite of Ealdgyth's hard work at examining sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Green Wing????? Your hospital is like that? I'm moving. There were no hot physicians or nurses when I was an intern. Actually, I've only seen a bit of it during a trip to the UK a couple of years ago. I hope it comes to BBC America. Right now, I'm into Torchwood. If you're a Dr. Who fan, you might like it. If you're not, then go eat your fungus. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Yeah, we started watching Torchwood and I must admit I liked it alot more than 95% of the new Dr Who stuff (Eccleston/Tennant etc) - nice and contained rather than the apocalyptic/end-of-universe stuff....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Amusingly, I used to watch Dr. Who while I was in Medical School. I don't know which iteration it was, but Daleks seem to have toilet plungers for weapons. I actually haven't watched any Dr. Who in 30 years. Torchwood is broadcast in High Definition on my cable system, so I started watching it. Special effects have increased somewhat. Anyways, I'm going to be watching a Resident Evil marathon on Blue Ray Disc in a few moments! How intellectual of us.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC) (sigh) I just watched RE:Extinction, which had some amusing bits but was a bit silly really....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC) You must think I'm watching it for the plot. Wrong my Aussie friend. I'm watching it because of Milla Jovovich. Precisely why do you think I would watch these movies? If I want good horror, I'm watching Alien or Aliens, both of which scare the crap out of me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Saprotroph Excuse me, but can you explain why you assessed this article as a B-class article? Whatever the assessing scale that WikiProject Fungi is using, it seriously needs to be revised if that is what you assessed this off of. If this was a mistake or typo, feel free to let me know. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC) No problem. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Frog ID Australian Green Tree Frog (Litoria caerulea). You're in Cairns? You should be seeing much more than one frog! --liquidGhoul (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Nope, back in Sydney now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC) request Hi Cas You remember the Robert Gilbert article that a single anon user has been vandalising regularly for about a year? Thanks to your permanent semi-protect, it's now stable. But the same user has taken to attacking the talk page; it's defamatory, and I wonder whether the talk page can also be semiprotected permanently. Recent attacks are here and here and here. TONY (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC) WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC) GRO J1655-40 I'll check the information from the AfC and merge anything useful into what we have. Thanks. bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Allison Sudradjat again Care to undelete Allison Sudradjat back to User:Jack Merridew/Allison Sudradjat so I can work on it more; I see that the DRV gave it's ok, but think working on it in userspace a bit first would be best. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC) holy crap. clean forgot to undelete after DRV ! It's been thru DRV now and hence has a nice approved stamp on it thus. It would qualify under notability so should be fine where it is and give an opportunity for collaborative editing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks. on my to-do list. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 07:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Lilith Painting Ok just two things about the painting. One I only took it off while I was here at my school I had planned to put it back when I got home and the second one after I thought about it is that the painting reflex nothing of vampires but more of a medusa. Lilith was never a vampire, she was considered one of the medusa's. Sorry for any confusion if any was caused. Souloftwilight Sertraline Drugs with serotonin activity were initially researched in the 1970s with a view to treating hypertension, however, their antidepressant properties became apparent with the drug zimelidine. Healy is the foremost authority on the history of psychopharmacology, so you can insert the sentence based on his opinion alone. I am a bit doubtful about this claim, though. It is not accompanied by the reference unlike most other significant claims he makes. Plus, SSRIs are just a subset of drugs with serotonin activity, so this may not be applicable to SSRIs. Healy does not repeat this claim in his later books. In his book of interviews with leading psychopharmacologists, on which the "The Antidepressant Era" is based to a significant degree, nobody makes this claim. TO the contrary, the principal author of serotonin hypothesis, Alec Coppen, and the discoverer of the first SSRI, Arvid Carlsson, both recall that they from the very beginning thought about SSRIs as antidepressants. I re-read the article in Chemical & Engineering News about the discovery of sertraline, and it appears to be to a significant degree accidental, making the post hoc attempts to find "context" invalid: []project that took shape as a quest for a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) only in its later stages[]."We didn't start by looking for an antidepressant of this type," Weissman says. "We spent a lot of time on things that weren't obvious at the beginning." Many of the group's observations, he says, were "accidental." Koe agrees. "This was not like your typical practice in which you are very goal-driven," he says. "Not until the end of the process did the group focus on any one drug." Paul Gene (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC) undelete request Hi. Could you do a few undeletes for me? I would like the history of User:Davenbelle restored and User:Davenbelle/sidebar, too. I had requested their deletion as the logs indicate, and I emailed Brad about undeleting them, too, but I believe he was in the middle of the other issue at the time. There are old diffs and links to stuff on the userpage, including old evidence I presented prior to the first Arb Case and I believe they should be available for review. The sidebar is a quote from Oryx and Crake and I might use it again but it's gone... On the user page, I am not looking to lose the more recent history, just to restore the deleted bits. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 07:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC) There is also something deleted from the history of User:D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 — I don't remember what was there, but invite you to undelete it "for the record" as it were. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 07:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC) OK, got the sidebar and tried restoring the others but nothing is coming up. Weird...I'd move the sidebar to Jack Merridew subpage methinks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Looks like they're back fine; thanks. I may just copy the sidebar so as to not break the look of oldIDs of the talk page. As I see it, these are all in my userspace and are 'mine' to do with as I see fit. Of course, things like the boxes should remain in some form. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC) The Catchpole Could use some backup; [6] [7] Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 10:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC) See also [8]; pure WP:HA, IMHO. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Duress code Well done, btw. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:30, May 6, 2008 Beautiful ain't it? Part of life's rich pageant. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Sydney meetup Tomorrow (hopefully!) Andjam (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) DYK On 7 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rose Robin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you for sertraline Thank you for helping me get Sertraline to the FA status. Your GA review in particular defined what had to be added, and that helped me a lot. Paul Gene (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Charlie Huston Interesting books. Have you read them? How are they? I'm not big into the detective noir thing, but this sounds good. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC) I read the first Joe Pitt (Vampire detective/noir) thing. A great little read and thoroughly enjoyable. A real page turner and effective escapism. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Tennis expert Ok, where to start? Well, the following describes my first encounter with User:Tennis expert (from my own subjective perspective, Tennis expert's account may vary considerably, of course), in February last year. I've tried my best to sort the links plausibly, but the exchange stretched across several pages, so please bear with me. It all started with this edit of mine, this talk page post at Talk:Steffi Graf, and this revert by Tennis expert. At that point I was a fairly new editor and not acquainted with most of our policies. But it was clear to me that an assertion like "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest players of all time" wasn't acceptable encyclopedically. I notified Tennis expert. Also, at the time, I was newbie enough to believe reverting in turn might have any positive effect. Te resinstated the statement, adding a source... ...which I then formatted after replying to Te's edit summary that "it's silly to assert that a citation is needed for obviously correct assertions". I looked up P&G and posted another comment at Te's talk page. I also started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words. Te replied there and notified me. I replied in turn. Here is a permlink to the final state of that thread. To my mild surprise, I noticed that Te had removed my messages from his talk page. This is the rest of my exchange with him: 20:30, 10 February 2007, 20:40, 10 February 2007, 20:47, 10 February 2007. I also tried to put the entire exchange in one place for overview, [9]. And yes, I was a bit pissed off that he called me and/or my edits "silly". So, the bottomline is that he didn't understand (in fact he decidely disagreed) that such a statement is far from an "obvious truth", and in another step he didn't understand WP:ASF, namely the fact that merely attaching a ref to such a statement doesn't make it all encyclopedic. I corrected his mistakes, and tolerated his unfriendliness. In the recent encounter, he did similar: He first didn't agree, but of course did not produce any policy-based arguments either. Imho, a statement and question like I don't mind your unfriendly old habit of removing sections of ongoing exchanges, but would you mind giving me so much as an aye or nay? is fully justified in the given situation. Ok, well. I'm rather sure that I have now wasted an hour of my life looking up all those diffs. You apparently like to bully me for some reason. So, you certainly cannot and will never see how Tennis expert is unfriendly and also inept. At least do me the favour and spare me your condescending comments. Please, do not call me "Dorfy" again. Only cool and intelligent people may do that, mainly because they never would. Dorftrottel (canvass) 17:36, May 8, 2008 You really know how to win friends and influence people, don't you? You present an argument and then try to cap it of with some snarky paragraph about something which you have already reminded me of once and I haven't done again (though if your sig had said 'bait' I might have had to say 'Dorfy' again just to comply with it). Listen, if you're going to rumble around in the sandpit, you're going to get dirty. You seem to seek out and perversely enjoy negative interactions from what I can see and I hope (for your sake) that this isn't replicated in real life. I am amused that you will stuff around and trumpet loud and long about trivia and fancruft at AfD, yet when there are real debates on material which may have real-world political or health implications I don't see you or the other regulars around (at AfD) - funny that. I can dig the diffs of some but the images and other material is now deleted. WRT Tennis, I am in two minds - probably veering towards leaving the contested material out, yet I have no strong opinions on it and would let it slide if someone such as Te thought it better included. Problem is more recently, your track record and your signature have branded you somewhat. You can clearly write well and could be doing a great job writing GAs or FAs (the next best thing to stable versions that we have) as you are clearly capable of it. If you want to polish up something for GA just name it and I will be more than glad to chip in and help. I find this a much more rewarding pastime than dicking around in the trenches at AfD. Seriously, I will help you do this if you want. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) No thanks. I just want you to not comment on my interaction with Te anymore. What I tried to illustrate is that he was wrong and I did good. And no, I'm not here to make friends or be loved, I have enough friends. The most useful thing people can do on Wikipedia right now is educating those who are willing to learn and drive away the idiots who are not. (So my signature annoys you? Then you are in the target audience. I decided to include all those overused terms like "bait", "harass" etc. in an effort to desensitise people against it. Get over it.) Dorftrottel (complain) 18:32, May 9, 2008 White-winged Fairy-wren Hi Cas, I've uploaded an image of a male File:White-winged Fairy-wren coolmunda.JPG , but as it it's not very good I haven't attached it your article....will let you decide if you want to use it. Aviceda talk 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Can you clarify clean-up needed? I realise there were issues at the start of the AfD but I'd like to know what still needs clean-up so I can address it. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Returning a book to the library I borrowed Richard Hinkley Allen's book a whiel ago and have to return it next week to the library. I just thought I'd drop a not in case you wanted to get any info from it for any star or constellation article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Actually I purchased a copy from a used book store a few years back. I keep it handy for referencing star articles. But thank you for the offer.—RJH (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Chrysippus There I was writing up Galen, Hippocrates and Chrysippus in the misogyny article (and don't you dare speculate about me contributing to such an entry, lol), specifically their work "On the Affections". Little did I know another tangent on this would open up! Thanks for the ref mate. Affections aside, as one kind of "soul doctor" to another, I'd like to push you for that coffee in the not too distant future -- I want to know how to cure the world (own families excepted). And then, there's also the gossip that so tantalizingly gets cut off ... ;) What days and times suit you best? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)