I just passed the [[Black Currawong]], but I noticed it is in a [[:Category:Tasmanian restricted-range endemic bird species]]. Isn't the "restricted-range" bit redundant there? [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 16:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I just passed the [[Black Currawong]], but I noticed it is in a [[:Category:Tasmanian restricted-range endemic bird species]]. Isn't the "restricted-range" bit redundant there? [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 16:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
:Also, if you have time, could you have a look at [[List of parasites of the marsh rice rat]]? It's up at FLC, but hasn't gotten any comments yet. It'll finish the ''[[Oryzomys]]'' featured topic, so it would be a shame if it would fail for lack of reviews. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 16:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am Kelidimari. I am new to writing Wikipedia articles and honestly I'm not a very good writer. However, I am trying to improve. I have not written any large article in Wikipedia yet because I'm uncertain on how to do it well. So, mostly all I've done are little edits on pre-existing pages here and there, and adding images sometimes. I am more of a Wikipedia reader than a writer, but on occasion I find something kind of cool and wish to share it with others, but because I'm unfamiliar with how to use all of the formatting, it is difficult. I would like to learn how to write things in a way that they are coherent and in the wiki-accepted format. The formatting bit drives me crazy.
I am currently learning a lot about beryllium exposure and public health and radioactive waste, because that is what I do right now. Most likely, when I write things, it will be in human health, public health, environmental health, or laws related to those areas in the U.S. I do walk-throughs and assessments and reviews of worker safety and health plans, and have a bit of a medical background. So, I'm guessing that in the future, my contributions would be very public health or chemical exposure related. I want to contribute to Wikipedia, but am not ready to do so and don't want to until I know how to do things correctly.
I would very much appreciate if you could be my mentor, because you had listed in your "adopter" section that you were interested in biology and medicine. My interest is in those areas also.Kelidimari (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am a new member seeking Adoption/Mentorship
I am Vega. I write Psychology, Medical, Science, Philosophy, and Biology articles mainly and as a hobby. I have submitted only one to Wikipedia thus far and I believe it to be excellent, considering it is a first submission and I took so much time to proof-read and make sure to reference my reliable sources and so on.
However, I am far from an expert. Thus my issues with my personal writing are as follows: grammatical errors, such as typing errors of which I overlook in proof-reading and elaborating possibly too much, as opposed to being concise thus repeating my points merely rephrasing them (I do not notice this at the time but I feel that it must bore readers) and drawing out the main point, and finally It have trouble with the format of Wikipedia's coding style and have (but was brought to my attention) placed too many redirect links into my personal writing. Help?
Also, due to it being a very large passion of mine to research, learn, share knowledge, help others, and to write in general-- I wish to learn correct ways in which follow the terms of service/guidelines of Wikipedia appropriately in order to edit to articles/leave feedback to the authors in acceptable ways.
I have stumbled upon submissions, to say the least, in need of SEVERE help, editing, revision, references of an reliable nature added etc. and/or possible removal, yet I haven't learned and haven't the slightest clue what to do first if I see a post of this nature. My instinct is to help via editing and reviewing it-- Yet, with my limited knowledge thus far on editing in general I feel that due to posts of the aforementioned type existence, that in order to better contribute to lovely Wikipedia-- I need to learn all that I can to improve my contributions and conduct (ie What is appropriate to do when stumbling upon an opinion-based/biased/unreferenced article) i have no problem with simple edits, however I have a bit to learn on a larger scale for everyone's benefit. (coding is #1 in my problem area! help?)
Sorry to ramble. It's a habit. I would greatly appreciate you as mentor, if you are interested. If not, then Thank you anyways for reading my drawn-out request to be adopted. Thanks.
--Ladybrainbypass (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
{{subst:January 20th 2010 adoptme}} Ladybrainbypass (talk) Vega G.
--Ladybrainbypass (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also was wondering if you would consider adopting me, still pretty new at all this. Not nearly as verbose as the person above either :-)--Tmckeage (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I have two areas I could use help with. Projectional radiography has been a long interest of mine. I would love to see this page achieve at least good status. Right now its a mess and although I have done some work I have lost some steam and could use some advice on how to eat this elephant. Also I started work on 2010 earthquakes, I requested Editor assistance but I'm not completely sure that was right. Any advice you could give me on that one would be really helpful as well. Thank you. --Tmckeage (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I just walked into a HUGE quagmire. I started to compile ideas for inclusion in the Projectional radiography page. I basically decided that I needed an article that described what projectional radiography is AND how it is achieved. What it is is relatively simple and I can heavily borrow and link from other topics. How it is achieved is the more difficult of the two. A key concept is called ALARA describing the concept in full would really be beyond the scope of my article but an article has been created and is a redirect to a similar but different concept called ALARP. My instinct is to be bold and replace the redirect with a brand new article but I hunted around and found Radiation protection. This further confuses the subject and it appears that at some point some bizarre consensus was reached by people with a limited understanding on the subject. I'm worried about stepping on toes, starting an edit war, getting into a petrol/gasoline argument(ALARP is primarily a UK principal, ALARA is US).
So far the only option I know of is going ahead with replacing the redirect along with my reasoning for doing so in the talk page. What would be really awesome was if there was some way to get pre-approval on my concept, but I have no clue on how to do that. Thanks for any help you can provide. --Tmckeage (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notes. I think I got a little obsessed, and the annoyed over the ALARA mess I lost sight of the bigger goal. Thanks for keeping me on track :-)--Tmckeage (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[2]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
I see you've taken it on, good work. The display and vision bits at Crested Tern apply for all the genus. The opening sentence isn't fully supported by Bridge - although Elegant is very close, Lesser Crested isn't, other than being in the same genus. I won't abandon this article (after all, one good ... aaaarrrggh, it's catching), but let me know if there's anything specific esp from BWP, Olsen or Harrison, where I have the books. Now, must be time for a couple of slices of bread with some meat in. 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Cute tool that. We'll see how many GAs, DYKs and FAs we can get. Got bits and pieces of horticultural stuff to add yet :) ...just musing on how to bonsai my species... Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patricia Fara, Sex, Botany and Empire: The Story of Carl Linnaeus and Joseph Banks, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2003).
She's a senior tutor in philosophy at Cambridge, written several very entertaining and informative books related to the history of science, probably including her doctorate.
"In section "Relationship with humans", can the phrases, "In some legends," and "In other traditions," mention the legends and traditions? Not strictly necessary, I am suggesting this because the above lines are consider Weasel words.".
This will be hard to fix since I don't have the book Kotare used - and I wouldn't want to either, probably, since a pet hate of mine is anything which lumps traditions from different regions together without giving the sources. I would suggest getting rid of all of this:
In Māori culture, only people of high rank wore Huia feathers.[9] In some legends, the Huia was one of the birds attained from the heavens by Tāwhaki so that his wife could decorate her hair with its feathers; this celestial origin meant that the feathers of the Huia were treated with the greatest respect.[5]
In other traditions, the Huia was the leader of the hākuturi, the spirit guardians of the forest, which included Whiteheads and Riflemen.[5] A single Huia feather was worn as a talisman against misfortune. If a man dreamed of a Huia or its feathers, it meant his wife would conceive a daughter; if he dreamed of Kōtuku feathers it implied the conception of a son.[5]
We could use as a partial source Traditional Maori Stories by Margaret Orbell, Reed 1992, pp82-83, and rewrite as follows:
In Māori culture, the "white heron and the huia were not normally eaten but were rare birds treasured for their precious plumes, worn by people of high rank".[ADD ORBELL REF]. <START FOOTNOTE: Orbell mentions some of the sacred associations of the Huia, saying [page 83] that if a man dreamed of a Huia or its feathers, it meant his wife would conceive a daughter.<END FOOTNOTE>
We can also add a supporting reference from this page: [4] and could perhaps still add the reference no [9].
Hi Casliber. I saw the message you sent to fir0002. I doubt he'd be able to take any pictures of fungi since he is stuck in Melbourne due to university. I went for a walk through a cool temperate rainforest area of Wielangta forest today. I took a large number of pretty good quality fungus pictures. I need help with identifying them however, and have posted the images at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi#18_IDs_from_Wielangta_Forest.2C_Tasmania. I'd appreciate your help since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in the area.
You also had some gear questions. Since you want to shoot insects too, I'd get a fairly long macro lens such as the tamron 180mm or the sigma 150mm. More critical than your choice of lens is your lighting. You want a 430ex or a 580ex (extremely useful for everything). For insects add a softbox, macro flash bracket and an E-TTL cord. The softbox and macro bracket can be easily home-made. For anything stationary ditch the bracket/softbox and use a $30 ebay shoot through umbrella and swivel, and some ~$30 ebay radio triggers. You will need a light stand or an assistant. For the stationary stuff I'd also consider a decent tripod, allowing you to balance ambient and flash light. The longest exposure in the fungi I've uploaded was four seconds, impossible without a tripod. Compare File:Wielangta Unidentified Fungus 5194.jpg (fill flash) with http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/579/img5192u.jpg, which is only ambient. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of [Banksia] species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.)
It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go.
As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction."
has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc.
As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato)
Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)
Arianewiki118:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question
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?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special edition triple crown question
Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.
The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paper
An interesting abstract: [5]. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." [my emphasis] Hesperian13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eiker A. (1990). "Commercial mushroom production in South Africa". Bulletin (Pretoria: Department of Agricultural Development) (418).
It is reference 49 in the current version now. I was looking very long for this bulletin, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Can You help me to find this bulletin, or do You know something exactlier about it?
Hi Cas, the above just got passed as GA. Any interest in collaborating in a push for FAC? There are a number of references in Australian Plant Pathology and Australian Forestry that would need to be checked out and added to meet 1.b/c requirements, and I don't have easy access to these journals. Other than that, the article's not too far off. In other news, I got that Lactarius book, and will start buffing Lactarius deliciosus once I'm done prepping a 15-species Lactarius DYK hook. Sasata (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. I should be able to access Australian Plant Pathology readily via University of NSW this week. Other will be trickier but yeah, I'm in. Also uploaded photo of bisected milkcap to commons. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Psychology articles
Hi Cas. There's been a bit of a discussion going on on the project talkpage with someone about the APS wanting to get involved in editing. They're asking for advice on what to put in a publicity article suggesting more academic psychologists get involved. You probably have a better idea of this than me. Fainitesbarleyscribs22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Boronia imlayensis
On May 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boronia imlayensis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Congratulations on the fine work you did on Syzygium smithii. Previously it was an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Now this significant Australian rainforest tree is far better described. The Lilly Pilly is more suitably presented to the world. Poyt448 (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I found an e-mail in the "junk" folder from the Royal Botanic Gardens regarding Boronia imlayensis, dated May 10th.
Dear Peter,
Boronia imlayensis is not scheduled under the NSW Threatened Species Act, so you are correct in that currently there is no official rarity status for this species.
B. imlayensis certainly is a rare species with a very narrow and restricted distribution. It is known from a handful of collections all of which are from the same locality, ie. confined to and near the upper part of Mt Imlay.
When the species was published in 2003 (in Muelleria Vol. 17, pg.69) the author thought a ROTAP conservation code of 2VC-t was appropriate. He also made reference to another Mt Imlay endemic species (Eucalyptus imlayensis) which is also only known from a single population on Mt Imlay. E. imlayensis is currently recognised under the TSC Act and is scheduled as ‘Critically Endangered’. B. imlayensis shares some of the same threats and pressures as E. imlayensis, and probably warrants recognition under the TSC Act also. This is a matter for the NSW Scientific Committee to decide.
You made the article much better. And I told the Royal Botanic Gardens of your excellent contribution. No doubt you are a busy person, but if you ever have a couple of days free. And are fit enough. I need a companion to climb Mount Imlay. I want a better look at the rainforest to the south of the summit. (Too dangerous to go alone again). Imlay is a wonder of the botanical world, and I'd like to photograph the Imlay Mallee, as it is on the road to extinction. cheers, Pete Poyt448 (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How long is the drive from Sydney? and how close can you get by car? and how long is the walk from whereever you can drive to to the top? I can walk a bit ok. My free time is abysmally non-existent though for the short term. I have done little of the south coast. There are some cool banksias and I really want to get to Shipwreck Ck in East Gippsland sometime to see the new species of BanksiaCasliber (talk·contribs) 11:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible travel times: 6 hours drive from Sydney to Eden. (There is a flight from Sydney to nearby Merimbula). One hour drive from Eden to the mountain car park. 2 hour (steep difficult) walk to the summit. Half an hour walk from the summit to the rainforest (unless I get totally lost as I did last November). Double all these numbers for a return trip. The winter months may be too short for such a big day's exploration. It might be preferable to return in October when the Boronia is flowering and the days are longer. For me, the greatest thing about Imlay is the seldom seen rainforest and the nearly extinct Mount Imlay Mallee. Poyt448 (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few thoughts on the GA symbol debate that I wanted to bat around with you. I agree with your view that should make make things more transparent to the readers, and that's why I would support the adding of a small GA icon much like the FA star. But such a change would only be minor and would do little to further that cause. You might have seen my previous comment at the top of the "Other comments" section. I still favor making the interface gadget "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article" a default for all users. From experience, since introducing my girlfriend to it, she's been a lot more keen about assessing the quality of the information for herself, and there have even been a few times where she's taken the time to point out to me that an article has been assessed badly (usually rated too highly). Though she still hasn't bravely stepped into the world of editing, she has developed a much better understanding of how Wiki works and how to look at the articles... probably even more so than from watching me re-write articles and push through GACs and FACs. (I don't mess with Stub through B-class. For me, it's either GA, FA, or needs major revision. The fact that she can discern the difference between Start-class and B-class tells me that she's learning this either from WP:ASSESS or from seeing every article's assessment every time she visits.)
Setting that option as default has a couple of advantages, in my opinion. It makes the entire class system more visible to the readers—even more so than a tiny star or green plus icon in the top right corner of an article. People are far more likely to notice the color of the article title and see the linked article class directly underneath it. Furthermore, although WP:GA and WP:FA are informative pages by themselves, WP:ASSESS is or could be far more informative about the entire assessment system to a very broad audience. It currently explains what we look at during article assessments, and could easily be tweaked to further detail the GAC and FAC processes, as well as provide more prominent links to WP:GA and WP:FA.
Another related idea I just thought of is to replace the gold star with a small graphic of connected circles representing each of the common article classes, starting with Stub on the left, moving to FA on the right. This could be based on the icons already selected to represent these classes on {{icon}}: -----
In the image, all ranks other than its current rank would be empty, gray circles. The FA star would probably also be encased in a small gold circle. If the article is rated between Stub and B-class, the graphic would link to WP:ASSESS. If it's rated GA, it would link to WP:GA, and then WP:FA for FA articles. Yet another idea is to show a small semi-circular scale, much like a speedometer.
Either way, I agree that we need to do more to reach out to readers and show them a simple, but informative view of how Wiki works while also demonstrating our need for constructive editing. WP:GAC and WP:FAC may be informative links to provide, I feel all readers need to also have a much better understanding of the broader picture of assessment, even for the under-developed articles, on which they are more likely to make their first edits. I think the more people know about Wiki and the state of our articles, I think more people are likely to try getting their feet wet. – VisionHolder « talk »23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I like the grid idea alot actually as above (with the half-eaten pie for stub etc. etc.) Why not make this an alternate proposal on the page? Also highlights the problems with the A-class rank and where it sits in the overall scheme of things. Unless we rename GA A-class....Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wasn't expecting such an enthusiastic reply. Tomorrow night I'll work on creating the progress icons, and once they're made, I'll make a formal proposal. I definitely agree with the need to rename GA and A-class... possibly even merge them. Distinguishing between the two is senseless. If anything, I'd prefer to follow the pattern of our existing rating system, and merge GA into A so that we have a scale that looks like:
Can't remember why this page is on my watchlist, but it is, so ... I love the grid idea, but I hate with a passion the idea of merging GA and A class. That just won't fly. MalleusFatuorum00:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@VH - Yes, make sure you post up as an alternate idea while everbody's there and thinking and talking about it. @Malleus - I just threw that off the top of my head when I saw the grid as A class just looks odd when one tries to think of how/where to put it. What do you think we should do with A class? I had a vague idea of some mega-push to review all of them to get to FA so we could empty out the A-class category and make it redundant. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you ask, I've always thought that A-class was redundant, and I don't think it should be part of any ranking scheme, just as peer review isn't. MalleusFatuorum00:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional support. As promised, I will work on the graphics and the proposal later this afternoon, after work. Where, in your opinion, should the proposal be posted? on the talk page for WP:ASSESS, or underneath the current GA proposal? I feel it's generally more relevant to WP:ASSESS, so I favor posting it there, with a quick post on the talk pages for both GA and FA to help bring attention there.
Also, I will probably not add an option for A-class in the graphics... although last night I did think of yet another way to (literally) squeeze it in—the three circles on the right overlapping slightly, while the others just connect with a small gray bar. Lastly, what do you think about an additional tweak, where the circles for GA and FA are very slightly enlarged to give emphasis? Or are we better off with a balanced progress bar? – VisionHolder « talk »12:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be for all the same size - keep it like an informative grid-thing. And to leave off A-class altogether. My opinion is that A-class is becoming (if not already) redundant in the bigger scheme of things. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I am not sure that it is hugely important. Given it is referring to the Assessment process in general, I guess the talk page there. As lnog as there are plenty of links from WT:FAC, WT:GA etc. and Temp:Cent should be all good. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you've volunteered to work on head-louse infestation. I'd be glad to help out on that article with copyediting, or anything else -- I don't have good access to sources but for anything that the reviewer indicates can be done with easily available sources I'll see if I can help. Let me know what I can do. Mike Christie(talk)11:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your piccie needs removing File:H_petiolaris4_keilor_bg_email.jpg - are you gonna be offended if i add one of mine instead? Please say - as I would like to start expanding the crappy little article as well - SatuSuro07:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah cleared - they come in the commons set - - that is one way of looking at it - and so many eds have confused laurina and petiolaris in the past in relation to the flower - you have a good point matt - the leaf thing is explored in images at commons as well http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hakea_petiolaris...
(As Rlevse asked me to comment), I like version A, as the Sassafras stands out a lot more clearly in it. The light in version B almost negates the usefulness of having additional vein lines shown. NW(Talk)22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetically I sorta like version B but my adult/botanical/encyclopedic brain says version A is clearly better as it shows up the venation. I am pretty lousy on northern hemisphere trees but am happy to help what/how I can. I had not thrown up any photos for review until yesterday actually, so am very unfamiliar with the process. If I get a chance will take a look but a little time-limited today. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a clue the way i did the Hakea petiolaris vein issue - is you have direct sunlight - you can take a photo with the leaf between you and the sun, rather than with the sun behind you SatuSuro01:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try that next time I am there but it's a long way from here and I'm sure when I'll be there again. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just saved these and tried Photoshop's sharpen filter on them and it seemed to improve both images re 'venation' (an unfamiliar word, but I guessed right; DYK… that innovate is an anagram? wikt's got a bot adding them). Would you like the tweaked images? I could overwrite or upload to alt names. If you want serious 'shopin' ask Durova. Cheers, Jack Merridew01:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(goddam ec) It sucks when you get home and realise you're a little unhappy with the photos taken. At least it is better than the bad old days...The light-thru-the-leaf is a great way to highlight this. You wond't wanna know how many photos I took to land the taxobox image of this little critter, and then the other image was the best of a whole lotta lousy ones.....sigh (and that was a good 5000 km from home for me) Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're at A1 and B1. I tried more aggressive sharpening than the 'Sharpen more' filter, and things got all grainy. I'll probably fiddle a bit more tomorrow and will let you know if I have anything better. If you think these too grainy as-is, I can re-upload with the lighter-touch ordinary 'sharpen' filter (I tried it first and thought the differences from the originals minimal). They're really large because I selected max quality. R, you have ".raw" files (Raw image format) available? (if not, your camera probably directly produced the JPGs). Sorry for the ec; Cas. Cheers, Jack Merridew02:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna see A2 and B2? They're done and saved... 10mb; I think we've the disk space, I've been cleaning up for years (sorry; it's too easy;). (be sure to view at 100%) Cheers, Jack Merridew02:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
feckin' (edit conflict). A2 and B2; ordinary sharpen; when I posted above, they were saved locally, but are now on Commons. You should look at both 100% and preview the others at Infobox-size. As Chooky likes to say, 'Up to you, Boss'. (he was my driver). Cheers, Jack Merridew03:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All-I can see more venation in both sets of "1" and "2" photos, as for the A1 vs A2 and B1 vs B2 I can't tell a difference in venation but do see that the "2"s are darker, richer in color and hence have more contrast, ie, nice work Jack! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thank the Photoshop developers, really, and whomever developed the sharpening algorithms it offers. I see you went with 2; After having re-reviewed at %100, it think that the best choice. At gallery size it all matters little, but there are grainy bits in the 1 versions. If you care to delete the 1 versions, go for it; or ask me to tag them for proper procedure. Cheers, Jack Merridew02:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lizard is some small type of skink - we have millions of very similar looking tiny skinks in the garden. Will hunt around for a guide. I'd post links to the insects on a wikiproject insect talk page - the other thing I have done is email an entomologist at a local university. They are often really chuffed when members of the public ask questions like this and very helpful. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - looking for some sort of key of guide to skinks of the central united states - the Coal Skink looks like a likely candidate. My connection is frustratingly slow but having a look at some images on google images would be good. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got a fright too. Had a weird deep loud buzzing. But seriously, insects are only covered piecemeal by popular books and there is a huge gap in knowledge wikipedia can fill in by bridging technical and lay knowledge bases. I really need to get me a macro lens.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist the above for a while? A swarm of IP-gnats has been at it messing with the flavour of English used and it's semi'd for 3 days. They're hitting a lot more but this one seemed in your area, so handing it off. I've picked the bits of lint out of there. Says it's not an insect ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew01:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber: Thank you for your quick and decisive action on my request for semi-protection for the Sherman article. Previous semi-protections have been for limited periods, and then the vandalism starts right over again and becomes worse as time goes on. It makes sense that the article have the same protection as do the Lincoln and Grant articles, and I am glad that you have acted as you have. Hartfelt (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Syzygium smithii, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Letter-winged Kite, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi! I would like to evidence you the continuous rollbacks by user:Colin Gleen of my wikification of Ferrol. My editings consisted in adding a standard infobox, removing all POV parts, purging some sections which had no role in an encyclopedia, and other format adds. The article is now decent and in the same path of most other Spanish cities ones, while this guy continues to restore his versions full of errors, unsourced statements, questions, unencyclopedical details etc. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao! It seems that user:Colin Gleen is now using a sockpuppet identity, user:Michael Peer, to restore his horrendous, antiwikipedic version of Ferrol. Can you stop him? By the way, this user is easily recognizable for he's dedicating himself only to Ferrol, with articles full of useful stuff but full of POV and amateurish digressions (for example, in an article about a journal published in that Spanish city, 75% of the text spoke about Ferrol's economic crisis...). Let me know and thanks in advance for help... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to start would be WP:SPI, as that is a dedicated place for listing these type of issues. I will have a look at the article a little later today (Australian time). Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beta Cassiopeiae, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Welcome Nugget, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hakea lorea, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hakea chordophylla, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 31 May, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alanqa, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Any tips on getting Soxred's page created tool working properly? It seems to truncate for me after the last 87 articles created, but I'd like to see the full list. I suspect it's between 500 and 600, but the tool always times out, and the list on my userpage isn't all of them. Is there an alternate tool you're using to keep track of the articles you've created? Firsfron of Ronchester03:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1720:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you make an article a DYK?
Hello! I found your name listed at Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_DYKs and of the names I quickly looked at there, you seem to be someone with a lot of contributions there who has contributed biology types of articles. Could you help me to make Hyphessobrycon ulreyi (Boulenger), which I just started, a DYK? It gets a bunch of Google Book hits also under its alternate name. Anywho, I see these DYKs always listed at Main_Page and think it would be cool for some fish to get some love there! I started the article and would appreciate if someone with experience could show me how to take it to the next level! :) Thank you! A Pocket Full of Sunshine (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular objections to you reverting the tables on the Tasmanian list, but I think that you could have rolled back my edit as a GFE with TW. It is interesting that two bird lists are at FLC at the same time and the two have gone different ways with the list format. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that. I rarely use twinkle and thanks for leting me know. Do you think it is worth discussing on the wikiporject talk page to get all the lists looking alike and using standard abbreviations etc. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got around to looking at this, apologies for the delay. I've left a few thoughts at the review, but to cut a long story short I've got three major problems with this article: its scope, its neutrality, and what appears to be excesssive detail in places, probably related to the imprecise scope. I don't see these problems being sorted out in the short term, so it's a fail for me I'm afraid. MalleusFatuorum15:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As posted at the GAC, I agree. Just go ahead and fail it. I would like to resolve the scope issue, since that's the one issue I don't fully grasp. – VisionHolder « talk »20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Delta Canis Majoris
On June 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Delta Canis Majoris, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
(sigh) - I wish I had more time or energy..but I just look at a wall of text and think, "Life's just too short for this..." (I just hope other folks have more energy than me - I will try and look in when I can...) cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On June 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia aemula, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On June 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hicksbeachia pinnatifolia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On June 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Athertonia diversifolia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Excuse me, Casliber. Tom B gave me permission to demote Coffee from its GA status. Before I do, are you still willing to continue working on it? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Olea paniculata
On June 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Olea paniculata, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, do you think the article on Pararistolochia praevenosa might be worthy of a DYK? The association with the pretty butterflies might make particularly appealing to the average reader. I added so many references to it lately, and this might have made it more confusing. Your editorial skill could be handy in making the article better. Kind regards Poyt448 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to throw in two cents. Yes it could. It's new, long enough and interesting. The hook could be the part about "main food species for the Richmond Birdwing butterfly". Cas can help make it better I'm sure. One thing you need to do is properly format the refs so they're not open URLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On June 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Xylocopa bombylans, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
There is quite a lot in this set of photos. I have already uploaded the parrots, but I do not know the identity of many of the others. If you make a list of the ones that are useful with the identity (including male, female, or juvenile), then I will see if I can upload them. There is not any semi-automatic software for uploads from Picasa Web Albums yet, so uploading from Picasa can be rather slow. Also, it will take some time to remove the watermarks. I have put some of the best ones in the list for birds to be identified. Snowman (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any specific requests to upload any photographs of birds that you can identify from this Picasa photo set? Alternatively, you could add a few to the birds for identification series, and I will endeavour to upload them when identified, if there are not too many. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A cute little Australian mushroom that could do with some love, if you have the time. We've just had a featured picture candidate, so it will hopefully get some attention because of it. Contacting you because I know Australasian mushrooms are more your domain :) J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On June 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Randia moorei, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Congratulations with all the fine work you've been doing lately. Recently I took plenty of photos at the North Coast Regional Botanic Garden at Coffs Habour. However, photos of at least 6 species were out of focus and are no good for Wikipedia. If there is any rare plant you would like photographed, please let me know. When I get the chance I'll return up there and try to keep the camera still! I might even meet up with A.G. Floyd, as he lives nearby and the garden is his pet project.
Also, in a few weeks time, I'm returning to the giant Woodford tree in the Blue Mountains with the photographer "Black Diamond" from Black Diamond images. You are welcome to come along if you have any free time. As yet I haven't purchased any gadget that could assist in measurement of the tree. The tree is monstrous in size, 2.6 metres diameter at breast height. Measured in 1978 at 78 metres. However, who knows if this is correct. It could be between 70 and 90 metres in height. I've seen Tallowwood back of Kempsey that are about as big, and they all appear taller than "The Grandis" near Bulahdelah.
When I run out of photos for new articles I get annoyed. So, I hope to keep busy for a while yet. Thanks for your support. Pete Poyt448 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
"Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
"Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
"Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
"Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)
Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ Talk! or DiannaaTALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! DiannaaTALK15:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you did a great job editing this article. Thanks again. It's got quite a few viewers, that's a surprise. I'm used to hardly anyone being interested in what I write about. (By the way, I'm trying to figure out how to do Wikipedia references better. It is not my strong point in Wikipedia).
Who can tell what the general public likes? Some things I like are ignored by almost everyone. And other things that I like are popular. Trying to comprehend the human mind and their likes and dislikes is quite a challenge. Soon I hope to drive up north to the sub-tropics and take more photos. My particular goal this time is sub tropical rainforest trees of the Big Scrub in northern NSW. I know where one of this Richmond Bird Wing Vine is growing. It's signposted in a reserve north of Lismore. regards, Pete Poyt448 (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed hard to think of a hook for Pseudoweinmannia lachnocarpa. However, it is a very impressive large jungle like tree with huge buttresses. Being a from the ancient Cunoniaceae family. When coming across such a huge tree in the rainforest, it's almost impossible to identify it unless there are fallen leaves nearby. By the way, that story of the orchid is fascinating. Banks would may have had no idea that it was growing off the east coast of Australia which he visited in 1770. Lady Emma's plant was from China. John Fothergill, Joseph Banks, and Lady Emma Tankerville plus Phaius tancarvilleae is good enough for a romantic novel. Change a few details, add some romance to it. Jane Austen missed out on that opportunity! Poyt448 (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On June 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eastern Great Egret, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Done. I realised we'd just never got round to finishing off all the IOC name conversions. I spent some time today doing all the Pachycephalidae and now all the fruit doves. I felt it better to complete and update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/IOC names. I need to go to bed now. I would be grateful if you did Cuckooshrikes overnight and doublechecked the IOC names, but if you don't I can do sometime tomorrow. It is 1 am and I have a cold. goodnight. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man. I was thinking today that all I really do is talk about collabs and that I should hurry up and just do one. I will have lots of free time from saturday the 3rd of july onwards. I was thinking a group of us - me, you, kahuroa and sabine's sunbird - could agree on a suitable time period and then start ripping into a couple of articles. I'm thinking Huia first because it is so close to FA already and then "Kiwi" - because it is so lacking presently and yet so important; I mean for crying out loud, it gets like 2k views a day. What do you think? when suits for you? and how do collabs work/is there anything I need to know? Cheers, Kotare (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Righto, so I visited the library yesterday and collected some more sources other than HANZAB and I have just finished a major expansion to Huia - I've increased the article in size by almost 50% (46,000 bytes up from 31,000) and I really can't see how it can be too far off FA now... check out my comments on the huia talk page (like I say, there's very little left to write about) - do you agree with the image ideas? Cheers, Kotare (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have attempted to address your concerns brought up at GA. I am unsure what to do with the prophylaxis section / prevention section. IMO prophylaxis should be part of prevention as the lay public considers gout only the acute episodes of inflammation and would see taking medication to decrease future attacks as prevention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On June 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tetratheca hirsuta, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On June 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tetratheca thymifolia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Ahh thanks for passing the article. I promise one day you will see the article at FA, like Madonna. Well, party time! Beers free for everyone --Legolas(talk2me)04:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Grey Currawong
No (good) photos yet, as the sun had gone down and it was pretty dark, but I think I've found a good place for them, so you might end up with your request being satisfied eventually :). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Cas...great turn-around time :) I kind of had a feeling that there were going to be comprehensiveness issues, but other than for horses, I'm a little out of my depth on biology articles. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for promoting the Long Jack. I photographed it yesterday. The main purpose of the trip north was to photograph Endiandra hayesii. However, it was not growing at Coffs Harbour Botanic Gardens, (apparently it died there). So I planned to walk down to the bottom of Minyon Falls and photograph it there. However, the rain was far too heavy. I hoped then to photograph the rainforest below Minyon Falls, but it was too foggy. I returned to the Botanic Gardens, and had access to Floyd's herbarium and took a photo of the dead leaves. Poyt448 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the Minyon Falls walk being quite muddy even in good weather, so yeah, would have been a problem in the rain..but very atmospheric. I just got a macro lens (yippee...insect pix soon :))))) Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a macro lens too... good luck getting the insects to stay still for ya! Maybe it'll be a FPC head-to-head in the final round of the WikiCup? :) Sasata (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might try my luck with some pictures of fossil rice rats at FPC—I got some nice ones, and I'm sure it'll be something new there. Ucucha16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly—interesting. At the end, it speaks about "a more humane attitude to the canine race" causing the decline of the sport; from the article, it would seem another race was in more need of such an attitude. It's just one of the blood sports, though, and probably not the most bizarre. Ucucha19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Cas: Wondering if I can get you to have a gander at the scientific name reference you seem to have lying about somewhere. I'm working on "Blue Mockingbird" and need a reference for Melanotis caerulescens. I think the genus means something like "Black-eared" in Greek (presumably a reference to its dark mask), but verification would be good! As for the specific name, I haven't a clue! Thanks, MeegsC | Talk21:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Casliber. I just wanted to touch base with you to let you know I have been working very hard on the Abyssal plain article. I knew this process would be difficult, which is why I was hoping to avoid it altogether. :) It has taken me 3 weeks and some 300 edits thus far since the GA nomination, which I suppose is a long time, but I feel the article is very close now, and possibly already there. I understand you are very busy, but I would appreciate it if you could give the article another look when you can find the time. Regards, DiverDave (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Phaius tancarvilleae
On June 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phaius tancarvilleae, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have located and added appropriate inline citations for both of the items in question, and accordingly removed the two {{citation needed}} tags. Thank you very much for passing the article. As my first time going through the GA review process, I consider this to be a very important achievement. I intend to do my best to improve the overall quality of Wikipedia and its articles to the best of my abilities. I would like to continue to improve this article (for example, I intend to rewrite the lead section), but am in need of a bit of guidance here. From GA, is the next step in the continuum to seek A-class approval? If so, then how do I go about this? DiverDave (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked you this before but I think it got lost in the flood of messages people leave on your page. Cordyline australis is pretty stable now and so I was wondering about taking it to FA. What do you think. The only thing that I hope doesn't happen is they say to chop it up into smaller articles. Kahuroa (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On June 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pteridium esculentum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
World cup until our dismal exit — your lot have much more to be proud of
Three-day trip to Madeira (a few island and Macronesian endemics plus seabirds - Zino's PetrelsFea's Petrels and Bulwer's Petrels). Great, included a night walk to the Zino's colony 1850 m up a mountain, and a night on Grande Deserta with Cory's Shearwaters, Bulwer's Petrels and Madeiran Storm-petrels calling and flying around our heads. We slept in a tent, but Cory's screaming within inches made sleep difficult.
Haha, the Socceroos were nicknamed the 'Shockeroos" after our 4-0 drubbing by Germany...worse than 4-12 ...and it is freezing here. all of 5 C in Sydney and no central heating.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber. I know you've helped out with this article in the past, but I really need someone to copy edit it and you come highly recommended. Do you think you have the time to ce it? I think everything is there in terms of content now, I've actioned most of the things that came up at FAC and everything that needs referencing is referenced (with the exception of the first paragraph of the ownership section). Cheers, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. :P I see you've already made a start thanks. I also meant to say if you have any more general comments, there is another peer review open, if you haven't already seen it. Tomlock01 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for FTC comment and support. I'll take you up on the FAC offer at some stage, but I can't do it now, or take a breather, because I'm in a race (: Jimfbleak - talk to me?17:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber! I've nominated that folkloric article for GA status some 20 days ago, but it seems that there is not too much activity at WP:GAN#MYTH. I think that you have some interest in such subjects, and I would very much appreciate if you reviewed the article. Of course, if you have time for that. Vladimir (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude.. I was just looking at the article for Billy Corgan while listening to the smashing pumpkins on my ipod and apparently he has struggled with OCD throughout his life - like a surprisingly large number of famous people, I thought there would be a list for this he was on but there isn't; I feel very strongly that wikipedia needs a list of well known people who have suffered from OCD - apart from anything else, this would do wonders for promoting awareness of this potentially miserable and crippling condition. You're a shrink (according to your userbox -and good one too I'd wager), you know how bad it can be and I see you did a lot of work on major depressive disorder.. what do you think? We could do a similar list for clinical depression..Kotare (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at that yet. The whole area of famous people with mental conditions is a dicey one to say the least. I am skeptical of many claims I have seen so caution is advised. Will take a look at what is around re OCD. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I should have known... I guess there isn't exactly the same plethora of resources for the health of celebrities as there is for information on NZ bird species :p Thanks for your feedback though, and for looking into it. I have lots of free time for the rest of this week so I have no excuse not to make a final push for Huia before we throw it into the snake pit! Cheers,Kotare (talk)
WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
Thanks for the welcome note. I'm still figuring my way around this place. Pretty overwhelming!
I do have a few articles I've been working on that I need help with, but haven't figured out how or with whom to collaborate...except for the "Throw it against the wall and see what sticks approach" (i.e. post it anyway and see if it reeks!!!???). Needless to say, I haven't posted these articles as they never seem to get past the "Work in Progress" stage. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
Also, I went to the Help page looking for any collaboration tips that might be offered, but nothing was found. I then clicked on The Wikipedia community link thinking that I would surely find something there. Tucked amidst all the other links was the Keeping informed section and underneath it Wikipedia:Community portal, but that too was pretty overwhelming. Anyway, as you scroll down, you finally get to a section on collaborations, but that too takes you in a million directions. Finally if you simply enter "collaboration" into the search box in Wikipedia, you are directed here: Collaboration — another dead end.
For those wanting to collaborate more effectively, perhaps a Collaboration or Collaboration Tips page could be created to help new contributors get oriented. Also I notice that the word "collaboration" itself, in Wikipedia, is virtually synonymous with "immensity" and "overwhelm" — given that its focus is a global community. Turning the word upside down and looking at it from the standpoint of the "New Wikipedian" trying to figure out the most effective way to interface with others in the community might make this section useful.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on helping new contributors get up to speed.
Thanks for the quick reply. Given your suggestion, I'm willing to step "to the plate" and start a collaboration page... if that's the most effective approach. To me it's a question of what works and what doesn't work. And given that I'm new here, your insights would be very useful.
Oddly, I'm no astrophysicist either. So I don't know if I qualify to manage a group on this topic. My background the last 30 years has been banking and finance — specifically launching new ventures. I just wanted to learn something about astronomy, starting reading articles, got hooked, and very quickly saw that articles could be radically improved with not too much effort.
Given my training, I tend to take a "bottom-up" versus "top-down" approach. So when I think of "collaboration", I think of 2-5 people max teaming up to achieve a specific objective. In this respect I could see dozens of small teams like this working on different goals. Whether that would work or not in the context of Wikipedia is another question. Your insights here, once again, would be valuable.
In my own case, where I saw that I could contribute was simply taking Stub-Class, Low or Mid-Importance articles and get them up to Start or even C or B Class. The recent article Pleione (star) is probably the best I've done. From there, I've gone on to create articles like Iota Herculis. Nothing major, right? I'm just "throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks". But here's the rub. I don't know if either of these contributions have any merit. So this is where the concept of "collaboration" comes into play for me. I would be good if I could simply "hand the ball off" to someone else and say "I've taken it as far as I can take it, what do you think?
Why I'm going into this level of detail is I looked at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy#Members section and I found it intimidating. There are 117 names on that list. As a manager, the first thing that pops into my head is "OK, so what? Who's in charge? Who's assigning what to whom? Who's taken on what assignments? What is expected of members? Is there a minimum level of contribution required? Can I post questions on their talk page and elicit their support? Is that not presumptuous? And who has time for this stuff anyway? Is there a "white flag" that Wikipedians can raise on their talk page that says "Hey, I'm busy this month, don't bug me"? ...etc. It's often been said that if everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. This is often the downside of "big teams", and so that's why I'm seeing perhaps a different module to get neophytes like me fully plugged in, making useful rather than superfluous contributions.
I did look at what you proposed above at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Collaboration. Not a bad idea, but it seems to have failed for lack of interest. I looked at Observing the Moon to see that it was originally flagged in 2008 for improvement from C to FA class. Result? It's still C-Class. That's scary! Maybe there are very few out there that actually want to collaborate. Or maybe it was a failure in how the project was originally designed. Is there by chance a Designing an Effective WikiProject page that takes the best from the best? I also looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force. Great idea! I might in fact join. What's missing for me here is focus and results — a section which basically reads: After 3 years, this is our conclusion. Follow this format: A, B, C, D... But I don't see that. Hmmm! Maybe Wikipedia works because it's so open-ended. People just do what they do when they do it. So once again, the underlying inquiry for me is simply "What works?".
In conclusion, if I were to be the catalyst for a new collaboration, it would be something like this. Let's take one constellation per month and get the 10 most important stars and other deep sky objects in that constellation up to C class or better. There's a lot of Stub-Class articles out there with few or no references. It's a bit of a "grunt job" frankly, but if you're working on a team, there's a sense of accomplishment, and clearly it raises the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Maybe there's an astrophysicist in the group that can guide the effort and from there, we hand the ball off to another team. I don't know. Does any of this make sense? Would it even work?
P.S. I did after all discover this page: Wikipedia:Collaborations It's sort of what I was looking for (though buried), but not quite. I think the page I'd ultimately like to see created is Help:Contents/Getting Plugged In. It encompasses collaboration, but has more to do with how you can most effectively contribute, collaboration being but a subset. Are you interested in helping me draft that page to submit for approval later on? I'm already getting ideas as to its design.
Okay I understand. I started off similar, by just editing and watching articles grow, then read somewhere about not contributing if you mind your contributions getting edited mercilessly by someone else. This got me wondering how to go from there a bit like you describe above. One of the reasons for 'declining' ratings is actually wholesale upscaling of the classes as wikipedia adopted inline referencing a couple of years ago. You can look in the history and compare an old version of those articles and see. Although pages list alot of editors, often only a handful are active. Luckily for me there have been a few folks interested in what I write about. Right now I generally concentrate editing on getting results - that is, editing to get to a stable point. My suggestions are (a) list Pleione (star) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations - have a look at the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and see if you feel it qualifies. Here you will get automatic feedback. Once it passes there, then have a look at WP:FAC. You will quickly find a group of interested editors helping out. This is a much better directed way of finding interested editors. I'll post a note at the astronomy wikiproject. I'd leave Help:Contents/Getting Plugged In until you get a feel for the best way of finding interested editors. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and focused feedback. "Finding interested editors"... Hmmm! That was the missing distinction! I will follow your suggestions and see where it leads. Also, thanks for your contributions in the Pleione (star) article. Sadalsuud (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I'll do that. Can you also say something more regarding the "wholesale upscaling of the classes" reducing the overall quality of Wikipedia? If I understand you correctly, it looks like my idea for a "collaboration" would have headed in this direction, and would have therefore been counterproductive. When I look at the Astronomy ratings section what I see are 19,238 stub articles and 3,040 start articles, the sum of which comes to roughly 97% of all the Astronomy articles written. I'm vaguely aware of the fact that Wikipedia is very interested in editors creating more quality content. What's the strategy to achieve that objective? Sadalsuud (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how much you don't know when you start asking questions, right? I'll take some time to read the DYK article. What I see, however with your discerning comments is that a focused and interested contributor can get "plugged in" pretty quick. This dialog has been very useful. Let's see what happens next?
DYK for gape
On July 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article gape, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black Currawong, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It was found two years ago, but published in Nature three days ago. It's the readers, not the professionals jumping in. Prolly the Jurassic Park set ;) No offense to the actual starter or others intended ;) *coughs*, Jack Merridew11:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Acronychia laevis
On July 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Acronychia laevis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, thanks for looking at this article on the Acronychia. Conditions for photography could not be better that day. It was interesting to see the flower & fruit on the tree at the same time. That entire section of the botanic gardens was replete with the scent of Mallotus claoxyloides. Some say it smells like a skunk, I reckon it's a wonderful scent. Yesterday I met up with "Black Diamond", the photographer. We'll be visiting the Woodford Tree in the Blue Mountains on Thursday, July 15th. Unfortunately, that's the only day he's free. You are welcome to come along if you have the spare time. Poyt448 (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Casliber#File:Amanita_ocreata_874.jpg){kind=link}