We had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apatosaurus#Comments a little discussion on the Apatosaurus talk page] about possibly changing the collab rules. Since only some things got done, FunkMonk suggested that the collab could be changed, so the article is ready when it reaches a specific goal, not just when a month passes. Since you're chief collab-er, I thought I'd bring the issue to you. [[User:Crimsonraptor|Crimsonraptor]] • [[User talk:Crimsonraptor|(Contact me)]] <small>[[Special:Contributions/Crimsonraptor|Dumpster dive if you must]]</small> 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
We had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apatosaurus#Comments a little discussion on the Apatosaurus talk page] about possibly changing the collab rules. Since only some things got done, FunkMonk suggested that the collab could be changed, so the article is ready when it reaches a specific goal, not just when a month passes. Since you're chief collab-er, I thought I'd bring the issue to you. [[User:Crimsonraptor|Crimsonraptor]] • [[User talk:Crimsonraptor|(Contact me)]] <small>[[Special:Contributions/Crimsonraptor|Dumpster dive if you must]]</small> 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
== Made me smile ==
Sorry, I don't know how to do diffs, but your comment on Boing!said Zebedee's rfa about how you are willing to help him right an article on spiders, made me smile. :)
Hi, I'm a newbie, and I thought a photo of what I was told to be Pleurotus nidiformis would be good to put into creative commons. (1) I have since discovered the page Omphalotus_nidiformis which reclassifies (?) Pleurotus to Omphalotus and (2) looking at the existing photo of Omphalotus nidiformis, it appears that my friend's S.E.Qld fungus is (a) not South Australian and (b) has a darker centre. Now I'm afraid of adding anything AT ALL since it may be struck down. What should I do, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacis alfredo (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your redirection. What happens, though to the photo, now? Lacis alfredo (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had planned expanding the article at some stage. If it is jammed in now it makes it look a little 'busy' Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:24, 27 September 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. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
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]
Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[2]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilio
FloraBase has an entry for this, but no other information.[2] Know anything about it? Hesperian 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I found it.[3]Hesperian 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and I see your name in the Acknowledgements too.... Hesperian 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you might want to have a look at this too. Hesperian 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banksia and climate change
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of [Banksia] species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The early morning sun hits the spires of Pura Besakih
DYK that the most important Hindu Temple in Bali has a single sentence of coverage? oldid :( Jack Merridew 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get 5 days, right? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
Oh crud, sorry Jack - Alastair's poem was very timely. Yes, 5 days it is. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ma'af lads, I'll be watching for black bamboo while I'm in Timor ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaaa. ok, that redlink will turn blue sometime soon....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that. There are some pics at Commons:Category:Pura Ulun Danu Batur and I have some, somewhere. It's quite picturesque and is shown prominently on things like Lonely Planet covers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.)
It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go.
As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction."
has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc.
As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato)
Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)
Arianewiki1 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I 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. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Interesting - Gah! Forgot to ring Alex - evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Special edition triple crown question
Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.
Here are discussions (one and two) about a special editiion triple crown for the WikiProject Video games. If this is something you don't handle or are too busy to handle, I more than understand. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25talk 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sounds fun. I should have some time free in a few hours. I ducked on now to make a statement quickly. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly my bedtime here, but tomorrow I'll take a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just browsing through old posts. I have an idea for this one now, just need some time...Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - makes for some dry reading. Hadn't realised it was 10 populations out of 27 which have become extinct since 1996.. :( Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PDFs sent... let me know if need anything else. Sasata (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paper
An interesting abstract: [4]. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've watchlisted the article. Waiting to see that link turn blue. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Just buffing sessilis now before I go to bed. It is shaping up nicely. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian 14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you recall seeing a source for its ability to recolonise disturbed areas? as nothing's turning up online...Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phew - you found something - what a relief and to think I have a copy as well :( SatuSuro 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." [my emphasis] Hesperian 13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I need to sleep now, but in the am...Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll lurk a bit and copyedit. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I've got you, I've just proofed Wikisource:Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/42, which has three Greek words with diacritics. I'm reasonably certain about two of them, but the middle one has that ~/^ problem that I seem to remember asking you about a long time ago. Could have have a quick look for me? Hesperian 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, should be a rounded circumflex thingy - I changed it. I really need to sleep now....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, thankyou, and goodnight! Hesperian 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More bedtime reading
[5]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cup
2010 Wikicup Semi-finalist
Awarded for progression into the 4th round (semi-finals) of the 2010 Wikicup
I noticed that you have Betelgeuse "on the radar". I’d be interested in taking the article to "FA status" with you. In reviewing it briefly, I notice that nomenclature is an issue. In fact, pursuant to your feedback on Talk:Pleione (star), I realized that nomenclature is an issue in the design of all star articles. So I decided to invest the time to fully research it. If you have a moment, I’d be interested in your reaction to the ideas put forth. And let me know when you’re ready to start with Betelgeuse. I’m ready when you are.
Sadalsuud (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I will tidy up a few things first and let you know when ready. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty psyched to work with you on this. So I already decided to do some cleanup. The Starbox really needed some work. So that's now all up to date with refs included. Also I created a personal sandbox and imported the latest version to completely redesign the article's structure. There is not one single word changed in the article itself — just moved a few blocks of text, added headings and sub-headings, and repositioned some pics. I think it works better. If you have a chance, take a look at the redesign and let me know if you think it works. You can find it at User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox.
Sorry to jump the gun on you. I won't do anything more on this until I hear from you. Sadalsuud (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool. I have the Richard Hinkley Allen book and the Kuntzisch book to get the etymology right - I also have a longer oxford dictionary (with magnifying glass). Will pull out books and go from there in the next 24-48 hours. Feel free to tweak and/or add any bits of text you can. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll update a few things, copy it over and post a short note on the talk page. I'm not sure about the sub-headings for Observational History, but that section was so big, it needed some structure to it. We can modify the sub-headings as we go along. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a few minutes spare now so was doing a bit of copyediting to make the lead a bit more snappy. I will look at all the etymology stuff tonight. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! I'm going to call it a night. Tomorrow, I'll look at expanding the Visibility section. I just cut and pasted the last two paragraphs from the former "Characteristics" section. It needs to be massaged a bit. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the existing "Visibility" and "Properties" sections to User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox and will focus on just that for the next 48 hours with the idea of transporting a coherent block of text back Betelgeuse in the next few days. Right now I'm doing a lot of reading. There's a lot of information on this star. So I'd like to give myself a couple of days to pull all the elements together. That way, I hope to have both these sections flow properly. Before I do this "block transport", I'll let you know, so you can offer any suggestions.Sadalsuud (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I am focussing on the etymology stuff at the moment. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to come up with two new sections that are ready for transport to the main article. You can review them here: at the "New Visibility Section". I put them in context, so you can see what the article looks like. As I indicated a few days ago, I won't make the transfer until you've had a chance to review first. Let me know what you think.
My main concern is the ESA copyrighted information at the bottom of the Visibility section. Let me know if that is handled appropriately. There is still much more work to do. I have quite a few more sections planned, but decided to at least get these two ready for prime time. If you think they work, I can copy them over later today. I await your thoughts.Sadalsuud (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great - I was just thinking something along these lines about how to find it and our theories on how far it is have evolved over the years. Stick it in and we can continue copyeidting from there. I am not sure which bit is copyrighted - can you highlight? Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the very last paragraph in the The enigma sub-section — right under the VLA satellite dish picture. I introduce the copyrighted info with these words: "According to the information provided on ESA's website...." Just click HERE! and you'll see it there in bold as well. What follows is almost verbatim (with a few tweeks), then as you'll notice there's the ref #36 which, if you click on it, takes you to the Reference section where you can click on the web-link called "Gaia overview", which of course takes you directly to the ESA source material.
I thought about simply paraphrasing the essence of the ESA information, that way avoiding any copyright infringement. But frankly, it was so well written and informative that I thought it would be a more honorable gesture to copy it verbatim and provide the reference.
What do you think? Should I rewrite this section "in my own words"?
Just so you have a little context, what I love about this sub-section "The enigma" is I noticed with every single article I read on the internet all these conflicting quotes on Betelgeuse. My first reaction was "That's bizarre! Everybody's got a different story to tell" It was at that point that I really saw an opportunity to do a great job and explain why all the information on Betelgeuse is so conflicted. The essence is that we still haven't quite figured out how far Betelgeuse is. So this section from ESA is a perfect conclusion to the section. The Enigma section starts with the distance estimate of 56 parsecs in 1920, does a fair job of explaining what has happened in the interim and then concludes with "What's next". So that's why I definitely want the ESA information in there. It pulls all the pieces together for the reader.
In any event, I'm glad you liked it. I'm pretty happy with it myself, although it would be great if we can get an astronomer like RJHall to make sure everything works. As I see it, I'm a pretty good "guinea pig" for this sort of thing, as I try to understand the subject form the layman's perspective. Having an astronomer looking over my shoulder wouldn't hurt.
One last thing. I got your note... All systems go... I'll be cutting and pasting into the main article shortly. As each new section matures, I'll let you know. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I too love actually spelling out who says what and why rather than just presenting facts as facts. There are similar issues in taxonomy, botany etc. and very often the answer is just not so clear cut. I will look at the copyrighted material in a minute. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Visibility sub-section
Hi Calisber. I've got a new section for you to look at. To be honest it's not quite finished. But given my commitment to have something ready within a day or two, I've produced a "condensed" version for prime time. There are two more additional paragraphs that I am still working on. I will try to include them soon.
Like last time, I have imported the most recent version of Betelgeuse into my User page so you can see the new section in context. It can be found by clicking: HERE!. That will take you to a new Visibility sub-section which I've entitled "Rhytmic dance" — an effective metaphor, I think, for the star's oscillating character. Consistent with comments made a few weeks ago at Talk:Pleione (star), I'm using standardized terminology for "major headings" and descriptive terminology for "sub-headings". I think it works. Let me know your thoughts.
If you wish to see the other sub-sections I'm working on, you can click: Here!. You will notice an extensive Contents Box and think I've possibly gone mad! No need for alarm however. I just found that I needed to bring some organization to the drafting of these sections, so I'm using the Contents Box as a kind of outline tool. That way, when I read an article, I have an idea where the new information fits, I can cut and paste for future editing, and then come back to it later. I hope you find this Contents Box helpful in understanding how I'm trying to tackle this project. If you have any idea as to how it can be improved, let me know.
The two additional paragraphs I'm working on for Rhythmic Dance you will find by clicking on the Rhythmic dance sub-section. I gave them an olive colored font, so they stand out.
The scope of this project has turned out to be far more than I ever imagined. There is so much information to absorb — kind of like putting together a giant jig-saw puzzle with 10,000 pieces. What I'm finding is you can't just work on one section at a time, as every piece is interconnected, and you need to have a sense as to where all the pieces fit. In any event, you'll see how each section is coming along. Some sections are more advanced than others.
I'm enjoying the challenge of it. I believe the goal of completing the different sub-sections by mid-August is still achievable. Let me know if you think the condensed version is ready to be transported over to the main article. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - so the version you want to import is the condensed one above the olive text? Looks good - I find it easier to work with when I see it in the article, so bring it in. I think the olive bit is worth bringing in sooner rather than later and working from there. The prose can probably be tightened a bit - that will be easier to acheive once read as a whole. My approach is generally get all the content in first, then do the copyedit. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just imported it and refined it further. Click HERE! for the latest. I actually included 4 out of the 6 paragraphs that I'm contemplating. The extra 2 paragraphs I will add in the next week or so as I gather more information. This first import holds together pretty well by itself, I think, and may not need the extra paragraphs. The extra information will simply discuss additional variability issues like periodicity. It's always a judgement call as to what constitutes "too much information". We'll see. What makes Betelgeuse so challenging is there is a lot of conflicting information out there — just like all the conflicting information I saw regarding distance. My intent is to at least cover the different findings and put them into perspective. Sadalsuud (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Importing chunks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8
Hi Calisber. When you have a chance, I've got a few new "chunks" for you to look at. Click HERE to see comments.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angular diameter/distance... whatever?
Hi Calisber. In notice you've been busy the last few days. When you have a moment and have been able to review the "chunks" enumerated above, your thoughts on what to do here would be really helpful. Click HERE to see comments. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Observations on Import #3
I finally got most of those "chucks" cleaned up over the weekend and, pursuant to your suggestions imported them into the main article. Also, I've posted some observations related thereto for your insight and comment. When you have a moment, click HERE to see comments. To see recent changes, simply go to the Betelgeuse article. I look forward to your thoughts and any ideas you have for GA review submission.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidering strategy
Hi Casliber. When you have a chance, I've posted some recent thoughts on the future direction of the Betelgeuse article, and would value your insights. Click HERE to see comments.----Sadalsuud (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
System launch + GAN?
Hi Casliber. The "Star system" section is close to complete. Just needs a few refs and xrefs, I think. Click HERE to review and post any comments or concerns. Thanks again for your focused attention. --Sadalsuud (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just completed the import if you'd like to make any changes. Click HERE to view.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angular rework
I've reworked the Angular anomalies section to create a more balanced argument. When you have a chance, please review HERE and let me know your thoughts.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is more sequential and hence clearer. I'd go with the rewrite. Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steps toward FA
I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. When you have a chance, your insights on a few other issues would be helpful. You can find them HERE.--24.203.198.172 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright?
Hi Casliber. Your suggestion to post a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy produced a very useful result but also triggered a copyright violation requiring some attention. Your insights as always would be valuable. You can see my comments by clicking HERE.----Sadalsuud (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Circumstellar Dynamics Done
Hi Casliber. I think this section is finally done. Though it's a bit of a rush job, I think it will stand up. Click HERE to see comments and get to the latest version in the sandbox. Thanks again for your on-going support of this project. I'm pooped! Fortunately, we're almost there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns at the crossroads
Getting close to the finish line. There are a couple of concerns, however. When you have a moment, can you review comments HERE? Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pleione GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to say that I've had to divert my attention to the Pleione article, as you probably guessed. I noticed your contributions, and in fact, provided some xrefs, which I believe are accurate. I hope to have all the GA improvements done by Saturday. If you have a chance to give it a quick lookover in a few days, that would be great. This weekend, I'll try to get the "Organizational history" section up to standard, get your thoughts, and then propose the article for GA review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm done for now with Pleione (star), at least until Modest Genius has a chance to review the latest revisions. Hopefully, it will pass the grade. If you'd like to take a last look, that would be great.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you noticed, but we got GA status on Pleione. Now I can come back to the Betelgeuse article in earnest. There's only a few minor edits needed after which I'll finally submit the article for GA review. The only missing element is a discussion of stellar mass. When mass was originally addressed back in July, I simply referenced Jim Kaler, though now I recognize the conversation to be more complex. Once addressed in earnest, it will clear up any confusion from the Fate section which quotes a different metric. Bottom line? Hope to get all this done in a few days and submit. Any last thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pretty busy IRL lately. I am more than happy to let you take the dirver's seat WRT mass as you have a handle on all the mass calculations - will try to follow with copyediting ideas and/or observations and boring format fixes. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. With the summer now behind us in Canada, I too have become very busy with work and other stuff. We'll at least get this to GA soon and then we can plan from there. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organizational history upgrade
I've now turned my attention back to Betelgeuse and decided to post a new section on the talk page Major surgery on Observational history section?. Given that this section was the focus of early contributions, I have intentionally avoided editing "other people's work", focusing as you know on adding new sections. But as I point out, the job needs to be done for various reasons and I thought it would be useful to put everyone on notice and invite comments. The last thing I want to do is create an edit war. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gotten started. Check out Herschel's discovery section for recent edits. As I point out on the Talk page, I'm trying to keep most of the early contributions while giving the whole section a "historical" focus. I think it works. Your insights however would be useful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally nominated for GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to let you know that Betelgeuse has finally been nominated for GA review. Updated observations HERE! Thanks again for your on-going participation in this process.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA corrections complete?
I noticed you were able to make a few corrections pursuant to the GA Review. The review was clearly quite favorable. I made a few other changes and responded. Let me know if you see anything missing. You can see my comments Here!. Thanks again. We're finally getting there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am, who watches TV on TV anymore[6]. Grandad. Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am buying a new desktop soon. I have one with a noisy fan which sounds like watching TV on a (noisy) aeroplane :( Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just go back from a weekend break with no innernet..now where was I.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American Alsatian Sourcing
Hello Casliber- You reviewed the American Alsatian a year back now for Good Article and since then there has been some new reliable sourcing added to the article. You mentioned at that time that if new reliable sources were included to let you know. The following sources have been added and/or improved:
Imam, Bassam. "Animalogy: Dogs and Other Canids". free e-books.com. Retrieved 2010-11-08.,
"American Alsatian: Appearance". Rightpet.com. July 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-08.,
Sicard, Gary (February 2008). "American Alsatian (Shepalute)". MolosserDogs. Retrieved 2009-06-08.
Thank you again for your help. Shepaluteprez (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see - will take a look when I can. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to help
at Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. There's a fairly divisive dispute there that has been going on for some time. I'm not sure I fully comprehend what's going on, but I've left my suggestions on talk. I really need to spend less time on wiki, and given how well Mad in America turned out NPOV-wise with your help, I trust you'd be able to improve this controversial article as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I haven't forgotten about the A. Halpern article, but I have not found the time to read enough about him to fix that article. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the production line/to-do list becomes unwieldy very quickly here. I had to really drag myself away a few weeks ago to make sure my tax got done...Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
What? What do you mean you didn't know about the robes? I thought the only reason anyone ever ran for such a thankless job was so that they could get a nice set of plush golden robes. "In it for the community" you say? Bah! The bling is where it's at. Even the Supreme Court can't top this swag. You could pawn this for a house! Why the heck else did you think that the foundation needed 20 million dollars?
So you're really serious about the whole "helping the community" and "for the good of the project" business? Aww, shucks. Go ahead and keep the robe anyways then. Do us proud.
Congratulations on your victory, may your tenure be peaceful and have a net low adverse interaction on your sanity. Sven ManguardWha? 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats - it looks like your approval numbers are almost in Joseph Stalin territory. MastCellTalk 01:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did the right thing standing down in the first place, but I'm glad to see you back now (especially since you were thumping me in the race). Congrats :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)
Yep, nice to see you back, congrats :) Black Kite (t)(c) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(shuffles feet. Looks abashedly at floor) aww gee thanks folks - am flattered by the kind notes :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me too, I'm looking forward to working with you again. Email en route. :-) Risker (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS- Archive time! Risker (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Félicitations ! Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pros: content-oriented all-around good guy on Arbcom. Cons: less featured articles. :-) Many congratulations! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 10:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. You were a standout candidate and I'm happy to see it reflected in the vote totals. Best wishes, Jusdafax 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. Or condolences. Whatever's appropriate. Good luck! Our gain, your hard work at a thankless task. :) Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my voice to the chorus -- congratulations.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you back on the Committee, Cas. You bring a breadth of scientific knowledge and psychological experience to deliberations that is valuable, plus plenty of experience in content contributions. Congratulations on your re-election. EdChem (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats from me as well Secretaccount 19:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll try and leave comments today (I might not have time to read the entire thing thoroughly until later this week... it's the end of the academic semester over here and I've got loads of student work to process.) Figures that as soon as Tony mentions dinosaurs in my bio, I get picked :) ... be nice to work on a dinosaur article after slogging through films. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how you requested the lockdown... (smile)
I've assessed the whole thing and have some conclusions at Talk:Brumby. I'm sure the other side will insist on the opposite position. But I've put in the time to actually read it all and put in some hours to find some new stuff, with a proposed solution for how to restore the previous status quo. Appreciate your thoughts, even if you don't reach the same conclusions I do. Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) a bit like middle eastern and other debates, this is a vexed issue. I'll take a look soon. It's saturday here and thankfully cool (and not humid and sticky) so am trying to get some outdoor chores done....Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. One of your TPS-ers weighed in with some thoughtful comments and I added a reply there outlining my own concerns. To me, I guess my concern is to not have a one-sided presentation, but to get there may require some synthesis, as the point-on study hasn't yet appeared. Also would prefer not to have about three hours of my work go down a rathole. (that the person who put the material in there in the first place didn't do, Cg's my bud, but grrr and a trout slap on that one.) When you get a chance, your thoughts will carry considerable weight. Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I left that benighted WikiProject. Every Desa is inherently notable. The fucking Americans practically have articles for their named driveways. Sheesh, Jack Merridew 08:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A. obovatus
I've finished going through the thesis, and reckon I've found every mention of A. obovatus. Other than a note on the talk page, which I hope to get to tomorrow, I reckon the writing phase is complete, and it just needs a bit of polish. Hesperian 05:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and some more photos. Hesperian 05:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Casliber, I don't know whether you remember me, but you had commented at my FAC nomination of Madonna. The article passed, thanks. I am planning to nominate the above article for FAC, was wondering what do you think of the chances of the article passing? — Legolas(talk2me) 11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First glance says comprehensiveness is okay - I'll copyedit as I go and raise any queries. Good song BTW. :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Casliber. You know the funny thing is that this one needs to pass FA somehow, otherwise there's some kind of immense pressure on the recent most song FA "4 Minutes". — Legolas(talk2me) 14:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schizophrenia
I understand that you are a psychiatrist, and thus see things from a psychiatric viewpoint. However, I have a degree in neuroscience, and thus I see things from a neurological viewpoint. I think that to describe schizophrenia as primarily one or the other is unnecessarily limiting, not to mention potentially misleading. Basket of Puppies 04:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schizophrenia
I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies 23:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting
Ealdgyth suggested I contact you about possibly looking over Rutherford B. Hayes, which is currently at FAC. I've greatly expanded it, but there are still some concerns about the prose. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any suggestions you have. Thanks very much, Coemgenus 14:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
will get to it in the next few hours hopefully...Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted me to alert you if you hadn't returned to this article in a week. --Coemgenus 12:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TPP
Hi Casliber - as you might have noticed on WT:MED I'm starting to worry about my FAC for thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. I've had very limited response from the WikiProject so far. Your input in the FAC would be mightily appreciated. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi Casliber! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
Made the proper changes. Shall I go ahead and give it the GA label? LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who makes the call (as the reviewer) - strictly speaking we need a few refs for the giraffe mascots etc. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a reference for Geoffrey the Giraffe being a Toys "R" Us mascot and such. LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're proabably right. Give me a minute. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The refs have been filled out expect for the papers not accessable online. It should be ready to go. LittleJerry (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup multipliers
Hey Cas. Seeing as you've been one of the people who's really led the multipliers discussion, could you take a look at this? It's perhaps not as revolutionary as it could have been, but it seems, to me, to be a fair conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your call at the AFD was 100% right on. Sometimes preconception and attitude get in the way of proper research or any willingness on the part of a nominator to actually address fixable issues. All we can do in such cases is to do what such nominators choose not to... and fix the fixable ourselves. What was understandably sent to AFD originally as nothing but an unsourced and bloated plotline,[7] has, with a little work, now become a properly encyclopedic article... cleaned up, wikified, and now well and propely sourced.[8] Could you check to see if I left any typos over at Blue's Big Musical Movie? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Highlights
Membership grows to 503 editors
2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives
Happy New Year to all folks reading this page....I was going to spam a few folks but thought, fuck it, they might have my page on my watchlist anyways...so happy new year y'all and may your 2011 be better than 2010 worked out for you (and me too). Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, just been driving 'round looking at fireworks. Knackered now. 1.30 am Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year and greetings from 2010! Ucucha 14:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx...and now I must go sleep (although it is still so hot and humid here...) ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Many thanks for the speedy response. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for info about the page Wikipedia:Clean start. I will remember to add a link to it if I'm ever curious enough to query a new user such as the now-blocked one on whose talk page we recently met. In general I try to maintain civility, not violate WP:KETTLE and abide by WP:DBQ but sometimes things are odd here and there on Wikipedia and my curiosity gets the best of me. Trilobitealive (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nice to recall those links. I was only made aware of it recently myself. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Casliber, remember you promoted the above article to GA, thanks for that. However, like Madonna, you felt that the article suffered from proseline effect. Will you take a look at the present condition of the article and comment on how the prose has shaped up? I have done numerous copyedits on it. :( — Legolas(talk2me) 04:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And good luck on the Wikicup. I have nominated myself for this year, hope I don't suck outright. :( — Legolas(talk2me) 15:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gaga prose looks not too bad actually, I am not finding much to correct...Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nilson, Sven; Persson, Olle (1977). Fungi of Northern Europe 2: Gill-Fungi. Penguin. p. 74. ISBN0-14-063006-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
gives derivation of "Psilocybe" - "naked" and "head".
And my trusty lexicon has ψιλος "bare" or "naked" on page 797, and I can't figure out where "kube/cybe" comes from as it isn't where I can see it (???)
Thanks for checking; if I can't verify the Greek spelling or origin of head I'll leave it out of the article, but in the meatime I left a note with Nishidani, who helped us with etymology on the Boletus edulis article last year. Sasata (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried "kybe"? Some source relate it to a verb "kybernan", "steer a ship" (the root of "govern" and "cybernetics"), but without giving more details on "kybe" itself. Maybe that could be a starting point? Circéus (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing under anything with a kappa and upsilon. I did scan gamma/upsilon combinations briefly but nothing stuck out at me. Funny as "cybe" = "head" is all over mushroom taxonomy (clitocybe, inocybe etc.) Now my curiosity is piqued...Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under "psilocybin", the online OED goes: "Byzantine Greek κύβη head, of unknown origin", and "Greek κυβερνᾶν to steer" under "govern". The fact it's not typical classical Greek is probably the source of the problems? Circéus (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also has "Greek κύβη head" under "Clitocybe". I guess κύβη must be related to caput in Latin and Germanic head/Haupt/hoofd. Ucucha 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, a search combining "κύβη" and "κεφαλή" (the usual Classical Greek form) reveal quite a few lnks, but I am thoroughly incapable of understanding them. Circéus (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the byzantine is the key (i.e. several hundred years after the preiod my lexicon most fits - I wonder if there is much in Fries original work). Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea with the OED, I forgot I had access. I've cited to the entry for psilocybin. Sasata (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have class for the next three hours, so a reply would take a while, as you noticed same email so. I also emailed NYB and Elen. Thanks Ibluffsocall (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen gave me rollback, can you give me everything else? Thanks Ibluffsocall (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slower G10 deletions?
In the spirit of doing what I do more efficiently and more collegiately, I've made a suggestion here. Your thoughts would be appreciated.--Scott Mac 14:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smiley
Thanks :-) Guy (Help!) 22:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
something about the non-sequitur/apropos-of-nothing blandness of it all that I found funny. Brenneman did likewise. I don't think he's noticed. heh. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heey!
Hey Cas! I'm so glad you're still around dude. And thank you so much for keeping up the drive at the collab! It's quite funny that its been inactive for ages and then the same minute we happen to have an edit conflict a month later! ; )
So what have you been up to? I'm thinking of joining back up but I don't know where to begin. I've just been looking over some of the archives at the Dino project and realizing what a dickhead I was when I was younger and posting. I guess I've matured a lot since then, but I'm still embarrassed by my conduct looking back on it now lol! We really should get around to doing some of those collaborations we talked about. I'm mainly gonna be doing photography articles when I get back, but I'm still very keen to help out wherever I can.
Gosh, it's late where you are. I've been doing more birds, banksias, mushrooms etc. but I am still interested in dinos. I was just looking at the activity of all the collaborations I have been involved in. The wikicup is fun too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, only midnight. Wikicup? What's that? Spawn Man (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gawd, where you been? --> HERE. you can still join, first few rounds are very easy. NB: FA is so thorough that GA is a very good stepping stone these days...Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I imagined FAC's would be harder to pass nowadays. I mean from the time I got Dinosaur to FA (and admittedly it was pretty bad even when it got Featured) to even a year later it was like a different process. So after like 2 years? I can imagine lol. I'll pass on the Wikicup though lol. I don't think I know enough about enough subjects to write 100s of FAs in a year lol. Spawn Man (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, mate!
Crossposting. I kept wondering if I had another remonstrative note from some admin as I was editing Sasata's page, and was relieved to see, once I'd posted my point, to see it was, serendipitously, from yourself, and raised exactly the issue now bugging me, which I outlined there.
Cheers Cas. I'll'be reconnected to the real world, i.e., my library, in mid late February, and if senescence has me forget obligationbs, wake me up about this or Betelgeuse and I'll get on to them. I definitely have a book in which there is a long list of dialect words in Japanese for star names.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. I'd think of some witty japanese saying but I know none, and am too tired to think of a nifty haiku...Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other day I was at the Botanic Gardens at Farm Cove. And I didn't photograph Xanthorrhoea media. The photo on the recent article Xanthorrhoea media could be anything. Probably media, but don't bet on it. Where I live are remnant Xanthorrhoea arborea, which I recently photographed. I'll have to return to the botanic gardens, and photograph a real X. media. This group of plants is difficult with identification. cheers Poyt448 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject United States Barnstar of National Merit
The WikiProject United States Barnstar of National Merit
For all your hard work and ongoing efforts in restarting the U.S. Wikipedians' Collaboration of the month which will have a long lasting effect on improving articles relating to United States topics and your willingness to help out whenever I have asked I present you with The WikiProject United States Barnstar of National Merit.--Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - it was a fascinating read. Keep 'em coming. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xerochrysum
That article brings up a general writing issue I'd like to discuss at some point. It involves almost all the FA banksias, so you'll probably want to beat me when I'm done explaining. Gotta run for now though. Remind me about it tomorrow? I should have the time to organise my thoughts then. Circéus (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(gulp) something tells me I'm not gonna like this :( Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said to remind me about this! Ahem, anyway, my comment applies particularly to the group concerned (Proteaceae and Xerochrysum), since generally larger-flowered species do not quite have that problem. It comes down to the fact that the florest of Xerochrysum bracteatum are left totally undescribed, which I am sorry to say, I feel to be quite inappropriate. Similar issues occur in most Banksia and Adenanthos articles. If I were handed an individual flower from a random Banksia species, I would be incapable of narrowing it down on any other basis than color! In fact, the genus article itself fail to give any information on the number of stamens. I think Sasata's mushroom articles have amply demonstrated that small-element morphology or anatomy should still be included, even if they seem of only limited relevance to casual identification (why they can still be: an important criteria for a long time in Banksia was style shape, IIRC). Regarding the Xerochrysum bracteatum article itself, I'd say a picture of a wild representative is really needed. The description should probably be augmented. The problem in this case (Xerochrysum, I can't tell re: Banksias) seems to be the primary source here was a cultivation-centric book whose description was not technical enough (whereas I prefer specifically to work with very technical descriptions from floras and revisions).
I hope I expresses my concern in a sensical way. It comes down to a similar issue to what I said at WT:PLANTS: in my opinion, fairly little information should be considered to "trickle down" from genera and family articles to species, because they are not in fact subarticles, so we can't write them with the hierarchical style of the Jepson manual, relegating more general stuff to higher taxa. Circéus (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all that. I do have some general information on banksia flowers, and will figure out how to add a succinct line or two. Alternate view is that folks have been stung at GAN and FAC for too much general information. I am not familiar with daisy structures really and agree about the book, as well as finding some photos of the flowers in the wild. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote, do you have access to Families and Genera of Vascular Plants? If it's any helpful for ya, I can get the Proteales-related content from volume 7 in pdf format. These books are full of great refs, and it's still pretty recent (2007). Circéus (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. I am not hugely good on the technical side of things with angiosperms...Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed them earlier. Circéus (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also my bad, that should have been volume 10, not vlume 7. See here for bibliographic data. Circéus (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, Malleus has had bad experiences at FAR so doesn't go there, but I begged him to do a copyedit there, and he's done a ton of work so far. Would you be able to take a look at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Begging? Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my free time has been more erratic in supply recently plus some unexpectedly lousy internet access :/ Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...for the indef semi-protection at Harry Potter (film series) which I have kept an eye on for some time. I truly appreciate your action! Jusdafax 13:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Irwin
Hi. Just in case this article fell off your radar, I just wanted to be sure you knew that I did a bunch of work on it last week. Whenever you have time to take another look.... Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how do i do this?
I just keep getting passed from page to page and can't do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenova20 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this lingering near the bottom of the FARC list - is there any work you still need to finish on this article, in order to keep it listed? Is there anything I can do to help? UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3 prose + ref issues - may be more. Listed there. All help appreciated - especially hunting out authors' first names for completeness of reffing. thx :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-tailed Finch ? DYK
I have expanded the Long-tailed Finch article with brief details mainly about the beak colour that have been corroborated on the bird talk page and I used an old second hand book as the reference. Just to let you know that perhaps the stub on this Australian finch probably could be made into a DYK. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - 5x expansions are generally easy targets. The hardest task I find for most is to find an interesting hook. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Juveniles have black beaks see Birds 1064 and 1065 (I have not got a ref for that). Snowman (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know - the book didn't mention that but it was a brief guide. I'll check around. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
help!
Cas, I need to delete the 2nd instance of the image of John Seery's, 'East' from the Color Field article. The article is in lock down from us due to edit warring (yah really on ColorField!) but can you do the honours pls. Its non contraversal, its in their twice, this wont mire you in an arbcom for 6 monyhs or anything. The 2nd pic is under the Color Field movement subheading. In return I offer you this...NOTHING. (Except, eh, this.[9] which is great) Ceoil 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done. nice song...in an indy sorta way. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fix. Indie rocks. Ceoil 06:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'd like to include the article selected as the WikiProject US Collaboration of the Month as a News Sidebar item in this Monday's issue of the WikiProject Report. There appears to be a clear front-runner, but I'd prefer to wait until the project makes an official decision. Please let me know as soon as you guys determine the COTM. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. It's only 48 hours away anyway. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your recent contributions at DYK and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, meant to - my off-wiki plate's a bit full but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WPUS
As I read you helpful comments on WT:WPUS, you favor a project scope that is limited to US articles with national or regional significance. Some people thought that the "Modest" proposal was limited to that and would therefore delete the sentence "The project generally considers any article related to the United States of America to be within its direct scope. I asked Tom to clarify this, and he first said that he thought that this sentence should be deleted. When I repeated his statement later in the discussion, he said that deleting the sentence was not a part of his proposal. Could you please visit the talk page in the next 18 hours to make clear whether you favor or disfavor deleting this sentence, and also comment on your other suggestions (change "unify and coordinate" to "coordinate" and add " "There are also active state-specific wikiprojects where more local material may be discussed") Tom is taking the view that unless people repeat their suggestions within this time window, he is free to count their silence as support for his text. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey- another user brought to my attention your FA credit, and I am afraid I have removed it, as the article was nominated last year. Sorry. I think a discussion needs to be had about this for next year, as this has caused a little heartache- of course, it's not a problem for future rounds, as articles need to have been nominated this year, not this round. I hope you understand. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I've got plenty more in the pipeline ;) Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox image of stork standing in front of nest
Re: File:Ciconia ciconia (aka).jpg. It is not particularly clear, but the stork might be wing clipped or as you say in the edit summary "a little ruffled though". Another user also wondered about its feathers and made a comment on my talk page (see this archived edit) after I replaced that suspect image with another. With this in mind, do you think this image is the best one for the infobox image? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was a little bold in changing it - I have opened up a discussion on the talk page, so we can have a think about it. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cute..the wonderful classification that humbly is described as "research" but is used as canon... Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I have translated Australian magpie in French (see fr: Cassican flûteur but someone asked me if the text
Another popular way to deter these birds is to put two fingers pointing out from the back of the head when walking in close range; this confuses them. is a joke or not and if you had a reference.
Thanks
Hmmm, wasn't there when featured, and I've never heard it, so sentence can be safely removed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed in French too. I saw there were many moovies of swooping on You Tube and it is very fun. Can you have one for Wikipedia? Thanks Berichard (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about copyright release from youtube. this is a great one. My grandmother used to feed them. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: Zduhać
Yea, no problem, I'll look it over. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, are you around for a quick IRC chat or gmail chat? I am feeling quite stupid about that first paragraph, and I think if I could ask a couple of questions and get quick answers I would be able to make a sensible comment at the FAC. Let me know -- I'll be around for another twenty or thirty minutes, most likely. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, maybe. Just email and I will reply pronto. Got alot going on. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; Ucucha is being very helpful at the FAC and I think I am getting it. Will try to post a suggested clarification in a bit. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the talk page and will comment there. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Readabilityz: I must has them
Hey mate! My recent attempt at bringing CSI effect through FAC was unsuccessful (though it did improve the article greatly). The closing delegate indicated that the article would greatly benefit from a copyedit by an uninvolved editor. If you're not too busy, would you mind helping me out? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ug, I saw a note on this somewhere and was intending to take a look but looks like it got closed before I got there. My free time has been torpedoed in the past two days but will try to have a look-over soon. Remind me if I haven't edited it within 48 hours. Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your article
Casliber,
Thank you for your article, monotypic. I edit and write some animal articles and I like this article of yours. I have linked it to several hundred others. Bruinfan12 (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I just linked to it...cool/thanks. Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Long-tailed Finch
On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Long-tailed Finch, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a male Long-tailed Finch(pictured) is unable to tell the sex of an unfamiliar Long-tailed Finch on sight alone? 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 note you've helped in getting this off the ground. Any ideas how to get the table of articles in the Assessment section up and running on the project page? Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! I've managed to work out how to do it myself. Mjroots (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four Awards
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Entoloma sinuatum.
Hello Casliber, there are a couple of "missing permission" on Commons that are about to be deleted, although it would make me cry, i.e. this: File:Southern Emu Wren 2278b.JPG. Would you please check your images and clarify the problems over there? Thanks! --elya (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Essex Barnstar
The Essex Barnstar
I hereby award you this WikiProject Essex Barnstar for your tireless contributions getting the project off of the ground. Thomas888b (Say Hi) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to do the thumbnailing if I had an example of the typical presentation - do you happen to know of any pages (Talk or otherwise) with a similar debate that I could use as a proto-template? Badger Drink (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think about something along the lines of Talk:White Stork. (i.e. a gallery with prospective candidate images) NB: Vote for that taxobox image while you're there.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - though while I was commenting on White Storks it seems John beat me to Stonehenge. Badger Drink (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
heh cool...oh wait, now that makes it even :( Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology
Re κύβη, I recall noting that the late evidence in the Etymologicum Magnum glosses the very rare κύβη with κεφαλή (head), and that is what you guys found for psilocybe. It turns out that your guess that there might be a connection to cube (κύβος) is a very clever one indeed. Hjalmar Frisk, in his Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, hazarded the surmise that the Homeric κυβιστάω (kubistáō, generally explained as 'tumble'/ein Rad schlagen, sich überschlagen, sich herumtummeln) (Iliad Bks. 16.745, 749; 21.354), rather than coming from κύβη =κεφαλή, as had long been proposed since the days of George Curtius and August Fick, might perhaps be derived from κύβος, where however kubos has the primary sense of 'die/dice'. This would mean that the root force of the Homeric verb would be something like 'roll like a die' (angular movement given the nature of cubes. 'Anstatt an das schlecht bezeugte κύβη mit einem hypothetischen nördlichen Ursprung anzuknüpfen, ist zu erwägen, ob das Wort nicht vielmehr zu κύβος `Würfel' gehört: κυβιστάω eig. "wie ein Würfel herumrollen" ? Band 2,38-39). This is regarded as 'not impossible' by Chantraine in his Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Vol.1 p.594)
Suffering from ueberfatigue after too much travelling but will get back to you on Japanese words for Betelgeuse in the next few days, as promised. Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sent. let me know if they get there ok. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got 'em, thanks! Sasata (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coanda arb request
Just wanted to remind you that WP:THIRD only applies when there are two people in a dispute.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in seeing this article promoted as the collaboration of the month. A collaborative project only works if interested people show up and help out. To help, please look over the article, and either make improvements or leave a note on the article's talk page about what you think should be done. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help
Hello again, can you help me make a phylogenetic tree? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I just found out the phylogeny of the Dusky Dolphin is more complicated than I realized. LittleJerry (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm expanding Sirius article in Spanish, so one of the things I'm doing is translating your article. In "Visibility" section, I have a doubt, in this sentence: "Due to its declination of roughly −17°,[2] Sirius is a circumpolar star from latitudes south of 73° S." Dou you really mean "south of 73º S" or was it an unnoticed mistake and should say "north of 73ºS"? Please answer me here if it is possible, even in English. Thank you very much, and congratulations for the article, Kadellar (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you very much for answering so quickly. You must not thank me for translating, it's me who has to thank you for writing a great article. I intend to make Sirius a FA in Spanish, if I get that, I'll tell you. Best regards, Kadellar (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) PS: By the way, I've seen you've done some team work to write a great article about Betelgeuse. Maybe I could work on that in the future. ;)[reply]
A father-date-raping girl needs help from a badass scientist
Can you find original naming papers for insects named myrrha?
There a slew of butterflies. Often from different namers. TCO (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recent protection of Code Geass
I am wondering why you used both semi (diff) and pending changes (diff) protection to Code Geass? Would not semi-protection make pending changes redundant? Please leave a {{Talkback}} on my talk page if you reply. – Allen4names 19:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh. yes. Oops. missed that. Well, pending changes can be dropped then. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parkinson's disease
Hi... How are things going? You made a few comments on the Parkinson's disease FAC. I tried to address your comments with best or worst luck. It would be great if you could give your opinion on them, make further comments and/or say if you believe that the article fullfills the FA criteria. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had a little discussion on the Apatosaurus talk page about possibly changing the collab rules. Since only some things got done, FunkMonk suggested that the collab could be changed, so the article is ready when it reaches a specific goal, not just when a month passes. Since you're chief collab-er, I thought I'd bring the issue to you. Crimsonraptor • (Contact me)Dumpster dive if you must 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made me smile
Sorry, I don't know how to do diffs, but your comment on Boing!said Zebedee's rfa about how you are willing to help him right an article on spiders, made me smile. :)
.jpg){kind=link}
