User talk:Casliber: Difference between revisions
DYKUpdateBot (talk | contribs) Giving DYK credit for Ambassis jacksoniensis on behalf of Crisco 1492 |
→Fuck Lukashenko.: new section |
||
Line 972: | Line 972: | ||
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#6 May 2015|6 May 2015]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Ambassis jacksoniensis]]''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the '''[[Ambassis jacksoniensis|Port Jackson glassfish]]''' gets its [[common name]] from its transparent body?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[]].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Ambassis jacksoniensis|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ambassis jacksoniensis]].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Ambassis jacksoniensis|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template talk:Did you know/Ambassis jacksoniensis]].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/index.php?page=Ambassis_jacksoniensis&datefrom=2015-05-01&dateto=2015-05-31 live views], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201505/Ambassis_jacksoniensis daily totals])</small>, and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]]. |
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#6 May 2015|6 May 2015]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Ambassis jacksoniensis]]''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the '''[[Ambassis jacksoniensis|Port Jackson glassfish]]''' gets its [[common name]] from its transparent body?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[]].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Ambassis jacksoniensis|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ambassis jacksoniensis]].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Ambassis jacksoniensis|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template talk:Did you know/Ambassis jacksoniensis]].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/index.php?page=Ambassis_jacksoniensis&datefrom=2015-05-01&dateto=2015-05-31 live views], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201505/Ambassis_jacksoniensis daily totals])</small>, and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]]. |
||
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 08:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 08:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Fuck Lukashenko. == |
|||
I think you'll agree, seeing as you use the white-red-white flag. [[Special:Contributions/178.120.183.77|178.120.183.77]] ([[User talk:178.120.183.77|talk]]) 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:03, 6 May 2015
Nomenclature of fungiHey 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)
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1]
References
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."
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France) The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) References
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)
Bract patternYou know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral." I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry. I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on? (I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.) Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
QuestionI note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise.... What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something? Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
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:
Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Parrot stuffdoi: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)
Banksia menziesii with persistent floretsWhile 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)
Banksiamyces againI 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)
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)
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)
Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
More bedtime reading[2]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 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)
FigsOkay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you). One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim
You'll probably find this worth watching[3] He's a pretty good speaker. I created a stub about the book, which is probably worth getting to DYK, although I'm not sure I have the time to expand it enough this weekend. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
FYIAll of the following species are worth 2x points; let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating in one or more for bonus points in a later round. Sasata (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha - thank heavens for European mushrooms :))) - yeah, I'd like to buff Clitocybe nuda (which was one of the yummiest mushrooms I've eaten), and we really should be improving the other mass-eaten edibles. Also I buffed the sickener for DYK so would be good to finish the job....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Constellation task force assessmentCertainly Assessment boxes like the one for the cardiology task force are made by User:WP 1.0 bot. Just post to talk there and it can make your box easily. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have this book?Shepherd CJ, Totterdell CJ. 1988. Mushrooms and Toadstools of Australia. Melbourne: Inkata Press. Would appreciate you checking something for me if you do. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Aboriginal AstronomyHi Casliber - thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm Have fun! RayNorris (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Gene migration research, India --> AustraliaThis http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569688-genetic-evidence-suggests-four-millennia-ago-group-adventurous-indians points to a gene study you may be interested in.... Likely people from the Indian sub-continent mixed with Australian aboriginies 4xxxx years ago. An maybe brought dingos. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Could use some work if you're interested. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Orange-bellied ParrotNeophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Wikipedia entry become more obvious. The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010. This is not acceptable. I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given - since 1980 or so - and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen. What do others think? The Wikipedia entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry. Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Obsolete ConstellationsI just found an amazing source for articles on them: John Hill's Urania Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
got any advice for writing a constellation FA?Thinking of diversifying and trying Corona B. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Carcinoma in situThe carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the first one or something like it - will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Melaleuca wilsonii at DYKHi Casliber -- I've reviewed the above article and there are a few problems that need sorting out. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Casliber do you have a minute--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
ThanksComing from someone who I've respected enormously for quite some time, this comment is very high praise indeed. Thankyou! Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC).
Just in case you missed them: I posted a few more comments/suggestions at Talk:Corona Borealis a few days ago. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Help please - Melaleuca uncinataHello Cas, I know you are busy but I do not know how else to deal with this. I am beavering away writing Melaleuca articles and last week spent a few hours editing Melaleuca uncinata, removing some unreferenced material and giving my reasons for doing so on Talk:Melaleuca_uncinata. Within a few hours, some of the carefully referenced material I had added was removed and the advertising and unreferenced material (advertising?) replaced by User talk:202.58.192.82. (I also wrote a note to the original author User talk:122.151.60.85 when I should have written it to the one who removed my edits). I added "citation needed" tags to the offending paragraphs but they have also been removed and the material referenced to an advertising site - "Davey Brushwood Fencing". I have lots of articles I want to write and I'm happy to let sleeping dogs lie if you think that's best, but at the same time I don't think Wikipedia should be used to add links to advertising sites. Your advice would be much appreciated. ("G" for Geoff.) Gderrin (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your edits to this article Cas. I am surprised that you left the link to the advertising page (daveybrushwood.com.au) but I value your judgement highly. I hope your edits don't get removed like mine were. Thanks also for your DYK nominations. My beavering rewarded! All the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC) DYK for Calectasia grandiflora
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2015)
anatomyczarThanks for the response. I do think I know how to edit specific pages. It some of the other stuff that seems very confusing especially project pages and templates. But I think I made progress today. I did find a page that lists all the anatomy articles that need help - so at least I know where to begin. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Arbitration Case OpenedYou were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Reference Errors on 23 MarchHello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC) DYK for Patersonia sericea
Rrring rrring
No longer a partyHi Casliber, you have been removed from the Collect and others arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs, and you will no longer receive notifications about this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Grevillea juniperinaHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grevillea juniperina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Grevillea juniperinaThe article Grevillea juniperina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grevillea juniperina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Precious againwildflowers and birds Thank you for the rare wild life you cover, making this project more beautiful and showing that protection of precious lfe is needed. You won my heart placing daisies on the Main page, - my favourite flowers! Did you know that the section of treasured entries on my talk is titled Flowers? Did you know that several birds were recently translated to Swedish, including the Blue-winged Pitta and the last finch? - Repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 December 2008, 30 April 2009, 19 February 2012)! Three years ago, you were the 75th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, and thinking of that continued stability for the protection of precious life helps fighting sadness, - thank you! Between two birds as TFA in fast succession, look for a third, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Johnsonia pubescens
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2015)
DYK for Pseudomugil gertrudae
Today's articles for improvement
Talk backHello, Casliber. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. DYK nomination of Melaleuca trichophyllaHello! Your submission of Melaleuca trichophylla at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC) DYK nomination of Corona Borealis SuperclusterHello! Your submission of Corona Borealis Supercluster at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Your GA nomination of MicroscopiumHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Microscopium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Your GA nomination of MicroscopiumThe article Microscopium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Microscopium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC) DYK nomination of Calectasia cyaneaHello! Your submission of Calectasia cyanea at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Today's articles for improvement
DYK for Melaleuca trichophylla
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2015)
Your DYK nomination of Culex annulirostrisHi, as you probably know, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 225, excluding "(pictured)" which doesn't count. The hook will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Happy Easter!Thank You /DYK Dyslexiathat is very kind of you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Smooth toadfish
DYK for Calectasia cyanea
American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soonAs a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC). Today's articles for improvement
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2015)
Links to Google booksI was of the impression that page links to Google Books (as in Butis humeralis) are discouraged, however that is apparently not the case as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking to Google Books pages. Apologies :) --Elmidae (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
InvitationEvidence closedThe evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Myriophyllum variifolium DYK nominationHello! Your submission of Myriophyllum variifolium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 02:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC) DYK for Culex annulirostris
DYK for Corona Borealis Supercluster
DYK for Myriophyllum variifolium
RabiesHi could you send me the article I requested at resource exchange? i really need it. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement
PinnipedWould you like to nominate Pinniped for TFA? My last one. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
American politics 2 workshop phraseHello Casliber, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC) DYK for Hibbertia dentata
Corona Borealis questionIn case you don't notice it, I've left a question for you here. Eric Corbett 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Today's articles for improvement
Corona BorealisHi Cas, I've responded to your ping re Corona. Let me know if you've any queries, and I'll monitor the talk page. Also, ping me when it's back at FAC. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move DiscussionHi, This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question. Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2015)
American politics 2 workshop phase closedThe workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Eta CarinaeHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eta Carinae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of I am. furhan. -- I am. furhan. (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Botanical species article styleHi Cas. I'm reading/writing about pituri, the traditional Aboriginal chewing mix, and have found Nicotiana gossei (one of the source plants) and a few others don't have an article. Would you be able to point me to either the appropriate style guide or a good example of a botanical species article, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Today's articles for improvement
DYK for Melaleuca wilsonii
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2024)
WikiCup 2015 May newsletterThe second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC) DYK for Philypnodon grandiceps
DYK for Philypnodon macrostomus
DYK for Ambassis jacksoniensis
Fuck Lukashenko.I think you'll agree, seeing as you use the white-red-white flag. 178.120.183.77 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |