User talk:Casliber
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)
More unIDed fungiG'day Cas, I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs. http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324 Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
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]
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) I see you've taken it on, good work. The display and vision bits at Crested Tern apply for all the genus. The opening sentence isn't fully supported by Bridge - although Elegant is very close, Lesser Crested isn't, other than being in the same genus. I won't abandon this article (after all, one good ... aaaarrrggh, it's catching), but let me know if there's anything specific esp from BWP, Olsen or Harrison, where I have the books. Now, must be time for a couple of slices of bread with some meat in. 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Australian figsBeen a bit of a spike in editing the few days... Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilioFloraBase has an entry for this, but no other information.[2] Know anything about it? Hesperian 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess you might want to have a look at this too. Hesperian 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC) A book you might enjoyIt's all about flowers ... well, err, kind of.
She's a senior tutor in philosophy at Cambridge, written several very entertaining and informative books related to the history of science, probably including her doctorate. But I expect you know of her and this book already. I would have thought it a must read for the Banks-ia Study Group leader. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
RE Notable saying?I recalled this one....Talk:Fes,_Morocco#Old_moroccan_saying - is it famous in morocco? Or just some anglophone urban myth...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Banksia and climate changeThis 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)
 DYK that the most important Hindu Temple in Bali has a single sentence of coverage? oldid :( Jack Merridew 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Judea and SamariaHi Casliber, if you have time, would you mind commenting here? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Bract pattern You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral." I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry. I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on? (I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.) Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Question  I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise.... What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something? Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
Special edition triple crown questionHi- 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. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
Latest on B. browniihttp://www.springerlink.com/content/f22r726063l50761/ Hesperian 10:44, 8 November 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 florets  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)
PaperAn 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)
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[5]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC) WikiCupTrying to lull the competition into a false sense of security? :) Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Hello Casliber! Due to this change log ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boletus_edulis&diff=prev&oldid=181185974 ) You cited
It is reference 49 in the current version now. I was looking very long for this bulletin, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Can You help me to find this bulletin, or do You know something exactlier about it? I will thank You for Your help, Doc Taxon (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
cup
Collaboration?Thanks for the welcome note. I'm still figuring my way around this place. Pretty overwhelming! I do have a few articles I've been working on that I need help with, but haven't figured out how or with whom to collaborate...except for the "Throw it against the wall and see what sticks approach" (i.e. post it anyway and see if it reeks!!!???). Needless to say, I haven't posted these articles as they never seem to get past the "Work in Progress" stage. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Also, I went to the Help page looking for any collaboration tips that might be offered, but nothing was found. I then clicked on The Wikipedia community link thinking that I would surely find something there. Tucked amidst all the other links was the Keeping informed section and underneath it Wikipedia:Community portal, but that too was pretty overwhelming. Anyway, as you scroll down, you finally get to a section on collaborations, but that too takes you in a million directions. Finally if you simply enter "collaboration" into the search box in Wikipedia, you are directed here: Collaboration — another dead end. For those wanting to collaborate more effectively, perhaps a Collaboration or Collaboration Tips page could be created to help new contributors get oriented. Also I notice that the word "collaboration" itself, in Wikipedia, is virtually synonymous with "immensity" and "overwhelm" — given that its focus is a global community. Turning the word upside down and looking at it from the standpoint of the "New Wikipedian" trying to figure out the most effective way to interface with others in the community might make this section useful. Anyway, just a few thoughts on helping new contributors get up to speed. Sadalsuud (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Oddly, I'm no astrophysicist either. So I don't know if I qualify to manage a group on this topic. My background the last 30 years has been banking and finance — specifically launching new ventures. I just wanted to learn something about astronomy, starting reading articles, got hooked, and very quickly saw that articles could be radically improved with not too much effort. Given my training, I tend to take a "bottom-up" versus "top-down" approach. So when I think of "collaboration", I think of 2-5 people max teaming up to achieve a specific objective. In this respect I could see dozens of small teams like this working on different goals. Whether that would work or not in the context of Wikipedia is another question. Your insights here, once again, would be valuable. In my own case, where I saw that I could contribute was simply taking Stub-Class, Low or Mid-Importance articles and get them up to Start or even C or B Class. The recent article Pleione (star) is probably the best I've done. From there, I've gone on to create articles like Iota Herculis. Nothing major, right? I'm just "throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks". But here's the rub. I don't know if either of these contributions have any merit. So this is where the concept of "collaboration" comes into play for me. I would be good if I could simply "hand the ball off" to someone else and say "I've taken it as far as I can take it, what do you think? Why I'm going into this level of detail is I looked at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy#Members section and I found it intimidating. There are 117 names on that list. As a manager, the first thing that pops into my head is "OK, so what? Who's in charge? Who's assigning what to whom? Who's taken on what assignments? What is expected of members? Is there a minimum level of contribution required? Can I post questions on their talk page and elicit their support? Is that not presumptuous? And who has time for this stuff anyway? Is there a "white flag" that Wikipedians can raise on their talk page that says "Hey, I'm busy this month, don't bug me"? ...etc. It's often been said that if everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. This is often the downside of "big teams", and so that's why I'm seeing perhaps a different module to get neophytes like me fully plugged in, making useful rather than superfluous contributions. I did look at what you proposed above at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Collaboration. Not a bad idea, but it seems to have failed for lack of interest. I looked at Observing the Moon to see that it was originally flagged in 2008 for improvement from C to FA class. Result? It's still C-Class. That's scary! Maybe there are very few out there that actually want to collaborate. Or maybe it was a failure in how the project was originally designed. Is there by chance a Designing an Effective WikiProject page that takes the best from the best? I also looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force. Great idea! I might in fact join. What's missing for me here is focus and results — a section which basically reads: After 3 years, this is our conclusion. Follow this format: A, B, C, D... But I don't see that. Hmmm! Maybe Wikipedia works because it's so open-ended. People just do what they do when they do it. So once again, the underlying inquiry for me is simply "What works?". In conclusion, if I were to be the catalyst for a new collaboration, it would be something like this. Let's take one constellation per month and get the 10 most important stars and other deep sky objects in that constellation up to C class or better. There's a lot of Stub-Class articles out there with few or no references. It's a bit of a "grunt job" frankly, but if you're working on a team, there's a sense of accomplishment, and clearly it raises the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Maybe there's an astrophysicist in the group that can guide the effort and from there, we hand the ball off to another team. I don't know. Does any of this make sense? Would it even work? Sadalsuud (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. I did after all discover this page: Wikipedia:Collaborations It's sort of what I was looking for (though buried), but not quite. I think the page I'd ultimately like to see created is Help:Contents/Getting Plugged In. It encompasses collaboration, but has more to do with how you can most effectively contribute, collaboration being but a subset. Are you interested in helping me draft that page to submit for approval later on? I'm already getting ideas as to its design.
Thanks for your time and focused feedback. "Finding interested editors"... Hmmm! That was the missing distinction! I will follow your suggestions and see where it leads. Also, thanks for your contributions in the Pleione (star) article. Sadalsuud (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'll do that. Can you also say something more regarding the "wholesale upscaling of the classes" reducing the overall quality of Wikipedia? If I understand you correctly, it looks like my idea for a "collaboration" would have headed in this direction, and would have therefore been counterproductive. When I look at the Astronomy ratings section what I see are 19,238 stub articles and 3,040 start articles, the sum of which comes to roughly 97% of all the Astronomy articles written. I'm vaguely aware of the fact that Wikipedia is very interested in editors creating more quality content. What's the strategy to achieve that objective? Sadalsuud (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It's amazing how much you don't know when you start asking questions, right? I'll take some time to read the DYK article. What I see, however with your discerning comments is that a focused and interested contributor can get "plugged in" pretty quick. This dialogue has been very useful. Let's see what happens next? Betelgeuse FA?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)
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)
New Visibility sub-sectionHi 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)
Importing chunks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8Hi 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) 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) Observations on Import #3I 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) Reconsidering strategyHi 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) 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) Just completed the import if you'd like to make any changes. Click HERE to view.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Angular reworkI'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)
Steps toward FAI'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) 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) Circumstellar Dynamics DoneHi 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) Concerns at the crossroadsGetting 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) Pleione GAHi 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)
Organizational history upgradeI'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) 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) Finally nominated for GAHi 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) 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) Sasata ReviewNoticed that Puerto Rican Amazon is Todays Featured Article. Congrats! Getting Sasata to participate in taking Betelgeuse to FA was a real coup. Thanks. Nothing like detailed insights.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Butterfly IDsI just wrote Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory (been approved for DYK) and have ID'd 20 photos of their butterflies [6], but still need to ID 12 more: [7]. Can you or someone you know help ID those 12? Some pics have more than one butterfly. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
CKHave you been watching Louie. Very dark, highly recommended. Ceoil (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to put this up for GAN, but even after my additions and changes it still feels like you wrote most of it :) Perhaps you could indulge me, give it a good going over, and put it up as a co-nom at your convenience? Sasata (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC) (P.S. I dropped a note at the chemicals project to hopefully have some other qualified eyes take a look. Sasata (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC))
Tas DevilThe last specimen might die at FARC? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC) So do I just jump right in?Hi! I've looked at WP:GA and the review process for such articles. I was wondering, should I just jump in and start reviewing articles to see if they meet criteria? Should I contact someone and get more information before I do so? The reason I ask is that this will be my first time contributing to the GA process, so I'm not sure if I'll be doing things right. Of course, I'll read all the directions, but I'd just like to see if there are any customs/procedures there. I've noticed there there is a considerable list of articles waiting to be reviewed, so I'd like to help in cutting down that list. I've had experience in more administrative-like tasks, but nothing close to GA. So, should I jump right in and start reviewing or is there some "training" thing? Thanks. Netalarmtalk 03:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Gracias dude!Thanks Cas! It was one of my recent goals to get Huia to FA so to help have done it feels great and that's really nice of you to give me a barnstar, it's my first and the bio barnstar version looks so cool too, heh - it was a team effort of course, as most wikipedia articles getting promoted to FA are, so props to you for all you did to help get it to FA (I doubt this could have been done without you..) Real life for me is undergoing some major (positive) developments so I will be away from wikipedia for some time. But I intend to return one day next year with the clear goal of boosting more NZ bird articles from start/B class to FA.. Great to see Australian Magpie on the mainpage today btw :) Cheers, Kotare (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations. I read an article in a bike magazine from these parts a few months ago mentioning the article, in fact. The author added cable ties to his bike helmet as an alternative to a mohawk, after reading the bit about how it deters the birds, of course sarcastically saying that it was on Wikipedia, so of course it is most believable. Indeed! —innotata 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC) DYK for Purple-crowned Fairywren
DYK for Orange-crowned Fairywren
DYK for White-shouldered Fairywren
DYK for Lovely Fairywren
Ban RevertsHey, Casliber! Don't get me wrong on the deletion of good edits; I've dug up socks of a banned user or two, and I didn't go through each and every edit of those socks and delete every single one. I thought about it for a minute, but many were good edits - why would anyone revert corrected typos? To "dumb down" the articles? It is allowed to be done to banned editor's actions, is the point. If the substance of the edits are good, another editor (uninvolved with the banned editor, of course) can always add them. It's a dangerous game sometimes, though, as the focus is shifting at the AN/I as I type this. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not a draconian monster bent on salting the wiki of any and all edits by banned users: it's not even feasible, really. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
OzHi Cas: I'm headed your way in a few days for a tour round the southern half of the continent. Anything in particular you'd like me to try to get recordings of while I'm out there? MeegsC | Talk 14:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very muchHail Casliber! Thank you for your feedback in the Eustrombus gigas peer review. You're a competent reviewer as always, and your comments have helped us immensely. Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Adopt-a-user reminderHello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC). Possible DYKCan you see an appropriate hook on Noosa National Park? I was thinking most visitor numbers in Australia claim but was not sure a CEO of a tourist organisation was a reliable source. I phoned him and he said it was sourced from the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management website although it is not returning anything with Google to confirm this. The other hook was most traversed trail in Australia sourced to a Courier-Mail article. I hope you have the time to tend to this if you think it is suitable for a Queensland DYK.- Shiftchange (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Two things
Hi, is there anything I can do to get the Kunzea on DYK? I'm an un-educated mountain climber, bushwalker and not an academic or intellectual. But it was wonderful to climb Big Badja mountain. And always good fun to write these articles, Kunzea sp. Wadbilliga Poyt448 (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Myoporum acuminatum
Howdy, you did another superb job with Myoporum acuminatum. Congratulations. By the way, the wildflowers now are some of the best I've ever seen, this is a good season. There's so many articles to be written. I can't believe that there was no Wiki article on Eriostemon australasius, one of the finest of all the Australian wildflowers. My area of interest is the rainforest trees of the Illawarra. They say to be interested in wildflowers you need to have one foot in the grave, and not to have had sex in 20 years. But, the heathland wild flowers are worth seeing now, if you get the chance. regards, Poyt448 (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC) peer review for Tracheal intubationHello Casliber. First, congratulations on the FA for Australian Magpie. This is an excellent article on a very interesting bird. I look forward to seeing this beautiful creature again in a couple of months when I return to Australia. I can see you have a million things going on at this time, but I would really appreciate your comments at the peer review for the Tracheal intubation article, if you can possibly find some spare time. Best wishes, DiverDave (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Xerochrysum bracteatum
Tune[9]. You been neglecting me lately wrt links. What nothing from the Churchs archives you are not compleded to share? I'm all abot the triffids at the moment.[10]. Which is grand. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Triple Crown You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. RequestAny chance you might have easy online access to this: Rees, B.J., Taeker, F., & Coveny, R.G. (2005). Myriostoma coliforme in Australia. Australasian Mycologist 24: 25–28? I'm working on the species article behind the scenes. No biggie if you don't. Sasata (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 September newsletter We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. DYK nomination of Chamelaucium, Eriostemon australasius
September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 07:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC). GOCE Barnstar
DYK for Chamelaucium
DYK for Eriostemon australasius
Hi Cas, I'm making plans for another climb of Mount Imlay in the next week or two. This time I have someone who wants to be with me. The problem with him, is that he has a 170 IQ and he makes me feel very silly in comparison. Plants to be searched for include Eucalyptus imlayensis, Nestegis ligustrina and Boronia imlayensis and the others in the rainforest gully. If we find Eucalyptus imlayensis then we might descend into the southern rainforest if there's enough time. If not, I'll climb the mountain the next day. Last year the top mountain ridge was covered in flowers of the Imlay Boronia. The rainforest gully is of interest, with only a few species of plants. see link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/17674930@N07/4143388670/ The Black Olive Berry is dominant, thick and abundant, 25 metres tall. The unlikely or specious accounts of the occurrence at Mount Imlay of Pittosporum bicolor, Atherosperma moschatum and Nothofagus cunninghamii don't really need another investigation. (But, it's such a great place I want to return and have another look). Last year I saw plenty of the native privet, but I didn't photograph them (being in self preservation mode). If you are free, you are most welcome to climb the great southern mountain with us. The top narrow ridge is likely to be covered in flowers of Boronia imlayensis. Last November, it was a majestic sight. (see my photo) http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&photo=27&file=56/548/Boronia%20imlayensis%201.jpg The Imlay Mallee is critically endangered by extinction. I'd hate to hurt it or damage it if I find it. The scientists have given up on it, considered a corpse, extinct, a dead or nearly dead thing. They reckon no-one can save it. kind wishes Peter Poyt448 (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello hello, Since you are not interested in Caleana major, I decided to have a Did You Know moment myself. Please review this article, and make suggestions that might improve it, and make it suitable for the front page of Wikipedia. You have had plenty of experience with DYK, and know what to do. I was at the Sydney Opera House on Thursday, saw so many Psilotum nudum at the opera house forecourt, and had many great memories of the girls and music at the Sydney Opera House. (I attended the first ever symphony concert there in 1973). The plans to climb Imlay and Royal are delayed. Too many problems dealing with people. Please edit, criticise the Duck Orchid article, and help us get this glorious orchid on the front page of Wiki. If you can't help, I'll try that Rlevse person. cheers, Pete Poyt448 (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Hi, All trips to Mount Royal, Mount Keira and Mount Imlay are postponed because of the weather. (What a relief), I'm too scared. Thanks for your edits of the Flying Duck orchid, which has been OK'd for Did You Know. I'm pleased that my first ever attempt at growing eucalyptus from seeds was a success. A local species (not found south of the Harbour Bridge), Eucalyptus acmenoides. Before being interested in rainforests, my first botanical love was the eucalyptus. kind wishes Poyt448 (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Terrific work on those orchid articles lately, thanks again. You make them so much better. A botanist from the National Herbarium with the initials A.O. said he will walk the same track to see the Cryptostylis hunteriana recently photographed. (I gave him fairly good instructions on where to find it). Orchids are a mystery to me, I know nothing of them. Yesterday I saw another little terrestrial orchid. And have no friggin idea what it is. Some sort of maroon hooded orchid with a striped yellow tongue. So, hopefully the orchid people on Flickr can assist with identification. If so, I'll make a stub on Wiki. Have fun, keep up the great work. Poyt448 (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Working on D&D articlesHey there. :) First of all, just want to let you know that we have a D&D TFA coming up for the 6th! Just pointing you to this discussion; we're looking to get more articles improved, preferrably to GA or better. I know you have come through with sources before, so take a look and see if there's anything you can add. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2As a reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tim Duncan, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Nothing to do with the Australian form of rooting, I'm afraid. It's just a neglected AFD which has started to attract disruptive editors since I took an interest. As an admin who specialises in plants, you may wish to investigate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Cambridge
Tas DevilProbably I'll get ignored again, but.... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Many inprovements have been made to the article since you last reviewed it. We could use your input at the FAC discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) We would like your help concluding the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - peer reviewHiya, you specified an interest in articles about food at the volunteers list for peer reviewing - I was wondering if you might mind having a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive1? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Pedro II of BrazilHi, Casliber. It has been a couple of days since your last message in Pedro II of Brazil FAC. Will you continue your review? P.S.: Answer me back in my talkpage, please. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The article Puerto Rican Amazon is schedule to appear as the main page featured article in the near futureHello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 22, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 22, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! TbhotchTalk C. 19:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)  The Puerto Rican Amazon is the only bird endemic to the archipelago of Puerto Rico belonging to the Neotropical genus Amazona. Measuring 28–30 cm (11–12 in), the Puerto Rican Amazon is a predominantly green parrot with a red forehead and white rings around the eyes. Two subspecies have been described, although there are doubts regarding the distinctiveness of the form gracilipes from Culebra Island, extinct since 1912. The Puerto Rican Amazon reaches sexual maturity between three and four years of age. It reproduces once a year and is a cavity nester. Once the female lays eggs she will remain in the nest and continuously incubate them until hatching. The chicks are fed by both parents and will fledge 60 to 65 days after hatching. This parrot's diet is varied and consists of flowers, fruits, leaves, bark and nectar obtained from the forest canopy. The species is the only remaining native parrot in Puerto Rico and has been listed as critically endangered by the World Conservation Union since 1994. Once widespread and abundant, the population declined drastically in the 19th and early 20th centuries with the removal of most of its native habitat; the species completely vanished from Vieques and Mona Island, nearby to the main island of Puerto Rico. Conservation efforts commenced in 1968 to save the bird from extinction. In 2006, the total estimated population was 34 to 40 individuals in the wild and 143 individuals in captivity. (more...) GOCE copy edit drive
Mauna KeaThe nom for Mauna Kea has been restarted. Just an FYI. Hopefully this round will stick. ResMar 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Thank youCasliber, thanks very much, for your helpful comments at peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive1. Much appreciated. I was thinking of next putting up for peer review another GA I worked on within the same subject - Bacon: A Love Story. Would you be able to contribute to a peer review of that one, as well? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom Election RFC courtesy noticeA request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Tasmanian devilNag for genetics and immunology and disease YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Heads up about an RfCPlease note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding a banned user
Binge drinkingHey Casliber, sorry to disturb you. I hope all is well with you. I saw your name listed as individuals who volunteer to peer review articles who can be contacted directly. I would appreciate it if you could peer review the binge drinking article. At some point I would like to get binge drinking up to a good article status. However some more work is needed to get there. Some background information; the article is quite biased, per WP:NPOV, against binge drinking, but I do not know how to resolve that as I and other editors could not find any sources which discussed recreational use of alcohol in favourable terms, certainly no medical sources. Some content may be a bit too technical and could perhaps be moved to other articles but would appreciate some outside eyes to review it before deciding what if any content needs deleted or moved to more focused articles. If you are too busy, not to worry. Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Back and gone againHey Cas, I've sent the same message to Firsfron but he seems to be out. Could you delete my old account at User:ArthurWeasley or tell me how to do it? I was contemplating coming back but then a few things went wrong so am off again...(no, I am not pissed, just amused). Cheers. NobuTamura (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus buildingI know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at User:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. I'm thinking to invite some thinking people who radically disagree with me, and see what's possible. Do you think this has any merit?--Scott Mac 10:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Correction fact-checkingCould you take a few minutes to check whether this edit is me messing up? Circéus (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
See, as far as circumscription, I see all of those things (i.e. How we define, split and classify a species, both with common and scientific names) as linked, and the broad aegis of "taxonomy and naming" covers it very well. Generally, most articles are too small to split off into evolution, etymology etc. As far as comprehensiveness, you're right as I had forgotten about the monotypic genus...aha, now to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC) DYK for Ferocactus latispinus
DYK for Ferocactus latispinus
If you have time, you may want to assist User_talk:Calsina. She's apparently his assistant, so she's replaced the mostly negative bio Nemeroff has here with some positive stuff. Now, it appears Nemeroff's bio is perhaps too slanted on the negative aspects. But she added only info without citations, and removed info with citations, so you can guess what happened next... Tijfo098 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The WikiCup 2010 Award for Featured Articles
Heh. thanks. - for both this one and the award below ... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC) WikiCup 2010 Bronze Award
WikiCup 2010 October newsletterThe 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
It's raining thanks spam!
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)
Stats re pump conversationFound that link - the 2nd table here. The concentration of & fall-off in 250+ pcm editors is mildly scarey. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This was initially a redirect to Robert Whitaker (author), but it has now been expanded. I had added a section about the reception of this rather controversial book the author's biography. The expanded article so far has no reception section. Perhaps you can help with that; several medical sources reviewed the book. I'm having some doubts that User:SusanLesch has access to those. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Is football ambiguous,should we used a hot-note?Hi, I was wondering if you could be so kind as to have a look at Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football as more input is required and your as listed as being interested in sport and/or football at peer review. Gnevin (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Thank youThank you, for the quality upgrade [15]. ;) Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for upgrading the rating of quality for this page. FYI, please see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Truth_in_Numbers.3F. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC) American Alsatian SourcingHello 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:
Thank you again for your help. Shepaluteprez (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Mad in AmericaGreetings, Casliber. I put a new hook at DYK. If you have time, please take a look and if possible correct it. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to participate!Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team. I'm posting across User Talk pages to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here. Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC) The 2c you addedJust by coincidence, Lincoln cent is just begging for a review!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Adenanthos dobagii
DYK for Melaleuca pulchella
DYK for Isopogon trilobus
DYK for Allocasuarina humilis
DYK for Mad in America
zOMGIf it were up to me, everyone on ArbCom would have training in psychiatry. I mean, what better skill set could one have for the job? I guess one Arb is a start, though. :P Glad to see you running, and best of luck. MastCell Talk 04:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: Sandpipers, curlews, stints, godwits, snipes, and phalaropes....I have a little to show for myself. I'll probably add something to that article later if you don't. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the elections!Dear Casliber, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator. You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 13:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Questions from LarHi. Best of luck in your upcoming (re?) trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You might be able to helpat 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) 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)
Roger Waters FACFYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Einstein, eh?Any chance I could watch the episodes? :) NW (Talk) 22:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Adenanthos oreophilus
DYK for Lissopimpla excelsa
DYK for Cryptostylis
DYK for Cryptostylis hunteriana
DYK for Cryptostylis subulata
DYK for Cryptostylis erecta
José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a FACHi, I am the same editor who wrote Pedro II of Brazil and I've nominated another article, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, as a FAC. It is about a 19th century Brazilian statesman and is closely related to Pedro II's life. If you enjoyed the Emperor's article I believe you might enjoy this one. Thus, I'd like to see your opinion on whether you would support or oppose its nomination. The link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1 --Lecen (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Peer reviewHello Casliber. I've noticed you're someone to go to for input in any Everyday life article peer review? I was wondering if I could have your input on a Rugby Union based page I nominated for peer review a couple of days ago and I was hoping to find out if the page would be good enough to become Wikipedia's 1st Rugby Union specific good article or if you could suggest any edits that could improve it? The Peer Review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eye-gouging (rugby union)/archive1 with the aricle being Eye-gouging (rugby union), Thanks. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC) DYK for Adenanthos oreophilus
ArbComGood luck in the elections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't you hate it when ...[16] I took a pile of photos at Kew of North paintings. Alas, I just scanned through them and none were of Banksias. I can't believe it. –Moondyne 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Western Ground Parrot
Thank you!Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and support! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC) DYK nomination of Acronychia pubescens
GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC) DYK for Acronychia pubescens
DYK for Banksia attenuata
I have added an additional followup... at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/Casliber/Questions#Questions_from_Lar. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC) FAC ReviewThanks a lot for your review! Sorry it took me so long, but I think I've addressed your concerns. ceranthor 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Geoffroy's Tamarin
Elk was scheduled to be mainpaged on 12/5..but I looked it over and saw the refs were out of date, some were dead etc. I asked Raul to postpone the date a few days and he agreed...I will update the refs but was wondering if you had time, could you add some cite needed tags as you see things that need referencing and or do a quick read through and see if you can clean up any of the text...if you feel so inclined of course...best wishes to you either way.--MONGO 05:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Messier 87Hello Casliber. I've done some work to improve and fill out the Messier 87 article that you reviewed as a GAC some time back. I think it provides pretty thorough coverage now. When you have a little time, please could you take a look and see if your issues have been addressed. I'd greatly appreciate it as I'm planning to take the article back for another GAC. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Congratulations 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 Manguard Wha? 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Congratulations and good luck! Ucucha 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back, Cas. :-) — Coren (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
CongratulationsCongratulations on the election results from me as well. I look forward to getting to work with you again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Sherman articleCasliber: I plan to ask for semi-protection for the Sherman article again. I hope you will be on the lookout and will protect it again. The situation there is rather ridiculous. Thank you. Hartfelt (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
