I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[2]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The early morning sun hits the spires of Pura Besakih
DYK that the most important Hindu Temple in Bali has a single sentence of coverage? oldid :( Jack Merridew 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get 5 days, right? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
Oh crud, sorry Jack - Alastair's poem was very timely. Yes, 5 days it is. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ma'af lads, I'll be watching for black bamboo while I'm in Timor ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaaa. ok, that redlink will turn blue sometime soon....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that. There are some pics at Commons:Category:Pura Ulun Danu Batur and I have some, somewhere. It's quite picturesque and is shown prominently on things like Lonely Planet covers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.)
It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go.
As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction."
has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc.
As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato)
Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)
Arianewiki1 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Interesting - Gah! Forgot to ring Alex - evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - makes for some dry reading. Hadn't realised it was 10 populations out of 27 which have become extinct since 1996.. :( Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224
really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PDFs sent... let me know if need anything else. Sasata (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paper
An interesting abstract: [2]. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've watchlisted the article. Waiting to see that link turn blue. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Just buffing sessilis now before I go to bed. It is shaping up nicely. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian 14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you recall seeing a source for its ability to recolonise disturbed areas? as nothing's turning up online...Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phew - you found something - what a relief and to think I have a copy as well :( SatuSuro 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." [my emphasis] Hesperian 13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I need to sleep now, but in the am...Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll lurk a bit and copyedit. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I've got you, I've just proofed Wikisource:Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/42, which has three Greek words with diacritics. I'm reasonably certain about two of them, but the middle one has that ~/^ problem that I seem to remember asking you about a long time ago. Could have have a quick look for me? Hesperian 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, should be a rounded circumflex thingy - I changed it. I really need to sleep now....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, thankyou, and goodnight! Hesperian 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More bedtime reading
[3]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cool. I will tidy up a few things first and let you know when ready. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty psyched to work with you on this. So I already decided to do some cleanup. The Starbox really needed some work. So that's now all up to date with refs included. Also I created a personal sandbox and imported the latest version to completely redesign the article's structure. There is not one single word changed in the article itself — just moved a few blocks of text, added headings and sub-headings, and repositioned some pics. I think it works better. If you have a chance, take a look at the redesign and let me know if you think it works. You can find it at User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox.
Sorry to jump the gun on you. I won't do anything more on this until I hear from you. Sadalsuud (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool. I have the Richard Hinkley Allen book and the Kuntzisch book to get the etymology right - I also have a longer oxford dictionary (with magnifying glass). Will pull out books and go from there in the next 24-48 hours. Feel free to tweak and/or add any bits of text you can. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll update a few things, copy it over and post a short note on the talk page. I'm not sure about the sub-headings for Observational History, but that section was so big, it needed some structure to it. We can modify the sub-headings as we go along. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a few minutes spare now so was doing a bit of copyediting to make the lead a bit more snappy. I will look at all the etymology stuff tonight. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! I'm going to call it a night. Tomorrow, I'll look at expanding the Visibility section. I just cut and pasted the last two paragraphs from the former "Characteristics" section. It needs to be massaged a bit. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the existing "Visibility" and "Properties" sections to User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox and will focus on just that for the next 48 hours with the idea of transporting a coherent block of text back Betelgeuse in the next few days. Right now I'm doing a lot of reading. There's a lot of information on this star. So I'd like to give myself a couple of days to pull all the elements together. That way, I hope to have both these sections flow properly. Before I do this "block transport", I'll let you know, so you can offer any suggestions.Sadalsuud (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I am focussing on the etymology stuff at the moment. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to come up with two new sections that are ready for transport to the main article. You can review them here: at the "New Visibility Section". I put them in context, so you can see what the article looks like. As I indicated a few days ago, I won't make the transfer until you've had a chance to review first. Let me know what you think.
My main concern is the ESA copyrighted information at the bottom of the Visibility section. Let me know if that is handled appropriately. There is still much more work to do. I have quite a few more sections planned, but decided to at least get these two ready for prime time. If you think they work, I can copy them over later today. I await your thoughts.Sadalsuud (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great - I was just thinking something along these lines about how to find it and our theories on how far it is have evolved over the years. Stick it in and we can continue copyeidting from there. I am not sure which bit is copyrighted - can you highlight? Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the very last paragraph in the The enigma sub-section — right under the VLA satellite dish picture. I introduce the copyrighted info with these words: "According to the information provided on ESA's website...." Just click HERE! and you'll see it there in bold as well. What follows is almost verbatim (with a few tweeks), then as you'll notice there's the ref #36 which, if you click on it, takes you to the Reference section where you can click on the web-link called "Gaia overview", which of course takes you directly to the ESA source material.
I thought about simply paraphrasing the essence of the ESA information, that way avoiding any copyright infringement. But frankly, it was so well written and informative that I thought it would be a more honorable gesture to copy it verbatim and provide the reference.
What do you think? Should I rewrite this section "in my own words"?
Just so you have a little context, what I love about this sub-section "The enigma" is I noticed with every single article I read on the internet all these conflicting quotes on Betelgeuse. My first reaction was "That's bizarre! Everybody's got a different story to tell" It was at that point that I really saw an opportunity to do a great job and explain why all the information on Betelgeuse is so conflicted. The essence is that we still haven't quite figured out how far Betelgeuse is. So this section from ESA is a perfect conclusion to the section. The Enigma section starts with the distance estimate of 56 parsecs in 1920, does a fair job of explaining what has happened in the interim and then concludes with "What's next". So that's why I definitely want the ESA information in there. It pulls all the pieces together for the reader.
In any event, I'm glad you liked it. I'm pretty happy with it myself, although it would be great if we can get an astronomer like RJHall to make sure everything works. As I see it, I'm a pretty good "guinea pig" for this sort of thing, as I try to understand the subject form the layman's perspective. Having an astronomer looking over my shoulder wouldn't hurt.
One last thing. I got your note... All systems go... I'll be cutting and pasting into the main article shortly. As each new section matures, I'll let you know. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I too love actually spelling out who says what and why rather than just presenting facts as facts. There are similar issues in taxonomy, botany etc. and very often the answer is just not so clear cut. I will look at the copyrighted material in a minute. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Visibility sub-section
Hi Calisber. I've got a new section for you to look at. To be honest it's not quite finished. But given my commitment to have something ready within a day or two, I've produced a "condensed" version for prime time. There are two more additional paragraphs that I am still working on. I will try to include them soon.
Like last time, I have imported the most recent version of Betelgeuse into my User page so you can see the new section in context. It can be found by clicking: HERE!. That will take you to a new Visibility sub-section which I've entitled "Rhytmic dance" — an effective metaphor, I think, for the star's oscillating character. Consistent with comments made a few weeks ago at Talk:Pleione (star), I'm using standardized terminology for "major headings" and descriptive terminology for "sub-headings". I think it works. Let me know your thoughts.
If you wish to see the other sub-sections I'm working on, you can click: Here!. You will notice an extensive Contents Box and think I've possibly gone mad! No need for alarm however. I just found that I needed to bring some organization to the drafting of these sections, so I'm using the Contents Box as a kind of outline tool. That way, when I read an article, I have an idea where the new information fits, I can cut and paste for future editing, and then come back to it later. I hope you find this Contents Box helpful in understanding how I'm trying to tackle this project. If you have any idea as to how it can be improved, let me know.
The two additional paragraphs I'm working on for Rhythmic Dance you will find by clicking on the Rhythmic dance sub-section. I gave them an olive colored font, so they stand out.
The scope of this project has turned out to be far more than I ever imagined. There is so much information to absorb — kind of like putting together a giant jig-saw puzzle with 10,000 pieces. What I'm finding is you can't just work on one section at a time, as every piece is interconnected, and you need to have a sense as to where all the pieces fit. In any event, you'll see how each section is coming along. Some sections are more advanced than others.
I'm enjoying the challenge of it. I believe the goal of completing the different sub-sections by mid-August is still achievable. Let me know if you think the condensed version is ready to be transported over to the main article. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - so the version you want to import is the condensed one above the olive text? Looks good - I find it easier to work with when I see it in the article, so bring it in. I think the olive bit is worth bringing in sooner rather than later and working from there. The prose can probably be tightened a bit - that will be easier to acheive once read as a whole. My approach is generally get all the content in first, then do the copyedit. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just imported it and refined it further. Click HERE! for the latest. I actually included 4 out of the 6 paragraphs that I'm contemplating. The extra 2 paragraphs I will add in the next week or so as I gather more information. This first import holds together pretty well by itself, I think, and may not need the extra paragraphs. The extra information will simply discuss additional variability issues like periodicity. It's always a judgement call as to what constitutes "too much information". We'll see. What makes Betelgeuse so challenging is there is a lot of conflicting information out there — just like all the conflicting information I saw regarding distance. My intent is to at least cover the different findings and put them into perspective. Sadalsuud (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Importing chunks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8
Hi Calisber. When you have a chance, I've got a few new "chunks" for you to look at. Click HERE to see comments.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angular diameter/distance... whatever?
Hi Calisber. In notice you've been busy the last few days. When you have a moment and have been able to review the "chunks" enumerated above, your thoughts on what to do here would be really helpful. Click HERE to see comments. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Observations on Import #3
I finally got most of those "chucks" cleaned up over the weekend and, pursuant to your suggestions imported them into the main article. Also, I've posted some observations related thereto for your insight and comment. When you have a moment, click HERE to see comments. To see recent changes, simply go to the Betelgeuse article. I look forward to your thoughts and any ideas you have for GA review submission.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidering strategy
Hi Casliber. When you have a chance, I've posted some recent thoughts on the future direction of the Betelgeuse article, and would value your insights. Click HERE to see comments.----Sadalsuud (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
System launch + GAN?
Hi Casliber. The "Star system" section is close to complete. Just needs a few refs and xrefs, I think. Click HERE to review and post any comments or concerns. Thanks again for your focused attention. --Sadalsuud (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just completed the import if you'd like to make any changes. Click HERE to view.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angular rework
I've reworked the Angular anomalies section to create a more balanced argument. When you have a chance, please review HERE and let me know your thoughts.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is more sequential and hence clearer. I'd go with the rewrite. Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steps toward FA
I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. When you have a chance, your insights on a few other issues would be helpful. You can find them HERE.--24.203.198.172 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright?
Hi Casliber. Your suggestion to post a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy produced a very useful result but also triggered a copyright violation requiring some attention. Your insights as always would be valuable. You can see my comments by clicking HERE.----Sadalsuud (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Circumstellar Dynamics Done
Hi Casliber. I think this section is finally done. Though it's a bit of a rush job, I think it will stand up. Click HERE to see comments and get to the latest version in the sandbox. Thanks again for your on-going support of this project. I'm pooped! Fortunately, we're almost there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns at the crossroads
Getting close to the finish line. There are a couple of concerns, however. When you have a moment, can you review comments HERE? Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pleione GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to say that I've had to divert my attention to the Pleione article, as you probably guessed. I noticed your contributions, and in fact, provided some xrefs, which I believe are accurate. I hope to have all the GA improvements done by Saturday. If you have a chance to give it a quick lookover in a few days, that would be great. This weekend, I'll try to get the "Organizational history" section up to standard, get your thoughts, and then propose the article for GA review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm done for now with Pleione (star), at least until Modest Genius has a chance to review the latest revisions. Hopefully, it will pass the grade. If you'd like to take a last look, that would be great.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you noticed, but we got GA status on Pleione. Now I can come back to the Betelgeuse article in earnest. There's only a few minor edits needed after which I'll finally submit the article for GA review. The only missing element is a discussion of stellar mass. When mass was originally addressed back in July, I simply referenced Jim Kaler, though now I recognize the conversation to be more complex. Once addressed in earnest, it will clear up any confusion from the Fate section which quotes a different metric. Bottom line? Hope to get all this done in a few days and submit. Any last thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pretty busy IRL lately. I am more than happy to let you take the dirver's seat WRT mass as you have a handle on all the mass calculations - will try to follow with copyediting ideas and/or observations and boring format fixes. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. With the summer now behind us in Canada, I too have become very busy with work and other stuff. We'll at least get this to GA soon and then we can plan from there. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organizational history upgrade
I've now turned my attention back to Betelgeuse and decided to post a new section on the talk page Major surgery on Observational history section?. Given that this section was the focus of early contributions, I have intentionally avoided editing "other people's work", focusing as you know on adding new sections. But as I point out, the job needs to be done for various reasons and I thought it would be useful to put everyone on notice and invite comments. The last thing I want to do is create an edit war. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gotten started. Check out Herschel's discovery section for recent edits. As I point out on the Talk page, I'm trying to keep most of the early contributions while giving the whole section a "historical" focus. I think it works. Your insights however would be useful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally nominated for GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to let you know that Betelgeuse has finally been nominated for GA review. Updated observations HERE! Thanks again for your on-going participation in this process.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA corrections complete?
I noticed you were able to make a few corrections pursuant to the GA Review. The review was clearly quite favorable. I made a few other changes and responded. Let me know if you see anything missing. You can see my comments Here!. Thanks again. We're finally getting there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've been able to get to most of the issues raised at FAC readiness and Betelgeuse redux. I liked your idea of color coding. So I expanded it a little to distinguish between 1) done, points that were relatively straightforward and I believe have been adequately addressed (though you might some other ideas here), 2) Discuss, points where I would appreciate your advice and possibly Iridia's help if needed, and finally 3) need to research, items that will require more work to complete. When you have a moment, can you look over some of the Discussion points upon which we can put these items to bed. Thanks. Once we have them out of the way, I'll be free to focus on the research questions, after which I'd like to address a few remaining issues, which I've been compiling. Almost there... huff, puff. Thanks again for your continued effort on this. It's been a big project.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll take a look. I did have one last project to double check some folklore stuff etc. to help tidy up that section as well. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last step before FAC
It seems like most of the issues at FAC readiness have been addressed. Just to update you, my focus has now shifted to the following: 1) Complete FAC Readiness. I'm researching the need to research tags, of which there were three and making appropriate changes, 2) Starbox research. I want to make sure that all the info in the Starbox and the Properties section are up to date, 3) Final issues. I'm compiling a list of what I think are the final issues that need to be addressed in the article, which I will post, once I've finished my research. Hopefully, I'll have that done in a week. Hope you're doing well. I notice you've been quite active with the star's mythology. Impressive!!! Found some interesting info on Deneb. Looks like it's got a luminosity of 196,000 instead of the 54,000 that Wikipedia and Kaler were reporting. I was pretty surprised by this, so if you have a chance you might want to look at the article's abstract here, just to make sure.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about all the work you've done on mythology recently, I think it deserves its own section. This will lighten up the Observational history section, allowing it to be primarily of an "observational" or scientific nature, and by creating a separate heading for "Mythology", it allows the reader to go directly to this section if they wish. Also, it tends to tie in well with Etymology section. So as to not muck up the article itself, I created a parallel article in my sandbox. You can see it here. Since the word "Name" is no longer representative or the section as a whole, I'd like to suggest we come up with something else. As you know, I tend to like the word "ethnology" as it means the "study of culture" rather than just "culture" itself. So I propose here "Ethnological attributes". I wasn't around when it was decided to get rid of "Ethnological influences", so I don't know what the discussion was around that, if any. Other possibilities are "Cultural significance", "Cultural attributes", or possibly "Cultural impact". You may have other thoughts. As I see it, issues having to do with name, spelling, etymology, mythology and legacy are all cultural phenomena. All in all, it looks pretty tight. Let me know what you think.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Organising these sections is always a headache, as there is some material you want to put at the beginning and some at the end but ideally it'd be all together. I had the same problem at Sirius many moons ago....Your organisation looks line. Agree about broadening of section header from name to something like Ethnological attributes or "Cultural significance". I like the former but could be construed as a tad esoteric maybe. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I made the changes as discussed. Let's see how everyone responds. "Cultural significance" is firmly established, so I'm OK with that too. If you think that will be better understood, change at any time.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of final changes
OK. Looks like we're almost done. You can see the list of final changes here. If you have time, your review of these items would be great. I'm just finishing up the Notes section right now, but everything else is done. As soon as I'm 100% complete, I'll post you here. In the meantime, you'll notice that the Ravi/Townes ref produced some meaningful changes to the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! Wow! Finally! Just reworked the notes section, specifically Note2. I think that's it. I look forward to your comments on the List of final changes. The only other tiny item I can see is a [clarification needed] tag at the bottom on Note 7. I'll have to go back and study my spreadsheets from 2 years ago. Aside from that, it all looks pretty good.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Details, Details!!! OK, I think we're ready for FAC. I've exhausted every tiny detail I could think of. So, except for some minor tweeking here and there, I don't see anything else to be done. You can see my final observations at Details, details.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just go back from a weekend break with no innernet..now where was I.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figs
Okay, 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 {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Data requested yonks ago, lately retrieved with many apologies for delays from the wikiwankingwonk.
Couldn't for the effing life of me find that vol which contained the info on star names in Japanese dialect you asked about until I stumbled across it this morning while cleaning up where my disrespectful cat cocked its leg, on a pile of TLS's near my desk. I tremble to add these details because, with my rotten reputation as someone who is always looking for a political angle, it ain't going to help that Obama must be mentioned.
In Japanese dialects Betelgeuse or α Orionis is configured with Rigel β Orionis as the opposite sides of Orion's Belt
Thus, in the dialect of the coastal village of Obama in Fukui prefecture, the two were called wakiboshi or 'sidestars' because they lie on either side of the belt. In the dialect of Ikishima (壱岐島) island in Nagasaki Prefecture, the pair were known as ēte-boshi (相手星, standard Japanese = aiteboshi or ‘opposing stars’) in the phrase kanatsuki no ēteboshi. Here kanatsuki is equivalent to karatsuki, and thus the phrase meant the 'opposing stars of the Belt of Orion'. The same idiom existed in Wajima (輪島) dialect further north in Ishikawa Prefecture.
In 1950, a quite distinctive and archaic dialect term for the two stars was retrieved from the dialect of Yokokura village (横蔵村) in the Ibi district of Gifu Prefecture. There Betelgeuse and Rigel were denominated respectively by two famous clan names. The two clans were the Taira, otherwise known as the Heike, and the Minamoto, or Genji. These two clans conducted an epic struggle to wrest control over Japan during the historic Genpei war of the early medieval period, a devastating conflict that was memorialized in the The Tale of the Heike, an early masterpiece of Japanese literature. The crest of the Taira is red (揚羽蝶/Ageha-chō or 'swallowtail butterfly'). The crest of the Minamoto is gentian blue (笹竜胆/sasa-rindō, or 'bamboo gentian'). Thus, in Yokokura, the red supergiant Betelgeuse was called Heike-boshi (平家星, the Heike star) and the blue supergiant Rigel the Genji-boshi (源氏星, the Minamoto or Genji star), corresponding to the the respective colours of the two stars. The reference is Nojiri Hōei,Nihon no hoshi, Chūkō Bunko, Tokyo 1976 pp.243-245. Nishidunny aka Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)This is really intresting![reply]
Fantastic. I will read and digest and add once I have finished off a couple of other chores...Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably find this worth watching
[4] 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)[reply]
Interesting will look later when I can have the sound up. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this seem right to you?
[5] I can follow it up next time I'm at the library, but I thought you might know off the top of your head. It seems like a competent effort and I don't want to scare them off. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly ok - I am dubious about GAD and panic disorder so removed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I might read up on the evolution of the concept. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
All 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, I'll move Clitocybe nuda and Russula emetica closer to the top of "the list". I agree the popular edibles would be good to do as well, but they're hard ... we'll see how free time & motivation plays out over the next few months. Sasata (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Betelgeuse
Hey, so I was looking through your userpage like a good wikistalker, and noticed that you'd put Betelgeuse on your to-do list. I have a bunch of astronomy-related sources sitting around my room (thanks to the lovely Andromeda), and put 2 and 2 together. If you're not too busy, would you be interested in a collab? Keilana|Parlez ici 00:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, funny you should ask. Essentially the situation is this - Betelgeuse was always on my to-do list but my hard-core astrophysics knowledge is a bit lacking. Then Sadalsuud (talk·contribs) turned up and was a real juggernaut in buffing it up to the max for a GA nom and pass. Since then Sasata (talk·contribs) did a really thorough look-over and that's where things stalled. I wanted to tighten up the folklore/mythology bit at the end and Sadalsuud has been inactive. I was planning on asking Sadalsuud if he was still interested and then double checking the physics/maths with some of the more technical-minded editors at the astronomy wikiproject before letting loose at FAC. I am happy for 2- or 3-way FAC noms (as collab editing is what we're all about) and staking this baby through the heart off my to-do list would be great. So have a look at the article and I'll ask away at the wikiproject and see what sadalsuud is up to. Nishidani was kind enough to find some folklore stuff which I can't remember if I added or not. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go take a look then! Betelgeuse is one of the first variable stars I observed and thus is close to my dorky, astronomy-loving heart. :) I'm always up for a collab, whether it's this or something else. (Funny note, I was just working on Aquarius (constellation) for a bit and thought for just a moment that Beta Aquarii was somehow editing.) Keilana|Parlez ici 01:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, review done. Once it's all scrubbed shiny and ready to go, I'd also think sending an email to a few of the people whose papers are cited in the article to ask them to come look-see would be a good idea. We can ask User: Mike Peel for UK-based folk as well. That's worked nicely before. Iridia (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'll get onto it a bit later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
State of play is this - Sadalsuud (talk·contribs) has reemerged and is taking time to digest where things are up to on Betelgeuse - given he added huge amounts of content I figured it was good to let him get up to speed before pushing on. I looked how small CMi was and figured it's an easy 5x expansion - good to show what core articles can still end up at DYK. My star sourcing ain't as up to speed as my biology though so am still rough round the edges....Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you need anything give me a poke, I have about 15 constellation-related books sitting on my desk for Andromeda and Aries and could set you up with something. I'll also definitely give a comprehensive review of Betelgeuse at FAC, you guys have done a great job with it. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta run now, but some basic stuff for CMi would be a help - refs for when it rises/sets/polygon stuff etc....I haven't got much current on that, just the stars.Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Patrick Moore's "Data Book of Astronomy" is excellent for, well, data. SIMBAD is great for finding scientific papers on stars to make things seem less crufty. The polygon stuff is available here in a .txt file, which is kind of hard to parse at first. I've got more sources sitting around, let me know if you want more names or data - I do have an excellent text called "Islamicate Celestial Globes" that I could scan for you if that helps. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Grunt, groan) gawd, getting info on Canis Minor is tough! I thought it'd be an easy 5x expansion but am struggling.....any constellation info that can be added would be a great help. I think I need about another 180 words or so....Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's difficult. Let me see what I can do... *digs through giant book pile* Keilana|Parlez ici 08:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's what I found. You could definitely expand the mythology section a lot more. Ian Ridpath's Star Tales is excellent, it's located here. That's especially useful for the Chinese mythology. I've also found a few papers on more ancient mythology (e.g. Mesopotamia, etc.) Try [6], [7], and [8]. As for books, I'd also recommend the Cambridge Guide to the Constellations, as well as Julius Staal's "New Patterns in the Sky" and William Tyler Olcott's "Star Lore". If you need to expand the History section further, give some background on the various star atlases and some uranography stuff. I'm willing to help write/source if you need it, just drop me a note! I've got a lot of free time this weekend and week. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 08:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corona Australis and Crux
Hi! So I found some stuff for you yesterday. Mostly consists of constellation names, but I did manage to turn up some mythology. There were a couple books (one on Andean astronomy/mythology and one on Polynesian astronomy/mythology) that I didn't get through, so I can give you those names if you want. I'll try to hunt them down elsewhere or go back to the Field to find them eventually, especially because I know (from a cursory look) that both catalog pretty much every constellation from each culture with lots of mythology and helpful things. I can either email you my notes and the bibliographic information, or just stick it in myself. Which would you prefer? Keilana|Parlez ici 15:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you could just stick it in that'd be wonderful - right this second I am juggling loads of things (see my contribs) and have stayed up way later than I intended (I have an action-packed saturday full of wonderful RL chores... :P .....bleh)Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get going on that today, I've got absolutely nothing to do the next few days! Keilana|Parlez ici 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wish I could say the same....chores chores chores.... :( Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sadface, have a beer! alcohol always makes chores better Keilana|Parlez ici 21:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigues Solitaire
Hi, I've been working on the Rodrigues Solitaire article, getting it to GA, and I was thinking it could go to FA. J Milburn, who reviewed the GA, suggested I should ask you to look over it. Does it look alright? I see you're busy, so no hurry. Cheers, FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good at first glance - will drop some comments - good work on all the extinct bird articles - I find them too depressing to work on generally....Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and yeah, I can understand that, but I personally find them important to improve, since they might spread some awareness of human induced extinction. I got interested in extinct bird as a child when my mom told me about the Great Auk and the Pied Raven, two extinct birds from her native Faroe Islands. It made me quite angry. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for locking this article until the issue concerning the vulgar term "nigger goose" is resolved. I would, however, request that you revert to the page before where the term was reverted. I don't know the rules concerning locking pages that violate the three-revert rule but this page dodn't have the term in it for many years and it has only been added by a very new anonymous user in the past few days. Is this possible? If it is indeed deemed to be inappropriate why keep it there for any length of time? Cheers. Dger (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, yet it looks like consensus is leaning to keep it in. I'll drop a note there. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does and that is very disappointing. I think this reflects badly on Wikipedia and its editors. Many web-based providers copy the information from Wikipedia and that just spreads the term more widely instead of it dying out gracefully. Dger (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop a note on the village pump and anywhere else I can think of. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, more input could tip the balance. Dger (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you unprotected the article. I would like your input on what I would like to do. The support group is longer but appears to be mainly based on not censoring rather than whether it is an appropriate common name. I would like to remove the whole list because none of them are strong common names for this species.
Crow-duck - could find no good sources
Lawyer - could find no good sources, ridiculous name, how would you know what was meant if used in speech
Shag - is a name for any cormorant, it would need to be placed in every cormorant article
Taunton Turkey - local, with no good reference, one that was suggested, was listed as out-of-date in the referenced dictionary
I decided to remove Crow-duck, Lawyer, and Shag for the reasons mentioned earlier. I have left Nigger Goose and Taunton Turkey but the latter should probably go too. I checked on the references given and they did not pan out. The Merriam Webster dictionary says it is no longer contained in its free dictionary and my 1977 edition of the Audubon guide does not include it. Cheers. Dger (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, discussion of common names can be quite extensive - see Boletus edulis for an example. I still haven't looked much into this one....and I need to get to sleep as it is late here (in Australia...) cheers/good night, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Sorry to keep you up. I made a final plea and have decided not to continue participation in the discussion. Someone else will have to make the final decision or indecision. This was an upsetting debate. When I mentioned this name to people in Canada they uniformly cringed. My daughter told me not to use it around her two-year old. My wife is giving me a series of books on the use of racial and gender negative words. Are you aware of a wider debate in Wikipedia articles about such usage that could apply here and in similar articles? It was interesting to read in Brazil nut whether Nigger Toes should be included. After a decision was reached and implemented some anonymous user erased the statement and it has yet to return to the article. So much for reaching and using concensus. No worries. Dger (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ec
There was an edit conflict. It looks like your comments disappeared in the middle of it. My apologies. Obviously please feel free to place in chronological order. - jc37 14:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, its hopeless. Two guys control the article and drive others off. Doc James tried to help but he's unable to stop the ugly behavior. So I'm not going to work on the article anymore. Thanks anyway. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for coming to help Casliber!!!!! I wish Doc James would come back too! This article is desperately in need of attention! :) ~ty (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber,
DID is now at peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dissociative identity disorder/archive1. However, I fear the scrutiny the article needs will not be forthcoming regarding content. I don't believe DID holds together as a diagnosis. But the article (to me) comes across as a sledgehammer against it, without actually explaining the psychodynamics, concentrating more on the political context. My mind is whirling trying to put together a plausible explanation but I don't have access to journals etc. I think the whole article should be hacked down to a brief description, rather than allowing what is there now.
Is there any way to get help? Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DID is getting out of hand. Peer reviewer is gone on vacation I think. I'm afraid to continue for fear I'll lose my cool. There's a person who says she has DID editing massive amounts on the talk page. I moved some of her stuff from the peer review to the talk page for fear of overwhelming the peer reviewer. What to do? Should I just be realistic and give up? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I find these pages heavy going. The volume of communication is such that it makes it difficult to know where to start. Part of the problem about a peer review is that then there are two places where dialogue is happening rather than one, making it doubly difficult to follow. By all means, if you're feeling yourself getting too worked up, take a break, and also maybe post at WT:MED that you're taking a breather. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you feel! Please see my last comment to you at peer review.[9] with links to comments by WhatamIdoing[10] and [11] and Worm on the editor's talk page.[12], all of which got nowhere. Is there a process that should be used? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually started reading some of the material last night before bedtime. I'll read some more today. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bowl of strawberries for you!
I enjoyed reading the Signpost article about all you've contributed - thanks!!!! SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, after I finish periodic table, do you want to do a joint improvement of Canopus? I noticed it was listed on your userpage under things to do. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, there was a really interesting book at the Field Museum on Polynesian astronomy that had a whole bit on Canopus, when I go back there I'll track it down for you. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go team! I think I can hunt some stuff down in the notes I took the last time. I should be back there in about 3 1/2 weeks; will let you know. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the timing is alright. I still have to get pelican over the line and see if/when Sadalsuud (talk·contribs) has time to be around for Betelgeuse.....the other on that looks interesting the more I read about it is Arcturus...lots of mythology, a single star (always easier than writing about star systems) and maybe extragalactic in origin....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I pulled a bunch of stuff from archaeoastronomy conferences on Arcturus in Native American mythology/astronomy - it was quite important around 100BC apparently. I'm going for Auriga (constellation) at FAC right now, once I get that through I may push Bootes, not sure. I may need to take a break from constellations and write about something else. If that's the case, I'll definitely go for Arcturus or Canopus, both are fascinating and a push to FAC could be really fun. I'll leave that up to you. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I'm open to either Arcturus or Canopus. Sounds like a lot of editors will be working on whatever article we choose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any consensus has been reached on which version of Tree to retain. Mark Marathon has returned the page to its original version. A helpful suggestion you made for resolving the matter has been edited out of the talk page. I can't help being amused that a statement that he keeps banging on about on the talk page, "A young tree is called a sapling", also appears in the original version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I as well would appreciate your comments on this, as it was Peter Damian reaching out to you as a sockpuppet evading his community ban. Regards, — Moeε 19:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Calisber. Thanks once again for the copy edit and the comments you left at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorset/archive1. We have taken them on board and done our best to incorporate them into the article. It appears that the review is drawing to a close now and I wondered if you had any further advice or comments to make? All the best--Ykraps (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me...I have fond and all too brief memories of driving round Dorset.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! I've not used bots in my time here. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Varied Thrush
Heyya Casliber,
I'm working on a sandbox for the article Varied Thrush, and've gathered some sources on the talk page. Since you contribute a lot to this kind of area, what sections should be added to bird articles (i.e. taxonomy, range, ecology, and behavior)? The part at WP:BIRDS wasn't very specific. Thanks. Editio princeps (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about a sandbox as these articles are usually pretty quiet. Just do it in mainspace where it is. I'll show you the sections. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Core Contest judging procedure
Can you tell me the procedure for wrapping up the Core Contest at the end of August? Is there an on-wiki venue for judge discussion, or will emails be sent back and forth? Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What we did last time was after the end of the time (in this case Aug 31/Sep1), look at the diffs of before/after versions, each independently rate them using broadness, state of article and size of improvement, and email each other with conclusions of best to worst. Interestingly, we were all very similar. There were a couple of emails discussing and then agreed on a ranking and posted. Was fairly straightforward really. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much Delayed Thank you! I was on a wikibreak, hence replying now. Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 16:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for cognitive vulnerability
Hey! This nomination template has been looked over and since the reviewer suggested a hook, ONLY THE HOOK needs to be looked over by another new reviewer. The rest of the article has been surely taken care of. If you have the time to just check it out, please do so. Thanks.
Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, I've been asked to throw some cold water over the dog-fight here, please have a look at my comment on the talk page and let me know what you think. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, there is a proposal on my talk page, which might at least give a way for me to end the war. Would you be prepared, as a voice of sanity, to support that suggestion? If so, could you reply on my talk page rather than here so that your views are visible to the warring factions? Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cas, I was wondering if you're at all interested in FA-ing Canis Minor. I just added some Inuit mythology I had found at the Field library, and did a little ref cleanup to standardize them all to your format. I would be happy to do more if you want me to; it's a little constellation with not that many stars or deep-sky objects, so I don't think it would take too long. If not, that's totally fine, just thought I'd ask. :) Anyways, happy editing/arbitrating! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Sounds good. I was just trying to 5x expand Piscis Austrinus for DYK, waiting for Sadalsuud to finish a couple of things on Betelgeuse and musing on what else to do with Corona Australis. I was thinking myself that Canis Minor would be good to go GA/FA. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I have a bunch of information on Piscis Austrinus and Corona Australis, I'll make Canis Minor and Bootes my first priorities but take a look at those two. I'm moving and getting access to a gigantic library in a couple days; how about I add everything I can find on CMi and we move from there? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sounds good. I'll look over CMi again soon. Corona Australis only needs a tiny bit of buffing before FAC (glaxy stuff), though I couldn't find any more chinese info....Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, sounds excellent! I think I have some CrA stuff sitting around - Levy's Deep Sky Objects and Staal's The New Patterns in the Sky may have info on galaxies and non-western astronomies, respectively. I'll take a look tonight/tomorrow/after I move Wednesday. I'm sure there's something in my new ginormous library too, I can start with CrA when I get there if you'd like. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - looking at CrA, I've added just about everything I can possibly think of, so if you want to do one last scouring of sources and add a bit, I think it is then worth nomming. Happy to co-nom. While that is sitting at FAC, we can brush up Canis Minor for GA nomination. I've lost interest in Piscis Austrinus which is looking mighty tricky for a 5x expansion and I was never that enthused about the constellation anyway....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I'll let you know when I've finished adding everything. Probably around Thursday or Friday, if that's all right. Canis Minor looks pretty close, I'll get some of that archaeoastronomy information in there too. Piscis Austrinus...meh. I agree, DYK is probably a no go, but I don't think it's terribly far from GA. Let's focus on CMi and CrA for now - that plus Auriga and Bootes is plenty for me! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up, I think Corona Australis Molecular Cloud would be a great DYK candidate; I gave it a brief mention in the section on deep sky objects. It's pretty interesting, lots of ghits, and I think we could easily get 1500 characters. Let me know if you're interested? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Also lots of amazing pix of it online - I wonder how much overlap with the Corona Australis Nebula, if synonymy which is the preferred term....Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering the same. Not sure if one is a part of the other or what...I'm moving tomorrow but I should be able to hunt something down by the end of the weekend. There's quite a few redlinks in CrA right now, maybe while we wait for FAC comments we could DYK some of those too? It's not too difficult, I did NGC 2080 and N44 (emission nebula) in about a day. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read about them and molecular clouds the more I see they are the same thing, so have rejigged the article thusly. The Corona Australis Molecular Cloud would be an easy DYK, but individual stars and some galaxies can be tricky unless there is a paper. NGC 6768 was very hard to find anything written about it at all! Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that makes sense. And yes, some are pretty difficult but still doable. I've found a bit of information from Astronomy so I'll keep going with that. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WRT Sourcing
What is WRT sourcing?842U (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An abbreviation of "with respect to" sourcing. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Talk:Australian Cattle Dog. Message added 13:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If you have a moment, could you please clarify which version you reference when you say, "This version." Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File mover rights
Hi Casliber! If you have time, could you take a look at my request for file mover rights? Thank you, anyway! Felipe Menegaz 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Calisber. I sincerely apologize if I have unintentionally canvassed over at WT:FILM. It was a good faith mistake on my part, and I did not intend to be disruptive or break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. I promise that it never happens again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check DYK prepare area times before promoting
Casliber, I appreciate that you do the unpleasant and time-consuming job of moving Prepare areas into Queues, but please give those prep areas a minimum of a couple of hours for people to have a chance to see and edit them. I was just going to edit a hook in Prep 2, which I had finished assembling 40 minutes before, only to discover that it was already promoted. This means, unfortunately, that none of the usual crew (mostly non-admins such as myself) can do fixes on this set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, you want to tell me what you want to fix and I can do it pronto? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All's well: I put it on the talk page, and it was taken care of pretty quickly. (There was another admin-only issue, so I combined them into one post.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool. Ping me if I'm around if you need admin stuff in future. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. When you recently edited Persoonia hirsuta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please see!
See my post to Fainites: [13] Subtly changing an article in tiny ways to say the opposite of what is meant - is this vandalism? e.g.[14]MathewTownsend (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is editing a page vandalism. You are grasping at straws to try and ban me Mathew - just so I don't edit the DID article. I find this quite sad. Please stop hounding me and following me all around WP. Read up on attachment theory and you will see I am correct, even if I am not, any editor can go in and change it. It is not vandalism. It is not my POV. It is what I have read many times. I am not going to battle with you over that page. The page is a good one and does not need the conflict. In my free time I read through articles that interest me and correct what I see wrong. Since when is this a crime. If I have time and interest today I might add a reference to that, if not then someone else there might or they might remove it. I think that article is excellent! I have no problem with that one word there or not. I feel I am being attacked and stalked just so I won't ever be able to edit the DID article. Tanya ✫♫♥ 14:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tanya, most of it is stylistic and fine. I did like the mdashes which made the flow a little clearer but not really fussed either way, but I am familiar with attachment theory (did contemplate forking out $3000 to learn the AAI but never got 'round to it....sigh) and couple of quibbles. I'll raise the odd one on the talk page. I do like attachment and am generally more psychodynamically oriented than average...I had a really hard couple of days at work and am pretty brain dead so reading stuff like work is ...well...like work...but we'll get there. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflit)
Thank you Casliber. You are a dear. I appreciate your help. :) Tanya ✫♫♥ 15:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I edited Attachment theory before you did, so I hardly "stalked" you there. It's on my watchlist. For example, changing modified to a less "all or nothing" approachtomodified to an "all or nothing approach." is changing the meaning. And has such advantages todaytohas similar advantages today. Also, I think the original spelling should be retained e.g. "organised", "emphasised and not Americanized to "organized" and "emphasizes". MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No harm was intended. I will not edit anything but the DID page until this is all settled. I don't want to be hounded and attacked. Tanya ✫♫♥ 15:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
I think CrA is getting close. I found a bunch of sources for the Corona Australids and I'm going to go see what I can find in the new library today. I know there are several papers about the molecular cloud, so I'll be adding to that, along with a couple online sources about the Corona Australids. Basically...I haven't forgotten about it and will be doing some heavy duty work today. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of stuff to do - was seeing if I could expand Phoenix (constellation) 5x - was 200 words to begin with so not far off now.....
NB: this thesis I just discovered is in the uni library about a 5 min walk from where I work two days a week...coincidences....Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I have some time before classes start, I could try to do a little on Phoenix too, I have some good stuff on the various Phoenicid meteor showers. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(grunt....groan) only....41...more...words.....to.....go......to....5.....x......expansion......Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel awful dropping in like this, after getting such a laugh seeing the above in my watchlist, but I'm afraid I have some unfortunate news. Since 5x is based on the article's peak, regardless of how good that material was (the only exception is for copyvio, which can be discounted), DYKcheck is going to see that peak, which was on December 2, 2008, and came in at 2302 characters, or 384 words. With the article now at 5866 prose characters, or 1002 words, it still will have to approximately double from where it is now to satisfy the expansion rules. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
aah I see, it was this edit where some stuff got trimmed...now I wonder what SLM is.....this segment is actually true and specific to the constellation but unfortunately written in an essay-like style. I wonder......Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! I'm so glad. You'll need to point it out on your nomination, but the copied text was 210 words totaling 1197 characters, giving the December 2008 non-copyvio total of 174 words and 1105 characters, below the 200 words and 1184 characters of August 16 of this year, your baseline for 5x. (It was introduced on April 3, 2006, and finally excised on December 14, 2008.) I hope I didn't give you too bad a fright! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Triple crown
Hi, I noticed you award triple crowns. I was told that the nominations page is pretty inactive. I nominated myself for the regular triple crown at Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations, as I meet all the criteria. Can you take a look to see if I can be given the award? Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I hate to bother you so quickly after you just awarded me the standard crown, but I just had a new piece of featured content promoted, and now qualify for an upgrade. Whenever you find the time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations? Thanks again, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs in CrA
Hey Cas, I've been doing some work on CrA and I was wondering if you'd be interested in converting the refs to {{sfn}}. I've used it on Andromeda, Aries, Auriga, and Bootes, and I think it's a pretty great format. You're the lead on this, so I wanted to ask before going all bold on your future FAC! I just think sfn would make the article a little more accessible. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I haven't gotten up to speed with new referencing so go for it! Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, no one has posted to us about Kafka's article since you did in the beginning over at CORE#Entries. Can you give us some input before we run the last leg of the race? Thanks, PSKY und Gerda. PumpkinSkytalk 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
if you are interested in literature articles, could you do a GA review of Dostoyevsky? If not, what people do you recommend? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:Wadewitz has become active again, I'd ask her. Not sure who else comes to mind. Malleus? Hmmm......I'm not big on literature....Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the options of a PhD in English literature and me, I think GreatOrangePumpkin's options are clear. MalleusFatuorum 21:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Core contest question
Are we supposed to be getting these ready for reviews? I'm seeing a lot of activity and it's making me very nervous. There's no way I'd ever think of going to a review without a strong collab with the geology department and that can't happen in the time-frame of the contest. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I hadn't given it much thought the first time around, but I guess the nest thing about a GA review is some feedback to work on and improve the article still further. I guess you could place a note on the page of WP France/Switzerland etc. and WP Geology and ask for feedback and see what happens. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well a couple of geology editors have looked and given feedback. But I think I'm confused - for some reason I thought we were working on these alone. Anyway, I'm very burned out, so it has to stand as it is. Or if I get a second wind I can go around asking for feedback. Thanks anyway. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, if a person gives you some suggested improvements and then you go do them, they count as you doing them, so take a breather and see if yuo can do waht they suggest. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Cas, haven't been feeling great and my question above wasn't clear. Yeah, the changes have been made (multiple rewrites of the section) so that's all fine for now. I think I agree with Johnbod's statement that some of these topics are so big that it's hard to take them to review; certainly I don't feel that I've done a full literature search or have the time to do so, but I realize I've been pressuring myself unnecessarily. Hope this makes a little more sense. I'm taking a breather. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I know the book but don't have it. This was written by Queensland authors so different view which is good. I can get it from library either today or thursday (next door to work on these days). Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you'd be able to tell me what it says about Mycena chlorophanos for an article about a similar (bioluminescent) species M. chlorophos. Don't go out of your way to get it, there's no rush, and many other articles to work on in the meantime ... thanks! Sasata (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Today was tricky for a number of reasons so was unable to get there. Thursday will be doable. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dodo FAC
Hi, thanks for your help with the Solitaire article, I will try to get Dodo to FAC next, but I'm currently waiting for a copyedit. I've expanded the article to many times the size of the original GA (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dodo&oldid=179049346), so it could be nice to see what could be improved. Not asking you to read the entire thing, which is pretty long, just if you see any glaring issues at first look. Thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am done with my stage one expansion. For more, I'll have to actually get a book or two :) I've nominated the article at WP:GA. Any comments would be appreciated (as would a proofreading by a native English editor :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you get a reviewer. Maybe review someone else's....I'll offer some comments if I can but can't Review per seCasliber (talk·contribs) 23:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feline or felid?
Hi, Casliber. Since you've had some experience writing about big cats, I wonder if you'd take a look at this edit request which has been open for over two weeks. I'm afraid the subtleties of taxonomic nomenclature often elude me. Rivertorch (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea - my initial impression is that "felid" is safer but "feline" more accessible iff it is applicable....Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I was afraid to! Sorry I made a mess Fainites - it was not on purpose - I just wanted to know more about the subject so it was calling me and when I read I just naturally edit!
Casliber, I know what you mean about doing the same sort of thing on WP that you do at work - it get's old. I write about nature all day, so I enjoy the change of pace here. I think you do exactly the opposite - you enjoy writing about nature for that change. You should enjoy what you do. There is a peer reviewer coming to work on the DID page and in the meantime everyone is finally being patient - more or less. Please don't feel obligated to work on something that you just don't want to get in the middle of. We all still think you are awesome. :) Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess to explain myself - there's wiki-editing that I find fun and relaxing and then there is stuff that is more of a chore for various reasons. I've had an insanely busy time at work and home in the past several weeks with patchy free time at best, and it is easy to do stuff in the former category than the latter, but I try every now and again......Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy life! A man as busy as yourself should not add extra stress to it. I would find WP a chore if I had to edit things I do not want to. Certain things just draw me at certain times - as I am sure they do you too. When you feel the desire to wade through the mud at the DID article - you will, but don't feel any pressure, please! To help, I did clean up my talk page at least. ;) Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 21:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boötes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Draco and Virgo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please keep an eye on tis article? Some guys are keeping removin´ the new pharaoh´s boxes... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See this. I truly enjoyed working on Kafka. PumpkinSkytalk 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greenwich uh-oh
Wups, I wrote up a bunch of diffs assuming UTC when you specifically wrote at the top of the contest page that it was based on Sydney time. I'll take another stab at it tomorrow. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assume is the key word there. Didn't you read the rules? PumpkinSkytalk 01:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two items
I accidentally rolled back your recent edit at WT:DND. I have a new smart phone and the rollback button is apparently the easiest thing for my fat fingers to hit on the touchscreen. Sorry about that. Also, congratulations on making to the next round of the WikiCup! Very impressive work. —Torchiesttalkedits 03:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've done that myself - having rollback on a smartphone is somewhat risky.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Just did the same thing myself tonight (and not the first time, either). As careful as one can be, the rollback seems to engage at precisely the moment you are scrolling up to get to the lower portion of the watchlist; and it hits that one button, and lets you know you've done it it. "Shit! Hang on a second..." The friends I was with IRL were like, "Oh, did you miss something on your precious Wikipedia?" while I'm scrambling to rollback my rollback (while the smartphone catches up). What a world... Doctalk 06:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sign of a wikipedia addict...sitting on a train as reverting is about the only easy thing to do (other than reading and digesting FACs)Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could be...and I noticed that editing it shows a devil face in the edit window with editor help (or something) enabled despite not being shown in the template.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 15:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Razorback
Just watching now. Jesus ye australians are fucked up. ps [15]..."I knew that prick was my fucking dad from a video of crime-watch my mother had". Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really liked the film of Razorback, Iva Davies did the soundtrack too.....that's a nice ditty :) How about thischarmingblokeCasliber (talk·contribs) 15:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know Kevin well, he was a big hit here when I was about 16 or so, and always makes me laugh. Closest we have is this dude [16], and then these guys [17] who are just funny as hell, highly recommended.[18]. Ceoil (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, John Cooper Clarke was popular here too...I was trying to find an unbowdlerized version of chickentown the other day to explain to my kids the cleverness of lyrics. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh - that discussion is a wall of text, but I see the supportive tone. Need to revisit this. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. At least some help. I reported the edit-warrior (who had already received blockings for his behavior), but I received only could shoulders by admnistrators. As if I could know where to beg for help and report such behavior elsewhere! The problem is that GOP knows about the project´s discussion but continues his actions... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A beer for you!
Thank you so much for your support on the Stephen_Hawking FAC. It was much appreciated ;) Cheers! Fayedizard (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Talk:Boötes. Message added 03:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles
I commented. I'm sure it's not what you wanted to see, but frankly I've had enough of a lot of the people involved in this subject and given that I'm only semi-active at the moment due to IRL it would be pointless me volunteering my services. Closing the Muhammad Images RfC was chickenfeed compared to this shambles. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Sea Acres National Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Maile66 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Windy Nook GAR
Thanks for reviewing this article; it has been hanging around for a while now and I was starting to wonder of it would ever be reviewed. Much appreciated :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries...I like these little town ones....Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice please...
Hi mate, I see you are a regular admin-contributor at WP:RPP. Was wondering if you might be able to give me some advice. Author and professor Karen Leigh King yesterday released details of the Gospel of Jesus' wife (I created the second page). Given the subject matter, I can see both very quickly becoming battlegrounds for non-NPOV contributors. We have already seen one vandalism edit to the first article and I'm sure we'll see more. I didn't want to jump the gun and go straight to RPP when there has been no significant vandalism and PP might actually be disruptive given subsequent edits to the second article have been from an IP editor who has made some very good edits. My concern is that both pages might be of interest to outside users, especially in the next few days, and any vandalism could have a very detrimental effect on outside readers. Would appreciate your advice. Cheers, Stalwart111(talk) 03:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
As an indication, page-views for Karen Leigh King have gone from a dozen-or-so a week to almost 1000 in the last 24 hours. Cheers, Stalwart111(talk) 03:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, whatever you think is appropriate. Note you SPP'd King, so thanks for that. Would be great to have a few more people to keep an eye on both (would actually be good to get some experienced editors to contribute to both!). Thanks for your consideration and advice. Cheers! Stalwart111(talk) 12:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CORE apologies
I must apologise for my apparent lack of involvement in the current CORE contest. There are two reasons: first, some messy off-wiki business which is limiting my time here, and secondly my (over-)involvement with one of the candidate articles, namely Franz Kafka. The Kafka expansion has been huge and well worthy of recognition, but the article still has considerable problems that I am discussing with the main editors. This has left me little time to consider the merits of the other candidates. In the circumstances, given the article's importance I feel I should continue my efforts to improve Kafka, and that I should bow to your and the other judge's opinion as to the final rankings, with the plea that Kafka, if it is not thought actually prize-worthy, should get an honourable mention. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
You have been trouted for: Telling me that my article got featured in Did You Know. I never guessed that the article I created would get to 7600 hits, or that it would explode so quickly. I guess that just happens. Right? That makes me want to make more articles.
Abortion titles RfC
Hi Casliber. Apologies for not responding sooner to the note you left on my page re the above RfC. I've had very little time for actively participating in Wikipedia over the last few months and that seems likely to continue to be the case over the short to medium term. I stand by an earlier commitment I made to stick with the RfC and I've been keeping up with the discussion on a periodic basis, but while things have been going round in circles I've felt that there would be little point in my contributing. My views are already on record - that I believed the best way forward was for the then-closers to draft a second RfC - but that never really took off. It does seem that opinion is moving towards a second RfC of some sort; I hope the focus will be the structure of the topic and scope of the articles, because until that's settled I believe choosing actual titles is irrelevant.
I've noted the general dissatisfaction with the previous close and ongoing comments about the closers, and accept that my mostly hands-off approach may have been the wrong way to go about things and has possibly given an impression of disinterest (not helped by my general lack of editing activity). Given my reluctance to actively interfere with the process, and the other calls on my time, it may be best if I recuse from further participation.
