User talk:Casliber: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:24, 6 December 2009

This user is busy with some real life headaches for the next few days and and may not respond swiftly to queries.

More unIDed fungi

G'day Cas,

I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324

Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 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. ISSN 0078-2238.) 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???

LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1]

On Agaricus: 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)

On Boletus: Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).

Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pork

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]

Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 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]

Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 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]

Sandwich Tern

I see you've taken it on, good work. The display and vision bits at Crested Tern apply for all the genus. The opening sentence isn't fully supported by Bridge - although Elegant is very close, Lesser Crested isn't, other than being in the same genus. I won't abandon this article (after all, one good ... aaaarrrggh, it's catching), but let me know if there's anything specific esp from BWP, Olsen or Harrison, where I have the books. Now, must be time for a couple of slices of bread with some meat in. 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian figs

Been a bit of a spike in editing the few days... Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute tool that. We'll see how many GAs, DYKs and FAs we can get. Got bits and pieces of horticultural stuff to add yet :) ...just musing on how to bonsai my species... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFOINFO

Hi, a site called UFOINFO is used in multiple articles as reference. Do you think it should be considered RS? I cannot see any editorial board or anything by which it can be considered RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I. I guess next step is googling principal writers to see if they are notable independently. Not really my area. Otherwise the newspaper reports listed on the website themselves may have to serve...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilio

FloraBase has an entry for this, but no other information.[2] Know anything about it? Hesperian 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I found it.[3] Hesperian 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and I see your name in the Acknowledgements too.... Hesperian 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you might want to have a look at this too. Hesperian 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A book you might enjoy

It's all about flowers ... well, err, kind of.

Patricia Fara, Sex, Botany and Empire: The Story of Carl Linnaeus and Joseph Banks, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2003).

She's a senior tutor in philosophy at Cambridge, written several very entertaining and informative books related to the history of science, probably including her doctorate.

But I expect you know of her and this book already. I would have thought it a must read for the Banks-ia Study Group leader. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. No I haven't heard of her. I will chase this up :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Glad I mentioned it then. I'm very confident you'll find Patricia's writing as entertaining as it is informative. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huia - suggestions

Re this:

"In section "Relationship with humans", can the phrases, "In some legends," and "In other traditions," mention the legends and traditions? Not strictly necessary, I am suggesting this because the above lines are consider Weasel words.".

This will be hard to fix since I don't have the book Kotare used - and I wouldn't want to either, probably, since a pet hate of mine is anything which lumps traditions from different regions together without giving the sources. I would suggest getting rid of all of this:

In Māori culture, only people of high rank wore Huia feathers.[9] In some legends, the Huia was one of the birds attained from the heavens by Tāwhaki so that his wife could decorate her hair with its feathers; this celestial origin meant that the feathers of the Huia were treated with the greatest respect.[5]

In other traditions, the Huia was the leader of the hākuturi, the spirit guardians of the forest, which included Whiteheads and Riflemen.[5] A single Huia feather was worn as a talisman against misfortune. If a man dreamed of a Huia or its feathers, it meant his wife would conceive a daughter; if he dreamed of Kōtuku feathers it implied the conception of a son.[5]

We could use as a partial source Traditional Maori Stories by Margaret Orbell, Reed 1992, pp82-83, and rewrite as follows:

In Māori culture, the "white heron and the huia were not normally eaten but were rare birds treasured for their precious plumes, worn by people of high rank".[ADD ORBELL REF]. <START FOOTNOTE: Orbell mentions some of the sacred associations of the Huia, saying [page 83] that if a man dreamed of a Huia or its feathers, it meant his wife would conceive a daughter.<END FOOTNOTE>

We can also add a supporting reference from this page: [4] and could perhaps still add the reference no [9].

Hope this helps Kahuroa (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatoos

Well if there were a single source I would not have put it where I put it. We cannot (at present) put the whole thing in the article. But we can add some of the info. Here's how:

Every time we cite a cladistic study, we automatically accept arguments from parsimony. This is not immediately obvious to the novice reader, but if would not accept arguments from parsimony, each and every cladistic analysis is baseless mumbo-jumbo.

We could not argue like this if this were Conservapedia or if we'd subscribe to intelligent design - a Creator could invoke any trait out of thin air, without precedent in the ancestors. Whereas if you accept the premises of cladistic studies as valid, it is automatically accepted that anything that is frequent in the basal and rare in the advanced lineages of a clade is presumed to be the ancestral character state because "it is more parsimonious" to assume a single origin than multiple origins.

So we can take all the phylogenetics papers that have been published - as we'll do anyway - and arrive at a consensus phylogeny. And we can reference the appearance of all cockatoos with a single source - Juniper/Parr, HBW, Forshaw/Cooper for example (I would not prefer HBW here, as the other sources are more detailed) and cross-refer them to the consensus phylogeny. And then we can say "It is notable that among the basal lineages, the following plumage patterns are generally seen: ... This suggests that it is most parsimonious that such plumage was already present in the last common ancestor of all living cockatoos."

We could cite some phylogenetics textbook's part on character evolution for this, but we don't cite a physics textbook's part on gravity either any time some article mentions something falling down.

Taking this, we can note that certain plumage patterns are seen in (almost) all the basal lineages and only lost in the advanced lineages. "Almost" because the question of why Probosciger is aterrimus ("the blackest") is unresolved. So we cannot be certain about details, but we can point out that all the data contradicts certain patterns of plumage evolution pretty certainly. As regards the original cockatoos, what is unparsimonious would for example be:

Absence of barring, in particular in the tail feathers.
Absence of intense carotenoid coloration on the head, especially the ear region.
Some elongation of the crown feathers (though this need not have been a crest - something like seen in Deroptyus would fit the bill just as well).
Absence of any carotenoid coloration outside head and undertail coverts (i.e. body plumage pure black, grey or white without any brownish hue).

What we can also use is one of the psittaciform phylogenies that puts the NZ clade at the base (which is essentially any modern psittaciform phylogeny) as corroborating evidence - a cryptic pattern involving some degree of barring is appartently plesiomorphic for all crown Psittaciformes (and I suspect for all Psittaciformes in general).

In any case, one thing needs to be noted: the placement of the Cockatiel is not determinable with certainty at present! (IIRC one possibility is slightly more likely than the other, but I'd have to sift through all the papers to find out which. Given how singular it is, even that cannot be regarded as proof; we need fossil evidence from near the point where the Cockatiel branched off from the other lineages, and we do not have this.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Gang might actually not warrant inclusion in either subfamily - while the analysis results for the Cockatiel are contradictory because you can get quite good support for either possibility (IIRC), Callocephalon simply refuses to fit into the "nice" dichotomies phylogenetics software will try to construct. As regards the synthesis stick, my take is with WP:BURDEN - it is pretty hard to challenge the obvious (namely that some taxon has some phenotypical traits), especially considering Felsenstein's "Phylogenies and the comparative method" (which should provide sufficient justification for a "naive" character mapping) gets cited in scholarly works on average once every three days since 24 years... Note though that as soon as the phylogeny gets contentious, a dedicated source is surely needed - see for example the very fine paper here.

One can actually turn the burden of evidence, in this case for example: "provide a source that suggests that the LCA of cockatoos was all-white/all-black". Otherwise, where would one stop? The conclusion that chimpanzees were never bipedal in their evolution is generally accepted at face value by precisely the same reasoning, although there is simply not a single shred of material evidence to support this assumption: no fossils on the chimp side of the lineage are known, and the fossils on the human side of the lineage are all (at least preferentially) bipedal.

But as I said, claims cannot be made with finality as long as there is no study where Probosciger tail and cheek feathers have been photographed in UV or observed under a SEM. What we can do at this point is to observe the obvious, describe the situation as far as can be plainly seen.

PS: the molphyl/clock studies of psittaciforms and the fossil record square NO WAY, you guys gotta be careful. The recent "proves Cretaceous" paper was technically far better as I thought, but in the context of Wikipedia it would be accused on severe POVpushing... For one thing, the Cretaceous scenario together with the molphyl trend to put them close to passeriforms (which may well be good, though I suppose not as close as the first large-scale trees suggest) puts the origin of a lot of birdy stuff into the Mesozoic nether regions. Also, a lot of fossils that ought to be there have not turned up, I mean not even traces in well-studied regions. And finally, the entire theory is probabilistic, but if that other paper on Cenozoic NZ and sea levels is right (it is cited off-handedly in the Cretaceous paper), the probability for a deep Mesozoic origin of the Psittaciformes is around 2.769126%ish ;-) (it is hard for kakapo ancestors to survive on a submerged microcontinent...) If they had titled it "cannot refute a Cretaceous origin", I'd have been delighted. But this way, it is just like the bad old times of molphyl 15 years ago -trying to outrace each other with data with a signal/noise ratio that reaches abysmality after 100 Ma.

Today's work: smelly frogs, or so it seems. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agaricus subrufescens

This medical mushroom article has seen significant change lately if you'd like to have a boo.LeadSongDog come howl 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE Notable saying?

I recalled this one....Talk:Fes,_Morocco#Old_moroccan_saying - is it famous in morocco? Or just some anglophone urban myth...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the article talk page. p.s. I like your Fez up there :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musca vetustissima

aka the Australian bush fly. It seems the proper name; Google. I found this here; Aussie salute and here; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aussie Salute (second nomination) and see it mentioned here; Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do ( which may be your doing ;). G'day, Jack Merridew 11:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Beetles, fungi and macro lenses

Hi Casliber. I saw the message you sent to fir0002. I doubt he'd be able to take any pictures of fungi since he is stuck in Melbourne due to university. I went for a walk through a cool temperate rainforest area of Wielangta forest today. I took a large number of pretty good quality fungus pictures. I need help with identifying them however, and have posted the images at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi#18_IDs_from_Wielangta_Forest.2C_Tasmania. I'd appreciate your help since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in the area.

You also had some gear questions. Since you want to shoot insects too, I'd get a fairly long macro lens such as the tamron 180mm or the sigma 150mm. More critical than your choice of lens is your lighting. You want a 430ex or a 580ex (extremely useful for everything). For insects add a softbox, macro flash bracket and an E-TTL cord. The softbox and macro bracket can be easily home-made. For anything stationary ditch the bracket/softbox and use a $30 ebay shoot through umbrella and swivel, and some ~$30 ebay radio triggers. You will need a light stand or an assistant. For the stationary stuff I'd also consider a decent tripod, allowing you to balance ambient and flash light. The longest exposure in the fungi I've uploaded was four seconds, impossible without a tripod. Compare File:Wielangta Unidentified Fungus 5194.jpg (fill flash) with http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/579/img5192u.jpg, which is only ambient. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bookmarking so I don't lose it. Casliber (talk · contribs)

Alexithymia

I'm wondering where you stand professionally on the concept? Some are believers, others aren't ... I did a lot of work on that article before a certain ArbCom. It's still a pretty clean article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you peek at my query at User talk:Awadewit#Dissertation as a source? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia and climate change

This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of [Banksia] species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Yes please. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hesperian 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Temple of 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. :(

Alastair Haines (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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]

See also

Pura Ulun Danu Batur — the second most important temple on Bali. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:48, 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]

See also also

Bedugul Botanical Gardens (Commons:Category:Kebun Raya Eka Karya). Cheers, Jack Merridew

Alpha Centauri

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]

O-kay...taken it to the talk page.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judea and Samaria

Hi Casliber, if you have time, would you mind commenting here? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bract pattern

You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."

I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.

I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?

(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)

Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....

What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?

Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Special edition triple crown question

Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.

Here are discussions (one and two) about a special editiion triple crown for the WikiProject Video games. If this is something you don't handle or are too busy to handle, I more than understand. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sounds fun. I should have some time free in a few hours. I ducked on now to make a statement quickly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this. In regard to images, this free game controller image is frequently used for the Video games project. There are more video game-related icons on Commons as well as a category for video games in general. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nearly my bedtime here, but tomorrow I'll take a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just browsing through old posts. I have an idea for this one now, just need some time...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Thanks for the update.

And in addition to the editors listed here, PresN recently become a triple crown winner. His articles (DYK: Music of the Katamari Damacy series, GA: Music of the Final Fantasy series, and FC: List of Final Fantasy compilation albums) are music articles related to video game series. Please include him along with the others. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Cep

I just added 10k to the article and can keep going and going... Maybe we should start a to-do list on the talk page to focus efforts? Feel free to add a fact tag for anything in the article you think might get questioned at FAC, and I'll keep an eye out while I'm adding sources. Sasata (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great work. Be good to get a high profile edible featured - will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance your Carluccio (or other) book could be used to source the claims about the culinary desirability of the boletes in the "Related species" section? Sasata (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(snaps fingers) of course....later today :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another request: a google book search for "boletus edulis" & pliny turned up some interesting stuff like this and this. Might you be able to cobble up a couple of sentences from sources like these and put them in the article somewhere (where, I'm not sure); I'm thinking particularly about the Martial quote where's he's pissed that he got fed Suillus. I think it would be good to add some flavor; I'd do it myself but this is much more your area of expertise. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I have the other book. Will read it tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for putting that in. How about a translation of the Latin quote? I'm not sure about the format for including translations of quotes, and whether a source has to be given for the translation. Also, I found this in one of my books (Roberts R. (2006). "The Fungal Pharmacy - Medicinal Mushroom of Western Canada" p.36):

Pliny recorded that "Glaucias thinks Boleti are good for the stomach." He also wrote that "these are good as a remedy in fluxes from the bowels which are called rheumatismi, and for the fleshy excrescences of the anus, which they diminish and in time remove; they remove freckles and blemishes on women's faces; a healing lotion is also made of them, as of lead, for sore eyes; soaked in water they are applied as a salve to foul ulcers and eruptions of the head and to bites inflicted by dogs".

Let me know if you come across anything like this in your travels (i.e. more specifically when and where Pliny said this), and maybe I can use it to introduce a section on medicinal properties. Sasata (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm on the topic of medicinal properties, I'm wondering about this: "...but later investigations in the United States did not support this.[70]" Does your book have a reference to support this claim? I haven't come across these US studies yet. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input and some publisher location-checking requested here. Sasata (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review of SENSOR-Pesticides article

Howdy, Casliber! I've been working on the SENSOR-Pesticides article for some time now, and I've finally submitted it for peer review. I saw you listed on the peer review volunteers page, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look and the page and offer your edits, comments, and suggestions. Thank you! Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might have to wait 48 hours - I should really be doing my tax. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - even if you can just find a minute to skim it over and offer some general suggestions, that would be wonderful. Good luck on your taxes! Mmagdalene722 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, I just wanted to thank you again for your help with the peer review. When my supervisor comes back from his honeymoon, I'll have him look at it, and then I'll submit it for GA consideration (but I'll try to find different reviewers for that :-). Thanks very much for your advice - I definitely appreciate it! MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I'd be happy to take a look at it down the track too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mycena nargan

On October 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mycena nargan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Halloween has arrived for DYK. Thanks! Victuallers (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of giant monster films

On November 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of giant monster films, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryozoa

Hi, Casliber, thanks for the GA review. As you said, the articles on higher taxa of invertebrates are underdone on WP - which mirrors the distribution of zoologists, over 50% of whom focus on verbrates, a sub-phylum! I found Bryozoa one of the most interesting ones,as they seem to have taken colonial organisation further than any of the rest. 9 phyla done, dunno how many more I'll do - it all started as an effort to improve my basic zoology, in order to make more sense of some of the Cambrian explosion animals. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Casliber, many thanks for the barnstar. I've had some fun tweaking some of your medical colleagues - especially when another paleontogist and I moved Anus to Human anus, to save the blushes of innocent invertebrates, and then ~~ripp~~added a new Anus with some paleo content to make it hard to undo the move :-)

I didn't get "Chapter 14 ..." - is this where you explain and I say "Doh!" --Philcha (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just idly thinking of AA Milne and Winnie the Pooh chapter descriptions in this multichapter wiki saga....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eeyore? --Philcha (grey furry ears) 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

I looked on your facebook page manning and I know someone you know (one degree of separation - we-ell admittedly i don't know them that well) hehehe. Guess who. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morning

I assume you've seen this already, but just incase. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Panda

Thanks for the good edits. I've gotten my head too deep in this lately and didn't spot some of the issues. Donlammers (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always the way. We all miss stuff that others pick up and lead to plenty of "d'oh!" moments :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to thank you for the round of good edits leading to the GA satus. Among other things, it has taught me a lot about the styles preeferred here, which is good becauswe quite frankly I don't really have the time to read through all of the style articles at once. I will continue to hack away based on your final comments, and hopefully will eventually get this article in good enought condition for FAC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlammers (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination time

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Franamax. I've done my bit, it's waiting for you now. By the time you see this, he should have some of his own work done. Thanks! Risker (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving article

User:Virdi/CyanogenMod

I have userfied and moved it to User:Virdi/CyanogenMod for you. Good luck improving it and getting the necessary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both, Casliber and Virdi, for retaining this article, with the hope that one day it can be reinstated into mainspace. It's a shame someone^[who?] had such a hard-on for the AfD, considering some of the ~~fancruft~~ junk on WP, but so be it. I'll watchlist the userfied version and see if I can improve it myself. IMO it's already full of useful, topical information (especially considering the latest flap), and I commend everyone working to keep it alive. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land 06:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chin up ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Hi again Casliber - long time no see. As I consider you my Wikipedian mentor, I just wanted to get your comments on a rather ambitous article that I initiated on the Montara oil spill, currently very topical of course. Any comment on how to further refine this article would be most welcome. Cheers for now. Aareo (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaaa, interesting topic...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed...it's a big one. Thanks for your suggestions. I need another favour with it. It seems bizzare, but the media reports that are saying that the well is "plugged" and "capped" are actually contradicting what the company is saying. It's a case of journalistic licence. The problem is that we have built this article up from media reports, and now if we want to tighten it up so it's inline with the facts it makes the article look inaccurate because it contradicts the media - who are the ones who seem to be factually wrong in this case. So anyway, someone reverted my tighter edits back to the media version. See the Montara oil spill talk page. Quite funny really. And any comment from you, on how I can handle this, would be much appreciated. Thanks again Casliber.Aareo (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, teeing up sources etc. can be tricky. Will try to take a look. The best way often is to say X source said X and Y said Y... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have been sorting out the sources issue. It also got on the main pages news - which seemed to increase editing activity substantially (for the better generally). Actually tickled pink to see the article getting a high profile. Aareo (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, some impressive viewing stats! Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I think the issue has yet to be fully played out in the media: the impact on Indonesian fishers is still being sorted - doesn't look good. Also very interesting because of the way Australia asserts its' border in the north west region on local Indo fishers.Aareo (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is shaping up nicely BTW...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hebeloma aminophilum

On November 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hebeloma aminophilum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done .... thx from the wiki and Victuallers (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A project you might be interested in

Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support the Wikipedia community and its volunteers. I'm looking for a few people to help me get it off the ground, so feel free to join up! Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiver

I think yours is broken. I'm just sayin'. Lara 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

Many thanks for your input to The Beatles at FAC! With the current shortage of reviews I was starting to wonder if it would fall off the bottom of the list, but with Graham's vote of support things took off, and you were then instrumental in pinging other reviewers to get involved, including Wesley and Indopug and perhaps also Doc. With your supporting vote in place, and Doc's phenomenal impact on proceedings, things got a lot better! Many thanks—it's great to see this article regain its featured status, and the actions you took were key in achieving that. PL290 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Slater

Did you mean to semi-protect the article? There hasn't been any vandalism. Regards, Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've been musing on all BLPs where there has been any controversy in the media. Google picks up glitches pretty quickly (in minutes sometimes), and I have seen many cases of slow reverts of vandalism (i.e. has lain around for an hour or so). Thus I feel BLPs remain a subject anyone can edit......as long as they have an account-which means they take responsibility for their edits. If you strongly query this, I will unprotect, but I think my action is sound (I am not holding my breath for flagged revs, and we can easily unrpotect everything when it comes along). Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest on B. brownii

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f22r726063l50761/ Hesperian 10:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - makes for some dry reading. Hadn't realised it was 10 populations out of 27 which have become extinct since 1996.. :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Matisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boletophage

If you have time - Hypomyces chrysospermus needs a little more sourcing before it's ready for DYK. Ucucha 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Kataria

I have worked on the deleted article Nisha Kataria, which was nixed for lack of notability (no sources), and request that you take a look and see if it can be returned to the article space. Thanks! Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

It was suggested to me that I get adopted... So I looked through the list, and saw that you are active in med discussion/editing. I have something of an abbrasive personality, at least to some on WP, and thought you might be interested in showing me the ropes. Neuromancer (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure - my free time is a bit haphazard at the moment but I will have a look and make some suggestions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Neuromancer (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite Guinea pig

Hi Cas, just in time for the next ACE's, I've worked a bit on my uContribs thingy-doo. It has a little more sortability and linkability and I've collapsed the sections so people don't run into an incredible wall of text.

I've run one for you, it's at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Casliber, clocking in at a cool 675 MB of wikitext. Can you have a look-see at your leisure, spot-check for accuracy, find nit-picky things to cavil at, whatever you can do to pick it apart?

Oh yeah, and thanks for that other thing, but I already said I wouldn't spam around about it. Most appreciated though. :) Franamax (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem (to both) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANYONE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE "WENDY JAMES' DISCUSSION PAGE ON HER WIKI BUT WILL THEY REGISTER (LONGTERM) TO DO SO..?

As you so RIGHTFULLY point out..

Anyone can contribute to the "Wendy James" discussion page on her Wiki.

Will they..?

They might.

However this would mean they have to be RESPONSIBLE for what they edit or contribute..

(In the past there has been a tendency for quick registering then never "contributing" again or sticking around to justify/explain their words...)

Just "registering" ONCE to edit a couple of sentences and disappearing FOREVER will weaken their "argument" with Wikipedia..

(when people click their name and get "Page Not Found" that would be considered very damning for them..huh?)

And more than likely any "edits" (removals more than likely) they made would simply be re-instated.

"You cannot remove a person's discussion contribution simply because you do not like what they say.."

That is one of THE most widely used reasons given for re-instating discussion contributions isn't it..?

And of course REGISTERING just once to write rude phrases would kill their "argument" stone cold dead..

and of course there are only about 4 people in Sydney,Australia would be currently reading my contributions to the "Wendy James" discussion page in late November 2009 anyway..

As I said on my (VERY ARTICULATE) contributions having to constantly alter the main "Wendy James" article to make it seem more positive is very much the Law Of Diminishing Returns for anyone attempting it currently...

Lead cannot be turned into Gold no matter how hard you try..

Editors are well aware they could be JEOPARDISING their hard earnt "Editoral" privileges..

(Ironically because of their position Editors very often have much more stringent rules about justifying an "edit" than an ordinary contributor and so are instructed to think very hard indeed about making that edit and reminded Wikipedia won't play "favourites" with their own staffers..)

A lot of hassle and frankly for them a genuine pain in the ass..so edits are generally only reserved as "last choice" actions nowadays..

(it can be very difficult for them to have to put back their "edits and then publically apologise to the contributor..which Wikipedia would request if their edit is considered by senior Wiki staff hasty or unjustified..so you can understand the "mine field" around such issues on both sides..huh?)

For the sake of protecting the public image of someone who won't help they get back those privileges if they lose them permanently..?

It would have to be a "fan" of amazing loyalty and very few artists have the stature to attract that from the general public..

They may well be sacrificing a long cherished and enjoyable position for just one silly "knee jerk" reaction..

Most Editors do not "edit" Wikipedia lightly and it is highly unlikely anyone just spent years becoming an editor just for a UK pop star's short term benefit..

Which of course she will never thank them for publicly anyway..

Is it..?

Of course there are "people" who would love to erase everything I have written..

And of course 100,000's of other comments across literally millions of Wiki "discussion" pages for various reasons..

BUT..

Rightfully or wrongly Wikipedia have declared "discussion" pages a "permission to speak freely" area..

(within fairly liberalised reason of course..and that is a very wide church so infringements are very very rare indeed.)

Even more now as the creators of Wikipedia are currently ACTIVELY SEEKING any and all feedback about future Wiki rules and regulations..

As I previously said to AVOID their concept joining the "Coulda Been The Next Google" casualties from the past 10 years..

(Once again I doubt the owners of a potentially billion dollar on line franchise will consider comments on a pop star they more than likely have never heard of to be top of their agenda in November 2009 either..)

Thanks again for your INPUT and very clear reminder of the registration and responsibly rules of Wiki.

(I suspect that it may ironically have frightened off "those who wish to edit invisibly and with no comeback to themselves"…)

I have of course no idea if this was your intention or if you are simply "encouraging" challenging debate to my comments..

Either way.

Helpful.

My contributions survive another day.

(I suspect the link to the Towers Of London "discussion" page with it's rowdy but truthful comments left alone may have stayed the Wiki's Removal Hand..Precedent is an incredibly powerful tool in online discussions and the incentive for Wikipedia's lawyers to dig out their own rule book..)

Thanks again.

Wendtrut (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...good morning to you too. I am not sure where we're going with this one. Maybe let's discuss this on Wendy James' talkpage? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already there asking you a question..

Already on the 'Wendy James" discussion page..

Asked a question..

As for "where is this leading?"...

I wondering why you posted your "contribution"..

And who is was aimed at..

General public telling them they can contribute too..?

Wendtrut (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look again. I answered there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied and as for the "leading" part I was making the point (as I have done on the previous contributions) that editors who "edit" from impartialty as they are supposed to tend to be pretty RARE around the Wendy James wiki and this has DRIVEN the public away (either rightfully or wrongly) thus the WIKI only gets (rarer and rarer) "contributions" from the staffers of Wiki..

Not healthy for the it and has resulted in the current obviously STAGNANT nature of it..

That was where I was leading to..

and of course you can DELETE this little conversation between us from your personal Talk page if you want..

Wendtrut (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Spaniel

Hey there, twofold message - thanks for the reviews and work again on both English Cocker Spaniel and English Springer Spaniel. Now that that I've finished buttering you up, could I ask a favour? ;) I've recently expanded greatly Russian Spaniel from a few lines of stub text to what it is now - I figure it covers all the bases and am agonising over nominating it for GA or not. Reason is that I'm worried it'll fall afoul of the same problem that Alsatian Shepalute had - that is that there isn't a great deal of truly original sources (at least in this case, in English) and I've somewhat exhausted the sources that are available, so if any queries arose I probably wouldn't be able to deal with them.

Anyway, I'd appriciate it if you'd have a quick look and give me your opinion if its worth a try or not. I know there's a couple of books out there (good old Google Books!) that mention the Russian Spaniel so I might put off nomination until after I've had a chance to track down those through my library.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It does look meatier than the Shapalute article in that there is a more substantial history and recognition by some (??) minor kennel clubs. I am intrigued as to why it isn't recognised by the bigger ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to track down why on both the US and UK Kennel Clubs, essentially it's down to generations of dogs bred in each country as well as minimum numbers in the US. Also the American club may find the Russian Spaniel ineligible as it states that dogs created from combinations of two breeds already registered with them - however I believe that multiple lines were used back during it's original conception, so if documentation can be gathered from the Russian clubs to prove this, once the 500 dogs mark is achieved the Russian Spaniel will be eligible for registration with the AKC. Miyagawa (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same line of your wonderful Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users‎

When Netmouse signed up for the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members he mentioned this page: Strategic Task Force on increasing reader contributions Sometimes blowback can be a positive thing.Ikip (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - the more cross-communication the better :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom

Casliber, please run for arbcom again if you can stomach the thought of being back on that committee. Whatever division might have existed in the discussion that led you to resign, would be remedied by your standing for election again. I personally think you made a perfectly ok call, getting private info from a user and keeping it private while keeping an eye on things. Having just one arbitrator know about something is certainly preferable to having zero know about it. Anyway, you brought much-needed common sense to arbcom and it would help the project a lot if you could continue. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx and duly noted - who are you anyway? (email if you like) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just noticed Seth Kinman. Your edits look very good. Smallbones (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nice work on the western tall-tales type discourse :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hypomyces chrysospermus

On November 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hypomyces chrysospermus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the triple crown. Extremepro (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem, it was a pleasure :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

I wonder if, having freed yourself of arbcom, you'd be up for joining a different committee? I reckon WMAU will be involved in some pretty exciting stuff this coming year, and it'd be great to have more experienced, smart, good looking and sydney based representation. Having said that, I'd support a funny looking bird watcher (ha ha ha!) - seriously, I think you could help a great deal, and I'd love to second you for a spot on the committee :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(facepalm) let me think about it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PR favor

I have written a short article on a species of Oak leafroller moth at Archips semiferanus and have submitted it for peer review here. My main reason for doing so is to see if someone who is more experienced in Biology articles thinks it might be a potential GA. Would you mind looking at it (it is fairly short)? Or if you are unable, could you please recommend someone who knows Biology articles and could review this? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your helpful comments - I will rearrange the sections per your suggestion and look for information on the cause of the outbreaks. The Walker you linked seems like the right candidate, and the Bibliography in his article even lists two works on the right kind of moths in the right year. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama RFA

I just made a comment there and after i made my comment your support dissapeared. It seems i might have deleted your comment, but don't know how i could have done this (i was editing in a different section). I would ordinarily just add your comment back in, but given my confusion, just letting you know in case you removed it or something hanky happened.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird...a purging thing? Anyway, I can see it there now so all good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selamat pagi Bali ultimate, whoever you are. Love the quotes on your page, and your work on Timor Timur. Ayo!

Istri saya adalah orang Indonesia. Kamu berbahasa Indonesia? Alastair Haines (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iyah, gue berbicara. Saya tinggal di Jakarta 10 tahun darapida 1993-2003. Tapi bahasa saya kasar sekali, nggak resmi (belajar di jalan. Guru2 saya jadi premen, kupu-kupu malam, macam2 seperti itu. Dengan hormat bung.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day

Hi Cas, I'm flat-out atm getting a submission together, but in the course of doing it, I was consulting a source that just happened to address an article I've done some work on. Time being of the essence, when this sort of serendipity occurs, I drop quick notes into Wiki. However, in this case, I'm documenting something here at your talk, to avert potential flare-ups. Since what I encountered addresses feminist criticism of Islam, it is relevant at the Misogyny article, which would fall into a category of articles User:Sandstein would rather I left alone. Bully for him! Of course, individual users like S are entitled to their opinions, but in this case I am obviously unmoved by the case he failed to make at the time of his request. Out of courtesy, I've left a note at his page. I left an earlier note at his page mentioning I was declining his offer that I avoid contributing in places he'd prefer I didn't, but got no response. I assume he's either recognised his own error or lost interest, and so I won't be pursuing the matter with him into the future. It's so hard to know for sure though, when people don't actually engage in dialogue...

Anyway, please don't feel any need to get involved, I just want to be accountable for ensuring that someone is informed. I've still got very little time for Wiki over the next few weeks, and it will be Jainism, Manuscripts and Butterflies for a week or so after I get back, though, ultimately, I have a little outstanding work to do repairing other articles I maintain. LOL, I might try to time that for some period you are taking a Wiki break. ;)

PS I think it might be today I find out whether our baby is a girl or a boy. How exciting this is the first time! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on the baby. Sounds like a hairy topic which might need some independent ruling on, to be clear..(the article not the baby) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The notes I dropped at the article, like pretty much all the things I contribute, are not actually controversial themselves, canonically sourced material, that's all. But a controversial topic, yes. I doubt anyone will challenge my edits, though. The only potential conflict is that someone (S) previously expressed his opinion that he didn't want me contributing. People being people, he may want to attempt to enforce his opinion. It's really twilight zone stuff.

Yes, I agree an independent ruling might be needed, but only if he wants to pursue being adversarial, and then there's the question of getting a competent ruling. Copyright issues are specialist issues. Independent ruling might also imply independent of Wikipedia in this particular kind of issue.

I hope S will just let it all pass by so I can enjoy a bit of time with butterflies once RL work is done; but soon I'll have plenty of time should the ugly head of Wiki-politics be raised by person or persons yet to be revealed. I guess I'm really telling you in case smart people think of consulting someone (you) who might know something about what I might be thinking.

Anyway, much more than enough said already. I'm rather enjoying my research atm and got to get back to it. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia

Cas, dear ... something has to be done by someone about this article, or it should go to FAR. It's so long that vandal fighting it is very difficult, it always takes on undue weight issues, and it relies on primary sources. It needs work ! If you can't get to it, I'll FAR it in a week or so, but it needs to be trimmed and to rely on solid reviews according to WP:MEDRS. I'm tired of watching it, since no one seems to care :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do. These high-traffic articles are like sandcastles on the beach. Fascinating as well as frustrating... Give it two weeks and then proceed to FAR if we haven't addressed it by then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've really lost patience with that article :) It takes minutes to pull up a diff just to check for vandalism. Causes and Treatment need to be urgently summarized to trim the article, so that other work can begin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational popups are really helpful for looking at diffs on a long article (you just have to hover over the "diff" link and it'll show you a preview of the amended text). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret voting

Hi Casliber. Please reconsider. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory

Just to let you know it's back up at FAC as you stated an intention to undertake a review.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

JM unban review

Because Jack Merridew's unban motion is approaching a year and there are suggested proposals in Ottava Rima restrictions case, I'm contacting all of Jack Meridew's mentor's about doing a formal unban review. I don't think that it is wise to include anything about JM in the OR restrictions case because it will take the focus off of the core issues in the case. I think a separate unban review is a better way to handle the various issues rather a RFC (which will be open ended), and better than going to AE where arbitrators don't have direct means to alter the restrictions. I already had contacted John and Moreschi, will contact Jack to get the ball rolling. I'll likely start a subpage on site for JM and his mentors to work on any new motions, then place the motions on an ArbCom page, allow time for comments, and move to arb voting. Hopefully we can get it wrapped up well before I leave the Committee at the end of December. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page for Jack and his mentors to work on the unban review and any new motions. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it

I have a friend who goes mushroom picking with his father evey year. I'll ask him about it. I also have an Encyclopedia of Mushrooms that I will take a look at to see what comes up. Get back to you as soon as I have anything worthwhile. Tiamut^talk 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks Tiamut :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A present

For you to enjoy - I did! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I saw. Rather funny :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

You are pushing the policy boat out here, but all credit for the willingness to take useful action.[5]. Might even catch on.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is still the encyclopedia that "Anyone can edit", just that "anyone" must have the guts to take responsibility for editing some of these. If this isn't a clear-cut no brainer of the usefulness of preemptive semiprotection, I don't know what is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Philip R. Bjork

I have nominated Philip R. Bjork, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip R. Bjork. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that another editor and I have been referencing this article per Google Books searches. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A benefit of having talk-page stalkers? :) Sasata (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, all this while I was asleep. thx all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip R. Bjork

A tag has been placed on Philip R. Bjork requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DarkAudit (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that another editor and I have been referencing this article per Google Books searches. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ode on a Grecian Urn

If you get a chance, could you check the lead on Ode on a Grecian Urn? Thanks. It came up at FAC with various people wanting various changes, many causing problems for others. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escitalopram

Thank you for taking care of sprotecting escitalopram. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I say that I feel that this blocking was rather harsh. I believe that the IP was making good faith edits, albeit unreferenced edits. I have analysed what was the subject of a small sequence of edits and reverts; see here and I find the IPs edit to be largely erudite. Please review the current block. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block? I didn't block but I take it you mean semiprotection. Okay, given that there are more eyes on it now, and that the part of the information that the IP was trying to add is added, I will unprotect. My interest is piqued now. Need to look up some facts myself, and maybe getting this to Good status is a way of getting to a steady state. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant semi-protection. Snowman (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided an update at User_talk:TimVickers#Escitalopram and you may wish to provide an update too. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw ^talk 06:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory

Made it! Many thanks for your review and copy-edits. I feel happier knowing someone with your qualifications has given it a good going over, (even if your copy of Sadock is out of date). Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with some funny-looking GA reviews

Hey Casliber, I thought I'd ask you about this since you're an admin. Someone noticed some strange GA "quick-passes" by LittleMissWikipoo (talk · contribs) in the last few hours. The passes are all 2-3 sentences in which she "dispenses with the checklist" and says that the article "cannot be bettered." The profile looks like it was created today. It kinda looks like a puppet account to me, but I'm still pretty new here. Any thoughts? MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks like others have noticed too :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot stuff

doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).

But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for book Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control

I put the article about the book Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control up for peer review. Input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control/archive1. Hope you are doing well, thought you might be interested in this article and subject matter. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - will take a look in a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeopteryx lithographica

Hi, Cas;

It turned out that at least the first paragraph of Archaeopteryx lithographica is a slightly modified rip from Roger Tory Peterson's The Birds (try "This may have been one of the thecodonts" on Google Books"), so I have elected to redirect it now. The second paragraph (which has nothing to do with Archaeopteryx) may be a more heavily edited rip from the same source. J. Spencer (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was planning to do that sometime. I couldn't imagine that the smaller page had anything on it that the FA didn't (just hadn't got round to comparing as yet). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Restaurant

Hi, would you be kind enough to support again on my "The Chinese Restaurant" article? It was archived way to early :S. The article has been copy-edited twice since your conditional support, so perhaps you could fully support now? Thank you.--Music26/11 19:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Watch this space!

[[6]] -- consensus for me specifically to produce an article (about 10 days before my wedding).

I don't need to ask you to recuse yourself; but it's all the more important if it goes sideways, because worst case scenario would be subpoenaing you to give evidence regarding a NSW resident who had opinions regarding me personally, both before and after various discussions here at Wiki.

Since I was recently published in the US as a religious expert, though, there are also options I'd like to avoid like formal processes regarding whether Wiki can be classed as a service provider, if it has and exercises powers to restrict protected speech, like widely recognised religious points of view.

The best thing I can do to protect Wiki and keep peace is pray that cool, wise heads consign what should be a content issue back to the content basket. It's beneath the level of serious consideration.

I trust ArbCom to finally defend me. However, if they don't, and these repeated unsupportable challenges against my professionalism as a writer are permitted to be published, I have no choice but to defend myself.

Sorry to alert you to this in public, but at least it clearly indicates to any interested parties why you cannot comment publically. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
^ Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, Book III ch.48. Can be viewed online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp184.htm

[1] Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.

[2] Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, Book III ch.48. Can be viewed online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp184.htm

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 866: / Line 866: @@
 Hi, would you be kind enough to support again on my "The Chinese Restaurant" article? It was archived way to early :S. The article has been copy-edited twice since your conditional support, so perhaps you could fully support now? Thank you.--[[User:Music2611|<span style="color:#CC5500;">'''Music'''</span>]][[User Talk:Music2611|<span style="color: #FF9912;">'''26/'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Music2611|<span style="color: #FF9912;">'''11'''</span>]] 19:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
+== FYI ==
+* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Alastair_Haines|Watch this space!]]
+:[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_patriarchal_cultures_that_have_been_claimed_to_be_matriarchal_(2nd_nomination)|antecedent]] -- consensus for me specifically to produce an article (about 10 days before my wedding).
+:I don't need to ask you to recuse yourself; but it's all the more important if it goes sideways, because worst case scenario would be subpoenaing you to give evidence regarding a NSW resident who had opinions regarding me personally, both before and after various discussions here at Wiki.
+:Since I was recently published in the US as a religious expert, though, there are also options I'd like to avoid like formal processes regarding whether Wiki can be classed as a service provider, if it has and exercises powers to restrict protected speech, like widely recognised religious points of view.
+:The best thing I can do to protect Wiki and keep peace is pray that cool, wise heads consign what should be a content issue back to the content basket. It's beneath the level of serious consideration.
+:I trust ArbCom to finally defend me. However, if they don't, and these ''repeated'' unsupportable challenges against my professionalism as a writer are permitted to be published, I have no choice but to defend ''myself''.
+:Sorry to alert you to this in public, but at least it clearly indicates to any interested parties why you cannot comment publically. [[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] ([[User talk:Alastair Haines|talk]]) 03:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)