Misplaced Pages

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Voluntary RfAs after resignation Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed? For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025 Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requests Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions Motion name Date posted Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Archives Archive 1: May 2006 – December 2006 Archive 2: December 2006 – February 2007 Archive 3: February 2007 – March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 - May 2007 Archive 5: May 2007 - June 2007 Archive 6: June 2007 - July 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 Archive 8: July 2007 - August 2007 Archive 9: August 2007 - September 2007 Archive 10: September 2007 - November 2007 Archive 11: November 2007 Archive 12: December 2007 - January 2008 Archive 13: January 2008 Archive 14: January-February 2008 Archive 15: February-April 2008 Archive 16: April-May 2008 Archive 17: May-June 2008 Archive 18: May-June 2008 Archive 19: July-August 2008 Archive 20: September-October 2008 Archive 21: November-December 2008 Archive 22: January 2009 Archive 23: February-March 2009 Archive 24: April-May 2009

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

On Agaricus

Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικόν "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 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)

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

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

ndashes

HTML ndashes suck. If you're on a Windows box, you can get a real ndash (i.e. unicode) by holding down the ALT key and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad. Hesperian 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...thanks for the tip. I'll try that next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for indulging me, dude. :-) Hesperian 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If, like me, you're stuck with a laptop without a numeric pad with ALT functionality, n- and m-dashes are the two firsts characters after "insert" in the list placed under the edit window. Circeus 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've edited my keyboard layout for "easy" dashes with a little Microsoft utility (yes, I use Windows). It takes a while to set up, but now I can add en and em dashes with only two keystrokes—quite an improvement for WP editing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I add shortkeys all the time on various programs. If i used a reallot of weird characters, I'd totally do that to have across windows. Circeus 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.

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 , 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.

So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary , 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)

Greek proofing on Wikisource

Hi Cas,

Would you mind bringing your knowledge of Greek to bear on these three Wikisource pages for me please: , , ? It should only take five minutes I think. If you've got a Wikisource or unified account, you can correct any errors you find; else you can let me know and I'll fix them.

Hesperian 02:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. Hesperian 06:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy peasy you say... nearly all of the yellow pages on this work contain Greek. s:la:Liber:De assensione Stoici quid senserint.djvu. If you could verify even a few of them, especially p.20, that would be fantastic. John Vandenberg 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You did a good job on p. 20, only one accent switch. I'll have a look later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, we have a category for them now on English Wikisource: s:Category:Pages with missing Greek characters. The ones in the "Page:" namespace are accompanied by pagescans; the EB1911 pages usually have a link to the pagescan on the talk page. Cheers, John Vandenberg 23:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated Ucontribs

I added two columns and refined the scan logic on my most recent run, and since you are the originator of the concept, I re-evaluated you. Feel free to find any problems with the latest update, if you need an incentive, let me just say how disappointed I am that two weeks have passed and it is still not a solid list of FA's :) Also, if you're thinking of asking for a new program to show the changes between runs of my other program - no (at least not yet:). I'm wondering about putting in the latest "failed" status too, as in (Failed GA), but I'd need some category hints to work that in.

Thanks for the idea, what a great way to learn about article assessments; the wide range(/incoherence) of category names; and mostly, the great diversity of interests and accomplishments of editors of the wiki! Franamax (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh heck. I'll go and reply over there...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

userpage

(continuing in this thread despite the different topic) I've skimmed through several categories on commons, like Books and Mappae mundi and Image:Vinland Map HiRes.jpg comes closest to what I think you want. I like the borders, esp. the hue. Unfortunately, it's not easy to lighten and probably not possible at all to remove the ink (I gave it a half-assed try with GIMP). Anyway, just to see if we're on the same page as to your idea. Ideally, several similar but non-identical images of blank pages could be used for something similar to the DT userpage, considering that you have quite a lot of stuff on your userpage (with a different section on each page and some playful navigation). Or did you have something like a central disambiguation in mind, putting all the stuff in different subpages? I envision a self-made treasure map (the real problem would be to get the ragged border to look authentic) with an imagemap overlay on the different words (rendered into the image, possibly handwritten), linking to all the different sections (like on my old userpage or using subpages). And I see a compass rose in one of the corners (bottom right?). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(i) I like the font, but I'm not sure how well it would blend into the treasure map concept. (ii) I still can't believe that commons wouldn't have dozens of images like we're looking for among their roughly estimated ten thousand primary and secondary sexual characteristics copyvios. Oh well. On a related note, my GF is a graphic designer, maybe she has an idea where to get such an image, or can help create one that could be filled in. She's also great —professional, actually— with Photoshop, maybe she can alternatively clean up the Vineland map with some of those tools I never use). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Yes, I look for compass roses on commons, too, and I agree this one is nice and can also easily be used to put it in another picture. It's a pity that the background you found isn't free, because then we'd be ready to go. I've asked my GF about the Vineland map, but she said it would take ages to get it right. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

perennial user page project

How about this? The hue is crap, but it's just a quick edit to see if you like the direction. user:Everyme 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooo-arrrr me hearties, it be a fine 'n' tidy start, I be lookin' with keen oyes at what comes next..(seriously looks good, be good if you could make it somehow stretch, as in slot in horizontal bits to keep the bottom pattern at the bottom IYKWIM) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see a minor typo. It says "Welcome to Casliber's Cove" where it should say "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Hesperian 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OH you mean like depressive realism or something...ergh....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You could use the image as a fixed frame, with a scrollable text frame overlaid within it, and/or you could use it as a frame for different "pages" like my old userpage (the final revision of my old userpage combined both: "individual pages" each with a scrollable "inner" frame for the content of each page. btw: could you do me a favour and restore it? I find I need access to some formatting tricks I've collected there). At any rate, I'm going to work over the hue and upload a version without the text. It'd be possible to clone the middle (blank) part, but the limitations are manifold (apart from the challenge of making it look halfway acceptable): Different browsers and different users prefer wildly different font sizes, so you'd end up with a scrollable frame any way (where people would have to scroll "twice", once within the page and once within the frame) or you'd end up with blank space towards the bottom. user:Everyme 14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• At User:Everyme/Casliber, I've installed a simply formatted proposal to get us started. Let me know what you think. My idea is to slowly and occasionally keep exchanging until something you like develops (otherwise until you decide you want something completely different, or to keep the current design). user:Everyme 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've made it width-scalable. I image a pseudo-frame layout similar to my old page, with the added fun of people clicking the Welcome text to arrive at a table of contents with every entry right next to the inner (text frame) scrollbar, at the point corresponding to the position of that section. Should be great after I brush up the background images. user:Everyme 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilio

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

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

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

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)

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

Vampire

An astute observation about vampires in movies: "I Vant To Upend Your Expectations". --JayHenry (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice little read that, need to keep it up me sleeve for those befanged daughter articles was gonna get round to doing for a featured topic sometime...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An even better one: A Vampire's Life? It's Really Draining. --JayHenry (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gawd, gotta get 'round to making all teh befanged stuff a Featured Topic at some stage, a more immediate one is critters in my garden what make drive my dog crazy and make him bark at 5AM...Laughing Kookaburra, Rainbow Lorikeet, Willie Wagtail (FA), Brown Rat (in neighbour's compost bin), Superb Fairy-wren (we..ell, they don't make him bark but they should be included for all-round cuteness)....the first two species have tunnelled a hole in my 6m high date palm and littered the patio with crap. Stupid pooch wants to catch them...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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. 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.

In other traditions, the Huia was the leader of the hākuturi, the spirit guardians of the forest, which included Whiteheads and Riflemen. 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.

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".. <START FOOTNOTE: Orbell mentions some of the sacred associations of the Huia, saying 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: and could perhaps still add the reference no .

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

FA collab proposal

How 'bout spontaneous combustion? In all seriousness, it seems like an interesting subject. ]<font face="Gill Sans MT">]&nbsp;→(]→]&nbsp;→])</font> (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird...did you actually mean Spontaneous human combustion? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it does seem weird of me. And yes. I'm sure the FAC people will get a kick out of it, but it has potential. Excuse my demented signature above, accidentally clicked off raw signature. ₪Ceran →(slip→sled →snow) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, got potential. Will need some sources from dead trees, need to go to the library some time, and then...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

RE Notable saying?

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

Replied at the article talk page. p.s. I like your Fez up there :) -- FayssalF - 04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Musca vetustissima

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

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)

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)

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

maps

Sure, it might not be immediately, but send me the stuff, at mailto:kim@kimvdlinde.com -- Kim van der Linde 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am getting a bit more time, and a bit more concentration to work on it. -- Kim van der Linde 02:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Banksia and climate change

This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of 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)

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

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

Mother Temple of Besakih

DYK that the most important Hindu Temple in Bali has a single sentence of coverage?  :( Jack Merridew 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I get 5 days, right? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

ma'af lads, I'll be watching for black bamboo while I'm in Timor ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

See also

• Pura Ulun Danu Batur — the second most important temple on Bali. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahaaa. ok, that redlink will turn blue sometime soon....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

See also also

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

Liopleurodon

Hi Cas, there is an edit war going on on the Liopleurodon article concerning Charlie the Unicorn. Darimoma keeps inserting a paragraph about it to assert the notability of the youtube video which I and others think is not legitimate. Could you have a look at it? Thanks. ArthurWeasley (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Mushroom Article

Hi Casliber! This article may be of interest/use for your efforts to work on mushroom related articles, i.e. if there's a Mushrooms in popular culture or something? Best, --A Nobody 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Finland–Tonga relations in popular culture myself. Deor (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently people have written on mushrooms' impact on religion (see ) and Henry David Thoreau has actually written on "Mushrooms in Literature." And here we learn that some people actually spent "years gathering instances of mushrooms in literature and art, noting the special role that the plant played in the imagination of diverse culltures." Best, --A Nobody 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to evoke a smile, AN. Geez! Deor (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, in that case: :) Regards, --A Nobody 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

XD is better :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Historian

I've started working on this article about a wonderful vampire novel. The article is a complete disaster at the moment (WIP), but I thought you might be interested in helping out. If you have read it, the plot summary needs major work! If you haven't read it, now there is a reason to rush out and buy the book. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read (and thoroughly enjoyed) the book. Got nostalgic as I have been to Bulgaria, Turkey and Romania and love those tales-within-tales type books. My wife couldn't get into it though. Will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the scholarly bits that I love. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, good for that too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Benzo article

Hi Casliber, I am writing to in regard to the benzodiazepine article which has been hanging on good article review for some time now. I was confused and thought that Doc James was the reviewer but he has said that you are listed as the reviewer. I was wondering if it has reached the standard of a good article yet. I do have ideas for improving the article to reach featured article status after good article status has been achieved but at the moment I think that it has reached good article status. If you disagree I would welcome comments on what remains to be done.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to say and perhaps a bit of rude of me not to that if you are busy don't rush yourself. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mac Penguin

Hi Cas, I gave the article one more read through and tweaked some things. Some comments:

• That range map is tiny, and the red dots are extremely difficult to see.
• "Distribution and habitat" claims population is 11.8 million pairs, while "conservation" says 18 million individuals.
• I thought about putting 9.2 million tonnes in a convert template to give long tons (or short tons) but decided to let you decide to do that or not (doesn't seem particularly important to me, but it may come up at FAC)
• Ref 52 (Reynolds 2001) needs more info. Actually it looks ok now, must have been some display error on my screen that cut off some info.

Other than that, it reads pretty good to me. I'm gone for 3 weeks starting tomorrow, ttyl. Sasata (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Neurosurgery and light construction

You Australians are such bad-asses (). The only missing touch would be if the physician had proclaimed: "That's not a craniotome... this is a craniotome." MastCell  15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Real man's surgery :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad

Can you do anything here? Sasata is going away YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell..not my area but I will see what I can do (aargh, buried in arb cases too) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Even further away from mine unfortuantely.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

fundamental issues for all of wikipedia brought up at ADHD Arb which you drafted

Could you please look at the Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD page. ] Issues have been brought up which implications for all of wikipedia. Thank you, --scuro (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Epsilon Orionis

Thanks for protecting this entry. The person who kept putting in their pet star name was becoming a nuisance. Skeptic2 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries - much easier than range-blocking IPs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I find that this person has vandalized my talk page, presumably in retribution... Skeptic2 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1995 Brazilian Grand Prix

Hi Casliber. I noticed you're name at WP:PRV. I was wondering whether you could peer review the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix article for me, leaving you're comments here. If you could make any comments at the PR, that'd be great. Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK typo

There's a typo in one of the DYK hooks on the Main Page. In the third hook on Shirley E. Flynn, there should be an of after history. Could you fix it? Shubinator (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by Zzyzx11. Shubinator (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cotorowegtry

I am operating a legitimate multiple accont and do not want to make this public so how can you help he?Cotorowegtry (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Benzo featured article

Hi Casliber, would you be opposed to me nominating the benzodiazepine article for featured article? I have finished doing my final tweaks to the benzodiazepine article now.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been occupied and haven't looked, you are welcome to nominate it at any time but I can't guarantee I won't find more prose thingies until I look :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are a busy man Casliber and I do appreciate the time and effort you put into wikipedia. I have made a leap of faith and nominated the article. I have made changes to the article which you suggested on GA review page and also did a bold edit by cutting one section out and moving it to the benzo misuse article. If you find more problems with the page I am sure that they can be resolved during the review process. I imagine any problems would be relatively minor but even if major I am willing to put in the effort to get the article up to featured article status. I look forward to the review although a teeny bit worried about those thingies! :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gah! knew there was something else I meant to do today! Anyway, good luck and there will be some helpful editors around. I will see what I can do too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Belle the Sleeping Car

• and more, lots more!

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
p.s. List of fictional plants — Audrey, from Little Shop!

User talk pages

There was a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Right to vanish#User talk about deleting user talk pages of contributors. There doesn't seem to be very strong consensus to do so (any longer). For what it's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured editors?!

Hello! Please note: User:A Nobody/Featured editors. Anyway, if you have any suggestions, ideas, it would be appreciated as I think you might figure into at least two of those potential categories (more than 100 supports, number of DYKS?). Best, --A Nobody 02:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jackdaw

I'm afraid I don't have any ideas for that one! Awadewit (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thx anyway, 'twas verily a long shot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Retirement again

Cas, I think you have to find someone else to make the map. I am retiring from wikipedia again, for reasons spelled out at my page. I might make a occasional edit as I did before, but I am not going to stay here as long as some abusive admins are allowed to have their sysop bit. -- Kim van der Linde 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

okay, good luck then. Sorry to have nagged. I will hope you stick around a bit on the bird pages from time to time, but look after yourself as a higher priority. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You, you did not nag. The retirement is solely because a Slimvirgin has gotten her sysopbit back. I left the first time because of her, and I won't be part of a project that allows her to continue her abusive behaviour as a admin. So, I leave. -- Kim van der Linde 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cas, I think you (and with you ArbCom) seriously underestimate how much of a battlefield the I/P articles have been and probably are. Most people (including me) stay away from it with a ten-foot pole. The amount of harassment that you have to endure from either side of the dispute is enormous. The last ArbCom case was a perfect example why it is wiser to stay away from there, because it effectively sanctioned many of the POV-pushing techniques that are used. techniques like stonewalling, baiting, etc, which leads to editors going over the edge and getting banned. Those should not be. So, sorry, you won't see me there under the current set POV-technoiques that is formally allowed. -- Kim van der Linde 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PS, the single most needed thing at WP is a content ArbCom, that can make binding decisions about content. That would solve a large number of issues. -- Kim van der Linde 02:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad

We can do it........ I've done some. "You can do it!!!!" "Come on!!!!!!!!!!" "Yes We Can!!!!!!!!!" Ah cheesy Chrysler ads with Barack Obama and Arnie YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Cas, I'm not sure who's watching Schizophrenia closely these days, but these sorts of additions can quickly deteriorate the article if someone isn't constantly on top of them. Do you have that source, are you able to verify? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(facepalm), we-ell, not as bad as the fun and games at lion and vampire recently I suppose.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:The undertow/Shortcuts

Could you please send the page contents into a subspace of my userspace. I was using the shortcuts, as were various other people, and I would honestly like them back.— Dædαlus 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969/Shortcuts would be nice.— Dædαlus 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the late reply.— Dædαlus 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No problemo. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

• A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?

"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."

• B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:

"This guy is out of control, man."

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)