Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
. Then why am I being admonished while Arbcom allow FPAS a free pass to tell people to fuck off? To make blocks which are removed minutes later? To make personal attacks during the case itself? This is utterly screwed up. I understand how it works now. Goodbye. ] (]) 19:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
. Then why am I being admonished while Arbcom allow FPAS a free pass to tell people to fuck off? To make blocks which are removed minutes later? To make personal attacks during the case itself? This is utterly screwed up. I understand how it works now. Goodbye. ] (]) 19:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
:You've been foul-tempered for months now (compared with years ago). I don't know what's up with you but you need to take a good hard look, maybe even go talk to someone. I don't know. I agree with folks trying to push to improve content and call out silly behaviour. I really do, but you undermine the value of this by gratuitous cantankerousness. ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:53, 20 January 2016
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
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? Circeus00:20, 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 | contribs02:01, 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. Circeus04:52, 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. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 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.
References
Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
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)
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)
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork – an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment – he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
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.
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)
Arianewiki118:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one – I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. Hesperian10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
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. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid – how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata – I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles – you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73–75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1–2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study – any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unkown but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Misplaced Pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI
All of the following species are worth 2x points; let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating in one or more for bonus points in a later round. Sasata (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha – thank heavens for European mushrooms :))) – yeah, I'd like to buff Clitocybe nuda (which was one of the yummiest mushrooms I've eaten), and we really should be improving the other mass-eaten edibles. Also I buffed the sickener for DYK so would be good to finish the job....Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll move Clitocybe nuda and Russula emetica closer to the top of "the list". I agree the popular edibles would be good to do as well, but they're hard ... we'll see how free time & motivation plays out over the next few months. Sasata (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Casliber – thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm
Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Misplaced Pages entry become more obvious.
The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010.
This is not acceptable.
I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given – since 1980 or so – and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen.
What do others think? The Misplaced Pages entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.
It's easier than stars as there is less hardcore physics involved, but trickier as you have to make the material not "listy", which it sort of is by very nature. Smaller constellations are easier as there is less material to list generally. Star guide books, alot of which are on google, are good for general overview, how to find things, what's next to what etc. but alot of their factual info (distance/luminosity) is outdated. I have even suspected this in newer reprints/editions where new material is coming out. SIMBAD is a godsend and makes finding other material easy. I was using it as a ref itself but probably better to use the refs it cites. Overall I find astronomy articles more challenging than biology ones – trickeir to make engaging. We can collaborate on CrB if you like as I did plan on taking it All the Way at some point and then having it as a double mainpage with CrA. Collaborating is good as it makes for less work in some ways – each of us can copyeidt the other etc. 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Just popping in during some of the rare free time I have at the moment to say that the hardest part of the constellation articles is figuring out exactly what objects to write about, since there is generally quite a bit of discretion in whether or not something should be in the article. I generally try to write about all stars brighter than magnitude 5.0, and the most-studied astronomical objects within the constellation, as well as a few other things such as extremes (e.g. R136a1) and unusual objects. One tip to find notable stars, I've found, is this SIMBAD query, which lists all Bayer, Flamsteed, and variable stars in each constellation by number of refs. Of course further research is necessary for other stars without said designations, but it's a good start. I would help, but I don't anticipate having much free time at all until at least December. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup the small size was part of the reason I chose CrB (it's not the only reason though :-P). I'm cool with a collaboration. ST11's suggestions, as always, make a lot of sense. Going to read through some constellation FAs to get an idea of what to write – not least CrA... Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Double sharp, I have started buffing with this one. Just arting with the brighter stars – SIMBAD is best place to start and then chasing refs. Not sure how much you know about them (figuring distance from parallax etc...) so just ask away..or start on deep sky objects and I'll continue with stars (??) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Carcinoma in situ
The carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I have phrased it badly above, but you seem to have understood me. I should have said that you did not support my use of "invasive cancer" and you preferred the use of "cancer" instead. Actually, to me, it is not as simple as just inserting the word "invasive". Back then, I saw a better phrase in a reference and I thought about using it, because I thought that it would be accurate, readable, and I hoped keep everyone happy; however, the situation become unnecessarily tense and I felt like I was walking on eggs (and you know what that means). I did not get around to developing the article any further nor mentioning the "magical" phrase. I will see if I can find the phrase again. I recall that the solution was to use a short phrase in the place of cancer or invasive cancer in the introduction. I am talking in riddles at the present time, because I want to make sure that I can find that phrase again, and that will mean thinking about the introduction again. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend the amendment belew, because the demarcation between non-cancer and cancer varies according to the literature, as we have seen, and this is made more difficult by a simplified language and vocabulary used to communicate the complex situation to patients. A definition of cancer that includes in-situ cancer is well established, but perhaps the world of the cytologist or histopathologist is a small world, where to say "invasive cancer" is not unusual. This is the current line in the introduction; "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer and enable early successful treatment.". I think that it would be more accurate if it said something like; "The main aim of cervical cytology screening is to detect precursors of cancer and early cervical cancer to enable early successful treatment.". In this new line a full spectrum from viral changes to dysplasia to carcinoma-in-situ to early invasive cancer is included, so the controversy over where to put the non-cancer/cancer line disappears, and the meaning is clear no matter where the reader puts the line in his or her own mind-map. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about making a joint nomination with me to take the cervix article to FA review sometime? I would not be planning to edit much of the "History" and "Other animals" sections, because I do not know much about those topics. I am not usually on the nominator's side of the fence, but I would be willing to step into that role here, partly to test the water. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea – the prerequisites for being a nominator are being reasonably familar with the article and having the ability to address issues raised at FAC. Do you see anything else that needs fixing before listing it at FAC? 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh good. I would like to have a long look at the article before FA nomination, and I expect that I will not feel happy with the article as a potential FA nomination for several weeks. There is some content and page organization in the article (as it is now) that I would like to reflect on. The peer review is also worth re-visiting to see what was not achieved there. I will probably attempt to start a few discussions on the article talk page where relevant. Do you have any time frame in mind or any particular schedule of your own to work around? Of course, I would ask you to constructively criticize my work whenever you think that anything can be improved, and I will try to focus on the issue and answer honestly and objectively trying not to be fractious nor stubborn, with a view to learning from my errors. It think that it will work better like that, than keeping quite or not speaking up when you do not agree with your co-nominator. I am saying that because I guessed that you have not felt easy about not supporting your co-nominator in FA reviews previously. Also, as before, please be alert to my writing style, which can sometimes need re-phrasing owing to clumsy grammar, although the content is often unambiguous (to me at least). Apart from that, it could be challenging writing for general readers and even more challenging writing for specialist readers that are unfamiliar with the small world of histopathology. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio I have no time scale on this so it sorta takes as long as it takes. The refs need fixing for page numbers. The material is pretty good – only thing from PR left is double checking lymphatic drainage really I thought. Anyway. Posting things step by step on talk page is good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I would have though that the "Function" heading would be about normal function. Surly, putting a barrier in front of the cx is not a normal function of the cervix. Also, oc pills are more about pharmacology and modified functioning of the cervix. Should the "Contraception" heading have its own level-2 heading? This has been discussed before, but it is worth starting another discussion on the talk page about this? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the first one or something like it – will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Should there be more consistency in using {{main| under more of the headings where there is an obvious main article else where? Snowman (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Re Vaginal portion of cervix. Have you got any ideas on what to do with this article on the portio (or ectocervix)? I do not know why WP Anatomy has so many articles on sub-parts. If relevant, I expect that a formal discussion would be needed to consider a merge. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is off to a good start over there. I think that there is nothing on the unreferenced portio page that can be copied over to the cervix page. We could start planing how to present the portio (and its various names) on the cervix page. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In have found what to me looks like a 2003 copyrighted version of File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg, so I have started a deletion discussion on Commons. Commons administrators will now have a look at it. Initially, I left an message with the uploader on Commons to ask a technical question about the image, and I noticed that he is currently blocked for three months, so I did a search for other copies of the cervix dilation image. The image should show the babies head moving down the birth canal as the cervix dilates, but the head looks stuck. The image is on about a dozen or more Wikis, so they might all be removed by a bot in due course. I am not sure if the image needs removing from the Cervix page at this juncture or not, so I wonder what you think about removal from the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently found a photograph of a rare parrot with the wrong copyright and it was deleted from Commons one week after I started the deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The Cervical cancer article has had a lot of work on it since about June, and it is well worth looking at. I expect that we could shorten (or otherwise amend) the section on cervical cancer in the "cervix" article, because the "cervical cancer" article offers a good readable account. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Re HPV vaccines. Sometimes, I like to tidy up the linked pages. This article was moved from the singular to the pleural in March 2014. I am aware that there is more than one HPV vaccine, but I would expect this to be on the singular name, unless there something controversial about it that I have missed. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The "Anatomical abnormalities" section looks like a mixture of acquired and congenital diseases. Could this be organized differently? I nearly did a reorganization, but a little re-organization does not change much, and I suspect that it would be easier to do a bit of a re-write. Also, it may be possible to expand the section with a little about the developmental abnormalities of the female genital tract seen in Cryptophthalmos syndrome, Johanson-Blizzard syndrome, Rokitansky Anomalod, and as less commonly seen in Roberts syndrome and Trisomy 18 syndrome. These diseases are not at the front of my mind, however these are in the index of my rather old second-hand book on human malformation. This is not a small change, so I welcome your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have become unexpectedly busy in real life, so I have not had much time for editing the Wiki. I hope that I will be able to contribute with more editing and work on the cervix article again after about two or three months . Snowman (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Apart from manual editing, I was hoping to write a few scripts for fun to do scanning and mass editing tasks on the Wiki this Autumn and Winter, but can not participate in a meaningful way at the present time. I plan to return when I can and I will look to see what you and User FunkMonk are doing then. Incidentally, have you any thoughts on why discussions about anatomy topics tend to be rather brittle? I might ask that question on the WP Anatomy talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll concede that TAP beat me if that will get you to stop wasting time validating his entries. His mistake rate is lower than mine and a sampling of the remaining expansions should be enough to tell if they meet the criteria or not. No need to do all 1500 remaining noms!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Telopea truncata you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn – J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
--starts--
03:45, 31 October 2015 Casliber (talk | contribs) deleted page Integrative neuroscience research program (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
My proposed Misplaced Pages article on the Integrative Neuroscience Research Program (INRP) was recently deleted by a Misplaced Pages editor because it was deemed “advertising or promotional not encyclopedic”. However, I would argue that this might not have been appropriate because INRP is not a commercial or political enterprise selling a product, but a scientific learned society with the goal of improving our scientific understanding of the world. I would suggest that it is thus not promoting itself but it is promoting good science. Therefore, I suggest, it should be judged by the same criteria as other similar scientific bodies, such as the Royal Society, or the Royal College of Physicians, both of which have Misplaced Pages entries.
--ends--
Congrats. I was hoping it would go to someone who could keep this at heart – perhaps you are that person, or perhaps I am asking the impossible – I don't know. Samsara12:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I might have agreed with that sentiment had it been someone else who created that article. But given that it was one of the rather small pool of people who not only create a lot of articles, but also take them to FA, it's fitting. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed): I never said the article or creator were in any way a bad choice. However, Casliber is not being singled out for his FA achievements in this case, nor would mine have been relevant – or yours. I much prefer "Wikipedian of the Day" style community-driven awards if there must be such a thing, but unfortunately the media don't care about those. I'm not sure that being driven by what the media wants to see or hear is necessarily a good thing. Samsara13:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
It's past midnight here and I have to get up early...just trying to buff the article as much as possible..and getting distracted botanically. I like the idea of focussing on the content and community as a whole. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't think of a more appropriate editor to have created the 5 millionth article than you, Cas. Thank you for all of the work you have done over all of these years! Risker (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
LOL! I see you crammed like a bah-zillion article stubs in there in the last couple hours, but hey... good for you! Better you get it than some random IP creating useless wp:prod crap. Congratulations. – WOLFchild13:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
praise the lawd, you have set a milestone. Congrats! You are one in 5 million. Do you feel special? Coz if you dont, you should. You got that lucky charm going on and i know most will dismiss it as hocus pocus but thats my message to you. Sweet mother nature! Basilmorgen (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Andrew. I am a Digital Communications intern on the Communications team at the Wikimedia Foundation. Congratulations on creating the 5 millionth article!! We are writing a story for the WMF blog on this milestone and wanted to know if we could link to your user page? Also would you be able to provide a quote on this accomplishment or the experience? Again, congratulations and happy editing :). ASherman (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations, Casliber! There must be a joke here about "shrubbery" but it's not coming to me right now. Liz18:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
(wakes up and goes to computer instead of coffee maker) – ummmmm....a quote. I want to impress (I guess) how much detail is still out there in the world around us and can still be written readily. I would suspect that almost all of the stubs I began last night could be improved to GA and FA status. So the point is if the 5 millionth article is an article such as this.....we still got loads to do. This was one reason I rekindled the stub contest too and one reason I like WP:DYK (and yes I know that process has its down sides but I think the positives out weigh the negatives). It's all about the writing (by everybody) and making stuff to read for the world – telling stories about real-life things that you can read...and letting your mind wander. E.g. The derivation of Persoonia from Christiaan Hendrik Persoon...or this plant that was found between Torrington, New South Wales and Emmaville, New South Wales...or that it was named by Lawrie Johnson and Peter Weston. There are all stories there (and more to write too.). It's all about the detail and what people can soak up. Misplaced Pages provides an opportunity to make sense of chaos and a great bridge between information for laypeople and detailed scientific information for enthusiasts and professionals, and hopefully help upskill several hundred thousand interested readers in the meantime. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS: This is what I had written some time ago and anyway ask away if folks can't get it:
Think of a main street in the suburb where you live. Now try and list all the attributes you can think of about that street; shops, funny houses, broken streetlights, working streetlights, cracks in the footpath, no parking zones, residences, opening hours of shops, cross-streets, schools etc. You should be up to a few hundred items of information. Now think of other streets in your suburb, then other suburb. See how much you remember (alot, isn't it?) My take on this is you don't have to be some child prodigy to remember prodigious amounts of information and we can all be alot more knowledgeable than what we are. Unfortunately alot of what is written or produced for television or other media is really dumbed down to some imaginary lowest common denominator
Congrats from me too! I followed the same path as StringTheory11. I'm glad to see that the article selected as #5M was from one of the long-term contributors – the people that have built the English Misplaced Pages into an institution. Royalbroil17:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
That was quite some frenzy at 13:27! Congratulations on getting this round number milestone, and getting your name inscribed in WP history. (^_-)-☆ (I wonder if there's a graph showing the dates of these milestones including this one yet?) Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Piling on with another barnstar for creating the 5 millionth article. I am particularly happy to see that Misplaced Pages’s 5 millionth article was something inherently encyclopedic, so thank you for that. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I know it doesn't really matter who does what, but it's nice to see an old hand like you getting the 5 Millionth article. Well done. Nick (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.
The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!
Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.
The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.
Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.
Congratulations for creating the encyclopedia's 5,000,000th article! Matt121 ??? Matt125
Well Done on creating the 5th Million article on wikipedia
A barnstar for you!
The Minor Barnstar
Although you did not make the top 16 of Round 1, you did participate and you still deserve a barnstar. Thank you so much for being a part of the 2nd Annual GA Cup and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Article no. 5,000,000
Has been created by you! Good job!
Did you realise that I am an Aussie as well?
I like the way it could be read: 5,000,000 Articles /Has been created by you ! Good job!, I wouldnt have doubted it. Well done, it couldnt have happened to a nicer person / dedicated contributor !! have a good millionth day, hope it helps you pick a winner tommorrow... JarrahTree01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't find a good pic of a guy writing the five millionth Misplaced Pages article, so you'll have to settle for … having me tell you well done! I was quite chuffed to see you were the person to snatch that honor. This is quite the page too – take a screen print before you archive! Victoria (tk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Persoonia terminalis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar – Jaguar (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
On 9 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Baryonyx, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that with a head shape likened to a gharial, the dinosaur Baryonyx(illustrated) is thought to have eaten fish? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baryonyx. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You are invited to participate in this discussion at the TAFI talk page regarding improving the automation of project processes and management of the project. Your input is appreciated.
I appreciate the work you put in conforming the formatting of these two articles to the standards used in other biology articles here. I tried to follow the formatting, but as you saw my unfamiliarity left many errors. I'm glad to know the articles are correctly formatted now. Thanks again, and happy editing! — GrammarFascistcontribs21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting my article on "Great Escaper" Thomas Kirby-Green into the DYK spot yesterday, I see it got 5700+ views which is very satisfying and hopefully on 11 November it may have reminded some viewers of the price of our freedoms today. I've only been active here for a couple of months and your support is appreciated. Researcher1944 (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: No I'll look through my university's databases. I've noticed that the article contains some informal and conversational language (".. from a community that is still sensitive to their pain" would *not* be in a Britannica article). Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
I've read some of your amazing work on Misplaced Pages. ...one more barnstar to add to your astounding collection. Many thanks for such wonderful contributions. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Request for review – your kind expert advice would be greatly appreciated
My congratulations on your fantastic achievements here at Misplaced Pages! I have very much enjoyed your writing, and interesting collaborations. (I sent you a much deserved barnstar to add to your collection : ). @Checkingfax: has spoken highly of you.
Several editors and myself have created an article on classical and flamenco guitar, atonal music in general and on internationally renowned Canadian guitarist Michael Laucke in particular. I very much enjoyed contributing about several hundred hours of research. We've made over 1000 careful edits, about half of which are the incredible work of @Checkingfax:, and over 20 other editors have also helped. We used LDR (List-defined references), and there are over 100, all carefully researched for verifiability and are good according to reFill and Proveit.
I am wondering if—In striving really hard for a neutral point of view, have we made it acceptable to Misplaced Pages but boring? Are the sections in the best order? ...and so on. My hope for the Michael Laucke article is to get an English version with improved syntax and style, smoothness and readability; indeed, this would be most inspiring for the translation and re-working into other language versions. I am a "Polyglot" (multilingual). So after this English version is perfected, I will have the pleasure of creating at least French and Spanish ones.
I know time is always too short on this our mortal orb . Could you take a moment to give me some feedback; even a quick glimpse would be appreciated. My goal is to make it better, and I love to learn. We would like to strive for GA status, but the "grade" is not so important to me, neither is credit in any way; creating the best an article can be is important. I am a perfectionist from birth, it would seem...
I do hope that this might interest you, that I have piqued your curiosity and that you can help us make a better version.
P.S. I am pinging several editors who have showed interest in improving this article, just to keep them in the loop; hope it's non-intrusive. @Robvanvee, Checkingfax, GrammarFascist, Bgwhite, and Vipinhari:
Yes, it can be a tightrope between very dry and very flowery writing ...and where is the best point to sit on that continuum....will take a look. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: Just a quick thank you for your subtle improvements; very much appreciated! Kindly feel free to visit anytime. "Flowery" ...indeed, it was quite a challenge in restraint, especially coming from a French way of thinking; embellishments and frills are our specialty . Merci! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, User:Casliber, you mentioned on User:Dennis_Brown's usertalk that you might consider a third go-round as arb, if you felt your particular perspective was necessary/missing/useful. Since there are a few hours left in the self-nom window, I was wondering if you could be nudged? I am quite lazy when it comes to the fine art which can be found in DYK/GA/FA segment of the wikiverse, so I don't think I've run across you myself before, but when Dennis Brown recommends you, that carries a ton of weight, in my book. I've also skimmed your edit-stats and found good things, which helps. But the key was something else. Plenty of people working in the top-end quality realm can be short and cryptic with even the good-faith beginning editors; that truly annoys me, when I see a pattern. I didn't have time to check all your edits (not sorry!) so I cannot say you've never had a bad day, but I did a spot check, and found this – Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_12#Prognosis. To closely paraphrase a silly puppet, but with 100% sincerity, I can honestly say it's times like these that I'm proud to be a wikipedian. In two sentences, you carefully explained the wiki-policy ("must be able to be" is infinitely better than the imprecise "must be"), noted the extant body-prose, and yet made the person feel good about their talkpage post, and happy they attempted to contribute to wikipedia. Would that arbcom cases, or even just regular editing in contentious articles, worked like that more often. It may seem a small thing, but those 43 words you wrote on a talkpage back in 2012 – after 100k edits plus serving twice as an arb and half a decade as an admin all of which ought to have made you jaded and permastressed – seem like they give insight into what kind of arb you might be, if you will please run again. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You DO remember what being an arb is like around here, right? ...but in all serious I'm seeing what you mean of late. Wizardman04:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
If I had it to give, I would run to offer a choice to voters, but this is the worst year I could consider it due to personal issues. Of course, there is no guarantee I would have succeeded anyway. I tried to recruit a few truly worthwhile admins for the job, but I can hardly blame them for not wanting to take the plunge. I think that you running does offer the community a real choice and enough experience to help steer things back on track when there is a risk of getting derailed. It's an unappetizing prospect in many respects, but I appreciate you taking one for the team, and at least offering the community a valid choice. Dennis Brown – 2¢10:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Generally about this time of year I double check what's happening. I felt good about who ran last year, so didn't run, which left me time to concentrate on other stuff. We'll see. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn – J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Over the past two weeks, there has been extensive discussion on introducing bot automation to assist with maintenance of the Today's Articles for Improvement project. A bot has now been approved for trial and will carry out the weekly duties. The bots first run will occur around 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (midnight on Sunday).
If you have been assisting any of the weekly maintenance tasks, please refrain from doing so this week. The bot needs to be tested and proven it can do the job, and it only gets one chance per week. The tasks will include:
Adding {{TAFI}} to the new article for improvement, remove {{TAFI}} from last week's article and add {{Former TAFI}} to the talk page
Notify relevant WikiProjects that the new TAFI is within their scope
Send a mass message to everyone on the notification list of the new TAFI selection
Updating the accomplishments and archiving selections is still done manually, along with daily tasks such as adding approved entries to the articles for improvement page. These will become automated in the near future.
We hope the bot proves to serve well, and by carrying out the routine housekeeping tasks we can boost the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the project. MusikBot thanks you for your service in helping with the weekly tasks in the past, and for your cooperation during this trial period :)
You can't come out of the blue with arbitration proposals against E and F. They haven't had a chance to tell their side of the story. They may not have been following the case. You have to go to their talk pages and start at the beginning. Show the diffs and ask them to explain. If the response is not satisfactory commence dispute resolution. You don't drag them in the back door of somebody else's arbitration. That's a power grab. Jehochman03:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, obviously one would give them as much notice as possible yes. But at the end of the day arbitrators are elected in the hope they can be impartial and also that they will recuse if they might be involved. So 'entrapment' is presuming that both those steps fail. How would dispute resolution deal with (say) recurrent misrepresenting or faking of sources or removal of content or socking for that matter? Or doxxing off-wiki etc. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Go find an uninvolved administrator to look over the evidence and see if they will issue a block. Walk a mile in the shoes of the ordinary editor. ArbCom is to hear the case presented, not go hunting for targets of opportunity. Jehochman04:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You mean like AE is full of admins willing to help out in difficult and controversial areas? When was the last block you saw for (for instance) below-the-acute-radar-POV-pushing? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jehochman:, alright, I'll tell you what – should I be in a situation sometime in the next two years (should I be elected), I will alert you (if you are uninvolved) and you can tell me how you'd proceed. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understood the danger of commenting, and agree to your terms. If one says how things to be done, one is effectively volunteering. Doing standard admin duties and backing them up with evidence as needed is easy enough. One problem with AE is that it has gotten so very bureaucratic that most admins won't touch it with a barge pole for fear of forgetting to give the proper sequence of warnings or failing to log something the right way. Most of us don't have that much time to learn the detailed enforcement minutiae. When common sense is insufficient, people lose interest. Jehochman15:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To not make the arbcand questions longer than they are, I suggest we chat here. Do we agree that if project opera has a policy of variation – some articles with side navbox, others with infobox – we do not need a Misplaced Pages-RfC to decide for operatic articles? {{infobox opera}} was introduced in 2013, and not welcomed by all, to put it mildly, but has more than hundred inclusions by now, including all operas by Verdi and Wagner. Can we also agree that the historic side navbox serves no purpose for the reader where a bottom navbox is present, as for that Joseph? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The answer to the first is "no". Look at bird capitalization. Sooner or later if there are differing styles and people on a bad day there will be a clash. Folks can complain about it all they want but we need a comprehensive MoS. FFS we are trying to make something that looks uniform...I will look at the various boxes later. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Some articles having an infobox, others not is not comparable to bird capitalization, – it's not a style question, but a content question. When the template was introduced, there was a minority of articles using it, naturally. As long as a transition is not performed by a bot but us humans, and some authors "refuse" (as you termed it), there will be no uniformity, but it seems no problem. We can't oppose any progress because some will "refuse" ;) – I voted for you, btw, – this is just for better understanding. And don't be afraid that I will need your service in clarification requests. If I won't be blocked for disruption the next week I should be free again, imagine ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Casliber. Remember me? You probably don't, but I'm the guy who reviewed your Four Award nomination for Turquoise parrot. Anyway, I've been working on a FOUR project of my own (2006 UAW-Ford 500) and was wondering, if you're not too busy, if you could do the honors of providing a review? If not, I understand completely, I bet it's been a heck of a month for you. Congrats again on creating the 5,000,000th article! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I read your statement in the current Arbitration Committee election. What you said earns my respect and support. I can relate to dealing with a few users who wish to twist content to promote views that are not correct. I once wrote an article about a right-wing video documentary that for a time was widely viewed and I tried to show its content in an objective way. I originally went to graduate school to be a journalist, but ended up with a Ph.D. in history. I have written a number of things, including books. Anyway, I requested admins to consider providing partial protection for my article, as persons incensed that I did not sing praises to the video made totally unwarranted changes. I finally gave up when nothing was done and the edits made deleted objective reviews of the video. This resulted in the article being tagged for deletion. I told what had happened in the deletion discussion and the article, which had become trashed, was deleted. To add insult to injury those who made unwarranted changes to the article were sometimes personally insulting to me in Misplaced Pages and through other online sources. No one trying to write an objective article should be subjected to this. Anyway, I still write and edit in various Wikimedia areas. Bill Pollard (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Good luck in the election, Casliber. I'm sorry I've not asked you any searching, or even mundane, questions. But the answers I have seen to others look very reassuring. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither argument by the oppose is valid. The article is about the history of the motorcycle as it stands (not the other areas proposed), and there is no barrier to making articles about those other topics. The header also conforms with almost all daughter articles as noted by the supporter. Will add over there. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
On 1 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Persoonia laurina, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bark of the laurel geebung was used by aborigines to toughen fishing lines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Persoonia laurina. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you! The Flaming Joel-wiki award was well worth waiting for! I shall put it up on my trophy wall forthwith! – Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I have recently moved this page, because a "Nimaethap" (as the old label diction was) doesn't exist. Now the redirect gotta be deleted and the internal links should be connected with the newly labelled article. Can you fix that? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Casliber. Here is this article, which since January 2015 has been either vandalized or edited with inaccurate information by IP editors and new accounts for numerous times. I've been watching this for quite a long time and I feel it should be indefinitely semi-protected. I've already posted this earlier on your talk page and you advised that if such editing continued, then I should request protection again. --UA Victory (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Casliber. I borrowed your Accounts Map code and put it on my User page too. I tweaked it a bit by adding more Sister sites. I also found that it rode too high on my taskbar so I changed top: -64 to top: -56 and it dropped it down a few millimeters. You can see my map coding here, and see it rendered here. I noticed your map rides a little high too so you should be able to use the same code tweak. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Casliber, You recently deleted the CEO Connection page I posted. The page had been marked for speed deletion as unambiguously promotional. I addressed those concerns on the talk page, but did not receive any response before your deletion. The page was "written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.” (Misplaced Pages:NOTFORPROMOTION) If you disagree, I'm happy to consider revisions to it to make it comply with Misplaced Pages' standards. Since it's deleted, please let me know if I can provide you with the content so that you can comment on it.
Josserroll (talk)
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged User Josserroll for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
I can see the page is currently cannot be edited. Tried to add some details, based on current developments in a case he is involved, but that contents were keep removing. It is with enough proof and citation, but still getting denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puthenmadom (talk • contribs) 11:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother you again but would you mind, please, having a quick look at the activities of this editor? I have a feeling it's going to get a bit tricky here sooner or later ... Thanks and best wishes 77.96.249.228 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I know you've commented on this article before on WP:BLP issues. Currently there is a discussion on the Talk page about whether to expand the description of the doughnut licking incident to include alleged spitting. Please take a look at the discussion and see what you think. Please weigh in either way with your take on it. All the best! – Ssilvers (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, just wanted to say thanks for trying to save the Paisley Shawls deletion – it was created as part of an editathon at which I was training, and if I'd seen that it had been nominated for deletion I would have come by and helped out, sadly I was at work at the time that it was deleted. Quite disappointed! Is there any way that I can undelete and address the copyright infringement issue, or should I just recreate/encourage the recreation of the article with it written more in her own words? I'm a Wikimedian in Residence at Museums Galleries Scotland. Lirazelf (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your closing statement at Case Closed, you wrote: "...it is not clear that the legal expression wouldn't warrant a page either". How is that issue relevant? Isn't that pure speculation either way? What we know is that there is no such article currently. Isn't that all that matters? Remember, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a sub-section of WP:D, which is about disambiguating titles of articles that are on WP, not potential ones that maybe might be at some unspecified time in the future. Amakuru addressed this quite clearly in the discussion ("WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns itself with disambiguating concepts that actually have articles here on the Wiki, not day to day life.") You seem to have ignored this point. Why? If you could explain your thinking on this, that would be very helpful, especially in light of your other statement there was no consensus "by argument". That would be true if you gave much weight to the WP:CRYSTALBALL speculative and totally unsubstantiated argument about the legal expression maybe warranting an article, but on what grounds would you do that? Thank you. --В²C☎23:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure how I can make it clearer about the legal phrase unless you are being obtuse. Regarding primary topic, the first note is "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors" – and there is discussion about different methods yielding different results -see Farix's oppose in the discussion. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Just because there are no absolute rules does not mean you can make any rules you want out of thin air, which you apparently did. If I'm mistaken about that, please cite basis (besides "there are no absolute rules") for considering uses of a term that do not have articles on WP when determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is perhaps not totally unprecedented, but it is highly unusual. --В²C☎01:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Cherrypick? What do you think I'm cherrypicking? Anyway, the first line of WP:D states quite clearly: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Misplaced Pages article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. The whole issue of disambiguation, and by extension primary topic, is not even applicable unless there is more than one existing WP article for the given term. In this case there are two existing WP articles, the Manga series which we're considering, and the film which everyone admits is obscure. There should be no question about primary topic. The legal expression is completely and totally irrelevant. You cite Farix, who claims "page article traffic statistics cannot be used" because there were no other articles named "Case Closed" on WP. That's absurd, which I pointed out in my !vote comment (which you also ignored). For any given name (like "Case Closed") there can only be one article with that name. That's no reason to not use article traffic statistics. We use article traffic statistics in Primary Topic determinations all the time – that's how we know the film in this case is obscure. Should we discount article traffic statistics in deciding whether Paris is truly the primary topic for "Paris" because there is no other article named "Paris"? What nonsense. I really don't want to put the community through the whole hassle of Move Review, but I have to say your decision is that flawed. When the primary topic is so obvious it really shouldn't be a dab page. It's just confusing. Please reconsider. --В²C☎02:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Look, no consensus to move =/= consensus not to move. If you find any admin that would close that RM as a consensus to move, I'd be very surprised. I'd argue the manga was very obscure. List as a move review if you want. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: if your close was a "no consensus", as you say, then the outcome should have been a move of the page from Case Closed (manga) back to Case Closed. The present situation came about because of a bold move made a few weeks ago; the long term location of this page, and hence the default outcome for a no consensus, was at Case Closed. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Cas, I've actioned your close of this to procedurally revert to the status quo by moving the manga to Case Closed and the dab to Case Closed (disambiguation). Hope I haven't been too presumptuous. My thanks for closing a discussion that had been lingering in the backlog too long, and best of luck on ArbCom! Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Cas Liber, I was wondering if you could do a couple of things for me.
First, swap the second hook in Queue 3, Aucanquilcha, with the second hook in Prep 4, Toshiko Yuasa. The Toshiko Yuasa hook is a special occasion hook (she was born on December 11), but would only appear on the main page at 21:00 on December 11, Japan time. It would be much better if it appeared at 09:00 Japan time that day, which means Queue 3.
Second, if you can promote Prep 2 to Queue 2, that would also be great. Once you've done that, I can realign the preps and queues so that their numbers are the same. (When Victuallers moved Queue 1 to Queue 3 so that the Ada Lovelace hooks could be in Queue 1 (as you promoted them a couple of hours ago), it got the numbering out of whack; that's why I want to do the realignment, especially with the Sinatra centennial hooks coming up for Preps 5 and 6.)
I knew I'd forget something: when Toshiko Yuasa gets moved into Queue 3, you'll then have bios in slots 2 (Toshiko Yuasa), 3, and 5. It might make sense to swap slots 3 and 4, and slots 5 and 6, so that you don't have two bios in a row anywhere. But it's entirely up to you. Again, many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Gatoclass has taken care of the Prep 2 to Queue 2 promotion, so it's just the Toshiko Yuasa swap into Queue 3 that remains, plus the resulting bio swaps after that, if you want to do them. Again, I hope all is well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I think you're right about stopping loading preps: we have several people who can do that, but only a limited number such as yourself who can promote preps and fix queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Cas will survive, he's built for stuff like this. I do hope it is a less frustrating year for you than 2015 was for others. Maybe everyone will just play nice and you can sit around the Arb Clubhouse bored all year. Dennis Brown – 2¢19:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back to the 2016 Arbitration Committee. A few moments ago, you should have received an email from me asking you such simple questions as what email address you want to use for committee business. Welcome! Courcelles (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It does my heart good to see a content creator and editor of your caliber now serving as a member of ArbCom. Congratulations to you and to all of us who helped get you there – it's a win-win! This may turn-out to be one the best ArbComs ever assembled. Atsme10:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it exciting that all the people I recommended for Arbcom in my humble little guide have been elected; you must feel very pleased that I took such an interest in you – you really mustn't feel the need to thank me. Knowing that so many follow my sage advice is thanks enough. You really should think about moving to America though, you could earn an awful lot of money, especially now you're an Arb, they love that kind of think over there and will probably play extra to be analysed by a Arbitrator, not to mention all the very strange American Wikipedians who need analysing. Would you like to me to give you an advertising plug on my page? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Phosphorosaurus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Like yourself, 'twas curious to me to see the at-wits-end principle, and I wondered from whence it came, whilst perusing the vested-contribs arb-case....
nce upon a time... the arbs of olde proposed and passed E.EU in Oct'07, apparently drafted by just-re-elected arb Kirill Lokshin. This boilerplate-principle was used again in a vested-contrib desysop-under-a-cloud of 2007, amongst other places, and also in 2008 and 2009 apparently, after which it was immortalized by outgoing arb Roger Davies with slightly softer wording in Aug'09. Since that time, the at-wits-end verbiage has seen several uses. Although of course I cannot be certain, about any of this, since the ArbCom archives are not public ... wikipedia has a once-top-secret-indefinitely-top-secret policy slash standing order.
I found (and have found for years) our article on the notwithstanding clause not very informative, as it glazes over what can actually be suspended. So I added a summary list. When one looks at it on the whole, and the impact it can have, it is no wonder it is the most controversial section. --kelapstick21:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Cas Liber, I'm hoping you'll be able to promote some of the full preps to queues in the near future, assuming someone doesn't get there first. Right now all six preps are completely full, while only two queues are full. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations
Was delighted to see. Its not an easy appointment to say the least, but have a lot of confidence in you, and that you'll be able to balance the content work. Best. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You have record, form and very obviously a mandate, very good signs. But even if, the goodwill towards you will out. In other news (opens begging bowl) I'm thinking of pushing a Fall album for FAC but might need help with a ce and re org, Hex Enduction Hour, if you get a chance. If not I'll decry u as part of the coordinated uncaring about Mark E Smith arb machine conspiracy-a! Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Cas, appreciate the look, and relieved that you not going to list a list of complaints. It needs a lot of work yet, was just asking from one old ex-punk to another, which I suppose is a bit sad. Did we pretend to think we were still cool? (Now where's my stick) Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I am not so good on detail..so I am cautious in reading rough articles that there might be stuff I have missed. Not really familiar with the Fall as they didn't really break over here...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
nothing to do with flatulence. first there was the idea there could be articles, and actually linked to things, as if meteorology of the southern climes might be of relevance and validity in this over-tech world, then there was an article, it struggled, and there was even an article for the higher number (fifities even had its own stub for a while), then there were the southern ocean battles, with very smart people telling us the great australian bight and bass straight were in the Indian ocean and all the rest. So for a christmas present, even the last vestige of something from the earlier edits Roaring_Forties gets booted, no wonder people think wikipedia is going to the dogs. :) JarrahTree00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
apologies, probably my prob, maybe there is already a ref to the winds in the body of the article... oceanic distinctions is up there with star wars, but historical ... not much in recent years. JarrahTree00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Err...I suspect there are a butt-tonne of banana cultivars and the cultivar template would refer to a single one only....think the taxobox more prudent. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
A taxobox is not appropriate and should not have been added. The article Banana does not discuss a taxon, either one named under the ICN or one named under the ICNCP. The taxobox added was for the genus Musa, but this includes many species other than the handful involved in the creation of cultivated bananas and is covered at Musa (genus). The article has not had a taxobox until one was added recently without discussion or consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Cas, the orange colour you use to interweave some of your comments on talkpages I find harder to read than should be. I wonder whether you'll consider darkening it a little. Tony(talk) 01:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh I couldn't help myself—pressed the button on your range puncutation in the archives list. Please revert if you don't like! Tony(talk) 01:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Cas Liber, you were going to check some sources and perhaps make some modification to the article based on it that would help with the issues raised in the DYK review. It's been a while; do you think you'll be able to get to this soon? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Cas Liber, if you get the chance, we're down to only one queue filled, but there are five preps filled and waiting.
There's a potential issue with the iris hook in Prep 4, though, as noted in WT:DYK#Prep 4. I've suggested a potential fix, but if you've promoted the set to Queue 4 before it gets a thumbs up or down from the person who raised the issue, it'll require an admin to take care of it.
Thanks for doing those. Time marches on, and the queues are now completely empty while the preps are full. I updated the iris hook, so any preps (including Prep 4) that you can promote to queues would be welcome. Again, thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Aha, not bad for a first effort. Other points to note - look for copyvios - This tool is useful for general check, or for specific pages. Also that the prose is neutral and not puffy or displaying a POV. And finally that the hook sentence is faithful to the source it is reffed by. If an offline source then there is an AGF template () to use. Cas Liber (talk·contribs)
Hey, I'm still thinking of submitting to Sexuality after spinal cord injury FAC, wondered if you'd be interested in giving it a second look. It's undergone a lot of changes since you reviewed it, and now it's at peer review. Alternately I could just submit it at FAC but I'm intimidated, I've only ever done it once like seven years ago! Anyway, thanks for the advice you've already given and any you'd like to offer in the future! delldot∇.06:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
@Delldot: I am thinking it looks pretty good (I was out and about so looked at it on smartphone) and within striking distance of FA-hood. I think you should nominate it at FAC. The other person to ping would be Doc JamesCas Liber (talk·contribs) 18:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty straightforward really. Big-picture it is just looking at an article and being satisfied that all possible improvements have been implemented...if you think like that it's fine. Maybe just have a look now. Having a long/involved FAC page often scares off other reviewers..... I really need to do another medical article some day....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 18:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much Cas, if you think it's ready to be nominated I'm going to take that as high praise coming from someone with your experience. Doc James, any comments you have as far as errors or omissions would be much appreciated! I'm going to try and give it a final copy edit then nominate it (unless I chicken out). Thanks again to you both. delldot∇.22:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
If Doc James is happy then that is a good thing as he has a more exclusive rather than inclusive view of sourcing (generally a Good Thing for medical articles). I can also miss detail sometimes. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Cas Liber, our last queue was just promoted to the main page about 15 minutes ago. As I write this, three prep sets are ready to go, and more may be made ready before you see this. If you can do any prep to queue promoting when you see this, that would be great. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Michael Q. Schmidtis wishing you the happiest of Misplaced Pages Wikiclaus' good cheer.
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages we all spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !
Respect from another, though not as well travelled, ex-punk of a certain age, and hope you and yours have an nice upside down christmas. 2016 will be the year that I convert you to the Fall; you have been warned. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.
After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.
We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Misplaced Pages.
Can you help make the Lead more interesting? Seems ridiculously dull for such a successful period in the club's history (I also think it's too long). --Dweller (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
BOZ (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw
Happy Holidays
Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2016 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Casliber, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, this is Colton Cosmic. I'm posting here on an administrator's page because I have no other way to seek unblock. I was blocked in 2012 on a unsubstantiated charge of sockpuppetry by an admin who just clicked a button, didn't link any evidence and refused discussion. I appealed but I found myself, I feel, pursued by a set of administrative participants from the WP:AN/ANI orbit, and this diminished my chances at a fair hearing, in fact normally it diminished my chances of even being able to speak in my own defense.
Why you? I figured the top three vote-getters in the Arbcom election would have the least to fear from reprisals by WP:AN/ANI if you saw things my way. So I went to you three on the list and did an eeny-meeny-miny-moe, which came up you.
It never that I've noticed helps to type a long account, so if you'll look into it, just do so and let me know what you see. I'd ask that you not fault me for "not going through normal appeal channels" because they've all been shut off to me. I'd also ask emphasizedly that you not accept anybody's allegations about me without giving me a chance to defend myself to you.
So, I hope you don't give me a curt "no," after all I did contribute to Misplaced Pages for five or six years without incident. I hope that you look into it and give me a chance to talk with you about what you see.
Colton Cosmic, 23:37, 25 December 2015
Given that you're responding to others that have posted here after me, yet not me, it appears you are ignoring me, which would be rude.
Colton Cosmic
I have been talking about it with others as I am not familiar with your situation and who you originally are/were. Answer me that and what encyclopedic material you intend improving and that would be a start. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Familiarize you with my situation? Just read my first post as Colton Cosmic: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&oldid=477070007. That was my conscientious statement when I abandoned my (only) prior account. I didn't know it at the time, I was just trying to do things in an honest way, but a privacy cleanstart is expressly, unequivocally authorized in WP:CLEANSTART which is policy.
Tell you my original account? WP:CLEANSTART says specifically one is not required to tell anybody that. It would also risk defeating my privacy concerns. However I did tell Jimbo Wales. He promised to help me get unbanned if I confided him my prior account. I was a bit star-struck and did so. He then had what he wanted and didn't bother to reply to my emails, though he had eagerly sent me some while he sought the account. He did not help me. However a year later, I think it was Nick prompted him, and Jimbo typed at my talkpage that my prior account wasn't blocked, banned, etc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AColton_Cosmic&action=historysubmit&type=revision&oldid=618171705&diff=618160512. Please go by Jimbo because I don't want to get burned again.
What do I intend to edit if reinstated? I used to edit whatever interested me, it was nearly always content, but truthfully this experience has changed my view of Misplaced Pages. I would like to put forth again the Universal Optout policy proposal for the living subjects of BLPs. They should be able to define themselves (*if they want*) not be defined by Misplaced Pages participants. I believe in a lot of cases BLPs tend to distress their subjects/ I would still edit content, I am interested (this is not facetious) in trees for example. Like Swamp White Oak. Thanks for responding and again I implore you not to accept allegations made against me without allowing me to defend myself to you about them.
Hello Casliber, I would like to know the extended(?) reason behind the deletion of this page. Because as far as I know, after it was deleted accidentally, it has been restored as a redirect since then, with the edit history intact as an attribution (see here). I'm sure you had checked its log before deletion, so perhaps there's another reason I am not aware of? Regards. −Edward (⋇c) 07:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Now that I have read the reason for CSD and the draft which had been rejected few hours ago, I think I got the full picture of what happened. Thanks for restoring, and was there anything useful in the talk page? I can't remember... On a side note, thanks for semi protecting Running Man (TV series). Cheers. −Edward (⋇c) 08:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Cas Liber, for the first time in a while, the queues are completely empty, and the next promotion is in under six hours. Fortunately, the preps are full, so if you could please promote one or two (or more), that would be a great help. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Page 14 has a section about involuntary celibacy. This is a citation of the study listed below ( Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis)
For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology and consequences of this phenomenon ... we define as one who desires sex but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least six months but after a certain length of time begin to worry.
In addition involuntary celibacy is used to describe individuals who have not chosen to be celibate but who find themselves for various reasons in the position of wanting to engage in sexual activity but not having a partner.
Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students This may not be news to college students, but some people remain sexually inactive through no choice of their own. A desire for sex exists, but no prospects do. There's a term for people who can't get laid: involuntary celibacy, or 'incel.' A longer definition explains: “Involuntary celibacy is chronic near-total or total absence in a person's intimate relationships or sexual intercourse that is occurring for reasons other than voluntary celibacy, asexuality, antisexualism or sexual abstinence.” I think we can all remember that person on our floor freshman year that was involuntarily celibate, no matter how hard he or she tried. But incel is not something to be taken lightly. Newscaster Christine Chubbock committed suicide live on air in 1974, and it was believed that incel was a root reason. As a 30-year-old virgin, she'd suffered unrequited crushes and severe depression.
Denise Donnelly, Elisabeth Burgessb, Sally Andersonb, Regina Davisb & Joy Dillard. "Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis". The Journal of Sex Research Volume 38, Issue 2, 2001. Retrieved 2015-12-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The study notes:
Using a life course perspective, we explored the development and maintenance of involuntary celibacy for 82 respondents recruited over the I'nternet. Data were collected using an open‐ended electronic questionnaire. Modified grounded theory analysis yielded three groups of involuntary celibates, persons desiring to have sex but unable to find partners. Virgins were those who had never had sex, singles had sex in the past but were unable to establish current sexual relationships, and part‐nereds were currently in sexless relationships. These groups differed on dating experiences, the circumstances surrounding their celibacy, barriers to sexual activity, and the perceived likelihood of becoming sexually active. They were similar, however, in their negative reactions to celibacy. Pervasive in our respondents’ accounts was the theme of becoming and remaining off time in making normative sexual transitions, which in turn perpetuated a celibate life course or trajectory. (This study is peer review and cited over 40 times)
Involuntary celibacy - Often celibacy is an unbidden state, imposed by circumstances, for instance in modern China with its skewed sex ratio or in apartheid bound South Africa where rigid work and travel permits could confine one's marriage partner to a white city, the other to a black township. The American Civil War, which killed of a generation of young men, also doomed their sisters to spinsterhood as maiden aunts, burdensome family charges, and underpaid schoolmarms.
This source is from 1916 and uses the term involuntary abstinence to describe the same thing, if naming is an issue that can be corrected:
Considering the imperious nature of the sexual instinct and the consequences resulting from the failure to gratify it, we must consider the causes that lead to sexual abstinence. For our purposes we may divide sexual abstinence into two class: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence to take the latter first results from causes beyond the individuals control and often without his knowledge.
Anything by Donnelly is a primary source and can't be used to establish notability, though can be used to flesh out an article. this is a very fleeting mention and is really talking about religious celibacy, this is a newspaper and not a medmos compliant source. The Abbott book I can't see but talks of it in a sociological aspect. I don't see why this need to be covered in a separate article. Spooner's is a one line statement, hardly a detailed discussion.
Thing is, when I was younger and had a bit of a spell between girlfriends, I grew frustrated and felt that I was trying my hardest and the World (and People) were being So Unreasonable. It was only years later when I got some self reflection that I realised I was a bit of a dick at times. Men are often externalisers and keen to blame things in the world around them. Sometimes they are right but sometimes wrong. This idea (incorrectly) reinforces externalisation of blame. Anyway, off we go to AfD #4 it seems. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro6422:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
We still know very little about the 26-year-old man who killed nine people and injured seven more in an Oregon community college classroom last week. Even before the fatalities had officially been totaled, there were whispers that Chris Harper-Mercer might have belonged to a fringe group that is much-reviled on the Internet: men calling themselves “incels,” for “involuntary celibates.”
But it has certainly drawn attention to the Internet cult of the “involuntary celibate”: people — almost always straight men — who have either never had sex or haven’t found a willing partner for an extended period.
On forums like 4chan’s /r9k/, Reddit’s r/ForeverAlone, and the old-timer Love-Shy.com, incels gather to swap stories and debate the causes of their situations. Some have physical handicaps or psychological disorders that have prevented them from meeting women; some just have bad luck; some are cripplingly introverted — hence “love shy” — or anxious.
...
Both Gilmartin and the Georgia State researchers suggest that involuntary celibacy is part of a self-sustaining package of psychological issues: depression, neuroticism, anxiety, autistic disorders. Those problems prevent incels from forming relationships — which in turn makes their depression and anxiety more extreme.
Also see my last question, if someone has one sexual encounter does that disqualify them? In which case is it "not strictly 100%" celibacy...in which case it equals sexual frustration. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
2016
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?
Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I am asking for your assistance and/or help or just simply an opinion. I have been working on this article Draft:Alex Gilbert for a few years now. I keep having an issue with getting it to the main space. It was reviewed last year and then moved to the main space, but was then deleted as it had to go through a deletion review. Now more sources have been appearing for this subject more again. It has gone through 3 deletion reviews with each time the article having much improvement each time!. I don't think or know if anyone is clearly looking at the sources correctly. What are the guidelines for this? am I doing something wrong? Here are the 3 deletion reviews for this article. Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2015_August_24, Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2015_October_29 - The outcome was no consensus and the most recent one - Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_22. I have detailed all the sources, all reliable. I don't know what I am doing wrong? All of this started from a Nominated for Deletion which is not relevant at all to the subject now (See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Gilbert_(2nd_nomination)) .
I will keep working on this draft but I don't want to annoy anyone in the deletion review, but the only way IF it got reviewed and approved again for it to get onto the mainspace is for the article to go through a deletion review. I have listed the references for this Draft below in detail for you. Please if you can have a look I would appreciate it. I appreciate your time and help. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Long list of references
New Sources that were found since the last Deletion Review.
Retrieved 22 December 2015 - Source is from Channel One Russia. Alex appeared on Russia’s biggest TV Talk show ‘Let them Talk’. This source talks about his journey and also his I’m Adopted Organisation. See (YouTube link to the show) and look at 47:27
and Retrieved 22 December 2015 - Also from Channel One Russia
Retrieved 22 December 2015 - From Yar.kp.ru - A reliable news source from Russia about his work and projects.
Retrieved 24 December 2015 - From Progorod76 - A reliable news source from Russia.
Retrieved 22 December 2015 - Another new source.
Retrieved 22 November 2015. ‘’Whirlwind trip feels like it didn't happen’’ The Northern Advocate - Source talks about his recent trip to Russia for his TV Appearance on ‘Let them Talk’
Retrieved 1 December 2015. ‘’To Russia with love: The Kiwi-Russian taking his homeland by storm’’ - TVNZ - Alex is featured on another TVNZ ‘’Sunday’’ Story about his recent trip to Russia. He is expected to appear on this huge TV Channel in Russia this year.
16 November 2015. ‘’Alex Gilbert - I crossed the ocean, to see my biological parents” - changeonelife.ru . This is another big article website. It also talks about his recent trip to Russia.
References that cover his 'I'm Adopted' OrganisationPlease note: Yes these were in the old DRV.
Анатомия дня TV ShowNTV Russia Retrieved 29 October 2015. Source covers his Non-Profit Organisation 'I'm Adopted' and talks about him helping others.
Retrieved 22 August 2015. Whangarei boy who traced Russian roots helps fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines (TVNZ) - This source also talks about 'I'm Adopted'
Retrieved August 7, 2015. Russian adoptee shares storiesThe Northern Advocate - This source is only about his 'I'm Adopted' page and mentions A former Russian adoptee raised in Whangarei is helping other adopted people share their stories. This is not a BLP1E am I correct?
Retrieved 4 November 2015. Adoption project enthrals RussiansThe Northern Advocate - This article talks about what impact his page has had with the Russian Media. I have also added these news outlet links to the article. This is due to his 'I'm Adopted' page.
Retrieved 29 October 2015. In social networks, a new unusual community. Children of Russia, adopted by foreigners looking for their biological parents Translated from Russian. NTV Russia - This source is from a huge Russian Media outlet about his I'm Adopted Organisation. Read the article or watch the video.
Other References
Retrieved February 26, 2015. From Russia with loveThe Northern Advocate - This article is about his Book 'My Russian Side' that he published in 2014. It reads Now 22, Alex, has written a book about his journey.
Retrieved 23 February 2015. TVNZ - This is his actual Full Length NZ TV Documentary Story which aired in NZ and yes at the time was an issue where BLP1E was talked about in the previous deletions. New Sources have since been found and updated. ALOT MORE
Retrieved July 2, 2014. The New Zealand Herald - This article covers a meet up Alex Gilbert had with another New Zealander he found through his TV Documentary.
Retrieved 16 November 2015. Change One Life Russia - This article is an excellent interview with Alex Gilbert about his own story and journey.
Retrieved 5 June 2015. - TV3 NZ - This TV Show features Alex who talks to other adoptees who are going through the same journey as he went through.
References in Russian Language
If you can't understand them then don't comment. People have been ignoring these. These are put up as a support to the article. It shows you how much coverage it had.
Retrieved 21 October 2015. yarcom.ru - This article talks about his experience and journey.
Retrieved 21 October 2015 New Zealander Alex Gilbert found his mother in the Rybinsk, threw him in the hospital . echo76 - New Russian article talking also about his life and journey to Russia.
Retrieved 21 October 2015. New Zealander found in Rybinsk own mother - 76.ru - This article notes if translated Now the young man helps the other people who find themselves in a similar situation, to find their loved ones.
Retrieved 21 October 2015. progorod76.ru- The guy from New Zealand found in the Yaroslavl region his own mother
Retrieved 21 October 2015. http://rweek.ru/ - This article talks about his journey and experience also
Retrieved 21 October 2015. yarnews.net - New Zealander Alex Gilbert found his mother in the Rybinsk
Retrieved 21 October 2015. vesti.ru - This source is from Vesti News. One of the largest TV News outlets in Russia - Russia-24
Retrieved 22 October 2015. http://bsvesti.ru/ - This is another alternative news source
Retrieved 1 November 2015 yar.kp.ru - Another news source in Russia
Retrieved 22 October 2015. http://rybinskcity.ru/ - A news source from Rybinsk City, Russia
Retrieved 16 November 2015. - sguschenka.com - A reliable source talking to Alex directly about his experience and journey.
Retrieved 21 October 2015. http://1news.uz/ - Another Russian News Source
Thanks for your support in 2015, expecting even more in a year with you on arbcom ;) - ring the peace bell often, - look for hidden music by Bach, Sibelius and Verdi! - Any help with replacing the Sibelius hook for In Memoriam by BWV 171? (It's on DYKTALK, twice.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber, I placed the Sibelius in prep 4, which was the only open prep; I didn't think it made sense to unpromote it. When you're next editing, do you think you can promote at least one prep t
Cas Liber, I liked what you did, happy that we didn't have the memory of the assassin so close to New Year's Day, also unpromote is ok at 1am. I like to see the cantata right now! Next concern (so sorry that I was a bit slow over the feast days, singing and family): another cantata is in special occasions for 3 January, and queues and preps are already quite full. I don't mind during the week, because more people tend to look then, but can you (or someone watching) get it in prep as soon as possible, because there will be a different one for the next Sunday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you have the same problem in the message above. I got the same message. I'm trying to fix my nomination and tried to follow the directions but I still don't know if I got it right. Help! Best Regards,
Cas Liber, sorry to keep bothering you like this, but the last queue has just been main-paged, and the next four preps are ready. If you could do some promoting from prep to queue, that would be great. Many thanks as always for keeping DYK humming; I hope the New Year is a great one so far. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Rugby League on Misplaced Pages Signpost
WikiProject Rugby League will be appearing on the Misplaced Pages Signpost this week, and I'm wondering if you'd be interested in participating in the interview? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine. Just colour coded it for navigation. 23:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Any Movement?
Casliber, I feel almost naive asking after eight days of silence, but have you decided if you're going to do anything re: my ban? (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Casliber#Will_You_Consider_Helping_Me_Get_Unbanned.3F.) You said you were looking into it, so it would be nice to hear something. I posted here once since then but my comment was deleted by a sockpuppet of (I guess) one of my pursuers. If you disapprove of such deletions on your talkpage, you might say so to those that do it.
I believe WP:ADMIN obliges you to give a reason for your decision.
Colton Cosmic
PS: Interesting to see Favonian, a person whom I've never crossed or offended in any way that I know of, 18 months or whatever after he or she last voted to ban me, ever eager with his or her block button to get me again.
Melbourne visit
I'm currently in Melbourne - which explains my recent interest in Australian birds. This is my first visit to Australia - I've come to look after three small grandchildren. I've been struck by the number of large, noisy and colourful birds. I don't need binoculars. The Corymbia ficifolia are in flower and full of rainbow lorikeets. Frustratingly, my vpn access to scientific journals via my former institution appears to have been blocked. I'll need to ask for its reinstatement on my return to London - this is in two weeks. Aa77zz (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah there are some cool ones...I see lots of red wattlebirds in my garden. I've buffed many of the common city birds up to GA/FA, but there are a few more to go magpie-lark being a notable one too. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe there is only one Cas Liber - surely there must be at least 100 of them. My thanks to every one of you for the amazing volume of work you do. Gderrin (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the DYK Update
Hola. The DYK process is something I have learnt anew. So it is special to have my page featured on Misplaced Pages's main page today. Feels surreal as I joined Misplaced Pages only last month. Thank you for this. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Casliber. After your help in getting my DYK featured on the main page, I got two more DYKs reviewed and passed. But today is special. I got my first good article. Leaving a note as I just wanted to share with the editors who have helped me in one way or the other. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
Cas Liber, we've had our first warning in quite a while about empty queues with two hours to go. Right now Preps 1 and 2 are ready for promotion, so if you see this, please promote one or both of them. None of the subsequent preps are full enough as yet, unfortunately. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cas Liber. Thanks for your work on the lead contest so far. Could you please help me to move Draft:2015 Cape wildfires to my user space. It's been tagged for speedy deletion and I haven't had a lot of time to work on if. Thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Ta for that. It's interesting - I agree (at this stage) that she's not notable, yet if you Google her name, you get 750,000 hits. What a strange world.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Isopogon anemonifolius you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Finding permalink of Diff for DYK on main page
Hi, Cas. How do I find the permalink or Diff for the main page version showing the DYK for P. t.? I think it was December 15 but I cannot find a way to lookup main page edit history. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}23:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: If you look at the history of the main page, you'll not see much change as it is all the daughter templates that change. Hence it'd be this page history you'd be wanting (hooks on main page). However, the only way to preserve what the main page looked like would be to do a screenshot. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Bummer, Cas. I only recently learned that Diff pages still change dynamically for content that depends on daughter templates. Too bad DYKs and other main page daughter templates are not substituted—then they would be persistent instead of dynamic. Ugh. Maybe we could develop a bot to screenshoot the main page twice a day and upload it and index at the Commons then provide a hyperlink to the directory of screenshots from the DYK and other departments that template on to the main page? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}07:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cas Liber! For your excellent job for the whole clan of Banksias and, needless to mention, your infinite contributions to Misplaced Pages, especially to flora, for which no praise shall be praiseworthy enough! Sainsf <^>Talk all words10:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
This. Then why am I being admonished while Arbcom allow FPAS a free pass to tell people to fuck off? To make blocks which are removed minutes later? To make personal attacks during the case itself? This is utterly screwed up. I understand how it works now. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You've been foul-tempered for months now (compared with years ago). I don't know what's up with you but you need to take a good hard look, maybe even go talk to someone. I don't know. I agree with folks trying to push to improve content and call out silly behaviour. I really do, but you undermine the value of this by gratuitous cantankerousness. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(14586469407).jpg)
. 
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_by_Matisse.jpg)
Hello, I'm 
_(14784351902).jpg)
