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.
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? 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.
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)
HTML ndashes suck. If you're on a Windows box, you can get a real ndash (i.e. unicode) by holding down the ALT key and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad. Hesperian11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If, like me, you're stuck with a laptop without a numeric pad with ALT functionality, n- and m-dashes are the two firsts characters after "insert" in the list placed under the edit window. Circeus22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I've edited my keyboard layout for "easy" dashes with a little Microsoft utility (yes, I use Windows). It takes a while to set up, but now I can add en and em dashes with only two keystrokes—quite an improvement for WP editing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I add shortkeys all the time on various programs. If i used a reallot of weird characters, I'd totally do that to have across windows. Circeus16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
Would you mind bringing your knowledge of Greek to bear on these three Wikisource pages for me please: , , ? It should only take five minutes I think. If you've got a Wikisource or unified account, you can correct any errors you find; else you can let me know and I'll fix them.
I added two columns and refined the scan logic on my most recent run, and since you are the originator of the concept, I re-evaluated you. Feel free to find any problems with the latest update, if you need an incentive, let me just say how disappointed I am that two weeks have passed and it is still not a solid list of FA's :) Also, if you're thinking of asking for a new program to show the changes between runs of my other program - no (at least not yet:). I'm wondering about putting in the latest "failed" status too, as in (Failed GA), but I'd need some category hints to work that in.
Thanks for the idea, what a great way to learn about article assessments; the wide range(/incoherence) of category names; and mostly, the great diversity of interests and accomplishments of editors of the wiki! Franamax (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(continuing in this thread despite the different topic) I've skimmed through several categories on commons, like Books and Mappae mundi and Image:Vinland Map HiRes.jpg comes closest to what I think you want. I like the borders, esp. the hue. Unfortunately, it's not easy to lighten and probably not possible at all to remove the ink (I gave it a half-assed try with GIMP). Anyway, just to see if we're on the same page as to your idea. Ideally, several similar but non-identical images of blank pages could be used for something similar to the DT userpage, considering that you have quite a lot of stuff on your userpage (with a different section on each page and some playful navigation). Or did you have something like a central disambiguation in mind, putting all the stuff in different subpages? I envision a self-made treasure map (the real problem would be to get the ragged border to look authentic) with an imagemap overlay on the different words (rendered into the image, possibly handwritten), linking to all the different sections (like on my old userpage or using subpages). And I see a compass rose in one of the corners (bottom right?). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(i) I like the font, but I'm not sure how well it would blend into the treasure map concept. (ii) I still can't believe that commons wouldn't have dozens of images like we're looking for among their roughly estimated ten thousand primary and secondary sexual characteristics copyvios. Oh well. On a related note, my GF is a graphic designer, maybe she has an idea where to get such an image, or can help create one that could be filled in. She's also great —professional, actually— with Photoshop, maybe she can alternatively clean up the Vineland map with some of those tools I never use). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Yes, I look for compass roses on commons, too, and I agree this one is nice and can also easily be used to put it in another picture. It's a pity that the background you found isn't free, because then we'd be ready to go. I've asked my GF about the Vineland map, but she said it would take ages to get it right. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you've taken it on, good work. The display and vision bits at Crested Tern apply for all the genus. The opening sentence isn't fully supported by Bridge - although Elegant is very close, Lesser Crested isn't, other than being in the same genus. I won't abandon this article (after all, one good ... aaaarrrggh, it's catching), but let me know if there's anything specific esp from BWP, Olsen or Harrison, where I have the books. Now, must be time for a couple of slices of bread with some meat in. 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Cute tool that. We'll see how many GAs, DYKs and FAs we can get. Got bits and pieces of horticultural stuff to add yet :) ...just musing on how to bonsai my species... Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
UFOINFO
Hi, a site called UFOINFO is used in multiple articles as reference. Do you think it should be considered RS? I cannot see any editorial board or anything by which it can be considered RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Neither can I. I guess next step is googling principal writers to see if they are notable independently. Not really my area. Otherwise the newspaper reports listed on the website themselves may have to serve...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ooo-arrrr me hearties, it be a fine 'n' tidy start, I be lookin' with keen oyes at what comes next..(seriously looks good, be good if you could make it somehow stretch, as in slot in horizontal bits to keep the bottom pattern at the bottom IYKWIM) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I see a minor typo. It says "Welcome to Casliber's Cove" where it should say "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Hesperian14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You could use the image as a fixed frame, with a scrollable text frame overlaid within it, and/or you could use it as a frame for different "pages" like my old userpage (the final revision of my old userpage combined both: "individual pages" each with a scrollable "inner" frame for the content of each page. btw: could you do me a favour and restore it? I find I need access to some formatting tricks I've collected there). At any rate, I'm going to work over the hue and upload a version without the text. It'd be possible to clone the middle (blank) part, but the limitations are manifold (apart from the challenge of making it look halfway acceptable): Different browsers and different users prefer wildly different font sizes, so you'd end up with a scrollable frame any way (where people would have to scroll "twice", once within the page and once within the frame) or you'd end up with blank space towards the bottom. user:Everyme14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
At User:Everyme/Casliber, I've installed a simply formatted proposal to get us started. Let me know what you think. My idea is to slowly and occasionally keep exchanging until something you like develops (otherwise until you decide you want something completely different, or to keep the current design). user:Everyme17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made it width-scalable. I image a pseudo-frame layout similar to my old page, with the added fun of people clicking the Welcome text to arrive at a table of contents with every entry right next to the inner (text frame) scrollbar, at the point corresponding to the position of that section. Should be great after I brush up the background images. user:Everyme18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice little read that, need to keep it up me sleeve for those befanged daughter articles was gonna get round to doing for a featured topic sometime...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Gawd, gotta get 'round to making all teh befanged stuff a Featured Topic at some stage, a more immediate one is critters in my garden what make drive my dog crazy and make him bark at 5AM...Laughing Kookaburra, Rainbow Lorikeet, Willie Wagtail (FA), Brown Rat(in neighbour's compost bin), Superb Fairy-wren(we..ell, they don't make him bark but they should be included for all-round cuteness)....the first two species have tunnelled a hole in my 6m high date palm and littered the patio with crap. Stupid pooch wants to catch them...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
BLP cases
If you're searching for cases related, I think two of the more important are the Badlydrawnjeff case and the Footnoted quotes case. Footnoted quotes isn't really about BLP content, but it established the "special enforcement" provisions that relate specifically to BLP. The Matthew Hoffman case also wasn't directly about BLPs, but it did get into how we deal with BLP-like problems involving editors and administrators who edit with their real names. Fair amount of interesting discussion in the workshop and on the proposed decision talkpage, although you'll have to wade through neck-deep crap to find it.
Going through the closed cases page, here are some links:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine (The subject of the case was also the subject of a BLP, Bluemarine edited the article about him almost exclusively and the issues discussed related to his conduct and the leeway given to an article subject)
Those I think are the big cases that deal with BLPs in 2008 and 2007. I'm sure I'm missing one or two, but if you look into them I'm sure any major principles articulated are cited to previous cases if they aren't new. I didn't follow arbitration prior to 2007, and the descriptions aren't very in depth, so I'm not completely sure which if any of the pre-2007 cases apply. I don't recall any being major factors in the above decisions. Avruch00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Casliber. I know this isn't exactly your area of expertise, but I was wondering if you could have a look at Melbourne Airport. The page has been up for A-class review for a month or two, and has not received any comments. Any opinions, however minor, would really be appreciated. Hope to see you there! » \ / (⁂ | ※) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A book you might enjoy
It's all about flowers ... well, err, kind of.
Patricia Fara, Sex, Botany and Empire: The Story of Carl Linnaeus and Joseph Banks, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2003).
She's a senior tutor in philosophy at Cambridge, written several very entertaining and informative books related to the history of science, probably including her doctorate.
It would be really great if we could add the DSM-IV Code to the Infobox Disease Template. It would be extremely useful in the psychiatric disorder articles.
"In section "Relationship with humans", can the phrases, "In some legends," and "In other traditions," mention the legends and traditions? Not strictly necessary, I am suggesting this because the above lines are consider Weasel words.".
This will be hard to fix since I don't have the book Kotare used - and I wouldn't want to either, probably, since a pet hate of mine is anything which lumps traditions from different regions together without giving the sources. I would suggest getting rid of all of this:
In Māori culture, only people of high rank wore Huia feathers. In some legends, the Huia was one of the birds attained from the heavens by Tāwhaki so that his wife could decorate her hair with its feathers; this celestial origin meant that the feathers of the Huia were treated with the greatest respect.
In other traditions, the Huia was the leader of the hākuturi, the spirit guardians of the forest, which included Whiteheads and Riflemen. A single Huia feather was worn as a talisman against misfortune. If a man dreamed of a Huia or its feathers, it meant his wife would conceive a daughter; if he dreamed of Kōtuku feathers it implied the conception of a son.
We could use as a partial source Traditional Maori Stories by Margaret Orbell, Reed 1992, pp82-83, and rewrite as follows:
In Māori culture, the "white heron and the huia were not normally eaten but were rare birds treasured for their precious plumes, worn by people of high rank".. <START FOOTNOTE: Orbell mentions some of the sacred associations of the Huia, saying that if a man dreamed of a Huia or its feathers, it meant his wife would conceive a daughter.<END FOOTNOTE>
We can also add a supporting reference from this page: and could perhaps still add the reference no .
Yea, it does seem weird of me. And yes. I'm sure the FAC people will get a kick out of it, but it has potential. Excuse my demented signature above, accidentally clicked off raw signature. ₪Ceran →(slip→sled →snow) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Casliber. Argh this is incredibly frustrating for me, I did so much work on this article - especially the "place in maori culture" section and I'd love to be able to do more but these days I'm so busy that I honestly just don't have the time to contribute a lot - hence why i'm replying a few days late, having not logged in for a while. I will have a glance at some of the points you made tonight but otherwise will have to put it to one side for a bit. I'm taking some leave from the 24th to the 3rd of February and I can hopefully then FINALLY find the time to rip into this article and make some improvements.. no promises but if everything goes according to plan I will be able to do it. i have some questions though...
1.You are a prolific contributor and very active member of the wikipedia community, yet I assume you're pretty busy person too, what with the research that you do ( or so I gather from your profile page). i only found I could really comfortably contribute to wikipedia during months long university holidays - but i no longer have the luxury of having those - Any tips on how to fit in wikipedia editing time?
2. The edits I like to make most are the ones which I did on "Huia" - adding lots of new, well referenced material to expand an article substantially. However, I'm not quite sure how to go about the research bit.. It seems like a lot of editors have got some kind of system going..Here is how I did it back in '07; I simply went to the uni library and wellington central library and and got out all the books about the Huia I could find - in additon to magazine articles and books about it which i own. Next I read through all the information i had gathered and underlined the relavant stuff with pencil - then I categorised it according to what the info. was about - the categories I had were ( to give you an idea)
1. Description . 2. distribution and habitat 3. Behaviour - etc
I numbered the paragraphs according to what type of info. they covered. Then I went through and collated all the info. for each number/category of information and composed my writing straight onto wikipedia.
I didn't really know how to go about doing the research and may have sort of been "reinventing the wheel" a bit (so to speak). how do seasoned editors like yourself do it? and do you track down more hard to reach info. from scientific journal articles by ordering them in somehow? and finally, is there somewhere on wikipedia with hints as to how to do original research to write an article?
Your response would be greatly appreciated and very helpful
Hope the summer weather is treating you guys well across the ditch,
Cheers, Kotare (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! :) I have nominated the article Dwellers of the Forbidden City for Good Article status, as I feel it has undergone significant improvement from the point at which it was almost deleted. Since you were involved with improving the article, and/or sparing it from deletion, I'm inviting you to help out in any way you can to improve the article so that it may join its fellow modules, Ravenloft and Dragons of Despair as a Misplaced Pages Good Article. :) You may want to place the review page (which may not begin immediately) on your watchlist to keep track of the review process. BOZ (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats what DMG ed 4 said - I have I1 buried in my garage and will check and get back in a few hours - it was a fantastic module, I recall making a shitload of encounters for it too...have to check Enworld too to see whether some enterprising young chap has converted it to 4th ed ;) Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I just checked my copy of the Fiend Folio, and it does credit Luke and Gary Gygax for having come up with the bullywug, so it's entirely possible that Gary said to Zeb, "hey, I've got this frog man that's going to be in the new manual, and you can use it for your module first if you like!" ;) I really need to get a look at the new DMG - is that in the introduction? Are there a lot of little gems like that? BOZ (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Dammit, didn't get a chance last night. Never mind, soon. Actually, there isn't much navel gazing of past stuff, which makes the I1 comment pretty notable I think. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in taking a look at Deinosuchus? I've been participating in a peer review for the article, which the author intends to put forth for an FA nom. I think it is of high quality, but I haven't been on FAC for over a year so I don't really know what it's like now, so it would be good to get someone who's worked with the process more recently to check it over. Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello again Casliber, I'm a bit confused. There already appears to be a Peer Review currently taking place on Pope John Paul II? (Please see: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Pope John Paul II/archive2). I was unaware of this happening, but will try to go with it. Also, between myself and Can-Dutch, I thought we had already reduced the articles size considerably. I now understand what you were getting at previously about article length.(!) Any more ideas?Marek.6904:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Casliber, I've been continuing my ‘pruning’ of this article, in line with the numerous, ‘far too long article’ comments. I think the page has shrunk significantly over the last couple of weeks. (Is there a way of checking this accurately for comparison?) I've tried to shorten each section, without loosing too much of the meaning. I have removed most of ‘stubby’ sections. I have moved a lot of the text to the corresponding daughter articles; created two new pages: Bibliography of Pope John Paul II and Apologies by Pope John Paul II, so most of the lengthy sections at the end of the article are now gone!. Following comments of possible ‘overdose of photographs’, I removed 5-6 which we could do without. (I've tried shortening the 'Death and Funeral' section, but as it was a large event, it's difficult to know what to leave out, without loosing too much continuity) Anyway, do you think the article is now of an ‘appropriate’ length now?
Heading in the right direction - prose size is still 55kb. I will have a more detailed look later. I share your pain, believe me I have been through this before and am trying to help you avoid idsaster later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed on the peer review volunteers page that you're interested in biology and medicine articles. I've been working on Icos (was a biotech company), and I just put it up for peer review. Can you take a look at it and make/suggest improvements? I would like to be able to take the article to FA after the peer review. Thanks, Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
On 25 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Candy cap, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sure, I'd love to give the article a look, see if I can see anything that needs improving. I'm quite complimented that I'm on your contact list, as it were. I'll take a read now. J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Made a few minor fixes myself, mostly based on MoS stuff, but I've left a load of notes on the the talk page. Hope you or someone else can look into it. I've watchlisted the page, so I'll probably be popping up there quite frequently. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
C; If you'd known I'd be back, would you have re-considered your ArbCom run? ^_^ I extend the same warm commis-, err, congratulations to you on your appointment that I did to Risker. I have high hopes (tempered of course by painful experience) and look forward you your first executive orders. brenneman04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh, it was partly your intention to run that spurred me into running, plus some nagging from folks whose opinions I value...and look what happened. But for some side-splitting fun, have a look at Zoophilia...."it is not explicitly condoned anywhere" (???????) has to win my award for creative interpretation :)
Mostly since there's a global shortage on equal signs. Thanks for the constructive edits to Tori Amos. If I'm being a pig-head (hey, there's a first time for everything, right?) please don't be afraid to let me know. Oh, and yes I am in Melbourne , although my presence there has never been explicitly condoned by either state of federal authorities. - brenneman00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cas, I had a little go at it, I didn't strike out any of the comments at the informal peer review but I did attempt to fix up the toxicology related ones. It seems a shame the worlds most famous mushroom isn't a GA yet :), good luck with it, let me know if anything I wrote doesn't make sense or needs referencing, cheers Mr Bungle | talk08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I got it all on A. muscaria :). Also, I realise you are a busy man, but if you have a second, seeing as you are a medical doctor (and a psychiatrist, and I assume you probably prescribe SSRIs, MAOIs etc) I was wondering if you could have a look at serotonin syndrome before I flick it to GA. Any comments appreciated. Cheers. Mr Bungle | talk02:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cas, I'm working on Passer montanus now, one of the many species Oz and NZ have so gratefully received from Europe to enhance the fauna. I'm a bit unclear on its current status down under - can you help? Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This is Original Research - Synthesis. It is taking claims about the genus (the Asian fossils, not the American, and there are only American for the Deinonychus) and then reworking it to make a claim that none of the articles do. Misplaced Pages is not for new arguments based on various facts. Since you involved yourself in the discussion, could you please remove this clear violation? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I need to see what the Nature article said. All we need is one dinosaur adult book or article proposing it was liekly to haev had feathers. Fact is, T. rex is farther afield from many feathered dinos and some of its ancestors were feathered and there has been plenty of speculation on that. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Likely isn't really that good of a thing. If we had a section devoted to speculation to fill in the missing gaps, fine. However, paleontology has a long history of people speculating improperly. See brontosaurus for an example. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You responded at the Greece Runestones that you had no problem with using Swedish only sources. I have produced two books (in English) that goes into detail about what is unique about various parts of the stone and this information is not included. I have produced a journal devoted to the one region's stones and it is in English (with at least one article talking about one of the stones). I have produced information from the museum in Oxford's exhibit on the one stone and the history behind it. I think with even that little bit of information found from a cursory search that you should reevaluate if this is still a special case that Swedish only sources are acceptable. The user in question is refusing to add any of the new information because it will make his page too large. Its not longer "there aren't any" claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
GHosts
By the way, I listed all of the famous literary ghosts that I could think of on my talk page. I could provide you sources to discuss them based on whatever angle you feel like approaching the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Ikip's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You may be interested
Hi Cas; sorry I haven't got back to you yet—work is just overwhelming at the moment. I take a little time off for WP once a day. Right now, it's this proposal, which I raised during the ArbCom elections. You may wish to observe or comment.
Oh crud, I hate seeing this at after 1am. I need to sleep and will mull over it tomorrow. This is a hot topic at present so will look closely. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Cas. Hoary has proposed a new version, possibly better, along the same lines (I won't bother you with it—just to say that it's well under development).
Another issue came up at the Admin policy talk-page: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Proposal. Please see my post currently at the bottom, in which I realised that admins' adherence to their policy is best framed in terms of initial and repeated behaviour, and behaviour adaptation. This is currently lacking in black-and-white, sack 'em first up calls by non-admins who are upset; the "gradualist" methodology has also been underdeveloped because some admins feel uncomfortable with the kind of codified regimen that would be required. I think it's matter of simple psychology: knowing that one has to toe the line in future or the measures against you will become more serious (gentler prodding at the start) is the very line used by many admins in upping the block-periods issued to users. It has merit when the written framework for the application of such a methodology is intelligent and sufficiently fine-grained. At the moment, there's no gradation for admins. Tony(talk)10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:What next then?
Well, Amanita muscaria is definitely ready for FAC after those changes have been made- probably, there will be some further reccomendations from FAC regulars, but it really is a brilliant article. I enjoy writing the minor species articles because there are enough sources to spend an hour or two knocking up a decent article (great for DYK, or, in a couple of cases, GA) and I'm only writing the milk cap articles becuase the first one I wrote happened to be a Lactarius species- thought I may as well stick with that for now! In terms of bigger projects, at first I thought maybe working on one of your creations- list of Lactarius species- and bringing to to featured list status. The technical side of things bamboozled me (sub-genus? Category? Subcategory? The only sources I could find for that stuff were far too technical for me) but I did clean it up a bit and add some pictures- I think it looks a little better now. Fairy ring would be a fantastic idea, but I've had another idea- Portal:Fungi has not even been created, but because of the wealth of great articles and whatnot listed at the WikiProject page, I reckon I could knock up a great one in a few hours, then hopefully nominate that for featured portal status. Another project I was involved in, WikiProject heavy metal, have a featured portal here- apart from the news bit (I'm not really aware of much fungi related news- perhaps someone a little more involved in the world of fungi could maintain that?) I think we could easily base a portal on that, then add links to various articles (perhaps tag it on to some infoboxes or something). What do you reckon? J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I've never been big on them either, but if we stick a few of these little things around various articles, and have a good supply of pictures (Commons has loads of great ones), articles (we have 11 good or featured articles, with possibly a few more on the way) and DYK items (over 100 listed on the project page) there's no reason we couldn't have a well-populated, well viewed portal. In terms of news, the last time I updated a fungi article with news was in September, when some people were poisoned after eating Amanita phalloides found in Ventnor Botanic Garden. I'll have a look at other portals and help pages, get to grips with how portals work, then crack on with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The only time it would not update is when you are looking at an old cache, which is solved by clearing the cache by adding this at the end of the address, then reloading the page: ?action=purge. See Misplaced Pages:Purge.
The cache is not going to an issue very often, if at all, because you won't need the list to update every few minutes. Ikip (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Misplaced Pages in a profound way.
What a unique gift! Please put me on your Christmas list this year, so I can look forward to more! Best wishes, see you in the WP:ARS AfD trenches! Ikip (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Casliber: I'm finally getting around to putting out another project newsletter, and am wondering if we've dropped the collaboration article idea. It seems to have been last updated about the same time as the last newsletter! :P Let me know if there's a new one, and I'll plug it... MeegsC | Talk14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Could you do me a small favor? I need to move the article Ali-Ben Bongo to Ali Bongo Ondimba, as the latter is more often used, both in the press and official contexts. To do that, I need the redirect deleted. Everyking (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
G'day, I'm not sure where exactly I've interacted with you before, probably something bird related. I rather suspect that User:Jf268 is a sock puppet. Pretty much all of the users contributions are related to FPC (see ) over a period of a few months but I can't spot any correlation between Jf268 and any other user as far as votes are concerned. I think you have checkuser ability and was wondering what your opinion on the matter was? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have recently been granted checkuser rights but have not used them as yet, and have no experience in that area of wiki (FPC), as I would assume it must be someone with an interest there. I will ask others. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Fungi portal, again
Yeah, there are a lot of good fungi images about- I just didn't want to declare any as selected pictures unilaterally. I'm currently filtering through the featured pictures on foreign language Wikipedias- I've set up a nomination process on the portal, so if there still aren't enough selected images after that, I'll have a look around and nominate some of the better pictures. If there are any you particularly like, you're welcome to nominate some too. If I find any good enough, I may slide them FPCs way- the only featured fungi picture we have is File:Haeckel Lichenes.jpg, some more would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
no pages enwiki are private
I agree. I've referred to the space within my userspace as "personal", which is a different matter. I said I would discuss with Mattisse in private over a new place to meet, and by that I meant by email. I just wanted to be clear on that. There are reasons why I wish the conversations with Mattisse to take place onwiki, and Mattisse also has her reasons. I made a mistake by making comments about Giano. I recognise that. I have apologised for that. What I am concerned with now is moving the matter forward. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. SilkTork *20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed the new kerfluffle (and that inaccurate statements continue to be made about me), but thought it best to stay away, as the situation is ever increasing in complexity. I hope it's OK to jump in here, since this is a page I have watchlisted. SilkTork, perhaps you can be successful at getting Mattisse to realize that, considering the long list of FAs that warrant attention at WP:URFA, she might be well advised to avoid submitting FARs on articles in which she has engaged in disputes with the FA nominators. That will help her nominations avoid appearing pointy; there are plenty of other FAs in need of attention, and it might appear that she has focused on the Giano/Bishonen/Geogre area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am back in communication with Mattisse. I am advising her at the moment to not engage in FAC or FAR. And her comments on the RFC is that she wishes to stay away from it. There is still work to be done. But I am not mentoring Mattisse. I am not watching over her edits. I am befriending her. She wants to be productive on Misplaced Pages, and she has done and can do more good work. She works well on GA, asking for guidance and assistance. She is respected there and that gives her confidence to do well.
I am embarrassed by this incident because I made a couple of foolish and inappropriate comments. Though it is rare to find me making personal comments about others on Wiki (I have been rude to Lar and - ironically - to Mattisse, and that's about it in my time here), that doesn't excuse it. My wish now is to move on, and see what we can do to improve matters. Mattisse will not for the time being operate in that area that has caused people concerns. That removes the immediate conflict, and can be seen as a positive result for the RFC. I will continue my befriending of Mattisse. I have grown to like and respect her and find we have things in common. Before this RFC, and before getting to know her and examine some of the work she has done, I was fairly dismissive of her. All of us can misread situations and make mistakes. It's not making mistakes that is the problem, it's how we deal with our mistakes, and how we check that we are not continuing our mistakes. We all get hurt at times, and we all lash out at times. Now is the time to forgive, forget and move on. I'd like to think that Mattisse will get something out of all this, and that at some point in the future she can productively spread her wings to all areas of Misplaced Pages with confidence, tact and cooperative respect. SilkTork *00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't followed closely the additional complexities or all of the posts involving FAR, so I'm unsure of everything you're referring to, or the origin of this notion (on the RfC) of avoiding FAC or the statements about hatred and hostility. I'm unclear why there remains this focus on FAC/FAR and certain editors, rather than the general issues. I am aware, from comments on your now deleted chat, that my efforts to encourage Mattisse and move on from the RfC were not received in the spirit intended. Anyway, I will be mostly off Wiki for the next few weeks and won't be able to follow further; I wish you well in your ongoing goals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum
Fine by me - have at it. Maybe we'll edit some horticulture articles sometime, another passion of mine but one I have done very little on-wiki to date. :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The horticulture articles do need serious attention. There is little organisation or control in that area. I've been trying to sort out what there is and bring some kind of structure and shape to it. Doing a bit of weeding and pruning and transplanting and other gardening metaphors! SilkTork *00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I am notifying you that a article you previously reviewed for FAC has been nominated again. Please, if you can, take the time to see if the article has been improved enough to consider supporting, and if not, let us know what needs improving. :) BOZ (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Casliber. I just signed up at WP:FUNGI, and after seeing that you've contributed some featured content to that project, I was wondering if you had any tips or suggestions for a newbie like myself. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...(scratches head) I dunno, start with what you're interested in is good. I find enthusiasm carries one a long way, and then some, but sometimes articles just come together well. I initially started working up Amanita muscaria for FAC in 2006 but got frustrated as it just didn't "come together" for some reason, so I left it and later found that Amanita phalloides just came together really well. I have finally returned to Amanita muscaria to try and get it over the line. Many many have little or incomplete information, so an unambiguous distinctive one is a good start. DYK is easy as there are loads with no articles at all still, then once you have familiarised yourself having buffed it for DYK, it is often easy to then see if GA is feasible and then even FA. I think there needs to be alot of material above and beyond what we know for many species to get to FA. For instance Paxillus involutus and Entoloma sinuatum are two I worked up and then have ummed and aahed since. If I can find a bit more on them they might be wirth a whirl too. Anyway, which articles take your fancy (for any stage - DYK/GA/FA)? Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'd like to try to write a GA, but as I'm unfamiliar with 'shrooms, I'm not entirely sure what articles are missing. Does that WikiProject have a list of articles to be created? –Juliancolton01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cas, had a look at the Mushroom Observer site, and then the 'net for a free pic of an A. muscaria button cross-section, but no dice. I guess your best bet is to find one yourself, like you suggested, or even draw your own. Another option would be checking some older texts to see if there's a free pic to scan in, but that might just turn out to be a goose chase. I'll keep my eyes open though, I recently acquired Buller's 5-volume set Researches on Fungi (1922), and its chock-full of cool little diagrams that I plan to sprinkle liberally in various fungi articles :) Sasata (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm - well it should not be too long before this fungal weed is popping up around northern hemisphere trees around Sydney, so I will check after the next heavy rainfall. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Dragonfly fishing
You'll like this. I've been spending some time in rural Bali. Yesterday, at a house in the middle of some rice fields with no other buildings for about a half km, a local woman came walking down the path with a bamboo pole about 3m long. The pole was a lot like a basic fishing pole; light and springy, and the last 1/2m was a bit of stiff wire lashed to the tip of the pole. The wire was coated in a gooey white sap. She was catching dragonflies with it. There were hundreds within easy sight. All she had to do was wave the end near them and they landed in the sap and she pulled it back, plucked off the wings, and did it again. She had a whole bag full; dinner. Cheers, Jack Merridew08:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Bali has lots of bugs, and many are rather large. Rainy season begins in November. After the first good solid rain, some species of termite hatch in the billions. They're about 2cm long with a wingspan of 3cm. They take to the air one night and are attracted to light. They swarm every light bulb on the island and they especially like florescent lights, which are common as they are cheap to run. Many street lights are just a plain florescent fixture with a cheap indoor-grade switch mounted where anyone can turn it on or off as they see fit. The termites batter themselves against the light unceasingly. They idea seems to be a mating gathering and they keep it up until the wings are shed and they drop to the ground (with a mate?).
At Dewa Warung, they have a trick; they take a plastic bag and blow it up like a balloon and seal it shut with a hot kitchen implement. The bag is dipped in oil and pinned to a light fixture so that it's touching the bulb (even the incandescent bulbs are low enough wattage that they don't melt a hole). The termite wings really stick well to the oily bag and this accelerates the shedding of the wings. The Balinese also place a bowl with cooking oil in it directly under the bag to catch the now wingless termites. They are dipped in a batter and boiled, and offered to the tourists (most of whom balk — myself included), then they eat them to prove it's no joke.
On termite night, your best bet is to retire early with all the light out; if you don't they will find you. The next morning, all that remains are the wings. There are drifts of them easily 10cm deep in wide piles under every light that was on all night. They clog the paths and you walk through them like autumnal leaves. They are soon swept up and I would expect they're used for mulch or something; the Balinese waste nothing.
The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hope you're safe!
Hi Cas: Been reading and hearing some terrible things about the fires down there. I hope you and yours are all safe! MeegsC | Talk21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The GA process is very slow and backlogged at the moment (or, was for me!) and the article is very close to being ready for a FAC. You'd probably be better off just spending a couple more weeks (or how ever long it takes- you may find yourself with a free day at some point- you never know) working it up to that standard, then submit it. You could possibly be waiting a month for a GA review. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I was musing on that. It has been raining pretty heavily here the lat few days so I might find some fly agarics around some pine trees here in Sydney (late summer here). You may be right...in which case, maybe I should just nom at FAC and see what happens, or are there some deal breakers left you reckon. (apart from streamlining the referencing)Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The reference consistency would be a deal breaker for me, but that's one of my bugbears. I also strongly agree with Peter G Werner that a discussion of the microscopic features would be needed- a lot of our DYKs have them, so it wouldn't really be good if one of our FAs didn't. The rest are just minor points, which can be fixed in time, and there will surely be a few other such points brought up at FAC. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow, they're fantastic! The longer I spend with this project, the more amazing fungi become for me. That article's not actually too far from being ready for a GA nomination, I'd say- I'd finish it off myself, but I can't say I'm well stocked on books about Australian fungi! J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Aha, second guessed you there - Omphalotus nidiformis is a GA already :). I just couldn't make the article damn long enough to try and wedge the cool photos in somewhere. It was cool when I realised what they were too. These things were everywhere around autumn 2007 (Arpil) and I saw none last year, so hopefully this autumn should be cool :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Gah, should have known that. I knew I'd added the article to the portal, but I assumed it was as a selected species rather than as a selected article... J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Adminship
Did I leave you a message, or has this just came out of the blue? I don't recall leaving you a message, but it is perfectly possible. As for writing, I am currently working on an FT with Ironholds, so that should be okay on that side. As a side note - I am not a deletionist (at least as far as I am aware...)
"Yep, wondered who you were and then saw the explanation page" leaves me to believe that you've actually messaged the wrong person, mind, as that seems to indicate you're replying to something, and I can't seem to find my signature on this page, and don't recall leaving you a message elsewhere. Am I missing something? Thanks. :) — neuro07:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose there is any chance we could squeeze this or even this into your article. No? Ah well was worth a try, though I suspect they would not do great things to those desperately checking wikipedia to find out what the hell is happening to me. Har. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...the first one is rather ambient, a nice relaxing rhythm yet strangely energizing as well...the second?....pretty out there, nice interpretative stuff..not bad actually. guess it may be better on a more general page such as can or mushroom :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Elonka
Hi. I am lecturing a graduate course in the University of Cambridge at the moment, so am on wikibreak. I contributed evidence to two recent arbcom cases (PHG and Fringe Science). I have a little experience editing medieval history articles related to the Crusader period. I removed one sentence written by User:Elonka from Knights Templar. She proceeded to perform a character assassination upon me on the talk page . I wonder whether you might prevail upon her to desist from this kind of personal attack in future. It was immoderate and completely untrue - an attempt to paint me as some kind of criminal. I made one edit. She seems to have completely over-reacted. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my draft proposal. We obviously don't agree, but I shall do my best to take your comments into account. Best wishes, and good editing Physchim62(talk)11:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I recently received an email from Martyn Joseph requesting that the personal information on his article be removed. He particularly requested privacy in regards to his family (his daughter's birth date and his son's name were revealed) and faith. The material in question has since been removed, but could these revisions of the article qualify for oversight to further respect his wishes? Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Led Zeppelin II
Casliber, I didn't nominate Led Zeppelin II for GA status but would there be anything wrong with me answering/responding to your questions in the review? Cheers. MegX (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. I'll search for the page numbers for those publications, but otherwise the references have been cleaned up. –Juliancolton15:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I've adjusted the refs so that they are formatted in a way consistent with the way the cite templates format them- the commas and semi-colons- and so they are a little more readable (A. B., instead of AB). If you're not happy with the changes, feel free to revert, but I think that the refs the way they were before were irritatingly inconsistent. If you opt to go for the formatting they were in before (Smith QW, Jones DV, Taylor GH etc...) then I think the best option will be to take them out of the templates all together, that will always try to use commas between first and last names, and semicolons between people. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, if they are all consistent now I will leave it. I do prefer the original but agree the template can introduce problems. It works ok if one puts all authors in author= slot, but it is way down in impotance in the scheme of things so thanks :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Misplaced Pages:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch><>°03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)
Hi, just letting you know that I have passed the article. Thanks for your time with it, I don't know how you manage to fit so much in. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my bringing a tiresome matter to your attention but please take a look at Misplaced Pages:AE#Please enforce the pseudoscience arbitration which relates to an Arbcom ruling. Here we see User:ScienceApologist making a heated personal attack, quite contrary to the specific guidance at that page, which counsels against such slurs. This is not unusual, I suppose, but what shocks me is the attitude of the admin there. Rather than reproving this editor for his incivility, he just hands out warnings to the several editors with whom User:ScienceApologist is warring and so indulges his bad behaviour. I am left with the impression that the admin is partisan rather than impartial, though I may, of course, be missing something (and I am the butt of the tirade too).
We have similar complaints about other admins who appoint themselves to act in Arbcom's name - Elonka is a high-profile example. Please consider appointing admins directly for enforcement of vexatious matters, so that neutral admins of high probity may resolve such cases, rather than those who may be attracted to the case for their own reasons. I am not sure who these paragons might be but User:Uncle G is one that I have considerable respect for. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'ts real..and notable - it is/was an offshoot of CBT. Many figures in psychotherapy over the years have developed their own styles of therapy and given them names. It does get quite annoying when meny have features in common that impress as very similar but with different names. I did plan on looking at these at some stage.
This one was never much used here in Oz, and I don't think it is used much now in the US - mainstream Treatment Guidelines etc. don't mention it to my knowledge. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The March 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So as not to clutter Sandy's page (which is so fun to do) - I normally work on sections from those related to my user page lists. I can handle them easily. However, there are things that pop up all of the time at the Poetry page or other types of areas. Milhist has a lot of people. Places like Wikiproject Poetry only have three active members. There are pages that were once FA that need repair. Something like Pound's Cantos need to be worked on. Then you have people like Jayvdb who works on the journals project. There is a lot of work that needs to be done there. I would think of what a core issue Misplaced Pages needs. You were going around working on some topics (like ghost). Perhaps go through and get all of the "basic" monsters filled in and improved? Those would be highly searched topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Casliber, I have a commited identity which I've put on a subpage in my userspace and sub'd it into my main userpage. Is their any way I can get the subpage protected so it can't be changed just to be extra sure no one tampers with it.
Get back to me on my talk page whenever you get a second. Cheers.
I guess combining the AE (subsection fringe etc.) and Fringe Noticeboard would be good, with a subheader for AE problems might be a step forward...Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'll look tonight and may stub this puppy in a day or two. The Dragonfly fishing woman was in Pejeng; it's close-by, so I'll be able to get a free picture some time (priest allowing). Cheers, Jack Merridew08:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Calling facts facts is what I do; only non-serious accounts use the immature nonsense term "cruft". Anyway, you'd think you would appreciate the help getting this article started, which was a good faith effort to work collegially. Regards, --A Nobody17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
And you should stop assuming bad faith and editing tendentiously. Now, let us get back to improving the article for which this thread concerns. Sincerely, --A Nobody17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Casliber, belated post holiday thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here, but I wanted to thank you specifically as "helpful and positive in outlook" was a very nice thing to say. WereSpielChequers21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"thanks for bringing it to our attention SirFozzie"
Cheers Cas,, have been distracted by local Avian population, and having digital camera probs. I see you are working as hard as ever. Luridiformis (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Research request
Hi Casliber. While exploring the User talk pages of proflic editors, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Misplaced Pages and I see that you're very active member (even sitting on several committees?). If you have the time, I would love to hear about your thoughts and experience on Misplaced Pages. The discussion is currently underway at my talk page, it would be great if you could jump in wherever you have a comment.
Look, I am happy to work constructively with anyone and I created Moon of Pejeng as a good faith gesture in that direction. The subsequent rant against me was out of line and counterproductive. I am more than happy to help you work on articles; I am not interested in being talked down however, because I can and will take criticisms from Casliber and DGG as valid, but I cannot from you given your history, so let them tell me anything of note and I'll gladly avoid lecturing to you. Now if you want more help with articles, drop me a line. Sincerely, --A Nobody23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You have no right to remove my comments other than in your userspace; others have told you this. I agree with much of what DGG told you and told him so on his talk page. You should listen to him. Please do not remove my comments again; really, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Jack Merridew05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked for good faith feedback in that discussion that I started; I did not invite bad faith and unconstructive commentary. Your comments are not welcome on that venue, because they are not what I started that discussion for. Sincerely, --A Nobody06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
and I offered: You ask for 'constructive criticism'; read and heed the criticism offered by editors in this review. That's the point of requesting it. Modify your behaviour and attitude where you get consistent advice from a variety of sources to do so. Change your style and areas of editing. Just drop this; really. Jack Merridew06:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
While I have greatly modified how I edit here as I rarely comment in AfDs anymore and the last two actually argued to delete, you keep making AfD comments like this that add nothing serious to the discussions. As such, how can I not feel like "who are you to tell me anything"? Jack, I am willing to work with you on articles, but given your history and my past experiences with you, "advice" is hard to be taken as much of anything and I cannot imagine any reasonable editor seeing otherwise. It's beyond a pot calling kettle black scenario. If you start an Editor review on yourself and don't want me commenting, fine. And as such, I would hope that you would revert back to the archived version in mine, because you posted a hypocritical rant that fails to say mention my good faith effort in actually welcoming you back depsite my reservations with you being unblocked or to even create that Moon of Pejeng article to help get that started. I cannot tell you how disappointed I was after creating the article to see something other than "Thanks for getting that started, now let's..." on Cas's page. But instead it was back to trying to keep some dispute going. They say no good deed goes unpunished and apparently that's the case. By the way, apologies to Casliber for his talk page being used in all of this. Please do the right thing and revert your edit and either let's work together constructively on articles or ignroe/avoid each other. I'm open to either. Sincerely, --A Nobody06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The right thing is to drop this with my comments intact. You are are focused on me, not what I said. I am open to working with you in the future, but for the moment, I (and others) believe disengaging is best. Besides, I have a plane to catch and will be off-wiki for the rest of the week.
As to 'who am I to tell anything' — I am an editor of this project and I am no fool. I am back because a fair number of folks know this. You need to stop trying to cast me as a second-class editor. Ignore this advice at your peril; you're digging the hole deeper faster than anyone could for you. Jack Merridew06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that you realised that Two Row actually redirects to that section of the article, not the barley article as a whole. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes! have a read as it is fairly esoteric. If there are any passages you have difficulty underrstanding, say so and request whether there is a simpler way of saying it in plainer words (but without losing meaning). Some of the paras are stubby and correct some typos. Have at it. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no intention of edit-warring the closure. I do find it sad that the review remained open so long as the comments were positive, but once it got to the negative sides of A Nobody's editing, like the deceptive edit summaries and implausible explanations for his vanishing act, the review was suddenly considered to have degenerated. Negative comments are useful input for any editor that has any serious intent at improvement. The community's acceptance of the vanishing act is something that I have to swallow and live with, but his continued defense of deceptive edit summaries is extremely troubling.—Kww(talk) 05:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop mischaracterizing my edit summaries. As explained numerous times, if you discount TTN's unilateral and against consensus redirects as I did, the summaries make sense, i.e. when compared with the last edits prior to the unilateral and against consensus redirects. In that regarded I did exactly what I said I did in the edits and heck, half the editors I have to take critcisms from don't even use edit summaries. As always, if you would like to edit constructively on any articles, I am always happy to help. Best, --A Nobody05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the gist of it is that the Editor Review is opened by the editor in question and remains the prerogative of that editor. Note that this situation is entirely different to RfC or AN/I. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that what bothers me in case like this that I consciously do things to either be nice to editors who persist in being mean to be or to at least avoid escalating things with them. For example, I am deliberately not ocmmenting in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Them Terribles so as not have another keep as a dig to Kww, but these good faith efforts are either ignored or not acknowledged. I can think of many instances in which I intentionally did something I thought to be nice to certain editors and yet being nice or even trying to ignore them doesn't seem to elicit a reation in kind. I think Thumperward is an exception in that regards as he for one has at least reached out. But others have been more disappointing in that regard. As Casliber knows, I am happy to help anyone in a constructive fashion and I do what I can to welcome editors, fix grammar etc. Given that the last two AfDs I commented in were to delete and that it's been days since I even commented in any, I guess getting guff over stuff that is totally inconsistent with my current editing patterns is frustrating, because it's like, well, look I argue to delete more, I don't comment in AfDs as much, so what the heck? Never mind that I welcome thousands of editors, give people smiles, fix punctuation and reference formats, i.e. the overwhelming bulk of my editing anymore. When I asked for feedback, it was more along the lines of how I am currently editing not stuff from months back. But like I said, I am here to help improve the project and am willing to engage and work with anyone else who is here to do that, not to trade insults. So, let's do just that, i.e. let's work to build and better this wonderful opportunity to create a paperless enyclopedia! Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody05:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
