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.
Hello! I am a new member seeking Adoption/Mentorship
I am Vega. I write Psychology, Medical, Science, Philosophy, and Biology articles mainly and as a hobby. I have submitted only one to Misplaced Pages thus far and I believe it to be excellent, considering it is a first submission and I took so much time to proof-read and make sure to reference my reliable sources and so on.
However, I am far from an expert. Thus my issues with my personal writing are as follows: grammatical errors, such as typing errors of which I overlook in proof-reading and elaborating possibly too much, as opposed to being concise thus repeating my points merely rephrasing them (I do not notice this at the time but I feel that it must bore readers) and drawing out the main point, and finally It have trouble with the format of Misplaced Pages's coding style and have (but was brought to my attention) placed too many redirect links into my personal writing. Help?
Also, due to it being a very large passion of mine to research, learn, share knowledge, help others, and to write in general-- I wish to learn correct ways in which follow the terms of service/guidelines of Misplaced Pages appropriately in order to edit to articles/leave feedback to the authors in acceptable ways.
I have stumbled upon submissions, to say the least, in need of SEVERE help, editing, revision, references of an reliable nature added etc. and/or possible removal, yet I haven't learned and haven't the slightest clue what to do first if I see a post of this nature. My instinct is to help via editing and reviewing it-- Yet, with my limited knowledge thus far on editing in general I feel that due to posts of the aforementioned type existence, that in order to better contribute to lovely Misplaced Pages-- I need to learn all that I can to improve my contributions and conduct (ie What is appropriate to do when stumbling upon an opinion-based/biased/unreferenced article) i have no problem with simple edits, however I have a bit to learn on a larger scale for everyone's benefit. (coding is #1 in my problem area! help?)
Sorry to ramble. It's a habit. I would greatly appreciate you as mentor, if you are interested. If not, then Thank you anyways for reading my drawn-out request to be adopted. Thanks.
--Ladybrainbypass (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
{{subst:January 20th 2010 adoptme}} Ladybrainbypass (talk) Vega G.
--Ladybrainbypass (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
More unIDed fungi
G'day Cas,
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
"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 .
Hi Casliber. I saw the message you sent to fir0002. I doubt he'd be able to take any pictures of fungi since he is stuck in Melbourne due to university. I went for a walk through a cool temperate rainforest area of Wielangta forest today. I took a large number of pretty good quality fungus pictures. I need help with identifying them however, and have posted the images at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi#18_IDs_from_Wielangta_Forest.2C_Tasmania. I'd appreciate your help since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in the area.
You also had some gear questions. Since you want to shoot insects too, I'd get a fairly long macro lens such as the tamron 180mm or the sigma 150mm. More critical than your choice of lens is your lighting. You want a 430ex or a 580ex (extremely useful for everything). For insects add a softbox, macro flash bracket and an E-TTL cord. The softbox and macro bracket can be easily home-made. For anything stationary ditch the bracket/softbox and use a $30 ebay shoot through umbrella and swivel, and some ~$30 ebay radio triggers. You will need a light stand or an assistant. For the stationary stuff I'd also consider a decent tripod, allowing you to balance ambient and flash light. The longest exposure in the fungi I've uploaded was four seconds, impossible without a tripod. Compare File:Wielangta Unidentified Fungus 5194.jpg (fill flash) with http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/579/img5192u.jpg, which is only ambient. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering where you stand professionally on the concept? Some are believers, others aren't ... I did a lot of work on that article before a certain ArbCom. It's still a pretty clean article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Special edition triple crown question
Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.
The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've gone and mainspaced this and listed at DYK. Any improvements would be appreciated. I'm still trying to get a free image too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Need help with COI issues on Springer (orca) and Luna (Orca)
Hi Cas,
I've left a note at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mammals that you might have seen, and I'd like to make request for your help in particular as you're good with new editors and science articles, and also have lots of experience with dispute resolution and COI issues. There is a recent history of COI in these articles that should be easy to address if there were enough experienced independent contributors standing up to it, but so far there's basically only me. The history is described in Talk:Springer (orca) including its talk page. I'd love it if you could comment. Best wishes and happy new year :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cas. If you could keep it on your watchlist I'd really appreciate it. And (waving at the Casliber talk page peanut gallery) any input from other Wikipedians would be great too. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Black-fronted Tern
On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black-fronted Tern, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sorry, I've had to removed your submission from this page, as the work on the article was done before the beginning of the competition. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd only need 1/5th of a picture if I could directly convert a picture to a thousand words, but my translation skills might not be up to it...Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Casliber! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 15 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Hi Casliber. Many months ago you agreed with my request that Confucianism be semi-protected. The problem has re-emerged, with a steady flood of mainly IP-vandalism. Will you please apply semi-protection again? Perhaps three months would be a good idea, to give such behaviour a real chance to extinguish. Regards,–⊥Noetica!– 04:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Algae
WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Misplaced Pages for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Misplaced Pages.
On January 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stenocarpus cryptocarpus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'm still up for working on an article about chinese immigration to australia, which I see as distinct from an article about the ethnicity 'chinese australian' (it's actually quite fun source hunting etc.!) - I've tried to follow various advices several times now, unfortunately resulting in my nascent article being pinged back to userspace I think three times now! Perhaps a wiser head than mine would help? any thoughts much appreciated if you get a mo. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for your comments, Cas - I replied in rather long and dreary fashion over there, basically I'd really just quite like to work on getting that article nice and pretty and a reasonable quality - perhaps using something like this as a bit of inspiration? - is your suggestion that the 'parent' articles require work first your last word on the matter, or might you be able to figure out any sort of compromise or other way forward? thanks anywhooo..... Privatemusings (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Vanga
On January 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vanga, which you nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I respect you as a leader in so many ways, (new user RFC for one) but I think you failed to take care of this many months ago, when you could have. I always thought the support of editors who make tough controversial decisions are booted out of leadership on wikipedia was a crock, and just a way to justify abusive administrative authority. But now I wonder. Are you so popular on all sides because you are unwilling to make these tough decisions? Is it really true? Does wikipedia make leaders loathe to tackle troubling issues?
Maybe you subscribe to the Lar's "thick skin" defense, that everyone around Jack Merridew should just grow a thick skin. I should do the same thing that everyone has been counseling A Nobody and White Cat before him, ignore the hounding, and if I don't it is really my fault.
Jack Merridew yelled the loudest about a RFC against A Nobody, and editors who he has talked to in the past offline, accommodated this request.
Jack Merridew was also yelling about a RFC against me, so if his modus operandi is any guide, pretty soon other editors will accommodate this request too.
How much more drama and disruption does wikipedia really need? Sooner or later someone is going to have to address Jack Merridew's behavior head on, and it sure the hell won't be John or Flonight, who have a "thick skin", blame the victim attitude.
What is so damn troubling is that this is the second time Jack Merridew has involved a new editor a foe of his was trying to help. The first time was A Nobody's newbie.
As DGG wrote, Jack Merridew is "very skilled at" hounding. If you can get passed him obviously following me to this newbie, as he has done with other editors a million time in the past, and continues to follow A Nobody, (which it may appear to some that the arbcom gave him a green light to do), his edits are not inflammatory anymore. Jack Merridew's hounding has become more careful. Gone are the days were he mocks the editors on their talk pages and on talk pages he never was involved with before. Instead he is putting up this newbies images for deletion, and working together with Future Perfect to delete references. All which are within the rules, if you can ignore the following in the first place.
At the very least, could you demand that Jack Merridew stay away from this newbie and this page he is working on. Granted, he will probably have his "friends" continue this criticism. But if he still returns, could you this time follow through on your demand, and block him?
I will be offwiki for at least several hours, maybe days (my wife has my password so I stay away from wikipedia), and I am logging off again. Ikip13:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I have prepared an RfC/U on him. I will give him one last chance to leave me alone. If I see ANY more posts on my talk page, reverts of my edits, showing up immediately after me in AfDs, etc., I will post it and if the RfC/U does not result in him leaving me alone, then he will be back to arbcom. Enough is enough. Sincerely, --A Nobody23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I do thank you for giving good faith for the sources and information in this article, but if you need anything explained or thinks something need a cite, please let me know. User:Zscout37019:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Tomorrow I'll convert the series redirect into an article (warranted because it has had a non-monotypic circumscription), then create a distribution map, then see what is still left for me to do.
It's the time that interests me, rather than the distance. Baxter collected all these sheets of specimens, and all these seeds, and brought them home. Brown probably had the specimen sheets by 1824. We know he was in contact with Baxter before he left, because he had asked Baxter to bring him back some decent Kingia material. Which he got. Yet there was time for a seed to be germinated, a seedling grown to adulthood, and the first flowers to appear, for Sweet to describe the species and get it published, and beat Brown to the punch by two years. Brown was renowned for focussing obsessively on the one thing that interested him at that particular moment, and putting off everyone and everything else interminably, to the great frustration of those who were relying on him for other stuff. I can't help but suspect that this story is an amusing indictment on Brown. (But this is just aimless waffle; I'm not criticising your hook....) Hesperian13:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point - the hook was a tough one and the best I could come up with - I could have said "Banksia dryandroides was the first WA banksia to ever reach flowering in Casliber's garden...(until it predictably died...) :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of time, I just discovered (Collins 2008: 360) that B. verticillata was introduced into cultivation in Europe in 1794. That stupid Misplaced Pages reckons it was discovered in 1801. Isn't that just bloody typical? I think I'll go vandalise the article now. Hesperian13:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cinclosomatidae, which you nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Heya, please have a look at my sandbox: User:Witty lama/Sandbox - there's another imported Dictionary of Sydney article, this time hopefully destined for Artists' camps. Waddayareckon? If you're happy with it, please feel free to move it to mainspace. DYK possibility for Aust. day? BTW - where are the Aust day DYK hooks being prepared? WittyLama12:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, Casliber. I hope you are well; you certainly seem as productive as ever.
After some searching in the history, I found that last March you made this edit, and I am wondering whether you still have access to the book King William IV. I'd be grateful if you could give me more details on the King's offer of Buckingham Palace to Parliament and what happened with it. Apart from satisfying my own curiosity, I'd like to give the full picture in the article; someone has already filled in the blanks, but I have no way of verifying the accuracy of the additions. And even though there isn't room to elaborate too much in this article, I'm planning a separate article for the building's history. (A very-long-term project, obviously, considering how much the main article is taking me to improve. It's a learning experience on many levels.) Waltham, The Duke of06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
sigh. I was formatting information that Giano had given to me. I suspect he has the book. sorry :/
That was unexpected... But I suppose it makes sense. I'll try my luck at the latest reincarnation of his talk page.
The subject fascinates me and I believe it has potential, but I do not have previous experience in writing content or finding sources (indeed, I did not expect that I'd want to until a year ago), so I'm taking my time. My plans are fairly grandiose, though (articles for several important rooms, White House-style), and I expect them to accelerate once I receive a further couple of books I have ordered. In the end, my biggest problem may be that I'll have to start reviewing at FAC. :-P Waltham, The Duke of19:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever read Ziegler, Phillip (1971). King William IV, so I don't think I could have used that reference. However, I have seen it written many times - most notably on P15 of Harris, de Bellague and Millar's Buckingham Palace. "William IV disliked gilding and indeed show of any kind, and he made a bold attempt to get rid of Buckingham House altogether and give it to the nation in lieu of the Houses of Parliament, which were burned down in 1834. Wiliam IV write to the Speaker "I mean Buckingham House as a permanent gift. Mind that!"" I suggest you get hold of a copy of the Harris, de Bellague and Millar book as it is the definitive comprehensive history and catlogue of the palace, the cataloge being necessary for a comprehensive room description. - all other books on the subject pale beside it. Giano 09:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm baffled. Maybe I just pinched the ref from the monarch's page himself. Anyway, I think these are fine pages to work up and will be happy to help when the time comes :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no more details, other than the suggestion that the offer was made because of the burning down of the Palace of Westminster, (wonder if it was a temporary/emergency offer?) but here's an on-line credible source at least. . Hansard? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No. it was not temporary, the King was quite definite "I mean Buckingham House as a permanent gift. Mind that!" The "mind that!" rather suggests he wanted rid of the place and no intention of having it back. I love your ref JC "A serious problem for the newly married couple was the absence of any nurseries and too few bedrooms for visitors. The only solution was to move the Marble Arch" The only solution? I suppose it never occurred to them to have less children or invite fewer visitors. Giano 15:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm baffled too, but for a different reason. I thought it was abundantly clear due to the diff I gave, but I now realise I've been misleading you all along. I am researching the Palace of Westminster, not Buckingham, the article on which is already featured. Not that FAs cannot be improved further, but there is certainly more to do in what I believe they call "an Emsworth classic" seriously lacking in sourcing and breadth of coverage up until a year ago. (A colleague and I did some tidying up and referencing last spring, but that I thought this would be enough to reclaim the bronze star shows just how naïve I was at the time.) In any case, many of my interests intersect on this building, and, as it happens, its article was the first that I edited after opening this account three years ago.
So, any tips on bibliography for the new target? From the list here I possess (and have added) Field, Gerhold, McDonald and Wilson, and I am expecting Riding & Riding to arrive in a week. The 1911 Guide is an online find of mine, and I really hope it can pass as reliable; I'm not sure how much the "by permission of the Lord Great Chamberlain" is worth at FAC, but I haven't found anything suspicious in the descriptions, and even if Riding turns out to be good enough to replace all the Guide's references, the latter's pre-war perspective could still be useful in some parts. I'm also considering buying Pevsner's book—its scope may be much broader than the Palace, but I am thinking that if I finish with all the articles on the building I'm planning some time within the decade, I might start moving up Whitehall.
Rant over. (Working alone has its benefits, but sometimes I really wish someone could tell me from time to time exactly how misguided I am.)
PS: If William IV hated gilding once, the House of Commons hated it ten times. After reading at least fifty Hansard pages from the period between 1835 and 1900 (in an annoyingly unquotable reported-speech style), I have no doubt in my mind why poor Barry and half the artists involved in the project died before it was finished. You don't want to be working for those people. (Sample.)Waltham, The Duke of16:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I would not bother too much with dear old Nick Pevsner, I have most of his books for the counties, but not for London. However, I only use him when I want an opinionated opinion supporting. In fact, if it were not for old Nick, I would probably have left Misplaced Pages years ago; he would certainly have been banned long before me - which says it all really. Giano 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a probem when one works out of an area way out of expertise. I have taken up a challenge to get coffee to FAC...and alot of the history differs depending on which book is read. Confusing. Hmm..I don't think I've ever looked at the Palace of Westminster article..Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd tell you to refrain from looking at it for a month or so, but I see I am too late. :-P
On expertise, I'd say that is relative; although knowing about the field relevant to the subject is undoubtedly useful, if one is to develop an article enough, one will invariably venture into unknown territory. Or at least that is my impression; in any case, I'm not really an expert on anything, and a considerable proportion of my knowledge in some areas comes from Misplaced Pages itself or other non-specialist websites, so it's not of much use. Especially as my memory tends to convert hard facts into general impressions.
Giano, it probably does. Mind you, I do need opinions on the building, but contemporary rather than modern. There may be few critics of the Palace of Westminster 140 years after its completion, but things haven't always been like that. Just the supporters of Classicism and the 96+ architects who didn't win the competition were enough to keep the papers busy for a long time, to say nothing of the formidable Victorian art reviewers.
Hmmm... I think I'd benefit from access to the archives of The Times. Lots of disputes were conducted through the paper's pages, and I've already seen a few teasers. Anyone with money to spare? Waltham, The Duke of01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
One hopes, Casliber... One hopes. For the time being, I'm mostly adding new content, though I also use the old one as a guide; like the original walls of Westminster Hall, much of it survives, if unseen. For one thing, I have barely touched the main "Security" section, but I have largely expanded the "Incidents" one. I only need to expand a couple of paragraphs and write the one on the suffragettes and it will be finished. It was relatively easy because it was just incomplete and the events are fairly easy to find and source; the other sections are much more of a patchwork. Waltham, The Duke of23:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Just dropped in quickly --> looks rather good. If I were you I'd have a look at the GA criteria and when you feel satisfied that it does, stick it up there for review. Chances are it'll get a good go through the meat grinder pretty quickly due to its importance. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Just taking my time to reply: thank you, you are very kind. I have had a look at the criteria, and it is the second and third that mostly concern me at the moment. As soon as I tackle these two (and there is work to be done yet), the rest will be fairly easy—for GA level, that is. Then comes further improvement and a Peer Review, where I hope the subject's fame will get me lots and lots of good advice. :-) I'm already reading FAC reviews and trying to acquire a greater understanding on what a good article needs, but I really cannot claim to be anything more than a beginner with some extra theoretical knowledge. Waltham, The Duke of00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
From another Australian, I welcome your input on that article. It's a significant plant. I'd love to grow it, and shall some day. ► RATEL ◄07:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
PL290 ... I'm about to go to bed ... and I noticed this in the watchlist (duh) ... and read your nomination ... and that is an excellent span of words to drink in before I sleep. (If that sounds strange, well, I'm pretty strange. LoL) Anyway, thank you. Well done. Proofreader7712:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The Rescue Barnstar 3 - to be awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion or assist in identifying and rescuing articles. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron.
Hi Cas, any chance of getting a proper epithet etymology for the above when you have a minute? Thanks. Hope you're keeping well. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia sphaerocarpa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
sigh - I just saw the diffs. Do you think it is worth pursuing or do you have enough visual material. If they have never released copyright on interior photos before I doubt they'll do so now (?). Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I ahve been working on them! Nobody has ever asked, so they have not released anything, but they know wikipedia is important. There may even be a work order to re-write the museum page for me - so yes, this is worth pursuing! In the end, they will probably deny it, but have our photographers prepare pics especially for wikipedia. So if you write a short email (sorry, just relaized, may we please continue using under this and that license) you may even get a straight 'yes' (do not bring commercail use up, though!), but at the very least you help me make my point there, which helps getting awesome images into wiki :) HMallison (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
...any interest in, eh, Queen? Might be a colab over the next months. I know music began in 1976, but this can be our dark secret. Ceoil12:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I pulled out a list of 25 unsourced BLPs on Aussie scientists, and started working through them. Anthony M. Young was an inauspicious start: I couldn't find anything. You had better dig something up if you want to save it.
Bloody hell, and just when most of my reference books are packed up in boxes. Damn. Much less fun than GA/FAC. Still, in one respect if they are redlinked they are listed here and can be recreated at another time once I haul my books out. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I placed your comment on the talk page of WP:MAMMAL. In the future, please place all comments on the talk page of the project. Thanks! The Arbiter★19:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It is driving me nuts that in my view a very important piece of work I have spent a lot of time on is likely to get deleted by editors who know nothing about the subject and typically just whizz through the AFDs and TFDs and make snap judgements. To understand the concept of abuse properly requires some specialist knowledge.
It is urgent as there is a serious danger the template will be deleted soon and that would probably make me feel like walking out on Misplaced Pages for good as it is just making life too difficult.--Penbat (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I know it is frustrating. To write on wikipedia requires a paradigm shift to move oneself away from making original assumptions. I do sympathise, and I need to think about this some more. There are some folks more familiar with psychological material that have yet to comment. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you implying that you have publicized this on the psychology project page ? From past experience it doesnt seem too popular and I have used the medical project page. --Penbat (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you're an active member of WikiProject Dinosaurs. Would you be willing to be interviewed for an article in the Signpost? It's quick and painless, plus you'll contribute to some great publicity for the project and articles you've been working on. Also, would you recommend any other editors who should be interviewed for an article on WP Dinosaurs? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, although it is a real team effort - it is only semi active currently - Firsfron, Spawn Man(now retired) and me sort of coordinated it, with some more expert people involved HMallison does it as a career, as do some others (runs off to cut and paste some usernames in this message). Dinoguy2 started the image review to ensure good pics. J. Spencer is another still active. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I wrote some questions for the upcoming Signpost article. Answer as many as you feel comfortable with. Also, feel free to add anything else you'd like mentioned in the article in the section at the end of the questions. Thanks for helping with this article and I hope it brings your project some great publicity and a few new contributors. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like administrators just count bits of emboldened text and ignore the fact that opinions may change as the result of discussion. 3 of the editors in the 1st TFD changed from delete to neutral but User:Plastikspork looks to have ignored that and just gone by their initial postions. If he had picked up their later views there would have been no justification for relisting the TFD and wasting everybodies time all over again. --Penbat (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia dryandroides, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
New editors' lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.
Hehe - I just did the same search and came to the same conclusion. Couldn't figure out why my revert didn't take until I realised you'd beat me to it! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Just stumbled across the fascinating Tables of vampire traits and saw how you were arguing to keep it. I hope sanity prevails and the topic stays, but in case it gets presented to the AfD axe again, I thought I'd let you know that http://vampires.wikia.com/ (also CC licensed) would very much welcome the content. It's still a small wiki, and currently without an administrator, but it has the potential to include a lot of interesting comparisons like this as it grows.
I work for Wikia and respect conflict of interest rules, so I am not going to mention this site on the article's talk page, but on a personal level, I thought it would be kind to let the primary scholarly champion of the article know that there was another audience that would welcome it.
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. Will check later tonight. Very quick point - I recalled at the time that cavaliers severely disrupted game balance as some other options may have done. Is there anything like this documented in a reliable source? It really did change the game. Also, the idea of how much overlap in content there was between the two books. I am not familiar with the 3rd ed one, just the first ed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I have any sources that get into how much cavaliers may have changed the game, but the WD review at least did get into that concept a bit. I don't think there was any overlap in content at all, and I don't believe I have a source that touched on that any more than very superficially. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Bother. I hate it when I can't find sources for stuff I know to be true :/ Nevermind, I think it is comprehensive enough to put in the GAN queue...Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. I listed sessilis up too for GAN. The next question is the rangemap for sphaerocarpa. I am expecting it to pass GAN next time Guettarda pops online - I pinged Gnangarra but not sure if he's too busy. It is a challenge with five colours.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I did the Isostylis map with three colours because there is no range overlap. But when I tried to do a multi-colour map for sessilis, the range overlaps rendered all my attempts disastrous. So I gave up and did a single-colour map. There's nothing wrong with this—it shows the range of the species—it just isn't as informative as a map that distinguishes the ranges of the varieties. With respect to sphaerocarpa, there is substantial overlap between var. sphaerocarpa and every(?) other variety, and I suspect that a multi-colour map will be too hard. To come to the point: Gnangarra's maps are better than mine, and it has been a while since we managed to drag him into Banksia. Let's wait and see what he says/does. If he is too busy, then I am happy to have a go at a multi-colour map, and, failing that, whip up a single-colour map. Hesperian14:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The ARS has been disrupting AFDs I've been reading for the last week or more. They slap "references" on articles that barely mention the article subject, and drop misleading (and sometimes blatantly untrue) keep comments at AFD. Posting a note to the talkpage regarding their activities is not unacceptable, and you shouldn't be removing it. I'm sure the ARS started out with the best of intentions. In my view, it is no longer serving any useful purpose. UnitAnode13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
How on earth is/are comments like this helpful??? Come on,think about it - you won't convince anyone on the 'other side', just annoy folks further. Suspect sources will be revealed as such should it come to AfD. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It's at AFD, and we have people muddying the waters with blatantly false or deceptively misleading statements. UnitAnode13:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Casliber: it may not have been a helpful comment, but I don't think pointing out an unhelpful comment is the best way to respond... why not address whether you think there is any merit in the criticism lodged against the ARS here on your talk page? More specifically, do you think that some of the references added are subpar? ++Lar: t/c22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Some of Unitanode's comments have been unhelpful in a time of frayed tempers and high emotions, as have some of yours, and encouraging or defending such behaviour is especially so. I remind you that wikipedia is not a battleground and that many of our objectives are common. The main problem with the page in question is the interpretation of notability and components thereof of professors/academic guidelines, hence general speculation on that page is unhelpful. As several parties have fairly fixed views on that and are unlikely to change the opposite side, it will rely on numbers to show consensus. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that you've answered the question. It seems a simple enough one to me. Is there any merit to the critical suggestion that some references added by ARS members are subpar? I suppose instead we could discuss who's done what when and who encouraged what when and so forth, but that wasn't why I popped by. ++Lar: t/c22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
as far as references added anywhere on any pages - I don't know. I haven't vetted ARS contributions to that detail. On that page, I don't have a particular problem. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(sigh) I don't think there is any "grand conspiracy" to secrete unreliable references to articles, no. I am sure that as everywhere, folks will sometimes add sources here and there that might not be the best ones to add for various reasons. As these articles are often being scrutinised at AfD, I suspect they get vetted at the time by those watching. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
PS: Right now we're at a bit of a crossroads and folks are just now starting to pull in the same direction. We can either move forward or we can start sniping at the other side's behaviour. Your choice Lar. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's awesome that you are starting, at last, to pull in the right direction, but that's been my choice all along, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. I turned up to ask a simple question and got a runaround. ++Lar: t/c00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Lar: How is it a runaround? It wasn't that simple. You asked my opinion - I gave it. So I'd ask you to stop casting aspersions on my response. You're welcome to open some investigation or do whatever you like as far as I am concerned. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Simply put, it took me several tries to get an answer to my question, and when I did, it was accompanied by some sort of veiled reference to sniping. That's a runaround. Hope that helps clear things up. ++Lar: t/c02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You changed your question part way through from a request for opinion to that of an investigation, and now you are twisting it to make me look evasive. So this sort of behaviour from you makes me not want to continue this discussion. I had quite enough of you changing focus in a past discussion and resulting in slurs against me so I think we'll leave it at that. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
But, but... you are being evasive, I think. I ask a question, you cast aspersions on me, I let it be and calmly try to get an answer again and around we go. Lather, rinse, repeat, but season with your accusations from some unspecificed past conversation. Ok, I get it. Really, Casliber, I expected better. ++Lar: t/c06:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the "references" that people have slapped on articles is that, in many cases, the article subject is barely mentioned (perhaps quoted about someone else, for example), but then that "reference" is used to supposedly establish notability -- which passing mentions like that, do not --and as a way to recommend "keep" at AFDs. And these ARS tags get slapped on the AFDed article, and the same crew seems to swoop in and recommend "keep, keep, keep" all in succession, with the barest of rationales. I'm, frankly, tired of it. UnitAnode00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not as simple as that in the Moller page and you know it. Sometimes mentions can be brief but significant, such as where Moller was consulted. Also, a primary source is okay if it is a (espeically large) institution listing somewhere someone works. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but in the Moller article, it seems that many of the references simply amount to a bibliography of the guys' own books. And, no, brief mentions, even if it talks about his consulting work, do not satisfy the non-trivial portion of the notability requirement. As for the primary source issue, if the primary source is combined with multiple secondary and non-trivial sources, then sure. If not, then no, it doesn't establish him. UnitAnode00:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The bibliography helps establish the books exist in and of themselves. Look, from researching as I have, in just about all areas I write in, the internet represents the tip of the iceberg. And I don't even speak swedish in this case. There is enough to satisfy me and my interpretation of the guidelines. Clearly there isn't for you. That is okay and I can live with that. We often wish the tide of notability were more in keeping with our own ideal one, but it isn't. Anyway, I doubt there is anything either of us can say to convince the other so I think it best to leave it at that eh? Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It now appears that an actual Swedish-speaker (Bishonen) is not nearly so impressed. As she's gone to bed, let's wait to see what she has to say about it ... eh? :) UnitAnode05:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I looked into this and fleshed-out TomCat's reference padding with an eye towards highlighting its inappropriate nature. See here. It seems to have worked as if you hit next you'll see that another editor carved the puff away. The issue here is that some quarters seek to 'keep' pretty much regardless of context. If they are allowed to muddy the categorisation of unsourced BLPs they will have done the project serious harm. See Bali ultimate's user page; he's suggested another MfD re ARS. Me, I'm more inclined to do an RFC as MfD#4 suggested.
@Jack, yeah well it's not as if there aren't editors who vote delete as a matter of course regardless of content either, and these certainly outnumber the keepers from what I have seen. I agree in that I predict a MfD will be inconclusive. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There may, in fact, be such editors. However, I don't see an "Article Deletion Squad" recruiting them and pointing them at AFDs to do so. As for a potential MFD, a courageous admin would simply delete it as an unhelpful and disruptive page. UnitAnode03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Aha, but many of them spend alot of time at AfD anyway. Disruptive is a subjective term here. They are doing more work improving (as opposed to deleting) articles than some other editors. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
If by "improving", you mean slapping any ref they can possibly find, and then claiming "Keep, it's notable", then yes. Deleting unsourced and poorly-sourced non-notable BLPs is working on the side of the angels, Casliber. UnitAnode04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Casliber, Lar called you a "crappy mentor" because you did not support his version of events before. More recently he gave Scott MacDonald a barnstar who said he had "utter contempt" for "community consensus", and deleted several articles out of process which the community did not support by margin of 3 to 1. Lar, is this what you call "I think it's awesome that you are starting, at last, to pull in the right direction"?
I would just let this section die Casliber, or better yet archive it. Edits begat edits.
RE casliber to Lar: "encouraging or defending such behaviour is especially so"
More of the same, we all know what edit diffs I am thinking of....
RE: "But, but... you are being evasive, I think. I ask a question, you cast aspersions on me, I let it be and calmly try to get an answer again and around we go. Lather, rinse, repeat, but season with your accusations from some unspecificed past conversation."
Well, isn't this WP:Kettle I recall some questions I have specifically ask you in the past Lar, and you ignored them repeatedly.
"The ARS has been disrupting AFDs I've been reading for the last week or more."
Talking about disruption Unitanode, keep in mind that the community ban which I initiated should have passed because of your disruption, so there is not much room for you to complain about others disruption. The only reason it didn't pass, is you promised to calm down.
Lar, you are judged by the company you keep, keep that in mind when you repeatedly are defending disruptive actions such as Unitanode's.
Take the WP:BATTLE somewhere else. There are thousands of "sewer" "crappy" "garbage" (good-faith contributions) of editors to delete. Ikip06:52, 2 February 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)
its done. WP:ARS/BLP search by importance (A B C), scroll down to the A's in the list. you will be surprised at some of these on the list.Ikip05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Done
