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.
<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work ]. ] (]) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)</small>
<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work ]. ] (]) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)</small>
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For admitting your mistakes, resigning in 2009, and sparing us controversy, which was the honorable thing to do. ''']]]''' 06:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Paper
An interesting abstract: . A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." Hesperian13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unkown but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Misplaced Pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You'll probably find this worth watching
He's a pretty good speaker. I created a stub about the book, which is probably worth getting to DYK, although I'm not sure I have the time to expand it enough this weekend. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I can follow it up next time I'm at the library, but I thought you might know off the top of your head. It seems like a competent effort and I don't want to scare them off. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
All of the following species are worth 2x points; let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating in one or more for bonus points in a later round. Sasata (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha - thank heavens for European mushrooms :))) - yeah, I'd like to buff Clitocybe nuda (which was one of the yummiest mushrooms I've eaten), and we really should be improving the other mass-eaten edibles. Also I buffed the sickener for DYK so would be good to finish the job....Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll move Clitocybe nuda and Russula emetica closer to the top of "the list". I agree the popular edibles would be good to do as well, but they're hard ... we'll see how free time & motivation plays out over the next few months. Sasata (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
State of play is this - Sadalsuud (talk·contribs) has reemerged and is taking time to digest where things are up to on Betelgeuse - given he added huge amounts of content I figured it was good to let him get up to speed before pushing on. I looked how small CMi was and figured it's an easy 5x expansion - good to show what core articles can still end up at DYK. My star sourcing ain't as up to speed as my biology though so am still rough round the edges....Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
If you need anything give me a poke, I have about 15 constellation-related books sitting on my desk for Andromeda and Aries and could set you up with something. I'll also definitely give a comprehensive review of Betelgeuse at FAC, you guys have done a great job with it. Keilana| 21:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Gotta run now, but some basic stuff for CMi would be a help - refs for when it rises/sets/polygon stuff etc....I haven't got much current on that, just the stars.Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, Patrick Moore's "Data Book of Astronomy" is excellent for, well, data. SIMBAD is great for finding scientific papers on stars to make things seem less crufty. The polygon stuff is available here in a .txt file, which is kind of hard to parse at first. I've got more sources sitting around, let me know if you want more names or data - I do have an excellent text called "Islamicate Celestial Globes" that I could scan for you if that helps. Keilana| 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
(Grunt, groan) gawd, getting info on Canis Minor is tough! I thought it'd be an easy 5x expansion but am struggling.....any constellation info that can be added would be a great help. I think I need about another 180 words or so....Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, here's what I found. You could definitely expand the mythology section a lot more. Ian Ridpath's Star Tales is excellent, it's located here. That's especially useful for the Chinese mythology. I've also found a few papers on more ancient mythology (e.g. Mesopotamia, etc.) Try , , and . As for books, I'd also recommend the Cambridge Guide to the Constellations, as well as Julius Staal's "New Patterns in the Sky" and William Tyler Olcott's "Star Lore". If you need to expand the History section further, give some background on the various star atlases and some uranography stuff. I'm willing to help write/source if you need it, just drop me a note! I've got a lot of free time this weekend and week. :) Keilana| 08:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Shepherd CJ, Totterdell CJ. 1988. Mushrooms and Toadstools of Australia. Melbourne: Inkata Press. Would appreciate you checking something for me if you do. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I know the book but don't have it. This was written by Queensland authors so different view which is good. I can get it from library either today or thursday (next door to work on these days). Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd be able to tell me what it says about Mycena chlorophanos for an article about a similar (bioluminescent) species M. chlorophos. Don't go out of your way to get it, there's no rush, and many other articles to work on in the meantime ... thanks! Sasata (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. At least some help. I reported the edit-warrior (who had already received blockings for his behavior), but I received only could shoulders by admnistrators. As if I could know where to beg for help and report such behavior elsewhere! The problem is that GOP knows about the project´s discussion but continues his actions... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Your reversion marks an edit war. It doesn't have to be three. So let's just stop it right there. The page is contentious and continued reverting is going to get everyone more annoyed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
PS: The page is frozen to stop the edit warring - that is all. It is no indication on the relative merits of the version the page is on. That is to be decided. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
So, do you plan to continue playing the content arbitrator? It's a rather uncommon interpretation of the admin role, and some might argue it's actually against admin policy, but I'd be willing to submit to it, as the lesser evil – it's better than the alternative of having to pretend a discussion with DS+J with the purpose of persuading them could be a rational enterprise. Only please deliver your judgments quickly, because otherwise the whole setup is simply a license for more stonewalling, and will be slowing down the necessary cleanup immensely. Fut.Perf.☼21:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't see how an admin can supervise these areas without at least some attempt to look at how editors are using sourcing. This isn't some MMORPG but an encyclopedia. I will be looking soon. My free time is patchy however. I will ask for assistance at WP:AN/I too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The committee tries to get the community to be as autonomous as possible (we ain't gov-com) so by all means take it live as the next step in this debate and notify widely. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Aboriginal Astronomy
Hi Casliber - thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm
Do we really need a citation for the colour? The colour index itself is a matter of record, shown in Simbad for example. The exact name we apply to that colour in the case of a star is an issue far beyond the scope of this article, and to a great extent is subjective, but white/blue-white is hardly controversial. The article on colour index should probably address the issue. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Possibly - I stuck it more of a placeholder after adding the line myself. Not controversial though I could see some argument about "white" vs "blue-white". That debate has been held several times at Canopus ("white" vs "yellow-white". Also, was contemplating on polishing it up for GA/FA, where everything needs a ref.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
There are a variety of possible references, not all consistent. Here are a few:
The dynamic range of visual imagery in space (doi 10.1117/12.817184)
I saw some astronomy content and had to butt in... *grin* Burnham's Celestial Handbook is pretty good with colors. One solution that I've adopted in the constellation articles is saying something along the lines of "The color is variously described as blah, blah, and blah". That seems like a pretty good fix for Rigel; I don't think there's always an accurate way to describe color because each individual observer sees things differently. So you could say "Rigel has a spectral class of whatever, and its color is variously described as..." and still maintain accuracy. Just my musings. :) Keilana| 22:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I will take a look at the above sources. Feel free to chip in folks. I was thinking about buffing either Arcturus or Canopus...but when I started reading about Arcturus I just couldn't get enthused at all....the stuff about astroseismology and where Rigel is at developmentally is fascinating, so just meandering a bit currently. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup.
Details an attendee list are at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg15:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Cas, I don't really know how to say this, so will just spit it out. If the delay in sending out the prizes for the Core contest is at all because of anything I might have said or done (which is what I suspect), I'm willing to have my entry disqualified so that the prizes can be sent to the other contestants. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow! I'm not Casliber but you have received nothing but very high respect from the Core Contest judges. Your entry remains fully qualified. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way that you would have been disqualified. Let me email the WMUK folks and chase it up for you. My sincere apologies for the delay. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI: For reasons that should be obvious, I've returned it. I didn't enter the contest to play wiki politics - I'm happy to have added content and enjoyed, immensely, working on the page. Let's just leave it at that. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Stumbled across this tonight which upset me. I hadn't realized the goal was to achieve FA status and honestly can't do justice to either the Alps or the Brothers Grimm with current time restrictions but have every intention of returning to them. I've not found the atmosphere pleasant here either, and when the factionalism reaches the point that the winner of a contest (ironically it's the first time ever I've won anything) doesn't deserve a mention, then best to redistribute the prize to those who've achieved what apparently was the expected goal. I've sent a message to WMUK that under the circumstances I can't accept. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Truthkeeper88, you appear to be taking personal comments by PumpkinSky and Cwmhiraeth as a reflection of the foundation or goal of the Core Contest. That is incorrect. From my vantage point as a recent judge, I can tell you that the notional goal of taking a core article to FA was never a requirement of the Core Contest, and that your win with the magnificent expansion of the Alps was absolutely deserved on its own very high merits. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ditto what Malleus said. Yeah, it's awesome if you eventually take the articles to GA or FA. The Core Contest rules, however, specifically disabuse participants of the notion that getting the article to FA/GA status will give them a better chance of winning. The contest is about improving high-importance/low-quality articles, which is what you've done (and I hope will continue to do - you're an fantastic editor). Let other editors, the Signpost, etc. do all of the editorializing they want - take the money, buy some awesome books (and maybe one trashy one, just to get your mind off the factionalism!) and go on ahead taking whatever articles you want to whatever "grade" you damn well feel like. Dana boomer (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @TK88 - the main motivation for me reviving the contest was what I perceive to be stagnation in alot of content that is not being specifically worked up for DYK, GA or FA, or being argued over. I also believe that wikipedia is at a bit of a crossroads of becoming an established sourcing entity which needs to tighten up its core portfolio of material (as it were), and I reckoned this was better done with carrots rather than sticks. Add to that my own experiences, which is that GA and FA represent (more than any trophy-collecting or dick-measuring tables) stable versions that can be referred to after an article (inevitably) erodes. I also like to see big broad articles get to GA/FA. So I suppose my hope was that various of these articles would eventually make GA or FA, but that was not part of the intensive editing period as it would have been an impossibility to achieve in the time frame. The thrust was that in cases of equal improvement that Really Crap to Good was better than Good to Really Good...Finally, I had no idea about this interview until linked to just now. Looking now at it, I am sorry you weren't approached and not sure what else to say. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
TK, that piece was meant to reflect the interviewees own personal views (in relation to Featured content) and not that of the community or the Core Contest as a whole. I had tried to make the distinction clear, but I guess I wasn't successful. As a note, I agree with Cmw that getting a fairly broad article past FAC in the current environment is more trouble than it's worth; as such, recognition through the FA/GA processes shouldn't be considered necessary for article improvement. Your changes to Alps were (pardon the term) kick-ass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
@MF, admittedly I was being a bit flippant...and I'm as guilty of trophy-collecting as anyone, but i do mean it that the main reason I myself focus so heavily on GA/FA content is stability..I got miserable the first time I read and digested about not editing unless one did not mind one's edits being edited mercilessly (forget where I read that now) Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
@Cas, you've emphasised stability before. As for TK not being notified, I did not intend to slight her achievement. I was focusing on putting the interviewees in context, and in my opinion writing "(user) and (user), who finished second in the Core Contest with their work on (article); this placed behind (user)'s work on (article), which as of writing has not passed FAC" would be a bit more condescending. Even if I leave that last clause, the sentence sounds unfocused to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Crisco, I would protest this kind of spotlighting, regardless of who won. It's just plain wrong. What we should be doing is to highlight achievements - not reduce them to , well, yeah, did a good job but didn't quite hit the mark so not worthy of mention. I'm not so much upset about myself (which in the grand scheme of life is childish and futile) but I am upset, greatly, to see the playground games that are perpetuated and quite frankly have no place in something like the Core Contest where Cas had a really great idea, and through his initiative we've seen some tremendous work. I'm stepping out and returning the prize because of the playground games. I'm not here for that. I spend plenty of time on the front end of this website, with users, and see clearly what needs to be done. That's what brought me here, is the reason I'm committed, and I couldn't agree more with what Cas said (except for the measuring bit ... because ... well, don't have one so can't measure). I'm just very sorry this played out as it did. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand how you feel. Perhaps a little context may help though. Every month or so, for the past few, we've highlighted an editor who has done good work with featured content, sort of a "meet the writers" deal. Cas was our first, I think, in this run; I've linked to his (really nice) interview above. We've also interviewed Arsenikk and Mark Arsten in this run. On other occasions we've interviewed Lemurbaby, Wehwalt, JJ Harrison, Muhammad, and so on. It's meant to help promote the writer, sure, but also to (hopefully) interest readers in the different featured processes and make said processes more accessible... and thus get them to write more. The interviewees are limited to featured content creators because of the scope of the page. It's not meant to slight other writers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).
Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Misplaced Pages has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.
Hi Cas. Since you are an experienced FA reviewer, and now that you aren't fiendlishly busy with the Cup (congratulations / commiserations, by the way), I think the FAC on Romney might benefit from some more non-USA eyes on it. Things are getting a little wierd. It's a long article though, so... Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Cas, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a quick look at something? I'm thinking about an FAC run for Ann Bishop (biologist) - I've incorporated pretty much everything I can find, but it's still quite short. If you don't have time, I totally understand! Keilana| 22:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It's plenty long enough for FAC. I will take a look soon. Sasata is pretty thorough, so feel confindent that he's given it a green cross so far....Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I see you protected Sandy, which is probably not a bad idea. However, I would ask that you undue the following edit. user:Casprings has been trying to insert this (some of which is his own original research and synthesis of material) into a currently exisitng article, (which he created and is likely to be deleted). In an attempt to game the system the editor is adding it to the Sandy article. Arzel (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It is very controversial to change the article once fully protected. Usually the protection is a halt and should in no way indicate a preferred version. It is Sunday daytime here and I just popped back for a moment. I will be back in a few hours but I will place a note at WP:ANCasliber (talk·contribs) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Understandable. As a compromise I would suggest a change to the current version of the article under AfD as it has far less original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Classical Cepheid variable, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pigott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Talk:Ann Bishop (biologist). Message added 04:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Based on the talk for this DYK, I'm not really entitled to any credit since I didn't add to it after 11/1. Not sure if there's a way to "un-credit" me. - PKM (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reading about heaven and hell and tilting it over the edge. Good comments too! I have to get back into reviewing, but my wiki time seems to be shrinking a lot these days because of that thing called real life. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Your comment on RfAr
Cas, please quickly proofread the comment you just left on Mathsci's request. I think you may have an extra negative or something in the last sentence leaving it mean the opposite of what you intended. (Of course it might just be me misreading it.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Cas, there is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates, upon which subject I think it would be great if we all just got on and did something and didn't spin off into too many ruminations, and where I named you because someone else said you'd sent an email to Raul. Would be great if you'd stick your beak in. Cheers :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm pinging you as an active Australian editor who I know is pretty experienced. There's stuff going on at Australian Christian Lobby and talk page that could use some attention. I don't have the energy for full-blown participation but thought perhaps a range of experienced editors could help sort it out as a team. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Casliber. I was wondering if you'd decided if you're going to run for the committee again. If you don't want to, I'd totally understand; I know it's a pain in the butt. But I'll definitely support you if you do decide to run. Also no pressure if you haven't decided yet one way or another. Heimstern Läufer(talk)13:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Just arrived here to say the exact same thing. You've been conscientious, restrained, and steady, and your retirement from the committee would be the community's great loss. Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
On 17 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred Humphreys, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Fred Humphreys attempted to photograph every species of Banksia, but died before the resulting book was published? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Humphreys. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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 agree that references should be accurate and complete as far as what is truly needed, i.e. as you put it "ship shape". However I don't see that using templates necessarily makes them any more so. If you look at professional journals there are certainly similarities in how references are presented, but no universal rule. As for "consensus", here at Misplaced Pages that's fairly ambiguous and may simply indicate a predilection to conformity. Remember, its fine to be serious, just don't be "serious" about being serious. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, one of the rules around here which comes across as being glib but has a point is Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Believe it or not, my ideal of how this place should be has differences from what has happened. Over the past six years there has been a massive pruning of popular culture content due to a perception it is not encyclopedic. Now I argued at the time in the proper venues and some has remained if it can be adequately sourced, but there was no point in going overboard. There are some battles that are unwinnable and this is one of those. Now if you don't want to see material reverted (and hence waste your and other peoples' time and effort) just accept that this will happen. There are other things worth debating more. If this sounds a bit unfocussed it is very early here and I'm only just drinking my first coffee for the day.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Betelgeuse is the eighth brightest star in the night sky and second brightest in the constellation of Orion, only rarely outshining Rigel. It is a distinctly reddish, semiregular variable star whose apparent magnitude varies between 0.2 and 1.2, the widest range of any first-magnitude star. Betelgeuse's name is thought to be derived from the Arabic يد الجوزاء Yad al-Jauzā' meaning "the Hand of al-Jauzā'", i.e., Orion. It is classified as a red supergiant of spectral type M2Iab and is one of the largest and most luminous known stars. If positioned at the center of the Solar System, its surface would extend past the asteroid belt, possibly beyond the orbit of Jupiter, at least wholly engulfing Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Less than 10 million years old, Betelgeuse has evolved rapidly because of its high mass. Ejected from its birthplace in the Orion OB1 Association, this crimson runaway has been observed moving through the interstellar medium at a supersonic speed of 30 km/sec, creating a bow shock over 4 light-years wide. Now in a late stage of stellar evolution, the supergiant is expected to proceed through its life cycle before exploding as a type II supernova within the next million years. (Full article...)
You may want to take a look at this article. Every other source I've found lists NGC 7840 as the last NGC object. Since you are knowledgable in astronomy and are an administrator, I thought I'd let you know about this article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I just reviewed your latest FAC candidate and will be watching for your reply. If you have time, I was wondering if you would mind looking over mine. Admittedly, mine is longer, so it's not a fair trade. But if you're up for it, I can always review your next short FAC. – Maky23:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been working on Entertainment since it came up as "Today's article for improvement" on 13 October. It is a core article and was quite weak and random before (IMO). I have been working on making such a big, universal topic into one concise, representative and coherent article. Do you think it is ready for GA or FA? If not, what should I do to get it there? If you have time, I would appreciate your opinion before I draw it to everyone's attention. My thinking about its structure and contents is on the Talk Page - I had to think it through as I went. It is now completely rewritten.
Wow, listen, I think the appropriate next step is to list at Peer Review - it's a huge topic and I wouldn't know where to start...well, I would actually. The broad areas of comprehensiveness first and work down from there contentwise, maybe some philosophical and psychological aspects of entertainment should be slotted in too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I added some points and refs about psychology and philosophy. I'll ask the TAFI people to check the article over. Then after seeing what they say, I will go to Peer Review. Thanks! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omphalotus nidiformis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuytsia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings, I just wanted to let you know that one of your FA's was suggested to be translated into Simple Misplaced Pages and I decided to give it a go. The link is here. I already started doing some of it and will continue to work on it but I wanted to invite you to participate since you were the one who got it to FA in EN. Kumioko (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Casliber. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}