This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Casliber(talk | contribs) at 09:19, 13 March 2010(Simple question - do you know who John Laws is?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:19, 13 March 2010 by Casliber(talk | contribs)(Simple question - do you know who John Laws is?)
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia-- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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???
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "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 [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [for human food], 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.[2]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[9] 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.[5]
In other traditions, the Huia was the leader of the hākuturi, the spirit guardians of the forest, which included Whiteheads and Riflemen.[5] 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.[5]
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".[ADD ORBELL REF]. <START FOOTNOTE: Orbell mentions some of the sacred associations of the Huia, saying [page 83] 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: [4] and could perhaps still add the reference no [9].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of [Banksia] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [5]. Hansard? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia years ago; he would certainly have been banned long before me - which says it all really. Giano 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia for good as it is just making life too difficult.--Penbat (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
I am sure you would rush to the defense of unitanode if she was put on notice at wikiquettue for calling another editor a WP:DICK.[7] This one is good to: "The only thing "incompetent" here is that people bitching aren't sourcing."[8] I can imagine another prescriptive/descriptive argument.
This is who you align yourself with, Casliber? As for your "ban", Ikip, I will shortly be starting up my program again, as it has been very successful in getting unsourced BLPs sourced, deleted, or stubbed. Once I begin again, start the "ban" discussion up again. Make certain you use all the rhetorical flourishes at your disposal. Fight for those unsourced BLPs, Ikip! UnitAnode07:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
and your interest was piqued by Rebecca Chambers, a concert pianist, and you chose to click the link on offer, you were greeted with:
Rebecca Chambers is a member of STARS' Bravo team, who is in charge of rear security, and serves as the team's medic. and more prattle about GameDaily's "Babe of the Week" — "Resident Evil's youngest member battles zombies and other horrors so you don't have to. That makes her a true American hero."
The littluns are filling this project to overflowing with dross and, in the case of Rebecca Chambers (pianist), they blithely insult real people. I shudder to think about what's really going on with lists like the redlinks to gay porn vid actors. See Ben Andrews who was linked from an old version of that list as:
Just to let you know I have responded to your concerns raised at the GAN of Lulworth Skipper - I was inactive for a couple of days due to real life commitments. As I said there, I wasn't able to find anything in my current sources or those online about the issues you raised (predation etc.), however I will try in the near future to add something. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about nominating it, but at least the Florentine part is much better supported by this book. (Oddly enough, the book had working limited preview in google a few days ago. Perhaps they decided it's not a good idea... See the blurb for the 1st printing, which is explicit enough.) Pcapping20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After I had look at a few books in this area, the more general concept is age–structured homosexuality (do a google books search). Quite a few of Haiduc's articles should be renamed that way (i.e. from "X pederasty" or "prederasty in X" to "age–structured homosexuality in X"). Often enough the contents overflows the narrower concept of pederasty, which is somewhat ill defined. This book for instance clearly defines pederasty := same-sex pedophilia, which more restrictive that what the wiki article on pederasty uses. Also, in Haiduc's articles there's also no attempt to make the distinction between institutionalized pederasty, e.g. [9] (e.g. Ancient Greece) and the deviant behavior that can be expected in any society. I'm pretty sure the methodological fuzziness was intentional. I'm amazed that nobody at the sexuality or LGBT WikiProjects raised these issues. Perhaps we should move/continue this discussion there. Pcapping20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raised...these...goddammit. I chastised Haiduc a couple times for using shitty citations and sourcing, but I do not know why he was banned. That ANI thread and the quiet ArbCom action is disturbing. I've seen editors allowed to disrupt content maintenance much more severely and apparently be coddled for it. I have already written to Risker asking for clarification. While Haiduc was conveniently imprecise--or lazy--about some issues surrounding pederasty, I do not believe that pederasty issues should be deleted. This is not my area of expertise, but I had to wade through quite a few books about homosexuality in ancient Greece, Rome, Africa, Japan, and China to construct parts of the Lesbian article, and it really bothers me that today's cultural taboos are being applied to social practices that do not compare. The same cultural precision is also applied, for example, to women in the 19th century, before the term "lesbian" had the connotation it does today. Again, disturbing, and darkness and silence makes it moreso. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh - reply overload - okay to Pcap, good points. Re age-related homosexuality and "deviant" (WRT culture) vs enculturated relationships. Still musing on the Florence situation as that is a fascinating one. As well as LGBT boards, one could raise it at sociology or psychology. To Moni3, do I think we should cover the breadth and richness of homosexual culture over the ages? Absolutely. What I objected to...well I spelt it out in the AfD really. I'll send an email too as I'd rather not discuss it on an open/public board. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IRC must be buzzing with these issues. We had three early closures of Albanian pederasty AfD, the first two of them edit conflicted. I still think content issues should be discussed on wiki, even if the topic is nasty. Perhaps we should create ArbCom-registered socks and proceed that way? Pcapping22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I have only been on IRC once for about 2 minutes in the whole time I've been here. (sigh) Agree re content issues. I am concerned about a hysteria developing. Luckily mass AfDs can be quick-closed as not proper. Also we have a five day timespan and etiquette. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was cleaning up Category:Modern pederasty, when I ran into Harry Stack Sullivan—a psychiatrist, so his article may be of some interest to you. The source cited there does advance the possibility he had a pederastic relationship, but it's nowhere near as definitive as the wiki article. Of course our departed friend was the one who added the juicy details. It needs a fair bit of work to present the controversy adequately. This kind of articles shows why such a (binary, of course) category is a rather bad idea. Only a couple of NAMBLA types unambiguously fit in it. Pcapping19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of it reads like an essay, with conjecture, hypothesis and probably a surplus of extraneous material to give the article a sense of validity. I am tending to think it should go as well. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The French wiki article on Pederasty is somewhat superior to the English one: it manages for instance to make that distinction between the institutionalized and casual forms (like I indicated above): fr:Pédérastie#Formes codifiées (homosexualité initiatique) and fr:Pédérastie#Formes non codifiées. The French Wikipedia has a separate article for the history of the word too fr:Histoire du mot pédérastie, although a little bit too much of that permeates their main article. (I'm fully aware that the French use of the word need not coincide with the English one, but their usage of the word also suffered significant changes during the past few centuries.)
By the way, check out where Haiduc has moved [11]. Thankfully (and predictably) most of the French wiki article was not written by him though. [12] Also, check out this announcement: fr:Discussion:Pédérastie#Des nouvelles pages, a traduire referring to his ban here: "an overdose of puritanism and imbecility by the American right wing, without a doubt". I predict a mushy, mushy future for the French wiki article. Pcapping22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get myself a cool/short username, and the last time I tried (User:1 was used on some non-English pedia), I was denied. Would you point me in the direction of a bureaucrat who would help me find a cool/short username? Some short names like User:8 were just socks, so I'm sure if they knew what to look for, they could find me one that's easily usurpable. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh - I've not done much with this sorta thing. My guess would be to look at a list of users and see what hasn't been taken - or if one has, usurp a long-departed user or sock. Now where is the list of users....Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. I thought you'd know something about it, and you do. Now, how do I use that list? In computer science, we read "!" as "bang". I guess "!!" would be "bang bang", and so on. The first line is "! (Created on December 4, 2004 at 11:39)". I would love to have that one. Unfortunately "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAGGEⓇ?1" is already taken (just kidding).
Anyways, it looks like the alphabet starts with various punctuation marks. I can go to where I want in the numbers, and then what do you recommend I do? The problem is that it may have not been used on the English Wikipedia, but the rules as I understand them are: "If someone has logged in on any of the Wikimedia project's wikis with this username, then it's verboten".
So, do you have an idea of what the next step I should take is? I feel bad asking you this, because it's a weird technical question, and weird technical answers are valuable things. But, you're the only user who's still around who I think actually knows enough to answer this type of question. Thanks again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it looks like shit. I'll recomposite with better colours but first some questions:
Is the boundary between pumilio and sphaerocarpa about right? This is a difficult one because the Florabase map for var. pumilio does not match the northern range for var. sphaerocarpa, as it should. Presumably this is because the herbarium still has many pumilio specimens in their database still labelled as sphaerocarpa. Is it safe, and appropriate, to ignore the Florabase map for var. pumilio, and instead manually split the distribution shown in the var. sphaerocarpa map?
How to handle the overlap between var. sphaerocarpa and var. caesia? (It came out black here) I don't know how to crosshatch the overlap, but I could give it its own colour—something that implies overlap, such as orange between red and yellow—or I could pull back the distributions so that they don't overlap any more.
Any suggestions re: colours? I only chose primary colours because I am extremely lazy.
Sorry to ignore the background map you put forward. Again it is laziness. I've scripted part of the process to work with the IBRA map, and adjusting the script will require co-registering against the other map, which will take a little while to get right. As soon as I get around to doing that, I'll update the script and start producing maps against that background.
I hope you'll excuse a WP:TPW interjecting, but it's worth noting that more than 1 in 20 readers are likely to be red-green colour blind, and 1 in 100 are blue-yellow colour blind. There's information at Color blindness, especially the section Design implications of color blindness. I'd strongly recommend using colours that have different lightness, so that there is sufficient contrast on a grey scale. We should also note that our pages may be printed out on a monochrome printer. Hatching has real advantages if you don't need more than 4 options (vertical, horizontal, two diagonals), and also shows overlaps much more clearly. I do recognise that it's harder to set up on a graphic art program, but there are numerous editors with those skills who may be able to help you – Wikipedia:Graphic Lab is a good starting point. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Different lightness is a very good idea. I spoke to Alex George the other day and the range of pumilio is essentially all points north of Chittering so the range of pumilio should extend down a little. The article where pumilio is described discusses the range (which can be used to reference it). I'd use red for pumilio and orange for sphaerocarpa - maybe a horizontally striped area for the overlap (?) But the colours are all of different shades AFAICT and the dark for the overlap is pretty distinctive..... Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the pumilio/sphaerocarpa split, and adjusted the colours. They still ain't pretty, but "different lightness" is a very heavy constraint. Now the overall saturation steps up evenly through black (0%), green (17%), yellow (33%), red (50%), orange (67%), cyan (83%), and white (100%). Overlaps are excluded from this: I just took whatever ImageMagick gave me when I composited.
Beggars can't be choosers. Unless you have some minor tweaks to suggest, you're going to have to accept this version until I feel inspired to co-register to that other background image (or you find someone else to have a crack at it). Hesperian13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do nicely - we can tell what is found where and if someone at FAC wants to make another that would be great. My request attracted exactly zero responses at the Graphic workshop. Okay, getting ready for FAC...Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a quick attempt at showing how it looks hatched – really needs to be done as layers, so the hatching blends. Fine at full resolution, poorer at thumbnail. The scale of the hatching is always a trade-off between detail and resolution, so usually has to be optimised for a particular size. I'd say stick with the one you've got. --RexxS (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does you protection mean that Malleus cannot edit his own talk page? Or does the protection exempt him. Just trying to figure out how things work. Kindest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, didn't think of that. I don't think he can edit it either...but he can edit elsewhere of course. I think I can safely say that the chances of anyone arguing on that page of convincing anyone else of anything are <0.0000000000000000001% and hence a colossal waste of time. Everyone just needed to take a walk. I thought this way was more constructive than other means of closing the argy-bargy down such as blocking or whatever. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate lesson: it's not this website. It's people. It's not even the people on this website. Go anywhere else and you will find the same. It's what people do to each other everywhere. So find something that makes you happy and go enjoy it when the reality gets too much to bear. --Moni3 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's this site. about 70% of the people I meet in RL like me, while about 95% of the people I meet here, have an issue with me. I'm getting really tired of idiots like Halfshadow antagonizeing me and makeing fun of my bad spelling skills, and plain asses like Fred the oyster insulting my age group. And yet people always tell me, "You need to be the bigger person. grow up!" Well then why the @#$% is Halfshadow doing the things he does? He seems to act half my age! WTH did I EVER do to ANY of these people?!? Sorry for the cussing but I'm sick and tired of this.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sigh - Coldplay Expert - if you are finding lots of arguments, it could be that you are unconsciously seeking them out. Remember it takes two tango. If you are finding folks taking you to task with your spelling, attach a spellchecker to your text as you type. There are plenty of places to edit and avoid hastle - many many articles, and keep away from the message boards. I'd write more but am in the middle of about five different things as we speak. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but that's the thing. I don't start this. People come up to me and provoke me to the point of explodeing. I'm only human. Here's a story, a few kids keep on pokeing a snake with a stick, it bites them. But then the kids run off and get an adult to go and shoot the snake. The snake dies even though it was the kid's fault for provokeing it in the first place. Now I'm sure that you are smart enoght to fill in the blanks and know who's who in that story. --Coldplay ExpértLet's talk04:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a deep breath and start from scratch. I haven't the time to review this, but have seen bits and pieces of argy-bargy about the place. Seriously. Good luck. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not limited to responding exponentially, or even in kind. Find the awesome power in raising your eyebrows and saying to yourself, "Whatever, douchebag. You crazyass motherfucker, I'm not even going to join your twisted dance." And wander away to amuse yourself, to do something you enjoy. You can use less or more swearing. It's up to you. The winner is the one who's enjoying himself and being productive, not wrought up in being angry and vindictive. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I need to ask a senior Wikipedia member a question. I got your name from Wikicup, which I am also a participant. I first wrote to another person on that list but he has stopped editing.
The issue that brought issue that brings up the question is this: In the Barack Obama article, I started a section discussing the Political Positions section. I raised several issues, like what positions to select (let the politician's campaign decide / use what issues they talk about or use what the news talks about?), what time point to use, what to do if positions change, etc. Because of the difficulty in answering these questions, I suggested to eliminate the section. Later, I suggested that we have a brief summary of the man's 2008 election positions and have a 2012 sub-section later. We just can't have his current positions because that would be allowing a candidate to use Wikipedia as advertising. I have not suggestion what should be added or removed, just how to handle this section.
Nobody has violently come out in support of keeping, but there is some mention of keep. There is more mention of trimming it. But, to be fair, no consensus either way, including no consensus to keep. If there is no consensus to keep, is that a delete?
I seek not to argue but to see an opinion on what consensus is. The WP:Consensus gives no guidance on no consensus. The WP:No consensus is just an essay, unlike WP:Consensus. It gives not enough guidance because it says that no consensus does not mean that the status quo stays.
What is your opinion on consensus in general? Should we follow this:
1. AFD - no consensus - default to keep
2. major fact in article - no consensus - default mostly the facts that all agree are true and the most neutral, even if bland, version
3. minor fact in article - no consensus - default to not use it
4. sections - no consensus - no default, keep fighting (can't think of a good default since sections can be good or bad)
Okay, my advice - the more structure the better, even if it seems you're being obsessive about structure (e.g. support/oppose/comment sections for every segment of text in question), one needs to avoid discussions becoming walls of text whereever possible. I tried something like this at Talk:Ghost#Consensus_on_size_and_contents_of_the_lead for ghost but got distracted elsewhere (I really needed to do some reading for that article that I never got round to).. Furthermore, discuss every segment of text separately - subject matter/sentences/however you want to split it. If you give it enough structure, you'll get somewhere. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy editing
Since you've done such an amazing job in the past, I'd just like to see if you might be able to find time to help copy edit two articles. I just nominated Gray Mouse Lemur for FAC, and Illegal logging in Madagascar (which will probably need the most work) was published a couple nights ago, is up for GAC, and is planned to go straight for FAC. If you don't have time, that's cool. I can always dust off my budding copy editing skills and take a crack at it. Hope all is well with you! – VisionHolder « talk »15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(sigh) My interpretation is that it is sailing a bit close to the wind. Anyway, no-one is going to convince anyone of anything
Jack is bullying cool cat again. I come to you because you at least don't support Merridew's behavior like his other mentors and arbcom members who share his same wikipedia views. Granted, you don't do anything about his behavior except repeatedly weakly warn him, but at least you give him some token hand slap.
I know I am playing into Jack's game by commenting here. In fact, maybe I should just let it be, when Jack Merridew does not get a reaction from his bullying, Jack simply increases the bullying more. Let him dig a deeper hole that even "friend" accounts Lar and Jossi can't get him out of. (Jack's coding says "for Josette" possibly some offwiki conversation they had). Ah well, after a year of this constant repeated behavior, I don't have the patience.
I will alert Cool Cat, as Merridew wants me too. Give Jack his craved for reaction.
Should he keep the Arbcom ruling on his talk page? Ironically, he deleted the arbcom notice on his user page to replace it with the cool cat baiting.[13] He probably got a sympathetic arbcom member to allow him to remove it.
As the Jack Merridew and BLP drama has clearly shown our rules are only selectively enforced. If you have sympathetic views which Jimbo and the arbcom share, any behavior will be forgiven.
Jack, when you respond here, this is sincere, why do you continue to bully people? Do you even know why you do it? What satisfaction does it give you? I never understood the bullies in high school, and I don't understand your behavior here. I can imagine you, Lar, and Jossi mocking your victims offwiki, what longterm satisfaction does this give to you? Is this all a game too you Jack? Emotionally upsetting editors, real people, with real lives?
Please no "I only have the best interest of wikipedia in mind" responses. Baiting and bullying is definitely not in the best interest of wikipedia. Okip(formerly Ikip)18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@kip: What the fuck? I am not required to keep the motion posted on my userpage; that was my idea and it's still available on my history page, which is linked (and it links to the official copy;). I'm listing all my accounts on my userpage, including User:Note to Cool Cat; whup, whup. It's called transparency. The 'for Josette' bit is in reference to the use of the image being used on her user page and one discussed on talk:horse. I fully understand your behavior, 'Okip' you are relentlessly seeking sanctions re myself and you assume bad faith *daily*. Jack Merridew19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikip - why in the world would you have Jack Merridew's user page on your new watchlist? Have you tried disengaging? That said, I see nothing wrong with his userpage. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Okip - You may not know but I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006, long before I meet User:Jack Merridew. I don't appreciate being referred to as "Jack's friend" [14] or "Lar's wife" [15]. While both of these facts are true I find it derogatory and it shows a prejudice against me (possibly because I'm a woman?) which I don't deserve. I am an editor just like everyone else here and my contributions to article space prove that. I now see you have started to refer to me as Jossi? Is this another form of insult? I have never resorted to this sort of "name calling" and would appreciate being referred to only by my user name. Thank you. - Josette (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good I am sure there is something like a good ref on the issue but the one liners like florabase say nothing about disturbed ground just the geological distribution which is deceptive when you think about it - ... I dont know how you keep up with all the diff threads in your wp existence mate - its like vienese public transport - run down by a tram trying to get to the underground SatuSuro00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Plumeria rubra
On February 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plumeria rubra, 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.
Which got me thinking, who was the sockpuppet who performed this "breaching experiment".
Was an editor going around and defaming living people so MZMcBride and his "BLP offwiki forum dedicated to tightening up BLP practices" could create, then claim an emergency?
It looks like they all were regular sockpuppet accounts, not anon accounts.[17] Unless you are aware of other anon accounts.
Why does the arbitration committee conceal the identity of the editor in their final decision when The Wikipedia Signpost stated the name?
Are you distancing yourself from me Casliber? I know you have gotten a lot of heat for associating with me and agreeing with some of the things I say, and that takes a lot of bravery and strong convictions in the face of harsh criticism, I note, for example, that WR has criticized you asking for my help. Okip BLP Contest19:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. Not sure why they didn't use the name (just the initial) - I am a bit burnt out from wading through swathes of text on the issue. I do also think about concentrating on winnable battles and/or ones where consensus can be worked towards. Improving inline referencing is a pretty basic change which has to happen across the 'pedia, so making it a prerequisite of removing a PROD is a no brainer for me. I think it should be the rule for all prods really. I generally have a priority of things I do here - the highest being those things that I enjoy, followed by less enjoyable pastimes. My time has been more limited than usual the past week or so. Plus there are some other issues which have taken time and energy. I think you're brave doing what you do, and someone definitely needs to play devil's advocate. Ultimately a list of deleted material is very prudent and makes me worry about it less. I really don't give a flying metaphor what anyone thinks of who I associate with, so am not fussed about that. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikip, On the point of naming Mr K, it originated with Brad. Cool Hand Luke stated here: "'K' complains when his name is invoked by strangers and/or pseudonyms who attack him. I tend to respect his apparent wishes on this matter." I can only assume the writer of the Signpost didn't share the same sensibilities. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RexxS for that insight. Strange.
It seems like everyone has gotten sick of RFC.
I really smiled at your comments because I can relate to them. It seems like the more time I spend here, the less enjoyable it is ;) I stopped uploading files about a year and a half ago, because they were getting deleted, after a bully deleted 1800's photos. I stopped writing articles, what I really love, because they were getting deleted. All I do now is policy which is not fun, I am in the minority with my views, and I almost always lose :)
Thank you again Casliber. I see you as an editor who sees the coming iceburg, knows the ship will sink, but knows he can do nothing to change the minds of the crew to change direction, so he is trying to savor the time he has left. Okip BLP Contest01:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, when I get wikistress, I forget about the fate of the Titanic and policy-wonkery, and do some 'manual labour'. I've happily spent time just going through and checking refs to help the FA-Team at Coffee; yesterday, I spent hours at Wikisource, just turning an OCR version of a page into text. It's very, very tiny in the scheme of things, but there's still a sense of satisfaction. I can't guarantee it would work for you, but why not give it a go? Best --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur - have a look at what I have been doing. Furthermore, when one moves away from trench warfare, alot of editors with whom I have clashed heads become alot more reasonable (or maybe it is me... :)) and collaborative. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting abstract: [18]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." [my emphasis] Hesperian13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
On 17 February, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article R2C2, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Either you forgot about it, or you're very generous on time, but I finally noticed it (when I'm imperatively away you should generally e-mail me :) ) and am working on it.
Me, I'm pretty laid back with these things generally and happy to cut a bit of slack. Have at it and I'll check how you go. I generally rty to give articles a bit of a shove towards FAC as I go. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List
Hello ;) I was wondering, can you help me make that "lifetime list" for me? I would but I don;t really know where to star or what it sould look like or even what to inculde in it! I'm going to sleep now so I won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Thanks for the help!--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk02:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 unk[n]own 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've done little on this recently, so I'm not too fussed about taking it to GAN myself. I will if nobody else wants to take it on, but I have other priorities like getting Delichon to FA, so that the GT can become an FT, and I'm interested in tweaking Great Tit (!) so Puffin may have to wait a while Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is *the* book that woke professional web designers up to what is now seen as the modern philosophy of web design. Pretty much all the design philosophy books since have acknowledged this. Andy Clarke'sbad link; a footballerTranscending CSS (sigh; Amazon) is the next iteration of this approach (and Molly co-authored this one, too).
It is arguable that the site it is about — www.csszengarden.com — is what was so influential, but the book is what explained it all to many.
An example; this site has 'skins' that change the look of things. This is done by switching the CSS used; the site spits the same code. Look at the main link I gave in the above paragraph and then see these:
(019 is intended to scroll horizontally; 028 is an homage to this classic; 069 uses a ragged border around the viewport and note Buddha along the leftright and the browser icons on the cliff face)
The markup in each of the above is identical, yet the designs are totally different (and note that there are hundreds of great designs and a thousand others). They simply invoke a different style sheet that in turn pulls-in different imagery. If you view source on any of those pages, you will see the exact same markup. All modern sites are now doing this, but this site was the one that drove a stake in the ground and said: "See? Build the web this way." And we did. Amongst web designers, this is the holy bible. There are thousands of books that are basically techie books about nuts and bolts, but there are few that moved the whole industry to a new methodology.
I'd not ever looked at that one. In the general sense, yes, this is compatible with teh wiki. We're already doing it; go visit preferences and pick another skin. We have fairly boring alt stylesheets. The thing I would do with enhanced access would be stuff like this. See:
Ignore the text; it's just some list that was handy. Note that it's an ordered-list with '#' at the beginning of each line, yet the list is done with Roman numerals. That page has a div-element wrapped around the content, but that's just a specific method of being able to target the list; there are others that would allow less html-snot in the wiki-text. It's not rocket-science; the code to allow the roman numerals on Wikisource is:
div.divRomanOL ol
{
list-style-type: upper-roman;
}
div.divRomanOL-lower ol
{
list-style-type: lower-roman;
}
(the second is for lowercase roman and there are others for things like Alpha, Greek…)
You're used to things like class="wikitable"; my example above is done with class="divRomanOL". Where do things like "wikitable" come from? CSS. There are a lot of things that could be done to MediaWiki:Common.css and the others, like main.css, which could use work (that's not in the MediaWiki namespace as mere admins are not allowed to edit it). Cheers, Jack Merridew02:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating - I imagine doing some skin for Illuminated Letters, so the default for the first letter of any paragraph defaults to an Illuminated Letter alphabet - that'd be cool....Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fahrner Image Replacement, which is used extensively on www.csszengarden.com. For wiki use, I doubt it would be a skin (but I suppose it could be). Would you really want this on everything? For some articles, though, a graphic could replace the initial character. One way would be a template, say {{IllChar}};). {{IllChar|A|}} would ditch the 'A' and replace it with an image out of some 16th century manuscript. using the same techniques as the drop-cap templates, only plus a background image. An aside; read My Name Is Red, by Orhan Pamuk.
See s:Page:The Marriage of Heaven and Hell - copy D.djvu/2 and note the "¶", which is a character in my quotes but are images of a character on the Wikisource page. This is an editing aid, it just indicates where the true paragraphs are. It is implemented with just a few lines of CSS that target paragraphs in the ws:Page namespace. The point is that everything gets its appearance from CSS.
And our book, above, influenced the entire web to reincarnate itself as CSS-based. Five years ago, browsers didn't support CSS well, and designers didn't get it, anyway. This has all changed; even Microsoft's balky browser now supports most CSS. There's even a new pseudo-attribute for CSS selectors first-letter that would be very useful for the trick you're talking of (this is one thing MS still has rather wrong). Cheers, Jack Merridew06:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I found this, but it's more about the site and CSS:
I have been working on expanding it. I added a medicinal section and I found out that the mushroom was in Guinness World Records 2009. Joe Chill (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD
Hi, thanks for your insights to my question to you at CSD. I'm going to move the location of the discussion, for reasons I just explained at Coren's talk page, and I'll continue the discussion after that. I just felt I should leave you and Coren notes to explain why I'm moving it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding clutter
You said at the ongoing RfC on the CDA proposal: "Okay, is arbcom able to judge on 'non-brightline' cases? Yes I believe so and I'd say that to me it seemed easier to review and desysop an admin than ban an editor for a significant hsitory of -just-under-the-radar behaviour."
I say that the issue isn't just banning but also blocking. I have not forgotten, nor will I ever forget, being blocked for using the word "sycophantic". The administrator who judged that to be a "personal attack" is still active, which I find deeply objectionable on many different levels. There is no realistic way to rein in the marginally incompetent administrators, no matter how many times the deception is repeated that current processes are adequate. --MalleusFatuorum03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On February 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Green Pygmy Goose, 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.
What a nice little duck! Strange that there's no mention of why this is called a pygmy goose when it's quite clearly a duck. As the the saying doesn't go: if it doesn't look like a goose, doesn't swim like a goose and doesn't honk like a goose, then perhaps it could be a duck? Any clarification on this? Talking of which, the main article goose could probably do with a bit of work if any WikiProject Birders fancy a stab!Mind you this is a recommendation coming from a guy who hasn't got around to disentangling the athletics and track and field concepts yet! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics!00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. 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; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where to?
Any thoughts on where to go with Banksia next? I was thinking of banging my head against Banksia coccinea for a while. Want to get involved in that? Other ideas: I still have an Isostylis FT in my sights, and it is high time we nailed one of the Prostratae. Hesperian11:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been expanding Banksia laevigata subsp. laevigata to get to a 5x expansion for DYK as I thought the tennis ball name was funny. My grafted one is growing slowly too :) Coccinea sounds good too - actually that one sounds like a good FA one, lots of cut flower industry, waite cultivars, difficulty in growing and unusual taxonomic history to boot. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've recently submitted the Christ myth theory article for peer review. Given your interests listed on the PR volunteers page and your experience, I think your comments could be very helpful here. Thank you. Eugene (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffing up of birds
Hi there- I know you know your birds, and we have a strange situation on a FPC- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Eclectus roratus.jpg. The image in question shows the species in a particularly fluffy state, and one user noted that their pet of the same species does the same thing- basically, do we have an article anywhere on this behaviour? Myself and another user feel that this image would be an excellent illustration, but we are not overly keen on supporting the image in its current usage. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
High-importance edible species... whaddya say about a GA and FA? Quite a bit of info available, and I have the Hesler and Smith (1982) Lactarius monograph. I will start expanding soon. Sasata (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Have eaten these a few times (very plentiful under introduced pines around Sydney, and contributed a few photos. Does the 1982 work clarify the similar species? Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The monograph has descriptions for 5 variants. Between that, the scientific literature, and another recent work that I will now be able to justify buying, I think we'll be able to sort it all out. Sasata (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.
Request to WP:AN
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:
I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").
Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber. you may remember me from my involvement with several NZ bird articles such as Huia, Whitehead and Kakapo a few years back.
I don´t think I ended up contributing when Huia was being checked over for GA status. I apologize, i have a had a few health troubles in the past few years and that combined with full time work really kept me away from wikipedia for a long time. I am travelling in south america right now but return to NZ in a month and am already itching to rip into some kiwi avifauna articles. this morning i actually dreamt about getting kakariki to FA, haha, so you can see that even my subconscious is super keen for me to become an active wikipedian once more. I have noticed the excellent work done on a number of australian fairy wren articles and have subsequently determined (trolling through the histories) that you are the main culprit behind their improvement. I have learnt that I cannot make promises as to what I will do on wikipedia because things don´t always go as planned and life can throw up unexpected obstacles at random.. but what I will say is that i would ´´´like´´´ to push several NZ bird articles towards FA and ¨go for gold¨¨ as you suggested a couple of years back. I am looking for someone with lots of experience in this sort of area to give me advice as I set about my informative quest. You seem like an ideal candidate. It would just involve me asking the odd question from time to time here on your discussion page.. does this sound ok to you?
(ec on me own feckin' talk page) Yeah, eight of them. I don't fancy 24 hours on a plane with a lively 2 year old (though we might have to at some stage this year) - Australia is so goddamn far from anywhere....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found this pragmatic statement interesting. I'd say there's absolutely no reason why we should need mass deletion here. The bare-bones of a consensus are already threshed out. BLPPROD should gives us a way of preventing new BLPs being kept for too long without sourcing, and we review the backlog in three months to see if the current clear up is still going apace, with a target of ensuring it is cleared in 12 months. Preferably this can be done without any deletions whatsoever. I'd certainly be happy to support your idea of a list of articles deleted.
I'm wondering whether you'd be willing to stick your nose into the progress so far. We need pragmatic inclusionists at this point, who want [are willing] to see an agreement of something like the above. The problem at the moment is we've got people who are not accepting the directions things are headed, and (on the other hand) people like me, whose involvement is probably winding them up. I'd be willing to step away, if I felt someone like yourself might help see the thing through. When the debate goes on too long, the moderates lose interest and the dead horses start getting flogged. The biggest danger here is inertia again. Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop if you are interested.--Scott Mac (Doc)01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that :). I've put a notice on the talk page about the last couple - please let me know there if you'd like me to remove them if sources aren't found. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. I did some clean-up on it in the past two months but given the events of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Meckiff/archive1. I'm not sure whether I'll improve the article with my edits and I'm not noticiing any change in my writing style. Given that Brianboulton did the PR, and has never been shy of stopping any cricket FAC (since 2009 every cricket writer who submitted to FAC has gotten at least one oppose from him), I'm not sure why he wouldn't have bothered to bite if he felt it necessary. Still, the guys at WP:CRIC never pipe up on FACs anymore for whatever reason. BB knows a lot about English cricket content as well and isn't afraid of commenting on a lot of the facts either, so I was tempted to just vote support....Anyway, it's up to you to push WP:AUS to 200 by Anzac Day, everything seems to have stalled at WP:AWNB/AYellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me which ones specifically you're interested in? Also, it looks like your IP keeps changing - are you the same person as above? If you make an account, it can help orientate me as who I am talking to. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If circumstances change and other editors take an interest in it then maybe. Unfortunately it was one where vandalism from different IPs happened and went unreverted, until I had to go back and clean up. Given that, this is a less labour-intensive way of ensuring vandalism does not remain. If someone wishes to edit the article and asks me on the talkpage, I'll be happy to oblige. Are you interested in editing the article yourself? Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When asked about your protections, you sometimes raise points that do not seem to be relevant to our protection policy and guidelines. Example of irrelevant points are:
Whether the article is referenced or not
Whether the person requesting unprotection has an account
Why they don't create an account
Whether they want to edit that article
Whether they are going to watch that article
Whether they ask nicely - although I agree that requests should always be polite
I think we should focus more on other aspects of the protection being reviewed. Aspects that, in my opinion, are much more relevant to the above-referenced policy. For example:
How many disruptive edits from non-auto-confirmed were there in the recent past of the article?
Were these episodes "heavy and persistent"? To get an idea of what other admins mean by this, I invite you to take a look at WP:RFP and study which requests are being granted (and with what duration), and which were denied because there is "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection".
Is the article a BLP?
Could the disrupting editors have been warned/blocked instead?
O-kay then. (a) asking whether you are going to edit the account is not irrelevant, as by editing it it then means you are going to watch it. (b) re asking nicely, i was being somewhat humorous, but on a more serious note, it means I am being responsive. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and in fact I prefer the idea of the time length being irrelevant as long as someone is watching once it is being unprotected, be it after 5 days, 5 months or 5 years, rather than some arbitrary time of, say, 6 months where there is no notification or whatever. (c) there has been a huge amount of discussion about referencing with unreferenced BLPs lately. The take-home message is that vandal edits are alot easier to spot in an article which already contains a substantial proportion of its material as supported by inline referencing. Hence a laxer attitude in protecting is feasible. (d) watching for reversion is critical - two edits by successive IPs often throws vandal-reverters. Hence my asking whether someone is going to watch or not. This is about pragmatism. (e) regarding you - your IP changes - I have no idea who I am talking to. Even a throwaway pseudonym account is more useful. These anonymous comments are thus not accountable to anyone or anything. You come and comment on pages you have no interest in editing but are trying to prove some point or other. If you are not a contributor then what are you trying to accomplish here wrestling with my interpretation of policy? How do I know you are well-intentioned? A few 'thankyous' dotted in your comments don't make up for some openness and accountability. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, I'm happy to remove the protection and watchlist this. Let me know if you're happy with this. (via request at RPP). GedUK13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cas, it's Spawn Man. Been a while I know - how are you doing. Just typing from university and have been here for hours in a storm so was really scraping the barrel on what to keep me from my boredom when I thought of catching up with all my old Wiki-friends. Haven't been to my user-page yet, hopefully it's still there lol. Hope you're well. Read you got into ArbCom, but I saw it didn't work out... You still have my email right? Send me a line sometime. : )
Are you familiar with New South Wales and Australian radio announcers? There are reasons why semiprotection is prudent here. If you are specifically looking to improve the article then I will unprotect. I don't consider a few bluelinks as much of an improvement to the Wave Rock article. You intend doing more? Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, your other points are irrelevant to whether this semi-protection was appropriate or not. If you disagree, please quote from the policy and guidelines what exactly makes you think that they are relevant.
I am simply asking on what grounds this protection was justified, because prima facie it looks like it was not.
I don't think that quizzing me back "guess why?" is a conducive way forward.
As a gesture, I will reply to one of your other questions. You ask, "Why does your IP keep changing?". I am unable to answer this technical question. However, keep in mind that if you are assuming that there is only one person behind the various requests for unprotection, you may be mistaken. 123.218.154.242 (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
