Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:(1) yes, (2) consensus on whether we're arbcom or govcom varies (ie.e dispute resolution vs user conduct review/both/which takes precedence) is still undecided. There are times that we'd accept cases if people requested a case, where we've not sprung one ''de novo'' so to speak (3) the issue here is a complex one in which evidence really needs to be examined systematically before proper decisions can be made - I only glanced at some stuff, and lacking anyone referring it to us didn't look further. ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:(1) yes, (2) consensus on whether we're arbcom or govcom varies (ie.e dispute resolution vs user conduct review/both/which takes precedence) is still undecided. There are times that we'd accept cases if people requested a case, where we've not sprung one ''de novo'' so to speak (3) the issue here is a complex one in which evidence really needs to be examined systematically before proper decisions can be made - I only glanced at some stuff, and lacking anyone referring it to us didn't look further. ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:: Thanks for your answers Casliber, but can you please clarify your answers to 2) and 3), as they are asking whether you as an individual Arb opined for or against particular course of action, rather than on the general role of Arbcom as a group. Thanks ] <sup>]</sup> 09:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:: Thanks for your answers Casliber, but can you please clarify your answers to 2) and 3), as they are asking whether you as an individual Arb opined for or against particular course of action, rather than on the general role of Arbcom as a group. Thanks ] <sup>]</sup> 09:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
::: (2) Had someone requested a case, I would have accepted, given the complexity of it. (3) I deleted the threads from my inbox and have not yet resubscribed to look at the archives. My recall is that I initially thought (or posted) leaning in favour of a ban, but after reading bits and pieces realised I was going to have to do a whole lot of reading myself to figure where I stood. When one can actually wield a banhammer, and one is faced with the prospect of using it, one (well I do anyway) become alot more circumspect if there are grey areas to consider...and there are some here. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
==DYK for Blue Gum Forest, Blue Mountains==
==DYK for Blue Gum Forest, Blue Mountains==
Revision as of 11:38, 2 April 2012
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See
On Agaricus
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικόν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.)
It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go.
As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction."
has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc.
As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato)
Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)
Arianewiki118:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Misplaced Pages. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224
really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Paper
An interesting abstract: . A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." Hesperian13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unkown but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have Betelgeuse "on the radar". I’d be interested in taking the article to "FA status" with you. In reviewing it briefly, I notice that nomenclature is an issue. In fact, pursuant to your feedback on Talk:Pleione (star), I realized that nomenclature is an issue in the design of all star articles. So I decided to invest the time to fully research it. If you have a moment, I’d be interested in your reaction to the ideas put forth. And let me know when you’re ready to start with Betelgeuse. I’m ready when you are.
Sadalsuud (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty psyched to work with you on this. So I already decided to do some cleanup. The Starbox really needed some work. So that's now all up to date with refs included. Also I created a personal sandbox and imported the latest version to completely redesign the article's structure. There is not one single word changed in the article itself — just moved a few blocks of text, added headings and sub-headings, and repositioned some pics. I think it works better. If you have a chance, take a look at the redesign and let me know if you think it works. You can find it at User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox.
Looks cool. I have the Richard Hinkley Allen book and the Kuntzisch book to get the etymology right - I also have a longer oxford dictionary (with magnifying glass). Will pull out books and go from there in the next 24-48 hours. Feel free to tweak and/or add any bits of text you can. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Great! I'll update a few things, copy it over and post a short note on the talk page. I'm not sure about the sub-headings for Observational History, but that section was so big, it needed some structure to it. We can modify the sub-headings as we go along. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I had a few minutes spare now so was doing a bit of copyediting to make the lead a bit more snappy. I will look at all the etymology stuff tonight. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great! I'm going to call it a night. Tomorrow, I'll look at expanding the Visibility section. I just cut and pasted the last two paragraphs from the former "Characteristics" section. It needs to be massaged a bit. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've copied the existing "Visibility" and "Properties" sections to User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox and will focus on just that for the next 48 hours with the idea of transporting a coherent block of text back Betelgeuse in the next few days. Right now I'm doing a lot of reading. There's a lot of information on this star. So I'd like to give myself a couple of days to pull all the elements together. That way, I hope to have both these sections flow properly. Before I do this "block transport", I'll let you know, so you can offer any suggestions.Sadalsuud (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've managed to come up with two new sections that are ready for transport to the main article. You can review them here: at the "New Visibility Section". I put them in context, so you can see what the article looks like. As I indicated a few days ago, I won't make the transfer until you've had a chance to review first. Let me know what you think.
My main concern is the ESA copyrighted information at the bottom of the Visibility section. Let me know if that is handled appropriately. There is still much more work to do. I have quite a few more sections planned, but decided to at least get these two ready for prime time. If you think they work, I can copy them over later today. I await your thoughts.Sadalsuud (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks great - I was just thinking something along these lines about how to find it and our theories on how far it is have evolved over the years. Stick it in and we can continue copyeidting from there. I am not sure which bit is copyrighted - can you highlight? Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the very last paragraph in the The enigma sub-section — right under the VLA satellite dish picture. I introduce the copyrighted info with these words: "According to the information provided on ESA's website...." Just click HERE! and you'll see it there in bold as well. What follows is almost verbatim (with a few tweeks), then as you'll notice there's the ref #36 which, if you click on it, takes you to the Reference section where you can click on the web-link called "Gaia overview", which of course takes you directly to the ESA source material.
I thought about simply paraphrasing the essence of the ESA information, that way avoiding any copyright infringement. But frankly, it was so well written and informative that I thought it would be a more honorable gesture to copy it verbatim and provide the reference.
What do you think? Should I rewrite this section "in my own words"?
Just so you have a little context, what I love about this sub-section "The enigma" is I noticed with every single article I read on the internet all these conflicting quotes on Betelgeuse. My first reaction was "That's bizarre! Everybody's got a different story to tell" It was at that point that I really saw an opportunity to do a great job and explain why all the information on Betelgeuse is so conflicted. The essence is that we still haven't quite figured out how far Betelgeuse is. So this section from ESA is a perfect conclusion to the section. The Enigma section starts with the distance estimate of 56 parsecs in 1920, does a fair job of explaining what has happened in the interim and then concludes with "What's next". So that's why I definitely want the ESA information in there. It pulls all the pieces together for the reader.
In any event, I'm glad you liked it. I'm pretty happy with it myself, although it would be great if we can get an astronomer like RJHall to make sure everything works. As I see it, I'm a pretty good "guinea pig" for this sort of thing, as I try to understand the subject form the layman's perspective. Having an astronomer looking over my shoulder wouldn't hurt.
One last thing. I got your note... All systems go... I'll be cutting and pasting into the main article shortly. As each new section matures, I'll let you know. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I too love actually spelling out who says what and why rather than just presenting facts as facts. There are similar issues in taxonomy, botany etc. and very often the answer is just not so clear cut. I will look at the copyrighted material in a minute. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
New Visibility sub-section
Hi Calisber. I've got a new section for you to look at. To be honest it's not quite finished. But given my commitment to have something ready within a day or two, I've produced a "condensed" version for prime time. There are two more additional paragraphs that I am still working on. I will try to include them soon.
Like last time, I have imported the most recent version of Betelgeuse into my User page so you can see the new section in context. It can be found by clicking: HERE!. That will take you to a new Visibility sub-section which I've entitled "Rhytmic dance" — an effective metaphor, I think, for the star's oscillating character. Consistent with comments made a few weeks ago at Talk:Pleione (star), I'm using standardized terminology for "major headings" and descriptive terminology for "sub-headings". I think it works. Let me know your thoughts.
If you wish to see the other sub-sections I'm working on, you can click: Here!. You will notice an extensive Contents Box and think I've possibly gone mad! No need for alarm however. I just found that I needed to bring some organization to the drafting of these sections, so I'm using the Contents Box as a kind of outline tool. That way, when I read an article, I have an idea where the new information fits, I can cut and paste for future editing, and then come back to it later. I hope you find this Contents Box helpful in understanding how I'm trying to tackle this project. If you have any idea as to how it can be improved, let me know.
The two additional paragraphs I'm working on for Rhythmic Dance you will find by clicking on the Rhythmic dance sub-section. I gave them an olive colored font, so they stand out.
The scope of this project has turned out to be far more than I ever imagined. There is so much information to absorb — kind of like putting together a giant jig-saw puzzle with 10,000 pieces. What I'm finding is you can't just work on one section at a time, as every piece is interconnected, and you need to have a sense as to where all the pieces fit. In any event, you'll see how each section is coming along. Some sections are more advanced than others.
I'm enjoying the challenge of it. I believe the goal of completing the different sub-sections by mid-August is still achievable. Let me know if you think the condensed version is ready to be transported over to the main article. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting - so the version you want to import is the condensed one above the olive text? Looks good - I find it easier to work with when I see it in the article, so bring it in. I think the olive bit is worth bringing in sooner rather than later and working from there. The prose can probably be tightened a bit - that will be easier to acheive once read as a whole. My approach is generally get all the content in first, then do the copyedit. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I just imported it and refined it further. Click HERE! for the latest. I actually included 4 out of the 6 paragraphs that I'm contemplating. The extra 2 paragraphs I will add in the next week or so as I gather more information. This first import holds together pretty well by itself, I think, and may not need the extra paragraphs. The extra information will simply discuss additional variability issues like periodicity. It's always a judgement call as to what constitutes "too much information". We'll see. What makes Betelgeuse so challenging is there is a lot of conflicting information out there — just like all the conflicting information I saw regarding distance. My intent is to at least cover the different findings and put them into perspective. Sadalsuud (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Calisber. In notice you've been busy the last few days. When you have a moment and have been able to review the "chunks" enumerated above, your thoughts on what to do here would be really helpful. Click HERE to see comments. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Observations on Import #3
I finally got most of those "chucks" cleaned up over the weekend and, pursuant to your suggestions imported them into the main article. Also, I've posted some observations related thereto for your insight and comment. When you have a moment, click HERE to see comments. To see recent changes, simply go to the Betelgeuse article. I look forward to your thoughts and any ideas you have for GA review submission.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Reconsidering strategy
Hi Casliber. When you have a chance, I've posted some recent thoughts on the future direction of the Betelgeuse article, and would value your insights. Click HERE to see comments.----Sadalsuud (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
System launch + GAN?
Hi Casliber. The "Star system" section is close to complete. Just needs a few refs and xrefs, I think. Click HERE to review and post any comments or concerns. Thanks again for your focused attention. --Sadalsuud (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reworked the Angular anomalies section to create a more balanced argument. When you have a chance, please review HERE and let me know your thoughts.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. When you have a chance, your insights on a few other issues would be helpful. You can find them HERE.--24.203.198.172 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Casliber. I think this section is finally done. Though it's a bit of a rush job, I think it will stand up. Click HERE to see comments and get to the latest version in the sandbox. Thanks again for your on-going support of this project. I'm pooped! Fortunately, we're almost there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Concerns at the crossroads
Getting close to the finish line. There are a couple of concerns, however. When you have a moment, can you review comments HERE? Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Pleione GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to say that I've had to divert my attention to the Pleione article, as you probably guessed. I noticed your contributions, and in fact, provided some xrefs, which I believe are accurate. I hope to have all the GA improvements done by Saturday. If you have a chance to give it a quick lookover in a few days, that would be great. This weekend, I'll try to get the "Organizational history" section up to standard, get your thoughts, and then propose the article for GA review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if you noticed, but we got GA status on Pleione. Now I can come back to the Betelgeuse article in earnest. There's only a few minor edits needed after which I'll finally submit the article for GA review. The only missing element is a discussion of stellar mass. When mass was originally addressed back in July, I simply referenced Jim Kaler, though now I recognize the conversation to be more complex. Once addressed in earnest, it will clear up any confusion from the Fate section which quotes a different metric. Bottom line? Hope to get all this done in a few days and submit. Any last thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been pretty busy IRL lately. I am more than happy to let you take the dirver's seat WRT mass as you have a handle on all the mass calculations - will try to follow with copyediting ideas and/or observations and boring format fixes. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Understood. With the summer now behind us in Canada, I too have become very busy with work and other stuff. We'll at least get this to GA soon and then we can plan from there. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Organizational history upgrade
I've now turned my attention back to Betelgeuse and decided to post a new section on the talk page Major surgery on Observational history section?. Given that this section was the focus of early contributions, I have intentionally avoided editing "other people's work", focusing as you know on adding new sections. But as I point out, the job needs to be done for various reasons and I thought it would be useful to put everyone on notice and invite comments. The last thing I want to do is create an edit war. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've gotten started. Check out Herschel's discovery section for recent edits. As I point out on the Talk page, I'm trying to keep most of the early contributions while giving the whole section a "historical" focus. I think it works. Your insights however would be useful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Finally nominated for GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to let you know that Betelgeuse has finally been nominated for GA review. Updated observations HERE! Thanks again for your on-going participation in this process.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
GA corrections complete?
I noticed you were able to make a few corrections pursuant to the GA Review. The review was clearly quite favorable. I made a few other changes and responded. Let me know if you see anything missing. You can see my comments Here!. Thanks again. We're finally getting there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Misplaced Pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Data requested yonks ago, lately retrieved with many apologies for delays from the wikiwankingwonk.
Couldn't for the effing life of me find that vol which contained the info on star names in Japanese dialect you asked about until I stumbled across it this morning while cleaning up where my disrespectful cat cocked its leg, on a pile of TLS's near my desk. I tremble to add these details because, with my rotten reputation as someone who is always looking for a political angle, it ain't going to help that Obama must be mentioned.
In Japanese dialects Betelgeuse or α Orionis is configured with Rigel β Orionis as the opposite sides of Orion's Belt
Thus, in the dialect of the coastal village of Obama in Fukui prefecture, the two were called wakiboshi or 'sidestars' because they lie on either side of the belt. In the dialect of Ikishima (壱岐島) island in Nagasaki Prefecture, the pair were known as ēte-boshi (相手星, standard Japanese = aiteboshi or ‘opposing stars’) in the phrase kanatsuki no ēteboshi. Here kanatsuki is equivalent to karatsuki, and thus the phrase meant the 'opposing stars of the Belt of Orion'. The same idiom existed in Wajima (輪島) dialect further north in Ishikawa Prefecture.
In 1950, a quite distinctive and archaic dialect term for the two stars was retrieved from the dialect of Yokokura village (横蔵村) in the Ibi district of Gifu Prefecture. There Betelgeuse and Rigel were denominated respectively by two famous clan names. The two clans were the Taira, otherwise known as the Heike, and the Minamoto, or Genji. These two clans conducted an epic struggle to wrest control over Japan during the historic Genpei war of the early medieval period, a devastating conflict that was memorialized in the The Tale of the Heike, an early masterpiece of Japanese literature. The crest of the Taira is red (揚羽蝶/Ageha-chō or 'swallowtail butterfly'). The crest of the Minamoto is gentian blue (笹竜胆/sasa-rindō, or 'bamboo gentian'). Thus, in Yokokura, the red supergiant Betelgeuse was called Heike-boshi (平家星, the Heike star) and the blue supergiant Rigel the Genji-boshi (源氏星, the Minamoto or Genji star), corresponding to the the respective colours of the two stars. The reference is Nojiri Hōei,Nihon no hoshi, Chūkō Bunko, Tokyo 1976 pp.243-245. Nishidunny aka Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)This is really intresting!
He's a pretty good speaker. I created a stub about the book, which is probably worth getting to DYK, although I'm not sure I have the time to expand it enough this weekend. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I can follow it up next time I'm at the library, but I thought you might know off the top of your head. It seems like a competent effort and I don't want to scare them off. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Re the caps and title case, I asked Aleandr and he says I should ask you about this. I am considering launching a new information poll at WT:TITLE, to get a better idea of where people stand on the changes that Born2cycle has proposed. I have drafted a poll in my user subpage at User:Dicklyon/Recognizability poll. I'd like to post this to WT:TITLE soon, if you think it won't be disruptive to the ongoing process. It might even solicit some opinions that people can cite in evidence. Does that seem like an OK idea? Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Casliber I think your words are being used out of context, and perhaps you should look in detail at the discussions at WP:AT which have since last November discussing the use of capitals obliquely.
The question has repeatedly raised by Tony1 etc at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles titles should include more wording to make it clear to a reader what the topic is about. But that raises lots of questions about Misplaced Pages:AT#Precision and disambiguation, for which there has been a broad consensus for many years. During these discussions it became clear that there had been an edit to WP:AT last year that had been a simplification of the words that unintentionally had had changed the meaning of "Recognizability". It was proposed that this change be reverted. There is a detailed account of this at User:Born2cycle/DearElen.
There have been two polls on this specific point. The first one had a clear consensus and the second one was 17 in favour with no dissent for near identical wording: "Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic?"
Poll 1 (21 December 2011) consensus that would be confirmed in poll 2 -- BTW notice who initiated poll 1 and that it was initiated although there was the same consensus emerging in the previous section.
Now your here is being used to justify another poll that does not include the wording that has clearly emerged as the consensus wording (and if I were not assuming good faith would say that it seems to be a repeat of the tactic used when poll 1 was launched). I have suggested that this most recent poll is collapsed as we clearly do not need another one and there is a perfectly good summary at User:Born2cycle/DearElen, and your comment is being used to justify continuing with the poll (hence I why I write I think that your words are begin taken out of context). -- PBS (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
All of the following species are worth 2x points; let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating in one or more for bonus points in a later round. Sasata (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha - thank heavens for European mushrooms :))) - yeah, I'd like to buff Clitocybe nuda (which was one of the yummiest mushrooms I've eaten), and we really should be improving the other mass-eaten edibles. Also I buffed the sickener for DYK so would be good to finish the job....Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll move Clitocybe nuda and Russula emetica closer to the top of "the list". I agree the popular edibles would be good to do as well, but they're hard ... we'll see how free time & motivation plays out over the next few months. Sasata (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Core Contest
Is this still going on? I was looking into pulling together a team from WikiProject Connecticut on working on the project's namesake article, but I'm not seeing much activity and it's not clear how to sign up. –Grondemar01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes! No-one signs as such at the beginning, but submits articles with diffs at the end of the three week period (and yes, teams are allowed....after all we are promoting collaborative editing) I must tell the signpost....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Casliber. I was just reading through Sue's talk page and saw reference to this contest. It sounds pretty exciting. I appreciate you putting the time and energy into it. I might try to join in in spirit - improve a core or article or two - in volunteer mode, although I wouldn't feel right participating officially. :) I just wanted to stop by and thank you for getting this going. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you think this is going to go? I'd thought I'd try to do a page, but am not seeing anyone else there. Does the entry need to be entered now, or at the end? Btw - you're page is formatting very strangely for me - I have to scroll way to the right to click to edit. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. For some reason I thought I had to do something. This is better - with work stacked up and all, I might not get much done, so less stress. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Pakistan FAC
Hi, I was advised by one of the reviewers to ask active FAC editors to review the Pakistan article's FAC at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. It has been out for nine days, the problems mentioned in the start were fixed but there have been no further comments. There was a question about a dispute that occurred after the nomination, I've explained about it on the FAC page that there's been no consensus for it on the talk page and the current version is as of consensus. Please take a look at the article and drop your review comments and/or vote. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure we're fixing those issues.. I think there are 3 weeks before FACs with no support votes get archived? So that's why asking users to check out and drop !votes. Hope fully Nick-D might change his after his objections are fixed (which are mostly done). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:V mediation step two
Hello, and thanks again for taking part in the MedCab mediation about Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. I noticed that you haven't yet submitted a draft of the lede as I outlined in the instructions for step two, so I am just sending this message as a reminder. The deadline was 10:00 am (UTC) on Sunday, March 11, but as there are still eight drafts left to come in I am extending this by a day, to 10:00 am (UTC) on Monday, March 12. To recap, I would like you to draft your ideal version of the lead to the policy and post it on the mediation page, without any commentary. You can find the full instructions at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Step two. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I would especially appreciate you getting in touch if you may have difficulty meeting the new deadline. Best wishes — Mr. Stradivarius13:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello again Casliber, this is to let you know that I am extending the deadline by another day, to 10:00 am (UTC) on Tuesday, March 13. This time, I'm going to go ahead without people who don't submit a draft before the deadline. Don't worry, though - If I progress without you, then it doesn't mean that I'm kicking you out, it just means that you will have to catch up when you are ready to participate again. Also, if you let me know that you will have problems submitting things on time, then I may be able to make concessions for you, so I would be grateful if you could do that rather than just leaving it until the deadline. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius13:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. How long will the DYL remian on main page, and where might I access a version of the main page containing it, once the DYK rotates off? Schmidt,08:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Cas, I took the liberty of changing the "deadline" times to avoid chaos (lessons from ACE). And Sydney is 11, not 10 hours ahead of UTC, I think. Cheers. Tony(talk)14:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a decent article but it just needs a little tweeking. It would be a shame if it was delisted. It's well sourced, contains no original research. It's broad in its coverage, it's neutral and unbiased. Images are relevant to the topic and all are tagged with proper licenses. The prose is the biggest issue and I believe a little group effort put in and we'll have this article in shape in no time. There are some other issues with the article but nothing that can't be corrected or re-written. I left this message in the reassessment page: Talk:Black_mamba/GA2. Just thought I'd get somebody's attention because the article seems to have been ignored. Cheers! RedGKStalkcontribs. 00:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Casliber, I'm about to block this editor indefinitely for socking. It's User:Sebastian80, the compulsive semi-herpetologist who can't say goodbye to the GA section. Anytime a new editor starts doing GAs there's cause for suspicion. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an excellent idea. If you get good results I am sure I can dig up some funding for repeat rounds. The scholarship in medicine that we at Wikimedia Canada offered did was unfortunately not a success.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for reviving this! I helped Danny out a bit with the last one - I think it's an excellent initiative. Sadly I'm too busy IRL to contribute, but good luck! Walkerma (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Cas, thanks for everything you do for our Featured Articles process. Your reviews are always timely and helpful, to say nothing of the high quality content you produce as an editor. Laser brain(talk)14:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Small edit request?
Hey Cas, as the WP:CIV page is still locked, would you be so kind as to insert three words for me, in the second para of the lede? (we know there's already consensus for this).
"It applies to all editors and all interaction on Misplaced Pages"
Just to say that I have had a look at your final point at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive2 regarding the foreign relations, and expanded the paragraph a bit with references to France and Uganda. This part actually proved harder than I thought it would as there is not a vast amount of published literature, and I was worried that it would end up sounding like a series of bullet points if I tried to detail the histories of relations with every country. Would be interested to hear your views now, anyway. I'm reasonably hopeful at the moment that the FAC might be successful as all other points raised seem to be satisfactorily resolved now. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the rare wild life you cover, making this project more beautiful and showing that protection of precious lfe is needed. You won my heart placing daisies on the Main page, - my favourite flowers! Did you know that the section of treasured entries on my talk is titled Flowers? Did you know that several birds were recently translated to Swedish, including the Blue-winged Pitta and the last finch? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I like approval in any language (and Spanish goes well with Pitta) for the determination linked above: "I reflected rejected and goodwill, and start here to change the place, to make you consider to return." (which has not happened - the return I mean, to be precise, and probably will not happen, quote: "returning under that account would probably not be a pleasant experience") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi I just spotted you had revived this but appears too late. I proposed to Jimbo and the foundation a while back to introduce a Core Contest for Article of the Month every month funded by the foundation. the core contest motivated us to slog our guts out to produce whopping articles like Deforestation in Brazil, Middle Ages etc. I think if it was well advertised it would lure in new contributors and also get more of the regulars working on the most important articles. I see you have Sue Gardner on board as a judge, but is the current contest funded by Wikimedia Australia or something or the main foundation? Because its something I'm very interested in helping promoting and think it would be of great benefit to article growth and improvement. But it has to be well advertised!♦ Dr. Blofeld09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah well, see here - it was supposed to run in Jan but...well you can see. Anyway, I guffed by not getting something in the signpost. This was a sort of "suck it and see what happens" sorta thing. Once the deadline has passed, we'll have a look at what got improved and stuff and have a think methinks....Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou so much for doing that. I think Amazon vouchers as a prize would be the most value though as editors can buy books to use as a sources and feed back into the project. The core articles of course are priority but I was also thinking about a similar DYK of the Month scheme to try to attract new editors and more articles! Yes, the thing is is advertising. We need to publicize it as much as possible. The fact I wasn't even aware of it says something.. I would say if we advertised it in a banner at the top of pages like a "Fancy winning $xxx of Amazon vouchers? Then enter our monthly Core Contest competition and have a go at writing! I think we need something catchy to reel in new editors.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been undecided about how much to promote the reward thing....but we'll see how it goes anyway...my thinking was different themes at different times, so Women's article...systemic bias etc. as ideas for other ones. Casliber (talk·contribs) 18:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The next collaborations will be posted on May 1, 2012. (Contribute here!)
Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.
AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.
As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.
AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.
In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:
Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?
These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.
The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
(1) yes, (2) consensus on whether we're arbcom or govcom varies (ie.e dispute resolution vs user conduct review/both/which takes precedence) is still undecided. There are times that we'd accept cases if people requested a case, where we've not sprung one de novo so to speak (3) the issue here is a complex one in which evidence really needs to be examined systematically before proper decisions can be made - I only glanced at some stuff, and lacking anyone referring it to us didn't look further. Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers Casliber, but can you please clarify your answers to 2) and 3), as they are asking whether you as an individual Arb opined for or against particular course of action, rather than on the general role of Arbcom as a group. Thanks Russavia09:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
(2) Had someone requested a case, I would have accepted, given the complexity of it. (3) I deleted the threads from my inbox and have not yet resubscribed to look at the archives. My recall is that I initially thought (or posted) leaning in favour of a ban, but after reading bits and pieces realised I was going to have to do a whole lot of reading myself to figure where I stood. When one can actually wield a banhammer, and one is faced with the prospect of using it, one (well I do anyway) become alot more circumspect if there are grey areas to consider...and there are some here. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}