Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article, which you speedied some time ago, is currently listed at ]. I normally wouldn't bother you about it since there's been an intervening AFD, but you're mentioned at the DRV by name. —] 10:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This article, which you speedied some time ago, is currently listed at ]. I normally wouldn't bother you about it since there's been an intervening AFD, but you're mentioned at the DRV by name. —] 10:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I emailed a Dr. of the Astronomy Department at Berkeley University California to review the Lion constellation image that I linked to. And he emailed me regarding the image: " lion looks much more interesting than the versions of Leo that are usually drawn." All stars below the visual magnitude of 6 have been deleted. This is a Dr. of Astronomy who confirmed that the image is interesting. He calls it "more interesting then the versions of Leo that are usually drawn". So as a Dr. of Astronomy he must know the H.A. Rey Lion which is as much as the image I linked to a possible connection of the stars in the Leo Constellation. A doctor of Astronomy calls my connection of the stars in Leo "more interesting then the other visualisations". And H.A. Rey with a less interesting connection of the stars in Leo is on Misplaced Pages. So why not the visualisation I link to. A Dr. of Astronomy at Berkely University Astronomy Department. What else can one bring to have you accept that it is a work of scientific worth. I think one can really trust the knowledge and overview over astromical topics of the Dr.'s of Berkeley University Astronomy Department. Please don't be so stubborn and withhold this knowledge from Misplaced Pages and Humanity. Please see that if a Dr. of Astronomy from a University with renown calls it the most interesting visualisatiion of the subject that he has seen then it is ok to give it out to the public. Since you protected the page please put my link back in. I want people to be able to see this. and I don't want you to withhold it for what I think are dubious reasons (Maybe that the topic of the website is on is spirituality. Spirituality has always been a science in my eyes. As finding ways of how to come to higher insights is one of the eldest theorie building in human culture). This is all I can put in to this discussion. A Dr. from Berkely University Astronomy Department calls it the most interesting visualization of the Lion Constellation he has ever seen. I think this is by far enough to appear on Misplaced Pages as long as visualisations are presented on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:4BCD:1854:B852:1E36:8D07:B51E (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2016 (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.
References
Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork – an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment – he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
I 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)
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid – how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata – I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles – you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73–75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1–2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study – any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unkown but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Misplaced Pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI
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)
Hi Casliber – thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm
Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Misplaced Pages entry become more obvious.
The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010.
This is not acceptable.
I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given – since 1980 or so – and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen.
What do others think? The Misplaced Pages entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.
It's easier than stars as there is less hardcore physics involved, but trickier as you have to make the material not "listy", which it sort of is by very nature. Smaller constellations are easier as there is less material to list generally. Star guide books, alot of which are on google, are good for general overview, how to find things, what's next to what etc. but alot of their factual info (distance/luminosity) is outdated. I have even suspected this in newer reprints/editions where new material is coming out. SIMBAD is a godsend and makes finding other material easy. I was using it as a ref itself but probably better to use the refs it cites. Overall I find astronomy articles more challenging than biology ones – trickeir to make engaging. We can collaborate on CrB if you like as I did plan on taking it All the Way at some point and then having it as a double mainpage with CrA. Collaborating is good as it makes for less work in some ways – each of us can copyeidt the other etc. 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Just popping in during some of the rare free time I have at the moment to say that the hardest part of the constellation articles is figuring out exactly what objects to write about, since there is generally quite a bit of discretion in whether or not something should be in the article. I generally try to write about all stars brighter than magnitude 5.0, and the most-studied astronomical objects within the constellation, as well as a few other things such as extremes (e.g. R136a1) and unusual objects. One tip to find notable stars, I've found, is this SIMBAD query, which lists all Bayer, Flamsteed, and variable stars in each constellation by number of refs. Of course further research is necessary for other stars without said designations, but it's a good start. I would help, but I don't anticipate having much free time at all until at least December. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup the small size was part of the reason I chose CrB (it's not the only reason though :-P). I'm cool with a collaboration. ST11's suggestions, as always, make a lot of sense. Going to read through some constellation FAs to get an idea of what to write – not least CrA... Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Double sharp, I have started buffing with this one. Just arting with the brighter stars – SIMBAD is best place to start and then chasing refs. Not sure how much you know about them (figuring distance from parallax etc...) so just ask away..or start on deep sky objects and I'll continue with stars (??) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Carcinoma in situ
The carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I have phrased it badly above, but you seem to have understood me. I should have said that you did not support my use of "invasive cancer" and you preferred the use of "cancer" instead. Actually, to me, it is not as simple as just inserting the word "invasive". Back then, I saw a better phrase in a reference and I thought about using it, because I thought that it would be accurate, readable, and I hoped keep everyone happy; however, the situation become unnecessarily tense and I felt like I was walking on eggs (and you know what that means). I did not get around to developing the article any further nor mentioning the "magical" phrase. I will see if I can find the phrase again. I recall that the solution was to use a short phrase in the place of cancer or invasive cancer in the introduction. I am talking in riddles at the present time, because I want to make sure that I can find that phrase again, and that will mean thinking about the introduction again. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend the amendment belew, because the demarcation between non-cancer and cancer varies according to the literature, as we have seen, and this is made more difficult by a simplified language and vocabulary used to communicate the complex situation to patients. A definition of cancer that includes in-situ cancer is well established, but perhaps the world of the cytologist or histopathologist is a small world, where to say "invasive cancer" is not unusual. This is the current line in the introduction; "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer and enable early successful treatment.". I think that it would be more accurate if it said something like; "The main aim of cervical cytology screening is to detect precursors of cancer and early cervical cancer to enable early successful treatment.". In this new line a full spectrum from viral changes to dysplasia to carcinoma-in-situ to early invasive cancer is included, so the controversy over where to put the non-cancer/cancer line disappears, and the meaning is clear no matter where the reader puts the line in his or her own mind-map. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about making a joint nomination with me to take the cervix article to FA review sometime? I would not be planning to edit much of the "History" and "Other animals" sections, because I do not know much about those topics. I am not usually on the nominator's side of the fence, but I would be willing to step into that role here, partly to test the water. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea – the prerequisites for being a nominator are being reasonably familar with the article and having the ability to address issues raised at FAC. Do you see anything else that needs fixing before listing it at FAC? 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh good. I would like to have a long look at the article before FA nomination, and I expect that I will not feel happy with the article as a potential FA nomination for several weeks. There is some content and page organization in the article (as it is now) that I would like to reflect on. The peer review is also worth re-visiting to see what was not achieved there. I will probably attempt to start a few discussions on the article talk page where relevant. Do you have any time frame in mind or any particular schedule of your own to work around? Of course, I would ask you to constructively criticize my work whenever you think that anything can be improved, and I will try to focus on the issue and answer honestly and objectively trying not to be fractious nor stubborn, with a view to learning from my errors. It think that it will work better like that, than keeping quite or not speaking up when you do not agree with your co-nominator. I am saying that because I guessed that you have not felt easy about not supporting your co-nominator in FA reviews previously. Also, as before, please be alert to my writing style, which can sometimes need re-phrasing owing to clumsy grammar, although the content is often unambiguous (to me at least). Apart from that, it could be challenging writing for general readers and even more challenging writing for specialist readers that are unfamiliar with the small world of histopathology. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio I have no time scale on this so it sorta takes as long as it takes. The refs need fixing for page numbers. The material is pretty good – only thing from PR left is double checking lymphatic drainage really I thought. Anyway. Posting things step by step on talk page is good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I would have though that the "Function" heading would be about normal function. Surly, putting a barrier in front of the cx is not a normal function of the cervix. Also, oc pills are more about pharmacology and modified functioning of the cervix. Should the "Contraception" heading have its own level-2 heading? This has been discussed before, but it is worth starting another discussion on the talk page about this? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the first one or something like it – will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Should there be more consistency in using {{main| under more of the headings where there is an obvious main article else where? Snowman (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Re Vaginal portion of cervix. Have you got any ideas on what to do with this article on the portio (or ectocervix)? I do not know why WP Anatomy has so many articles on sub-parts. If relevant, I expect that a formal discussion would be needed to consider a merge. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is off to a good start over there. I think that there is nothing on the unreferenced portio page that can be copied over to the cervix page. We could start planing how to present the portio (and its various names) on the cervix page. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In have found what to me looks like a 2003 copyrighted version of File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg, so I have started a deletion discussion on Commons. Commons administrators will now have a look at it. Initially, I left an message with the uploader on Commons to ask a technical question about the image, and I noticed that he is currently blocked for three months, so I did a search for other copies of the cervix dilation image. The image should show the babies head moving down the birth canal as the cervix dilates, but the head looks stuck. The image is on about a dozen or more Wikis, so they might all be removed by a bot in due course. I am not sure if the image needs removing from the Cervix page at this juncture or not, so I wonder what you think about removal from the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently found a photograph of a rare parrot with the wrong copyright and it was deleted from Commons one week after I started the deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The Cervical cancer article has had a lot of work on it since about June, and it is well worth looking at. I expect that we could shorten (or otherwise amend) the section on cervical cancer in the "cervix" article, because the "cervical cancer" article offers a good readable account. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Re HPV vaccines. Sometimes, I like to tidy up the linked pages. This article was moved from the singular to the pleural in March 2014. I am aware that there is more than one HPV vaccine, but I would expect this to be on the singular name, unless there something controversial about it that I have missed. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The "Anatomical abnormalities" section looks like a mixture of acquired and congenital diseases. Could this be organized differently? I nearly did a reorganization, but a little re-organization does not change much, and I suspect that it would be easier to do a bit of a re-write. Also, it may be possible to expand the section with a little about the developmental abnormalities of the female genital tract seen in Cryptophthalmos syndrome, Johanson-Blizzard syndrome, Rokitansky Anomalod, and as less commonly seen in Roberts syndrome and Trisomy 18 syndrome. These diseases are not at the front of my mind, however these are in the index of my rather old second-hand book on human malformation. This is not a small change, so I welcome your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have become unexpectedly busy in real life, so I have not had much time for editing the Wiki. I hope that I will be able to contribute with more editing and work on the cervix article again after about two or three months . Snowman (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Apart from manual editing, I was hoping to write a few scripts for fun to do scanning and mass editing tasks on the Wiki this Autumn and Winter, but can not participate in a meaningful way at the present time. I plan to return when I can and I will look to see what you and User FunkMonk are doing then. Incidentally, have you any thoughts on why discussions about anatomy topics tend to be rather brittle? I might ask that question on the WP Anatomy talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Copied from the page regarding Infoboxes, with new emphasis: "Would those who see a reason to keep 2.1 or can't decide kindly present one example from the last three years in an infobox-yes-or-no discussion (not "religion in infoboxes" which was not the scope of the case, nor other discussions) where they found Andy "disruptive" enough to justify a ban from a discussion?" Start with Bach, end with Peter Maxwell Davies. - I believe the infoboxes wars are a myth, so would be interested where you see the other side. You missed 2014, - I'd follow the reasoning of Opabinia regalis if I was an arb ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I was going to say that if he were not being disruptive then it is not a problem, but I concede then someone can hang it over someone like a sword of Damocles so I'll revisit. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 17:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for following kelapstick. I am still searching for one instance of perceived disruption, just one. Look at Bach and tell me where I am blind, please. The bottom line about Andy's editing, by (sadly missed) Yunshui) on AE: "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Misplaced Pages better". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Anthony Anderson FA nomination
I have nominated the Anthony Anderson (basketball) article to possibly have it be promoted to a featured article. Could you please leave some comments on areas that you would want to fix so that it meets the FA criteria? If so, add your opinion on the article on the nomination page. TempleM (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Mehmet Celal Bey
Hello Casliber,
Are you involved with adding DYK hooks to the prep pages? One of my DYK hooks, Mehmet Celal Bey, has been approved recently but I'd appreciate it if it can go up on the preferred date of April 24. I know it's a little late but I'd really appreciate it if something can be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your edits on my article, which then got finally added to the DYK page. It is on todays main page :D
I was just wondering were the flow - plant --> leaves --> flowers --> rhizome came from ?
It seemed sensible to work up from the ground (like many other authors had done so) ! DavidAnstiss (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I have alot of Australian botany books and it is how they write (as a human sees the plant I guess) - height/width/habit, then trunk/bark/leaves then flowering time, then flowers, fruit, seed, seedlings. I've written some plant articles here, see Banksia aculeata for instance. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
"I finished watching TV now"
Begs the question. Are you allowed watch TV for grown ups in your house, or do the kids still rule. We are enjoying very much the fourth season of the Americans atm. Liz is forced to watch fr Ted about once a week, part of the IRE integration process. Well maybe its more of an ecumenical matter. Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Casliber, it's likely to be hours more by the time you see this, but at the moment the main page replacement is almost four hours overdue. There are three preps ready to go as I write this (Preps 1 through 3), though someone may have promoted one or more of them before you get there...or may not have done any. Thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Grove, E.W.. (January 1962). "Notes on the Botanical Specimens Collected by Banks and Solander on Cook's First Voyage, Together with an Itinerary of Landing Localities". Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History. 4 (1): 57–62. doi:10.3366/jsbnh.1962.4.1.57.
Hi. You might have gotten busy, but could you take another look at Apollo 1? I went through this and added citations at most all the places you tagged, and also some where you noted more were needed. I think I got most everything cited, except for a few:
The tour of pad 34: I don't know if this is being offered anymore; I find a few references to it on Google from places e.g. Travelocity reviews, but nothing detailed that looks like it comes from KSC or Cape Canaveral. I don't know for sure which of these would run the tour, since the pad belongs to the Air Force rather than Kennedy, and I know the Cape Air Force Station is a high-security area nowadays.
A few, more obscure civic & other memorials: some, like Grissom and White Halls at Chanute AFB, which seem to have been turned to other purposes, and at least one of them has been demolished; so I just remove it.
On 29 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Long-nosed bandicoot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the long-nosed bandicoot(illustrated) has one of the briefest known gestation periods of all mammals at 12.5 days? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Long-nosed bandicoot. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Long-nosed bandicoot), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 30 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Australasian darter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the plumage of the Australasian darter(pictured) absorbs water to reduce the bird's buoyancy and allow it to swim submerged? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australasian darter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Australasian darter), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Antlia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Saskoiler -- Saskoiler (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points.
In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months ; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Misplaced Pages, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible.
To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Cas Liber, you posted your review on March 21, over six weeks ago, and although Shirt58 has hundreds of edits on Misplaced Pages in the interim, none have been to this article. I think it's time to close this; if Shirt58 is still interested in getting the article to GA status, he or she can eventually do the substantial work needed on the article and then renominate. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup 2016 May newsletter
FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13
Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.
It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall.
We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 11:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Casliber, did you and the rest of the Arbcom mailing list receive my email of April 24? I asked to be unblocked. I was a contributor of solid content for five or six years before I was perma-blocked without warning with a button click falsely labeling me a sockpuppet by an administrator that didn't explain anything.
I was proud of my contributions to Misplaced Pages and would like to do so again. As you look into my case (as I expect you to, given your position as arbitrator) do not accept as fact any accusation against me without allowing me to respond. I have endured many many lies and WP:AN/ANI mob attacks in which I was muted and my defenses erased, resulting in damage to my reputation as an editor. Further, do not accept the assertion of Thryduulf at my talkpage that I am on an "appeal timer," because he has no authority to do any such thing and there is nothing in policy that allows him this, as well his purporting timing is unevidenced and suspect.
Answer my email or unblock my talkpage and we'll be able to communicate about this important matter. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.207.162 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Plagiarism detection
Hi! You voted for improving plagiarism detection as an important suggestions in the community wishlist survey last year. I'm pinging people who showed interest in that task to tell them we have some suggestions for how things could look, if you'd like to glance at them and give us some feedback. They're available here: phab:T120435#2266283. It's easiest if comments are left in Phabricator, since that's where much of the development is happening, but they can be left on Meta too, of course. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Herbier de la France: a translation
Here's my try at translating the legend under the figure you linked to on @Sasata:'s page
This mushroom is common is our woods all year long. There are two varieties: one (fig. A) whose gills an pileus, at first a light violet, eventually become (B) burgundy (lie de vin). The other (fig. C) has vinaceous gills (couleur vineuse) and grow in intensity with age. I have very often seen the variety with violaceous gills confused with the Agaric aranéeux violet (no idea what species that refers to), a confusion that does not happen if the mushroom is seen in early age, for its pileus is always nude, lacking the araneous collar (annulus? veil?) that distinguishes the Agaric aranéeux violet.
I'm not clear at all what colors the author alludes to with "lie de vin" and "vineuse". My translations may be entirely wrong there. Circéus (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
My take on them is "wine-coloured" or "vinaceous". The other mushroom is (I suspect) Cortinarius violaceus - will confirm by looking in the history of that mushroom. Cortinars have caps covered in veils/webs, hence the common name webcaps....many thanks btw.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cas; this feels really awkward since we've never communicated before, but I thought I'd give it a go anyway. I've been working on improving F.C. United of Manchester, planning to bring it to FA status in the near future. The article is already a GA, but I've expanded and improved it slightly over the past few weeks. I noticed that you've signed up at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/volunteers to give feedback for football articles, and I'm wondering if you could help a bit with that article? A peer review for the article is currently ongoing, and @Lemonade51 has already provided some excellent suggestions but more help would definitely be welcome. I realise this is totally out of the blue but I still hope you might find some time to help out :-) Thanks, odder (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Tell me, how did you get the central notice up "The Core Contest is running from 15 May to 30 June 2016. Enter at Misplaced Pages:The Core Contest/Entries."? I tried to get Dragon publicized like that but had no luck.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
On 19 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Casuarina glauca, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a prostrate cultivar of the swamp she-oak was named for its resemblance to Cousin Itt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Casuarina glauca. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Casuarina glauca), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber, there is finally a response to your review here. Can you please check to see whether your concerns have been addressed? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cas, I have nominated the above article for FAC, a biographical article about a late Cambodian monarch and Cold War figure. I have received feedback from the FAC that the article's prose has issues. I have done several rounds of proofreading and CE on my part, and right now I think a second pair of eyes to spot any problematic areas, if any. I welcome you to take a look at the article, and feel free to give any comments on the prose, content etc - on any areas that may need fixing from your perspective. (The FAC page is at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Norodom Sihanouk/archive1). Pleased do not feel obliged if you are unable to do so, though it would be great if you can let me know about your decision on whether you can assist. Thanks in advance!
Okay, sometime in June would be better for me. I don't have as much access to sources as you do, but I can still help out. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. You might have gotten busy again, but can you please take another look at this? I believe I've fixed about everything you flagged, with the help of another user. Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber, the queues are empty again, and the next set, Prep 3, has a couple of special occasion hooks for May 28, so it would be nice to have it in Queue 3 before 12:00 UTC rolls around. If you're around, it would be a great help to do the promotion if it hasn't already been done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Up to you, since you're the one nice enough to do the work, but I for one liked the old orange DYK announcement boxes more. — LlywelynII01:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points.
In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months ; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months —nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Misplaced Pages, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue.
To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Admin The Wordsmith's comments re: "...the ineptness of many current Arbs..." is certainly casting aspersions
Given the seriousness of this Rfc at User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC the ongoing threats to sanction participating editors seem to ring hollow in light of supervising admin The Wordsmith's astonishing comments regarding ArbCom members. The comment, which by any definition "casts aspersions," raises a number of questions that call for immediate answers, given the self-created deadline for comments.
The questions, which I hereby put directly to The Wordsmith, are as follows:
Exactly which ArbCom members are you referring to, when you describe them as "inept?"
In what way are these current community-elected ArbCom members, as you term them, "inept?"
Do you have diffs to support this sweeping claim, and can you produce them? If not, why not?
Since the thrust of this extraordinary Rfc seems to be to prevent "casting aspersions," in the Talk pages of GMO articles (as well as precedent-establishing proposed "locked in" multiple article wording regarding GMO safety) is this not exactly what you are doing in the past 24 hours towards members of the Arbitration Committee? Does this not disqualify you immediately from further participation?
To all concerned: I will post the above subsection on the Talk pages of current ArbCom members, per The Wordsmith's declaration, despite substantial objections, that they will be locking down the page a few hours from this posting, making further timely discussion on this page impossible. Jusdafax11:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
DYK prep to queue promotion needed before 12:00 UTC
Cas Liber, the queues are empty again, and Prep 1 is currently filled. The next time you're logged on, if you can see whether a prep to queue promotion is still needed and take care of it if so, that would be great. Thanks as always for you DYK help. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"we sailed under this Island, thence passing the most Famous and Wealthy City of Macao This City exceeds all others for great Cannon, which are to be had there at a reasonable rate, and wherewith they drive a considerable Trade, for they are held to be the best in all India, being cast of Chinese and Japan copper, and are sent for far and near."
Johan Nieuhof, An Embassy from the East-India Company of the United Province to the Grand Tartar Cham, Emperour of China, 1669.
"There is in China a vast Quantity of Copper, Iron, Tin, and all other sorts of Mettals And indeed the City of Macao affords us an evident proof of the great plenty of these Mettals. For in that one City there are cast such numbers of great Guns to be admir'd for their goodness, their bigness, and their Workmanship, which not only serve for the use of that City, but to supply several places in the Indies, and even Portugal it self."
Gabriel Magaillans, A New History of China, Containing a Description of the Most Considerable Particulars of that Vast Empire, 1688.
Yep - Buçaco Forest is something very special. I've seen pyramids in Egypt, Mexico and Guatemala; I've checked out Greek / Roman stuff in Europe; I've marveled at the Chinese gear over in Tapei's National Palace Museum. But IMO only Buçaco and some of those underground stations on the Moscow metro can be described as truly magical. It's a "must" for someone like you!
What do you think of my sexy new infobox on the right? I coded it with HTML / CSS and set up the graphics in Photoshop. The Chinese characters read: Macau. My logic goes like this:
1. Misplaced Pages is basically garbage
2. Much of the content is considered trashy and/or biased
3. People do seem to take science/medical articles seriously, though (this includes your stuff)
4. Articles about history are often very poor; celebrity twaddle and bios are uniformly awful.
I figure that history stuff can be spiced up with a type of infobox that uses contemporary quotes to summarize key content. If the quotes are strong enough, casual readers shouldn't need to waste their time reading the whole article.
Hmm, I think decorative infoboxes and quoteboxes can be helpful to engage the reader. I seem to recall there are some examples already that are a bit more than Spartan. Precedence helps here. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks -- just checked those two boxes. I guess they're okay, though perhaps a tad cluttered. Are you suggesting that without a "precedent" I wouldn't be able to use anything original? One slight problem is that there are no decent images for the article I have in mind, so an interesting or unusual infobox strikes me as a valid alternative. Singora (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes agree - I have done the same with quotations in boxes to liven up a topic that I have no images for. I think precedents are helpful if trying to win over skeptical folks. Will try to find some more examples. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually I think I'll just scrap this idea - it's not gonna work. Would your friend be willing to make any of his Buassco photos available for use on Misplaced Pages? I'd love to use a FREE photo of the sequoias or that giant eucalyptus. There are loads of other beautiful trees, too, that would look good in that article I started. Singora (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Casliber. I am curious about your decision to delete Rodbehandling. I thought it could serve as a redirect. Can you tell me why I was wrong in that regard? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I deleted it because it was tagged and it appeared to be an implausible redirect in English. If you've seen it used extensively in English I can undelete. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand your rationale. I am not asking you to undelete the redirect, I merely wanted to better understand the line between plausible and implausible. I better understand the difference now; and thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The article was created in Danish by another user. It duplicated an existing topic which we already had an article for. CSD-A10 was deemed appropriate however it stipulates: "When the new title is a reasonable term for the subject, converting the new article to a redirect may be preferable to deletion". Considering that we have a redirect categorization template for other languages, {{R from alternative language}} which reads:
This is a redirect from an alternative language – a page name in Danish to a page name in English. These words may directly translate or they may be related words, names or phrases. For more information follow the bold category link.
This redirect leads to its target in accordance with the naming conventions for titles in other languages and can help writing and searches. However, per WP:NOTBROKEN do not replace these redirected links with a piped link unless the page is updated for another reason.
And since we have Category:Redirects from Danish-language terms showing that this form of redirect is not uncommon, I contested the deletion believing the redirect was both proper, and plausible. I was apparently wrong, and asked my question here so I could "better understand the line between plausible and implausible" which I stated. I wasn't playing games or pulling tails as it must have appeared though I could be called clueless for being sincere; even a troll I suppose. Or you could AGF that I meant well and we move on from there. I'm for the latter. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, here as some questions regarding FAs that I have as mentioned on Dank's talk page.
How are criteria 1b comprehensive, 1c well researched and 1d neutral checked, as they require background knowledge (could require expert opinion or be an obscure topic) and access to most of the sources (could be offline, not free etc) ?
What does FA review the process involve (what is a source and image review etc)? What are the requirements for it to pass? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, do you have an article in mind? Might be easier to work with something concrete I can walk you through. Sourcing often requires a library or helpful person with university access. Having both experts and laypeople review the article is good - the latter group help with accessibility Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I guess the big-picture view is that FA doesn't mean "perfect" but the best we can possibly get it, which means that anything possibly fixable or improvable has been done. Where possible we try to get people familiar or experienced with the topic to comment but that is not always possible. A person unfamiliar is good too as it can highlight words that might be too specialised and can be substituted for plainer English ones. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Cas. I notice only one DYK queue is populated and that five of six preps are populated. Is there any danger of the queues running dry? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}08:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
On 23 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Doradus, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the star S Doradus was calculated to have ranged between 100 and 380 times the radius of the Sun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Doradus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! i want to help for vandalism.One user(he is newbie) deleted strange of holy league.normally it was writing 140.000-200.000 after they changed it.but references are same.after other user added ppblocker.Please help :)
My english bad sorry^-^ NoScopeRage (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note that this editor appears to be an IP that has been edit warring an incorrect figure for this battle. Said editor has also canvassed two other editors in Turkish, I am assuming to ensure some level of secrecy.
Per A Global Chronology of Conflict, page 547, "Central Europe: Hungary: Battle of Kerestes.Vizier Ibrahim Pasha, commanding an Ottoman army of some 80,000 men, attack Archduke Maximilian and an Austrian army of 40,000 men."
On 26 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Motsoalle, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that motsoalle is the term for socially acceptable, long-term relationships between Basotho women in Lesotho? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Motsoalle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cortinarius violaceus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
On 27 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Macrocybe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the weight of a clump of mushrooms of the tropical genus Macrocybe can exceed 30 kg (66 lb)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Macrocybe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Macrocybe), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 ; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months . It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Misplaced Pages, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal.
The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both!
The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup.
MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition.
Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Cas Liber, this review has now been open 101 days, and Shirt58 is clearly not able to address the issues raised. It's time and past to close the nomination as unsuccessful. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
There's just one unreferenced section in the article which I wasn't comfortable with, and some non-dealbreaker concerns. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
TBAN thread
I know you said you're evaluating the diffs; as you do so, as there are several walls of text, I just want to point out that an accusation I made three errors in DYK submissions has been advanced with José Rosas Aispuro being the third. I was recently blocked for this, however, the block was reverted (see conversation here and here and the block log here ) after it was shown I'd never edited that article in the history of its existence. My participation was in the form of being one of three persons who reviewed the DYK (and one of three who did a poor job reviewing it), but it's been presented as though I was the actual article author.
Sorry for going to you directly with this, however, there seems to be a certain level of argumentum ad nauseam going on here and, since it's already resulted in one problem I wanted to proactively notify you about it. This isn't me lobbying for a !vote in any direction on the TBAN, I don't care which way you !vote as I'm probably done with DYK either way as it's clearly too hot right now, but I wanted to let people who have the ability to act on this edit know purely so I don't have to re-run the blocking/unblocking trauma. The accidental block I got resulted in the permanent scarring of my previously pristine block log which I'd tried hard to maintain. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, where does the factoid about the Hope Stairs being 4th longest in the US come from?Trying to wade though the Staircase debate. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber - sorry for delayed reply. It was double-sourced from "Seattle Stairway Walks" published by Mountaineers Press and "Washington Trails", the magazine of Washington Trails Association. At the time I had no reason to suspect both of these outlets were conspiring to perpetrate a hoax and took their information at face value. In any case, the point is probably moot. I'm satisfied with the outcome of the ANI. My only note here was to preemptively avert another bad block that would have to be retracted due to questionable framing of the discussion, rather than intercede in the ANI per se. LavaBaron (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, where did I say that you edited that article ever? You did a poor review there, and afterwards claimed that this wasn't a problem as the main part of the hook was correct (missing an error in a DYK review is not good but not dramatic, but claiming that having the error on the Main Page was no problem really disqualified you from DYK participation). For reference, this is the DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro, and the claim that the error wasn't a problem can be found here. But I would prefer to continue the discussion at WP:AN. Fram (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 14:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I am writing this message to you because you put yourself down as a regular admin at DYK.
Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:
A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
(To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.
Thanks for beginning the review, but apparently the nomination was closed/promoted shortly after you started. Dan56 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh well, it was late in the evening here and I had to get to sleep. Not sure whether the nominators knew I had not finished. Maybe Ian Rose had a bit of a look himself. Dunno. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Tks for the ping, Cas. I have to admit that I took the formatting and copyvio checks as what was "to come" so thought you'd finished. I'd welcome you doing anything more you planned and resolving any concerns on the article talk page; I made a few textual tweaks to the article before promoting so the talk page is on my watchlist. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
So, I'm currently looking at two of the metals of antiquity: I'm bringing lead to FA with R8R Gtrs, and having some thoughts about how to get iron to GA myself (I've always dreamed of featuring that, but that is certainly a longer way away!) Do you have any comments on either (preferably lead, if you don't have time for both)? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
On 11 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quintinia verdonii, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the grey possumwood can be a desirable garden plant on account of its flowers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quintinia verdonii. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Quintinia verdonii), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber, the queues are empty and the next promotion is scheduled for 00:19, less than an hour from now. If you happen to start editing in the next hour or so, and the queues are still empty, could you please promote one or more of the preps to the queue position? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for doing this. In a way, it's good that the queues were empty, because there were special occasion hooks that hadn't been promoted but belonged in Queue 3 and Queue 5, and it gave me a chance to get those saved-up hooks into the prep sets before asking you to promote them. I should probably post a reminder on the DYK talk page that prep set builders should check the special occasion section before starting work filling a prep set. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The queues are empty again. If you log on in the next hour or so, please update if you can. Actually, if you log on a bit later than that, we may still need you. (I did make that post about prep set builders/reviewers. No comments, but I hope a few people noticed it and will keep it in mind.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I hadnt noticed this Nuckelavee article had gone main page around March, and visitors came then and saw some of the similar issues I brought up, and started threads on it, and I was belatedly reading it months later.
I'd quite forgotten where I written them up though and they were in the old FAR that got archived, and I started reading, and was unpleasantly reminded of the marginalizing I was receiving, and maybe got riled up.
Anyway, reading over the FAR perhaps more dispassionately, I still can't shake the sense you're automatically siding with Eric and the other editor, and I assume this is acting out of friendship. But my opinion is, this causes you to make weird statements that are not in line with policy, or logic, or general facts regarding folklore or linguistics. Which is of course, your prerogative.
But given your are making what I consider are substantive mistatements relating to folklore or linguistics, on record, I feel I need to address them. However, I shall have stop adding more for now, otherwise, it's just going to be a barrage because you've stepped on several mines. As a general point, you should never really assert what you think might be obviously etymologically connected, because of such things as "faux amis" ("false cognates"). I have posted in the article's talk page Jakobsen's Norn Language dictionary entry on mukkelevi (well, I also rewrote the etymology section using this info, but it of course got reverted), so you might consult the etymology of mukkelevi to see what I mean by stepping on a mine.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay, but I just want to be sure that you realise that the source review given on Alansplodge's page was put there by me, as an example of how a source review might be carried out. I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to carry out my own review but I suppose if you were to check and then ratify it, it could be used. Are you saying that is what you have done?--Ykraps (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber, in case you log on soon, the queues are empty and the latest move to the main page is over 100 minutes late, while all six preps are full. Can you please move at least one prep into a waiting queue? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Casliber, you blocked the above editor a few days ago for making unsupported claims in many articles regarding non-native species introduced from other countries. As a member of WikiProject Colombia I came across the article Invasive species in Colombia that the editor started, but presumably with an indefinite block it is now unlikely that this article will ever be expanded? I ask because if it isn't going to be improved I am thinking of putting it up for AfD. The three animals mentioned are indeed non-native and have been introduced at some point in the past to the country, so that isn't false information, but I can't find any sources (in English or in Spanish) which would help reference and expand the article, such as date of introduction to the country, where they are to be found, etc. The title of the article itself is very POV in my view – just because a species is introduced doesn't make it "invasive", and the one unsourced sentence is also very POV... "serious threat", "ongoing cost". Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of the material elsewhere was false. But I did find some factual edits the editor made early on that were true. We now need to systematically review all the editors' edits. The topic does strike me as a notable one, so I don't think AfD is appropriate. My question is, how do you know they have been intorduced if you can find no sources - there must be some...? Look, I am really busy today but am keen to look through their edits systematically. If you find more true edits I'd consider an unblock. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I can find sources that say they have been introduced in Colombia, but not much more than that, that's the problem... there's one mention of the mongoose (mangosta javanes) on page 25 of a publication on invasive species in Colombia written by the Humboldt Institute, which is a credible source, but unfortunately it talks about the cost to agriculture in Puerto Rico and Hawaii, not in Colombia. The cherry barb fish I can find on many aquarium shop websites which sell the fish and describe it as being introduced to Mexico and Colombia from Sri Lanka (for example here, on the fourth line), but again, I find nothing that says where you can find it in the wild or why it is a danger to the ecosystem. The hippos are an unusual one – they were part of Pablo Escobar's private zoo... when he was killed most of the animals were either put down or sold to other zoos around the world, but the hippos escaped and roam wild in the rivers around his former estate. Here's a BBC article on them. But again the problem is not proving that they exist, but that they are "invasive" and have caused a problem to the natural ecosystem.
Perhaps in light of the fact that I can find sources for the introduction of these species, but not for any of the claims of invasiveness and potential damage to the environment, it would be better to make the article a sourced list instead and call it List of non-native species found in Colombia or something like that, and remove any POV claims about whether their introduction was good or bad? I'll happily look at some of the other claims the editor has made to see whether they were true or not. Richard3120 (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Cas, had not noticed you intended to GA review Heart until I left the nom a note here. I'll defer to you if you'd rather, but if you'd rather I continue to lead that charge, I'd still think an important article could use more than one set of eyes. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you promote one or more DYK sets from the prep areas to the queues? I would do it myself but 4 of the 5 completed sets contain hooks that I promoted to the prep areas. Thanks. --Allen311:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for another good one, with a nice image! - I have an image - but darker - on top of my talk, smaller at life is too short, it was featured yesterday on the German Main page for an article I wrote here and someone else translated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sabine's Sunbird, I have been playing alot of Pokemon Go the past three weeks with my kids. Not much bird editing though a few starts here and there. FunkMonk has done the only bird articles that have gone through FAC recently but he does extinct ones...I find working on extinct species a real downer. Frigatebird is now FA and I guess what might pique your interest most is a seabird of some sort. Any page you have any desire to improve I am happy to work on. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cas; I think the article's looking great, and I'm happy for you to nominate (and please do add me as a conominator) when ready. I am moving in to my new flat tomorrow but won't have internet for the best part of two weeks, sadly; I should be able to drop in while in the office, though. Sorry about that; I hope to be editing a bit more regularly than I have been once the Internet is up-and-running in my flat, so if you're in no rush, I can say with some certainty that I will be present for the FAC then. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
West Country contest
Hi, this starts on Aug 8. I was wondering if there was some way you could put up a central notice like you did for the core contest? Mention chance to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers or something. I had thought Rodw had seen to this but can't see anything coming up!♦ Dr. Blofeld20:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, don't worry about it. Was emailing you as a member of the functionaries team about someone refusing to admit to a COI. They seem to have seen sense now. Will email someone if they carry on. Just to check, though - this the right thing to do, right? WP:OUTING isn't very clear about what exactly to do or who to email first if you see such a problem. Blythwood (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
sorry to bother you again with element GANs
Would you mind if I asked you if you could do a few more (or if not, do you know someone who might be willing)? WP:ELEM has seven GANs now (Fe, Ga, In, Ce, Sg, Bh, element 120) and some of them (e.g. In) have been nominated for over a month without getting reviews. Double sharp (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Casliber.. I hope you are doing well ... It is been a long time since you helped Ahalya's journey to a FA. The article Chinnamasta was recently expanded for a potential FAC. Like Ahalya, Chinnamasta will benefit from reviwers, who are unfamiliar with Hinduism so that we can know if a non-Hindu understands the article. Chinnamasta is a self-decapitated Hindu goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound.--Redtigerxyz17:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The first leg is Bristol. Names are to be added at the bottom of the Bristol page and articles listed. Please also make sure that you add entries you improve/start to the main list on the main page. There will be £10 to win each day for the most points accumulated and then the winner of the county crowned after three days. The overall winner will be decided from the points accumulated from each county round. If you're not interested in winning anything and want to contribute anything you want from the West Country this is fine too though. Best of luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld10:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cas, Vincent van Gogh is at FAC and I'd like your advice on a few points regarding his illness.
The article says in this section, 3rd para, 1st sentence that Van Gogh suffered an "acute psychotic episode". The sources I have available don't use the word "psychosis" and, though I've hedged heavily, I'm wondering if we should pull the term. The sources tell us he was suffering hallucinations and delirium, and had suffered quite a lot of blood loss after cutting off his ear.
Also, can you take a look at footnote #184 inthis section. The bottom paragraph in that section is essentially unchanged since early 2006, the source originally only cited the 150 psychiatrists, not the many possible diagnoses. One reason I'm a little concerned about the source is its emphasis on temporal lobe epilepsy. According to the sources (the biographies) the first person to diagnose Van Gogh with "a kind of epilepsy" was a 23 year old doctor, still in training, who apparently was familiar with Bénédict Morel's Degeneration theory, and used the term to refer to mental illness, (see my rough notes here in my sandbox).
My concerns are: 1, should we be trying to make a forensic diagnosis (I went through this on the Ernest Hemingway page where, after an RfC, we decided best not to, but these things keep creeping in); 2, if we mention epilepsy should we be explaining the 19th century definition of "mental epilepsy" per the sources; and 3., am I overreacting at that the possibility that the statement he was mad (which occurs twice in the lead) could be conflated with epilepsy = crazy??
Just to overwhelm you completely, there's more on the talk , where I've pinged for your advice.
And finally ... I have found what I believe to be a better source (but again way out of my subject area!) which I'll be emailing with the hope you can advise whether we should swap or not.
No don't apologise, it's a fascinating topic. My understanding was that it was bipolar disorder. Look, I have some pressing chores right now but will try to look soon. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It is fascinating! No rush. The source I asked you to look at above (#184), which is primarily about temporal lobe epilepsy, has shifted. Here's the link to the source, (author is Blumer), . Victoria (tk) 21:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for saying you would try to look, and for your edits there. I've only been working on this for a few months on and off but others have put years into it. Anything you can do would be appreciated; even a review if you got a chance. One specific question to add onto Victoria's above; what's your take on thujone and absinthe? I've seen conflicting reports about it. Best, --John (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Cas, I am TRILLED you are taking a look here. John mentioned recentism, and its a real problem. Your jaundice eye will help. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi
Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.
We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.
You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
Technical work like template designing for the journal.
Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.
The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.
Hello, Casliber. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
.jpg)
.jpg)
wijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikael
