Misplaced Pages

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives Archive 1: May 2006 – December 2006 Archive 2: December 2006 – February 2007 Archive 3: February 2007 – March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 - May 2007 Archive 5: May 2007 - June 2007 Archive 6: June 2007 - July 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 Archive 8: July 2007 - August 2007 Archive 9: August 2007 - September 2007

More unIDed fungi

G'day Cas,

I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324

Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature of fungi

Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 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 | contribs 02:01, 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. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 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. ISSN 0078-2238.) 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. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???

LOTS of "per" in citation here. See

On Agaricus

Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικόν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)

Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.

All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.

On Lepiota

Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"

Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.

The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.

On Psalliota

Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"

Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.

On Amanita

Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.

A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that was not mentioned."

With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):

• A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
• A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
• A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
• A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
• A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.

Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.

The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).

Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)

On Boletus

Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).

Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My list:

Okay, here it is. I'll group stuff in topical sections. Maybe we can create a subpage on our user pages to keep our collaborative efforts and our projects. I'm thinking big here, so I'll get started. Here they are:

• Animals:
  • Duck. Crab. (Check out the misc sections in Crab and Duck; they both have the sentence "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped nature, especially the sea. They placed emphasis on animals and often depicted crabs/ducks in their art". The only word changed is crab/duck, so I'm doubting the verifibility of this claim.)
  • Snow Leopard. Worked on this before - needs major work.
  • Griffin. Looks fine, but underneath has serious issues. Like Tom Cruise. ;)
  • Toad. Comprised mainly of a list of species and not much else. It also has the same "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped animals and often depicted toads in their art..." sentence as Duck and Crab.
  • Gull.
• Plants:
  • Oak. Can use a good expansion.
• People:
  • Samuel Duncan Parnell. Main person at head of NZ's Labour hours etc.
  • Dong Zhiming. A paleontologist who could use some expansion.
  • Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. A bit of a change; most of the foundation is there, so it wouldn't take much to get the article to at least GA.
  • Genghis Khan. Tonnes of stuff on this guy and most of the work's already done.
• My favourite, core topics:
  • Rock (geology). For something that we all live on, it's a pretty pathetic article.
  • Island gigantism.
  • Name. Some parts are rubbish and others have no sources.
  • Habitat. Woeful condition for such a core topic.
  • Wind. No sources whatsoever and many small paras.
  • Practically anything from Category:Animal anatomy.
  • Nail (anatomy). We all have them, but the article is made of small paras.
  • Night. No sources and almost all sections are prodded as needing attention. Possibly Day needs attention as well...
• Colours - I know, but they are in dire need of cleanup...:
  • Green, Red, Blue (A bit better than the rest), White, Yellow (Which has OR and sentences like: "The planet Saturn is yellowish, like a class G star"), Orange (colour), Violet, Indigo as well as any article from List of colors. Seeing as how a new colour is created every second (so I've heard) then we might have a lot of work to do. But we can get a great Featured Topic if we get a few up to scratch.
• Other stuff:
  • Some paranormal stuff that's crap; Wraith, Wight, Spectre, Phantom and a psycological article, Apparitional experience, which you might know something about since you're a doc. :)
• My second fave article; Really really short articles. I'm not sure if they'll be easy to find info on, but I'm sure we'll be able to find something to expand them:
  • Amolops nepalicus. Adding a line or two could double the article's size.
  • Adenomus. Keep on coming up with frog articles on random article...
  • Sooty Orange Tip and many others etc etc etc. You get the idea.

Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. We can either: 1) Begin working on these articles we've both suggested. 2) Press the random article button and edit whatever comes up if it's notable (A bit silly really...) or 3) Give up the whole idea. I'm leaning toward 1), but we'd need to set up a subpage on our user pages and compile a firm list of what articles we want to expand. Then we can decide if we want anyone else in on the act. Maybe Circeus would be interested? Or someone else you know. Or maybe we could occasionally enlist people to help - an expert maybe. Anyway, I'm really excited - I hate working on articles alone and if we did the old "my turn, your turn" in choosing articles, we could keep on going indefinitely. We get on pretty well as well, which can't hurt... So, whatdoyasay? Partners? Spawn Man 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Scot man! Are you ever ever offline? I'm beginning to think you edit wikipedia whilst listening to patients "Doc, are you even listening to me??" ;) In regard to "some of those thingies look good too..." - what things? Anyway, get back to me later, as I really think we could be a great team. You've come a really long way from when I first saw your edits on t rex (Or was it Dinosaur...?) and now you've helped get more articles featured than me. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't like putting my name to DYKs that I didn't create - just a habit thing. The only one I've done it with was Janjucetus. Anyway, how about this - We both close our FAC's, Andre for me, and your future lion FAC for you. Then we meet back here and begin. We can bring Circeus in on the act during FAC time or as a general copyeditor. Anyway, I'm gonna chill out for a while. See ya later! :) Spawn Man 05:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I put some extra refs in Kertesz - hopefully that helps. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Just noticed I've got 30 DYKs!

Oh, is that all? I didn't include it because I didn't think it was important lol. I'll stick it in after dinner. You're very optimistic. I'm more a Mr. Negativity. :) Spawn Man 06:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay; I added notations to most of the books in the bibliography section - I'm asuming you wanted them there as that's where most of his books are. Check it out anyway, and if there's something missing, tell me. If not, I've fufilled your request. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 06:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pablo's real legacy

Your edit about free range hippos stirred my deepest, darkest desire on Misplaced Pages -- to create the page Pablo Escobar's hippos. Have you ever read about this? A hippo critical situation, LA Times. I'd never create the page... the deletionists would go bonkers! But I can dream, oh yes! PS I think you're right on the white rhinos. Wait until the article takes better shape, but no reason to turn the subspecies into redirects so early in the process. And Asiatic Lion shows that a subspecies article can definitely have merit. I've been a bit distracted lately from the beasties. --JayHenry 16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

B. victoriae

Cas, I don't suppose you can dig up a photo of B. victoriae? The article has two images, but both are intrinsic to the taxonomic history narrative, and I am loathe to remove either into the taxobox. By the way, you might like to have a read of the taxonomy section there; there's an interesting story there that you won't have read in anything of George's. Hesperian 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same (re: baxteri). But Bentham gives them both as victoriae in Flora Australiensis, and if I trust anyone, I trust him. Hesperian 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser! I misread those sources - it is only the later seed that is attributed to Drummond. To be flowering in 1835 that seed must have reached England by 1832 at the latest. But Drummond didn't start sending plants and seed back to England until conscripted by Mangles to do so in 1835, and B. speciosa is not in Meissner's 1852 list of species collected by Drummond. As far as I know, Baxter only visited the south coast. I don't think Fraser went further north than the Swan River. Molloy never strayed far from Augusta. Hügel didn't reach Australia until the end of 1833; too late. Where oh where did those seeds come from? Perhaps they were B. baxteri; maybe that's why George has ignored the whole episode. Gosh this is exciting. Hesperian 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC and WP:CITE

Hi Casliber. You're an experienced Wikipedian and a frequent FAC contributor. Please review my contributions to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Peterborough. I want to know if you think I'm being too harsh, particularly ref WP:CITE. I recognise that the article writer has a point when he refers me to CITE, but I worry because the sources are inaccessible, it's impossible for a reader to ascertain what material in the paragraph is sourced and what isn't, which becomes even more of a problem as the article endures future edits. Furthermore, surely FA is about the highest possible standards? Give it to me straight. Many thanks. --Dweller 12:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Groan)...was just about to go to bed. It'll have to wait about 12 hours (but will try to get there sooner) as I am a bit tied up - gawd - FAC page looks busy. Let me read it myself and see...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. As you'll discover when you read the page, I'm of the opinion there's no rush, lol! --Dweller 14:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the cites, but the prose definitely needs tweaking as does the comprehensiveness. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the odd prose is because some of the article was in its early days directly lifted from a defunct encyclopedia and some oddities have perpetuated. I'm speculating, but seems a good guess. Thanks for input. --Dweller 08:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Casliber -- happy hero award

I hereby invite all lion contributers and other Casliber fans to express their appreciation for his good natured, level-headed and totally unpedantic team co-ordination.

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks to you Cas, we got lion to FA status. Have a break and a beer on us, then make us all work again! The lion team.

Comment, signature

1. Yes Cas, I agree with everything Alastair says about you. Alastair Haines 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Indeedy. It's good to know people are hacking away at key articles. Circeus 03:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
3. It turns out all those horrible things your mother said about you weren't true after all. Hesperian 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
4. My hero! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Great job Cas, and everyone else involved. It was a team effort, after all, but you put in a great deal of the work. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

   By the way - Cas, you made over 400 contribs to lion (!); you say you only contributed "quite a bit" on your page. Hehe. Understatement of the year ;) -- Anonymous Dissident 06:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Add me to the list! You do great work; everyone involved did nice work. Thanks for the recognition on my page, too, BTW. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oh dear, I missed it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Truly amazing. --JayHenry 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
9. I wasn't part of the "team", but I did watch Cas slave away whilst I sipped lemonade. ;) Seriosuly though, one of the best Featured Articles I've seen in a long time. A key one too. You deserve a break. Leg or arm? ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Page design

I hope you don't mind, but I have stolen borrowed your user page design and edited it for my own purposes. I have given you credit at the top of the code if you click Edit. --Bloodzombie 05:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiger

...You thinking what I'm thinking? Could be a goer... -- Anonymous Dissident 11:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha maybe. even though overall it may be a bigger task than leopard it seems to 'hang' better already...you can take the box seat on this one and we can see where it goes; I'll try to do what I can....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then :) I'll get to work... -- Anonymous Dissident 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at white tiger? There's nothing quite like it. --JayHenry 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap! dunno what to say... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fabrictramp RFA

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp 16:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bratislava FA

Hello. I've made few comments at the Bratislava candidature page and I'd like to request to check the changes and reply to questions. Regards, MarkBA 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Good job. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

Congrats on Lion; the workload of two FACs, really. Why didn't you tell me it was up? I ought to pay better attention. And thanks for the award. Marskell 17:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Medal

Thanks for the medal! By the way, I just realized I never responded about Romania. I've not been back for several years now. I was involved with an orphanage/English training program while there, and I recall quite keenly what a wreck any sort of documentation was. I can't imagine what it must be like doing genealogy there. I believe some churches kept good records that survived the communists, but never tried researching myself. I knew little Romanian, even at the time, and I have no roots there myself. So sorry that's no help... --JayHenry 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hey, you should comment on this, given yer name.....

Thanks for the heads up! I've added my two cents on a subject close to my heart. Cheers, Espresso Addict 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vampire:

I'm making some headway on Vampire - I get so busy reading all the books I have borrowed on them (They're really interesting!) that I often don't have time to write it all down. A vicious cycle... Okay, now that all your FAs are out of the way, I thought now would be a great time to begin our collaboration. Since you're keen to write Werewolf, how about this... I keep on writing Vampire, you start doing up Werewolf and then when we're done, we work on both together. As you'd said, there's no other article on Misplaced Pages like Vampire etc, so we're pretty much free to create our own MOS and in regard to the article. Besides, I'm feeling insecure watching you go out making the best FAs I've ever seen whilst I'm still waddling around with Vampire. God Dammit! I'll bring you down to my level if I have to!! ;) Anyway, I'm keen to begin our collab - Also, I'm moving unsourced stuff which I don't have a cite for to the Vampire talk page - After you're done doing stuff on werewolf, you could possibly see if you have anything that covers those texts. Cheers Cas, Spawn Man 05:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, thanks a bunch for the medal Cas! Gosh, you really are showering me with Barnstars eh? Mind you, you're the only one giving them to me, so I can't complain. ;) Anyway, I'm really tired, I don't know if I'll work on Vampire today - me so lazy! Cheers Cas, Spawn Man 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy with them? Yeah, they're okay - I guess I'd like to merge some into others and maybe rename a couple, but other than that, they'll stay basically the same. Definitely there should be an Etymology, Description & in pop culture section in Werewolf, but I dunno about the natural propogations segement. If you can find something about that with werewolves, go ahead, but I'm not sure if I want to keep that whole section in Vampire. Some of it's already repeated in the common traits section and I'm not sure natural propogations is the right term here. Maybe if you waited on the whole sections thing, it would be better. At the moment, I'm rewriting two sections; ancient beliefs and common traits. I've got this really great book which covers a lot of stuff. Anyway, as I mentioned, I'm moving some stuff to the talk page, so if you find a citation, put it there and I'll put it in the main article. There's one big uncited part which needs a source in the etymology section to do with the russian naming. That really needs a source. Anyway, I've got a tonne of work to do. Cheers. :) Spawn Man 08:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I was thinking that after this, we could work on Devil. Now there's an article with tonnes of work to be done and tonnes of references to go along with it! What do you think?

There's more than one devil? And yes, I expect Vampire to get huge by the time I'm done rewriting it. :) So, what did you want to work on then (Did you say you didn't want to work on werewolf...?) Anyway, I'm off for the night... Spawn Man 11:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, dragons' a good idea - I think I also have griffin or something on my to do list as well... Anyway, I'm really going to bed this time. G'nite & sorry for taking so long on Vampire. It's just so daunting and all this rain over here is depressive.... Cheers, Spawn Man 11:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wasn't up to the Indian part of "Ancient beliefs" yet, so you might want to go back over it once I've rewritten that paragraph to make sure the ref still covers everything stated. Spawn Man 06:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ndashes

HTML ndashes suck. If you're on a Windows box, you can get a real ndash (i.e. unicode) by holding down the ALT key and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad. Hesperian 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...thanks for the tip. I'll try that next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for indulging me, dude. :-) Hesperian 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If, like me, you're stuck with a laptop without a numeric pad with ALT functionality, n- and m-dashes are the two firsts characters after "insert" in the list placed under the edit window. Circeus 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've edited my keyboard layout for "easy" dashes with a little Microsoft utility (yes, I use Windows). It takes a while to set up, but now I can add en and em dashes with only two keystrokes—quite an improvement for WP editing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I add shortkeys all the time on various programs. If i used a reallot of weird characters, I'd totally do that to have across windows. Circeus 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

hairpin banksia

I'm probably going to run this one thru FAC some stage soonish (I had intended to work it up and do it at the same time as B ericifolia but didn't 'feel right' at the time. Have left it for a bit and it looks in not bad nic at all really..(obviously not ready quite yet but not hugely far off neither....)....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Righto. I'll try to help out but I'm having trouble keeping up with you these days. ;-) So don't feel you have to hold up on my account.

I'm working on Banksia sessilis at the mo. Hesperian 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/André_Kertész:

Grrr, he's just opposed again and he's so vague it's not really giving me any idea on how to bliming start. Do you know what the heck he means by an art critism section? I have no freakin' idea where to start and your help would be greatly appreciated - as it is I'm struggling to get Vampire finished before I have to give the books back (Who knew books could only be granted for 3 weeks at some places!?), so I really can't afford to have this start. Since we're a team, would you be able to give me some hint as to what I'm supposed to do. If you do, I'll be forever in debt - I really can't be bothered making another FAC for Kertesz and frankly, I'll lose interest. Cheers Cas, Spawn Man 07:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, now that he's explained everything to me. I think I've done a good job - Could you check it out for me? I'm a bit worried that most of the stuff is from the New York Times though... Spawn Man 09:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Check out what I've done on Vampire - I'm pretty proud I've turned all the "Description" section from bullet points into prose. So yeah, chuffed... ;)

So whatdoya think about the Critical evaluation section? Good or bad? Spawn Man 09:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! Hopefully Callio will unoppose now - I'm off to spend time with my fiance. She's so awesome; I love her to bits. :) Anyway, thanks Cas - I was proud how I whipped up a full, cited section in under 1 hour. I'll look at that Peterwhatever FAC tomorrow afternoon as I'm out all day & I'm kinda tired now... Anyway, thanks Cas. :) Spawn Man 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

K, I've gone through the vampire article up until the Greek part of the "Ancient beliefs" section - anything you can cite is a bonus up until there; I'll add mine later. I have an inkling though that the article is going to wind up being between 90-100kbs. I'm scared cas, really scared. What monster have we created?! ;) Spawn Man 07:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found a solution!!!! See the vampire talk page!!! :D Spawn Man 05:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've reached the end of the line with Vampire - it's over to you now Cas. I'll add my refs shortly, but the rest of the writing will be up to you. I'll copyedit etc as you go along; I've done up to the Ancient beliefs section, but haven't completed it fully (Couldn't find info on the indian stuff etc. Let's see what you can add and then we can go through and finish it off. I'll try and find something else to occupy my time. :) Spawn Man 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough

You are opposing promotion to FA on the basis of ONE sentence in an 82kb article, although you previously said you would see what others think! How would you re-word it..? Chrisieboy 09:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See talk page of WT:FAC then. I am working on a rewrite as we speak. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at FAC. Chrisieboy 16:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just had an edit conflict. I was going to add Whilst recognising the reconfiguration of the relationship between the city and station is critical, English Heritage found the current plans for Westgate unconvincing and felt more thought should be given to the vitality of the historic core before the second ref. I would have also taken identified investment priorities out at a push. Will you consider a compromise..? Chrisieboy 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Coolest species name

It's got to be Chaffy Spleenwort (Asplenium paleaceum). Imagine it as an insult in a Victorian sitting room. Marskell 08:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha... Always liked Wild Ass and Spangled Drongo, drongo has a particular connotation in Aussie english, meself. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Article History

Greetings Casliber, we had previously briefly discussed the issue of searching article history to discover when certain pieces of text were added. You had mentioned your efforts in bringing Lion to FA status.

I have since investigated the feasibility of such a search/analysis tool and developed a crude instrument. Pursuant to which, in regards to Lion, I predict the following:

1. "The male lion is highly distinctive"

Appears approx. 1130 revisions ago. Edited 05Jul07 by Casliber. Article ID is 142757044. Persists in the current revision.

2. "In the wild, lions live for around 10-14 years"

Appears approx. 4477 revisions ago. Edited 27May04 by 165.222.186.195. Article ID is 3806428. Disappears approx. 4454 revisions ago. Last seen or gone in revision 20Aug04 by Stereotek. Article ID 5700798.

3. "Lions live for approximately 10"

Appears approx. 267 revisions ago. Edited 11Sep07 by Casliber. Article ID is 157102622. Persists in the current revision.

You may note from 3. above, the tool has limitations, i.e. I could not find the "10-14 years" portion.

Your comments: - am I close to accurate on these predictions? I haven't checked them. - is this the sort of useful tool you referred to? - I have the Lion pages and would invite further queries, also any other challenge queries on different articles. Plain text only for now. - the tool is wpW5 - wikipedia who-what-when-where-why - it is currently wpW5PxC, PxC being "proof-of-concept" or more realistically "pretty-xxx'in-crude". Your further input is appreciated. Franamax 10:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)