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.
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See
On Agaricus
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικόν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.)
It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go.
As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction."
has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc.
As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato)
Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)
Arianewiki118:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Misplaced Pages. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Special edition triple crown question
Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.
The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Paper
An interesting abstract: . A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." Hesperian13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unkown but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have Betelgeuse "on the radar". I’d be interested in taking the article to "FA status" with you. In reviewing it briefly, I notice that nomenclature is an issue. In fact, pursuant to your feedback on Talk:Pleione (star), I realized that nomenclature is an issue in the design of all star articles. So I decided to invest the time to fully research it. If you have a moment, I’d be interested in your reaction to the ideas put forth. And let me know when you’re ready to start with Betelgeuse. I’m ready when you are.
Sadalsuud (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty psyched to work with you on this. So I already decided to do some cleanup. The Starbox really needed some work. So that's now all up to date with refs included. Also I created a personal sandbox and imported the latest version to completely redesign the article's structure. There is not one single word changed in the article itself — just moved a few blocks of text, added headings and sub-headings, and repositioned some pics. I think it works better. If you have a chance, take a look at the redesign and let me know if you think it works. You can find it at User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox.
Looks cool. I have the Richard Hinkley Allen book and the Kuntzisch book to get the etymology right - I also have a longer oxford dictionary (with magnifying glass). Will pull out books and go from there in the next 24-48 hours. Feel free to tweak and/or add any bits of text you can. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Great! I'll update a few things, copy it over and post a short note on the talk page. I'm not sure about the sub-headings for Observational History, but that section was so big, it needed some structure to it. We can modify the sub-headings as we go along. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I had a few minutes spare now so was doing a bit of copyediting to make the lead a bit more snappy. I will look at all the etymology stuff tonight. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great! I'm going to call it a night. Tomorrow, I'll look at expanding the Visibility section. I just cut and pasted the last two paragraphs from the former "Characteristics" section. It needs to be massaged a bit. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've copied the existing "Visibility" and "Properties" sections to User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox and will focus on just that for the next 48 hours with the idea of transporting a coherent block of text back Betelgeuse in the next few days. Right now I'm doing a lot of reading. There's a lot of information on this star. So I'd like to give myself a couple of days to pull all the elements together. That way, I hope to have both these sections flow properly. Before I do this "block transport", I'll let you know, so you can offer any suggestions.Sadalsuud (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've managed to come up with two new sections that are ready for transport to the main article. You can review them here: at the "New Visibility Section". I put them in context, so you can see what the article looks like. As I indicated a few days ago, I won't make the transfer until you've had a chance to review first. Let me know what you think.
My main concern is the ESA copyrighted information at the bottom of the Visibility section. Let me know if that is handled appropriately. There is still much more work to do. I have quite a few more sections planned, but decided to at least get these two ready for prime time. If you think they work, I can copy them over later today. I await your thoughts.Sadalsuud (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks great - I was just thinking something along these lines about how to find it and our theories on how far it is have evolved over the years. Stick it in and we can continue copyeidting from there. I am not sure which bit is copyrighted - can you highlight? Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the very last paragraph in the The enigma sub-section — right under the VLA satellite dish picture. I introduce the copyrighted info with these words: "According to the information provided on ESA's website...." Just click HERE! and you'll see it there in bold as well. What follows is almost verbatim (with a few tweeks), then as you'll notice there's the ref #36 which, if you click on it, takes you to the Reference section where you can click on the web-link called "Gaia overview", which of course takes you directly to the ESA source material.
I thought about simply paraphrasing the essence of the ESA information, that way avoiding any copyright infringement. But frankly, it was so well written and informative that I thought it would be a more honorable gesture to copy it verbatim and provide the reference.
What do you think? Should I rewrite this section "in my own words"?
Just so you have a little context, what I love about this sub-section "The enigma" is I noticed with every single article I read on the internet all these conflicting quotes on Betelgeuse. My first reaction was "That's bizarre! Everybody's got a different story to tell" It was at that point that I really saw an opportunity to do a great job and explain why all the information on Betelgeuse is so conflicted. The essence is that we still haven't quite figured out how far Betelgeuse is. So this section from ESA is a perfect conclusion to the section. The Enigma section starts with the distance estimate of 56 parsecs in 1920, does a fair job of explaining what has happened in the interim and then concludes with "What's next". So that's why I definitely want the ESA information in there. It pulls all the pieces together for the reader.
In any event, I'm glad you liked it. I'm pretty happy with it myself, although it would be great if we can get an astronomer like RJHall to make sure everything works. As I see it, I'm a pretty good "guinea pig" for this sort of thing, as I try to understand the subject form the layman's perspective. Having an astronomer looking over my shoulder wouldn't hurt.
One last thing. I got your note... All systems go... I'll be cutting and pasting into the main article shortly. As each new section matures, I'll let you know. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I too love actually spelling out who says what and why rather than just presenting facts as facts. There are similar issues in taxonomy, botany etc. and very often the answer is just not so clear cut. I will look at the copyrighted material in a minute. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
New Visibility sub-section
Hi Calisber. I've got a new section for you to look at. To be honest it's not quite finished. But given my commitment to have something ready within a day or two, I've produced a "condensed" version for prime time. There are two more additional paragraphs that I am still working on. I will try to include them soon.
Like last time, I have imported the most recent version of Betelgeuse into my User page so you can see the new section in context. It can be found by clicking: HERE!. That will take you to a new Visibility sub-section which I've entitled "Rhytmic dance" — an effective metaphor, I think, for the star's oscillating character. Consistent with comments made a few weeks ago at Talk:Pleione (star), I'm using standardized terminology for "major headings" and descriptive terminology for "sub-headings". I think it works. Let me know your thoughts.
If you wish to see the other sub-sections I'm working on, you can click: Here!. You will notice an extensive Contents Box and think I've possibly gone mad! No need for alarm however. I just found that I needed to bring some organization to the drafting of these sections, so I'm using the Contents Box as a kind of outline tool. That way, when I read an article, I have an idea where the new information fits, I can cut and paste for future editing, and then come back to it later. I hope you find this Contents Box helpful in understanding how I'm trying to tackle this project. If you have any idea as to how it can be improved, let me know.
The two additional paragraphs I'm working on for Rhythmic Dance you will find by clicking on the Rhythmic dance sub-section. I gave them an olive colored font, so they stand out.
The scope of this project has turned out to be far more than I ever imagined. There is so much information to absorb — kind of like putting together a giant jig-saw puzzle with 10,000 pieces. What I'm finding is you can't just work on one section at a time, as every piece is interconnected, and you need to have a sense as to where all the pieces fit. In any event, you'll see how each section is coming along. Some sections are more advanced than others.
I'm enjoying the challenge of it. I believe the goal of completing the different sub-sections by mid-August is still achievable. Let me know if you think the condensed version is ready to be transported over to the main article. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting - so the version you want to import is the condensed one above the olive text? Looks good - I find it easier to work with when I see it in the article, so bring it in. I think the olive bit is worth bringing in sooner rather than later and working from there. The prose can probably be tightened a bit - that will be easier to acheive once read as a whole. My approach is generally get all the content in first, then do the copyedit. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I just imported it and refined it further. Click HERE! for the latest. I actually included 4 out of the 6 paragraphs that I'm contemplating. The extra 2 paragraphs I will add in the next week or so as I gather more information. This first import holds together pretty well by itself, I think, and may not need the extra paragraphs. The extra information will simply discuss additional variability issues like periodicity. It's always a judgement call as to what constitutes "too much information". We'll see. What makes Betelgeuse so challenging is there is a lot of conflicting information out there — just like all the conflicting information I saw regarding distance. My intent is to at least cover the different findings and put them into perspective. Sadalsuud (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Calisber. In notice you've been busy the last few days. When you have a moment and have been able to review the "chunks" enumerated above, your thoughts on what to do here would be really helpful. Click HERE to see comments. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Observations on Import #3
I finally got most of those "chucks" cleaned up over the weekend and, pursuant to your suggestions imported them into the main article. Also, I've posted some observations related thereto for your insight and comment. When you have a moment, click HERE to see comments. To see recent changes, simply go to the Betelgeuse article. I look forward to your thoughts and any ideas you have for GA review submission.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Reconsidering strategy
Hi Casliber. When you have a chance, I've posted some recent thoughts on the future direction of the Betelgeuse article, and would value your insights. Click HERE to see comments.----Sadalsuud (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
System launch + GAN?
Hi Casliber. The "Star system" section is close to complete. Just needs a few refs and xrefs, I think. Click HERE to review and post any comments or concerns. Thanks again for your focused attention. --Sadalsuud (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reworked the Angular anomalies section to create a more balanced argument. When you have a chance, please review HERE and let me know your thoughts.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. When you have a chance, your insights on a few other issues would be helpful. You can find them HERE.--24.203.198.172 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Casliber. I think this section is finally done. Though it's a bit of a rush job, I think it will stand up. Click HERE to see comments and get to the latest version in the sandbox. Thanks again for your on-going support of this project. I'm pooped! Fortunately, we're almost there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Concerns at the crossroads
Getting close to the finish line. There are a couple of concerns, however. When you have a moment, can you review comments HERE? Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Pleione GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to say that I've had to divert my attention to the Pleione article, as you probably guessed. I noticed your contributions, and in fact, provided some xrefs, which I believe are accurate. I hope to have all the GA improvements done by Saturday. If you have a chance to give it a quick lookover in a few days, that would be great. This weekend, I'll try to get the "Organizational history" section up to standard, get your thoughts, and then propose the article for GA review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if you noticed, but we got GA status on Pleione. Now I can come back to the Betelgeuse article in earnest. There's only a few minor edits needed after which I'll finally submit the article for GA review. The only missing element is a discussion of stellar mass. When mass was originally addressed back in July, I simply referenced Jim Kaler, though now I recognize the conversation to be more complex. Once addressed in earnest, it will clear up any confusion from the Fate section which quotes a different metric. Bottom line? Hope to get all this done in a few days and submit. Any last thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been pretty busy IRL lately. I am more than happy to let you take the dirver's seat WRT mass as you have a handle on all the mass calculations - will try to follow with copyediting ideas and/or observations and boring format fixes. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Understood. With the summer now behind us in Canada, I too have become very busy with work and other stuff. We'll at least get this to GA soon and then we can plan from there. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Organizational history upgrade
I've now turned my attention back to Betelgeuse and decided to post a new section on the talk page Major surgery on Observational history section?. Given that this section was the focus of early contributions, I have intentionally avoided editing "other people's work", focusing as you know on adding new sections. But as I point out, the job needs to be done for various reasons and I thought it would be useful to put everyone on notice and invite comments. The last thing I want to do is create an edit war. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've gotten started. Check out Herschel's discovery section for recent edits. As I point out on the Talk page, I'm trying to keep most of the early contributions while giving the whole section a "historical" focus. I think it works. Your insights however would be useful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Finally nominated for GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to let you know that Betelgeuse has finally been nominated for GA review. Updated observations HERE! Thanks again for your on-going participation in this process.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
GA corrections complete?
I noticed you were able to make a few corrections pursuant to the GA Review. The review was clearly quite favorable. I made a few other changes and responded. Let me know if you see anything missing. You can see my comments Here!. Thanks again. We're finally getting there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Misplaced Pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Casliber- You reviewed the American Alsatian a year back now for Good Article and since then there has been some new reliable sourcing added to the article. You mentioned at that time that if new reliable sources were included to let you know. The following sources have been added and/or improved:
Imam, Bassam. "Animalogy: Dogs and Other Canids". free e-books.com. Retrieved 2010-11-08.,
"American Alsatian: Appearance". Rightpet.com. July 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-08.,
Sicard, Gary (February 2008). "American Alsatian (Shepalute)". MolosserDogs. Retrieved 2009-06-08.
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Data requested yonks ago, lately retrieved with many apologies for delays from the wikiwankingwonk.
Couldn't for the effing life of me find that vol which contained the info on star names in Japanese dialect you asked about until I stumbled across it this morning while cleaning up where my disrespectful cat cocked its leg, on a pile of TLS's near my desk. I tremble to add these details because, with my rotten reputation as someone who is always looking for a political angle, it ain't going to help that Obama must be mentioned.
In Japanese dialects Betelgeuse or α Orionis is configured with Rigel β Orionis as the opposite sides of Orion's Belt
Thus, in the dialect of the coastal village of Obama in Fukui prefecture, the two were called wakiboshi or 'sidestars' because they lie on either side of the belt. In the dialect of Ikishima (壱岐島) island in Nagasaki Prefecture, the pair were known as ēte-boshi (相手星, standard Japanese = aiteboshi or ‘opposing stars’) in the phrase kanatsuki no ēteboshi. Here kanatsuki is equivalent to karatsuki, and thus the phrase meant the 'opposing stars of the Belt of Orion'. The same idiom existed in Wajima (輪島) dialect further north in Ishikawa Prefecture.
In 1950, a quite distinctive and archaic dialect term for the two stars was retrieved from the dialect of Yokokura village (横蔵村) in the Ibi district of Gifu Prefecture. There Betelgeuse and Rigel were denominated respectively by two famous clan names. The two clans were the Taira, otherwise known as the Heike, and the Minamoto, or Genji. These two clans conducted an epic struggle to wrest control over Japan during the historic Genpei war of the early medieval period, a devastating conflict that was memorialized in the The Tale of the Heike, an early masterpiece of Japanese literature. The crest of the Taira is red (揚羽蝶/Ageha-chō or 'swallowtail butterfly'). The crest of the Minamoto is gentian blue (笹竜胆/sasa-rindō, or 'bamboo gentian'). Thus, in Yokokura, the red supergiant Betelgeuse was called Heike-boshi (平家星, the Heike star) and the blue supergiant Rigel the Genji-boshi (源氏星, the Minamoto or Genji star), corresponding to the the respective colours of the two stars. The reference is Nojiri Hōei,Nihon no hoshi, Chūkō Bunko, Tokyo 1976 pp.243-245. Nishidunny aka Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)This is really intresting!
He's a pretty good speaker. I created a stub about the book, which is probably worth getting to DYK, although I'm not sure I have the time to expand it enough this weekend. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm interested in helping WikiProject Plants, mainly articles that haven't been created yet. Is there any style I should follow besides the Manual of Style's general stuff while writing articles? Regards, HurricaneFan2515:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Aha, well I'm glad you asked. I have tried getting lots of biology articles in different areas to look like each other so we look more like an encyclopedia. Hmmm...generally keep at scientific names. Erm, I generally use headings like in Banksia paludosa which is one of my most recent ones that has become Featured. Just ping me when you make one and I can take a look. We can build a few big and fast for DYK. Another editor, Poyt448 (talk·contribs) does alot of bushwalking and starts alot of articles and I often help format and expand his so lots of the DYKs on rainforest plants from around where we both live (Sydney, Oz) are joint efforts. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk·contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I can follow it up next time I'm at the library, but I thought you might know off the top of your head. It seems like a competent effort and I don't want to scare them off. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not one for lobbying arbs on thier talk pages. However, I'm a little concerned with the workability (rather than the principle) of the arbcom motion on the "unblocks and enabling" case. I've no dog in the fight between the parties, and I'm fairly happy with the idea that admins shouldn't reverse other admin decisions on their unilateral judgement, however I can't see the equation of a decision to engage tools and a decision not to engage tools working out in practice. Well meaning laws that doen't work tend to bring legislators into disrepute. We don't often agree, but I respect that you are someone who usually carefully thinks through the unintended consequences of things, so I was wondering whether I could persuade you to look at my comments and apply your mind to how this actually works in the multiple possible situations. If nothing else, the motions needs more careful wording (and I'm not just talking about the polish for which Sand is looking). Thanks.--Scott Mac22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't feel the motion was a good fit to how I felt about the whole situation. Although the request does not have consensus for a case, it isn't simple either, so have gone for a multifaceted motion. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The motions you recently added to the case imply that I blocked Malleus solely because of his exchange with Tbhotch ("Kaldari blocked Malleus Fatuorum for this exchange"). Half of the reason I blocked Malleus was for his ongoing personal attacks against Nick Levinson,(see edit summary) which I had specifically warned him about previously. The AN/I thread from Tbhotch was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Kaldari (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
... here. In the event you do think it's ready, pls go ahead and re-transclude it, with a note from you, (but Little Jerry never added the FAC template to the talk page either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Maryland Birds Vandal (?)
Over the past three days, an anonymous user, whose IP keeps changing, insists on renaming the Rock Pigeon to Feral Pigeon at List of birds of Maryland. This is not supported by the reference for the list or any references of his own. How can I deal with this? Its been a while, and the lack of a stable IP makes introductory notes difficult. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
A message from me can only mean one thing. Yup, a request for a copyedit for an article heading to FAC. And joy of joys, it's for a cricketer/cricket commentator, so your inherent ignorance of the jargon will once again be irritating and very useful all at once. Are you up for the challenge? The article's not quite ready for your attention yet, but should be soon, possibly by the weekend. --Dweller (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The article, Jonathan Agnew is ready for your attentions. If you did follow that Test in Cape Town... it wasn't a typical one! Although it was very enjoyable, especially for a Pom. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cas, I've just started working this up, so content/style/images are work in progress. I wonder if you could comment on the structure (order of sections, heading/subheadings, anything missing) I've not done a reserve before, so just wondered if there is a more logical arrangement, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me?14:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Cas, that's really helpful. I haven't even started on the lead yet. The RSPB seems to have published virtually nothing on the non-avian flora and fauna at this reserve, which is mostly what you would expect in a coastal marsh, so I'm struggling to find RS stuff. I'll follow other suggestions as I go. Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This might be getting close to GA status, see what you think? Does it need a longer lead? How to remove hyphens from the Taylor reference has me puzzled. Marj (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have the relevant segment from Higgins, which is pretty hefty - last I looked the article still had a way to go. Will compare the two and trace some other sources soonish. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've Tyrant-flycatcher to Chats out of the library for the summer. Most of the articles I've been able to track down are summarized there. Marj (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I just finished reading the species description for the Grey-necked Rockfowl. It stresses that the species was found near Mount Cameroon and therefore was assumed to be mountainous. I went ahead and put the oreas=mountain into the article. Could you please slip in the page number for the reference and make sure I didn't misunderstand your message on the talk page? Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thought you might see both the humour and the positive-mental-attitude in the face of "challenges" (ahem!) here. :o) And yes, I have both that and C-PTSD; what a wonderful combination, eh?!. Ho hum, ain't life a bi@tch! (though less of one with paroxetine than without it.) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The 'deleted' page Arjun Sreedharan shows the deletion log which is actually outing some private data about an individual. I request you to remove the log from the page and delete the edit summary - " content was: ****** " from the database itself; so that the individual's privacy can be protected. Thanks. Laimnjoke (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
On 24 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pied Monarch, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Pied Monarch of north Queensland binds its nest with spiderwebs and decorates it with lichen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pied Monarch.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Aargh, some chest thumping and locking of horns mostly. I agree that setting a common goal (FAC for 9/11) is best way to go and just ignore the argy-bargy. Might take a look....Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to haunt you with your early edit history...
I have recently written "(Latham, 1802)", the genus authority, in the taxobox of the Australian Magpie article. I see their is quite a lot of history in the taxonomy section. I do not know much about genus authors and I wonder if the Latham should be written in the main text of the article or not for completion. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have been putting genus authorities in taxoboxes of genus articles. As far as I am aware, there are not many genus authorities on species articles and I have not added many (less than five probably) to species articles. The discussion was about putting genus authorities on genus articles. Nevertheless, there is a lot of details of taxonomy in the "Australian Magpie" article including the history of the topic, so I thought it might be useful on this page. Is is sufficient to rely on the genus article to provide the genus authority for species articles? Delete it from the species page if you think it makes the species taxobox to cluttered and it is irrelevant to the text in the article. Snowman (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I accidentally edited my comment after you had replied, however the flow of the discussion is not changed. I wonder if a line on Latham's contribution in the main text should accompany the new edit to the taxobox, if you are keeping the genus authority in the taxobox. I am pausing editing genus authorities for consolidation and feedback before considering the non-Passerine genera, so your comments will be welcome. There is some discussion on my talk page and on the WP Bird talk page. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I need to read a bit first - my first impression is that I can think of more pressing tasks, but if it is something you want to do then I will have a look tomorrow. I can see a case for it. I am juggling a bunch of tasks with limited time and this I need to go over and review. As far as other bot-tasks, it'd be good to have a bot de-bold all the latin names in the first sentence like we agreed at the discussion....Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I do not want to overload you. I can manage with the help from the other bird article editors. I have written a script to write in genus authors, s
o it will not take too long to complete the task now. I could easily to write the genus name in the correct format in the first line of the article, but a lot of small edits is frowned upon. I have been doing them with other edits on the same page. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to do it and tweak any of the bird FAs that I've worked on. As the magpie is cracticus then Vieillot, 1816 is the authority? It is just gone midnight here and I will go to bed very soon as I have had a long day....I am just trying to review some FACs. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, (Latham, 1802) is the binomial authority and not the genus authority, so I should have said Vieillot above. I got up early today before sunrise, after editing the Wiki late last night. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is probably going to get lost on the DYK talk page
Thank you for your patience with the Quoll article. I have since added an additional step before attempting GA or Peer review, which falls under the heading Teacher Review. I hope to catch the more mundane errors so that GA reviewers are not dealing with the more obvious blunders. It should also eliminate the rush of desperate attempts for GA as the term comes to a close. Of course, my skills are limited and the scrutiny of GA will still reveal those inevitable flaws. I very much appreciate all you have contributed over the years, in assisting the AP Biology project. hopefully, we didn't make a mess of things or monopolize too much of your time! Cheers.--JimmyButler (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
PS: While I think of it, how about this for an idea (to show how incomplete we still are). Get the class to take a photo of something in the local area (insect, plant, mushroom are easiest, also some regional parks or reserves) which either has no article or is a 1 or 2 sentence stub and expand it. Many of the plants are things I've taken photos of in local bushland near my house. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Aha! Peter Olde thinks it's a variant of G. mucronulata, which is what I thought the flowers looked like but the leaves are different. Peter Weston was unsure when he thought it was arenaria too. Anyway, have written back to him to ID some other grevilleas on commons :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much for that and pass on my thanks to your correspondents. The leaves are tricky, very different between forms.Melburnian (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that form has very round leaves. I thought I'd photographed mucronulata before but have not come across photos in my archives as yet. I find they are usually more pointed than that. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cas. I've noticed that you create a lot of articles about plants, and thought you may be the one to come to. Let me explain a bit. I admit that article creation is not my strength, to be frank it's something I suck at. I'm much more comfortable taking on a bunch of POV pushing editors in a deadlocked dispute rather than creating an article, but I understand the need to do content work. I've been working on an article, Daniel Fitzgibbon as well as one in my userspace, and it's made me realise just how hard writing an article is (it has opened my eyes up) but I did notice the rather large list of plant articles needing creation, so I was kinda wondering what sources you tend to use (or where you start looking) to get the basic information for an article, as you seem to create quite a few. Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Steven Zhang23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes there are stacks of them..also stacks of insect articles too. I have concentrated on australian plant articles and it is very easy to get some sources from Florabase (Western Australia), Plantnet (NSW) and APNI (national) - between them this is a reasonably good way to get a stub sourced. Virtually none of the articles at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants/Article requests are Australian however. Many are just lists from genera with some well-known representatives. Ethically, I'd planned to get stuck into weed articles, as everyone should know more about potential weeds. So, I had planned on going to this website and looking at the noxious weed list, starting out with which ones I pull out of my damn garden....Plant names can be tricky and some might be under different scientific names. Maybe we'll start off with some Qld ones...have a look at this list and see which are redlinks when you type them in. If bluelinks, then add weed info and maybe look at 5x expand for DYK. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that. That's really helpful. Do you generally create plant articles based on their common name, or their scientific name (eg. Acacia baileyana or Cootamundra wattle)? StevenZhang04:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
(Chipping in) Usually the scientific name - see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora) for further info. If your interest is Australian plants, you may be interested in a list I have compiled of plant genera in Australia. It's not comprehensive, but it's a way of finding redlink Australian species articles, if you click through to each genus article and locate the species list. Note however that if a genus is not endemic to Australia (check article) some of the species will be be native to elsewhere.Melburnian (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Okey doke. Thanks for the links, I'll give it a crack and see how I go, though hardly think I can polish up an article to the quality you create on a daily basis. Will do my best though :-) (Any progress on the Abortion discussion as of yet? I'm thinking the structure could be used at the proposed process, Misplaced Pages:Binding RFCs) Cheers. StevenZhang05:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Steve - while I think of it - a good place to look online is any plant which is either endangered or a weed, as governments often prepare detailed pages on them. Same with insects that are agricultural pests. I think getting more of these articles buffed is pretty important. I have also created a dumping ground at User:Casliber/To-Do of things to expand here and there. Feel free to pillage and strike off once done for DYK or expanded or whatever. Or add some you think I might be interested in. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that list Cas. I will indeed pillage some of these from your list. I think I posted you a link a few times, but as your framework for the Abortion discussion would have an impact on how it would go, I'd really appreciate your feedback on Misplaced Pages:Binding RFCs. Cheers, StevenZhang00:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:OWN
Hey Cas. I'm thinking our latest newcomer (BC Myles) may need a chit chat aboutarticle ownership and wikipedia style. I'd do it myself, but I haven't done admin stuff in a long time, and I know my attempts at sounding diplomatic easily come across as arrogant. I was almost solely responsible for accidentally driving enCASF (talk·contribs) away, and I would absolutely hate for that to happen again. Circéus (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for placing the Black mamba article under protected status. I have an expertise in herpetology and I've worked long and hard to better that article and it's where its at today largely because of my long and hard work and dedication to the article. I have nominated it for "Good Article" status and still waiting for a reviewer, but with people constantly vandalizing or arguing over silly things, it will not pass. I believe it deserves "good article" status, but like I said vandals continue to put the article at risk of failing. I hope you putting it under protected status wouldn't somehow give a potential reviewer a reason to fail it. What do you think? Bastian (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, semi protection is used for vandalism not content wars, and many good and featured articles have had long periods of semiprotection - particularly medical articles and animals familiar to schoolchildren (lion and blue whale for example). The idea is that editing is as open as possible, but if the drain on resources outweighs the benefit, then semiprotection is prudent given the limited time we all have. Semiprotection is the most useful tool I have found, and the main reason I became an admin. It also helps with pagemoves if one has to delete to rejig pages. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, schoolchildren and even laymen adults often have unrealistic views of some animal species (like you mentioned Lion, blue whale, and I'd like to add Tiger, Elephant, King cobra, and unfortunately, the Black mamba too). From what I've dealt with in the Black mamba and King cobra articles is that there is very little regard for scientific work. A blog backing their claim will suffice as a "reference" to these schoolchildren and adults (the guy I dealt with in the snake articles was an adult, believe it or not). It took a lot of patience on my part and the help of an admin to fend the guy off. He was obsessed with making the King cobra this super venomous snake that killed people in 5 minutes and on and on and on. I re-wrote the "Venom" section of that article, but otherwise left it alone. I focused on the Black mamba. Anyways, I'm just rambling now. It's good to know that the semi-protection of the article won't effect its nomination for GA status. Thanks. Bastian (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: Have you got university access to fulltexts of journals etc.? A few of us do, I am with University of New South Wales so I can get Australian journals the easiest but a few of us are happy to help ferreting out articles for folks. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The Macaroni Penguin is a species of penguin found from the Subantarctic to the Antarctic Peninsula. One of six species of crested penguin, it bears a distinctive yellow crest, and the face and upperparts are black and sharply delineated from the white underparts. Its diet consists of a variety of crustaceans, mainly krill, as well as small fish and cephalopods; the species consumes more marine life annually than any other species of seabird. Numbering up to 100,000 individuals, the breeding colonies of the Macaroni Penguin are among the largest and densest of all penguin species. After spending the summer months breeding, penguins disperse into the oceans for six months; a 2009 study found that Macaroni Penguins from Kerguelen travelled over 10,000 km (6,200 mi) in the central Indian Ocean. With about 18 million individuals, the Macaroni Penguin is the most numerous penguin species. However, widespread decline in populations have been recorded since the mid 1970s. These factors result in their conservation status being reclassified as vulnerable. (more...)
I will try to get behind it and participate as a contestant if it is anything "core"ish. Not going to be a prima donna on details (Wiki people do that too much). I think if you just set it up and bring people to your vision that is better than debating process. If you can get Malleus involved, that would be great. He is top notch. But if he is fundamentally opposed or if he is not going to work on it, even if it is designed how he wants, then don't alter the design for him. (Not meant catty, just this seems common sense.)TCO (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
P.s. 5 random VAs, FAs, and GAs (and I have Excel to prove the randomiation). And I can give a longer list. But it's actually easier to process visually with 5 than 10.
I think it is clear the Vital Articles are "vital" and the FA, GAs not. I mean if you had to delete forever 5 articles from that goup of 15, which would they be? I warrant they would all be from the FA, GAs. None from the VAs. I think this gun to the head thought experiment shows intuitively what matters more.TCO (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
At least three of those GAs fall under the "cookie-cutter" category (as I've heard it be called), while only one could be said to from the FA category (if the concept even makes sense with FAs). On the other hand, four of the FAs (neglecting the hurricane as I know nothing of them) look to be fairly important- a top-5 article concerning a major nation, a well-known popular film, a moderately significant piece of architecture and a fairly significant event from an under-repersented area of the world. Yes, the differences between the three categories are clear, but the FAs don't look to be completely trivial. J Milburn (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
TCO, to me personally, the FAs look the most interesting. I do agree about buffing the big/broad articles, which is why I am considering this all. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: You were s'posed to go and buff some snapping turtle or other IIRC....
I'm with Cas - the only one of those VAs that I'd want to go and read would be Pericles - in fact, I'm off there as soon as I'm done here. I'd happily read any of those FAs, except, perhaps the hurricane. None of the GAs appeal to me - except Sunny Lee whose name means nothing to me (I presume it's a person) so I might click on it to find who it is. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt,22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Adenanthos obovatus is a shrub of the Proteaceae family endemic to Southwest Australia. It grows as a many-stemmed spreading bush up to 1 m (3 ft) high, and about 1.5 m (5 ft) across, with fine bright green foliage. Made up of single red flowers, the inflorescences appear from April to December, and peak in spring (August to October). The shrub grows on sandy soils in seasonally wet lowland areas as well as hills and dunes. It regenerates after bushfire by resprouting from its underground lignotuber. Pollinators include honeyeaters, particularly the Western Spinebill, which can access the nectar with its long curved bill, and the Silvereye, which punctures the flower tube. The most commonly cultivated Adenanthos species in Australia, it has a long flowering period and attracts honeyeaters to the garden. It is harvested for the cut flower industry. (more...)
I take it you are noming articles to give our director and delegate something they can lay their hands on quickly? May I help? I can easily withdraw that coin for a couple of weeks. If you have blurbs prepared, I can nom in my name, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Currawong, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Dharawal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Maybe he is hoping to form an anti Arbitration Committee (following the principle of antipopes etc.) and wants you to head it to give it credibility? HansAdler14:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, as someone who has signed up to be a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, I wanted to let you know that several articles have been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Queue 5
The third hook seems to be missing some of its text. It stops before reaching the end of the sentence, probably a cut-and-paste error somewhere along the way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for initiating the peer review and your constructive edits. The article needs a read from someone like you who has never heard of Ahalya. Looking forward to hearing more constructive comments and edits on Ahaly by you. Thanks again for your prompt response. --Redtigerxyz15:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up this review! The nomination had been around for a while. (My thanks are independent of the outcome, but naturally I'm pleased by that too.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'd really like images of all the species, but can't find copy-right free sources. I have been in e-mail contact with some of the people who've written about the genus, but no joy yet. So I'm working on some other stuff for the present. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the DYK for William Hamlin. User:7&6=thirteen was another author that jointly worked with me on this article that should also get a DYK for it. I nominated him also, but apparently it was missed. Thanks for looking into it.--Doug Coldwell12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Casliber: I've noticed your work at FAC, and your writing skills are obviously outstanding. I'm preparing the article W. E. B. Du Bois for (my first) FA. I've submitted it to WP:PR to get it checked first before going to FAC. Do you have time to do the peer review? Or, if not a detailed review, at least glance at it and see if you notice any issues? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I have shown the image on the article about the cockatoo and attempted to write a caption. We do not have these plants in in the UK, and I do not know if it is called a seed pod or not. Snowman (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I apologize for stepping all over your edits, I didn't know I was doing it! I should've been checking the history log. I'm finished for the night, so please continue editing at your leisure. Again, I'm awfully sorry about the edit conflicts. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad, thank you :) I hope you like the article and continue to work on it. Any critical review you could offer of my contribution would be genuinely appreciated. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, great pic - you've motivated me, so maybe we should get both ibises up to FAC....feel free to comment or tweak the white one and I'll try to dig up more on the scarlet one too. HehehehCasliber (talk·contribs) 07:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to bug you, but since the article has been majorly overhauled since you made your commments and the peer review is still open, I was wondering if you could just take a quick little overview again and suggest if any major improvements are still needed? I would totally understand if you can't though as I see your busy tag above. Thankyou. September88 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I've recently imported across from the Dictionary of Sydney and Wikified the article Florence Violet McKenzie - a fascinating biography. It got a DYK last week and user:Grahamec went in and rated it as B class. I was wondering if you could give it the once-over and see whether it's up to scratch for a Good Article nomination. I've never been heavily involved in writing a good or featured article so I'm not confident in my assessment of my 'own' article. Sincerely, Wittylama23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I wondered about the redlink. Just looking at it over the first few seconds makes me think it's worth a shot, and there's a Good Article reviewing drive on at present, so may as well list it. I might even pick it up there. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
On 19 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scarlet Ibis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in zoos the Scarlet Ibis(pictured) is often fed beetroots and carrots to maintain its plumage coloring, which in the wild comes from carotenoid pigments in shrimp and shellfish? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scarlet Ibis.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You hit protect after some IP edited the page and I missed reverting it. That is why I wanted semi-protection only because none of the established editors were edit warring because they know better. Reduce it to semiprotection so we can at least fix the damn page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Have reverted it to the sourced version now. If no reliable sources are forthcoming in 48 hours I will change it to semi-protection for two weeks. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It is still a bit of overkill in my opinion, particularly when all established editors have been discussing things on the talk page and IPs have only been ignoring everything else.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, would you mind doing a minor edit by changing '''{{nihongo||特命戦隊ゴーバスターズ|Tokumei Sentai Gōbasutāzu}}''' to '''{{nihongo|<!--English title to go here-->|特命戦隊ゴーバスターズ|Tokumei Sentai Gōbasutāzu}}'''?—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cas. I had a bit of a thought over the past few days. While the Abortion case closed only three weeks ago, the backlog that ArbCom has experienced recently combined with the elections recently and the holiday period has obviously delayed the setting up of the discussion, I had an alternative idea. I think that the proposal I created, Misplaced Pages:Binding RFCs has a relatively hammered out process (though like everything could use fine tuning) and the format could be a somewhat modified version of the RFC that Qwrxyian set up at Senkaku Islands, though the "voting" period may possibly be structured like AFD or something. I was considering possibly requesting an amendment to the Abortion case, vacating remedy 5.1 and replacing it with this community option. The new proposal needs a test case, and I think Abortion would fit perfectly, but it really is ArbCom's decision at this point. I'm happy to help set the discussion up if ArbCom is agreeable, and realise that I would need to go to RFAR formally request this but still thought I should see what you thought first. Regards, StevenZhang02:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Steve - the decision already delegates the process to community anyway, so we needn't replace anything, and once the final decision is made, log it as the final outcome to the Arbitration page. That page looks ok, so I'd be happy (in fact I'd be very grateful) if you wanna have a go setting it up in a manner similar to that as a test case. I'll have a look over it and tweak it and then we can set teh debate in motion over a six week (or whatever we agreed on) period. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm not so sure if that would work quite right. In essence the processes would work rather differently. The one led (or setup by ArbCom) would have admins appointed by the committee to close the discussion, whereas the community process would be closed by an admin, a user experienced in the subject area and a user active in dispute resolution, but these users wouldn't be appointed (except perhaps the subject expert, which could be agreed upon by the disputants). It's more a community process as well. Logging the decision at the arbitration case is appropriate at present, but I'm not sure it would quite fit within making the discussion a true test case of the community process. The ArbCom decision doesn't really do much about addressing the issue of repeated discussion about the titles (which is really why I took it to ArbCom in the first place). I'm happy to draw up the framework for such a discussion, but IMHO it may work better if ArbCom vacated remedy 5.1 and deferred the issue directly to a binding RFC. It's untested, but if we're going to give it a go we should go the whole hog. Very happy to work with the committee to help set this up so it doesn't get out of control, but I still think that vacating the remedy would be the best way to do this. Empowering the community to resolve its own problems is also a factor here. Let me know what you think. StevenZhang09:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh bloody hell, I see that "appointed by Committee" bit...hmmmmm......(long pause)....hmmmmmmmmm...okay, I think the best way forward is to initiate a Misplaced Pages:RFAR#Requests_for_amendment and propose the amendment of 5.1 to a binding RfC structured by you (note that I didn't use the insanely annoying habit of sticking the reflexive pronoun "yourself" when a simple one will do. I feel ...frustrated.....when people do it trying to sound erudite...aargh) and to be closed by an admin. Given the only two people with any interest in this segment of the case appear to be you and me (and I as an arb shouldn't really be too involved in it on a hands-on/editorial role) I think this will be accepted with a collective sigh of relief. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. The binding RFC would be closed by three users, not one, as it was suggested that having one user being able to decide on something this sweeping may not be for the best. The three would be an admin, a subject expert (say a participant from WikiProject medicine) and a user active in dispute resolution, who would ensure other steps of DR had been tried. While that doesn't apply in this case (all other DR has been tried) to be a true test case It probably should have three closers. It reminded me of a discussion within a MedCab case from August 2008 (it's sad I could pluck that out of thin air, isn't it...I forgot about that case for ages) where three bureaucrats evaluated the discussion and closed it as per their evaluation of consensus. That's kinda my idea of how it could be closed. I think that perhaps a watchlist notice could also be used to encourage users to participate in the RFC. I agree that the result of the discussion should be logged at the arbitration case, but perhaps it should also be logged somewhere like Misplaced Pages:General sanctions? I think that enforcement should be probably done by the community, though ArbCom can keep an eye on it (and for what it's worth I've got most of the articles on my watchlist so I'd pick up on any issues pretty quick.) What do you think? StevenZhang21:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that RFC. That structure is very good indeed, I'll probably use a similar format to that. I was kinda thinking that instead of selecting three admins, only the user is was experienced in the topic area, in this case Medicine would be selected before the RFC (Doc James came to mind), mainly because the parties cannot then down the road say they disagree with that particular user closing the RFC. Any uninvolved admin could be one of the three closers, and the other closer should be someone experienced in dispute resolution, though not necessarialy an admin. I think that it would provide a bit of variety between the three users. I also still think using a watchlist notice for the RFC is a good idea. StevenZhang00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
On another note, I think it may be wise for me to get this (the binding RFC proposal) ratified at the Village Pump formally first before requesting an amendment at RFAR. What do you think? StevenZhang04:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, you think it is necessary? I don't think anyone disagreed with the WT:V process, or some others. It is up to you, but if you made it into a Proposal for the abortion RFAR and asked for an Amendment and it passed, I tend to think that is enough necessary hurdles to jump over, but if you feel it is necessary then do what you fell you need to do by all means. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've kinda already proposed it at the Village Pump, but there's no going back. If discussion doesn't pick up over the next day or so, I'll just go to requesting it at /Amendment, but I would have thought it would have received a response like "You're proposing a process be used that doesn't even have the support of the community yet" or something similar, so the VP seemed the logical place to go. StevenZhang05:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not getting much of a response from ArbCom about the proposed amendment. What do you think I should do now? StevenZhang06:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
re: on your solitation regarding the MF AC case request
I am content that you are capable of being fair and impartial on the matter at hand, and as such have no demand that you recuse. just IMHO — Ched : ? 04:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cas. I noticed that you use the {{xt}} template at FAC a lot. I thought there was some rule about using templates at FAC (such as {{done}}) due to the way templates can affect the load time of the main FAC page? Is that template an exception to that rule or not? I would have asked at WT:FAC, but thought I'd ask you first. Carcharoth (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The {{done}} and similar templates use images. When dozens (and even hundreds) of them are included on the page, it can become nearly impossible to open it on a slower connection. The {{xt}} does not call upon images although it too can slow things down if used a lot. Risker (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Back from vacation here. Rather ironic that after all that, the traffic statistics were having a bad day and the article shows a whopping two hits for its appearance on DYK. The whole experience left a rather bad taste in my mouth. I also read what other nominators wrote when their articles were challenged by the same party, particularly, one nominator who was a journalist by profession. I had long felt that people who fail to become active editors on WP because of the atmosphere in some corners were in many cases suffering from a thin skin, so this experience was very enlightening. Apparently, sometimes the cause is not a thin skin at all, but an awakened sense of what is important in life—and it's not Misplaced Pages. Marrante (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I reckon you can presume at least 500 pagehits at a minimum and 5000 is good (don't believe the pagehits saying 2). Main thing is to enjoy writing. I've tried lightening the tone. If you stick around, that'd be great. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I know the article didn't get 2 page hits, but that's all that were recorded. My norm is between 1,500 and 5,000, sometimes going well over. Just a few of them have been under 1,000 and they are normally on topics that have different appeal. Your tone wasn't a problem at all. In fact, tone was never the problem. My issue was being yanked twice from prep (by the same very busy person). I had input from another administrator and long-time Wikipedian and then the article sat there like poisoned goods until you entered the picture. Unfortunately, the article finally made it to the main page just as the traffic logs were experiencing a hiccup and for three days, virtually no page hits were counted. I'm sure that article was in the thousands, based on previous experience with similar hooks/articles/placement within DYK. I was just making a comment to you, but it was not about you. My apologies for not having made that more clear. Marrante (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Aah, I wrote that thinking you were a neophyte at wikipedia (not having seen your name around before), but had clearly put 2 and 2 together and gotten 5....(chuckle).... Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
RFAR Malleus
Casliber...you're one of the Wikipedians I admire the most and I am here asking you to not participate in the RFAR on Malleus. While I respect that you would be impartial in your determinations, it may prove difficult for you since you seem to have had a much better personal experience with Malleus than others, including me.MONGO 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Striking through...I have reconsidered.--MONGO04:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with it (don't want to clutter up the request page). Good luck. My, between Malleus and the incipient leadership RFC, we are having interesting times at FAC!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cas! I just stumbled across Humpback whale, which has a bunch of cleanup tags, and saw that a work needed notification had been posted almost exactly a year ago. I also saw that you had responded, saying that you would be interested in seeing the article kept. Not much has been done on the article since then, however, and I am wondering if you are interested in working on it to keep it from FAR. Otherwise, it probably needs one, given the number of issues (tagged and not) within the article. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The Red-capped Robin is a small passerinebird native to Australia. Found in dryer regions across much of the continent, it inhabits scrub and open woodland. Like many brightly coloured robins of the Petroicidae family, it is sexually dimorphic. Measuring 10.5–12.5 cm (4–5 in) in length, the robin has a small thin black bill, and dark brown eyes and legs. The male has a distinctive red cap and red breast, black upperparts, and a black tail with white tips. The underparts and shoulders are white. The female is an undistinguished grey-brown. This species uses a variety of songs, and males generally sing to advertise territories and attract females. Birds are encountered in pairs or small groups, but the social behaviour has been little studied. The position of the Red-capped Robin and its Australian relatives on the passerine family tree is unclear; the Petroicidae are not closely related to either the European or American Robins but appear to be an early offshoot of the Passerida group of songbirds. The Red-capped Robin is a predominantly ground-feeding bird and its prey consists of insects and spiders. Although widespread, it is uncommon in much of its range and has receded in some areas from human activity. (more...)
Hello Casliber and Season's Greetings to you. I just wanted to ask about an odd-seeming sentence in the NSW Xmas bush article. Talking about the wilted flower (singular), is it really supposed to say: "They also have a small point that doesn't affect the body but give them a sharp prick"? Because it looks as if the sentence needs to be rewritten to make it clear what exactly it is supposed to be saying, but I can't really work out what that would be. Many thanks to you and all good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow I didn't notice that - was going to leave it for around 350 days before I looked at it again. I sympathise as I can't figure it out either. I'll try and read source material soonish and get my head around what it might be....just a bit on my plate at present. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
G'day, ya lucky mongrel. I imagine ya out at Bondi with a dozen tinnies, and a medpad, sorry Ipad, batten the breeze with a couple a mates and the ball and chain while the snags sizzle on the barbie, the surf's up for a refreshing dip, and the radio is broadcasting a dazzling hit by a greenn'gold batsman at the Gabba, and existentially, bob's a close rellie. I'm up shitcreek in a barb-wire-canoe: the chimney fell in, the house had a gaping hole, the freeze set in, the boiler threw a tantrum, and I have to rub two boy scouts together to get some warmth out of the one functional hearth in the 'abode'. But, chin up, head down, bum to seats, nose to the grindstone: it'll only get worse over here, so we should enjoy the lighter miseries of the present! Best Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
It's been pretty chilly and rainy this summer...which is fine with me as I really get sick of the 3 month sauna this can otherwise be....though I suspect my and your recent experience of "chilly" differ by around 20 C, 2-3 blankets and the need for a heating system....commiserations, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
With only 14 active arbitrators and three recusals already on what looks to be a extremely complex case, more recusals wouldn't help with anything.
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_policy says that "Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal."
It also says that an arbitator is expect to recuse "where he or she has a significant conflict of interest." (emphasis mine). The relationship between yourself and Malleus sounds like "Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions" which "are not usually grounds for recusal."
If yourself and Newyorkbrad recuse, then the number of arbs who would actually be working on the case would fall to seven, assuming that both Roger Davies and John Vandenberg don't recuse. I'd be shocked if Davies didn't take the case, but John Vandenberg is on his way out, so he might recuse. This would leave the case with six or so arbs...
Chase me
Cool Hand Luke
Xeno
Mailer diablo (Kenneth Kua)
Coren (Marc-André Pelletier)
Elen of the Roads
Kirill Lokshin
Casliber
Newyorkbrad
Roger Davies
John Vandenberg
Risker
David Fuchs
Jclemens
PhilKnight
SirFozzie
It seems like too much work for such a small number of arbs! Another thing to think about is to motion to hand the case over to the incoming arbs. As the arbitration committee this is well with in your power to do. --ScWizard (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Article titles discussion status
Hi Casliber, do you have an update on the status of the discussion of the abortion article titles, i.e. when and where? Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, see above exchange between me and Steve Zhang (who are the only two folks seemingly interested in the mechanics of the next step). Will chase it up later today (just got up...need more coffee....)Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm planning on requesting it come Jan 1 (so the new committee can vote on the matter). I think that since we've been waiting this long that a few more days can't hurt. StevenZhang21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I surely phrased that too broadly because it made you think of someone with black eye, which clearly is rather universal. The Harrises actually singled out only someone's "sacred" (i.e. religious) figures/items being displayed on Misplaced Pages as falling in that less protected class. However, I've now found out that the WMF decided on purpose to make no distinction whatsoever, and to extended the equal "right to be offended" to arbitrary religious values, in the sense that they make no distinction between pictures of poo and images of Muhammad. They are all just controversial content to the WMF. Oh, well, no donation from me anytime soon... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hiya! I'me here to apologise ... looking through the history of the article, I've only just noticed that you were changing "approximatelies" to "arounds" ... unfortunately, in amongst my tweaks and so on this morning, I changed some "arounds" to "approximatelies"! I don't know if this is a UK vs. US or Oz thing, but I don't really have any strong feelings about them - feel free to change them back again :o) I've de-choppified, re-ordered, concatenated etc. in various places to improve fluidity of reading; hope my other changes are OK by you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
It's about plain writing. Use simpler words if no meaning is lost, hence "approximately" and "around" are to all intents and purposes synonymous, and the latter is a whole three syllables shorter! Similarly "prior to" --> "before", "the majority of" --> "most" etc. Have a read of User:Tony1/How to improve your writing if you haven't seen it before. Possibly the most important bit of info I have read in my 4+ years editing here. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I've not only read it, I have a direct link to the removing fluff page from my user page! I don't always remember it all, of course. I never professed to be more than human! I think the "approximately" thing dates from my (several decades ago) schooldays, when we would be absolutely splattered if we wrote "around" rather than "approximately" in any science write-ups. This is quite possibly a UK-thing, but no guarantees. By the way, time and Real Life duties permitting, I'm always happy to assist with copy-edit and cleanup stuff - just drop a line onto my talk page any time you'd like me to tweak something around. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cas! I've been keeping an eye on WP:The Core Contest, and really like the idea of it. Since it's only a couple of days until 2012, I'm wondering if there has been any talk of specific dates, etc? Also, Ealdgyth left a question on the talk page a while back that I am also interested in the answer to... Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I was told that you're a great editor. I was hoping to build a team of editors to help bring the Tiger article up to FA status. You are probably busy with many other projects, but when you have the time let me know. Most work I do is on venomous snakes, but I just think that the tiger article should really be up there. I also work in the medical field, though I'm no psychiatrist (I did want to go to dental school or work on a zoology Ph.D, but the time and money turned me off). I'm a clinical laboratory technologist (also known as a medical laboratory technologist). I have a B.Sc in Medical Laboratory Technology. Bastian (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and no you haven't pointed that out to me. I've give it a look. My main concern now is keeping the black mamba article GA. I asked a GA mentor to help out with the prose. The article is good, the citations are in the right format, the material is neutral, no original research, and well sourced. It's just the prose, which I will have done within the next couple of days. I have Naja nigricollis up now and everything seems okay (according to the reviewer), but I just need a picture. Bastian (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Cas, would you -- or someone who is a good FA reviewer -- be willing to take a "pre-FA" look at Yogo sapphire? I'm not lead editor, and I don't know a lot about gemstones, but am helping some folks there, and we didn't really get the level of helpful feedback at PR that I think was needed, so I'm asking a few trusted and experienced sorts if you'd be willing to do at least an initial peek at the article to see if anything grossly wrong jumps out at you, and comment accordingly? Many thanks! We got through GA without too many hitches, but I know FA is a whole different world. Montanabw06:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I see you've edited it some. I started the article and several have helped get it to where it is, but I'm very fearful of FAC unless someone that Montanabw recommends takes a hard look at it first. So when you say it's ready for FAC we'll list it, if of course you're willing and have the time. We'd all really appreciate it.PumpkinSkytalk12:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
Hi, I'm with the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. You were doing some editing on the Olympic marmot earlier in the week, which is an article that I've been working on. Now, multiple reviewers have told me that it's ready to be reviewed for GA! I nominated it, but TCO suggests to recruit reviewers to facilitate the process, and he directed me to you and a few other users. I would like to ask if you weren't too busy, to do the GA review for the Olympic marmot. I'd really appreciate it! I'm going to ask a few of the other names he gave me about this too, and whoever has the time to get to it first can review it. Thanks! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.
This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Misplaced Pages:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:
File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages
This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.
Hi Casliber, I saw that you added some outdated comments when resetting a DYK preparation area with this edit. Please edit your offline copy so that it does not contain the block of text cited here, these instructions do not really add value anymore. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I plan on doing extensive edits to Elephant and making it my next FAN after Giraffe. Given the importance of the animal, will I need collaboration with other editors? Maybe that will be faster than editing and then submitting for CE or peer review. Would you be interested? LittleJerry (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy 2012 first of all. My picture was taken somewhere on the North Carolina coast, I believe near Cedar Point but it has been a while and I don't think I can retrace my steps on that. Jcwf (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You placed Pop punk under indefinite full protection back in August 2011 due to an edit war. I'm not familiar with what was going on (I came to the page simply to fix a redirect caused by an unrelated page move), but whatever the issue was I imagine 4+ months of full-protection is more than enough to have curbed it. Would you please unprotect it, or at least scale it back to semi? I don't think I've ever come across an article that's been fully protected for that long, for any reason. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is this different? That's what goes on at ANI and Arbcom perpetually. Seems to me leaving the status quo intact is doing just that.PumpkinSkytalk14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
We're considering the Yogo article, and I have a FL, but no FA. It seems very intimdating and I'm leery of it. And you didn't answer the question. It's obvious there are major issues going on in FA land.PumpkinSkytalk19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Any time one has to really strive for thoroughness there are going to be difficulties. By featuring wikipedia's best work one has to be thorough and exacting. You can't have it any other way. It's extremely hard work to run that without rubbing folks up the wrong way at some point. It takes alot of time to properly review and write and alot of dedication, and what we have now is a result of eight years of moulding and cajoling and developing volunteer time - it's amazing. In any system where one introduces radical change, one risks radical fallout. I don't see that as necessary and am concerned about the effect a big disruption might have. I will help with Yogo and we'll see how you feel once you've been through the griller....Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The offer helps, but other than that, oy vey! If it's not okay to disrupt FA, why is it okay to have arbcom, which I guess you're a member of, lose a large portion of its membership every year?PumpkinSkytalk 19:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)...and thanks for helping at Hynds Lodge. I was working Curt Gowdy State Park and noticed Hynds didn't have an article and it's on the National Register of Historic Places. I've work several NRHP articles, so I started Hynds too. I plan to make them a double DYK. PumpkinSkytalk19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good point - arbcom has an awful lot of impact on alot of editors, and I think it helps that standards of arbitrators are scrupulously reviewed by elections. Those who apply for repeat terms are then voted on and pass. FAC is alot more transparent. and one can choose not to participate if one so desires. As far as elections, I am not saying they are never feasible, but I don't think it is necessary now and I think there is a lot more to lose than to gain currently. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, we'll just have to disagree on the FA. Apparently from the current posts Raul started FA and has director (notice he is not "coordinator", a significant point to me) ever since. Note comments he made like wanting people to think like him, (paraphrased)..."if I choose to accept Karanac's resignation". Uh, karanacs is not his employee. K can leave whenever. Raul has the mentality of a military commander or similar position of power. This is totally contrary to what I understand the wiki philosophy to be. So IMHO it's time for a change, now.PumpkinSkytalk19:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
sigh - yeah I saw the wording of that post, which wasn't terrific given the climate of the discussion. However, it does not reflect his running of it, which comes across as more benign. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree again. I still say 7 years is way too long for someone to be in a position of power on a wiki wihtout ever having stood for election and clearly being resistant to one.PumpkinSkytalk20:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Pumpkin, there's a bit of a misunderstanding there in your interpretation of what Raul said and meant-- knowing Karanacs' situation, I'm sure he was hoping (as many are) that her personal circumstances might turn around, hence he didn't want to move too quickly to replace her. Since Ucucha and I were able to keep up with the workload anyway, there was no urgency. It's hard to say any more than that when people's off-Wiki lives are involved, which is something people in positions of responsibility always have to consider. Raul didn't mean what you interpreted him to mean: he built up a process of complete transparency, so it would be unaffected by the kind of politics we're seeing now, and he values people who share his same views on openness, transparency, and consensus. He did the hard work, built up the process, then set up delegates and doesn't micromanage us: he's there whenever we need him and has never abused of the perceived "power" (which is actually just a whole heck of a lot of hard and grunt work). If you're willing to listen, I'll take the time to explain why FAC is different than Arbcom with respect to elections, but if you've given up on the discussion or your views are entrenched, I've got a lot of other work I can do :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to violate anyone's privacy. It seems to me that Raul feels "I built it, it's mine", ie, a OWN mentality. I'll listen if you have time, I haven't given up on talking, just letting the air out for a time.PumpkinSkytalk20:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that your interpretation of Raul's comments are unnecessarily harsh. I agree that Raul is tight-lipped. More communication would be nice, especially in a leadership role. Even if he explains why he doesn't communicate just to make it clear, that would be appreciated. However, by reading Raul's talk page and conversing with him in the very few times I have, like counting on one hand the amount of times I have exchanged words with him over the years, the characterization of him as dictatorial is inaccurate. I think with more time reading through his talk page archives you would see what kind of editor he is. Judging his entire character by comments made in a 24-hour period, innocuous as they are, is not a good standard to guess someone's motives. Moreover, it discourages true communication about the shortcomings other editors see in the way Raul chooses to perform his job. "I think you should communicate more and define what you do here, listen to our concerns and add accountability to your position" is better taken than "You're a dictator". --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
@ Pumpkin: No, he's just not like that-- that's been one of the pleasures as working for him as a delegate. At first, it was most frustrating, because he never once told me how to do the job, and I initially felt like I needed more guidance, but over time, I realized that 1) he had asked me to be delegate because he saw I "got it" and didn't need to be told how to do the job, and 2) he believes in consensus, openness, and lets delegates find their own way, only weighing in on discussions when it's absolutely needed. It's kind of unfair that he is accused with "dictator"-type comments because he's precisely the opposite (leading others to claim he's not involved enough-- but he really stays out of the way and lets those appointed do their jobs).
On why FAC is different than ArbCom vis-a-vis elections: the job of the FAC delegate is to judge whether there is consensus to promote or archive a FAC, based on commentary entered by reviewers. IF reviewers are intimidated, or hesistant to stridently oppose any FAC that doesn't meet standards, article quality suffers.
Reviewers should not be "politicing", as that directly affects article quality (and that is why I'm concerned that Wehwalt has advanced himself as FA director after carefully avoiding ever reviewing any other editor's work, so he wouldn't risk "alienating" votes-- that is precisely the damaging sort of political positioning we don't want to see take over FAC-- there have been GOBS of articles that Wehwalt was perfectly capable of reviewing, but didn't, lest he have to Oppose, alienate, or risk having others examine his prose more closely). For a FAC reviewer to avoid Opposing FACs just so he can get elected affects the FAC process and affects the integrity of the articles we promote-- there is no other process (for example, ArbCom) where we have the same situation. It's the run-up that matters-- articles are affected while reviewers are politicing-- not the same with ArbCom.
It's related to what you're seeing with your image question: I have to be able to sit back, stay uninvolved, watch consensus form, and then make a call on whether anyone has made a case that you haven't found the best image possible, but I can't let friendships or politics or fear that I'll be "thrown out" in an election affect whether I make the best choice. Article are affected.
That there has been a campaign runup that has been allowed to affect FAC for several months is more than a concern: it's repugnant. While this campaign runup was occurring, reviewers were alienated, FAC business was sidetracked, FA writers were offended, TFAR completely stalled, and articles were affected. Campaigning is not a good thing for FAC, and for it to be preceded by a publicized attack on FAC (with extreme incivility, which Wehwalt never called) by the FA director postulant's mentor is even more concerning. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The titles tell a lot. It's not Coordinator and Assistant or Coordinator for FAC, etc, it's Director and Delegate. The titles set a tone and give an image to people. While you make interesting points, "IF reviewers are intimidated, or hesistant to stridently oppose any" doesn't wash. Why should FA be free of this when RFA, Arbcom and everyone else isn't? Casliber-how intimidating are arbcom elections? How much politicking do you put up with? How hard is it to keep all that from affecting your voting? I haven't even commented on an arbcom case but I'd think it's very intimidating. PumpkinSkytalk20:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
re this I'd expect the same thing happens with cases during arb elections-Casliber do you have input on this? Again, why should FA be exempt from what everone else isn't on wiki? PumpkinSkytalk20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
If you had experience writing and maintaining FAs, you would understand what's at stake here. Say Wehwalt achieves the possibility of an election. What will stop me, besides my own sense of shame, from recruiting a few folks to make bad edits to his articles? Ten articles at a time. Forcing him to overturn us repeatedly, then forcing him to violate 3RR, getting him blocked for incivility or edit warring, then using that as evidence of his poor character. Meanwhile commenting on the deficiencies of his articles in the election. Casting aspersions on his abilities as a writer and researcher, insinuating that he will not be competent in the position. This is exactly what happens in elections. In no other forum here is content so closely related. --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the history of the titles, not sure "director" was ever set in stone where or how, but if you simply raise such issues to Raul, he'll explain, discuss, rectify as needed. I'm happy with "delegate", because I value the process over any individual (FAC should not be damaged), and if Raul were ever unhappy with delegating to me, I'd expect and welcome him to replace me. Unlike those who want to "campaign" for what they perceive as "power", I view the integrity of the process as most important. At RFA, they aren't judging consensus as to whether content can go on the mainpage. The politicing in other processes may affect people, but not the content we put on the mainpage. If editors are afraid to Oppose sub-standard material, sub-standard material goes on the mainpage. By avoiding opposes, someone who "fears risking alienation" let's substandard work through, and helps assure his own articles won't be looked at closely for pedestrian prose. Yes, politicing affects arbs (the people), but hopefully not articles (the product). For someone to position themselves in a way that won't best benefit articles, for political reasons, affects the quality of the process that puts content on the mainpage. Others may explain this better than I, but it is fundamental to understanding why FAC works above the politicing that has now been introduced.
Another thing Raul watches for is a respect for consensus and the integrity of articles and the process. Wehwalt was recently involved in an edit war on Richard Nixon (one of his FAs), where he was completely wrong in his interpretation of WIAFA (an image issue, similar to the one you raised), and suddenly his mentor TCO appeared for the first time ever to edit war with Wehwalt on the article (some might call that tag-teaming)-- an alarming demonstration that Wehwalt does not understand WIAFA or hold the status of FAC in high regard. See Moni's post above-- should his mentor be appearing to back him in an edit war, and do we want a campaign process to focus on these sorts of issues, which affect articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Then why not all content, not just FA/FAC? You gals make some good points, but I'm not buying "if it's FA related, people or article, it deserves special rules" argument. I'd really like to hear from Cas as he has lots of quality content to his credit and has arbcom experience. PumpkinSkytalk20:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
We can't fix the rest of the Misplaced Pages :) But GA, for example, fulfills a different role. Now that you've asked, I've long argued other processes should have oversight as FAC does, where it's not "a vote", it's consensus weighed by someone and the buck stops here if crap goes on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it should all be the same. Your proposal is interesting but would for sure be a fundamental change. I'll wait for Casliber's input before digesting anything in whole. PumpkinSkytalk20:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not all content what? Not all content is subject to FA criteria and the FAC process, unfortunately. PumpkinSky, do you have plans how to keep the things I'm portending from happening? What would FAC look like in your wildest dreams? Do you have plans? Schematics? An essay? It would help to understand your side if your vision is clearly stated. FAC will be more awesome because... --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Pumpkin, I'm sure Cas will weigh in after we stop edit conflicting, but another matter I forgot re the notion that Raul only chooses like-minded delegates ... he named me as his first delegate after a very visible disagreement we had at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Bleh, it's just gone 8AM here and quite hot and sticky (feels like it's gonna be a stinker - 30C + today), I go out to do some gardening (and I ain't even watered yet!!! so my plants don't get goddamn cooked today...I have gone from predominantly native plant gardening to growing some vegies, which need a tone more water ;P) ...and look waht happens. Gotta read up....Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay PumpkinSky - here are a few items to consider:
a scenario where a group of editors who (a) submit articles which have not been adequately prepared, then (b) get very angry when not promoted and blame reviewers and/or delegates, then (c) decide to vote to remove aforesaid delegates at a future election? Very possible.
how our civility paradigm has played out - two types of editors who respond to conflict in polarised ways - one lot who blow up immediately and settle down, and often don't bear grudges (often end up indefblocked), the other who maintain a superficially civil profile but bear grudges...sometimes for years and years - will oppose editors and proposals by editors who have crossed paths with them before, backchannel or otherwise sabotage debates, or adopt "enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme. The latter group are often not uncovered for years. Do editors backchannel and discuss matters in IRC or by email? Hell yeah! Funnily enough we have a case on civility right now...
Have I seen this? Yeah, I was bemused by my last public vote at the 2008 arb election, and saw (predicitable) machinations afoot there - thankfully not many. Secret ballot has ameliorated this somewhat, but could open up things worse.
Think of it, if a popular editor campaigned on making FA easier to pass, would that be a good thing?
Well, yes, it is a description of 99% of en Wiki-- but until now, not the 1% of articles that were FAs. Now, that door is open, by politicking. Politics for the first time ever in the process, some would like to see FAs easier to pass, some never review and never oppose, quid pro quo is a problem elsewhere, if your FAs don't pass, "sour grapes"--> throw out the bunch, bring in a new bunch, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed, although I am an optimist in some areas (like people's ability to ignore or dismiss some irrelevancies), I got involved with a few more controversial situations between 2008 and 2010, and the 2010 result wasn't hugely different. Anyway, the writing is what keeps me here, and the politicking is not just wiki, but the whole world really, in your neck of the woods, just listen closely to the fun and games the Republicans will have over the next few months picking a presidential nominee. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
FA's should be the best of wiki, but that does not mean they get special rules of protection. I'm sorry, I've enjoyed this chat, I really have, but to me this simply sounds like the Old Guard defending against waves of change. I respect your opinions but I'm also entitled to mine. PumpkinSkytalk22:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep (by the way, when I have and you have time, and unless Cas gets to it first, I'll tell you how to work on that sapphire image issue-- out of editing time for today). Also, an interesting aspect of the whole discussion is that not one concrete proposal for how to change FAC has yet been put forward. Some suggested more use of The Signpost, which has been reticent in the past and no one knows yet if they will advertise FACs, and the RFC was so taken over by one person's campaign that any possibility of looking at ways to improve FAC were ignored. When you opt for change for the sake of change without knowing what that change is, be careful of what you wish for! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Andy and I made up (see his talk page). he's buying some Yogos and going to have his gf photograph them. But if you to teach me something SG, sure. Casliber, I've decided once we have better photos, I'll file the FAC, but only if you agree to mentor me through it, is that ok?PumpkinSkytalk22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It's amazing where the interesting discussions end up. The bit that prompted me to post here was Sandy saying: "an interesting aspect of the whole discussion is that not one concrete proposal for how to change FAC has yet been put forward". That's a tad unfair on some of the ideas that have been put forward. There are at least three suggestions I've made (not all there, admittedly, some in other locations) about alternatives to QPQ to encourage more reviews:
(1) Get nominators to state in their nomination statement the last review they made at FAC (or elsewhere if not at FAC) but don't make it compulsory to have done a review - just get people to face up to how little or how much they contribute on the reviewing side - human nature should then see an increase in reviewing.
(2) Work with nominators, current reviewers, and WikiProjects to help recruit reviewers. Encourage some of the better GA reviewers to help out at FAC as well.
(3) After promoting a successful nomination, leave a note on the talk page of the nominators and politely ask them if they would consider doing a review (this avoids asking those with failed nominations to do reviews).
Now, some of those ideas might be unworkable, but I'd hoped people would discuss them instead of dismissing the whole page as an unreadable mess. Geometry guy seems to have had no problem picking out a few good ideas from all the text over there. Three more points:
(A) Community outreach work - create a department for people to do outreach work in other areas of Misplaced Pages and at FAC itself, recruiting and training reviewers. I believe there is a GA mentoring system. Could something similar work at FAC for mentoring reviewers?
(B) Scaling - long-term lack of scaling of the FA system means that you could, in theory, get the WMF to budget and pay for a committee of academics to be part-time FAC delegates and process around 30 nominations per month - the community would still do the editing and reviewing, but the academics would provide another check in the system and a form of external peer review.
(C) Vision - if you or Raul had been asked 5 years ago where you thought the FA process would be today, what would you have said? What would you say if asked today where you think FAC will be five years from now? Ten years from now?
Hopefully some of the stuff said by those on this page will percolate back to WT:FAC in some form. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Though that seems less likely now, given this. If the above suggestions get lost in the noise, I'll try and raise them at a better point in the future when things have settled down again. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are quite valid points, but to be raised at a better time. The crisis has shifted. It is still profound, but it is somewhat different now.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, now there is some mighty hiarious reading up there !!!! (Cas, you popped on my watchlist because of Laser's post on the copyvio issue, and seeing this in the light of day is ... yea.) Anyway, do you ever archive your talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
And meanwhile back at the ranch
Hey Cas, you post "over there"-- would you mind telling Mattisse that I personally think the lack of snow affecting my ski trip is utterly tragic, but leave my dead dog out of this. And my kitchen is quite done, thank you, and gorgeous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
On 9 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manorina, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the honeyeaters of the genus Manorina(Noisy Miners pictured) have a pale patch of skin behind their eyes giving them a cross-eyed look? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manorina.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I just happened to see this question, and thought I'd throw in an answer (I hope Casliber won't mind). You can use {{cite thesis}} in such cases:
{{cite thesis |author=Robert William Inns |year=1980 |title=Ecology of the Kangaroo Island wallaby, ''Macropus eugenii'' (Desmarest), in Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island |publisher=] |degree=] |url=http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/20890}}
It's going to be one of those days (sigh) - lots of real life chores and snippets here and there. I'll prioritise sorting out these two. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm starting to respond to Sasata's review and Ucucha, but my semester just started here today, so I'm a little tied up. Most of it should be doable, but the photo request and some of the details connected with explaining pseudopedate leaf architecture will be headaches. Choess (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
@Sandy - I can't find anything on the blank africa map (and in fact several others!), but have found another with a source so will do it tonight when I am home. Also done a bit (and will do a bit more) of wikignoming on the fern one to free up Choess to do the tricky stuff...Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Request
Hi! Happy yappy new year!^^ I have a question: This is mah first mystery-article. Could you go over it and help me correct spelling and grammatic errors? I´d be SO delighted! Cheers;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Wider Reptilia
We bump into each other rather often recently. Always good vibes from you. Hope it's not too bad the other way. Reptile says Additionally, birds are included in Reptilia under phylogenetic definitions. But surely you know this?! --Ettrig (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
But trying to link pageviews and (out-of-wikipedia) meaning to what we write about does have me thinking. For instance, recently I developed a few plants that occur in the western part of my state which is the NSW equivalent of the Brigalow Belt in Queensland. Now the Everglades gets about a thousand hits a day, the Great Barrier Reef2-4k daily, and the Brigalow Belt gets.....alot less, but educating people about the less "sexy/high profile" threatened ecological communities is vital too. The internet and TV is splattered with information on the former two but the latter is invisible. Anyway, I have been musing. Another article is Noisy Miner, which is a cute but highly aggressive bird which drives off other birds in your garden, so educating urban folk in Australia I think is a very good idea. I have also de-stubbed alot of weed articles too for the same reason. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Several times, the responses shows I am interpreted as wanting to tell people what they should write about. But my main point is that the FA(C) process seems to be driving editors to write articles that are read less. This is what I want to change. It is of course important that people choose what they write about. Everything that makes people enjoy contributing should employed. Most of my own edits are in the Swedish Misplaced Pages, that has on average 1% of the English readership. (I remember now that I asked you about the Black Swan. That will not happen again. Those readers were drawn by the film rather than the bird though.) --- Hmm... Even if you make Brigalow Belt an FA, it will not be read by many more. But you could tell about it in articles about wider areas and topics. (Are we into POV pushing here ;-). Now off to Bird and ask for some more phylogenetic context. --Ettrig (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Butting in here (tell me to go away if I'm not wanted): I don't think the FAC process is a main reason that people write about topics with less page views - I think the whole set-up of Misplaced Pages has more to do with it. If you have an article with a lot of page views, you're also going to get a lot more vandals, POV pushers and people-who-think-they-know-everything-when-really-they-don't-know-anything. Take, for example, Horse and Suffolk Punch - both of which I have been a significant editor on. The first is only at GA and has taken hundreds of hours of discussion, work, fixing, cleaning up after other editors, arguing with people who think their pet topic should be in the lead, etc - for years. Suffolk Punch, on the other hand, rarely sees vandalism, POV, or any arguments, and so was fairly easy to take to FA - because of the lack of outside-FAC angst. Which one do you think creates less stress for the editors working on it? Yes, the main equine editors are planning to take Horse to FAC, but we're slow, not because of the FAC process for the most part, but because of the sheer amount of work that it takes to build and maintain an article of that size. If that was all (or even most) of what I did on WP, I would quickly get burnt out. Yes, the requirements for high-quality reliable sourcing at FAC do mean that for a topic that has been written about a lot (be that Russia or bird), an editor is going to have to read a lot more source material than for an article on, say, the Large Black (pig), if they want to take it to FA. However, I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. I guess I'm asking why exactly you think FAC is the reason for a lot of editors working on low-page-view articles, rather than the general set-up of WP being at "fault". I would think that you would see the same (or approximately the same) distribution of page views at GA that you do here, and even more low-page-view articles at DYK. So why say that it's just FACs "fault"? Dana boomer (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Dana, I was going to write something quite similar to what you beat me to with the above post. I edit to relax and as a volunteer with limited time it is important that I enjoy what I do here. I do think the structure of the FA process favours narrower articles, but I think the process is integral and necessary to the overall improvement of the 'pedia. I have been musing on ways of increasing the quality of broader articles, but my nascent revival of the Core Contest is dependent on one of the wiki-chapters funding some prizes. I'll keep folks posted - Ettrig tehre is an expression in English that one gets better results with an equine animal when using carrots rather than sticks:) - so watch this space. And I do welcome suggestions - I might work on Black Swan one day, and did borrow a book on Swans of the World once to buff swan but lost interest. Enthusiasm is a funny thing.....PS: Have a look at the page views for Amanita phalloides this year given what has happened in Australia. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Could this be a place where we discuss this in a constructive and relatively calm way? I would really appreciate if that is possible. Please note that this is not an exhortion, but a hope. In my view the discussions about this at other places have become heated and chaotic. Before I saw TCO's manifesto I had tried to get Jimmy Butlers students to take on articles of broader interest. Had to give that up soon, after opposition from mainly Malleus. But I really see that line of thought as a high positive potential for Misplaced Pages. Evidently these discussions stir strong negative feelings. Maybe it's because I'm a moron, but I truly don't understand why, so I cannot even start to meet those deeply felt objections. Anyway, here's a new trial: If somehow good editors could be enticed to shift there efforts to articles with higher readerships, that would be a good thing, because more people would gain the benefits of their endeavours. 2007 FAC was doing that well. I don't know if it was very well or fairly well. What I know almost for sure is that it did this considerably less well in 2010 and 2011. So I want to discuss whether this "observation" is true, what caused it and (most importantly) what whe can do to reverse the trend. To answer your comments: One problem with higher interest subjects is that more has been written so that the article "must" be longer. We could mitigate that problem partly by setting a maximum length for an FA. That is not a stick, is it? We could also raise the notability criteria for FA. In my mind it is reasonable that they are higher for FA than for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Disk storage for manually created text is very cheap, but FAC reviewers is a very scarce resource. This would be removal of the carrot, still not a stick. Yes, the work to produce Large Black (pig) is less than the work on producing Horse. There is also a difference in value to the readers. In December 200 000 people had the joy of reading horse, only 1000 benefitted from Large Black (pig). Yet, the (FA) star would be the same. I do understand (now) that the effort differs vastly. There is also a great difference in the value of the result (totalled over all the readers). Yet, the carrot is the same. I think this should be changed. In my view, I am only trying to make the carrots correspond better to the value of the result. Could it be that the fierce opposition to this line of thought is that many editors want to get the carrots regardless of the value of the efforts? --Ettrig (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand your line of reasoning and agree with you that there are many high-page-view (PV) articles that need serious work. However, having the little bronze stars on "my" articles is not the reason that I write them or take them to FAC. Nor is having them on the mainpage a "carrot" - it's actually more of a "stick". The reason I take articles to FAC is that I like to get the feedback from the high-calibre reviewers that congregate there. If I were suddenly told that I could only take high PV articles to FAC, the articles that I work on would most likely remain the same and instead I would just send less articles to FAC. Maybe this is just me. As I said above, high PV articles are stressful. I do stressful in RL all the time - I don't need to spend a huge portion of my WP time doing so. So, I don't think the answer to improving the quality of high PV articles is changing FAC - I think it's bringing together projects and editors to work on one large article at a time, and probably working with the guidelines/policies editors to make working on and protecting high PV articles less stressful. Also, things like the Core Contest that Cas is trying to set up - give monetary prizes, book store gift certificates, journal database subscriptions, etc. for work on high page view articles. Now there's a carrot. However, he's been working on that for over a month and apparently hasn't been able to get anyone on either the foundation or the chapter level interested in shelling out for the prizes (or I'm assuming, given his comments). If you could get, once or twice a year, a contest like this one put together with some decent prizes (I'm not talking thousands or even hundreds of dollars, but not "$10 for first, $5 for second" either), I would put money (heh!) on it that you'd see more people working on high PV articles - I know several editors who are planning on competing in that contest with articles that were otherwise very far down the priority list (including me, see my user page for a list of articles that I am thinking about working on, most of which I probably wouldn't have touched for years, if ever, otherwise).
So, I guess, here's my point: The "carrot" for putting an article through FAC is being able to go "yay, I get to put a little star on the article" (not a very big carrot). And then, you have to shepherd it through the mainpage day (not a carrot, many editors think of it more as a stick). So, the effort put out by getting a low PV article through FAC is equal to this very tiny carrot. The effort/stress/work it takes to put a high PV article through FAC and the mainpage? Totally not worth that little carrot unless you're very much in love with the subject. And that's why the majority of the editors do this - they love the subject. You're not going to be able to get them to work on something they don't want to unless you offer them a much bigger carrot than a little bronze star and the dubious honor of having the article on the main page.
Oh, and one final answer. Above, you say "One problem with higher interest subjects is that more has been written so that the article "must" be longer." No. (Well, I mean, obviously Horse is going to be longer than Large Black pig, but that's not my point). Subjects that have had a lot written about them means that the editor writing about the subject will have a huge amount of information to read, digest, and transform into a well-written, coherent article. They will need to decide how much weight to place on certain topics, which information should go in daughter articles, how to best employ summary style, how not to make the article read like a disparate collection of facts, how to deal with Randy from Boise who wants his pet theory given undue weight, etc, etc, etc. Being able to transform a book chapter, a couple of journal articles and a web page into a coherent article of readable length - not that hard. Being able to transform 100 books and 1000 journal articles into a coherent article of readable length that gives due weight to the proper theories and scholars and correctly uses summary style - that's hard. Many of the long articles on WP just need to use WP:Summary style better and follow WP:SIZE more closely - it's not a matter of changing FAC, it's a matter of enforcing the policies, guidelines and MOS that are already in place. I apologize for this really long post, it's just that there were a lot of pieces that I wanted to respond to. Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Dana points out the problem with the "big" articles; and I think a size restriction won't be of much help, as if you get too tight, then there is a problem that you cannot do a comprehensive overview and the potential of unneeded content forks. (Where is Moon at these days, anyway? I remember it going up for GA, years back...) I know that from the teamwork I've done with the rest of the WPEQ gang that the big articles are the easiest wiki-war targets for GA and FA; as soon as you try to improve something, the edit warriors pop out of nowhere and usually with few helpful suggestions, to boot. WP's greatest strength is probably the same as its greatest weakness -- anyone can edit and the people who have ill will and bad faith can bog down a project with tendentious editing and debate until all the quiet people of goodwill just throw up their hands and go do something else (Kim V just "retired" again over one of these spats over bird articles, BTW), leaving the people like me (the feisty ones who don't know when to quit feeding the trolls and keep swinging in absence of much backup) to fend off the idiots, who seem to attract more of their minions like moths to a lightbulb. Dana nailed the problem. The solution? I don't know; but somehow figuring out how to tell the tendentious people who have nothing to add and only criticize to just go pound sand would be really a great help; I have no clue how to do this, though. Montanabw18:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
@Ettrig, yes we do fork out junior articles eventually, but the parent article is usually pretty big when we do so, mainly because so much content is interthreaded I much prefer a larger cohesive article to capture the content. So schizophrenia has about three daughter articles linked. Dana and MontanaBW offer good thoughts that I was going to add. Think of it conversely thus, the average reader doesn't care about a FA star. Hence I really want to run this contest once I can sort out funding. I need to think left-field with this and I have limited time this morning. It is a fascinating topic and some of the mammoth articles can be lots of fun and very eye opening. My most enjoyable ones were lion, vampire and White Stork I think, but all were hard slogs.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
civility (again)
Given our previous discussions, you may have an interest in commenting here. No idea whether you'll agree with me or not, but you usually sane input may help.--Scott Mac18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Grrr, had a bad snowstorm here yesterday and I had to be in a car through much of it. You suck, dude! :-P (Grinning, ducking and running) Montanabw18:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Casliber, please look at my conversation with the editor on their talk page, and at my edits (most of which were undone by the editor) to Giraffe. I don't want to get into a pissing contest, and I am somewhat reluctant to start a full-scale review of my own to add to the FA review, but I will if you think I should. To be brief, I have reservations. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
As you're an administrator, I'd like to ask if you'd care to offer some input regarding an edit dispute with User:J.wong.wiki on In Utero (album). He's recently been changing the citation formatting in the references, even though I have pointed him more than once to Misplaced Pages:CITEVAR#WP:CITEVAR, which strongly discourages such a course of action (we're talking about a Featured Article here, too, where I took great care to internally standardize the refs for the FAC). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Major Depressive Disorder (Vincent van Gogh: "At Eternity's Gate")
I refer you to this comment of mine regarding your quite misguided and misinformed support for the use of Vincent van Gogh's "At Eternity's Gate" in this article, a painting whose provenance is discussed further by a colleague in a later thread on the same talk page.
I ask that you either adequately defend your position or (preferably) delete the image reverting it perhaps to Durer's Melancholia, the original illustration. Skirtopodes (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Casliber! The Star-Spangled Banner has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month article for January 2012 and we are looking for editors to help improve the article. You were identified as an editor or WikiProject with an interest in the article and we thought you might be interested in helping out. Thanks!!!
Is it hard to un-delete deleted pages? I have two sandboxes (can't even remember the names now) that I'd like to retrieve because I've realised I let go information that took a lot of time to research and hoped you could retrieve them for me. Truthkeeper88 Vincent van Gogh or something like that Truthkeeper88 Catholic Church. If not, no big deal. Thanks. Oh and btw I'm assuming you're keeping an eye on Ceoil's marathon TFA? I'd watch it but I guess will be gone all day tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much to both of you! It was stupid to have those deleted and not until I went through my other sandboxes did I realize how much I'd lost. I won't do that again! Truthkeeper (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The Variegated Fairywren is a fairywren that lives in diverse habitats spread across most of Australia. Four subspecies are recognised. Exhibiting a high degree of sexual dimorphism, the brightly coloured breeding male has chestnut shoulders and blue crown and ear coverts, while non-breeding males, females and juveniles have predominantly grey-brown plumage. Notably, females of the two subspecies rogersi and dulcis have mainly blue-grey plumage. Like other fairywrens, the Variegated Fairywren is a cooperative breeding species, with small groups of birds maintaining and defending small territories year-round. Groups consist of a socially monogamous pair with several helper birds who assist in raising the young. Male wrens pluck yellow petals and display them to females as part of a courtship display. These birds are primarily insectivorous and forage and live in the shelter of scrubby vegetation across 90% of continental Australia, which is a wider range than that of any other fairywren. (more...)
You changed the rating on the talk page from "Stub" to "Start", but left the stub-tag in the article. Did you mean to do that? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
User:JayHenry has "email user" enabled in the left hand column on his page. He is very friendly and helpful (if he's available). Maybe let's start looking at Sumatran Rhinoceros or Javan Rhinoceros, as these have not been on the main page and it'd be good to clean them up for it. So just choose whichever one you are more interested in and take it one step at a time, with the aim of cleaning it up for a mainpage appearance. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
On 22 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cycadeoidea, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it is all but impossible to match up species known by leaves with those known by trunks in the prehistoric cycad-like genus Cycadeoidea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cycadeoidea.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. When you recently edited Mount Cobbler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
In general, offline or unavailable sources are allowed - e.g. If I have a book in my library which is not on Google Books etc. You generally use the "AGF tick" when reviewing with the line "offline sources accepted in good faith" if you feel ok with it. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Casliber - please note this edit - 2012-01-29T14:55:12 (by Juice Leskinen) - to the DID Talk page, in which he comments sarcastically to me while simultaneously vandalizing my communication to you. I have left it as I found it.
Juice has been one of the 3 sociopaths (and, as a Mental Health Professional I use the term deliberately and thoughtfully), along with editors WLU and DreamGuy, who have completely disrupting any possibility of progress on the DID article. We REALLY need help with this situation.
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.
Notice re: intent to file request for disciplinary action re: 3 disruptive editors
My intent here is simply to give notice to someone who can decide if the information below is relevant or not to the review of the DID article apparently currently underway by at least you and possibly other members of the Arbitration Committee. If what I am doing isn't exactly correct form, I hope you will make allowances for the fact that I'm totally unfamiliar with how to respond efficiently and effectively to the sort of major disruption we've been experiencing at the DID article for the past 2+ weeks. I have a seriously involving work commitment, and in addition a major involvement in the Misplaced Pages Global Education Program (WGEP/USA). At times, I simply exhaust my stores of energy and of time. I am at such a point right now, so my progress relative to the DID article problem is slower than I would like.
My intention is to file a request with the Arb. Comm. for disciplinary action against DID article editors WLU, DreamGuy, and Juice, because of their gravely disruptive actions on the article and the talk page, because of their harassment and incivility to editor Tylas (and their frightening off of at least one other editor and probably others as well), and because of their concertedly hostile and disruptive actions specifically toward me. I hope to file at least some of this tonight, and to give priority to filing the rest ASAP.
I am a direct threat to their covert/overt POV-distortion agenda because I am an expert relative to psychological trauma and to DID specifically, and I have been from the beginning quite transparent in my commitment to bring the article up to the highest standards of Misplaced Pages. So far, my efforts have born little fruit, and I am close to abandoning the effort, an act that would have serious implications for my view of Misplaced Pages as a whole, and I'm very sad to say that. The problem is that if this article cannot be made safe for would-be editors who are brave enough to admit to having DID, and for me as a content expert, I have real trouble justifying my continuing efforts to increase involvement of university professors and their students in the project (our stated goal at WGEP/USA). For me, therefore, there is truly a lot at stake.
It will take a few hours to make my 3 formal requests. The specifics in my requests, I would think, might well shortcut your work and that of others on the committee. That thought alone motivates my posting here. IF (and only if) you agree with this proposition, you might want to give me a little time to complete this work. I will go forward with it in any case, because I think I must. Thanks for your time (a precious commodity, I realize) taken in reading this. Tom Cloyd (talk)04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Got it. It is important that we "work the process" in the usual way. That's what it's for. Thanks for the direction. Will follow through as you suggest. Tom Cloyd (talk)05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
FAR ping?
Hi Cas - A few weeks ago you commented on a couple of FAR/FARCs, and I'm here hoping that I can get you to return and update your comments. The pertinent reviews are:
Cas, when you're back online can you please block me for a few weeks? The enforcement thing doesn't work for me and I don't want to scramble my password. I also really really don't want to be here anymore and need a long break. Thanks so much. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of anyone, familiar with the subject, what would be able to spotcheck the sources in the giraffe article. It appears to be the last task before it passes. LittleJerry (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Article titles and capitalisation case
Could you please comment on this discussion on my talkpage. There's a couple of matters that need attention from an Arbitrator, but also help in managing expectations. I'm also leaving notes for the other two drafting Arbitrators. Thanks ! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, as a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Need your help on this one. Apparently, User:Fortheloveofbacon is an ArbCom case that the user isn't talking about, somehow involves Risker (if that helps). The user claims that the account User:RelevantUsername (blocked indef by User:MuZemike) is one of his. That is clear sockpuppetry. The Fortheloveofbacon was previously blocked as a sock of User:ChildofMidnight per this SPI. User:Hersfold said that it wasn't CoM but the behaviors (as show on Risker's talk page and mine) are definitely fitting. So, to put this to bed (before I put myself there), who is this guy? RTV person come back? CoM? Someone else? Guy in WitSec? Need to know before I take this to ANI (which I told him to do). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Cas, I opened a GAR at Talk:Tammar Wallaby. I'm just letting you know, as you passed this article for GA status. For 2 of 3 sources that I spot-checked, the article contains close paraphrasing or direct copy/paste from non-free sources. Since this editor works on other animal articles, and I know this is a wiki-interest of yours, I'd appreciate your help in keeping an eye out for further problems. I have attempted to initiate some coaching with him. --Laser brain(talk)17:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
.png)
_by_Ron.jpg)
1.jpg)
Done 
