|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#31 August 2010|31 August 2010]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Lasiopetalum macrophyllum]]''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/Lasiopetalum_macrophyllum quick check] )</small> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|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 [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#31 August 2010|31 August 2010]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Lasiopetalum macrophyllum]]''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/Lasiopetalum_macrophyllum quick check] )</small> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|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 [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#31 August 2010|31 August 2010]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Lasiopetalum ferrugineum]]''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/Lasiopetalum_ferrugineum quick check] )</small> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|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 [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
Hello, I am Kelidimari. I am new to writing Wikipedia articles and honestly I'm not a very good writer. However, I am trying to improve. I have not written any large article in Wikipedia yet because I'm uncertain on how to do it well. So, mostly all I've done are little edits on pre-existing pages here and there, and adding images sometimes. I am more of a Wikipedia reader than a writer, but on occasion I find something kind of cool and wish to share it with others, but because I'm unfamiliar with how to use all of the formatting, it is difficult. I would like to learn how to write things in a way that they are coherent and in the wiki-accepted format. The formatting bit drives me crazy.
I am currently learning a lot about beryllium exposure and public health and radioactive waste, because that is what I do right now. Most likely, when I write things, it will be in human health, public health, environmental health, or laws related to those areas in the U.S. I do walk-throughs and assessments and reviews of worker safety and health plans, and have a bit of a medical background. So, I'm guessing that in the future, my contributions would be very public health or chemical exposure related. I want to contribute to Wikipedia, but am not ready to do so and don't want to until I know how to do things correctly.
I would very much appreciate if you could be my mentor, because you had listed in your "adopter" section that you were interested in biology and medicine. My interest is in those areas also.Kelidimari (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am a new member seeking Adoption/Mentorship
I am Vega. I write Psychology, Medical, Science, Philosophy, and Biology articles mainly and as a hobby. I have submitted only one to Wikipedia thus far and I believe it to be excellent, considering it is a first submission and I took so much time to proof-read and make sure to reference my reliable sources and so on.
However, I am far from an expert. Thus my issues with my personal writing are as follows: grammatical errors, such as typing errors of which I overlook in proof-reading and elaborating possibly too much, as opposed to being concise thus repeating my points merely rephrasing them (I do not notice this at the time but I feel that it must bore readers) and drawing out the main point, and finally It have trouble with the format of Wikipedia's coding style and have (but was brought to my attention) placed too many redirect links into my personal writing. Help?
Also, due to it being a very large passion of mine to research, learn, share knowledge, help others, and to write in general-- I wish to learn correct ways in which follow the terms of service/guidelines of Wikipedia appropriately in order to edit to articles/leave feedback to the authors in acceptable ways.
I have stumbled upon submissions, to say the least, in need of SEVERE help, editing, revision, references of an reliable nature added etc. and/or possible removal, yet I haven't learned and haven't the slightest clue what to do first if I see a post of this nature. My instinct is to help via editing and reviewing it-- Yet, with my limited knowledge thus far on editing in general I feel that due to posts of the aforementioned type existence, that in order to better contribute to lovely Wikipedia-- I need to learn all that I can to improve my contributions and conduct (ie What is appropriate to do when stumbling upon an opinion-based/biased/unreferenced article) i have no problem with simple edits, however I have a bit to learn on a larger scale for everyone's benefit. (coding is #1 in my problem area! help?)
Sorry to ramble. It's a habit. I would greatly appreciate you as mentor, if you are interested. If not, then Thank you anyways for reading my drawn-out request to be adopted. Thanks.
--Ladybrainbypass (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
{{subst:January 20th 2010 adoptme}} Ladybrainbypass (talk) Vega G.
--Ladybrainbypass (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also was wondering if you would consider adopting me, still pretty new at all this. Not nearly as verbose as the person above either :-)--Tmckeage (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I have two areas I could use help with. Projectional radiography has been a long interest of mine. I would love to see this page achieve at least good status. Right now its a mess and although I have done some work I have lost some steam and could use some advice on how to eat this elephant. Also I started work on 2010 earthquakes, I requested Editor assistance but I'm not completely sure that was right. Any advice you could give me on that one would be really helpful as well. Thank you. --Tmckeage (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I just walked into a HUGE quagmire. I started to compile ideas for inclusion in the Projectional radiography page. I basically decided that I needed an article that described what projectional radiography is AND how it is achieved. What it is is relatively simple and I can heavily borrow and link from other topics. How it is achieved is the more difficult of the two. A key concept is called ALARA describing the concept in full would really be beyond the scope of my article but an article has been created and is a redirect to a similar but different concept called ALARP. My instinct is to be bold and replace the redirect with a brand new article but I hunted around and found Radiation protection. This further confuses the subject and it appears that at some point some bizarre consensus was reached by people with a limited understanding on the subject. I'm worried about stepping on toes, starting an edit war, getting into a petrol/gasoline argument(ALARP is primarily a UK principal, ALARA is US).
So far the only option I know of is going ahead with replacing the redirect along with my reasoning for doing so in the talk page. What would be really awesome was if there was some way to get pre-approval on my concept, but I have no clue on how to do that. Thanks for any help you can provide. --Tmckeage (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notes. I think I got a little obsessed, and the annoyed over the ALARA mess I lost sight of the bigger goal. Thanks for keeping me on track :-)--Tmckeage (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More unIDed fungi
G'day Cas,
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[2]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
I see you've taken it on, good work. The display and vision bits at Crested Tern apply for all the genus. The opening sentence isn't fully supported by Bridge - although Elegant is very close, Lesser Crested isn't, other than being in the same genus. I won't abandon this article (after all, one good ... aaaarrrggh, it's catching), but let me know if there's anything specific esp from BWP, Olsen or Harrison, where I have the books. Now, must be time for a couple of slices of bread with some meat in. 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Cute tool that. We'll see how many GAs, DYKs and FAs we can get. Got bits and pieces of horticultural stuff to add yet :) ...just musing on how to bonsai my species... Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patricia Fara, Sex, Botany and Empire: The Story of Carl Linnaeus and Joseph Banks, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2003).
She's a senior tutor in philosophy at Cambridge, written several very entertaining and informative books related to the history of science, probably including her doctorate.
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of [Banksia] species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.)
It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go.
As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction."
has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc.
As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato)
Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)
Arianewiki118:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special edition triple crown question
Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.
The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paper
An interesting abstract: [4]. A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." [my emphasis] Hesperian13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Eiker A. (1990). "Commercial mushroom production in South Africa". Bulletin (Pretoria: Department of Agricultural Development) (418).
It is reference 49 in the current version now. I was looking very long for this bulletin, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Can You help me to find this bulletin, or do You know something exactlier about it?
Thanks for the welcome note. I'm still figuring my way around this place. Pretty overwhelming!
I do have a few articles I've been working on that I need help with, but haven't figured out how or with whom to collaborate...except for the "Throw it against the wall and see what sticks approach" (i.e. post it anyway and see if it reeks!!!???). Needless to say, I haven't posted these articles as they never seem to get past the "Work in Progress" stage. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
Also, I went to the Help page looking for any collaboration tips that might be offered, but nothing was found. I then clicked on The Wikipedia community link thinking that I would surely find something there. Tucked amidst all the other links was the Keeping informed section and underneath it Wikipedia:Community portal, but that too was pretty overwhelming. Anyway, as you scroll down, you finally get to a section on collaborations, but that too takes you in a million directions. Finally if you simply enter "collaboration" into the search box in Wikipedia, you are directed here: Collaboration — another dead end.
For those wanting to collaborate more effectively, perhaps a Collaboration or Collaboration Tips page could be created to help new contributors get oriented. Also I notice that the word "collaboration" itself, in Wikipedia, is virtually synonymous with "immensity" and "overwhelm" — given that its focus is a global community. Turning the word upside down and looking at it from the standpoint of the "New Wikipedian" trying to figure out the most effective way to interface with others in the community might make this section useful.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on helping new contributors get up to speed.
Thanks for the quick reply. Given your suggestion, I'm willing to step "to the plate" and start a collaboration page... if that's the most effective approach. To me it's a question of what works and what doesn't work. And given that I'm new here, your insights would be very useful.
Oddly, I'm no astrophysicist either. So I don't know if I qualify to manage a group on this topic. My background the last 30 years has been banking and finance — specifically launching new ventures. I just wanted to learn something about astronomy, starting reading articles, got hooked, and very quickly saw that articles could be radically improved with not too much effort.
Given my training, I tend to take a "bottom-up" versus "top-down" approach. So when I think of "collaboration", I think of 2-5 people max teaming up to achieve a specific objective. In this respect I could see dozens of small teams like this working on different goals. Whether that would work or not in the context of Wikipedia is another question. Your insights here, once again, would be valuable.
In my own case, where I saw that I could contribute was simply taking Stub-Class, Low or Mid-Importance articles and get them up to Start or even C or B Class. The recent article Pleione (star) is probably the best I've done. From there, I've gone on to create articles like Iota Herculis. Nothing major, right? I'm just "throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks". But here's the rub. I don't know if either of these contributions have any merit. So this is where the concept of "collaboration" comes into play for me. I would be good if I could simply "hand the ball off" to someone else and say "I've taken it as far as I can take it, what do you think?
Why I'm going into this level of detail is I looked at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy#Members section and I found it intimidating. There are 117 names on that list. As a manager, the first thing that pops into my head is "OK, so what? Who's in charge? Who's assigning what to whom? Who's taken on what assignments? What is expected of members? Is there a minimum level of contribution required? Can I post questions on their talk page and elicit their support? Is that not presumptuous? And who has time for this stuff anyway? Is there a "white flag" that Wikipedians can raise on their talk page that says "Hey, I'm busy this month, don't bug me"? ...etc. It's often been said that if everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. This is often the downside of "big teams", and so that's why I'm seeing perhaps a different module to get neophytes like me fully plugged in, making useful rather than superfluous contributions.
I did look at what you proposed above at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Collaboration. Not a bad idea, but it seems to have failed for lack of interest. I looked at Observing the Moon to see that it was originally flagged in 2008 for improvement from C to FA class. Result? It's still C-Class. That's scary! Maybe there are very few out there that actually want to collaborate. Or maybe it was a failure in how the project was originally designed. Is there by chance a Designing an Effective WikiProject page that takes the best from the best? I also looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force. Great idea! I might in fact join. What's missing for me here is focus and results — a section which basically reads: After 3 years, this is our conclusion. Follow this format: A, B, C, D... But I don't see that. Hmmm! Maybe Wikipedia works because it's so open-ended. People just do what they do when they do it. So once again, the underlying inquiry for me is simply "What works?".
In conclusion, if I were to be the catalyst for a new collaboration, it would be something like this. Let's take one constellation per month and get the 10 most important stars and other deep sky objects in that constellation up to C class or better. There's a lot of Stub-Class articles out there with few or no references. It's a bit of a "grunt job" frankly, but if you're working on a team, there's a sense of accomplishment, and clearly it raises the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Maybe there's an astrophysicist in the group that can guide the effort and from there, we hand the ball off to another team. I don't know. Does any of this make sense? Would it even work?
P.S. I did after all discover this page: Wikipedia:Collaborations It's sort of what I was looking for (though buried), but not quite. I think the page I'd ultimately like to see created is Help:Contents/Getting Plugged In. It encompasses collaboration, but has more to do with how you can most effectively contribute, collaboration being but a subset. Are you interested in helping me draft that page to submit for approval later on? I'm already getting ideas as to its design.
Okay I understand. I started off similar, by just editing and watching articles grow, then read somewhere about not contributing if you mind your contributions getting edited mercilessly by someone else. This got me wondering how to go from there a bit like you describe above. One of the reasons for 'declining' ratings is actually wholesale upscaling of the classes as wikipedia adopted inline referencing a couple of years ago. You can look in the history and compare an old version of those articles and see. Although pages list alot of editors, often only a handful are active. Luckily for me there have been a few folks interested in what I write about. Right now I generally concentrate editing on getting results - that is, editing to get to a stable point. My suggestions are (a) list Pleione (star) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations - have a look at the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and see if you feel it qualifies. Here you will get automatic feedback. Once it passes there, then have a look at WP:FAC. You will quickly find a group of interested editors helping out. This is a much better directed way of finding interested editors. I'll post a note at the astronomy wikiproject. I'd leave Help:Contents/Getting Plugged In until you get a feel for the best way of finding interested editors. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and focused feedback. "Finding interested editors"... Hmmm! That was the missing distinction! I will follow your suggestions and see where it leads. Also, thanks for your contributions in the Pleione (star) article. Sadalsuud (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I'll do that. Can you also say something more regarding the "wholesale upscaling of the classes" reducing the overall quality of Wikipedia? If I understand you correctly, it looks like my idea for a "collaboration" would have headed in this direction, and would have therefore been counterproductive. When I look at the Astronomy ratings section what I see are 19,238 stub articles and 3,040 start articles, the sum of which comes to roughly 97% of all the Astronomy articles written. I'm vaguely aware of the fact that Wikipedia is very interested in editors creating more quality content. What's the strategy to achieve that objective? Sadalsuud (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how much you don't know when you start asking questions, right? I'll take some time to read the DYK article. What I see, however with your discerning comments is that a focused and interested contributor can get "plugged in" pretty quick. This dialogue has been very useful. Let's see what happens next?
Betelgeuse FA?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi Cas. Thanks for doing the map and the template just now for Huia - they look great!! However, I must advise you that there is one major issue with the map and two major issues with the template; please read my detail below as to what these are carefully, it's a long explanation but the detail is important:
Issue # 1 - The former distribution map: Dude it looks good but at present there is no explanation as to why there are two different shades of green/people don't know what those different colours mean(!!) Now, this is where it gets a bit complicated.. Traditionally on wikipedia a lighter colour is used to denote former range and a darker colour to denote present range or range by a certain date (see Tiger) in such maps. But in these cases the present range is usually nested within the former range like little islands - it's obvious that the species was also found in the areas where colour denotes it is presently found because of this arrangement. But with the Huia map there is a confusing dichotomy of north and south in the distribution change. What's the significance of this? I have thought about it and if we say "pre human range light green and pre 1840 range dark green" people will get confused.. you need to be able to show, visually, that the Huia was also found in the southern bit before humans arrived - so that people don't think they all lived in the north part of the NI in pre human times and all in the southern bit after humans arrived and before 1840 - see what I mean? My suggestion is that you modify the map and put diagonal bars of the same light green used in the northern part (sloping downwards to the right - which will look better in my opinion that if they were sloping the other way) through the southern portion of the north island (south of the line I e-mailed you) which is presently all dark green. Then, modify the caption to say something like this:
Former range; all green areas -striped area denotes range by the year 1840
Issue # 2 - The template looks great and I am very grateful for you for creating one based on my design :) There's just one little problem in that you currently have a link to Wattlebird in the blue header bar of the template when instead you should it should be an internal link to New Zealand Wattlebird - the name "New Zealand Wattlebird" was actually coined to avoid exactly this type of confusion. The second thing regarding the template is that you didn't include the second element I talked about in my email to you here;
"The key features of this template are that the generic names for each of the 3 species are in bold and that a small crucifix on the top right of the word "Huia" is used to denote that this species is extinct, then there is a key to explain what it means"..
I will work on the article tonight and make those last changes to the text that I had talked about, as well as doing some more tweaks that I have thought about lately. If would be awesome if you could make the changes I have suggested - alternatively, if you disagree with them, please discuss your thoughts with me. I will email Kahuroa the photos tonight as he seems keen to help. Once we have these 3 visual elements in place (Map, deforestation photos, template) and I have done the last additions to the text I think we will be ready to submit Huia as a FAC. Cheers, Kotare (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, sorry, have run out of time tonight and I need sleep for work tommorow - but I should get those text additions done in the next few days.Kotare (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ah yes.. that time of year, jejej. Heather and Robinson (standard NZ ornithological society endorsed filed guide) has it as one species, 2 sub species - pretty sure HANZAB says the same thing, as this version is quite new and there is no way they would disagree. Kotare (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god. Um...have they a website to double check....they could come from anywhere which makes it tricky...I'll take a look later. NB:There is a lepidoptera wikiproject that is semi-active. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the page on gout and think I have addressed most of your points. Added a couple thousand more bits of text and a few more recent reviews. Cochrane did not have a great deal.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Little Thetford FA
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at Senra's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYK for Adiantum formosum
On July 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adiantum formosum, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On July 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adiantum aethiopicum, which you created or substantially expanded. 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, thanks again. I feel so silly. I forgot to say that the Maidenhair fern is named after Joseph Maiden. The recent attempts at finding and identifying ferns has been somewhat easier than expected. Mind you, there ought to be a law against an ignoramus like me writing such ferny articles. Recent reading of A.G. Floyd suggest there are rare and wonderful ferns to be seen at the gullies at Mount Wilson. Particularly at Happy Valley and Waterfall Reserve. So, I soon hope to travel there and take useful photos. My favourite plant is listed at Mount Wilson, but after a couple of dozen attempts, I've never found the Atherosperma there. Photographing moss and ferns in a cool wet mountain rainforest gully is an appealing prospect in the dead of winter. And I can't wait to get there. cheers Poyt448 (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with the garden. Today I thought of my prejudice against psychiatrists. Mainly because I knew too many bad doctors. One of whom was an associate of the mass rapist and mass murderer Harry Bailey. I may well have been dead in the 1980s if I stuck with vermin doctors like them. "Do no harm" is the medical desideratum. But these qualified medical people thought they were better than all that. However, today I was happy in a rainforest, great to see terrific plants and a jumping humpback whale. Here's today's photo and blog:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17674930@N07/4851925601/Poyt448 (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy,
Today I took a photo of a really impressive rainforest tree, Blush Condoo. I've seen big ones of these up north. They are majestic trees. The taxonomy of these trees is totally confusing for me. So much so that I couldn't attempt to write out the synonyms. If you have the time, please assist. Poyt448 (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Rulingia dasyphylla
On July 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rulingia dasyphylla, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On July 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adiantum hispidulum, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On July 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pteris tremula, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On July 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melithreptus, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On July 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black-headed Honeyeater, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On July 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black-chinned Honeyeater, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On July 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brown-headed Honeyeater, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
(a) Shee-it, didnae see that. Okay, more reviewing a-coming. (b) Frigging fauna of Oz...at least it'll be a dang site more inneresting than oz blande...(c) absolutely +++++++++++++++++++. Will suggest something. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been sidetracked doing tax (yuk ++++) - bit "blocked" at the moment - I have Banksia scabrella and Banksia oligantha nearly ready to go but the first I need to access a document I can only get hard copy via interlibrary loan, and the second I am trying to contact folks who've photographed it, so both are out of my hands for the time being. Am collaborating with a new user Sadalsuud (talk·contribs) on Betelgeuse, but alot of the astrophysics I am out of my depth really, but fascinating nonetheless. We're still trawling through articles. Some more bird ones, but need to buff them to GA first, maybe Blue-faced Honeyeater or Flame Robin. Not sure. Also some plant and fungi - a collab with Sasata (talk·contribs) on Lactarius deliciosus in the pipeline too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently reviewing Dominican Anole for GA. Apart from a few minor things, its main problem is that the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article. However, the author is apparently unable to write a more MOS-consistent lead. Would you be willing to have a look and improve things? (As I'm the GA reviewer, I think I'd get a little too much involved in the article if I'd do it myself.) Thanks, Ucucha12:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think there's still room for some more (like reproduction, and a little more behavior, or some elements from the description). The lead's main problem was that it placed too much weight on the variation and the subspecies, which are an important aspect of the species, but not so important that they should dominate the whole lead. It's better now, but perhaps not enough yet. Ucucha13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.
Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1722:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the Guild of Copy EditorsJuly 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!
Stats
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars.
GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July
Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest.
Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+).
The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc.
The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono.
Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+).
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK.
The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey.
The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr.
The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW.
You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.
OK I've started with aiming to get all towns & villages in Somerset over 5,000 population up to GA, so Ashbrittle with a population of c. 213 is probably still a long way off!— Rodtalk12:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, would you mind helping out with a quick review of the Fossa (animal) FAC? I always appreciate your prose reviews, plus I'm hoping this will be a breeze. The article was co-written by myself, Ucucha, Sasata, and UtherSRG as a collaborative project for WP:Mammals. If you don't have time, don't sweat it. And by the way... do you have anything coming up for FAC any time soon? If you need a review, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk »21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On August 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cymbonotus lawsonianus, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
Hey man, I'm about to get back onto Huia, just been distracted working on Naultinus . I recently more than doubled the size of the article and I was wondering if you could reassess it for me; while it's certainly a way off from GA atm, I am pretty sure it's above "start" class now.. I will try to make those last additions to "Huia" this week, I'm actively working to improve my time management so that i can get more done on wikpedia and this should hopefully allow for this to be done this week :) Cheers, Kotare (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Decaspermum humile, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
Thanks for having a look at this great little plant. By the way, a fellow Wikipedia editor and I are climbing Mount Imlay sometimes in the spring. We hope to photograph the near extinct Imlay Mallee. As well as look at the Imlay Boronia and the gully rainforest to the south. I was there last November and became geographically discombobulated (despite considerable planning). In fact it all worked out fine, when walking out of the gully. That was after sliding down the steep side of the rocky gully to get to the rainforest in the first place, (not recommended).
Published reports of Atherosperma & Pittosporum bicolor at Imlay are apparently not correct. As are fanciful rumours of the Myrtle Beech at the two hectare Mount Imlay rainforest. Last time there I saw several native privet. A.G. Floyd only saw one. But I didn't have the presence of mind to photograph them. The only problem with this guy coming along is his 170 IQ, he makes me feel very silly in comparison. In the unlikely event you have free time. You are most welcome to come along. Poyt448 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, sounds good. I have no idea about my level of free time, I just get lucky now and then. I would like to see the E. oreades tree sometime too. What is native privet? Bursaria spinosa? I am happy as I got a tray of 40 Bulbine bulbosa to plant out in my native garden, as well as a Eucalyptus robusta (chosen for its winter flowering) - and my friend had also propagated some Olearia microphylla ...I am keen to find a local species which likes shade which has big green leafy leaves...??? Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney Meetup :-)
See the meetup page for further information - short version is that we're hoping to meet in a fortnight in the city for a beer and a chat. Minors and Miners are welcome, with a responsible adult and a minimum of coal dust ;-) - do try and get out if you can, it's been a little while since wiki folk met in Sydney :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Litsea bindoniana
On 12 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Litsea bindoniana, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
(groan) I don't know of any way except laboriously going through your talk page to count all the awards, and any others that might have been - if you count 35 with a split of 34 expansion and 1 nom, then that is a good start, so I was bold and stuck you on the page. If you find others you want to add, you can just do so (I guess....) :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have kept track of my DYK count so I know how many it is, except for the fact that my count may be one too high. There aren't any more of mine tucked away anywhere as far as I know. I think the "bold" count you gave me is good, so I am going to go ahead with that. Thanks so much, I appreciate your help! Invertzoo (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: My admin review
Yes, it's intended to be open indefinitely as a place where people pile on feedback without any commentary from me. I have long removed it from the main admin review page, but it's prominently linked from my user/talk pages. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. 7mike5000, who basically single-handedly wrote and, especially, supplied all the sources for Depression (differential diagnoses), may well be understandably quite put out by this proposal. He's been offline since you put up the merge template. Forgive me if this is unnecessary, but I don't know you. Please give him a good hearing and explain the rationale. He has, in my opinion, done a very good thing here, and deserves, and may need, to be extended patience and respect. Again, sorry if this was (as I strongly suspect) unnecessary. Anthony (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Are you able to access the full text of PMID 741691 PMID 568461 ? I can only access post-1998 editions of that journal.? Anthony (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I copied the wrong PMID. Anthony (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Thank you very much for your kind offer to help me with article writing. I would very much like to take you up on it! I do already have one DYK and I would like to work on some more. I am currently writing an article on The Scottsdale Centre for Performing Arts which needs a lot more work, but I'm a little stumped on the logistics. Any suggestions you could provide for how to improve my article writing or even how to find new articles of merit to write/expand would be very much appreciated. PanydThe muffin is not subtle07:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 2,659 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!
The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.
Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
Ah no, I mixed in Abbott's slogan as well, maybe I should have made a green ref in there....No it's hopeless editing current politics articles especially with the 4-5 party clowns who would stuff everything up and try to selectively delete all day YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curious about your statement about Arabians and your grandmother. Curious if she was someone I've heard of... which is possible if she lived in the UK, less possible if in Au, but depends...?? Not asking you to ID yourself, but if you want to chat about it via email, I'm just idly curious. Montanabw(talk)21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neat! I don't know enough about the Au breeders for her to ring a bell, but seems she knew what she was doing, as the bloodlines are very nice! I don't know if you are into bloodline stuff at all, but there's good stuff there. Some connections: AK Sirhalima was imported from the USA, by the Egyptian import to the US, Ansata Ibn Halima, just for starters. He was what they call "straight Egyptian" from a quick glance at his pedigree, and there's a lot of black in the Egyptian lines, particularly those of his dam. In particular, his bottom line goes to the horses of Henry Babson, who was an interesting fellow. Bright Emerald is heavily descended from horses of the Crabbet Arabian Stud. Her sire, Ralvon Pilgrim, may be close to 100% Crabbet, though to prove it I'd have to get anal enough to check to see if a few of the UK horses were Blunt/Wentworth's or not. His dam line looks to go to some of the oldest Australian bloodlines out there. Her dam, Nike, has some really old Au bloodlines too, all also go to the UK, many to Crabbet and there to the desert, some interesting horses there. Looks like she was one of the earlier folks to do the Egyptian/Crabbet crossbreeding that is now quite popular down there. Anyhow, the whole Crabbet saga is a great human interest story due to the people who got it going (Wilfrid Scawen Blunt and Lady Anne Blunt, a descendant of Ada Lovelace and Lord Byron, she being the one who "got it" about the horses, followed by their only child, Lady Wentworth. W. Blunt created enough soap opera to fill at least a good miniseries) OK, so you didn't ask about any of this, but it's cool. I don't know how much User:Cgoodwin is into Arabs, but may be another person to gossip with about this stuff. Montanabw(talk)03:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the Ansata_Ibn_Halima article - we also took Emerald to Rahalima which was another US import and son of Ansata_Ibn_Halima. Ralvon Pilgrim was quite famous at the time too. When I was a kid I did a huge family tree, and my grandmother had a book about the Marbach Stud with photos of Hadban Enzahi, gazal and a bunch of other horses in it...but I can't find the book now :( Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Double cool! Then note Marbach stud. Ralvon Pilgrim reminds me of a Crabbet-bred stallion who was quite the mega-horse here in the 60s and early 70s, Serafix. Very nice horse, lovely neck and shoulder, in particular. Much more substance than AIH, who was a bit too "dry" for my tastes. The Au Arabs overall have done a nice job of keeping substance and athleticism, something that has gotten hit or miss in the US as breeding for specialization has gotten a little out of control, especially in the halter (horse show) world, where all the breeds, not just Arabs, seem to be going the way of dog breeders and making Bonsai designer creatures for the in-hand classes that are unridable and in some cases, physically unhealthy. It's nuts. The Au stud that came over here and has been mopping up is Bremervale Andronicus. (They need to update their web site, he went national champion sport horse in-hand two years ago I think!) I think he's a nice critter! Montanabw(talk)23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Planchonella queenslandica
On 20 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Planchonella queenslandica, which you created or substantially expanded. 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 make my articles look so much better! Thanks again. Today, I am happy to find a very rare plant in situ. According to A.G. Floyd there's only 203 of them in the wild. A twig of Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii by the side of the creek, under a waterfall at Leura in the Blue Mountains. The National Parks & Wildlife Service have been advised. Maybe I can try to get the twig to sprout roots, if I attempt to grow it from a cutting. Horticulture is not a strong point of mine. But it looks very green and healthy, and there's a slim chance it might survive. Poyt448 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE your suggestion of a trial on all BLP articles, how many BLP articles have we got? I am wondering if that would be statistically possible and what do you think it would find out that we don't know from the BLP articles so far trialled ? Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We had under 2000 pages in the trial apparently, and lots of keen editors to try Pending Changes, hence it would be intriguing to see how things go when the novelty wears off and with a "few" more articles. I think the problems outweigh the benefits in any other type of article just about. The big question is whether you need to protect against vandalism or not. Alternative to more trialling is ditch it altogether. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, thanks for the comment. Presently I am unable to really get a clear understanding of what is actually the plus and minus, there seems little interest somehow, reminds me of the checkuser and oversight election and following RFC, as you say there is always the ditch it option, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, this is too intense...I just woke up and need a coffee to think about these things. The issue I think is the utility - I think it was an enlightening trial. I think you're having difficulties getting an understanding of what is actually the plus and minus because it is a grey area. I haven't followed the discussion that much. Be interesting to see what outsiders (i.e. IPs) think. For me that is critical - did we lose a bunch of people who couldn't see their edits appear instantly, or gain some who were happier to get something into a 'pending' slot on what would otherwsie be a semiprotected article? That is what I wonder. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As yet I am informed that not one unconfirmed user has commented in the closing discussion as to whether they like it or not, another question is, did the vandals like it? Personally, I stopped requesting semi protection and started requesting pending as the first step which allows more contributions from unconfirmed users but what percentage of those contributions required reverting I am yet to discover, anyways, good morning and enjoy your coffee. Thanks for the feedback. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed wit that approach. I had semiprotected a stack of articles and slung all that I could remember into the trial to see what happens. I think for most, the good edits are pretty rare. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Gmelina fasciculiflora
On 21 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gmelina fasciculiflora, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
The other option is expanding it (by bot,say) and delineating to all BLPs and BLPs only. We get an instant large number and that was the reason it was brought in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that is a technical possibility I will add it. I am sure it would be easy for a bot and have added it via your comment. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed for the tedious labour involved in checking my submission and awarding me the Crown. It is greatly appreciated. Regards, BencherliteTalk22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Casliber. You have new messages at [[User talk:Panyd#[edit] Scottsdale Centre for the Performing Arts|Panyd's talk page]]. Message added 18:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks from the GOCE
Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The RaptorYou rang?, or SMasters (Talk).
Hi there Casliber! Greetings from project gastropods! It's been a while. Would you be so kind as to contribute with the E. gigas peer review? The article needs much improvement, and you are a very experienced editor as far as I know. In case you have the time and patience, your help would be greatly appreciated! Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mirbelia rubiifolia
On 26 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mirbelia rubiifolia, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
Thanks so much for making this article look better. The photo is probably the worst of any I put on Wikipedia. I had a weekend away in the Blue Mountains with my new g/f. She's a doctor which is even more bizarre, as I hate doctors.
Anyway, the article Eucalyptus saligna is terrible. (Apart from my photos). If you have time, please have a look. This article gets a large readership every day. And the readers may think poorly of Wikipedia when seeing such scant information. Congratulations for all your awards, you are most deserving. Poyt448 (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you do a page move over a redirect for me. Murder ballad --> Murder ballads. The singular is not really correct. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its summer here, and the best one we had for about 5 years (the late 00's were horrid weather wise). Today is not exactly warm, but not exactly cold either, so how bad. I'm with you on the cabbage, but pork? Dude. Bacon and cabbage and white sauce is the best thing, ever. Ceoil (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've found another task for your superpowers - [9] page move for PiL - it has a strange full stop at the end of ltd at the moment, all are agreed it needs to go. Ceoil (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, email arbcom about what you know of this. I've put it on ice. If it's him, it's unneeded, if it isn't the RFA will only cause a dramafest. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Lasiopetalum
On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lasiopetalum, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lasiopetalum schulzenii, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lasiopetalum baueri, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lasiopetalum macrophyllum, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lasiopetalum ferrugineum, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
